December 2014 | Initial Study
EDUCATION CENTER
Sanger Unified School District
December 2014 | Initial Study
EDUCATIONAL CENTER
Sanger Unified School District
Prepared for:
Sanger Unified School District
Contact: Richard Sepulveda, Chief Operations Officer
1905 Seventh Street
Sanger, California 93657
559.524.6521
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Contact: Barbara Heyman, Associate Principal
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1905 SEVENTH STREET • SANGER, CA 93657
(559) 524-6521
FAX 875-0311
MATTHEW J. NAVO, SUPERINTENDENT
“Dream Big, Work Hard and Believe!”
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
DATE:
December 10, 2014
TO:
Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties
FROM:
Sanger Unified School District
SUBJECT:
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report in Compliance with
California Code of Regulations Title 14, Sections 15082(a), 15103, and 15375 and Public
Resources Code Section 21083.
The Sanger Unified School District (District) is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) for the Educational Center project and will prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) to
analyze potential environmental impacts that may result from the project.
Project Title: Educational Center
Agencies: The District requests your views on the scope and content of the environmental information
relevant to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project, in accordance
with California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15082(b). Your agency will need to use the EIR when
considering any permit or other approval that your agency must issue for the project.
Organizations and Interested Parties: The District requests your comments and concerns regarding the
environmental issues associated with the planning, construction and operation of the proposed project.
Project Location: The project site spans 116 acres at the northeast corner of Jensen Avenue and Fowler
Avenue. The site is bounded by Jensen Avenue on the south, Fowler Avenue on the west, Church Avenue on
the north, and Armstrong Avenue on the east. The northwest portion of the site is in the City of Fresno,
while the balance is in the City’s sphere of influence (SOI) within unincorporated Fresno County
Project Description: The proposed project involves the purchase of the project site for the construction and
operation of an Educational Center. The property would be developed for operation of a middle school
campus for 1,692 students and a high school campus for 2,840 students. The two schools would have a
combined building area of about 561,900 square feet, consisting of academic buildings, an administration
and media center building, one multi-purpose building, two gymnasiums, a theater, and athletic facilities
including two football/soccer fields with tracks (one with a stadium), two pools, hardcourts for tennis,
basketball, and volleyball, and playfields for baseball, softball, and soccer. The football stadium would seat
up to 8,500 spectators. The proposed project also includes the annexation of the SOI area into the City of
Fresno’s municipal boundaries.
~~~~~~~~~~~~ Every Child, Every Day, Whatever it Takes! ~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trustees:
Peter R. Filippi
Ismael (Mike) Hernandez
James D. Karle
Kenneth R. Marcantonio
Marcy Masumoto
Jesse Vasquez
Tammy Wolfe
Potential Environmental Effects: The Initial Study completed for the proposed project concluded that the
following environmental topics will be further analyzed in the EIR.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Public Services
Transportation and Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Document Availability: The Initial Study is available for public review at the following locations:
•
•
•
•
Sanger Unified School District Office, 1905 Seventh Street, Sanger
Sunnyside Regional Library, 5566 East Kings Canyon Road, Fresno
Sequoia Elementary School, 1820 S Armstrong Ave, Fresno
Online at Sanger Unified School District website: http://www.sanger.k12.ca.us
Public Comments: The District will accept written comments between December 11, 2014, and January 19,
2015. Due to the time limits mandated by state law, your comments must be received at the earliest
possible date but not later than January 19, 2015. Please indicate a contact person for your agency or
organization and send your comments to:
Sanger Unified School District
1905 Seventh Street,
Sanger, CA 93657
(559) 524-6521
ATTN: Richard Sepulveda, Chief Operations Officer
Comments may also be faxed to (559) 875-4071 or sent by e-mail to [email protected].
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Table of Contents
Section
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Page
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1
OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2
ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.3
IMPACT TERMINOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 2
1.4
ORGANIZATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY ............................................................................................ 3
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ......................................................................................................... 5
2.1
PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ....................................................................................................................... 5
2.3
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ................................................................................................................. 7
PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................. 21
3.1
PROPOSED PROJECT ..................................................................................................................................... 21
3.2
ACTION REQUESTED .................................................................................................................................... 33
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................................................. 35
4.1
BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................................. 35
4.2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................................... 37
4.3
DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) ......................................... 37
4.4
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE STATE SCHOOL FACILITY PROGRAM ............... 38
4.5
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................................ 41
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 51
5.1
AESTHETICS ...................................................................................................................................................... 51
5.2
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ................................................................................... 52
5.3
AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................................................... 54
5.4
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 56
5.5
CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 58
5.6
GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................................................. 59
5.7
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................... 63
5.8
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ......................................................................................... 64
5.9
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................... 70
5.10
LAND USE AND PLANNING ...................................................................................................................... 72
5.11
MINERAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................. 74
5.12
NOISE .................................................................................................................................................................... 74
5.13
POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................................................. 76
5.14
PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................ 77
5.15
RECREATION .................................................................................................................................................... 79
5.16
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC .................................................................................................................... 79
5.17
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 81
5.18
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................... 84
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................... 87
LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................................. 91
7.1
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ................................................................................................. 91
7.2
PLACEWORKS.................................................................................................................................................... 91
7.3
DARDEN ARCHITECTS ................................................................................................................................. 91
December 2014
Page i
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Table of Contents
APPENDICES
Appendix A.
Educational Center Site Utilization Program
Appendix B.
Geologic/Seismic Hazards Evaluation and Limited Geotechnical Engineering
Investigation
Appendix C.
Hazardous Pipeline Survey Report
Appendix D.
Environmental Database Search
Page ii
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Figure
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Page
Regional Location ................................................................................................................................. 9
Local Vicinity ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................................................... 13
Parcel Map............................................................................................................................................ 15
School Districts Map .......................................................................................................................... 17
Site Photographs ................................................................................................................................. 19
Conceptual Site Utilization Plan ....................................................................................................... 23
Phasing Plan......................................................................................................................................... 29
List of Tables
Table
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
December 2014
Page
Existing Site Uses.................................................................................................................................. 6
Proposed Facilities .............................................................................................................................. 22
Proposed Teaching Stations .............................................................................................................. 31
Agency Involvement .......................................................................................................................... 33
Construction BMPs ............................................................................................................................ 61
Historic Underground Storage Tanks Onsite ................................................................................ 65
Offsite Environmental Database Listings ....................................................................................... 67
Landfills Serving the City of Fresno ................................................................................................ 83
Page iii
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
Page iv
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AAQS
ambient air quality standards
AB
Assembly Bill
AQMP
air quality management plan
BMP
best management practices
CalRecycle
California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery
Caltrans
California Department of Transportation
CARB
California Air Resources Board
CBC
California Building Code
CDE
California Department of Education
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
DTSC
Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR
environmental impact report
FAX
Fresno Area Express
FCFPD
Fresno County Fire Protection District
FCSD
Fresno County Sheriff's Department
FFD
Fresno Fire Department
FMFCD
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
FYI
Fresno Yosemite International Airport
GHG
greenhouse gases
gpd
gallons per day
LUST
leaking underground storage tank
MESP
Master Emergency Services Plan
mgd
million gallons per day
OCP
organochlorine pesticide
OES
Office of Emergency Services
PAC
performing arts center
PEA
preliminary environmental assessment
psi
pounds per square inch
PUD
City of Fresno Public Utilities Department
RTP/SCS
regional transportation plan / sustainable communities strategy
SEDA
Southeast Development Area
SJVAB
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
December 2014
Page v
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Abbreviations and Acronyms
SOI
sphere of influence
SWPPP
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB
State Water Resources Control Board
SWTF
surface water treatment facility
UST
underground storage tank
WAMS
Washington Academic Middle School
Page vi
PlaceWorks
1. Introduction
1.1
OVERVIEW
Sanger Unified School District (District or SUSD) proposes to acquire property in order to develop and
operate an Educational Center for 4,532 students—1,692 middle school students (grades 6 through 8) and
2,840 high school students (grades 9 through12) (proposed project). The proposed site encompasses 116
acres and is at the northeast corner of East Jensen Avenue and South Fowler Avenue. The northwest portion
of the site is in the City of Fresno, while the balance is in the City’s sphere of influence (SOI) within
unincorporated Fresno County.
This Initial Study is a preliminary evaluation of the potential environmental consequences associated with the
proposed project.
1.2
ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS
A “project,” which is an activity that may cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment, is
required to undergo environmental review. The completion of the environmental compliance process is
typically governed by two principal regulations: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public
Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations
Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.). CEQA was enacted in 1970 by the California Legislature to disclose to
decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities and to identify
ways to avoid or reduce the environmental effects by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or
mitigation measures. Compliance with CEQA applies to all California government agencies at all levels,
including local, regional, and state agencies, boards, commissions, and special districts (such as school and
water districts). Sanger Unified School District is the lead agency for this project and is therefore required to
conduct an environmental review to analyze the potential environmental effects associated with the
acquisition of the proposed site and development and operation of the Educational Center.
1.2.1
Initial Study
This Initial Study has been prepared to determine if the proposed project could have a significant impact on
the environment. The purposes of this Initial Study, as described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section
15063(c), are to
1) provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare
an environmental impact report (EIR) or negative declaration (ND);
2) enable the lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is
prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for an ND;
December 2014
Page 1
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
1. Introduction
3) assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required by: (A) focusing the EIR on the effects
determined to be significant, (B) identifying the effects determined not to be significant, (C)
explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be
significant, and (D) identifying whether a program EIR, tiering or another appropriate
process can be used for analysis of the project’s environmental effects;
4) facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project;
5) provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in an ND that a project will not
have a significant effect on the environment;
6) eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
7) determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.
The findings in this Initial Study have determined that a focused, Project EIR is the appropriate level of
environmental documentation for the proposed project.
1.2.2
Environmental Impact Report
The EIR will include information necessary for agencies to meet statutory responsibilities related to the
proposed project. State and local agencies will need to use the EIR when considering any permit or other
approvals necessary to implement the project. A preliminary list of the environmental topics that have been
identified for study in the EIR is provided in the environmental checklist (Section 4.5 below).
Following consideration of responses to the Initial Study, a Draft EIR will be completed and then circulated
to the public and affected agencies for review and comment. One of the primary objectives of CEQA is to
enhance public participation in the planning process; public involvement is an essential feature of CEQA.
Community members are encouraged to participate in the environmental review process, request to be
notified, monitor newspapers for formal announcements, and submit substantive comments at every possible
opportunity afforded by the District. The environmental review process provides several opportunities for
the public to participate through public notice and public review of CEQA documents and public meetings.
Additionally, lead agencies are required to consider comments from the scoping process in the preparation of
the Draft EIR and respond to public comments in the Final EIR.
1.3
IMPACT TERMINOLOGY
The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of environmental impacts.

A finding of no impact is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the project would not affect the
particular topic area in any way.

An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that the project would cause no
substantial adverse change to the environment.
Page 2
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
1. Introduction

An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated if the analysis concludes
that the project may have a substantial adverse effect on the environment, but that with the inclusion of
environmental commitments or other enforceable measures, those adverse effects would be reduced or
avoided, and the project would ultimately result in no substantial adverse change to the environment.

An impact is considered potentially significant if the analysis concludes that it could have a substantial
adverse effect on the environment. If any impact is identified as potentially significant, additional analysis
and preparation of an EIR is required. The EIR need only include the potentially significant impacts
identified in the Initial Study.
1.4
ORGANIZATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY
The content and format of this report are designed to meet the requirements of CEQA. The finding of this
Initial Study is that the proposed project may have significant environmental impacts. This Initial Study
contains the following sections:

Section 1, Introduction , identifies the purpose and scope of the Initial Study, the terminology used, and
organization of the report.

Section 2, Environmental Setting , describes the project location, existing conditions, surrounding land
uses, existing general plan designation, and zoning for the project site and surrounding area.

Section 3, Project Description , identifies the project background and describes the project in detail.

Section 4, Environmental Checklist, presents the checklist and the impact significance finding for each
resource topic.

Section 5, Environmental Analysis, provides a detailed evaluation of the resource topics and questions
in the checklist.

Section 6, References , identifies all references and individuals cited in this Initial Study.

Section 7, List of Preparers , identifies the individuals who prepared this report and their areas of
technical specialty.
December 2014
Page 3
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
1. Introduction
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 4
PlaceWorks
2. Environmental Setting
2.1
PROJECT LOCATION
The project site encompasses approximately 116 acres and includes nine parcels identified as Fresno County
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 316-022-27S through 316-022-30S, and 316-022-31 through 316-022-35. The site
is generally bounded by South Fowler Avenue on the west, South Armstrong Avenue on the east, East
Church Avenue on the north, and East Jensen Avenue on the south. The northwest quarter of the site is in
the City of Fresno, and the balance of the site is in the City’s SOI within unincorporated Fresno County.
Regional access to the project site is from State Route 99 (SR-99) about five miles to the south via South
Clovis Avenue. The project site can also be accessed from State Route 180 (SR-180) approximately two miles
to the north via South Temperance Avenue. Figure 1, Regional Location, Figure 2, Local Vicinity, and Figure 3,
Aerial Photograph, illustrate the project site in its regional and local contexts. The nine parcels that make up the
project site are shown on Figure 4, Parcel Map.
2.2
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project area in the southeast region in Fresno has been transitioning from agricultural and open space
uses to planned urban, mostly residential development. The land near the site either has been developed with
urban uses—single-family residential subdivisions—or is projected for urban development.
Sanger Unified School District
Sanger USD provides public K–12 education in a 180-square-mile area that includes the City of Sanger and
unincorporated areas of Fresno County, including outer portions of the southeastern Fresno-Clovis
Metropolitan Area. The District has 20 schools, including 3 charter schools, an alternative education school, a
community day school, and an adult school. Total enrollment is about 11,360 students.
The project site is near the west end of Sanger USD’s boundaries. Other school districts nearby include
Fresno USD about 0.5 mile to the north, Clovis USD about 1.5 miles to the north, and Fowler USD about 2
miles to the south (Figure 5, School Districts Map).
Students residing near the project site in grades 6 through 8 currently attend Washington Academic Middle
School (WAMS), and students in grades 9 through 12 currently attend Sanger High School. Both of these
schools are in the City of Sanger about six miles east of the site (Figure 5). WAMS is the only middle school
in the District. Although both WAMS and Sanger High are currently operating beyond the District-defined
capacity, there is a slightly greater need for a new high school. Sanger High School is projected to be 474 seats
above its operational capacity during the 2022-2023 school year.
Due to the projected regional growth and based on demographic studies conducted by the District, the
District projects a combined need for a new middle school and high school by the 2022–23 school year. The
December 2014
Page 5
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
2. Environmental Setting
actual opening year for such facilities, however, is dependent on several factors, including grade level
configuration of existing schools, shared facilities use and program integration with future secondary (middle
and high) schools, and school attendance boundary adjustments.
Existing Land Uses
The project site is relatively flat with a ground surface elevation of approximately 315 feet above mean sea
level. It has 2,520 feet of street frontage along East Jensen Avenue, 2,620 feet along South Fowler Avenue,
1,305 feet along South Armstrong, and 1,030 feet along East Church Avenue. The entire site was previously
under agricultural production. It currently contains vacant, agriculture, and single-family residential uses, as
described in Table 1, Existing Site Uses. Undeveloped areas of the site include fallow fields and vineyards on
the western half of the site and row crops on the eastern portion. Power and phone lines exist along the
south side of Church Avenue, east side of Fowler Avenue, and north side of Jensen Avenue. Although not
visible, a main stormwater trunk bisects the middle of the site in an east-west direction and releases into an
adjoining retention pond, owned by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) east of the
site. Figure 6, Site Photographs, shows the conditions of the proposed project site. Sanger Unified owns five of
the nine parcels. The District plans to demolish structures on the properties it owns in December 2014 as a
matter of public safety and for District liability reasons.
Table 1
Existing Site Uses
Parcel/Address
1. 316-022-27S
(1600 S. Fowler Avenue)
2. 316-022-28S
(1600 S. Fowler Avenue)
3. 316-022-29S
(1700 S. Fowler Avenue)
4. 316-022-30S
(1636 S. Fowler Avenue)
Jurisdiction
Acres
District Owned?
Current Uses
City of Fresno
15.74
No
Vacant
City of Fresno
5.82
Yes
Vacant; an abandoned irrigation water well
is on the northwest parcel boundary
Unincorporated Fresno
County
1.14
Yes
1 single-family residence and shop building
City of Fresno
14.96
Yes
Vacant
20.0
Yes
1 single-family residence, barn and
agriculture (vineyard). Two aboveground
storage tanks, no longer in use: 1 350-gallon
diesel tank and 1 550-gallon gasoline tank.
1.11
No
1 single-family residence
8.97
No
Vacant
9.29
No
Vacant
Yes
1 single-family residence, 2 barn/storage
buildings, and agriculture (vegetable row
crops). An irrigation well is near the center of
the parcel.
5. 316-022-31
(1778 S. Fowler Avenue)
Unincorporated Fresno
County
6. 316-022-32
(1854 S. Fowler Avenue)
7. 316-022-33
(No Site Address)
8. 316-022-34
(6010 E. Jensen Avenue)
Unincorporated Fresno
County
Unincorporated Fresno
County
Unincorporated Fresno
County
9. 316-022-35
(6282 E. Jensen Avenue)
Unincorporated Fresno
County
Total
39.0
116.03
Source: Sanger Unified School District, Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA).
Page 6
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
2. Environmental Setting
Surrounding Land Uses
Urban expansion and rural homes/farms are found in the vicinity of the project site. North of the property
are rural homes and an orchard; higher density development is farther north. Residential development exists
west of the property, and the area east of the site includes open fields and Sequoia Elementary School. South
of the property are vineyards and orchards with some commercial and residential lots/businesses. The
FMFCD storm basin is northeast of the project site. A California Express Transport trucking facility is
opposite Jensen Avenue from the southwest corner of the site (Figure 3, Aerial Photograph).
2.3
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Approximately 36.5 acres of the northern portion of the project site is in the City of Fresno. The remainder
of the site is in the City’s SOI in unincorporated Fresno County (Figure 2). The current City of Fresno 2025
General Plan maps land use designations for the entire site even though about two-thirds of the site is in
unincorporated Fresno County, but the City only designates zoning districts for the incorporated 36.5-acre
area. According to the land use map, most of the site is designated Medium Density Residential (5–10
residential units per acre), while the southwest corner of the site is designated Medium High Density
Residential Use (10–18 units per acre). The incorporated portion of the site is zoned R-1 (Single Family
Residential). It should be noted that the City of Fresno is currently updating its general plan (2035 General
Plan). Under the proposed land use map, the entire site is designated Public/Quasi-Public Facility. On July 6,
2011, pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 21151.2 and Government Code section 65402
(c), the City Planning Commission voted to support the acquisition and use of the site for the project as
conforming to the City’s General Plan, subject to certain conditions, including annexation of the remaining.
79.5 acres into the City.
The unincorporated portion of the project site is zoned AL20 (Limited Agricultural) by the County of
Fresno and is designated Agriculture under the Fresno County General Plan. On July 21, 2011, pursuant to
California Public Resources Code section 21151.2 and Government Code section 65402 (c), the County’s
Planning Commission found that the acquisition and use of the site for the project is in conformance with
the County’s general Plan and its policies relating to development of city fringe areas.
December 2014
Page 7
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
2. Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 8
PlaceWorks
PROJECT NAME HERE
CITY OF PROJECT
HERE
EDUCATIONAL CENTER
INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Regional Vicinity Map
Figure 1 - RegionalFigure
Location
1.0
¬
«
168
Madera
County
Madera
¬
«
Clovis
41
Fresno
Fresno
County
¬
«
SITE Sanger
180
¬
«
63
¬
«
145
Parlier
Reedley
Selma
Dinuba
¬
«
41
¬
«
201
¬
«
43
¬
«
201
¬
«
Tulare
County
99
Kings
County
Hanford
¬
«
216
¬
«
Visalia
198
¬
«
Lemoore
63
0
0
Source: Esri, 2013
Source: ESRI, 2014
5
Miles
10
Scale (Feet)
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
2. Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 10
PlaceWorks
PROJECT NAME HERE
CITY OF PROJECT HERE
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Local Vicinity Map
Figure
1.0
Figure 2 - Local
Vicinity
City of Fresno
170
E Kings Canyon Rd
Agriculture
Fields
E Butler Ave
Agriculture
Fields
Residential
E Church Ave
Agriculture
Fields
E Central Ave
0
Project Boundary
Source: xxxxxxxxxxx 2013
DecemberESRI,
2013
Source:
2014
Fresno Sphere of Influence
0
S De Wolf Ave
E North Ave
S Temperance Ave
Unincorporated
Fresno
County
S Fowler Ave
S Sunnyside Ave
Agriculture
Fields
S Clovis Ave
S Minnewawa Ave
S Armstrong Ave
E Jensen Ave
2,000
Feet
4,000
Scale (Feet)
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
2. Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 12
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Figure 3 - Aerial Photograph
Residential
Agriculture
Fields
City of Fresno
E Church Ave
Agriculture
Fields
Residential
Sequoia
Elementary
School
Agriculture
Fields
E Jensen Ave
Unincorporated
Fresno
County
Agriculture
Fields
Project Boundary
City Boundary
Basemap Source: Google Earth Pro 2014
Agriculture
Fields
Agriculture
Fields
Agriculture
Fields
Portion of site in City of Fresno. The balance of the site
is in unincorporated Fresno County and in the City of
Fresno’s sphere of influence.
1,000
0
Scale (Feet)
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
2. Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 14
PlaceWorks
PROJECT NAME HERE
CITY OF INITIAL
PROJECT
HERE
EDUCATIONAL CENTER
STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Parcel Map
Figure 4 - Parcel
Map4
Figure
City of Fresno
E Church Ave
E Eugenia Ave
S Bundy Dr
S Via Versalia Dr
316-022-27S
316-022-28
316-022-30
E Grove Ave
S Bundy Dr
316-022-29
316-022-31
316-022-35
316-022-32
316-022-33
316-022-34
S Armstrong Ave
S Fowler Ave
E Jensen Ave
Unincorporated
Fresno
County
Project Boundary
City Boundary
Source: xxxxxxxxxxx 2013
Source:
DecemberESRI,
20132014
0
2,000
Feet
1,000
0
Scale (Feet)
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
2. Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 16
PlaceWorks
NEWMARK
LEONARD
PEARL
MADSEN
ROSS
HARRISO N
MORTON
HUME
CHANNEL
BENNETT
NEWM
ARK
I
FALLER
J
BUCK
LEWIS
FIR
K
OLIVE
SANGER
NTH
ELEV E
COTTLE
KEISER
City of Sanger
FAIRBANKS
W
NINTH
PALM
ANNADALE
LIME
BETHEL
INDIANOLA
DEL REY
HIGHLAND
LEONARD
DEWOLF
LOCAN
FOWLER
Source: ESRI, 2014
K
POST
LILY
DALTON
POST
LYON
CI
RC
LE
PINEWOOD
MCCALL
THOMPSON
TEMPERANCE
ARMSTRONG
SUNNYSIDE
SUNNYSIDE
Fowler Unified
School District
H
TU CKER
CENTRAL
TE NTH
O
NB
SIXTH
EIG HT
J
MUSCAT
I
RA
I
FOWLER
K
HEIDI
Washington Academic Middle School
MUSCAT
A
CHERRY
MOIR
NORTH
N
EDGAR
SEQUOIA
HOLT
NTH
ELEV E
TWELFTH
TE NTH
ALMOND
L
WEBSTER
NINTH
Q
Sanger High School
SEVENTH
EIG HTH
P
ANNADALE
CHURCH
THIRD
FIFTH
MARY
Unincorporated
Fresno
County
GEARY
FOURTH
JENSEN
Project Boundary
NEWMARK
FAIRBANKS
INDIANOLA
EILEEN
JENNI
VINE
JENSEN
CALIFORNIA
SEQUOIA SEQUOIA
STERLING
HOLT
BUTLER
H
O
DOCKERY
CHURCH
REAGAN
CHURCH
OAK
LORENA
HAWLEY
GREENWOOD
RAWSON
OATMAN
HOAG
TAIT
DEWITT
WEST
PARK
Q
SWAN
LEONARD
Sanger Unified
School District
GARRETT
MALAGA
QUALITY
ACADEMY
DEL REY
HIGHLAND
GEARY
O
VIA CERTOSA
CALIFORNIA
ITC
SEGUR
MANILA
ATCH IS ON
GEARY
SW
J
DUKE
JUDY
ERIN
DOCKERY
LINDA
BURGAN
DWIGHT
BUTLER
IA
AC
AC
SABRE
BUTLER
IA
AC
AC
GROVE
LYELL
LYON
PREUSS
KAVILAND
BURNS
LOWE
ORLEANS
HAMILTON
CHRISTINE
LORENA FLORENCE
PITT
PITT
TOWER
LOWE
KINGS CANYON
CETTI BRALY
DWIGHT
TULARE
ALTA
THOMPSON
ERIN
RACO
HEATON
N
ILTO
HAM
O
TULARE
EL MONTE
EZIE
CLAREMONT
COLUMBIA PHILLIP
ICK
WAVERLY
DW
MI
Fresno
RANCHO
Unified
BUTLER
School
District
SAN
DER
S
IN
Y
MONO
FR ONTAGE
ITO
EC
ALTA MONT
LANE
PARK CIRCLE
Clovis Unified School District
LOCAN
CK
ARGYLE
KONA
BALCH
RENN
CityBE of Fresno
TULARE
LAUREL
Figure 5
Figure 5 - School Districts Map
EMPEROR
AN
AM
HOR
NET
E
DA
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
MAINE
IOWA
RED
DA
R
N
BURG AN
T
PLAT
CYPRESS
ARMSTRONG
SHELLY
SHIR
L EY
DUKE
ARGY
LE
LA
VE
5. Environmental Analysis
RECTOR
MAN ILA
GRA
NT
PURDUE
STANFORD
School Districts Map
GOO
DF
ELL
OW
Parlier Unified
School District
0
School District Boundary
0
0.5
1
1
Miles
Scale (Miles)
Environmental Impact PlaceWorks
Report
SUSD-01.0
9/30/2014
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
2. Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 18
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Figure 6 - Site Photographs
Agriculture
Fields
City of
Fresno
Residential
E Church Ave
4
Agriculture
Fields
1 View looking southwest across the site from the east site
3
View looking northeast across the site from near the southwest corner of the site. The Sierra Nevada mountains are
in the background.
4
View looking south from near the northwest corner of the
site. The single-family homes at right are offsite west of
Fowler Avenue. The buildings in the center of photo are
onsite.
Residential
boundary.
1
Sequoia
Elementary
School
2 View looking north across the site from near the southeast
corner of the site.
Agriculture
Fields
3
2
E Jensen Ave
Agriculture
Fields
Unincorporated
Fresno
County
Project Boundary
City Boundary
1
Photograph Location and Direction
0
1,000
Scale (Feet)
Key Map Source: Google Earth Pro, 2014
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
2. Environmental Setting
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 20
PlaceWorks
3. Project Description
3.1
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project involves the acquisition of the project site and construction and operation of a middle
school campus and a high school campus (i.e., Educational Center). The Educational Center would provide
school facilities for existing and future Sanger Unified students that live in the southeast Fresno area of the
District. The new facilities would relieve overcrowding conditions at Sanger High School and Washington
Academic Middle School, which are the schools that would accommodate students generated in the project
area if the proposed project were not built.
The decision to locate the proposed Educational Center in the southeast Fresno area is based on the results
of a study prepared by the District in 2009. The “SUSD Second High School General Location Study”
evaluated both the north Sanger area and southeast Fresno area and determined the latter area to be the most
appropriate location for the District’s next high school and middle school. The study cited several factors in
recommending the southeast Fresno area. The chief factors were: 1) the greater population growth potential
in southeast Fresno, mainly within the City of Fresno’s Southeast Growth Area Specific Plan, and 2) the lack
of a District high school in the District’s southeast Fresno area.
Site Acquisition and Annexation
Through a rigorous site selection process, the District identified the proposed project site as the preferred site
for the proposed middle school and high school campuses. The project includes the acquisition of the entire
116-acre project site. The District currently owns five of the nine parcels and is working to acquire the
remaining four. As needed and as a part of the proposed project, the District will work with the property
owners to ensure that their relocation is conducted in accordance with applicable state law.
Approximately 36.5 acres of the northern portion of the 116-acre project site is in the City of Fresno. The
remaining 79.5 acres is in the City’s SOI in unincorporated Fresno County. As a part of the project and after
the acquisition of the parcels currently within the SOI, the District will apply to the Fresno County Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to annex the 79.5-acre portion into the City of Fresno’s municipal
boundaries.
Proposed Facilities
The proposed Educational Center consists of two schools, with shared amenities that could be used by other
District schools and programs. Figure 7, Conceptual Site Utilization Plan, shows the schematic design of the
proposed project. As shown, the core building structures are proposed on the western portion of the site
along Fowler Avenue. The high school would be positioned at the northwest portion of the property, and the
middle school would be in the southwest quadrant. The shared school facilities would be developed between
the two campuses, and the shared District amenities would be on the eastern portion of the property, with
the exception of the performing arts center, which is proposed on the perimeter of the high school campus.
December 2014
Page 21
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
3. Project Description
A summary of the proposed facilities is provided in Table 2, Proposed Facilities, and is based on the Proposed
Site Utilization Program prepared by Darden Architects (Appendix A).
Table 2
Proposed Facilities
Number
High School (2,840 Pupils)
Academic Buildings
Career Tech Facility Buildings
Large Gymnasium
Locker/Shower Building
Snack Bar
Tennis Courts
Basketball/Volleyball Courts
Parking Lot1
Middle School (1,692 Pupils)
Academic Buildings
Small Gymnasium
Locker/Shower Building
Snack Bar
Tennis Courts
Basketball/Volleyball Courts
Parking Lot
Shared School Amenities
Administration/Media Center
Multipurpose/Student
Center/Central Kitchen Building
Pools
Main Utility Service Building
Central Plant Building
Maintenance Yard
Shared District Amenities
Fieldhouse Building
Agriculture Farm
Large Soccer Fields
Small Soccer Fields
Softball Fields
Baseball Fields
3 bldgs
2 bldgs
1 bldg
1 bldg
1 bldg
12 courts
12 courts
1 lot
3 bldgs
1 bldg
1 bldg
1 bldg
6 courts
8 courts
1 lot
Size
2,500 seats
6,337 SF
1,020 stalls
Develop.
Phase
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
335 stalls
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1 bldg
1 bldg
13,075 SF
41,121 SF
2
2
2 pools
1 bldg
1 bldg
1 bldg
300 seats
22,529 SF
3
2
2
3
1,200 seats
5118 SF
1 bldg
1 farm
2 fields
2 fields
2 fields
2 fields
4
3
2/3
2
2
2/3
Softball Stadium
1 stadium
382 seats
3/4
Baseball Stadium
1 stadium
1,020 seats
3/4
Football/Soccer/Track Field
Football/Soccer/Track Stadium
Future Theater
1 field
1 stadium
1 bldg
Parking Lot
1 lot
8,500 seats
52,640 SF; 500
Main Theater
seats and 300
Black Box seats
388 stalls
Source: Darden Architects, Inc., 2014.
1 254 high school parking stalls would be displaced when the future District Theater is built.
Page 22
3
4
4
Notes
Two-story
Two-story
4 courts with lights, each with 5-row bleachers
Two-story
2 courts with lights, each with 5-row bleachers
Two-story
dining area: 400 MS seats and 600 HS seats;
assembly area: 800 MS seats and 1250 HS seats
Competition lights
first built in P2 and second built in P3
backstop, dugouts, and 5-row portable bleachers
First field built in P2 and second built in P3;
backstop, dugouts, and 5-row portable bleachers
Developed as softball field in P3; grandstand
and comp lights in P4; Competition lights
Developed as softball field in P3; grandstand
and comp lights in P4; Competition lights
Practice lights
Competition lights
4
PlaceWorks
Figure 7 - Conceptual Site Utilization Plan
CITY WELL SITE
CITY WELL SITE
Shared School Facilities
H
A
J
BASEBALL FIELD
K
PARKING
(22 SPACES)
SOCCER FIELD
BASEBALL FIELD
SOFTBALL
STADIUM
SOCCER FIELD
M
FOOTBALL/
SOCCER/
TRACK
FIELD
FOOTBALL/
SOCCER/
TRACK
STADIUM
SOCCER FIELD
SOFTBALL FIELD
M.S. PARKING
(313 SPACES)
SOFTBALL FIELD
SOCCER FIELD
G
Source:
Darden Architects, 2014
FOOTBALL/
SOCCER/
TRACK
FIELD
E DU C AT I O N A L C E N T ER UT ILIZ AT ION P L AN
SANGER UN IFIED SCHOOL DI STR IC T
SOFTBALL FIELD
(Expressway)
JENSENFOOTBALL/
SOCCER/
TRACK
STADIUM
STADIUM
PARKING
TRAIL
(388 SPACES)
E.S. PARKING
(388 SPACES)
PG&E
Utility
FAC
I L I Setback
TIES
ARMSTRONG (Collector Street)
BASEBALL
STADIUM
E.S. PARKING
(388 SPACES)
M
BASEBALL
STADIUM
SOFTBALL FIELD
BASEBALL FIELD
G
A
BASEBALL FIELD
LARGE SOCCER FIELD
K
LARGE SOCCER FIELD
SOFTBALL
STADIUM
J
D
E
A
LARGE SOCCER FIELD
ARMSTRONG (Collector Street)
L
CAMPUS ROAD
I
LARGE SOCCER FIELD
PONDING BASIN
PONDING BASIN
A
B
26’ - 0” along Jensen
12’ - 0” along Fowler, Church & Armstrong
L
BUS LOADING / DROP-OFF (11 BUSES)
CAMPUS ROAD
E
H
E
A
PG&E Utility Setback
Right of Way
Easement
BUS LOADING / DROP-OFF (18 BUSES)
C
H
I
F
A
26’ - 0” along Jensen
Shared District
12’ -Facilities
0” along Fowler, Church & Armstrong
N
NC
BUS LOADING / DROP-OFF (18 BUSES)
C
M.S. PARKING
(313 SPACES)
Shared District Facilities
Shared School
Right ofFacilities
Way Easement
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
FOWLER (Arterial Street)
F
H
Middle School
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
PARKING
(303 SPACES)
E
P RO G R AMHigh School
Middle School
High School
FUTURE THEATER
D
P R O G R AM
FUTURE PG&E
STATION
FUTURE PG&E
H.S. PARKING
STATION(717 SPACES)
H.S. PARKING
(717 SPACES)
L EG END
LEGEND
CHURCH (Collector Street)
CHURCH (Collector Street)
BUS LOADING / DROP-OFF (11 BUSES)
A
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SEQUIOA
ELEMENTARY
STADIUM
PARKING SCHOOL
(388 SPACES)
A Academics (Two-Story)
B Administration, Media Center (Two-Story)
FAC I L I TCI E Career
S Tech Facility (Two-Story)
D Multi-Purpose, Student Center, Central Kitchen
(Two-Story)
A Academics
Bar
E Snack
Media Center (Two-Story)
F Large Gym
B Administration,
SEQUIOA
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
Small
Gym (Two-Story)
CareerG Tech
Facility
H Locker / Shower
Multi-Purpose, Student Center, Central Kitchen
I Pool
SnackJBarMain Utility Service
LargeKGymCentral Plant
SmallLGymMaintenance Yard
M Fieldhouse
Locker / Shower
N Agriculture Farm
Pool
Main Utility Service
Central Plant
Maintenance Yard
Fieldhouse
Agriculture Farm
0
500
Scale
North (Feet)
100
200
400
F EBR UA RY 2 0 1 4 | PR OJ EC T 1 1 9PlaceWorks
5
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
3. Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 24
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
3. Project Description
Approximately 38 acres (1,640,000 sf) of the project site would be paved and developed with buildings,
parking lots, hardcourts, and hardscape, and the remaining 34 acres (1,500,000 sf) would consist of natural
turf fields and landscaping. The total building area would be about 561,900 square feet, consisting of
approximately 158,700 square feet for the middle school and 403,200 square feet for the high school and
shared facilities.
Buildings proposed would be one and two stories in height. The tallest building would be the performing arts
center and administration building at approximately 70 feet. The two-story classroom buildings would be
approximately 35 feet high, and the two gymnasiums would be 40 feet high.
Landscaping would be provided along the perimeter of the campus, around individual buildings, and along
pedestrian walkways. Sustainable, low-maintenance plants adaptable to native soils would be used. Electronic
signs and marquees with the schools’ names would be installed at the northwest corner, southwest corner,
and/or in front of the administration building on Fowler Avenue. A flag pole and location map would be
placed adjacent to the main office. Building signs would be provided throughout the campus to help people
locate facilities and services.
Vehicular access to the Educational Center would be provided via the three parking lots at the northwest,
southwest, and southeast corners of the site, as well as via an internal north-south driveway linking Church
Avenue to the southwest parking lot. The locations of the access points are shown in Figure 7. The three
parking lots would provide a total of 1,743 off-street parking spaces. When the performing arts center is
constructed, the number of parking spaces would be reduced by 254 to 1,489 spaces. Student loading would
occur onsite within the north-south driveway. Approximately 0.25 mile of the driveway would be allocated for
personal-vehicle and bus loading, including up to 18 large school buses in front of the high school and 11
large school buses in front of the middle school.
Exterior security, parking, and pathway lighting would be installed throughout the property. The light fixtures
would be placed on buildings, stand-alone light poles, and bollards and provide luminance for safety and
surveillance. Nighttime lighting would also be installed at a number of recreational facilities, as described
below.

Football Stadium. The football stadium proposed at the southeast corner of the site would include an
8,500-seat grandstand, a public address (PA) system, and score board. Two sets of aluminum bleachers
would be installed: 5,000 home seats on the west side of the field and 3,500 visitor seats on the east side.
The stadium would be a concrete structure, supported by an earthen berm. The home bleachers would be
on the west side. The upper levels of the home side would be concrete with aluminum bench seating.
The home side would include a press box, elevator, and drinking fountains. The visitor bleachers would
be on the east side. The upper levels would include aluminum bench seating.
A total of eight light poles would be installed: four 80-foot-high poles with 12 light fixtures on either side
of the bleachers on the west (home) side, and four 100-foot high poles with 12 light fixtures behind the
bleachers on the east (visitor) side. The light poles would illuminate the football field; track; and shot put,
December 2014
Page 25
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
3. Project Description
long jump, and high jump areas. The lights would include shields to direct and focus the illumination.
The light poles would also hold speakers for the PA system.

Baseball and Softball Stadiums. The baseball stadium would be west of Armstrong Avenue directly
across from Sequoia Elementary School. The softball stadium would be west of and behind the baseball
stadium. Both stadiums would include aluminum bleacher seating structures with a concrete block
surrounding them. The baseball stadium would hold up to 1,020 seats, while the softball stadium would
include up to 382 spectator seats. Field lights would be installed at both facilities, including eight 60-foothigh field light poles with six light fixtures. Each facility would have its own PA system and score board.

Football/Soccer/Track Practice Field. The football/soccer/track practice field would include field
lighting and a PA system for nighttime practice. Ten 35-foot-high light poles, each with four light fixtures,
would be installed. Portable 5-row aluminum bleacher seats may be placed on this field for spectator
viewing.

Pool Complex. The pool complex would be an outdoor facility northeast of the multipurpose, student
center, central kitchen building. The complex includes two racing pools. A smaller “warm up” pool (25
yds x 30 m) is proposed on the north side and would be used by the middle school program. The
competition pool (25 yds x 50 m) would be on the south side and used by the high school program. The
pool complex would include competition lighting. Nine 39-foot poles, each with up to eight luminaires,
would be placed throughout the pool complex. Aluminum bleachers with 300 spectator seats would be
provided on the south side of the facility. An approximately 2,000-square-foot pool building with pump
and mechanical rooms, storage room, and office would be constructed on the east side of the pool
complex. A new six-foot-high chain-link fence would be constructed around the proposed pool complex.
The main entrance would be at the southeast corner of the facility.

Tennis/Basketball Courts. Each campus would include its own outdoor tennis and basketball courts
that would be lit and include spectator seats. The high school would include 12 tennis courts, including 4
courts with lights, each with a 5-row aluminum bleacher, and 12 basketball courts with security lighting.
The middle school would include 6 tennis courts, including 2 lit courts with a 5-row aluminum bleacher,
and 8 basketball/volleyball courts with security lighting.
Performing Arts Center
The performing arts center (PAC) would be built near the northwest portion of the site in an area currently
designed with 254 parking spaces. The PAC would include a plaza near the entrance of the building and an
informal outdoor amphitheater. The proposed PAC would be 52,640 square feet and include a 500-seat
concert theater, a 300-seat black box theater, a lobby area with a ticket office, backstage dressing rooms,
offices, storage areas, and restrooms. This facility would be used for the middle and high schools’ performing
arts program and may also be used by the community.
Page 26
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
3. Project Description
Offsite Improvements
Project development would require offsite improvements. The half-widths of the adjoining roadways fronting
the project site on Church, Fowler, Jensen, and Armstrong would be improved in accordance with the
applicable city and/or county plans. As required, the adjoining sidewalks, curb/gutter, pavement, and
streetlights would be installed. These improvements would be implemented during the phase as the areas
adjoining them are developed. Existing dry and wet utilities are available in the adjoining streets. Project
development would require connections to the existing sewer and water lines in Fowler and power lines along
Church Avenue.
Construction Schedule
Construction of the proposed project would occur in four general phases, as described below and illustrated
in Figure 8, Phasing Plan. Although a schedule is provided herein, the actual start date of each phase would be
contingent upon project approval and the availability of local and state bond proceeds, developer fees, and
possible funds from community financing districts. For the purposes of the environmental analysis, however,
it is assumed that the construction schedule provided below would be implemented.
Phase 1: Property Acquisition, Site Remediation, and Annexation
The District is in the process of acquiring the remaining parcels on the project site. Existing structures,
landscape, and debris on the acquired sites would be demolished and removed as the properties became
vacant. The District would also commence soil remediation of the project site, which would require exporting
approximately 750 cubic yards (cy) of hazardous soil and backfilling with 900 cy. Imported soil would likely
come from the adjoining FMFCD storm basin. Removal of the soil would be in accordance with a removal
action plan, which will be based on a preliminary environmental assessment that will be approved by the State
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
Upon the acquisition of the entire 79.5-acre portion of the project site that is in the City’s SOI, the District
will apply to the Fresno County LAFCO to annex this area into the City of Fresno’s municipal boundaries.
Phase 2: Middle School Facilities/Career and Technology Center High School Program
Phase 2 is the development of the proposed middle school, shared high school and middle school facilities,
and associated fields and lighted hardcourts at the southwest portion of the site. Figure 8 shows the facilities
that would be constructed. Phase 2 would require importing soil from the adjoining FMFCD storm basin.
The facilities built during Phase 2 would be temporarily used as a career and technology center for high
school students for up to 1,000 seats, until the construction of Phase 3 is completed. Offsite improvements
completed under Phase 2 would include roadway improvements on the portions of Fowler Avenue and
Jensen Avenue fronting the new campus. A fire access road (i.e., internal north-south driveway) would be
provided from Church Avenue and connected to the new facilities. Construction would commence in spring
2017 and be completed in the summer 2018. The facilities would be available for fall 2018. Students attending
the career tech would come from throughout the District.
Phase 3: Comprehensive High School
Phase 3 would consist of the rough and fine grading of the remainder of the site and construction of the
remaining school facilities, with the exception of the stadiums and performing arts center. Under this phase,
December 2014
Page 27
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
3. Project Description
the baseball and softball stadiums would be partially built as baseball and softball fields with practice lights;
the grandstand and competition lights would be constructed in Phase 4. The football practice field would also
be lit with practice lights. Right-of-way improvements would be made on Church Avenue and the remaining
segments of Fowler Avenue and Jensen Avenue fronting the campus. Soil would be imported from the
adjoining FMFCD storm basin. Also under this phase, an existing stormwater trunk operated by FMFCD
that bisects the project site would be realigned slightly north of its current location, away from the proposed
structures. Construction of Phase 3 would commence in spring 2021 and be completed by fall 2023. Students
attending the career technical center would have the option to transfer to the new comprehensive high school
program in the new facility, in order to transition the career tech to a middle school program.
Phase 4: Stadiums and Theater
Phase 4 includes the conversion of the baseball and softball fields to stadiums, and construction of the
football stadium and performing arts center. Soil from the adjacent FMFCD would be imported to the site.
The one-half portion of Armstrong Avenue adjacent to the site would be improved in Phase 4. Construction
of Phase 4 would commence spring 2025 with a slated opening in fall 2026.
Each phase would require rough and fine grading of the work area; excavation for the installation of utilities,
storm drains, and structural foundations; building construction; and landscaping. Excavations for the field
lights and the pool would extend to a depth of approximately 15 feet below ground surface. Prior to the start
of each phase, a construction worksite traffic control plan would be prepared and implemented by the
District, identifying haul routes, hours of operation, protective devices, warning signs, and access. As
applicable, students from the preceding phases would be onsite during construction activities. The active
construction and staging areas would be within the project site and clearly marked with barriers that separate
the project site from pedestrian routes and classroom areas. Anticipated construction equipment includes
water trucks, box trucks and flatbeds, semi-trailer/dump trucks, concrete mixer, and pumper.
The proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with standards set by the California
Department of Education (CDE), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and California Building Code
(CBC). As required, dedicated right-of-way roadway easements have been included in the design (Figure 7).
Proposed Operations
At buildout of the proposed project, the property would operate as an Educational Center comprising a high
school comprehensive program with a career and technology center and a comprehensive middle school
program. The entire campus would be shared between the two programs and available for other District uses.
No joint use programs are presently proposed, although the facilities could be made available for public and
community use via the Civic Center Act. 1 For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed the site will operate
with the maximum capacity of both schools during the school day, and a worst-case analysis of a full-capacity
football stadium event on a limited number of evenings per year, as discussed below.
1 Section 38130 et seq. of the California Education Code, known as the Civic Center Act, states that every public school in the state
must contain a civic center that is made available by the governing school district for public use. Specific uses and users of the civic
center are in the Education Code.
Page 28
PlaceWorks
Figure 8 - Phasing Plan
CITY WELL SITE
CITY WELL SITE
CAMPUS ROAD
I
A
A
BASEBALL FIELD
K
H
H
PARKING
(22 SPACES)
SOCCER FIELD
SOFTBALL
STADIUM
SOCCER FIELD
M
FOOTBALL/
SOCCER/
TRACK
FIELD
FOOTBALL/
SOCCER/
TRACK
STADIUM
SOFTBALL FIELD
M.S. PARKING
(313 SPACES)
SOFTBALL FIELD
SOCCER FIELD
FOOTBALL/
SOCCER/
TRACK
FIELD
E DU C AT I O N A L C E N T ER UT ILIZ AT ION P L AN
SANGER UN IFIED SCHOOL DI STR IC T
SOFTBALL FIELD
(Expressway)
JENSENFOOTBALL/
SOCCER/
TRACK
STADIUM
STADIUM
PARKING
TRAIL
(388 SPACES)
E.S. PARKING
(388 SPACES)
PG&E
Utility
FAC
I L I Setback
TIES
ARMSTRONG (Collector Street)
BASEBALL
STADIUM
E.S. PARKING
(388 SPACES)
M
SOCCER FIELD
G
Basemap
Source: Darden Architects, 2014
M.S. PARKING
(313 SPACES)
BASEBALL FIELD
BASEBALL
STADIUM
SOFTBALL FIELD
BASEBALL FIELD
G
A
BASEBALL FIELD
LARGE SOCCER FIELD
E
LARGE SOCCER FIELD
SOFTBALL
STADIUM
J
D
K
J
E
LARGE SOCCER FIELD
LARGE SOCCER FIELD
ARMSTRONG (Collector Street)
L
CAMPUS ROAD
I
B
PONDING BASIN
PONDING BASIN
A
A
26’ - 0” along Jensen
12’ - 0” along Fowler, Church & Armstrong
L
E
H
E
H
A
Phase 4
PG&E Utility Setback
Right of Way
Easement
BUS LOADING / DROP-OFF (18 BUSES)
C
BUS LOADING / DROP-OFF (11 BUSES)
BUS LOADING / DROP-OFF (18 BUSES)
C
NC
Phase 3
Shared School
Right ofFacilities
Way Easement
26’ - 0” along Jensen
Shared District
12’ -Facilities
0” along Fowler, Church & Armstrong
N
F
Middle School
Shared District Facilities
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
FOWLER (Arterial Street)
F
Phase 2
Shared School Facilities
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
PARKING
(303 SPACES)
PHASES
P RO G R AMHigh School
Middle School
High School
FUTURE THEATER
D
P R O G R AM
FUTURE PG&E
STATION
FUTURE PG&E
H.S. PARKING
STATION(717 SPACES)
H.S. PARKING
(717 SPACES)
L EG END
LEGEND
CHURCH (Collector Street)
CHURCH (Collector Street)
BUS LOADING / DROP-OFF (11 BUSES)
A
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SEQUIOA
ELEMENTARY
STADIUM
PARKING SCHOOL
(388 SPACES)
A Academics (Two-Story)
B Administration, Media Center (Two-Story)
FAC I L I TCI E Career
S Tech Facility (Two-Story)
D Multi-Purpose, Student Center, Central Kitchen
(Two-Story)
A Academics
Bar
E Snack
Media Center (Two-Story)
F Large Gym
B Administration,
SEQUIOA
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
Small
Gym (Two-Story)
CareerG Tech
Facility
H Locker / Shower
Multi-Purpose, Student Center, Central Kitchen
I Pool
SnackJBarMain Utility Service
LargeKGymCentral Plant
SmallLGymMaintenance Yard
M Fieldhouse
Locker / Shower
N Agriculture Farm
Pool
Main Utility Service
Central Plant
Maintenance Yard
Fieldhouse
Agriculture Farm
0
500
Scale
North (Feet)
100
200
400
F EBR UA RY 2 0 1 4 | PR OJ EC T 1 1 9PlaceWorks
5
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
3. Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 30
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
3. Project Description
Academic-School Facilities
The middle school campus would accommodate grades 6 to 8, and the high school campus would
accommodate grades 9 to 12. The two schools would include a total of 132 teaching stations, as delineated in
Table 3, Proposed Teaching Stations.
Table 3
Proposed Teaching Stations
High School
Middle School
Total
General Lecture Classrooms
Science Classrooms
Performing Arts
Applied Arts
Career Tech
Special Education
Library/Media Center
52
12
4
1
5
10
1
30
4
2
5
1
5
1
82
16
6
6
6
15
1 (shared)
Total Teaching Stations
85
48
1321
1
The library would contain 1 teaching station shared by the middle school and high school. This teaching station is counted in the Middle School and High School
columns, but it is only counted once in the Total column.
Based on six instructional periods in a day (i.e., excluding the gymnasiums as teaching stations), the District’s
maximum loading standard of 32 pupils per classroom and the state’s loading standard for special needs
classrooms, the high school could operate with up to 2,840 students, and the middle school could operate
with up to 1,692 students. To accommodate this number of students, approximately 202 employees would be
hired at the high school and 118 employees at the middle school. It is expected that the high school would
have four academic clusters, and the middle school would have three academic clusters.
The school would serve secondary-school-aged students generally residing in the southeast Fresno area of the
District. Although the attendance boundary maps for both schools have not been established, the high school
and middle school attendance boundary would likely include the western portion of the District. The District
buses high school students who live 2 miles or farther from the high school, and middle school students who
live 1.5 miles or farther from the middle school. Both campuses will follow a closed-school policy, with the
exception of seniors, who will be allowed to go off campus for lunch.
General operation hours of the middle and high schools would be consistent with other schools in the
District, generally between 8 AM and 3 PM, and in accordance with the District’s instructional calendar,
starting mid-August and terminating mid-June. As needed, summer school would be held at the campus.
Although a majority of the students would leave at 3 PM, like most secondary schools, some will stay for
after-school extracurricular programs, sports practices, and events.
Athletic Facilities
The District’s facilities would be used during nonschool hours by the proposed middle and high school
programs, District, and community (via the Civic Center Act). Nighttime lighting for lit facilities would be
December 2014
Page 31
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
3. Project Description
preprogrammed to automatically shut off at 10:00 PM. During high-attendance events, the 388 off-street
parking stalls at Sequoia Elementary School would be available for overflow parking.
Football Stadium
The 8,500-seat football stadium would be developed in Phase 4 and would be used by the schools for PE
classes, track/football/soccer practice, rallies, band practice, and competition games. It is anticipated that the
football stadium would operate at full capacity on only a handful of occasions, such as for CIF (California
Interscholastic Federation) playoffs. Coupled with potential community use, this facility could be used for up
to 20 nighttime events per year for the following activities:




Football: 6 regular season games and maybe 1 playoff game
Soccer: 2 possible playoff games/tournaments
Track and field: 2 invitational meets
Special events: 2, such as graduation
Baseball and Softball Stadiums
The baseball and softball stadiums would initially be constructed with practice lights and no permanent
spectator seats (Phase 3). During Phase 3, the facility would not be available for nighttime use. Under Phase
4, however, the fields would be enhanced with competition-level nighttime field lights and grandstands. Both
facilities would be used by the schools for PE classes, practice games, and competition games. It is anticipated
that the stadiums would operate at full capacity on only a handful of occasions, such as for CIF (California
Interscholastic Federation) playoffs. Coupled with potential community use, each of these facilities could be
used for up to 10 nighttime events per year.
Football/Soccer/Track Practice Field
The football/soccer/track practice field would be built in Phase 3 and would be lit for nighttime practices.
No permanent bleacher seats would be installed at this facility. Coupled with potential community use, it is
expected that this field would be used for two to three nighttime practice events each week.
Pool Complex
The pool complex would be used by the school’s water polo and swim teams. Practices for water polo and
swim teams would occur in the morning at 7:00 AM, before school starts, and after school until 5:30 PM.
Water polo games and swim meets typically end at 6:00 PM, although the lights may turn off later. The pool
complex would also be used on Saturdays. There may be up to 25 events per year that would require lights at
the pool complex.
Tennis/Basketball Courts
The tennis and basketball courts would be lit for nighttime practice and competition games. Up to 10 home
tennis and basketball games could occur per year. Coupled with potential community use, one or more courts
would be lit on a daily basis for nighttime use.
Page 32
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
3. Project Description
Performing Arts Center
The Performing Arts Center would be built in Phase 4 of the project. The PAC would operate during school
hours in support of existing school functions and programs. For security purposes, daytime events would be
limited to students and staff already on the campus. School plays and community use of the facility would
occur after school hours during the weekdays and weekends. It is assumed that the new PAC may hold
approximately 100 events per year outside of school hours, including up to 50 sold-out events.
3.2
ACTION REQUESTED
Table 4, Agency Involvement, lists the agencies and their anticipated actions associated with the approval of the
proposed Educational Center project.
Table 4
Agency Involvement
Lead Agency1
Action
•
Certify Final EIR
•
Approve Project
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
•
Permit to Operate
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
•
Approve Project Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan
•
Permits to build new curb cuts
•
Permits for new street lights
•
Changes to right-of-way for extra lane
•
Annex 79.5-acre of SOI portion of the site into Fresno city limits
California Department of Education
•
Approve site and site plan for state funding
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
•
Approval of Preliminary Environmental Assessment for project site and
any remedial work removal plan
Division of the State Architect
•
Approval of project building plans
Sanger Unified School District
Responsible
Agencies2
City of Fresno
County of Fresno
Fresno County Local Agency Formation Commission
Action
Reviewing Agencies3
1
2
3
Action
A lead agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the
environment.
Responsible Agencies are public agencies other than the lead agency that has discretionary approval power (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement) over a project.
Reviewing agencies are public agencies that do not have discretionary powers to approve or deny the proposed project or actions needed to implement it, but may
review the environmental documentation for adequacy and accuracy.
December 2014
Page 33
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
3. Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 34
PlaceWorks
4. Environmental Checklist
4.1
BACKGROUND
Project Title:
Educational Center
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Sanger Unified School District
1905 Seventh Street
Sanger, CA 93657
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Richard Sepulveda
Chief Operations Officer
(559) 524-6521
Project Location: The project site is 116 acres and includes Fresno County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 316022-27S through 316-022-30S, and 316-022-31 through 316-022-35. The site is generally bounded by South
Fowler Avenue on the west, South Armstrong Avenue on the east, East Church Avenue on the north, and
East Jensen Avenue on the south. The northwest quarter of the site is in the City of Fresno, and the balance of
the site is in the City’s SOI in unincorporated Fresno County.
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Sanger Unified School District
1905 Seventh Street
Sanger, CA 93657
General Plan Designation: Approximately 36.5 acres of the project site is in the City of Fresno, and the
remainder is in unincorporated Fresno County. The land use designation of the portion in the city is Medium
Density Residential (5–10 residential units per acre). The balance of the site in the county is designated
Agriculture.
Zoning: The portion of the site in the City of Fresno is zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential), and the balance
of the site is zoned AL20 (Limited Agricultural) by the county.
Description of Project: The proposed project is the development and operation of an educational center
that would house up to 4,532 middle and high school students on 116 acres at the corner of South Fowler
Avenue and East Jensen Avenue. Separate schools are proposed, although there would be some shared
facilities. The athletic facilities would also be accessible to students District-wide.
December 2014
Page 35
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
4. Environmental Checklist
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The proposed project site is surrounded by mostly rural and
agricultural land. More specifically, to the north and south is farmland with a few residences; to the east are
Sequoia Elementary School, farmland, and a few residences; and to the west is a residential neighborhood.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required::
 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District




Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
City of Fresno
County of Fresno
Fresno County Local Agency Formation Commission
Page 36
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
4. Environmental Checklist
4.4
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE STATE SCHOOL
FACILITY PROGRAM
The State of California’s standards for school site selection are in Title 5 of the California Code of
Regulations (CCR) Section 14010. Additional regulations applicable to school facilities are in the Education,
Government, and Public Resources Codes. These criteria and requirements are addressed in other documents
because they are not within the purview of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Generally,
CEQA is limited to the assessment of a project’s potential impacts on the environment and not the
environment’s impacts on a project. However, CEQA requires that no EIR or Negative Declaration be
approved without making findings relative to certain health and safety factors in the lead agency’s assessment
of a new school site or addition to an existing school site. These are outlined in PRC § 21151.8.
§ 21151.8. SCHOOLSITE ACQUISITION OR CONSTRUCTION; APPROVAL OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OR NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
CONDITIONS
(a) An environmental impact report shall not be certified or a negative declaration shall not
be approved for a project involving the purchase of a schoolsite or the construction of
a new elementary or secondary school by a school district unless all of the following
occur:
(1) The environmental impact report or negative declaration includes information that
is needed to determine if the property proposed to be purchased, or to be
constructed upon, is any of the following:
(A) The site of a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste
disposal site and, if so, whether the wastes have been removed.
(B) A hazardous substance release site identified by the Department of Toxic
Substances Control in a current list adopted pursuant to Section 25356 of the
Health and Safety Code for removal or remedial action pursuant to Chapter 6.8
(commencing with Section 25300) of Division 20 of the Health and Safety
Code.
(C) A site that contains one or more pipelines, situated underground or
aboveground, that carries hazardous substances, extremely hazardous
substances, or hazardous wastes, unless the pipeline is a natural gas line that is
used only to supply natural gas to that school or neighborhood, or other nearby
schools.
(D) A site that is within 500 feet of the edge of the closest traffic lane of a freeway
or other busy traffic corridor.
(2) (A) The school district, as the lead agency, in preparing the environmental impact
report or negative declaration has notified in writing and consulted with the
administering agency in which the proposed schoolsite is located, pursuant to
Section 2735.3 of Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations, and with any
air pollution control district or air quality management district having
Page 38
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
4. Environmental Checklist
jurisdiction in the area, to identify both permitted and nonpermitted facilities
within that district’s authority, including, but not limited to, freeways and busy
traffic corridors, large agricultural operations, and railyards, within one-fourth of
a mile of the proposed schoolsite, that might reasonably be anticipated to emit
hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or extremely hazardous substances or
waste. The notification by the school district, as the lead agency, shall include a
list of the locations for which information is sought.
(B) Each administering agency, air pollution control district, or air quality
management district receiving written notification from a lead agency to identify
facilities pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall provide the requested information
and provide a written response to the lead agency within 30 days of receiving
the notification. The environmental impact report or negative declaration shall
be conclusively presumed to comply with subparagraph (A) as to the area of
responsibility of an agency that does not respond within 30 days.
(C) If the school district, as a lead agency, has carried out the consultation required
by subparagraph (A), the environmental impact report or the negative
declaration shall be conclusively presumed to comply with subparagraph (A),
notwithstanding any failure of the consultation to identify an existing facility or
other pollution source specified in subparagraph (A).
(3) The governing board of the school district makes one of the following written
findings:
(A) Consultation identified no facilities of this type or other significant pollution
sources specified in paragraph (2).
(B) The facilities or other pollution sources specified in paragraph (2) exist, but one
of the following conditions applies:
(i) The health risks from the facilities or other pollution sources do not and
will not constitute an actual or potential endangerment of public health to
persons who would attend or be employed at the proposed school.
(ii) Corrective measures required under an existing order by another agency
having jurisdiction over the facilities or other pollution sources will, before
the school is occupied, result in the mitigation of all chronic or accidental
hazardous air emissions to levels that do not constitute an actual or
potential endangerment of public health to persons who would attend or
be employed at the proposed school. If the governing board makes a
finding pursuant to this clause, it shall also make a subsequent finding, prior
to occupancy of the school, that the emissions have been so mitigated.
(iii) For a schoolsite with a boundary that is within 500 feet of the edge of the
closest traffic lane of a freeway or other busy traffic corridor, the governing
board of the school district determines, through analysis pursuant to
paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 44360 of the Health and Safety
Code, based on appropriate air dispersion modeling, and after considering
any potential mitigation measures, that the air quality at the proposed site is
December 2014
Page 39
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
4. Environmental Checklist
such that neither short-term nor long-term exposure poses significant
health risks to pupils.
(C) The facilities or other pollution sources specified in paragraph (2) exist, but
conditions in clause (i), (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (B) cannot be met, and the
school district is unable to locate an alternative site that is suitable due to a
severe shortage of sites that meet the requirements in subdivision (a) of Section
17213 of the Education Code. If the governing board makes this finding, the
governing board shall adopt a statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant
to Section 15093 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
These air quality and hazard topics are additional to the standard CEQA checklist. The following matrix
identifies the specific questions related to the required findings and where in the CEQA checklist these are
addressed. The assessment may be used to make the written findings as required in PRC § 21151.8(a)(3).
SPECIAL CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR A NEW SCHOOL SITE OR ADDITION TO EXISTING SCHOOL
Environmental Checklist
(See Table in Section 4.4)
Topic
Applicable Code
Air Quality
Is the boundary of the proposed school site within 500 feet of the
edge of the closest traffic lane of a freeway or busy traffic
corridor? If yes, would the project create an air quality health risk
due to the placement of the School?
PRC § 21151.8(a)(1)(D)
Would the project create an air quality hazard due to the
placement of a school within one-quarter mile of: (a) permitted
and nonpermitted facilities identified by the jurisdictional air
quality control board or air pollution control district; (b) freeways
and other busy traffic corridors; (c) large agricultural operations;
and/or (d) a rail yard, which might reasonably be anticipated to
emit hazardous air emissions, or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous material, substances, or waste?
PRC § 21151.8 (a)(2)
Section III, Air Quality, Question (g)
PRC § 21151.8 (a)(1)(C)
Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, Question (i)
PRC § 21151.8 (a)(1)(A)
Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, Question (j)
PRC § 21151.8 (a)(1)(B)
Section VII, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, Question (k)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Does the proposed school site contain one or more pipelines,
situated underground or aboveground, which carry hazardous
substances, acutely hazardous materials, or hazardous wastes,
unless the pipeline is a natural gas line that is used only to supply
natural gas to that school or neighborhood?
Does the project site contain a current or former hazardous waste
disposal site or solid waste disposal site and, if so, have the
wastes been removed?
Is the project site a hazardous substance release site identified
by the state Department of Health Services in a current list
adopted pursuant to §25356 for removal or remedial action
pursuant to Chapter 6.8 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety
Code?
Page 40
Section III, Air Quality, Question (f)
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
4. Environmental Checklist
4.5
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 would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2) All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect and direct, and construction and 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 EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from a “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 significant level.
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. (See Section 15063(c)(3)(D)
of the CEQA Guidelines.) In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses 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 that 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. A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be
cited in the discussion.
December 2014
Page 41
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
4. Environmental Checklist
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;
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Issues
I.
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b)
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
c)
d)
II.
a)
b)
c)
d)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. 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
nonagricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
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))?
Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
Page 42
X
X
X
X
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
4. Environmental Checklist
Issues
e)
III.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
Is the boundary of the proposed school site within 500 feet of
the edge of the closest traffic lane of a freeway or busy traffic
corridor? If yes, would the project create an air quality health
risk due to the placement of the School?
Would the project create an air quality hazard due to the
placement of a school within one-quarter mile of: (a) permitted
and nonpermitted facilities identified by the jurisdictional air
quality control board or air pollution control district; (b)
freeways and other busy traffic corridors; (c) large agricultural
operations; and/or (d) a rail yard, which might reasonably be
anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions, or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous material, substances, or
waste?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
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?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
December 2014
X
X
X
Page 43
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
4. Environmental Checklist
d)
e)
f)
V.
a)
b)
c)
d)
Issues
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?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in CCR § 15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to CCR § 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
X
X
X
X
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i)
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii)
Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii)
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv)
Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
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?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
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?
Page 44
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
4. Environmental Checklist
Issues
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a)
b)
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
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?
For a project 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
for people residing or working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Does the proposed school site contain one or more pipelines,
situated underground or aboveground, which carry hazardous
substances, acutely hazardous materials or hazardous
wastes, unless the pipeline is a natural gas line that is used
only to supply natural gas to that school or neighborhood?
Does the project site contain a current or former hazardous
waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site and, if so, have
the wastes been removed?
Is the project site a hazardous substance release site
identified by the state Department of Health Services in a
current list adopted pursuant to § 25356 for removal or
remedial action pursuant to Chapter 6.8 of Division of the
Health and Safety Code?
December 2014
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 45
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
4. Environmental Checklist
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
X.
a)
b)
c)
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
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?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
Physically divide an established community?
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
X
X
X
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)
b)
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?
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?
Page 46
X
X
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
4. Environmental Checklist
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
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 expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
X
X
X
X
X
X
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
X
X
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. 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:
a)
Fire protection?
b)
Police protection?
c)
Schools?
d)
Parks?
e)
Other public facilities?
X
X
X
X
X
XV. RECREATION.
a)
b)
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?
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?
December 2014
X
X
Page 47
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
4. Environmental Checklist
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including
but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards established by
the county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
X
X
X
X
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
X
X
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or waste
water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Require or result in the construction of new stormwater
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the waste water 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?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Page 48
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
4. Environmental Checklist
Issues
XVIII.
a)
b)
c)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
December 2014
X
X
X
Page 49
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
4. Environmental Checklist
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 50
PlaceWorks
5. Environmental Analysis
Section 4.5 provided a checklist of environmental impacts. This section provides an evaluation of the impact
categories, questions contained in the checklist, and identifies applicable mitigation measures.
5.1
AESTHETICS
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on scenic vistas.
Vistas provide visual access or panoramic views to a large geographic area. Usually, the field of view from a
vista location is wide and extends into the distance. Panoramic views are usually associated with vantage
points looking out over a section of urban or natural area that provides a geographic orientation not
commonly available. Examples of panoramic views might include desert and mountain vistas, valley,
mountain range, the ocean, or other water bodies.
The site is situated in a part of the San Joaquin Valley that is bounded by the Coast Ranges to the southwest
and the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the northeast. The project site and surrounding area are flat. There are
six buildings scattered within the project site. The western edge of the project site is bordered by residential
development, and the eastern edge is bordered by Sequoia Elementary School. The areas immediately to the
north and south are developed with residential and agricultural uses. There are some mountain views available
from the site toward the east. However, these views are not protected or designated scenic. The maximum
height of the proposed buildings would be approximately 70 feet for the District Theater and administration
building; 40 feet for the two gymnasiums; and 35 feet for the two-story academic buildings. The proposed
buildings would not block scenic vistas, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The proposed project would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. The
nearest eligible state scenic highway is a portion of State Route 180 approximately 15 miles east of the project
site. No officially designated scenic highway exists within a 25-mile radius of the project site (Caltrans 2011).
The proposed structures associated with the project would not be visible from either eligible nor officially
designated state scenic highways. Project development would not result in significant impacts to scenic
resources within a designated state scenic highway. No impact to scenic resources would occur, and no
further analysis is necessary.
December 2014
Page 51
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would change the visual character of the site and its
surroundings. The project would develop two schools with capacities totaling 4,532 students. The campuses
would include several two-story classroom buildings; two gymnasiums about 40 feet high; and a performing
arts center about 70 feet high. The single-family homes west of Fowler Avenue from the site are two stories.
The existing site is mostly active and abandoned farm fields, with three 1-story single-family residences and a
few barns. Impacts would be potentially significant and will be addressed in the EIR.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would create new sources of light and glare in the
vicinity. The two major causes of light pollution are glare and spill light. Spill light is caused by misdirected
light that illuminates areas outside the area intended to be lit. Sources of spill light include street, building,
and play field lights. Glare occurs when a bright object is against a dark background, such as oncoming
vehicle headlights or stadium field lights.
There are currently minimal sources of light and glare from the scattered residences within the project site.
Other existing light sources in the area include streetlights, vehicle headlights, and interior lighting from the
neighboring residential and institutional uses.
New light sources proposed at the project site include interior building lighting, exterior security/parking
lighting, stadium and field lighting, and headlights and brake lights from vehicles accessing the site. Potential
new glare sources at the project site include the new light sources mentioned above, as well as reflective
surfaces such as building materials, such as windows, vehicle windows or trim, and metal poles from light
posts. The amount of light and glare created by the internal and exterior building and security lights, vehicles,
building materials, and poles would not be substantial. They would be similar to those existing in the
surrounding community and experienced at other District schools, such as Sequoia Elementary School.
The project, however, includes nighttime high-intensity lighting for some of the athletic facilities. The new
nighttime lighting may generate a substantial amount of light and glare that could affect sensitive viewers near
the project site, including residential uses directly west of the site on Fowler Avenue, and drivers along the
surrounding roadways. Light and glare impacts from the proposed nighttime high-intensity lights are
potentially significant and will be analyzed in the EIR.
5.2
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Page 52
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is mapped as a mixture of Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance on the California Important Farmland Finder maintained by
the Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP 2014). Approximately half of the site is currently in
agricultural use. An approximately 20-acre parcel in the west-central part of the site is cultivated as a vineyard,
and a second 39-acre parcel comprising the southeast third of the site is cultivated with row crops of
vegetables. The balance of the site consists of abandoned farmland and three single-family residences.
Project development would convert the entire 116-acre site to school uses. 2 Therefore, development of the
proposed project would result in the loss of existing farmland to nonagricultural use and is a potentially
significant impact to Farmland. This issue will be further analyzed in the EIR.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Potentially Significant Impact. The portion of the project site in unincorporated Fresno County is zoned
Limited Agricultural (AL-20) according to the Fresno County zoning code. The part of the site in the City of
Fresno is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1). The Limited Agricultural land use type largely permits farmrelated land uses less intensive than other agricultural land uses. The City of Fresno’s R-1 Zoning District
permits single-family residential development on lots of at least 6,000 square feet. Williamson Act contracts
restrict the use of privately owned land to agriculture and compatible open-space uses under contract with
local governments; in exchange, the land is taxed based on actual use rather than potential market value. A
Williamson Act contract is not in effect for the site. However, project implementation would conflict with
existing zoning for agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant, and further analysis
is necessary. This issue will be discussed in the EIR.
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))?
No Impact. The project site is zoned Limited Agricultural (AL-20) and Single-Family Residential (R-1). The
site is not zoned for forest land or timberland, and no forest land exists on or adjacent to the site. The
proposed project would result in the construction of an Educational Center for middle school and high
school students on the project site. No conflict with zoning for or rezoning of forest and timberland would
occur. No impact would occur, and further analysis of this issue is not required in the EIR.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. There is no forest land on or near the site, and project implementation would not result in any
loss or conversion of forest land to nonforest use. No impact would result, and further consideration of this
topic in the EIR is not warranted.
While the project would include development of an on-campus farm, the farm would be for educational purposes only. CEQA
analysis of impacts to farmland focuses on impacts to intensive commercial agriculture. The proposed farm would not be such an
agricultural use and would thus be considered conversion from agricultural to nonagricultural use.
2
December 2014
Page 53
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
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 nonforest use?
Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is surrounded by mapped important farmland to the
northeast, east, and south. Surrounding land uses include agricultural uses. Project development could
indirectly contribute to conversion of surrounding farmland. This topic will be addressed in the EIR.
5.3
AIR QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) and is
subject to the air quality management plan (AQMP) prepared by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District (SJVAPCD). The proposed project would involve the construction of a middle school and high
school. Construction would generate exhaust from construction equipment and vehicle trips, fugitive dust
from demolition and ground disturbing activities, and off-gas emissions from architectural coatings and
paving. Project operation would increase emissions of criteria air pollutants onsite from school-related traffic
and idling of diesel buses. The EIR will evaluate project impacts on the attainment of regional air quality
objectives. Mitigation measures will be recommended as needed.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Potentially Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the project would have the potential to
generate fugitive dust, stationary-source emissions, and mobile-source emissions. An air quality analysis will
be conducted for the project to determine if short- or long-term emissions would exceed the SJVAPCD’s
regional significance thresholds. This topic will be addressed in the EIR, and mitigation measures will be
recommended as needed.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is within the SJVAB, which is in nonattainment for ozone
(8-hour standard) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) under the California and National ambient air quality
standards (AAQS) and for coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10) and ozone (1-hour standard) under the
California AAQS (SJVAPCD 2014). Implementation of the proposed project may increase existing levels of
criteria pollutants and contribute to the nonattainment status in the SJVAB. An air quality analysis will be
prepared to determine if the project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria air
pollutant. This topic will be addressed in the EIR, and mitigation measures will be recommended, as
appropriate.
Page 54
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Potentially Significant Impact. The types of land uses considered potential sources of air toxic emissions
under SVJACD methodology that could affect nearby sensitive uses include gasoline dispensing facilities,
asphalt batch plants, warehouse distribution centers, and new freeways and high traffic roadways. The
proposed school does not fall into these types of uses and is generally not the type of land use that would be
considered a substantial source of emissions. However, operation of the proposed school has some potential
to result in significant impacts to sensitive receptors in regard to CO hotspots as a result of changes to
intersection level of service conditions. This topic will be addressed further in the EIR.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. The threshold for odor is if a project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to
SJVAPCD Rule 4102, Nuisance, which states:
A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or
other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number
of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such
person or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to
business or property (SJVAPCD 2012).
An exemption to this rule states:
The provisions of this rule do not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations in the
growing of crops or raising of fowl or animals as defined in Rule 4103 (Open Burning).
The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants,
compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating
operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical
manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The proposed Educational Center project is not within
these categories of land uses and would not generate objectionable odors that could affect substantial
numbers of people. Impacts would be less than significant and this topic will not be assessed further in the
EIR.
f) Is the boundary of the proposed school site within 500 feet of the edge of the closest traffic lane
of a freeway or busy traffic corridor? If yes, would the project create an air quality health risk due
to the placement of the school?
Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is within 500 feet of Jensen Avenue, which is considered a
high volume roadway (>10,000 vehicles per day). Thus, implementation of the proposed school could result
in significant health risk impacts to future students and staff from the mobile-source emissions generated on
Jensen Avenue. This topic will be addressed in the EIR, and mitigation measures will be recommended, as
appropriate.
g) Create an air quality hazard due to the placement of a school within one-quarter mile of:
(a) permitted and non-permitted facilities identified by the jurisdictional air quality control
December 2014
Page 55
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
board or air pollution control district; (b) freeways and other busy traffic corridors; (c) large
agricultural operations; and/or (d) a rail yard, which might reasonably be anticipated to emit
hazardous air emissions, or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material, substances, or
waste?
Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed school site is within one-quarter mile of agricultural
operations, the California Express Transport facility, and Jensen Avenue. The California Express Transport
facility includes trucking operations and is a potential source for diesel particulate matter. Thus,
implementation of the proposed school could result in significant health risk impacts to future students and
staff from the emissions generated by these sources. This topic will be addressed in the EIR, and mitigation
measures will be recommended, as appropriate.
5.4
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially Significant Impact. Special status species include those listed as endangered or threatened
under the federal Endangered Species Act or California Endangered Species Act; species otherwise given
certain designations by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife; and plant species listed as rare by the
California Native Plant Society. The California Natural Diversity Data Base was reviewed and a biological
reconnaissance survey conducted by McCormick Biological, Inc., on March 25, 2014, to identify sensitive
biological resources on and next to the project site (McCormick 2014). Several sensitive animal species were
observed on the site, and several other sensitive animal species were determined to have some potential to
occur onsite. Impacts would be potentially significant. The findings of the biological reconnaissance survey
will be discussed in the EIR.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. Sensitive natural communities are considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies, known to
provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species, and/or known to be important wildlife corridors.
Riparian habitats are those occurring along the banks of rivers and streams. The project site is highly
disturbed, consisting mostly of abandoned farmland; the site does not contain any sensitive natural
community or riparian habitat (McCormick 2014). Project development would have no impact on riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local, regional, or national plans, regulations, or
policies. No further analysis is required.
Page 56
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. Wetlands are defined under the federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or saturated by
surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally does
support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands include areas such as swamps,
marshes, and bogs. During the biological evaluation, the site was surveyed for wetland/riparian features that
could be considered jurisdictional by state and federal agencies. No potential jurisdictional areas and wetlands
occur within or adjacent to the proposed project area; therefore, no jurisdictional delineation is required.
Additionally, given the lack of jurisdictional features, no agency permits or mitigation would be required. 3
Project development would not impact wetlands, and no further analysis is required.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
Potentially Significant Impact. There are no known local or regional wildlife corridors present within or
adjacent to the proposed project site. However, based on a site survey conducted by a qualified biologist, bat
guano was found at the base of a palm tree in the central area of the project site (McCormick 2014). The
species of bat roosting in the tree is unknown; however, western yellow bat is closely associated with palm
trees and is considered the bat species most likely to be roosting at the site where guano was found. It is also
unknown what bats are using the roosting site for. If it is a pupping roost, the proposed project would result
in the removal of a native wildlife nursery site. This impact would be potentially significant and will be
evaluated in the EIR.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The project is in an agricultural/developed area in unincorporated portion of Fresno County.
There are no local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources on the site. Therefore, development
of the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources. No impact would occur, and this issue will not be addressed in the EIR.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. The project site is not within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (Hulbert 2014;
USFWS 2014). Therefore, no impact would occur. This issue will not be further addressed in the EIR.
3 Activities impacting wetlands protected under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act require a permit from the US Army Corps
of Engineers. Some wetlands are also jurisdictional to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) pursuant to Section
1602 of the California Fish and Game Code; activities impacting such wetlands require a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement
from the CDFW.
December 2014
Page 57
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
5.5
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
CCR § 15064.5?
Potentially Significant Impact. Section 15064.5 defines historical resources as resources listed or
determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of
historical resources, or the lead agency. Generally a resource is considered “historically significant” if it meets
one of the following criteria:
i) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California’s history and cultural heritage;
ii) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
iii) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction,
or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values;
iv) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Three single-family residences onsite were built 50 or more years ago, as identified by the Cultural Resources
Survey completed by Applied Earthworks in April 2014. A residence at 1778 Fowler Avenue was built in
1915; a residence at 1854 Fowler Avenue was built in 1964; and a residence at 6282 Jensen Avenue was built
in 1952. A fourth residence, at 1700 Fowler Avenue, was built in 1982. All four residences, plus a few barns
onsite, would be demolished in preparation for construction of the proposed schools. These structures and
properties may be historically significant. This topic will be further addressed in the EIR.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
CCR § 15064.5?
Potentially Significant Impact. Archaeological resources are prehistoric or historic evidence of past human
activities, including structural ruins and buried resources. Although the project site is highly disturbed, it is
possible that unanticipated subsurface discoveries could occur during site grading or construction activities.
Impacts are potentially significant. This topic will be assessed further in the EIR.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Potentially Significant Impact.
Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are fossils, that is, the recognizable remains or evidence of past life on earth;
including bones, shells, leaves, tracks, burrows, and impressions. The project area is immediately underlain by
the Middle Pleistocene Riverbank Formation and the Late Pleistocene Modesto Formation, which have
Page 58
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
yielded vertebrate fossil specimens and localities. Impacts to paleontological resources are potentially
significant and will be evaluated further in the EIR.
Unique Geological Features
The site is flat and does not contain any unique geological features; this issue will not be addressed in the
EIR.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event
that human remains are discovered within the project site, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted
until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and
the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the
person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. If the coroner determines
that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe
the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours,
the Native American Heritage Commission. The project would comply with existing law, and potential
impacts to human remains would be less than significant. This issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.
5.6
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The information in this section is based in part on the following report, a full copy of which is included as
Appendix B to this Initial Study.

Geologic/Seismic Hazards Evaluation and Limited Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed New High School
and Middle School, 116 -Acre Site, Sanger Unified School Distinct, Fresno, California, prepared by BSK Associates,
July 22, 2014.
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to 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. No active faults are mapped within the project limits or in the immediate vicinity of the
project site. The site is not zoned within a currently delineated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone
(CGS 2014). The closest active fault is the Nunez Fault, approximately 55 miles southwest of the site
(CGS 2013). Therefore, project development would not create any hazard arising from rupture of a
known earthquake fault, and no impact would occur. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR.
December 2014
Page 59
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. No active fault traces pass through or near the project site, but the
site is in a seismically active region and could experience strong ground shaking from numerous fault
zones. The San Andreas Fault Zone passes about 70 miles southwest of the project site (CGS 2013).
The potential for earthquake impacts at the project site, however, is not greater than at most other
sites in the area. The Geologic/Seismic Hazards Evaluation conducted for the project includes
seismic design criteria calculated pursuant to requirements of the 2013 California Building Code
(CBC; Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 2) (BSK 2014). Compliance with the seismic
requirements of the California Building Code, which is enforced by the Division of the State
Architect, would reduce hazards from strong ground shaking to a less than significant level. No
further analysis is required.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when loose, saturated sand or gravel deposits
lose their load-supporting capability when subjected to intense shaking, such as during an earthquake.
Structures built on these sediments may float, sink, or tilt as if on a body of water. Liquefaction
potential varies based on three main factors: 1) cohesionless, granular soils having relatively low
densities; 2) shallow groundwater (generally less than 50 feet); and 3) moderate to high ground
shaking.
A liquefaction and seismic settlement analysis was conducted as part of the Geologic/Seismic
Hazards Evaluation for the project. The analysis was based on the estimated peak ground
acceleration at the site, soil data from subsurface borings conducted as part of the geotechnical
engineering investigation, and the historical depth to groundwater of 29 feet near the site. 4
The subsurface soils encountered in the test borings generally consist of fine to medium grained silty
sand in the upper 7 to 13 feet underlain by laterally discontinuous layers of poorly graded sand, sandy
silt, and silty sand to the depth explored, 51.5 feet below ground surface. The coarse grained soils
were generally medium dense to very dense. The fine-grained sandy silt and silt were generally
medium stiff to hard (BSK 2014). Liquefaction potential onsite is considered low due to the depth to
groundwater and to the dense, hard soils onsite. This impact would be less than significant and will
not be addressed in the EIR.
iv) Landslides?
No Impact. The project site is relatively level and there are no significant slopes on or adjacent to
the site. Therefore, the potential for slope instability, landslides or debris flows is not considered
significant. No impact would occur, and further consideration of landslides in the EIR is not
warranted.
4 Subsurface borings of up to 51.5 feet below ground surface did not encounter groundwater. Eight borings were conducted; data
from three of the borings were used in the liquefaction and seismic settlement analysis.
Page 60
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact. Soil erosion is the movement of rock and soil and is a natural process.
Common agents of erosion in the project region include water and wind. Erosion can be accelerated
dramatically by ground-disturbing activities if effective erosion control measures are not used.
After completion of the proposed project, the project site would not contain exposed topsoil. For this
reason, substantial soil erosion is not expected to occur during the operational phase. However, development
of the site would include ground-disturbing activities, which would include excavation and grading, trenching
for the installation and connection of underground utilities, and hauling of materials off the site (dirt,
demolition debris, etc.).
The project would be required to comply with the General Construction Permit, Order No. 2012-0006DWQ, issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in 2012. Projects obtain coverage by
developing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) estimating sediment risk
from construction activities to receiving waters, and specifying best management practices (BMPs) that would
be used by the project to minimize pollution of stormwater. Categories of BMPs used in SWPPPs are
described below in Table 5. Impacts related to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil would be less than
significant, and this topic will not be addressed in the EIR.
Table 5
Construction BMPs
Category
Erosion Controls and Wind Erosion
Controls
Sediment Controls
Purpose
Cover and/or bind soil surface, to prevent soil
particles from being detached and transported by
water or wind.
Filter out soil particles that have been detached and
transported in water.
Tracking Controls
Minimize the tracking of soil offsite by vehicles.
Nonstorm Water Management
Controls
Prohibit discharge of materials other than stormwater,
such as discharges from the cleaning, maintenance,
and fueling of vehicles and equipment. Conduct
various construction operations, including paving,
grinding, and concrete curing and finishing, in ways
that minimize nonstormwater discharges and
contamination of any such discharges.
Management of materials and wastes to avoid
contamination of stormwater.
Waste Management and Controls
(i.e. good-housekeeping practices)
Examples
Mulch, geotextiles, mats, hydroseeding,
earth dikes, swales.
Barriers such as straw bales, sandbags, fiber
rolls, and gravel bag berms; desilting basin;
cleaning measures such as street sweeping.
Stabilized construction roadways and
construction entrances/exits;
entrance/outlet tire wash.
BMPs specifying methods for: paving and
grinding operations; cleaning, fueling, and
maintenance of vehicles and equipment;
concrete curing; concrete finishing.
Spill prevention and control, stockpile
management, and management of solid
wastes and hazardous wastes.
Source: CASQA 2003.
December 2014
Page 61
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
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?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Landslide, Liquefaction, and Lateral Spreading
The site is relatively level, and project development would not cause landslide hazards. As discussed above in
section 5.6(a)(3), the liquefaction potential onsite is considered low. Lateral spreading is the downslope
movement of surface sediment due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. The potential for lateral spreading
onsite is regarded as low due to the low liquefaction potential of subsurface site soils.
Collapsible Soils
Collapsible soils shrink upon being wetted, being subject to a load, or under both conditions. The silty sand
under the site has moderate collapse potential based on tests of subsurface soil samples. The geotechnical
engineering report makes recommendations consistent with the California Building Code for the removal of
organically rich soil, debris, and loose/disturbed near-surface soil, and overexcavation, moisture conditioning,
and compacting of soils to support proposed structures. The project would be required to comply with
recommendations of the geotechnical engineering report. Impacts would be less than significant, and this
topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
Ground Subsidence
Four types of subsidence are known to occur in the San Joaquin Valley. In order of decreasing magnitude
they are:




Subsidence caused by sustained groundwater overdraft;
Subsidence caused by the hydrocompaction of dry soils above the groundwater table;
Subsidence related to withdrawal of oil and natural gas;
Subsidence related to crustal neotectonic movements.
The site is not in an area susceptible to subsidence due to petroleum or groundwater withdrawal. The site is
not located in an area in which soils are known to be impacted by hydrocompaction. Ground subsidence
impacts would be less than significant, and this topic will not be addressed in the EIR.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils shrink or swell as the moisture content decreases or
increases; the shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. Near-surface site
soils show low expansion potential (BSK 2014). Project development would not cause substantial hazards
arising from expansive soils, and impacts would be less than significant. This topic will not be analyzed in the
EIR.
Page 62
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact. The proposed project would include construction of sewer laterals and would not involve
alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur, and additional analysis of this issue is not
required in the EIR.
5.7
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
Potentially Significant Impact. Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is
generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project,
even a very large one, does not generate enough greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on its own to influence
global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative
environmental impact. The State of California, through its governor and legislature, has established a
comprehensive framework for the substantial reduction of GHG emissions over the next 40-plus years. This
will occur primarily through the implementation of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32, 2006) and Senate Bill 375 (SB
375, 2008), which will address GHG emissions on a statewide, cumulative basis. 5 The EIR will evaluate the
potential for the project to generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions. Mitigation measures will be
incorporated as necessary.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Potentially Significant Impact. The California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Scoping Plan is California’s
GHG reduction strategy to achieve the state’s GHG emissions reduction target, established by AB 32, of
1990 emission levels by year 2020. The Fresno Council of Governments’ 2014 Regional Transportation Plan/
Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) outlines regional transportation goals to achieve the per capita
GHG reduction targets for Fresno County under SB 375. The EIR will evaluate consistency with applicable
plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Mitigation measures will
be incorporated as necessary.
5 AB 32 is codified as California Health and Safety Code Sections 38560–38565; SB 375 is codified as California Government Code
Section 65080.
December 2014
Page 63
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
5.8
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would be short term and one time in
nature and would involve the limited transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Some
examples of hazardous materials handling include fueling and servicing construction equipment onsite and
the transport of fuels, lubricating fluids, and solvents. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous, and
all storage, handling, and disposal of these materials would be regulated by the Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC), the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety & Health
Administration, and the County of Fresno Department of Public Health. 6 The District and its construction
contractor’s adherence to the regulations set forth by these organizations would reduce the potential for
hazardous materials impacts during the short-term construction phase to less than significant levels.
Construction-related transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials will not be further addressed in the
EIR.
The types of hazardous materials associated with operation of the project would be similar to those currently
in use by the District. These would generally be limited to those associated with janitorial, maintenance, and
repair activities, such as fertilizer, commercial cleansers, lubricants, paints, gasoline and diesel fuels, motor oil,
degreasers and solvents, etc. Therefore, compliance with existing laws and regulations would minimize
potential hazards associated with the use of these hazardous materials. Impacts would not be significant, and
no further analysis is required.
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?
Potentially Significant Impact.
Hazardous Materials Currently Onsite or Potentially Onsite
Current and past uses of the site include agriculture and residential uses. A Preliminary Environmental
Assessment (PEA) is being prepared for the site. Constituents of potential concern that will be analyzed in
the PEA include residual organochlorine pesticides (OCPs); arsenic, copper and other CAM-17 metals
associated with the former agricultural activities; lead from lead-based paint, OCPs from termiticides at
existing and former structures; polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from electrical transformers; petroleum
hydrocarbons from former and existing fuel storage tanks; semivolatile organic compounds from a former
shop building; and volatile organic compounds from empty drums that had been dumped on the site.
6 The Fresno County Department of Public Health is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for Fresno County; the Certified
Unified Program coordinates enforcement of several state and federal regulations governing hazardous materials.
Page 64
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
Historic underground storage tanks (USTs) identified in the project site in the regulatory database search
conducted for the project site on July 21, 2011, are listed in Table 6, Historic Underground Storage Tanks Onsite.
Due to the historical uses and known chemicals and USTs on the site, impacts would be potentially
significant. The methods and findings of the PEA will be discussed in the EIR.
Table 6
Historic Underground Storage Tanks Onsite
Address
1854 S Fowler Ave.
1636 S Fowler Ave.
6282 E Jensen Ave.
Number and Contents of Tanks
1 300-gallon tank contained regular
gasoline. No leaks detected. Removal not
documented but not identified as current
registered UST.
1 500-gallon tank contained unleaded
gasoline. Closed and removed 1993. The
Fresno County Environmental Health
Department (FCEHD) issued a No Further
Action letter regarding the removal in
October 1993.
1 500-gallon tank contained unleaded
gasoline. Has reportedly been removed.
Databases1
HIST UST; SWEEPS UST; CA FID UST
CUPA FRESNO; SWEEPS UST
HIST UST; SWEEPS UST; CA FID UST
Source: EDR 2011
1 The HIST UST, SWEEPS UST, and CA FID UST databases listed historical USTs and were maintained by the State Water Resources Control Board. CUPA Fresno
is a database maintained by the Fresno County Department of Environmental Health.
Hazardous Materials That Would Be Used by the Project
The types and amounts of hazardous materials that would be used by the project are described above in
Section 5.8 (a). Compliance with existing regulations described in the preceding section would reduce hazards
from accidental release of hazardous materials used by the project to a less than significant impact, and this
topic will not be addressed in the EIR.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less Than Significant Impact. One school currently exists within one-quarter mile of the project site:
Sequoia Elementary School at 1820 South Armstrong Avenue. Operation of the proposed project would not
emit hazardous emissions, and no significant amounts of hazardous materials, substances, or wastes would be
transported, used, or disposed of in conjunction with the facility’s operation. The onsite use of hazardous
materials at the proposed facility would be restricted to typical cleaning solvents and paints used by the
facility’s janitorial and/or maintenance staff. These materials would be utilized in small quantities and would
be stored in compliance with established state and federal requirements. Construction of the project would
emit diesel exhaust, which is considered hazardous. However, the project construction period would be
temporary. Health risk is based upon the conservative assumption that exposure is continuous and occurs
over a 70-year lifetime. A determination of risk is not appropriate for short-term construction activities.
Exposure to diesel exhaust during the construction period would not pose substantial hazards to persons at
December 2014
Page 65
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
Sequoia Elementary School. Impacts would be less than significant. The issue will not need to be reviewed
further in the EIR.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 [inclusive of Section 25356 of the Health & Safety Code] and,
as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Potentially Significant Impact. California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the compiling of
lists of the following types of hazardous materials sites: hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action;
hazardous waste discharges for which the State Water Quality Control Board has issued certain types of
orders; public drinking water wells containing detectable levels of organic contaminants; underground storage
tanks with reported unauthorized releases; and solid waste disposal facilities from which hazardous waste has
migrated.
Potential Environmental Concerns Onsite
A PEA under preparation for the site is analyzing the constituents of potential concern listed above in
Section 5.8.b. Impacts would be potentially significant, and this topic will be analyzed further in the EIR.
Offsite Environmental Database Listings
The offsite database listings shown in Table 7 were identified in a 2011 database search.
Page 66
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
Table 7
Offsite Environmental Database Listings
Site Name
Address
Distance from Project Site
Proposed Sanger Unified School District
Elementary School
[Now Sequoia Elementary School]
South Armstrong/East Jensen
72 feet south
California Express Transport
6201 E Jensen Ave.
73 feet south
1619 S Armstrong Ave.
315 feet north
2173 S Armstrong Ave.
1,000 feet south
2222 S Fowler Ave.
0.237 mile south
Sunnyside Sierra
5895 E Jensen Ave.
0.276 mile west
Tri Boro Fruit Co.
2500 S Fowler Ave.
0.486 mile south
Reason for Listing and Regulatory Status
Database
School site investigation. The DTSC issued a
No Further Action determination respecting
that investigation in December 2009 (DTSC
2014)
EnviroStor
Waste tire generator: 1-500 tires.
1 historic UST contained leaded gasoline. No
hazardous materials release documented.
No current registered UST listed.
1 historic UST contained unleaded gasoline.
No hazardous materials release
documented. No current registered UST
listed.
3 historic USTs, 350 gallons each, contents
not reported. No hazardous materials release
documented. No current registered UST
listed.
Leaking underground storage tank (LUST)
released gasoline affecting soil; case closed
1997
CUPA Fresno
CA FID UST; SWEEPS UST; HIST UST
CA FID UST; SWEEPS UST; HIST UST
CA FID UST; SWEEPS UST; HIST UST
CORTESE; LUST; CUPA FRESNO
LUST released gasoline affecting soil; case
closed 1996.
CORTESE; LUST
LUST released diesel fuel affecting soil; case
closed 1995.
CORTESE; LUST
Source: EDR 2011.
None of the sites in Table 7 are considered environmental concerns for the proposed project site. The school
site investigation at Sequoia Elementary School was completed with a No Further Action determination; the
three leaking underground storage tank cases have all been closed; and no hazardous materials releases have
been documented at the three historic UST sites. This topic will not be studied further in the EIR.
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 for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The Fresno Yosemite International Airport (FYI), at 5175 East Clinton Way, is approximately
four miles northwest of the site. The tallest building proposed as a part of the project would be the District
Theater, part of which would be about 70 feet high. The project site is outside of the area where land uses
are regulated to minimize hazards related to air crashes, and it is outside of the area where heights of
structures are regulated pursuant to Federal Aviation Administration Part 77 Regulations (Fresno 2012).
Consequently, implementation of the proposed project would not pose a hazard to airplanes in flight or result
December 2014
Page 67
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
in a safety hazard for people working at the project site. No impact would occur. This issue will not be further
considered in the EIR.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The nearest private airstrip to the project site is the PG&E Fresno Service Center Heliport,
approximately six miles northwest of the project site (Airnav.com). Helicopters fly vertically during takeoff
and landing operations. Over congested areas, helicopters must maintain an altitude of at least 1,000 feet
above the highest obstacle within 2,000 feet of the aircraft, except as needed for takeoff and landing (Code
of Federal Regulations Title 14 Section 91.119). Therefore, project implementation would not create a hazard
related to helicopter operations to or from the heliport. The highest building proposed would be
approximately 70 feet high and would not pose a hazard to helicopters in flight. No impact would occur. This
issue will not be considered in the EIR.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. Emergency preparedness and planning in unincorporated areas is the
responsibility of the Fresno County Office of Emergency Services (OES) of the Fresno County Department
of Public Health. The Fresno County Operational Area Master Emergency Services Plan (MESP), developed
and managed by the OES, is the emergency response plan in effect in unincorporated areas of the county.
Project construction and operation would not interfere with implementation of the MESP. The project would
not block roadways surrounding the site and would not block emergency access to surrounding
neighborhoods and properties. Public schools are built to rigorous design and construction standards and are
often used as evacuation centers during disasters. Thus, project development would have some favorable
impact to emergency response capability in the region.
Project impacts to emergency response plans would be less than significant. This issue will not be further
considered in the EIR.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
No Impact. The project site and vicinity consist of institutional uses, vacant land, agricultural land, and
residential uses. There are no large expanses of wildland vegetation in the vicinity of the project site. No Fire
Hazard Severity Zones are mapped on or near the site by the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Prevention (CAL FIRE 2007). Project development would not subject people or structures to substantial
hazards from wildland fires, and no impact would occur. This issue will not be further considered in the EIR.
Page 68
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
i) Does the proposed school site contain one or more pipelines, situated underground or
aboveground, which carry hazardous substances, acutely hazardous materials or hazardous
wastes, unless the pipeline is a natural gas line that is used only to supply natural gas to that
school or neighborhood?
Less Than Significant Impact.
A hazardous pipeline survey was conducted for the project site by BSK Associates in September 2014 and is
included as Appendix C to this Initial Study. The following entities were contacted regarding whether they
own or operate high-pressure pipelines within 1,500 feet of the proposed project site:






California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
California Public Utilities Commission (Energy Division and Water Division)
Fresno County Department of Public Works
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Office of the State Fire Marshal
National Pipeline Mapping System (US Department of Transportation)
No operating pipelines with capacities of 80 pounds per square inch (psi) or greater pressure are within 1,500
feet of the project site. (Pipelines within 1,500 feet of proposed school sites must be identified per California
Code of Regulations Title 5, Section 14010(h).) A Fresno County Public Works Department 14-inch water
main in Church Avenue branches down Fowler Avenue and Armstrong Avenue. The Armstrong Avenue
branch connects to the water lateral supplying Sequoia Elementary School. The water mains operate at
approximately 30 to 60 psi pressure, depending on water use in the area.
No pipelines were identified in the survey that could pose substantial hazards to persons on the project site
due to a pipeline rupture or failure. Impacts would be less than significant, and this topic will not be analyzed
in the EIR.
j)
Does the project site contain a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste
disposal site and, if so, have the wastes been removed?
Potentially Significant Impact. No hazardous waste disposal sites or solid waste disposal sites were
identified on the project site in the environmental database report (EDR 2011; see Appendix D). The PEA
underway for the project site will research past uses of the site. PEA findings will be discussed in the EIR.
k) Is the project site a hazardous substance release site identified by the state Department of
Health Services in a current list adopted pursuant to § 25356 for removal or remedial action
pursuant to Chapter 6.8 of Division of the Health and Safety Code?
Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is not identified in the environmental database search as a
hazardous substance release site by the state Department of Health Services. The PEA under preparation for
the site will research past uses of the site; PEA findings will be discussed in the EIR.
December 2014
Page 69
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
5.9
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Potentially Significant Impact. New construction projects can result in two types of water quality impacts:
(1) short-term impacts from discharge of soil through erosion, sediments, and other pollutants during
construction and (2) long-term impacts from impervious surfaces (buildings, roads, parking lots, and
walkways) that prevent water from soaking into the ground, thereby increasing the rate and volume of
stormwater runoff. Impervious surfaces can also increase the concentration of pollutants, such as oil,
fertilizers, pesticides, trash, soil, and animal waste, in stormwater runoff. Runoff from short-term
construction and long-term operation can flow directly into lakes, local streams, channels, and storm drains
and eventually be released untreated into the ocean.
The EIR will describe water quality requirements for the design and operational phases of the project in the
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s Fresno-Clovis Storm Water Quality Master Plan, and for
project construction in the General Construction Permit, Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ, issued by the State
Water Resources Control Board. The EIR will identify pollutants that the project could generate that could
contaminate stormwater; and BMPs that the project would use in its design, construction, and operation
phases to minimize contamination of stormwater.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is underlain by the Kings Groundwater Subbasin, which
underlies part of central Fresno County, parts of northwest Tulare County, and small parts of northern
Kings County. Implementing the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surface at the
proposed project site, which could affect groundwater recharge.
The City of Fresno Public Utilities Department would provide water to the project. Groundwater is forecast
to provide about 31 percent of city water supplies in 2015 and about 28 percent of city water supplies in
2035 (West Yost 2012). The Kings Subbasin has been identified as critically overdrafted.
The EIR will address potential groundwater recharge and groundwater supply impacts associated with the
proposed project and provide mitigation measures, if needed.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is within the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s
service area, which is divided into 163 drainage areas averaging one to two square miles each. The majority of
FMFCD drainage areas drain to one of 154 retention basins, and the rest discharge directly to the San
Page 70
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
Joaquin River or irrigation canals. Most stormwater in the FMFCD’s service area is allowed to percolate to
groundwater and is not discharged from these basins. The project site is in Drainage Area BL, and an existing
retention basin serving that area abuts the northeast project site boundary (FMFCD 2012). Project
development would increase impervious areas onsite, increasing runoff from the site. Thus, the project could
cause erosion if effective erosion control BMPs were not used. Erosion control and sediment control BMPs
in the project SWPPP will be discussed in the EIR.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Potentially Significant Impact. Storm runoff as a result of project implementation would be controlled
through a system of pipelines and storm drainage retention basins. The proposed project site is in Drainage
Area BL, and FMFCD has existing and planned facilities within and adjacent to the proposed site. The
project would result in increased runoff from the site. Pre- and postproject runoff amounts will be compared
in the EIR.
e) 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?
Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project may create runoff that exceeds the capacity of the
existing public drainage system. This issue will be further addressed in the EIR.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Potentially Significant Impact.
Project Construction
The project would require the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP; see further discussion above in
Section 5.9.a. Impacts would be potentially significant
Project Design and Project Operation
Operation of the proposed schools would increase pollutants that could contaminate stormwater compared
to the existing agricultural uses, vacant land, and four single-family residences. Impacts would be potentially
significant. Stormwater quality requirements will be described in the EIR.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
No Impact. The project site is in Flood Zone X, which is outside of 100-year flood zones (FEMA 2012).
The project does not include the development of housing. No impact would occur, and no further study of
this issue is required.
December 2014
Page 71
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. Project implementation would not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that
would impede or redirect flood flows. No impact would occur. This issue will not be further addressed in the
EIR.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Less Than Significant Impact. The closest dam is Pine Flat Dam, which is approximately 20 miles
northeast of the site. The project site is not within the dam inundation area of Pine Flat Dam (BSK 2014).
Impacts would be less than significant, and this issue will not be further considered in the EIR.
j)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Less Than Significant Impact. A seiche is a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken, usually
by earthquake activity. Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities, because inundation from a
seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank,
dam, or other artificial body of water. There are no water storage reservoirs on or near the project site (BSK
2014). Therefore, project development would not cause substantial hazards due to a seiche, and impacts
would be less than significant.
A tsunami is a series of ocean waves caused by a sudden displacement of the ocean floor, most often due to
earthquakes. The project site is approximately 75 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean, and there are several
mountain ranges between the ocean and the project site. The project site is not at risk from inundation by a
tsunami.
A mudflow is a type of landslide composed of saturated rock debris and soil with a consistency of wet
cement. The project area is nearly flat, and the project site is not in the flood plain of a stream. Projectrelated hazards associated with mudflows would be less than significant. The proposed project would be not
affected by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Impacts would not be significant. This issue will not be further
considered in the EIR.
5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project implementation would involve the construction of an Educational
Center on the 116-acre site. Approximately 36.5 acres of the northern portion of the site is in the City of
Fresno. The remainder is in unincorporated Fresno County, although also within the City’s sphere of
influence. As a part of the proposed project, the District will apply to the Fresno County LAFCO to annex
the 79.5-acre area within the SOI into the City of Fresno’s municipal boundaries. Once approved, the entire
project site would be within city limits.
Page 72
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
The Fresno County General Plan was last updated in 2000 and shows the unincorporated portion of the
project site and surrounding unincorporated areas as agricultural use. However, the project site and
surrounding areas are projected for urbanization and designated for development in both the current City of
Fresno 2025 General Plan and the proposed City of Fresno 2035 General Plan; the 2035 General Plan
proposes the site for Public/Quasi-Public Facilities use. The city’s existing and proposed land use maps
designate the areas west, north, and east of the site for residential uses and the area to the south for
commercial use.
Despite the fact that the project site is in two jurisdictions with conflicting land uses, one of the purposes of
the proposed Educational Center is to accommodate the projected growth in the area. The project would
serve students in the southeast portion of Fresno that are within the District’s boundaries. Because schools
are typically considered critical community facilities and not regarded as dividing communities, development
of the proposed project would not create a physical barrier that separates the site from the surrounding
community and uses. Moreover, since commercial uses are proposed to the south, the project is an acceptable
transitioning use between residential and commercial. The project would not divide an established
community. No significant impact would occur, and this issue will not be further considered in the EIR.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Potentially Significant Impact. The current City of Fresno 2025 General Plan maps land use designations
for the entire site even though about two-thirds of the site is in unincorporated Fresno County. However, the
City of Fresno designates zoning districts only within the 36.5-acre incorporated area. According to the land
use map, most of the site is designated for Medium Density Residential (5–10 residential units per acre), and
the southwest corner of the site is designated for Medium High Density Residential Use (10–18 units per
acre). The incorporated portion of the site is zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential). The City of Fresno is
currently updating its General Plan and, under the proposed land use map, the entire site is designated
Public/Quasi-Public Facility.
The unincorporated portion of the project site is zoned AL20 (Limited Agricultural) by the County of
Fresno and is designated Agriculture in the Fresno County General Plan. The proposed project is not
consistent with the intended uses of the Limited Agricultural zoning designation, which allows one family
dwellings, animal keeping, and farming uses. However, according to Section 817.2 (G) of the Fresno County
Municipal Code (2004), public schools are permitted on this land use, subject to director review and approval.
The Sanger USD Board of Trustees has the option to exempt the project from applicable general plan and
zoning requirements pursuant to California Government Code Section 53094(b).
As indicated above, both the City’s and the County’s Planning Commissions have found that the acquisition
and use of the site for the project conforms with the City’s General Plan, subject to certain conditions,
including annexation of the remaining. 79.5 acres into the City, as well as with the County’s General Plan. The
conditions recommended by the City’s Planning Commission will be addressed in the EIR.
December 2014
Page 73
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
No Impact. The project would not conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan. No impact would occur, and this issue will not be further addressed in the EIR.
5.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is mapped as Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3) by the
California Geological Survey, meaning that the area contains mineral deposits whose significance cannot be
determined from available data (CGS 1999). No mines are mapped on or near the site on the Mines Online
database maintained by the California Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR 2014). Project implementation
would not result in the loss of known mineral resources that would be a value to the region and state.
Impacts would not be significant, and this issue will not be further addressed in the EIR.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. Although the project site is in MRZ-3, the site is not in or adjacent to an existing or abandoned
mine or quarry. No mineral production site is mapped on or near the project site in the Fresno County
General Plan; the nearest such mapped production site is a sand and gravel mine near the City of Sanger
about six miles to the east (Fresno County 2000). No mining site is designated on or near the project site in
the City of Fresno 2025 General Plan (Fresno 2002). Therefore, project implementation would not result in
the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. No significant impacts would occur, and this
issue will not be further addressed in the EIR.
5.12 NOISE
Would the project:
a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established
by the school district, the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
Potentially Significant Impact. Noise limits are in Sections 10-101 et seq. of the City of Fresno Municipal
Code and in Chapter 8.40, Noise Control, of the Fresno County Code of Ordinances. The proposed project
would create elevated short-term noise impacts related to the operation of construction equipment and longterm impacts associated with operation of the Educational Center. Noise impacts in relation to city and
county noise ordinances will be analyzed in the EIR.
Page 74
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
b) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Potentially Significant Impact. Because the proposed project involves demolition of existing structures
and grading, groundborne vibration or noise would mainly be associated with the use of heavy earthmoving
equipment (bulldozers, scrapers, loaders, etc.). Vibration could cause annoyance at the residences to the west
and east of the project site and at Sequoia Elementary School. This topic will be discussed in the EIR.
Mitigation measures will be recommended as needed.
c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed in response a), the development and operation of the
proposed project would result in new sources of noise onsite and on nearby roadways. The EIR will evaluate
whether noise generated by traffic and athletic-related activities would substantially increase existing noise
levels at adjacent residential areas and the Sequoia Elementary School. Mitigation measures will be
recommended as needed.
d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Potentially Significant Impact. Project construction would result in temporary increases in ambient noise
at the existing Sequoia Elementary School and at nearby residential areas.
The approximate area of disturbance would be 116 acres, and improvements would include street
improvements and installation of wet and dry utilities. These potential impacts will be analyzed further in the
EIR. Mitigation measures will be recommended as needed.
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 expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The nearest airport is the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, approximately four miles
northwest of the site. The site is outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise level contour of Fresno Yosemite
International Airport and is not within any airport compatibility zone. 7 Project implementation would not
expose students or staff to excessive noise levels associated with aircraft or increase exposure to noise
associated with aircrafts. No impact would occur, and no further analysis is necessary.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The proposed project would not be developed within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The
nearest private airstrip to the project site is the PG&E Fresno Service Center Heliport, approximately six
miles northwest of the project site (Airnav.com). Due to distance, helicopters operating to and from this
7 CNEL is a Community Noise Equivalent Level, that is, the energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels during a 24-hour period,
with 5 dB added to the levels from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB added from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
December 2014
Page 75
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
heliport would not have a substantial effect on occupants of the project site, and project implementation
would not expose school occupants to excessive noise levels associated with a private airstrip. No significant
impact would occur, and no further analysis is necessary.
5.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not directly induce population growth in the
project area. The proposed Educational Center would accommodate existing and future SUSD students living
in the southeast Fresno area, as well as allow the District to relieve existing overcrowding at Sanger High
School and Washington Middle School. The new educational complex, however, would not result in the
creation of housing or businesses, or induce or accelerate population or residential development. The
location of the project site in the southeast Fresno area stems from the need for educational facilities by
projected residential development in this area. Project construction would generate a small number of
construction jobs during the construction period. It is expected that construction employment would be
absorbed from the regional labor force and would not attract new workers into the region. Project operation
is estimated to generate up to 320 employees. The unemployment rate in Fresno County in July 2014 was
estimated at 10.8 percent (EDD 2014). Therefore, as with construction employment, it is expected that
operational employment would be absorbed from the regional labor force and would not attract substantial
numbers of workers into the region. The proposed project would not stimulate population growth beyond
what is already projected to occur. Therefore, population growth impacts would be less than significant. This
issue will not be further considered in the EIR.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project implementation would require the acquisition of APNs 316-02227S, 316-022-32, 316-022-33, and 316-022-34, which contain residential structures. The project would include
relocation assistance for occupants of any properties that the District acquires through eminent domain.
Property acquisition will be conducted in accordance with the California Relocation Assistance Law
(California Government Code Section 7260 et seq.).
The vacancy rate in the Fresno Census County Division (Fresno CCD) in the 2010 US Census was 7.1
percent, or 16,463 vacant housing units (USCB 2014). The Fresno CCD includes the cities of Fresno and
Clovis and some surrounding areas of unincorporated Fresno County (but not the City of Sanger); thus,
Fresno CCD data is considered to represent the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area better than data from any
specific jurisdiction. There are adequate vacant housing units for households that would be displaced by the
project, and project implementation would not require the construction of replacement housing for the
tenants of these properties.
Page 76
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
Therefore, since there is available housing in the region and the project would comply with California
Relocation Assistance Law, impacts to displaced residents would be reduced to less than significant levels.
This issue will not be further considered in the EIR.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Less Than Significant Impact. The acquisition of APN 316-022-27S, APN 316-022-32, APN 316-022-33,
and APN 316-022-34 would displace several housing units onsite. The project would include relocation
assistance for occupants of any properties that the District acquired through eminent domain. There are
adequate vacant housing units in the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area to accommodate persons who would
be displaced by project development, and impacts would not be significant. This issue will not be further
considered in the EIR.
5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts to:
a) Fire protection?
Potentially Significant Impact. Upon annexation of the of the remaining 79.5 acres of the site into the
City of Fresno, the City of Fresno Fire Department (FFD) would provide fire protection services to the
project site. The nearest FFD station to the proposed project site is Station 15 at 5630 East Park Circle in the
City of Fresno, about 1.5 miles northwest of the project site.
The City of Fresno Fire Department (FFD) and the Fresno County Fire Protection District (FCFPD) have
an automatic aid agreement in which the nearest available and appropriate resource is dispatched to an
emergency call, regardless of jurisdiction. The nearest FCFPD fire stations to the project site are South
Fresno Station 87 at 4706 East Drummond Avenue in the City of Fresno, about 3.4 miles to the west; and the
Del Rey Station at 9700 East American Avenue in the Community of Del Rey in unincorporated Fresno
County, about 4.5 miles to the southeast.
Project development would increase demands for fire protection and emergency medical services * at the
project site. This impact would be potentially significant. The FFD will be consulted regarding project
impacts on their services and resources, and their responses will be discussed in the EIR. The project would
not result in the direct generation of population or students, and thus would not increase total demands for
fire protection in the FFD’s overall service area.
b) Police protection?
Potentially Significant Impact. Upon annexation of the of the remaining 79.5 acres of the site into the
City of Fresno, the City of Fresno Police Department (FPD) would provide police protection to the project
site from the southeast policing district’s station at 1617 South Cedar Avenue in the City of Fresno, about 5.5
Ambulance and paramedic-level Emergency Medical Services are provided to the project site by American Ambulance Company, as
the County’s exclusive provider of pre-hospital paramedic services.
*
December 2014
Page 77
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
miles northwest of the project site. The proposed project would result in the construction of a new middle
school and high school, but would not induce population growth. Project development would result in a
slight increase in demands for police protection by building and operating two schools with total capacity for
4,532 students. The project could result in slight increases in requirements for FPD resources, including
staffing and station building area. Impacts would be potentially significant and will be addressed in the EIR.
c) Schools?
No Impact. The demand for new school facilities is typically related to population growth and the
development of new housing. The proposed project would not involve the development of new housing, nor
is it expected to generate population growth. The project would provide local middle and high schools for
students in the western part of the District and would relieve existing overcrowding at Sanger High School
and Washington Academic Middle School. The project would have a favorable impact on school facilities,
and this issue will not be further considered in the EIR.
d) Parks?
No Impact. The demand for new parks is typically related to population growth and the development of
new housing. Since the proposed project would not involve the development of new housing nor directly
generate population growth, the project would not create a new demand for park services. The project would
include athletic facilities, including indoor facilities in two gymnasiums and outdoor hardcourts and playfields.
Project operations would not require students to use offsite recreational facilities. Athletic facilities at the
proposed schools would be made available for community use outside of school hours, pursuant to the Civic
Center Act.
The project would not require the construction of new or expanded parks; would not cause increased use of
existing parks; and would have some favorable impact regarding athletic facilities available to surrounding
communities. No adverse impact would occur, and this topic will not be addressed in the EIR.
e) Other public facilities?
No Impact. The Fresno County Public Library provides public library services to the project site and
surrounding areas. The nearest library facility to the project site is the Sunnyside Regional Library at 5566
East Kings Canyon Road in the City of Fresno, about 2.2 miles to the northwest. The need for new
government facilities, such as libraries, is generated by population growth. Since the proposed project
involves construction of an Educational Center to accommodate future population growth, it ultimately
would not stimulate population growth nor result in an increased demand for libraries. No impact would
result, and this issue will not be further considered in the EIR.
Page 78
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
5.15 RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
No Impact. The proposed project would not increase the use of existing recreational amenities. Demands
for parks and recreational facilities are generated by the population in the parks’ service areas. The project
does not include the development of housing and, thus, would not directly induce population growth or
increase demand on parks and recreation resources. Therefore, project development would not cause or
accelerate deterioration of recreational facilities. The project includes the development of athletic facilities,
and students would not need to use off-campus parks. No adverse impact would occur and this issue will not
be further considered in the EIR.
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 includes its own recreational facilities for use by the schools’ and District’s students.
The environmental effects associated with these facilities are analyzed as a part of the whole of the proposed
project. Development of the project does not include or require off-campus recreational facilities. The
project would not increase the population in surrounding communities and thus would not require
construction or expansion of offsite recreational facilities. No adverse impact would occur.
5.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed development is projected to increase morning peak hour and
evening peak hour traffic. A traffic impact analysis is being prepared for the proposed project. The findings
of the study will be included in the EIR.
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level
of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Potentially Significant Impact. A traffic impact analysis is being prepared for the proposed project. The
findings of the study will be included in the EIR.
December 2014
Page 79
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The Fresno Yosemite International Airport is approximately four miles northwest of the site.
The tallest buildings proposed as a part of the proposed project would be approximately 70 feet high. The
project site is outside of FYI height-restriction areas regulated pursuant to FAA Part 77 Regulations. Project
development would not require a change in air traffic patterns approaching or departing FYI. The project
would not change air traffic levels. No impact would occur, and this issue will not be further considered in the
EIR.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Potentially Significant Impact. The traffic impact analysis will evaluate potential hazards associated with
the design of the project. The findings of the study will be disclosed in the EIR.
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Potentially Significant Impact. The project would create parking demand onsite by students, staff, and
visitors. This impact would be potentially significant. The traffic impact study underway will determine
parking required for the project under the City of Fresno’s Municipal Code compared to proposed parking as
shown on the project site plan. The results of the parking analysis will be discussed in the EIR.
f) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed site plan shows eight driveways that would provide site
access: four from South Fowler Avenue, two from Church Street, and two from Armstrong Street. The
easternmost driveway from Church Street provides access to the areas behind the main school buildings and
to the center of the site. This driveway is also designated for student and bus loading and acts as a fire access
lane. The project would meet California Fire Code and California Department of Education requirements for
fire apparatus access roads. In addition, the FFD would evaluate site plans for access onto the site, access to
buildings, and adequate turning radii for emergency vehicles. Any FFD recommendations regarding fire
apparatus access and turning radii would be incorporated into project plans. Project impacts to emergency
access would be less than significant. No further analysis of this issue is required.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would include bike racks and school bus service, and it would
install sidewalks along the roads bounding the site. Public transit bus service is currently provided to Fresno
by Fresno Area Express (FAX) transit. The nearest FAX bus route to the project site is East Kings Canyon
Road, which is approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the project site. No FAX route currently runs on any of
the roadways adjacent to the project site. The nearest existing bicycle facility is about 0.4 miles to the north,
extending westward from Fowler Avenue (Fehr & Peers 2014). Project implementation would not conflict
with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Impacts would not be significant, and no further
analysis is necessary.
Page 80
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
5.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
Potentially Significant Impact. Project development would increase the generation of pollutants that could
contaminate stormwater. This impact would be potentially significant. Water quality requirements in the
Statewide General Construction Permit and the Fresno-Clovis Storm Water Quality Master Plan will be
discussed in the EIR under “Hydrology and Water Quality.”
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Less than Significant Impact.
Water Treatment
Water treatment facilities filter and/or disinfect water before it is delivered to customers. The City of Fresno
Public Utilities Department (PUD) would provide water to the proposed schools. The PUD operates the
Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (SWTF) with an existing capacity of 30 million gallons per day
(mgd) and plans for expansion to 60 mgd by 2020. In order to accommodate the area growth, the PUD plans
to open a new SWFT by 2015 with a capacity of 80 mgd. Thus, total surface water treatment capacity is
planned to be 140 mgd by 2020. Surface water originates from the Kings and San Joaquin Rivers (West Yost
2012).
Project Water Demands
The project would result in the development of two secondary schools with a total capacity of 4,532
students. Water demand by secondary schools is estimated at 15 gallons per student per day, based on the City
of Los Angeles’ estimate of water demand at secondary schools, which is 125 percent of estimated
wastewater generation (12 gpd per student; Los Angeles 2006). Thus, total water demand by the two schools
is forecast as about 67,980 gallons per day (gpd). School stadiums are estimated to use 5 gpd per seat, or 125
percent of wastewater generation, and theaters are estimated to use 4 gpd per seat, or 100 percent of
wastewater generation (Los Angeles 2006). The proposed stadium would have 8,500 seats, and the
performing arts center would have 800 seats. If these two facilities were used daily, they would need about
45,700 gpd water. However, they would only be used occasionally, so their actual water demands would be far
less. There is adequate existing and planned water treatment capacity in the region to meet project water
demands, and project development would not require construction of new or expanded water treatment
facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
December 2014
Page 81
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater from the project would be treated at the Fresno-Clovis Regional Water Reclamation Facility,
which has 80 mgd capacity and average wastewater flows of 68 mgd. The residual capacity at the facility is
therefore 12 mgd.
Project Wastewater Generation
The project is estimated to generate 54,384 gpd of wastewater, based on the City of Los Angeles wastewater
generation factor of 12 gpd per student for secondary schools (2006). The stadium and theater combined
would generate about 37,200 gallons of wastewater on days the facilities were used, based on the wastewater
generation factors mentioned above under Water Treatment. There is adequate wastewater treatment capacity in
the region for forecast project wastewater generation, and project development would not require
construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and
this topic will not be evaluated in the EIR.
c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Potentially Significant Impact. The project would develop a network of storm drains and storm drain
inlets onsite, and proposed storm drains would discharge to Basin BL next to the northeast site boundary.
Drainage impacts would be potentially significant. Existing and postproject hydrology and proposed storm
drainage improvements will be discussed in the EIR.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Potentially Significant Impact. Upon annexation of the of the remaining 79.5 acres of the site into the
City of Fresno, the City of Fresno PUD would provide water to the proposed schools. The schools would
generate water demands of approximately 67,980 gpd with some additional water demand by the stadium and
performing arts center. City of Fresno water supplies and demands will be discussed in the EIR.
e) Result in a determination by the waste water 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?
Potentially Significant Impact. Impacts to wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant, as
substantiated above in Section 5.17.b.
There are City-operated sewer mains next to the project site in Fowler Avenue, Church Avenue, and
Armstrong Avenue (Fresno 2013). Upon annexation of the of the remaining 79.5 acres of the site into the
City of Fresno, the City of Fresno will accept wastewater generated by the proposed project. It is unknown
whether those mains have capacity to serve the project, which would have a capacity for more than 4,500
students. The City of Fresno Wastewater Management Division will be contacted regarding whether existing
sewer mains next to the site have sufficient capacity to serve the project. Potential impacts to sewer capacity
will be assessed in the EIR.
Page 82
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
Less than Significant Impact. The project is estimated to generate about 0.6 pound of solid waste per
student per day (CalRecycle 2009), or 2,719 pounds per day for the planned 4,532-student capacity. Solid
waste would also be generated at the stadium and performing arts center. However, since those facilities
would only be used occasionally, the solid waste they generate would be a small fraction of the 2,719-poundper-day estimate.
Mid Valley Disposal provides solid waste collection for commercial land uses and multifamily uses of five or
more units in the part of the City of Fresno south of Ashlan Avenue. The project site is south of Ashlan
Avenue, and Mid Valley Disposal would provide solid waste collection for the proposed project (Schuber
2014).
In 2013, over 98 percent of solid waste landfilled from the City of Fresno was disposed at five landfills
described in Table 8, Landfills Serving the City of Fresno. The five landfills have total residual capacity of about
9,776 tons per day. Forecast solid waste generation for the project is 2,719 pounds per day (or about 1.36 tons
per day), which is about 0.014 percent of the residual landfill capacity in the region. There is adequate residual
landfill capacity in the region to accommodate project solid waste generation, and project development would
not require new landfills or expansions of existing landfills. Impacts would be less than significant, and this
topic will not be addressed in the EIR.
Table 8
Landfills Serving the City of Fresno
Facility:
Nearest Community: County
American Avenue Disposal
Site:
Tranquility:
Fresno
Avenal Regional Landfill:
Avenal:
Kings
Chemical Waste
Management, Inc. Unit B-17:
Kettleman City:
Kings
Fairmead Solid Waste
Disposal Site:
Fairmead:
Madera
H. M. Holloway Landfill:
Lost Hills:
Kern
Total
Maximum Permitted
Throughput,
tons per day
Average Disposal,
tons per day1
Residual Capacity,
tons per day
Remaining Capacity,
cubic yards (tons)
Estimated
Closing Date
2,200
1,568
632
29,358,535
(22,018,901)
2031
6,000
1,108
4,892
26,000,000
(19,500,000)
2020
2,000
Not Available
Not available
17,468,595
(13,101,446)
Not Available
1,100
568
532
5,552,894
(4,164,671)
2028
2,000
280
1,720
8,350,000
(6,262,500)
2019
13,300
3,524
9,776
86,730,024
(65,047,518)
Not applicable
Sources: CalRecycle 2014a; CalRecycle 2014b; CalRecycle 2014c; CalRecycle 2014d; CalRecycle 2014e; CalRecycle 2014f.
1 Based on five days per week operation.
December 2014
Page 83
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. The District complies with all federal and state efforts to reduce tonnage of solid waste going to
landfills, including Assembly Bill 939 (Integrated Solid waste Management Act of 1989; Public Resources
Code 40050 et seq.), the goal of which was to reduce tonnage to landfills by 50 percent by the year 2000.
Additionally, to reduce the amount of waste going into local landfills from schools, the state passed the
School Diversion and Environmental Education Law, Senate Bill 373, which required CalRecycle to develop
school waste reduction tools for use by school districts. In compliance with this law, CalRecycle encourages
school districts to establish and maintain a paper recycling program in all classrooms, administrative offices,
and other areas. The project would include storage areas for recyclable materials. Participation in this and
other such programs would be incorporated in the operation of the proposed Educational Center and would
further reduce solid waste generated from the project and assist in the county’s compliance with AB 939. The
project would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and no
significant impact would occur. This issue will not be further considered in the EIR.
5.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
Potentially Significant Impact. The project could impact sensitive species directly and/or through impacts
to habitat, historical resources, and archaeological or paleontological resources that may be buried in site soils.
Impacts to sensitive species, wildlife nursery sites, and cultural resources will be assessed in the EIR.
Mitigation measures will be identified, as needed.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects.)
Potentially Significant Impact. Potentially significant impacts of the proposed project to the following
resources are identified in this Initial Study: aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological
resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water
quality, land use and planning, noise and vibration, public services, traffic and transportation, and utilities and
service systems. Each of these impacts, as well as cumulative impacts to each of these resources, will be
analyzed in the EIR.
Page 84
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would have potentially significant impacts to
aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse
gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise and
vibration, public services, traffic and transportation, and utilities and service systems. These impacts could
potentially have adverse effects on humans. Each of these impacts will be assessed further in the EIR.
December 2014
Page 85
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
5. Environmental Analysis
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 86
PlaceWorks
6. References
Airnav.com. 2012, October 25. http://www.airnav.com/cgi-bin/airport-search.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008, October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A
Framework for Change.
———. 2011, June 23. Area Designations: Activities and Maps. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). 2007, November 7. Fire Hazard
Severity Zones in SRA: Fresno County.
http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/fresno/fhszs_map.10.pdf.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2014a, September 5. Jurisdiction
Disposal by Facility.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/Reports/DRS/Destination/JurDspFa.aspx.
———. 2014b, September 5.Facility/Site Summary Details: American Avenue Disposal Site.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/10-AA-0009/Detail/.
———. 2014c, September 5.Facility/Site Summary Details: Avenal Regional Landfill.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/16-AA-0004/Detail/.
———. 2014d, September 5.Facility/Site Summary Details: Chemical Waste Management, Inc. Unit B-17.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/16-AA-0027/Detail/.
———. 2014e, September 5.Facility/Site Summary Details: Fairmead Solid Waste Disposal Site.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/20-AA-0002/Detail/.
———. 2014f, September 5.Facility/Site Summary Details: H.M. Holloway Landfill.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/15-AA-0308/Detail/.
———. 2014g, September 5. Landfill Tonnage Reports.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Landfills/Tonnages/.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2011, September 7. California Scenic Highway Mapping
System http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm.
California Geological Survey (CGS). 2013, May 29. 2010 Fault Activity Map of California.
http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/FAM/faultactivitymap.html#.
———. 2014, September 4. Regulatory Maps. http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm.
December 2014
Page 87
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
6. References
———. 1999. Generalized Mineral Land Classification of Aggregate Resources in the Fresno P-C Region.
Open File Report 99-02. Plate 1 of 9. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR_9902/OFR_99-02_Plate1.pdf.
California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA). 2003, January. Stormwater Best Management Practice
Handbook: Construction.
Chung, Kathy (Senior Planner). 2013. Email. Fresno Council of Governments.
Davis Demographics. 2014, June 25. District-wide 7-Year and Maturation Projections.
Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP). 2014, September 3. California Important Farmland Finder
(CIFF). http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html.
Employment Development Department (EDD). 2014, September 4. Report 400C: Monthly Labor Force
Data for Counties. July 2014 – Preliminary. http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/countyur400c.pdf.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2011, July 21. Sanger Site: Radius Map Report with GeoCheck.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2014. GIS Flood Hazard Zones Data Layer.
Fehr & Peers. 2014, July 23. Exhibit 5.14-7: Existing Bicycle Facilities. In City of Fresno General Plan and
Development Code Update Master Environmental Impact Report.
http://webapp.fresno.gov/NewPlanFresno/MEIR%20Appendices/Appendix%20H%20%20Transportation/H-12%20Other%20Exhibits.pdf.
First Carbon Solutions. 2014, July 22. Section 5.12: Population and Housing. In City of Fresno General Plan and
Development Code Update Master Environmental Impact Report.
http://webapp.fresno.gov/NewPlanFresno/MEIR_Ind_Sections/31680016%20Sec%200512%20Pop%20and%20Housing%20Fresno%20MEIR%207.22.14.pdf.
Fresno, City of. 2012, August 30. Fresno Yosemite International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
http://www.fresno.gov/planningdocs/Plans/FYI.pdf.
———. 2011, January 31. 2025 Fresno General Plan Land Use and Circulation Map.
http://www.fresno.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FCF67454-3BE6-4667-99E98DD957A36D78/0/2025GeneralPlanLandUseCirculation.pdf.
Fresno County. 2000, October 3. Fresno County General Plan Background Report.
http://www.co.fresno.ca.us/viewdocument.aspx?id=5696.
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD). 2012, August 7. Storm Drainage and Flood Control
Master Plan.
http://fresnofloodcontrol.org/flood_control_system/urban%20system/Basin%20map.pdf.
Page 88
PlaceWorks
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
6. References
Hulbert, Steven (Environmental Scientist). 2014, September 4. Phone call. California Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
Los Angeles, City of. 2006. CEQA Thresholds Guide. http://www.ci.la.ca.us
/ead/programs/Thresholds/Complete%20Threshold%20Guide%202006.pdf.
McCormick Biological. 2014, May. Biological Evaluation of the Proposed Sanger School District Education
Center, Fresno County, California.
Odell Planning & Research, Inc. 2013, February 21. Sanger Unified School District Enrollment Projections
and Future School Needs 2013-2022.
Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR). 2014, September 4. Mines Online.
http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/mol-app.html.
Office of Public School Construction (OPSC). 2009, May. Enrollment Certification/Projection.
http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/opsc/Forms/SAB_50-01.pdf.
PlaceWorks. 2012, March 27. San Joaquin Valley Demographic Forecasts 2010 to 2050.
http://www.valleyblueprint.org/files/San%20Joaquin%20Valley%20Demographic%20Forecasts%20
-%20Final%2027%20Mar%202012_0.pdf.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2014, April 25. Ambient Air Quality Standards
& Valley Attainment Status.
http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm#Califronia%20Standards.
———. 2012, February 13. Rule 4102. http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4102.pdf.
Schuber, Jerry (Assistant Director of Public Utilities). 2014, September 10. Written response to service
questionnaire. City of Fresno Solid Waste Division.
US Census Bureau (USCB). 2014, September 4. DP-1: Profile of General Population and Housing
Characteristics: 2010 Demographic Profile Data. Fresno CCD, Fresno County, California.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_
DPDP1&prodType=table.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014, September 4. Habitat Conservation Plans.
http://ecos.fws.gov/conserv_plans/servlet/gov.doi.hcp.servlets.PlanReport.
West Yost Associates, Inc. 2012, November. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, City of Fresno.
http://www.fresno.gov/NR/rdonlyres/3795B9BD-E030-492D-8215-1A6654C1D932
/0/TextFinal2010CityofFresnoUWMPNovember2012.pdf.
December 2014
Page 89
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
6. References
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 90
PlaceWorks
7. List of Preparers
7.1
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Richard Sepulveda, Chief Operations Officer
7.2
PLACEWORKS
Dwayne Mears, Principal, School Facilities Planning
Barbara Wu Heyman, Associate Principal, School Facilities Planning
Michael Milroy, Project Planner
Nicole Vermilion, Associate Principal, Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Fernando Sotelo, Senior Scientist, Noise Analysis
Cary Nakama, Graphic Artist
7.3
DARDEN ARCHITECTS
Edwin C. Goodwin, AIA
December 2014
Page 91
EDUCATIONAL CENTER INITIAL STUDY
SANGER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
7. List of Preparers
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 92
PlaceWorks