Files.hudexchange.info



Environmental AssessmentDeterminations and Compliance Findingsfor HUD-assisted Projects24 CFR Part 50Project InformationProject?Name:Parc-at-Windmill-FarmsHEROS?Number:900000010035371Applicant?/?Grant?Recipient:D4R, LLCPoint?of?Contact: Timothy BartonHUD?Preparer:Mike McCordConsultant?(if?applicable):Point?of?Contact: Project?Location:Windmill Farms Boulevard & Concord Drive, Forney, TX 75126Additional?Location?Information:The subject property consists of 18.451 acres of primarily undeveloped land with the remains of a metal barn and a concrete foundation . In addition, a concrete utility structure and a billboard are located at the subject property. The subject site is located on the north side of Highway 80 Frontage Road, the west side of Windmill Farms Boulevard, and the south side of Concord Drive. The subject property is bounded to the north by residential properties, Concord Drive, Manassas Drive, and Windmill Farms Private School; to the south by a frontage road and Highway 80/East Broad Street; to the east by Windmill Farms Boulevard, undeveloped land, and a water treatment facility; and to the west by agricultural land. Access to the site will be available via one curb cut along Windmill Farms Boulevard (main entrance), one curb cut along Concord Drive, and one curb cut along Highway 80 Frontage Road. Highway 80 is a four-lane median divided highway that provides access to other areas of Forney, Mesquite, and the Dallas CBD. The site is primarily flat with grass, shrubs and trees.Description of the Proposed Project [24 CFR 50.12 & 58.32; 40 CFR 1508.25]:The proposed transaction will allow for the new construction of Parc at Windmill Farms, a 17-building, two-story project containing 272 units and located in Forney, TX (Kaufman County). The proposed project will contain 116 one-bedroom, 120 two-bedroom, and 36 three-bedroom market rate units in 17 residential buildings, plus one clubhouse building, one fitness building and two swimming pools. The property will be contained on a single site, approximately 18.45 acres. The development site is zoned MF-15 for multifamily development and the proposed project is a legal conforming use. The construction period is estimated at 22 months plus 2 months of cost certification. On behalf of the Borrower, D4FR, LLC, and the Developer, JMJ Development, Greystone Servicing Corporation, Inc. submits this Firm Application for a $36,540,600 mortgage to be insured under Section 221(d)(4) of the National Housing Act. Site control is evidenced by a purchase and sale agreement dated July 12, 2016 between D4FR, LLC (Buyer), and ABC Land Development, Inc. (Seller) for $2,176,000. Including the $33,000 acquisition-related cost, the total purchase price for the site will be $2,209,000. The transaction will not involve the payoff of any existing debt, as the proposed mortgage will finance the purchase of the project site in an arms-length sale. The project site will be transferred to the borrower free and clear of prior liens at Initial Endorsement.Does this project involve over 200 lots, dwelling units, or beds? NoYes (Consult early with the Environmental Clearance Officer (ECO), who is required to sign off on this project if it requires an Environmental Assessment)Statement of Purpose and Need for the Proposal [40 CFR 1508.9(b)]:According to the HUD Area Economist, "the overall rental market in Kaufman County is tight with a 3.0 percent vacancy rate down significantly from 9.9 percent in April 2010. The apartment market in Kaufman County is also tight with a 1.9 percent vacancy rate." "Building activity, as measured by the number of multifamily units permitted, has been minimal in Kaufman County. Gateway Oaks, a 313-unit project is currently under construction with completion estimated in November 2016. Prior to this project there were 490 multifamily units permitted in Kaufman County between 2010 and 2014 and these projects currently have a 1.3 percent average vacancy rate. From 2000 through 2010 a total of 750 multifamily units were permitted in the county. Based on expected employment and population growth during the next three years coupled with tight apartment market conditions in Kaufman county, EMAD estimates that there is sufficient sustainable demand for 272 additional apartment units in the HMA during the next three years at the rents proposed." Accounting for household trends, necessary unit replacement, and a stabilized structural vacancy rate of 5.0 percent. The market analyst,.RPRG, projects an excess demand of 21 rental units in the subject's market area as of June 2019. Typically, an absolute net demand figure of 25 units indicates a market place essentially in balance. In this case, RPRG posits that the demand analysis significantly underestimates latent demand for rental product. The subject will partially alleviate pent up rental demand in the market and provide quality, affordable housing.Existing Conditions and Trends [24 CFR 58.40(a)]:Economic conditions in Kaufman County remain strong. Kaufman County is part of the Dallas-Plano-Irving Metropolitan Division. During the 12 months ending July 2016, nonfarm payrolls in the Dallas Metropolitan Division totaled nearly 2.47 million, an increase of 107,600, or 4.6 percent. During the previous 12 months' nonfarm payrolls increased by 98,800, or 4.4 percent. The continued strong household growth in the market area, largely generated by the development of large-scale for-sale single family neighborhoods, translate to a growing demand for transitional housing from larger family households. As of 4Q 2016, the Dallas multifamily market area had a vacancy rate of just 3.8%, with Class A properties averaging 4.7%. For the Mesquite/Seagoville submarket, the same showed just 1.2% and 0.8% of vacancy, respectively. According to the appraiser, the overall average occupancy at the five stabilized, Class A, comparable properties (1,136 units) from his March 18, 2017 survey is 95.4%. Three of these properties are HUD-insured and are doing well: Heather Creek (96%), Savoy of Garland (97%), and Sonoma Court (95%). We have conservatively underwritten occupancy at 93% per HUD guidelines. The unmet demand in the PMA is positive in the next three years. According to the March 2017 appraisal, there is NO market rate apartment development planned, proposed, or under construction in the submarket. The demographic analysis augurs well for a more diverse offering -- only 16 percent of current renters fall with the young professional age range of 25 to 34 years; only 13 percent of market area households live alone; 74 percent of renter households contain two or more people, and 53 percent of renter households contain three or more people. The only option currently available for potential renters seeking three bedroom rentals in the market area are single family detached product. The median price of the listed single-family product at $1,538 is comparable to the proposed rents of the three bedrooms at the subject. However, the subject will offer "hassle-free" living with on-site management and a superb set of amenities not available in single-family homes. Additionally, leasing agents at Gateway Cedars indicate that they receive requests for three bedroom models at least once a week. If the subject's proposed 272 units are not constructed, the shortage of quality affordable housing in the primary market area will be exasperated.Maps, photographs, and other documentation of project location and description:Parc at WMF, Location MapsDOC031.pdfParc at WMF, Location Maps 2,DOC031.pdfDetermination:Finding of No Significant Impact [24 CFR 58.40(g)(1); 40 CFR 1508.13] The project will not result in a significant impact on the quality of human environmentFinding of Significant ImpactReview?Certified?byKenneth Cooper, Production Division Directoron08/17/2017Funding Information Grant / Project Identification NumberHUD Program Program Name113-35682Housing: Multifamily FHASection 221(d)(4). Mortgage Insurance for new construction or substantial rehabilitation of Multifamily Rental Housing - profit-motivated sponsorsEstimated Total HUD Funded, Assisted or Insured Amount: $36,540,600.00Estimated Total Project Cost [24 CFR 58.2 (a) (5)]:$36,540,600.00Compliance with 24 CFR §50.4, §58.5 and §58.6 Laws and AuthoritiesCompliance Factors: Statutes, Executive Orders, and Regulations listed at 24 CFR §50.4, §58.5, and §58.6Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required?Compliance determination(See Appendix A for source determinations)STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS LISTED AT 24 CFR §50.4 & § 58.6Airport HazardsClear Zones and Accident Potential Zones; 24 CFR Part 51 Subpart D Yes NoAccording to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) information accessed at ? action=showCircleSearchAirportsForm, there are no military airports within 2 A1/2 miles of the subject property or civil airport runways within 3,000 feet of the subject property. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) information accessed at ? action=showCircleSearchAirportsForm and . See Appendix N.Coastal Barrier Resources Act Coastal Barrier Resources Act, as amended by the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 [16 USC 3501] Yes NoThis project is not located in a CBRS Unit. Therefore, this project has no potential to impact a CBRS Unit and is in compliance with the Coastal Barrier Resources Act.Flood InsuranceFlood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 [42 USC 4001-4128 and 42 USC 5154a] Yes NoAccording to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) #48257C-0175D, dated July 3, 2012, the subject property is located in Zone X, designated as an area outside the 100 and 500-year flood zones and the flood potential for the subject property is minimal. In addition, according to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Status Book accessed at , the subject property is located in Community ID #480411, which is a participating community in the NFIP.STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS LISTED AT 24 CFR §50.4 & § 58.5Air QualityClean Air Act, as amended, particularly section 176(c) & (d); 40 CFR Parts 6, 51, 93 Yes NoAccording to and the EPA NEPAssist tool accessed at , the subject property is located within a Non-attainment area for 8-Hour Ozone. The subject property is the proposed location of of a 272-unit multi-family apartment complex consisting of seventeen (17) apartment buildings, a clubhouse, and a clubhouse/leasing office. Appropriate provisions will be made to minimize air quality impacts due to asphalt paving activities, and appropriate dust suppression measures will be implemented during grading activities. There will be no open burning of construction materials. Use of equipment for construction will result in minor air emissions. The EPA's General Conformity regulations require Federal actions to conform to the state implementation plan (SIP) for attainment of each relevant air quality standard. A detailed conformity determination is not required for a federal action whose projected annual emissions are shown to be below the applicable Texas air quality standard de minimis thresholds of 25 tons per year (tpy) of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (Nox). In EPA's General Conformity Guidance: Questions and Answers; July 13, 1994, EPA states that "Historical analysis of similar actions could be used in cases where the proposed projects are similar in size and scope to previous projects." To determine estimated increases in emissions for this project we used a historical analysis of a similar project, the Uptown Orange Apartments in Orange, California, which consisted of the development of two (2) 4-story apartment buildings comprising 334 apartment units and two (2) parking structures which included 1,173 parking stalls. The Uptown Orange development contained a total square footage of 702,818 square feet. Project construction activities generate short-term air quality impacts, while long term air quality impacts include operation emissions consisting of mobile emissions, maintenance and landscape activities, and energy use emissions from water and heating of the apartments. The Uptown Orange project emissions were estimated for VOC, NOx, SO2, and PM-2.5 for each pollutant as indicated in the table below: Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (unmitigated) Tons/Year VOC 12.67 NOx 17.10 Unmitigated Operations Emissions VOC 7.10 NOx 4.93 Total Emissions (unmitigated) VOC 19.77 NOx 22.03 3.83 Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study - Uptown Orange Apartments in Orange, CA Based on these values, the project related VOC and NOx emissions for the Uptown Orange development, used here as an example for the proposed undertaking, are less than the de minimis emissions thresholds per Texas Air Quality Standards. The proposed development features less building square footage and fewer overall residential units and parking spaces than the Uptown Orange example. Therefore, the total emissions from the proposed development are expected to be similar to, or even less than, those attributed to the Uptown Orange Apartments in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study. As the total projected emissions do not exceed the de minimis thresholds for General Conformity, D3G is of the opinion that the proposed project will not have an "Effect" on air quality and the project is in compliance with Texas's State Implementation Plan (SIP). Therefore, a detailed conformity analysis is not required.0Coastal Zone Management ActCoastal Zone Management Act, sections 307(c) & (d) Yes NoAccording to the Texas Coastal Management Program (accessed at ), Kaufman County is not located within a Coastal Management Zone.Contamination and Toxic Substances24 CFR 50.3(i) & 58.5(i)(2)] Yes NoDominion Due Diligence Group performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-13 of the Proposed Parc at Windmill Farms located at Windmill Farms Boulevard in Forney, Kaufman County, Texas (subject property). Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 2.4 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the subject property.Endangered Species ActEndangered Species Act of 1973, particularly section 7; 50 CFR Part 402 Yes NoAn Official Species List was generated for the subject property by utilizing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) System, accessed at . According to an Official Species List generated for the subject property, four (4) endangered or threatened species have the potential to be located within the subject property boundaries. D3G has submitted a determination letter to the appropriate state USFWS field office. As of the date of this report, D3G has not received a response to this inquiry. Upon receipt of the agency response, D3G will forward this information as an addendum to this report. If no response is received or no material information is identified, our report will not be modified.Explosive and Flammable HazardsAbove-Ground Tanks)[24 CFR Part 51 Subpart C Yes NoBased on the site visit conducted by D3G on June 16, 2016, there are no facilities handling explosive or fireaA?A?prone materials such as liquid propane, gasoline, or other storage tanks as defined by 24 CFR 51.201 located onaA?A?site, adjacent to, or visible from the subject property (refer to the site photographs provided within Appendix C). D3G contacted the Forney Fire Department on June 2, 2016, for a review of their environmental records (i.e. USTs, hazardous materials storage, and spills) for the subject property. According to Chief Rick Townsend, the fire department has not responded to hazmat spills at the subject property and that there are no thermal/explosive hazards on or in the vicinity of the subject property that would adversely affect the subject property.Farmlands ProtectionFarmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, particularly sections 1504(b) and 1541; 7 CFR Part 658 Yes NoAccording to the U.S. Census Bureau Urbanized Area Map, accessed at , the subject is located within an urbanized area; therefore, the subject property is already in an area committed to urban development and is exempt from compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy.Floodplain ManagementExecutive Order 11988, particularly section 2(a); 24 CFR Part 55 Yes NoAccording to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) #48257C-0175D, dated July 3, 2012, the subject property is located in Zone X, designated as an area outside the 100 and 500-year flood zones and the flood potential for the subject property is minimal. In addition, according to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Status Book accessed at community-status-book, the subject property is located in Community ID #480411, which is a participating community in the NFIP.Historic PreservationNational Historic Preservation Act of 1966, particularly sections 106 and 110; 36 CFR Part 800 Yes NoThe subject property is not listed, and is not suspected to be eligible to be listed, in the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, the subject property is not located within a historic district of the City of Forney or Kaufman County. D3G has submitted a determination letter to the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). According to Mr. Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer, the proposed project will not affect any historic properties and the project may proceed. On July 7, 2017, HUD contacted the following Tribes via certified mail, which may potentially have an interest in the site, according to tribal Directory Assistance Tool (TDAT), requesting Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act regarding the Parc at Windmill Farms, in Forney, Texas: * Linda Langley, THPO, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana * Ms. Terri Parton, President, Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma * Ms. Lauren J. Norman-Brown, THPO, Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma * Ms. Kim Penrod, NAGPRA/106 Director, Delaware Nation, Oklahoma * Ms. Martina Callahan, TPHO, Comanche Nation, Oklahoma * Mr. Bobby Komardley, Chairman, Apache Tribe of Oklahoma * Ms. Tamara Francis Fourkiller, Caddo Nation of Oklahoma The tribes were requested to advice HUD of their interest in the site within 30 days of the date of the letter. On July 12, 2017, Kimberly Penrod, NAGPRA/106 Director of the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma responded via email to Brandi Satre of HUD. In it, Ms. Penrod said the Delaware Nation concurs with the proposed project but requested to be kept appraised if any discoveries arise during construction.Noise Abatement and ControlNoise Control Act of 1972, as amended by the Quiet Communities Act of 1978; 24 CFR Part 51 Subpart B Yes NoThe subject property is located within 1,000 feet of Highway 80, within 3,000 feet of a Union Pacific and Amtrak railway, and within fifteen (15) miles of the Mesquite Metro Airport. There are no military airfields within fifteen (15) miles of the subject property. Four (4) different noise assessment locations (NALs) were evaluated to better define the noise levels at the property. The projected DNL value for all noise sources for the buildings ranges from 68.0 decibels (dB) to 74.6 dB. Pursuant to 24 CFR 51.101(a)(3), the composite DNL between 65 and 75 dB is "normally unacceptable."Sole Source AquifersSafe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended, particularly section 1424(e); 40 CFR Part 149 Yes NoAccording to the Sole Source Aquifer layer obtained from EPA NEPAssist accessed at , the subject property is not serviced or supplied by a protected aquifer system. .Wetlands ProtectionExecutive Order 11990, particularly sections 2 and 5 Yes Nowetland delineation/determination has not been performed at the subject property; however, according to the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Layer accessed at and visual observations, there are not suspected to be any wetland areas on the subject property.Wild and Scenic Rivers ActWild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, particularly section 7(b) and (c) Yes NoAccording to the website accessed at, , there are no Wild and Scenic Rivers in the vicinity of the subject property. In addition, there are no Texas Rivers listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory list that are upstream or downstream of the subject property. A copy of the Wild and Scenic Rivers List and Nationwide Rivers Inventory list for Texas is included in Appendix N.HUD HOUSING ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDSHousing Requirements (50)[MAP Guide - Chapter 9: Lead-based paint, Radon, and Asbestos] Yes NoD3G recommends that a Radon Report be prepared by a properly certified (and licensed if applicable) radon professional in accordance with HUD guidelines. The report should document the compliance of the proposed mitigation design and implementation as well as detail the post-construction testing requirements. According to a letter dated July 25, 2016 from BGO Architects, the proposed structures will be of slab-on-grade construction with no basements or subterranean rooms. In addition, a certified radon professional will be consulted to prepare the Radon Report.ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICEEnvironmental JusticeExecutive Order 12898 Yes NoThe subject property is not located in a low-income or predominately minority area within Kaufman County, as 93% of the population in the area surrounding the subject property is above the poverty level and the percent minority for the subject property and its surrounding area is 39%. D3G does not believe that the project site or neighborhood suffer from disproportionately adverse environmental effects on minority and low-income populations relative to the community-at-large as there are no adverse environmental impacts identified on the subject property nor immediately surrounding areas.Environmental Assessment Factors [24 CFR 58.40; Ref. 40 CFR 1508.8 &1508.27] Impact Codes: An impact code from the following list has been used to make the determination of impact for each factor. (1) Minor beneficial impact(2) No impact anticipated (3) Minor Adverse Impact – May require mitigation (4) Significant or potentially significant impact requiring avoidance or modification which may require an Environmental Impact Statement. Environmental Assessment FactorImpact CodeImpact EvaluationMitigationLAND DEVELOPMENTSOCIOECONOMICCOMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICESNATURAL FEATURESSupporting documentationParc at Windmill Farms_PhaseI.pdfParc at Windmill Farms_MktRpt.pdfParc at Windmill Farms - EMAD pre-app. review.pdfAdditional Studies Performed:A database of Federal and State agencies was compiled by DG Dominion, Due Diligence Gorup for this investigation. The federal listings searched included NPL, NPL De-listed, RCRA-TSD, RCRA, CERCLIS, CORRACTS, Brownfields and ERNS. The state listings searched included UST, LUST, SHWS, Brownfields, VCP, and SWL.Field Inspection [Optional]: Date and completed by:David P. Brown9/12/2016 12:00:00 AMList of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted [40 CFR 1508.9(b)]:State Regulatory Records * STATE AND TRIBAL LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK DATA (LUST) * STATE AND TRIBAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK DATA (UST) *STATE AND TRIBAL VOLUNTARY CLEANUP PROGRAM SITES (VCP) * STATE AND TRIBAL BROWNFIELD SITES (BROWNFIELDS) * STATE AND TRIBAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES (SHWS) * STATE AND TRIBAL INSTITUTIONAL/ENGINEERING CONTROLS (IC/EC) * STATE AND TRIBAL REGISTERED SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS (SWL) (Source - State of Texas governmental records accessed by Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR). No state-regulated facilities were identified in the EDR Report. Federal Regulatory Records DATABASE * EPA NATIONAL PRIORITIES LISTING (NPL - SUPERFUND) * EPA NATIONAL PRIORITIES LISTING (NPL - DELISTED SITES) * EPA COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT (CERCLIS) * EPA COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE,COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT (CERCLIS) NO FURTHER REMEDIAL ACTION PLANNED (NFRAP) * EPA RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA) * EPA RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA) TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL (TSD) * FEDERAL INSTITUTIONAL/ENGINEERING CONTROLS (IC/EC) *EPA EMERGENCY RESPONSE NOTIFICATION-SITES (ERNS) * EPA RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION REPORT (CORRACTS) SOURCE - Environmental Protection Agency records accessed by Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR) No Federally-regulated facilities were identified in the EDR Report. Additional Environmental Record Sources: The northern adjacent Windmill Farms Private School is identified in the EDR Report as a Dry Cleaner. According to the EDR Report, the facility was active in 2008 and 2009 and contained a drop station registration. Based on the current use of the facility (a school), the lack of reported leaks or spills at the facility, and the compliance with environmental guidelines, the former dry cleaner is not suspected to present environmental concerns to the subject property. There were no other sources for environmental records that were reviewed for this study.List of Permits Obtained: No permits required.Public Outreach [24 CFR 58.43]:No public outreach was completed beyond pubic hearings by the Forney Planning and Zoning Board.Cumulative Impact Analysis [24 CFR 58.32]: There is a great demand for housing in this area. The subject project will help alleviate this housing shortage and support concrete plans for future development of commercial, retail and community services in the primary market area in order to meet future demand in this rapidly growing area of the Dallas metroplex.Alternatives [24 CFR 58.40(e); 40 CFR 1508.9] This property could be sold to another private developer for other uses. Based on the current housing and rental market, it can be assumed the property, which is zoned to allow multifamily residential development and located within the city's commercial business district, would become market rate housing. According to the consolidated plan, the great need for multifamily housing in this area of Austin will not be met by this alternative.No Action Alternative [24 CFR 58.40(e)] The proposed project site consists of undeveloped land. While no immediate adverse impacts will occur from not moving forward with this project, implementation will bring long-term benefits to future residents, in addition to the surrounding neighborhood. Without this project, there would be a shortage of new, safe, modern low-income affordable housing in this area of Forney.Summary of Findings and Conclusions: Findings: * Standard Environmental Records Review: Adjacent * Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBS): On-site * Dumping, Landfills: On-site * Radon: On-site * Noise: On-site * Natural Gas Pipeline On-site Conclusions The assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the subject property. Based on the identified environmental concerns discussed in Section 10.0 of D3G Phase I assessment, the following is recommended: * Radon Gas. D3G recommends that a Radon Report be prepared by a properly certified (and licensed if applicable) radon professional in accordance with HUD guidelines. * Noise. The projected DNL value for all noise sources for the calculated buildings ranges from 68.0 dB to 74.6 dB. Sound mitigation is required. According to a letter dated July 25, 2016 from BGO Architects, sound mitigation will include an engineered system to address the STC rating of the facade walls, exterior windows, exterior doors, and roof/ceiling systems, An acoustics engineer will prepare a final noise mitigation plan. In addition, an exterior mitigation (i.e. barrier attenuation) will need to reduce the exterior noise levels at the pools by at least 6.6 dB and 7.2 dB, respectively. Finally, based on the fact that there are elevated noise levels in areas of the site containing the residential buildings, consideration should be given to areas of the site with elevated noise levels (above 65 dB) if balconies, other than Juliette style balconies, are to be incorporated into the building design.Mitigation Measures and Conditions [CFR 1505.2(c)]: Summarized below are all mitigation measures adopted by the Responsible Entity to reduce, avoid or eliminate adverse environmental impacts and to avoid non-compliance or non-conformance with the above-listed authorities and factors. These measures/conditions must be incorporated into project contracts, development agreements and other relevant documents. The staff responsible for implementing and monitoring mitigation measures should be clearly identified in the mitigation plan. Law, Authority, or FactorMitigation Measure or ConditionComments on Completed MeasuresCompleteNoise Abatement and ControlBased on the noise mitigation study prepared by dP(a) Acoustics, Inc. dated May 11, 2017. dP(a) Acoustics, Inc., three (3) acoustical zones associated with the proposed structures were identified based on the calculated noise levels with recommended wall, window and door assemblies to achieve interior noise levels of below 45 dB within each of the acoustical zones. In addition, acoustical screens were proposed in three (3) areas surrounding the three (3) of the courtyards (1, 3 and 4) to ensure noise levels in those areas do not exceed the established 65 dB level. Therefore, based on the provided noise mitigation study, the building interior noise levels and exterior congregating area noise levels should be acceptable as defined by 24 CFR 51.101(a)(3).Prior to issuance of a firm commitment, a certification is required from the supervisory architect that upon completion the subject will be in compliance with (24 CFR Part 51, Subpart B). N/A Housing Requirements (50)Radon GasD3G recommends that a Radon Report be prepared by a properly certified (and licensed if applicable) radon professional in accordance with HUD guidelines, as stated in 9.5.C of the MAP Guide:a. Certification from either the American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists (AARST) National Radon Proficiency Program (NRPP) or the National Radon Safety Board (NRSB); andb. Certification/License from the state in which the testing or mitigation work is being conducted, if the state has this requirement.The report should document the compliance of the proposed mitigation design and implementation as well as detail the post-construction testing requirements. According to a letter dated July 25, 2016 from BGO Architects, the proposed structures will be of slab-on-grade construction with no basements or subterranean rooms. In addition, a certified radon professional will be consulted to prepare the Radon Report.Prior to issuance of a firm commitment, a certification is required from the supervisory architect that upon completion the subject will be in compliance with 9.5.C.2.f. of the MAP Guide.N/A Permits, reviews and approvalsNo permits required.N/A Noise Abatement and controlPrior to issuance of a firm commitment, a certification is required from the supervisory architect that upon completion the subject will be in compliance with (24 CFR Part 51, Subpart B)N/A Radon GasPrior to issuance of a firm commitment, a certification is required from the supervisory architect that upon completion the subject will be in compliance with 9.5.C.2.f. of the MAP Guide.N/A Mitigation PlanPrior to initial endorsement, the HUD Closing Coordinator shall coordinate with the HUD A&E Cost Analyst and/or Appraiser, as applicable, to ensure that conditions in the firm commitment have been satisfied.Noise Study and Mitigation Plan 002.pdfNoise Study and Mitigation Plan 001.pdfSupporting documentation on completed measuresAPPENDIX A: Related Federal Laws and Authorities Airport HazardsGeneral policyLegislationRegulationIt is HUD’s policy to apply standards to prevent incompatible development around civil airports and military airfields. 24 CFR Part 51 Subpart D1.To ensure compatible land use development, you must determine your site’s proximity to civil and military airports. Is your project within 15,000 feet of a military airport or 2,500 feet of a civilian airport?NoBased on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Document and upload the map showing that the site is not within the applicable distances to a military or civilian airport belowYesScreen SummaryCompliance DeterminationAccording to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) information accessed at ? action=showCircleSearchAirportsForm, there are no military airports within 2 A1/2 miles of the subject property or civil airport runways within 3,000 feet of the subject property. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) information accessed at ? action=showCircleSearchAirportsForm and . See Appendix N.Supporting documentation Parc at WM 2.5 airport bufferDOC038.pdfAre formal compliance steps or mitigation required? YesNoCoastal Barrier ResourcesGeneral requirementsLegislationRegulationHUD financial assistance may not be used for most activities in units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). See 16 USC 3504 for limitations on federal expenditures affecting the CBRS. Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982, as amended by the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (16 USC 3501) Is the project located in a CBRS Unit?NoDocument and upload map and documentation below. YesCompliance DeterminationThis project is not located in a CBRS Unit. Therefore, this project has no potential to impact a CBRS Unit and is in compliance with the Coastal Barrier Resources Act.Supporting documentation Parc at Windmill, Coastal-Barrier-Resources-Worksheet.pdfAre formal compliance steps or mitigation required? YesNoFlood InsuranceGeneral requirementsLegislationRegulationCertain types of federal financial assistance may not be used in floodplains unless the community participates in National Flood Insurance Program and flood insurance is both obtained and maintained.Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 as amended (42 USC 4001-4128)24 CFR 50.4(b)(1) and 24 CFR 58.6(a) and (b); 24 CFR 55.1(b).1.Does this project involve financial assistance for construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition of a mobile home, building, or insurable personal property?No. This project does not require flood insurance or is excepted from flood insurance. Yes2.Upload a FEMA/FIRM map showing the site here: Floodplain Map, Parc @ WMV(1).pdfParc at Windmill, Flood-Insurance-Worksheet.pdfThe Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designates floodplains. The FEMA Map Service Center provides this information in the form of FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). For projects in areas not mapped by FEMA, use the best available information to determine floodplain information.? Include documentation, including a discussion of why this is the best available information for the site. Provide FEMA/FIRM floodplain zone designation, panel number, and date within your documentation. Is the structure, part of the structure, or insurable property located in a FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area? No Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. YesScreen SummaryCompliance DeterminationAccording to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) #48257C-0175D, dated July 3, 2012, the subject property is located in Zone X, designated as an area outside the 100 and 500-year flood zones and the flood potential for the subject property is minimal. In addition, according to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Status Book accessed at , the subject property is located in Community ID #480411, which is a participating community in the NFIP.Supporting documentation Floodplain Map, Parc @ WMV.pdfParc at Windmill, Floodplain-Management-Worksheet(1).pdfAre formal compliance steps or mitigation required? YesNoAir QualityGeneral requirementsLegislationRegulationThe Clean Air Act is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which sets national standards on ambient pollutants. In addition, the Clean Air Act is administered by States, which must develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to regulate their state air quality. Projects funded by HUD must demonstrate that they conform to the appropriate SIP. Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq.) as amended particularly Section 176(c) and (d) (42 USC 7506(c) and (d))40 CFR Parts 6, 51 and 931.Does your project include new construction or conversion of land use facilitating the development of public, commercial, or industrial facilities OR five or more dwelling units?YesNoAir Quality Attainment Status of Project’s County or Air Quality Management District 2.Is your project’s air quality management district or county in non-attainment or maintenance status for any criteria pollutants?No, project’s county or air quality management district is in attainment status for all criteria pollutants. Yes, project’s management district or county is in non-attainment or maintenance status for the following criteria pollutants (check all that apply): Carbon Monoxide LeadNitrogen dioxideSulfur dioxideOzoneParticulate Matter, <2.5 micronsParticulate Matter, <10 microns3.What are the de minimis emissions levels (40 CFR 93.153) or screening levels for the non-attainment or maintenance level pollutants indicated aboveOzone0.00ppb (parts per million)Provide your source used to determine levels here: According to and the EPA NEPAssist tool accessed at, the subject property is located within a Non-attainment area for 8-Hour Ozone. 4.Determine the estimated emissions levels of your project. Will your project exceed any of the de minimis or threshold emissions levels of non-attainment and maintenance level pollutants or exceed the screening levels established by the state or air quality management district?No, the project will not exceed de minimis or threshold emissions levels or screening levels. Enter the estimate emission levels:Ozone0.00ppb (parts per million)Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Yes, the project exceeds de minimis emissions levels or screening levels.Screen SummaryCompliance DeterminationAccording to and the EPA NEPAssist tool accessed at , the subject property is located within a Non-attainment area for 8-Hour Ozone. The subject property is the proposed location of of a 272-unit multi-family apartment complex consisting of seventeen (17) apartment buildings, a clubhouse, and a clubhouse/leasing office. Appropriate provisions will be made to minimize air quality impacts due to asphalt paving activities, and appropriate dust suppression measures will be implemented during grading activities. There will be no open burning of construction materials. Use of equipment for construction will result in minor air emissions. The EPA's General Conformity regulations require Federal actions to conform to the state implementation plan (SIP) for attainment of each relevant air quality standard. A detailed conformity determination is not required for a federal action whose projected annual emissions are shown to be below the applicable Texas air quality standard de minimis thresholds of 25 tons per year (tpy) of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (Nox). In EPA's General Conformity Guidance: Questions and Answers; July 13, 1994, EPA states that "Historical analysis of similar actions could be used in cases where the proposed projects are similar in size and scope to previous projects." To determine estimated increases in emissions for this project we used a historical analysis of a similar project, the Uptown Orange Apartments in Orange, California, which consisted of the development of two (2) 4-story apartment buildings comprising 334 apartment units and two (2) parking structures which included 1,173 parking stalls. The Uptown Orange development contained a total square footage of 702,818 square feet. Project construction activities generate short-term air quality impacts, while long term air quality impacts include operation emissions consisting of mobile emissions, maintenance and landscape activities, and energy use emissions from water and heating of the apartments. The Uptown Orange project emissions were estimated for VOC, NOx, SO2, and PM-2.5 for each pollutant as indicated in the table below: Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (unmitigated) Tons/Year VOC 12.67 NOx 17.10 Unmitigated Operations Emissions VOC 7.10 NOx 4.93 Total Emissions (unmitigated) VOC 19.77 NOx 22.03 3.83 Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study - Uptown Orange Apartments in Orange, CA Based on these values, the project related VOC and NOx emissions for the Uptown Orange development, used here as an example for the proposed undertaking, are less than the de minimis emissions thresholds per Texas Air Quality Standards. The proposed development features less building square footage and fewer overall residential units and parking spaces than the Uptown Orange example. Therefore, the total emissions from the proposed development are expected to be similar to, or even less than, those attributed to the Uptown Orange Apartments in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study. As the total projected emissions do not exceed the de minimis thresholds for General Conformity, D3G is of the opinion that the proposed project will not have an "Effect" on air quality and the project is in compliance with Texas's State Implementation Plan (SIP). Therefore, a detailed conformity analysis is not required.0Supporting documentation Parc at WM, Non attainment 8 hr.DOC042.pdfAre formal compliance steps or mitigation required? YesNoCoastal Zone Management Act General requirementsLegislationRegulationFederal assistance to applicant agencies for activities affecting any coastal use or resource is granted only when such activities are consistent with federally approved State Coastal Zone Management Act Plans. Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC 1451-1464), particularly section 307(c) and (d) (16 USC 1456(c) and (d))15 CFR Part 9301.Is the project located in, or does it affect, a Coastal Zone as defined in your state Coastal Management Plan?YesNoBased on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Document and upload all documents used to make your determination below.Screen SummaryCompliance DeterminationAccording to the Texas Coastal Management Program (accessed at ), Kaufman County is not located within a Coastal Management Zone.Supporting documentation Parc at Windmill, Coastal-Zone-Management-Worksheet.pdfAre formal compliance steps or mitigation required? YesNoContamination and Toxic SubstancesGeneral requirementsLegislationRegulationsIt is HUD policy that all properties that are being proposed for use in HUD programs be free of hazardous materials, contamination, toxic chemicals and gases, and radioactive substances, where a hazard could affect the health and safety of the occupants or conflict with the intended utilization of the property.24 CFR 58.5(i)(2)24 CFR 50.3(i)1.How was site contamination evaluated? Select all that apply. Document and upload documentation and reports and evaluation explanation of site contamination below.American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)ASTM Phase II ESARemediation or clean-up planASTM Vapor Encroachment ScreeningNone of the Above2.Were any on-site or nearby toxic, hazardous, or radioactive substances found that could affect the health and safety of project occupants or conflict with the intended use of the property? (Were any recognized environmental conditions or RECs identified in a Phase I ESA and confirmed in a Phase II ESA?)NoExplain:Dominion Due Diligence Group performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-13 of the Proposed Parc at Windmill Farms located at Windmill Farms Boulevard in Forney, Kaufman County, Texas (subject property). Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 2.4 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the subject propertyBased on the response, the review is in compliance with this section.YesScreen SummaryCompliance DeterminationDominion Due Diligence Group performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-13 of the Proposed Parc at Windmill Farms located at Windmill Farms Boulevard in Forney, Kaufman County, Texas (subject property). Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 2.4 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the subject property.Supporting documentation PhaseI, Parc @ WMF.pdfParc at Windmill, Site-Contamination-Multi-Family-Worksheet.pdfAre formal compliance steps or mitigation required? YesNoEndangered Species General requirementsESA LegislationRegulationsSection 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) mandates that federal agencies ensure that actions that they authorize, fund, or carry out shall not jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed plants and animals or result in the adverse modification or destruction of designated critical habitat. Where their actions may affect resources protected by the ESA, agencies must consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (“FWS” and “NMFS” or “the Services”). The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); particularly section 7 (16 USC 1536).50 CFR Part 4021.Does the project involve any activities that have the potential to affect specifies or habitats? No, the project will have No Effect due to the nature of the activities involved in the project. This selection is only appropriate if none of the activities involved in the project have potential to affect species or habitats. Examples of actions without potential to affect listed species may include: purchasing existing buildings, completing interior renovations to existing buildings, and replacing exterior paint or siding on existing buildings.Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section.No, the project will have No Effect based on a letter of understanding, memorandum of agreement, programmatic agreement, or checklist provided by local HUD officeYes, the activities involved in the project have the potential to affect species and/or habitats.Screen SummaryCompliance DeterminationAn Official Species List was generated for the subject property by utilizing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) System, accessed at . According to an Official Species List generated for the subject property, four (4) endangered or threatened species have the potential to be located within the subject property boundaries. D3G has submitted a determination letter to the appropriate state USFWS field office. As of the date of this report, D3G has not received a response to this inquiry. Upon receipt of the agency response, D3G will forward this information as an addendum to this report. If no response is received or no material information is identified, our report will not be modified.Supporting documentation Parc at WMR, USFWSDOC033.pdfParc at Windmill, Endangered-Species-Act-Worksheet.pdfAre formal compliance steps or mitigation required? YesNoExplosive and Flammable HazardsGeneral requirementsLegislationRegulationHUD-assisted projects must meet Acceptable Separation Distance (ASD) requirements to protect them from explosive and flammable hazards.N/A24 CFR Part 51 Subpart C1.Is the proposed HUD-assisted project a hazardous facility (a facility that mainly stores, handles or processes flammable or combustible chemicals), i.e. bulk fuel storage facilities, refineries, etc.?NoYes2.Does this project include any of the following activities: development, construction, rehabilitation that will increase residential densities, or conversion?NoYes3.Within 1 mile of the project site, are there any current or planned stationary aboveground storage containers:Of more than 100 gallon capacity, containing common liquid industrial fuels OR Of any capacity, containing hazardous liquids or gases that are not common liquid industrial fuels?NoBased on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Document and upload all documents used to make your determination below.YesScreen SummaryCompliance DeterminationBased on the site visit conducted by D3G on June 16, 2016, there are no facilities handling explosive or fireaA?A?prone materials such as liquid propane, gasoline, or other storage tanks as defined by 24 CFR 51.201 located onaA?A?site, adjacent to, or visible from the subject property (refer to the site photographs provided within Appendix C). D3G contacted the Forney Fire Department on June 2, 2016, for a review of their environmental records (i.e. USTs, hazardous materials storage, and spills) for the subject property. According to Chief Rick Townsend, the fire department has not responded to hazmat spills at the subject property and that there are no thermal/explosive hazards on or in the vicinity of the subject property that would adversely affect the subject property.Supporting documentation Parc at Windmill, Explosive-and-Flammable-Hazards-Worksheet.pdfParc at Wm, AST MapDOC037.pdfAre formal compliance steps or mitigation required? YesNoFarmlands Protection General requirementsLegislationRegulationThe Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) discourages federal activities that would convert farmland to nonagricultural purposes.Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.)7 CFR Part 6581.Does your project include any activities, including new construction, acquisition of undeveloped land or conversion, that could convert agricultural land to a non-agricultural use?YesNo2.Does your project meet one of the following exemptions?Construction limited to on-farm structures needed for farm operations.Construction limited to new minor secondary (accessory) structures such as a garage or storage shedProject on land already in or committed to urban development or used for water storage. (7 CFR 658.2(a)) YesBased on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Document and upload all documents used to make your determination below.NoScreen SummaryCompliance DeterminationAccording to the U.S. Census Bureau Urbanized Area Map, accessed at , the subject is located within an urbanized area; therefore, the subject property is already in an area committed to urban development and is exempt from compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy.Supporting documentation Soils Map, Pac @ Winmill Farms.pdfTigerweb Census Map, Farmland Protection.pdfParc at Windmill, Farmlands-Protection-Worksheet.pdfAre formal compliance steps or mitigation required? YesNoFloodplain ManagementGeneral RequirementsLegislationRegulationExecutive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, requires federal activities to avoid impacts to floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development to the extent practicable.Executive Order 1198824 CFR 551.Do any of the following exemptions apply? Select the applicable citation? [only one selection possible]55.12(c)(3)55.12(c)(4) 55.12(c)(5) 55.12(c)(6) 55.12(c)(7) 55.12(c)(8) 55.12(c)(9) 55.12(c)(10) 55.12(c)(11) None of the above 2.Upload a FEMA/FIRM map showing the site here: Floodplain Map, Parc @ WMV(1).pdfParc at Windmill, Flood-Insurance-Worksheet.pdfThe Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designates floodplains. The FEMA Map Service Center provides this information in the form of FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). For projects in areas not mapped by FEMA, use the best available information to determine floodplain information. Include documentation, including a discussion of why this is the best available information for the site.Does your project occur in a floodplain?NoBased on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. YesScreen SummaryCompliance DeterminationAccording to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) #48257C-0175D, dated July 3, 2012, the subject property is located in Zone X, designated as an area outside the 100 and 500-year flood zones and the flood potential for the subject property is minimal. In addition, according to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Status Book accessed at community-status-book, the subject property is located in Community ID #480411, which is a participating community in the NFIP.Supporting documentation Floodplain Map, Parc @ WMV(2).pdfParc at Windmill, Floodplain-Management-Worksheet.pdfAre formal compliance steps or mitigation required? YesNoHistoric PreservationGeneral requirementsLegislationRegulationRegulations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) require a consultative process to identify historic properties, assess project impacts on them, and avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f)36 CFR 800 “Protection of Historic Properties” Section 106 review required for your project? No, because the project consists solely of activities listed as exempt in a Programmatic Agreement (PA ). (See the PA Database to find applicable PAs.)No, because the project consists solely of activities included in a No Potential to Cause Effects memo or other determination [36 CFR 800.3(a)(1)].Yes, because the project includes activities with potential to cause effects (direct or indirect).Threshold (b). Document and upload the memo or explanation/justification of the other determination below:The subject property is not listed, and is not suspected to be eligible to be listed, in the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, the subject property is not located within a historic district of the City of Forney or Kaufman County. D3G has submitted a determination letter to the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). According to Mr. Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer, the proposed project will not affect any historic properties and the project may proceed. On July 7, 2017, HUD contacted the following Tribes via certified mail, which may potentially have an interest in the site, according to tribal Directory Assistance Tool (TDAT), requesting Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act regarding the Parc at Windmill Farms, in Forney, Texas: * Linda Langley, THPO, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana * Ms. Terri Parton, President, Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma * Ms. Lauren J. Norman-Brown, THPO, Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma * Ms. Kim Penrod, NAGPRA/106 Director, Delaware Nation, Oklahoma * Ms. Martina Callahan, TPHO, Comanche Nation, Oklahoma * Mr. Bobby Komardley, Chairman, Apache Tribe of Oklahoma * Ms. Tamara Francis Fourkiller, Caddo Nation of Oklahoma The tribes were requested to advice HUD of their interest in the site within 30 days of the date of the letter. On July 12, 2017, Kimberly Penrod, NAGPRA/106 Director of the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma responded via email to Brandi Satre of HUD. In it, Ms. Penrod said the Delaware Nation concurs with the proposed project but requested to be kept appraised if any discoveries arise during construction.Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section.Screen SummaryCompliance DeterminationThe subject property is not listed, and is not suspected to be eligible to be listed, in the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, the subject property is not located within a historic district of the City of Forney or Kaufman County. D3G has submitted a determination letter to the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). According to Mr. Mark Wolfe, State Historic Preservation Officer, the proposed project will not affect any historic properties and the project may proceed. On July 7, 2017, HUD contacted the following Tribes via certified mail, which may potentially have an interest in the site, according to tribal Directory Assistance Tool (TDAT), requesting Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act regarding the Parc at Windmill Farms, in Forney, Texas: * Linda Langley, THPO, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana * Ms. Terri Parton, President, Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma * Ms. Lauren J. Norman-Brown, THPO, Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma * Ms. Kim Penrod, NAGPRA/106 Director, Delaware Nation, Oklahoma * Ms. Martina Callahan, TPHO, Comanche Nation, Oklahoma * Mr. Bobby Komardley, Chairman, Apache Tribe of Oklahoma * Ms. Tamara Francis Fourkiller, Caddo Nation of Oklahoma The tribes were requested to advice HUD of their interest in the site within 30 days of the date of the letter. On July 12, 2017, Kimberly Penrod, NAGPRA/106 Director of the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma responded via email to Brandi Satre of HUD. In it, Ms. Penrod said the Delaware Nation concurs with the proposed project but requested to be kept appraised if any discoveries arise during construction.Supporting documentation Parc & WM, TX SHPO.pdfTC Letter Wichita and Affiliated Tribes Oklahoma Parton_Parc at Windmill Farms_July 2017.docxTC Letter Tonkawa Tribe Norman-Brown _Parc at Windmill Farms_July 2017.docxTC Letter Delaware Nation Penrod _Parc at Windmill Farms_July 2017.docxTC Letter Coushatta Langley _Parc at Windmill Farms_July 2017.docxTC Letter Comanche Oklahoma Callahan _Parc at Windmill Farms_July 2017.docxTC Letter Caddo Nation Fourkiller_Parc at Windmill Farms_July 2017.docxTC Letter Apache Oklahoma Komardley_Parc at Windmill Farms_July 2017.docxParc at Windmill, Historic-Preservation-Worksheet.pdfAre formal compliance steps or mitigation required? YesNoNoise Abatement and Control General requirementsLegislationRegulationHUD’s noise regulations protect residential properties from excessive noise exposure. HUD encourages mitigation as appropriate.Noise Control Act of 1972General Services Administration Federal Management Circular 75-2: “Compatible Land Uses at Federal Airfields”Title 24 CFR 51 Subpart B1.What activities does your project involve? Check all that apply:New construction for residential useNOTE: HUD assistance to new construction projects is generally prohibited if they are located in an Unacceptable zone, and HUD discourages assistance for new construction projects in Normally Unacceptable zones. See 24 CFR 51.101(a)(3) for further details.Rehabilitation of an existing residential propertyA research demonstration project which does not result in new construction or reconstructionAn interstate land sales registrationAny timely emergency assistance under disaster assistance provision or appropriations which are provided to save lives, protect property, protect public health and safety, remove debris and wreckage, or assistance that has the effect of restoring facilities substantially as they existed prior to the disasterNone of the plete the Preliminary Screening to identify potential noise generators in the vicinity (1000’ from a major road, 3000’ from a railroad, or 15 miles from an airport). Indicate the findings of the Preliminary Screening below:There are no noise generators found within the threshold distances above. Noise generators were found within the threshold distances. plete the Preliminary Screening to identify potential noise generators in theAcceptable: (65 decibels or less; the ceiling may be shifted to 70 decibels in circumstances described in §24 CFR 51.105(a)) Normally Unacceptable: (Above 65 decibels but not exceeding 75 decibels; the floor may be shifted to 70 decibels in circumstances described in §24 CFR 51.105(a))Is your project in a largely undeveloped area? NoIndicate noise level here: 74.6Document and upload noise analysis, including noise level and data used to complete the analysis below. YesUnacceptable: (Above 75 decibels)6.HUD strongly encourages mitigation be used to eliminate adverse noise impacts. Explain in detail the exact measures that must be implemented to mitigate for the impact or effect, including the timeline for implementation. This information will be automatically included in the Mitigation summary for the environmental review.Mitigation as follows will be implemented: Based on the noise mitigation study prepared by dP(a) Acoustics, Inc. dated May 11, 2017. dP(a) Acoustics, Inc., three (3) acoustical zones associated with the proposed structures were identified based on the calculated noise levels with recommended wall, window and door assemblies to achieve interior noise levels of below 45 dB within each of the acoustical zones. In addition, acoustical screens were proposed in three (3) areas surrounding the three (3) of the courtyards (1, 3 and 4) to ensure noise levels in those areas do not exceed the established 65 dB level. Therefore, based on the provided noise mitigation study, the building interior noise levels and exterior congregating area noise levels should be acceptable as defined by 24 CFR 51.101(a)(3). Prior to issuance of a firm commitment, a certification is required from the supervisory architect that upon completion the subject will be in compliance with (24 CFR Part 51, Subpart B).Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Document and upload drawings, specifications, and other materials as needed to describe the project’s noise mitigation measures below.No mitigation is necessary. Screen SummaryCompliance DeterminationThe subject property is located within 1,000 feet of Highway 80, within 3,000 feet of a Union Pacific and Amtrak railway, and within fifteen (15) miles of the Mesquite Metro Airport. There are no military airfields within fifteen (15) miles of the subject property. Four (4) different noise assessment locations (NALs) were evaluated to better define the noise levels at the property. The projected DNL value for all noise sources for the buildings ranges from 68.0 decibels (dB) to 74.6 dB. Pursuant to 24 CFR 51.101(a)(3), the composite DNL between 65 and 75 dB is "normally unacceptable."Supporting documentation Parc at WMR Noise Calc.DOC035.pdfParc at Windmill, Noise-Abatement-and-Control-EA-Worksheet Updated.pdfAre formal compliance steps or mitigation required? YesNoSole Source Aquifers General requirementsLegislationRegulationThe Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 protects drinking water systems which are the sole or principal drinking water source for an area and which, if contaminated, would create a significant hazard to public health.Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 201, 300f et seq., and 21 U.S.C. 349)40 CFR Part 1491.Does the project consist solely of acquisition, leasing, or rehabilitation of an existing building(s)? YesNo2.Is the project located on a sole source aquifer (SSA)?A sole source aquifer is defined as an aquifer that supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. This includes streamflow source areas, which are upstream areas of losing streams that flow into the recharge area.NoBased on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Document and upload documentation used to make your determination, such as a map of your project (or jurisdiction, if appropriate) in relation to the nearest SSA and its source area, below.YesScreen SummaryCompliance DeterminationAccording to the Sole Source Aquifer layer obtained from EPA NEPAssist accessed at , the subject property is not serviced or supplied by a protected aquifer system. .Supporting documentation Parc at WM, Sole Source AquiferDOC039.pdfAre formal compliance steps or mitigation required? YesNoWetlands Protection General requirementsLegislationRegulationExecutive Order 11990 discourages direct or indirect support of new construction impacting wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory can be used as a primary screening tool, but observed or known wetlands not indicated on NWI maps must also be processed Off-site impacts that result in draining, impounding, or destroying wetlands must also be processed. Executive Order 1199024 CFR 55.20 can be used for general guidance regarding the 8 Step Process.1.Does this project involve new construction as defined in Executive Order 11990, expansion of a building’s footprint, or ground disturbance? The term "new construction" shall include draining, dredging, channelizing, filling, diking, impounding, and related activities and any structures or facilities begun or authorized after the effective date of the OrderNoYes2.Will the new construction or other ground disturbance impact an on- or off-site wetland? The term "wetlands" means those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances does or would support, a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds."Wetlands under E.O. 11990 include isolated and non-jurisdictional wetlands."No, a wetland will not be impacted in terms of E.O. 11990’s definition of new construction.Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Document and upload a map or any other relevant documentation below which explains your determination Yes, there is a wetland that be impacted in terms of E.O. 11990’s definition of new construction.Screen SummaryCompliance Determinationwetland delineation/determination has not been performed at the subject property; however, according to the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Layer accessed at and visual observations, there are not suspected to be any wetland areas on the subject property.Supporting documentation Wetlands Map, Part @ Windmill Farm.pdfAre formal compliance steps or mitigation required? YesNoWild and Scenic Rivers ActGeneral requirementsLegislationRegulationThe Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides federal protection for certain free-flowing, wild, scenic and recreational rivers designated as components or potential components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS) from the effects of construction or development. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287), particularly section 7(b) and (c) (16 U.S.C. 1278(b) and (c))36 CFR Part 297 1.Is your project within proximity of a NWSRS river? NoYes, the project is in proximity of a Designated Wild and Scenic River or Study Wild and Scenic River.Yes, the project is in proximity of a Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) River.Screen SummaryCompliance DeterminationAccording to the website accessed at, , there are no Wild and Scenic Rivers in the vicinity of the subject property. In addition, there are no Texas Rivers listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory list that are upstream or downstream of the subject property. A copy of the Wild and Scenic Rivers List and Nationwide Rivers Inventory list for Texas is included in Appendix N.Supporting documentation Parc at WM, Wild & Scenic RiversDOC040.pdfAre formal compliance steps or mitigation required? YesNoHousing RequirementsGeneral requirementsLegislationRegulationsMany Housing Programs have additional requirements beyond those listed at 50.4. Some of these relate to compliance with 50.3(i) and others relate to site nuisances and hazards24 CFR 50.3(i)24 CFR 35Hazardous SubstancesRequirements for evaluating additional housing requirements vary by program. Refer to the appropriate guidance for the program area (i.e, the Multifamily Accelerated Processing (MAP) guide, Chapter 7 of the Healthcare Mortgage Insurance Handbook, etc.) for specific requirements.Lead-based paintWas a lead-based paint inspection or survey performed by the appropriate certified lead professional?YesNo, because the project was previously deemed to be lead free. No, because the project does not involve any buildings constructed prior to 1978.No, because program guidance does not require testing for this type of projectFor example: HUD’s lead-based paint requirements at 24 CFR Part 35 do not apply to housing designated exclusively for the elderly or persons with disabilities, unless a child of less than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in such housing. In addition, the requirements do not apply to 0-bedroom dwelling units.The proposed project is new construction. The use of lead-based paint is not allowed in projects constructed after 1978.RadonWas radon testing performed following the appropriate and latest ANSI-AARST standard?YesNo, because program guidance does not require testing for this type of project.Note that radon testing is encouraged for all HUD projects, even where it is not required. Explain why radon testing was not completed below.The subject site is located in Radon Zone 3, an area in which the average reading of radon is less than 2 picocuries/liter (pCi/L). Radon mitigation measures are required to be implemented in the project design in accordance with HUD guidelines. At a minimum, D3G recommends mitigating potential radon contamination by constructing the proposed structure(s) to meet all of the requirements of ASTM E 1465-08a (or most recent edition) including a gas-permeable layer, a concrete slab or plastic membrane that seals the gas permeable layer and foundation walls that meet the requirements of ASTM E 1465-08a (or most recent addition). A Radon Report, signed by a Radon Professional (certified mitigator), is required to document and approve the mitigation design and detail the requirements of the post-construction testing. The system design and installation is required to be implemented by a certified Radon Professional. Postconstruction testing by a properly certified Radon Professional is required prior to Final Endorsement. If testing results are at or above the threshold, the structure(s) must be retrofitted based on ASTM E 2121-13 (or most recent addition) or the ANSI/AARST Radon Mitigation Standards for Multifamily Buildings or Schools and Large Buildings with the installation of a passive system. If testing results remain above the threshold, conversion to a fan-powered system pursuant to ASTM E 1465-08a (or most recent addition) is required. Recommendations are listed in Section 11.0 of the Phase I assessment.AsbestosWas a comprehensive asbestos building survey performed pursuant to the relevant requirements of the latest ASTM standard?YesNo, because the project does not involve any buildings constructed prior to 1978. Provide documentation of construction date(s) below.No, because program guidance does not require testing for this type of projectExplain in textbox below.The proposed project is new construction. The use of asbestos containing materials is not allowed in projects constructed after 1978.Additional Nuisances and HazardsMany Housing Programs have additional requirements with respect to common nuisances and hazards. These include High Pressure Pipelines; Fall Hazards (High Voltage Transmission Lines and Support Structures); Oil or Gas Wells, Sour Gas Wells and Slush Pits; and Development planned on filled ground. There may also be additional regional or local requirements.MitigationDescribe all mitigation measures that will be taken for the Housing Requirements.Radon GasD3G recommends that a Radon Report be prepared by a properly certified (and licensed if applicable) radon professional in accordance with HUD guidelines, as stated in 9.5.C of the MAP Guide:a. Certification from either the American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists (AARST) National Radon Proficiency Program (NRPP) or the National Radon Safety Board (NRSB); andb. Certification/License from the state in which the testing or mitigation work is being conducted, if the state has this requirement.The report should document the compliance of the proposed mitigation design and implementation as well as detail the post-construction testing requirements. According to a letter dated July 25, 2016 from BGO Architects, the proposed structures will be of slab-on-grade construction with no basements or subterranean rooms. In addition, a certified radon professional will be consulted to prepare the Radon Report.Prior to issuance of a firm commitment, a certification is required from the supervisory architect that upon completion the subject will be in compliance with 9.5.C.2.f. of the MAP Guide.Screen Summary Compliance DeterminationD3G recommends that a Radon Report be prepared by a properly certified (and licensed if applicable) radon professional in accordance with HUD guidelines. The report should document the compliance of the proposed mitigation design and implementation as well as detail the post-construction testing requirements. According to a letter dated July 25, 2016 from BGO Architects, the proposed structures will be of slab-on-grade construction with no basements or subterranean rooms. In addition, a certified radon professional will be consulted to prepare the Radon Report.Supporting documentation Parc @ Windmill Radon Mit. Ltr, 1-25-16..pdf Parc @ Windmill Radon Mit. Ltr, 1-25-16.(1).pdfAre formal compliance steps or mitigation required? YesNoEnvironmental JusticeGeneral requirementsLegislationRegulationDetermine if the project creates adverse environmental impacts upon a low-income or minority community. If it does, engage the community in meaningful participation about mitigating the impacts or move the project. Executive Order 12898HUD strongly encourages starting the Environmental Justice analysis only after all other laws and authorities, including Environmental Assessment factors if necessary, have been completed. 1.Were any adverse environmental impacts identified in any other compliance review portion of this project’s total environmental review?YesNoBased on the response, the review is in compliance with this section. Screen SummaryCompliance DeterminationThe subject property is not located in a low-income or predominately minority area within Kaufman County, as 93% of the population in the area surrounding the subject property is above the poverty level and the percent minority for the subject property and its surrounding area is 39%. D3G does not believe that the project site or neighborhood suffer from disproportionately adverse environmental effects on minority and low-income populations relative to the community-at-large as there are no adverse environmental impacts identified on the subject property nor immediately surrounding areas.Supporting documentation Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required? YesNo ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download