Agenda packet — Fowler City Council, April 18, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

2. Appendix I – Traffic Study, Page 10, intersections identified for potential control improvements include SR 99 northbound and southbound ramps at Clovis Avenue as well as the SR 99 southbound on-ramp at Fowler Avenue. It is recommended that when these identified improvements are warranted for implementation that they be coordinated with Caltrans. Further analysis on these improvements will be required and includes processes such as Caltrans’ Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) process.

3. Please note that future further studies such as transportation impact studies, queueing analyses, or safety analyses may be needed for the land uses near the SR 99 interchanges within the City of Fowler.

4. Chapter 9, Page 66, Policy MOB-6, shows Intelligent Transportation Systems abbreviated as “(ITA)”. This intended abbreviation might be referring to “(ITS)” instead of what is currently showed on this page.

5. Caltrans encourages local agencies consider creating a VMT Mitigation Impact Fee to help reduce impacts to the SHS.

6. Local agencies are also encouraged to consider implementing policies that support multimodal transportation systems (such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities and public transportation services) to provide connectivity of modes within communities which also help reduce VMT.

7. Active Transportation Plans and Smart Growth efforts support the state’s 2050 Climate goals. Caltrans supports reducing VMT and GHG emissions in ways that increase the likelihood people will use and benefit from a multimodal transportation network.

If you have any other questions, please call or email Christopher Xiong at (559) 908- 7064 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
DAVID PADILLA, Branch Chief
Transportation Planning – North
C: State Clearinghouse
Errata to the Public Review Draft City of Fowler 2040 General Plan March 2023 A-3
Attachment A-3
Fresno County Department of Public Health, dated March 2, 2023
From: Gholamrezaei, Leila <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 12:02 PM
To: Thomas Gaffery <[email protected]>; Dawn Marple <[email protected]> Cc: Gonzalez, Raul <[email protected]>
Subject: General plan consideration
Good Morning Thomas and Dawn,
Congratulations on the release of the Fowler General Plan! We are excited about Fowler’s commitment to reducing tobacco use and protecting the community from secondhand smoke.

However, we suggest a minor revision to Action Item CH-8b to make it more legally sound since Fowler already has a tobacco retail licensing (TRL) program that has not been fully implemented and enforced. Please see the suggested revision below. This revision will provide the city with the flexibility to improve upon the existing TRL policy.

Recommended change: Action Item CH-8b EstablishEnhance licensing and protections advertising fees related to tobacco sales and advertising.

Thank you for all of your work on this. We look forward to continuing to partner in the future.

Sincerely,
Leila Gholamrezaei-Eha, MPH | Health Educator
Fresno County Department of Public Health
1221 Fulton Street, Fresno, CA 93721
Phone (559) 600-6440
[email protected]
*Pronouns: she/hers*

The County of Fresno is an Equal Employment Opportunity Employer.

Prepared By:

PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP
455 W. FIR AVENUE
CLOVIS, CA 93611
CITY OF FOWLER 2040 GENERAL PLAN

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
MARCH 2023
SCH NO. 2021110053
Prepared For:

The City of Fowler
Community and Economic Development Department
128 S. 5th Street
Fowler, CA 93625
City of Fowler 2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
March 2023 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................1

1.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES............................... 2

2. Response to Comments............................................................................................................4

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR.........................................................................................................15

3.1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................... 15

3.2 DEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO TECHNICAL AND TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS ..... 15 City of Fowler 2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
March 2023 1

1. Introduction

1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.). It represents the independent judgement of the City of Fowler, the Lead Agency.

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the FEIR shall consist of:
(a) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or a revision of the Draft; (b) Comments and recommendationsreceived on the DEIR either verbatim or in summary; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR; (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

This document contains responses to comments received on the DEIR for the City of Fowler General Plan Update during the public review period, which began December 21, 2022, and closed February 15, 2023. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the FEIR comprises this document and the circulated DEIR as revised .

1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR
This document is organized as follows:

Section 1, Introduction. This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this FEIR.

Section 2, Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the DEIR; copies of comment letters received during the public review period, and individual responses to written comments. To facilitate review of the responses, each comment letter has been reproduced and assigned a number for each commentor received from agencies and organizations and then assigned an alphabetical letter to identify each individual comment within each comment document. No letters were received from individuals/property owners regarding content of the DEIR. Three members of the public and the Fresno County Department of Public Health provided comment to the City via email. Emails were received from Kevin Johnston, on December 23, 2022, and Kenneth Hampian, on February 21, 2023, both requesting access portions of the DEIR. The third email was from Parmpreet Pannu on December 21, 2022, requesting that a parcel be included in the Fowler 2040 General Plan Sphere of Influence. Staff directed the requester to the appropriate information and determined that the parcel was already included in the planning area. Finally, an email received from Leila Gholamrezaei-Eha of the Fresno County Department of Public Health was received on March 2, 2023. The email requested a revision to the wording of one of the General Plan Policies. These emails City of Fowler 2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
March 2023 2
were informational requests or comments of the General Plan itself and are not considered formal comments as part of the public comment period for the DEIR. Therefore, these emails have not been included as a part of the FEIR.

Section 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR. This section contains revisions to the DEIR text and figures as a result of the comments received by agencies and interested persons as described in Section 2, and/or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the DEIR for public review.

The responses to comments contain material and revisions that will be added to the text of the DEIR.

City of Fowlerstaff reviewed this material and determined that none of the comments constitutes new significant information that would change the findings of the circulated DEIR and therefore, does not require recirculation per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the Project would result in new significant environmental impacts that have not been previously disclosed in the DEIR. Additionally, none of the commentsindicate a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5.

1.3 REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR
Consistent with Public Resources Code 21092.5, responses to agency comments will be forwarded to each commenting agency at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. At the same time, responses will be distributed to all commenters who provided an address. The Final EIR is available for public review on the City of Fowlers website http://www.fowlercity.org. For additional information please contact Thomas W. Gaffery IV, Community & Economic Development Director by email at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 834-3113.

1.4 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND

RESPONSES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) outlines parameters for submitting comments and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of DEIRs should:
“focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated.” Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of the DEIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort of full disclosure is made in the DEIR.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises:
“Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant City of Fowler 2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
March 2023 3
in the absence of substantial evidence.”
Section 15204(d) also states,
“Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.”
Section 15204 (e) states:
“This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.” The responses will be forwarded with copies of this FEIR, as permitted by CEQA, and will conform to the legal standards established for response to comments on DEIRs.

City of Fowler 2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
March 2023 4

2. Response to Comments
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires the Lead Agency to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the DEIR and prepare written responses.

This section provides all written comments received on the DEIR and the responses from the Lead Agency to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the DEIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the DEIR text are shown in underlined text for additions and strikeout for deletions.

The following is a list of agencies that submitted comments on the DEIR during the public review period.

Number
Reference
Commenting Person/Agency Date of Comment
1 Fresno Irrigation District February 3, 2023
2 California Department of Transportation February 6, 2023 3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife February 15, 2023 4 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District February 16, 2023 City of Fowler 2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
March 2023 5
LETTER 1 – Fresno Irrigation District (16 pages)

City of Fowler 2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
March 2023 6

1. Response to commentsfrom Fresno Irrigation District dated February 3, 2023. 1A Individual projects within the City will continue to be routed to agencies and departments whose facilities may be affected, including FID. During this process, FID will have the opportunity to comment on projects and suggest conditions of approval or requirements for the City to implement. Project applicants whose project may affect FID facilities will be made aware that they may be subject to FID requirements in addition to those of other City departments. Any conditions of approval returned to the City from FID during the project routing process will be taken under consideration by the City Planner and the City Engineer, with recommendations made to the decision-making body accordingly. Future projects are required to comply with local, State, and federal laws governing water storage and use within the City. During the project review process, FID staff may correspond and meet with the City in person to go over any of FID’s recommendations, requests, or concerns.
1B See Response 1A.
1C See Response 1A.
1D See Response 1A.
1E See Response 1A.
1F See Response 1A.
1G See Response 1A.
1H See Response 1A.
1I See Response 1A.
1J See Response 1A.
1K See Response 1A.
1L See Response 1A.
1M See Response 1A.
1N See Response 1A.
1O See Response 1A.
1P See Response 1A.
1Q See Response 1A.
1R See Response 1A.

City of Fowler 2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
March 2023 7
1S See Response 1A.
1T See Response 1A.
1U See Response 1A.
1V See Response 1A.
1W See Response 1A.
1X See Response 1A.
1Y Future projects would be required to follow General Plan Policies and may undergo their own individual environmental analyses that would include a look into the project’s effect on local groundwater supplies. Development is dependent on available water supplies and cannot occur without showing that increased water demand resulting from the project can be met. The City will continue to work with Consolidated Irrigation District and the South Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency as necessary, routing projects to agencies whose facilities may affect or be affected by a project. 1Z Comment noted. The City will continue to monitor its water supply and its sources for long term sustainability.
1AA Comment noted. The availability of water supplies will determine the rate of development within the City. The City will continue to monitor its water supply and its sources for long term sustainability.
1AB The City will continue to work with FID in order to plan for long term sustainability of water supply within the City in order to serve future development.

City of Fowler 2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
March 2023 8
LETTER 2 – California Department of Transportation (2 pages) “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 6 OFFICE
1352 WEST OLIVE AVENUE |P.O. BOX 12616 |FRESNO, CA 93778-2616 (559) 908-7064 | FAX (559) 488-4195 | TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
February 6, 2023

FRE-GEN
GPU – Draft General Plan Update
City of Fowler 2040 General Plan and DEIR
SCH # 2021110053
https://ld-igr-gts.dot.ca.gov/district/6/report/28605

SENT VIA EMAIL
Thomas W. Gaffery IV, Community and Economic Development Director Community and Economic Development Department
City of Fowler
128 S. 5th Street
Fowler, CA 93625
Dear Mx. Gaffery:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Fowler 2040 General Plan (GP) and the associated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The Draft GP is a planning document that establishes policies and land uses that guide the growth and development for the City of Fowler specifically looking toward the planning horizon of 2040. The DEIR is a document that analyzes and discloses the potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the adoption of the Draft GP.

Caltrans provides the following comments consistent with the State’s smart mobility goals that support a vibrant economy and sustainable communities:

1. It is understood that the City has adopted transportation impact criteria based on the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as presented in the Fresno Council of Governments’ Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines, as noted in the DEIR Appendix I, Traffic Study for the Draft GP. Caltrans encourages the City and project proponents of future developments coordinate with Caltrans in regard to projects that have the potential to impact the State Highway System (SHS), such as State Route (SR) 99 facilities.

Thomas W. Gaffery IV, City of Fowler 2040 General Plan and DEIR February 6, 2023

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

5. Caltrans encourages local agencies consider creating a VMT Mitigation Impact Fee to help reduce impacts to the SHS.

If you have any other questions, please call or email Christopher Xiong at (559) 908- 7064 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
DAVID PADILLA, Branch Chief
Transportation Planning – North
C: State Clearinghouse
City of Fowler 2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
March 2023 9

2. Response to commentsfrom California Department of Transportation dated February 6, 2023. 2A The City will continue to route individual projects to Caltrans when the project would be within the vicinity of Caltrans facilities, allowing Caltrans the ability to comment on each project and identify concerns and information needed to address Caltrans requirements. 2B See Response 2A.
2C See Response 2A. Caltrans, within its review of individual projects that have the possibility of affecting its facilities, may request that further traffic analysis be completed. 2D Comment noted.
2E The City will continue to consider updating its fee schedule as a whole, including the incorporation of a VMT Mitigation Impact Fee.
2F Comment noted. The proposed Fowler 2040 General Plan includes policies that would encourage active living and the expansion of both pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the City.
2G Comment noted.

City of Fowler 2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
March 2023 10
LETTER 3 – California Department of Fish and Wildlife (16 pages) State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Central Region
1234 East Shaw Avenue
Fresno, California 93710
(559) 243-4005
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
February 15, 2023
Thomas Gaffery, Community and Economic Development Director City of Fowler Planning and Community Development Department 128 South 5th Street
Fowler, California 93625
(559) 834-3113
[email protected]
Subject: City of Fowler 2040 General Plan Project (Project) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
SCH No.: 2021110053
Dear Thomas Gaffery:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a DEIR from the City of Fowler for the above-referenced Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1 A Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letter was written for this Project by CDFW in December 2021. Per a December 2022 memorandum from the City of Fowler, Figure 2-4 (Land Use Diagram) in the previous NOP document was incorrect in the information that was submitted to the State Clearinghouse (SCH), and a revised Figure 2-4 is included for reference.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on 1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E2ABEDD-1F16-421F-96BF-069B11C15CBD Thomas Gaffery, Community and Economic Development Director City of Fowler
February 15, 2023

Page 2 ends

projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code may be required.

Nesting Birds: CDFW has jurisdiction over actions with potential to result in the disturbance or destruction of active nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code sections that protect birds, their eggs and nests include sections 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird), 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Fowler
Objective: The 2040 General Plan (GP) would encompass the entire City of Fowler and the GP planning area, which is approximately 5,690 acres. The 2040 GP presents a framework of goals and policies that respond to issues of relevance to the community, strive to meet its imagined future, and maintain a high quality of life for its residents in the face of ever-changing environmental, economic, and social circumstances.

Location: Fowler is a part of Fresno County and is positioned 11 miles southeast of downtown Fresno. The Project area is located west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and Fresno County lies within the San Joaquin Valley. Fowler is part of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. There are several cities that are near Fowler in addition to Fresno. This includes Selma 5 miles to the southeast, Kingsburg 10 miles to the southeast, Reedley 13 miles to the southeast, Parlier 8 miles to the southeast, Sanger 8 miles to the northeast, and Kerman 22 miles to the northwest. Highway 99 bisects the City of Fowler into eastern and western portions. The City of Fowler shares a sphere of influence with the City of Selma to the southeast.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City of Fowler in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E2ABEDD-1F16-421F-96BF-069B11C15CBD Thomas Gaffery, Community and Economic Development Director City of Fowler
February 15, 2023

Page 3 ends

Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the CEQA document prepared for this Project.

There are several special-status species that have been documented in the Project vicinity and may be present at individual Project sites in the Project area. These resources may need to be evaluated and addressed prior to any approvals that would allow ground-disturbing activities or land use changes.

CDFW special-status species that are present or could potentially be present within Project limits and/or adjacent areas include but are not limited to: the State and federally threatened (ST/FT) California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense); the State threatened Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni); and the State species of special concern burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), and coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii).

Per 2023 Google aerial photography, the City of Fowler is bordered primarily by agriculture. Project mapping for Urban Growth Management Tiers shows that the planned expansion would include: Tier 1 to the west, which would add 697 acres, Tier 2 to the northeast would add 744 acres, and Tier 3 to the south would add an additional 287 acres.

In order to adequately assess any potential impact to biological resources, focused biological surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist/botanist during the appropriate survey period(s) in order to determine whether any special-status species may be present at specific Project sites. Properly conducted biological surveys, and the information assembled from them, are essential to identify any mitigation, minimization, and avoidance measures and/or the need for additional or protocol-level surveys, especially in the areas not in irrigated agriculture, and to identify any Project-related impacts under CESA and other species of concern.

I. Environmental Setting and Related Impact
Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)? COMMENT 1: California Tiger Salamander (CTS)
Issue: Review of aerial imagery (Google 2023) indicates that the Project area is bordered by and contains some patches of annual grassland. CTS may use these DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E2ABEDD-1F16-421F-96BF-069B11C15CBD Thomas Gaffery, Community and Economic Development Director City of Fowler
February 15, 2023

Page 4 ends

areas as upland refugia if small mammals and/or burrows are present, or they may disperse across them while moving to or from potential breeding sites.

Specific Impacts: The potential for ground- and vegetation-disturbing activities associated with the approval of the forthcoming EIR document could potentially result in the collapse of small mammal burrows, inadvertent entrapment, loss of upland refugia, water quality impacts to potential breeding sites, reduced reproductive success, reduction in health and vigor of eggs and/or young, increased habitat fragmentation and edge effects, and direct mortality of individuals.

Evidence impact would be significant: Up to 75% of historic CTS habitat has been lost to urban and agricultural development (Searcy et al. 2013). Loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat are the primary threats to CTS in both the Central and San Joaquin valleys. Contaminants and vehicle strikes are also sources of mortality for the species (CDFW 2015, USFWS 2017a). The Project area is within the range of CTS and has suitable habitat (i.e., upland habitat). CTS have been determined to be physiologically capable of dispersing up to approximately 1.5 miles from seasonally flooded wetlands (Searcy and Shaffer 2011) and have been documented to occur near the Project area (CDFW 2023).

Recommended Mitigation Measure 1: Focused CTS Protocol-level Surveys CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a habitat assessment and protocol-level surveys for CTS as part of the biological technical studies conducted in support of the CEQA document for subsequent projects approved under this General Plan update. Surveys should be conducted in accordance with the USFWS “Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander” (USFWS 2003) at the appropriate time of year to determine the existence and extent of CTS breeding and refugia habitat.

The protocol-level surveys for CTS require more than one survey season and are dependent upon sufficient rainfall to complete. As a result, consultation with CDFW and the USFWS is recommended well in advance of beginning the surveys and prior to any planned vegetation- or ground-disturbing activities. CDFW advises that the protocol-level survey include a 100-foot buffer around the Project area in all areas of wetland and upland habitat that could support CTS. Please be advised that protocol-level survey results are viable for two years after the results are reviewed by CDFW.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 2: CTS Avoidance
If CTS protocol-level surveys as described above are not conducted, CDFW advises that a minimum 50-foot no-disturbance buffer be delineated around all small mammal burrows in suitable upland refugia habitat within and/or adjacent to the Project site.

Further, CDFW recommends potential or known breeding habitat within and/or adjacent to the Project site be delineated with a minimum 250-foot no-disturbance buffer. Both upland burrow and wetland/pond breeding no-disturbance buffers are intended to DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E2ABEDD-1F16-421F-96BF-069B11C15CBD Thomas Gaffery, Community and Economic Development Director City of Fowler
February 15, 2023

Page 5 ends

minimize impacts to CTS habitat and avoid take of individuals. Alternatively, the applicant can assume presence of CTS within the Project site and obtain from CDFW an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) in accordance with Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b).

Recommended Mitigation Measure 3: CTS Take Authorization If through surveys, or other observations, it is determined that CTS are occupying or have the potential to occupy an individual Project site, consultation with CDFW is warranted to determine if the Project can avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, acquisition of take authorization would be warranted prior to initiating ground-disturbing activities to comply with CESA. Take authorization would occur through issuance of an ITP by CDFW, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b). As stated above, in the absence of protocol surveys, the applicant can assume presence of CTS within the Project site and obtain an ITP from CDFW.

COMMENT 2: Swainson’s Hawk (SWHA)
Issue: CNDDB (2023) information shows that Swainson’s hawks utilize the agricultural fields surrounding the City of Fowler. SWHA have the potential to nest in areas with large, mature trees which are present both in the City of Fowler and in the surrounding area per Google aerials and Google Streetview (2023). SWHA foraging habitat exists within the Project area in the form of dryland pastures, grassy ruderal lots, alfalfa, and some irrigated crops due to a higher accessibility and relative abundance of prey.

CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a habitat assessment and protocol-level surveys for SWHA as part of the biological technical studies conducted in support of any project approved under this General Plan update.

Specific impacts: SWHA exhibit high nest-site fidelity year after year in the San Joaquin Valley (CDFW 2016). The Project as proposed may involve noise, groundwork, and movement of workers that could affect nests and has the potential to result in nest abandonment, significantly impacting local nesting SWHA. Without appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for SWHA, potential significant impacts that may result from Project activities include nest abandonment, and reduced nesting success (loss or reduced health or vigor of eggs or young) from loss of foraging habitat, and direct mortality. Any take of SWHA without appropriate incidental take authorization would be a violation of Fish and Game Code.

Evidence impact is potentially significant: Approval of the upcoming EIR may lead to subsequent ground-disturbing activities that involve noise, groundwork, and movement of workers that could affect nests and has the potential to result in nest abandonment and loss of foraging habitat, significantly impacting local nesting SWHA.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 4: SWHA Surveys
SWHA are known to travel for miles to forage. Therefore, CDFW recommends surveys be conducted as part of the biological technical studies conducted for most projects that DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E2ABEDD-1F16-421F-96BF-069B11C15CBD Thomas Gaffery, Community and Economic Development Director City of Fowler
February 15, 2023

Page 6 ends

would result under this General Plan by a qualified biologist with knowledge of SWHA natural history and behaviors, following the survey methods developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SWHA TAC 2000). Regardless of the initial survey effort, CDFW recommends that the survey be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist again within the survey season immediately prior to project implementation. In addition, CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist determine if SWHA foraging habitat occurs on any individual Project site and/or if suitable nesting habitat is present within 0.5-mile of the site. If suitable SWHA nesting habitat is present within 0.5-mile of an individual Project-site, CDFW recommends consultation with CDFW to determine if SWHA nest surveys are warranted.

The survey protocol includes early season surveys to assist the project proponent in implementing necessary avoidance and minimization measures, and in identifying active nest sites prior to initiating ground-disturbing activities. If suitable nesting habitat is within 0.5-mile of an individual Project site, SHWA nest surveys were warranted, and ground-disturbing activities will take place during the normal bird breeding season (March 1 through September 15), CDFW recommends that additional pre-activity surveys for active nests be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 10 days prior to the start of Project implementation to ensure that SHWA have not begun nesting immediately before Project activities begin.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 5: No-disturbance Buffer CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 0.5-mile be delineated around active nests until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. If a 0.5-mile no disturbance buffer from an active nest is not feasible, consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the Project and avoid take.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 6: SWHA Take Authorization If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition of an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) is necessary to comply with CESA.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 7: Loss of SWHA Foraging Habitat If SWHA foraging habitat occurs on any individual Project site and will be impacted by the proposed project, CDFW recommends compensating for the loss of SWHA foraging habitat as described in CDFW’s “Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson's Hawks” (CDFG 1994) to reduce impacts to foraging habitat to less than significant. The Staff Report recommends that mitigation for habitat loss occur within a minimum distance of 10 miles from known nest sites. CDFW has the following recommendations based on the Staff Report:
• For projects within 1 mile of an active nest tree, a minimum of 1 acre of habitat management (HM) land for each acre of development is advised.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E2ABEDD-1F16-421F-96BF-069B11C15CBD Thomas Gaffery, Community and Economic Development Director City of Fowler
February 15, 2023

Page 7 ends

• For projects within 5 miles of an active nest but greater than 1 mile, a minimum of 0.75 acre of HM land for each acre of development is advised. • For projects within 10 miles of an active nest tree but greater than 5 miles from an active nest tree, a minimum of 0.5 acre of HM land for each acre of development is advised.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 8: SWHA Nest Trees
CDFW recommends that the removal of known raptor nest trees, even outside of the nesting season, be replaced with an appropriate native tree species planting at a ratio of 3:1 at or near the Project area or in another area that will be protected in perpetuity to reduce impacts resulting from the loss of nesting habitat.

COMMENT 3: Burrowing Owl (BUOW)
Issue: BUOW may occur within and/or adjacent to the Project area. BUOW typically inhabit open grassland containing small mammal burrows, but are also known to occupy canal banks, ROWs, vacant lots, etc. containing small mammal burrows, a requisite habitat feature used by BUOW for nesting and cover. BUOW may also attempt to use “man-made burrows” such as the pipes or culverts. Patches of annual or ruderal grassland within and adjacent to the City of Fowler as well as the surrounding agricultural fields may support suitable habitat for BUOW. In addition, the Fowler area contains numerous canals including but not limited to: the dirt-lined Kirby Canal, Kirby Ditch, Norris Canal, and Wristen Canal. The ditches throughout the Project area could also provide BUOW with suitable burrow habitat present along the banks.

Specific impact: Potentially significant direct impacts associated with subsequent activities include burrow collapse, inadvertent entrapment, nest abandonment, reduced reproductive success, reduction in health and vigor of eggs and/or young, and direct mortality of individuals.

Evidence impact is potentially significant: BUOW rely on burrow habitat year-round for their survival and reproduction. Habitat loss and degradation are considered the greatest threats to BUOW in California’s Central Valley (Gervais et al. 2008). The Project site is bordered by some areas that could potentially provide nesting habitat, the remainder of the area is otherwise intensively managed for agriculture. Therefore, subsequent ground-disturbing activities associated with the Project have the potential to significantly impact local BUOW populations. In addition, and as described in CDFW’s “Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation” (CDFG 2012), excluding and/or evicting BUOW from their burrows is considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 9: BUOW Surveys
CDFW recommends assessing presence/absence of BUOW at each Project site and its immediate vicinity by having a qualified biologist conduct surveys following the California Burrowing Owl Consortium’s “Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines” (CBOC 1993) and CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation” DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E2ABEDD-1F16-421F-96BF-069B11C15CBD Thomas Gaffery, Community and Economic Development Director City of Fowler
February 15, 2023

Page 8 ends

(CDFG 2012). Specifically, CBOC and CDFW’s Staff Report suggest three or more surveillance surveys conducted during daylight with each visit occurring at least three weeks apart during the peak breeding season (April 15 to July 15), when BUOW are most detectable.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 10: BUOW Avoidance
CDFW recommends no-disturbance buffers, as outlined in the “Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation” (CDFG 2012), be implemented prior to and during any ground-disturbing activities. Specifically, CDFW’s Staff Report recommends that impacts to occupied burrows be avoided in accordance with the following table unless a qualified biologist approved by CDFW verifies through non-invasive methods that either:
1) the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation; or 2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 11: BUOW Passive Relocation and Mitigation If BUOW are found within these recommended buffers and avoidance is not possible, it is important to note that according to the Staff Report (CDFG 2012), exclusion is not a take avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and is considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA. However, if necessary, CDFW recommends that burrow exclusion be conducted by qualified biologists and only during the non-breeding season, before breeding behavior is exhibited and after the burrow is confirmed empty through non-invasive methods, such as surveillance. CDFW recommends replacement of occupied burrows with artificial burrows at a ratio of 1 burrow collapsed to 1 artificial burrow constructed (1:1) as mitigation for the potentially significant impact of evicting BUOW. BUOW may attempt to colonize or re-colonize an area that will be impacted; thus, CDFW recommends ongoing surveillance, at a rate that is sufficient to detect BUOW if they return.

COMMENT 4: Special-Status Bat Species
Issue: Pallid bats and western mastiff bats have been documented to occur in the vicinity of the Project area (CDFW 2023). In addition, habitat features that have the potential to support species, including open areas, semi-arid conditions, suitable food sources, and water nearby, are present within/adjacent to the Project area.

Specific impact: Without appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for special-status bat species, potential significant impacts resulting from ground- and DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E2ABEDD-1F16-421F-96BF-069B11C15CBD Thomas Gaffery, Community and Economic Development Director City of Fowler
February 15, 2023

Page 9 ends

vegetation-disturbing activities associated with Project construction include habitat loss, inadvertent entrapment, roost abandonment, reduced reproductive success, reduction in health and vigor of young, and direct mortality of individuals.

Evidence impact is potentially significant: Pallid bat and other bats are known to roost under bridges (Lewis 1994). Project activities on or around bridges have the potential to affect habitat upon which special-status bat species depend on for successful breeding, and the potential to impact individuals and local populations.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 12: Habitat Assessment
CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a habitat assessment as part of the biological technical studies conducted in support of any project approved under this General Plan to determine if an individual Project site or its immediate vicinity contains suitable habitat for special-status bat species.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 13: Focused Surveys
If suitable habitat is present, CDFW recommends assessing presence/absence of special-status bats by conducting protocol-level surveys during the appropriate seasonal period of bat activity.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 14: Consultation
Detection of special-status bat species warrants consultation with CDFW prior to any activity that may disturb bats. CDFW recommends submitting a Bat Eviction Plan to CDFW for written approval prior to project implementation, and that the Eviction Plan include details for excluding bats from the roost site, and a monitoring plan to ensure that all bats have exited the roost prior to the start of activity and will be unable to reenter the roost until activity is completed. CDFW also recommends that Project or bat eviction activities be timed to avoid lactation and young-rearing.

COMMENT 5: Coast Horned Lizard (CHL)
Issue: Coast horned lizards have been known to occur in the vicinity of the Project area (CDFW 2023). Coast horned lizards occur in a wide variety of habitat types but require loose, fine soils for burrowing, open areas for thermoregulation, and shrub cover for refugia (Thomson et al. 2016). Review of aerial imagery and soil characteristics indicates that portions of the Project area could provide these requisite habitat features (CDFW 2023). CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a habitat assessment and surveys for CHL as part of the biological technical studies conducted in support of the CEQA document for Project’s approved under this General Plan.

Specific impact: Without appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for coast horned lizards, potentially significant impacts associated with ground disturbance include burrow abandonment, which may result in reduced health or vigor of eggs and/or young, and direct mortality.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E2ABEDD-1F16-421F-96BF-069B11C15CBD Thomas Gaffery, Community and Economic Development Director City of Fowler
February 15, 2023

Page 10 ends

Evidence impact is potentially significant: Habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from development is the primary threat to coast horned lizard (Thomson et al. 2016).

The Project area is within the range of coast horned lizard and portions of it are comprised of and bordered by suitable habitat as mentioned previously. As a result, ground-disturbing activities associated with development of the Project area have the potential to significantly impact local populations of this species.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 15: Habitat Assessment
CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a habitat assessment in advance of project implementation, to determine if the Project area or its immediate vicinity contain suitable habitat for coast horned lizard.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 16: Focused Surveys
If suitable habitat is present, CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist conduct focused surveys for coast horned lizard and their requisite habitat features to evaluate potential impacts resulting from ground- and vegetation-disturbance.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 17: Avoidance
Avoidance whenever possible is encouraged via delineation and observance of a 50- foot no-disturbance buffer around burrows.

COMMENT 6: Light Impact Analysis
Recommended Mitigation Measure 18: Light Output Analysis Due to the addition of three new tiers for this Project that total 1,725 acres on the west, northeast, and south sides of the City of Fowler, the lead agency should submit information as part of the final EIR that note current light levels present during PreProject conditions and the predicted Project light levels that will be created upon completion of all Project’s envisioned under this General Plan. If an increase in light output from current levels to the projected future levels is evident, additional avoidance, minimization or mitigation should be developed in coordination with the natural resource agencies to offset indirect impacts to State listed species such as California tiger salamander. For Projects approved under this General Plan that introduce new light sources or change the lumens or color of existing light sources, those project should include a light output and analysis. Within 60 days of Project completion the lead agency should conduct a ground survey that compares projected future light levels with actual light levels achieved upon completion of the Project. If an increase from the projected levels is discovered, additional avoidance, minimization or mitigation measures, and further coordination with the natural resource agencies may be warranted.

Recommended Mitigation Measure 19: Light Output Limits
All LED’s or bulbs installed as a result of any Project shall be rated to emit or produce light at or under 2700 kelvin that results in the output of a warm white color spectrum.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E2ABEDD-1F16-421F-96BF-069B11C15CBD Thomas Gaffery, Community and Economic Development Director City of Fowler
February 15, 2023

Page 11 ends

II. Editorial Comments and/or Suggestions
Lake and Streambed Alteration: The Project contains features that may result in Project activities at individual Project sites being subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake; or (c) deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake. “Any river, stream, or lake” includes those that are ephemeral or intermittent, such as the unnamed stream within the Project site, as well as those that are perennial in nature.

For additional information on notification requirements, please contact our staff in the Lake and Streambed Alteration Program at (559) 243-4593. It is important to note, CDFW is required to comply with CEQA, as a Responsible Agency, when issuing a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA). If inadequate, or no environmental review, has occurred, for the Project activities that are subject to notification under Fish and Game Code section 1602, CDFW will not be able to issue the Final LSAA until CEQA analysis for the project is complete. This may lead to considerable Project delays.

Federally Listed Species: CDFW recommends consulting with the USFWS on potential impacts to federally listed species including, but not limited to, CTS. Take under FESA is more broadly defined than CESA; take under FESA also includes significant habitat modification or degradation that could result in death or injury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, foraging, or nesting. Consultation with the USFWS in order to comply with FESA is advised well in advance of any ground-disturbing activities.

Nesting birds: CDFW encourages that Project ground-disturbing activities occur during the bird non-nesting season; however, if ground-disturbing or vegetationdisturbing activities must occur during the nesting season (February 1st through September 15th), the Project applicant is responsible for ensuring that implementation of the Project does not result in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or relevant Fish and Game Codes as referenced above.

To evaluate Project-related impacts on nesting birds, CDFW recommends that a general habitat assessment for nesting birds be conducted as part of the biological technical studies conducted in support of the CEQA document. Depending on the results of that assessment, CDFW further recommends that the CEQA document for this Project include that a qualified wildlife biologist conduct a pre-construction survey for active nests no more than 10 days prior to the start of ground or vegetation disturbance to maximize the probability that nests that could potentially be impacted are detected. CDFW also recommends that surveys cover a sufficient area around the DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E2ABEDD-1F16-421F-96BF-069B11C15CBD Thomas Gaffery, Community and Economic Development Director City of Fowler
February 15, 2023

Page 12 ends

Project site to identify nests and determine their status. A sufficient area means any area potentially affected, either directly or indirectly, by the Project. In addition to direct impacts (i.e. nest destruction), noise, vibration, and movement of workers or equipment could also affect nests. CDFW recommends that a qualified biologist establish a behavioral baseline of all identified nests. Once Project activities begin, CDFW recommends having a qualified biologist continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from the Project. If behavioral changes occur, CDFW recommends halting the work causing that change and consulting with CDFW for additional avoidance and minimization measures.

If continuous monitoring of identified nests by a qualified wildlife biologist is not feasible, CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of non-listed raptors. These buffers are advised to remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or on-site parental care for survival.

Variance from these no-disturbance buffers is possible when there is a compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as when the Project area would be concealed from a nest site by topography. CDFW recommends that a qualified wildlife biologist advise and support any variance from these buffers and notify CDFW in advance of implementing a variance.

Project Alternatives Analysis: CDFW recommends that the information and results obtained from the biological technical surveys, studies, and analysis conducted in support of the project’s CEQA documents be used to develop and modify the project’s alternatives to avoid and minimize impacts to biological resources to the maximum extent possible. When efforts to avoid and minimize have been exhausted, remaining impacts to sensitive biological resources should be mitigated to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, if feasible.

Cumulative Impacts: CDFW recommends that a cumulative impact analysis be conducted for all biological resources that will either be significantly or potentially significantly impacted by implementation of the Project, including those whose impacts are determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated or for those resources that are rare or in poor or declining health and will be impacted by the project, even if those impacts are relatively small (i.e. less than significant). CDFW recommends cumulative impacts be analyzed using an acceptable methodology to evaluate the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects on resources and be focused specifically on the resource, not the Project. An appropriate resource study area identified and utilized for this analysis is advised. CDFW staff is available for consultation in support of cumulative impacts analyses as a trustee and responsible agency under CEQA.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E2ABEDD-1F16-421F-96BF-069B11C15CBD Thomas Gaffery, Community and Economic Development Director City of Fowler
February 15, 2023

Page 13 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNDDB field survey form can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The completed form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address:

[email protected]. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.

FILING FEES
If it is determined that the Project has the potential to impact biological resources, an assessment of filing fees will be necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G.

Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089).

CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Project to assist the City of Fowler in identifying and mitigating the Project’s impacts on biological resources.

More information on survey and monitoring protocols for sensitive species can be found at CDFW’s website (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols). If you have any questions, please contact Kelley Nelson, Environmental Scientist, at the address provided on this letterhead, by telephone at (559) 580-3194, or by electronic mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Julie A. Vance
Regional Manager
Attachment
ec: Patricia Cole ([email protected])
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Linda Connolly
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E2ABEDD-1F16-421F-96BF-069B11C15CBD Thomas Gaffery, Community and Economic Development Director City of Fowler
February 15, 2023

Page 14 ends

LITERATURE CITED
California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing owl survey protocol and mitigation guidelines. April 1993.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1994. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo Swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. California Department of Fish and Game.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2015. California Tiger Salamander Technical Review – Habitat, Impacts and Conservation. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, October 2015.

CDFG. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. California Department of Fish and Game.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2015. California Tiger Salamander Technical Review – Habitat, Impacts and Conservation. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, October 2015.

CDFW. 2016. Five Year Status Review for Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. April 11, 2016.

CDFW. 2020. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. Accessed January 26, 2023.

Gervais, J.A., D.D. Rosenberg, and L.A. Comrack. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) in Shuford, W.D. and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, USA.

Lewis, S. E., 1994. Night roosting ecology of pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus) in Oregon.

The American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 132, pp. 219-226.

Searcy, C.A. and H.B. Shaffer. 2011. Determining the migration distance of a vagile vernal pool specialist: How much land is required for conservation of California tiger salamanders? In Research and Recovery in Vernal Pool Landscapes, D. G.

Alexander and R. A. Schlising, Eds. California State University, Chico, California.

Searcy, C.A., E. Gabbai-Saldate, and H.B. Shaffer. 2013. Microhabitat use and migration distance of an endangered grassland amphibian. Biological Conservation 158: 80-87.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E2ABEDD-1F16-421F-96BF-069B11C15CBD Thomas Gaffery, Community and Economic Development Director City of Fowler
February 15, 2023

Page 15 ends

Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SWHA TAC). 2000. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee, May 31, 2000.

Thomson, R. C., A. N. Wright, and H. Bradley Shaffer, 2016. California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern. California Department of Fish and Wildlife and University of California Press.

USFWS. 2003. Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander, October 2003.

USFWS. 2017a. Recovery Plan for the Central California Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8, Sacramento, California. June 2017.

University of California, Davis (UC Davis), 2021. California Soil Resources Lab. https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/. Accessed November 22, 2021.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E2ABEDD-1F16-421F-96BF-069B11C15CBD 1 Rev. 2013.1.1
Attachment 1

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM (MMRP)
PROJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 2021-0492–City of Fowler General Plan Update Project
SCH No.: 2021110053

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURE STATUS/DATE/INITIALS
Before Disturbing Soil or Vegetation
Mitigation Measure 1: Focused CTS Protocol-level Surveys Mitigation Measure 2: CTS Avoidance
Mitigation Measure 4: SWHA Surveys
Mitigation Measure 5: SWHA No-Disturbance Buffer
Mitigation Measure 7: Loss of SWHA Foraging Habitat
Mitigation Measure 9: BUOW Surveys
Mitigation Measure 11: BUOW Passive Relocation and Mitigation Mitigation Measure 12: Special-Status Bat Species Habitat Assessment
Mitigation Measure 13: Focused Special-Status Bat Species Surveys
Mitigation Measure 14: Consultation for Special-Status Bat Species
Mitigation Measure 15: Coast Horned Lizard Habitat Assessment Mitigation Measure 16: Coast Horned Lizard Focused Surveys Mitigation Measure 18: Light Output Analysis
Mitigation Measure 19: Light Output Limits
During Construction
Mitigation Measure 3: CTS Take Authorization
Mitigation Measure 6: SWHA Take Authorization
Mitigation Measure 8: SWHA Nest Trees
Mitigation Measure 10: BUOW Avoidance
Mitigation Measure 17: Coast Horned Lizard Avoidance
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E2ABEDD-1F16-421F-96BF-069B11C15CBD City of Fowler 2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
March 2023 11

3. Response to commentsfrom California Department of Fish and Wildlife dated February 15, 2023.
3A Future development within the City of Fowler and individual project impacts to biological resources within the City would be considered on a case-by-case basis at the time an application is received by the City. Any applicable future environmental analysis would consider potential impacts not already discussed within the DEIR. A project must comply with the mitigation measures outlined in the DEIR and if warranted provide a projectspecific biological evaluation for potentially-affected species. At that time a qualified biologist would provide the City additional specific mitigation measures (such as the mitigation measures outlined in the comment letter) prior to the approval of a project.

The City is required to meet all local, State, and federal laws and regulations governing the protection and conservation of biological resources within its jurisdiction. When applicable, the City will continue to route individual projects to CDFW and USFWS for comment.
3B See Response 3A.
3C See Response 3A.
3D See Response 3A.
3E See Response 3A.
3F See Response 3A.
3G See Response 3A.

City of Fowler 2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
March 2023 12
LETTER 4 – San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (17 pages) February 16, 2023
Wilma Tucker
City of Fowler
128 South 5th Street
Fowler, CA, 93625
Project: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Fowler 2040 General Plan Update
District CEQA Reference No: 20221690
Dear Ms. Tucker:

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from the City of Fowler (City) for the City of Fowler 2040 General Plan Update. Per the DEIR, the project consists of an outline the City goals, polices, and action items intended to guide the future development of Fowler to full buildout through the year 2040 (General Plan). At full buildout, the City of Fowler General Plan accommodates 15,530 dwelling units and 25,822,662 square feet of nonresidential development (i.e. commercial, industrial, etc...). The General Plan is for the City of Fowler which covers the northern expansion between Minnewawa and Kenneth Avenues, southern expansion between Temperance Avenue and Manning Avenue south to Springfield Avenue and State Route 99.

The District offers the following comments regarding the General Plan:

Land Use Planning
Nearly all development projects within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, from the General Plan to individual projects have the potential to generate air pollutants, making it more difficult to attain state and federal ambient air quality standards.

Land use decisions are critical to improving air quality within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin because land use patterns greatly influence transportation needs, and motor vehicle emissions are the largest source of air pollution in the Valley. Land use decisions and project design elements such as preventing urban sprawl, encouraging mix-use development, and project design elements that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have proven to be beneficial for air quality. The District recommends that the General Plan incorporate strategies that reduce VMTs and require the cleanest available Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks and vehicles, including zero and near-zero technologies. VMTs can be reduced through San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 of 17 District Reference No: 20221690
February 16, 2023
encouragement of mix-use development, walkable communities, etc. Additional design element options can be found at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/ob0pweru/clean-air-measures.pdf In addition, the District recommends that the General Plan incorporate strategies that will advance implementation of the best practices listed in Tables 5 and 6 of California Air Resource Board’s (CARB’s) Freight Handbook Concept Paper, to the extent feasible. This document compiles best practices designed to address air pollution impacts as “practices” which may apply to the siting, design, construction, and operation of freight facilities to minimize health impacts on nearby communities.

The concept paper is available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/2019.12.12%20- %20Concept%20Paper%20for%20the%20Freight%20Handbook_1.pdf Assembly Bill 617
Assembly Bill 617 requires CARB and air districts to develop and implement Community Emission Reduction Programs (CERPs) in an effort to reduce air pollution exposure in impacted disadvantage communities. The boundary of the area the General Plan lies near the South Central Fresno AB 617 community which was selected by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) under the Assembly Bill (AB) 617 (2017, Garcia) and has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to increased air pollution within the nearby impacted community. The South Central Fresno CERP was adopted by the District’s Governing Board in September of 2019 and identifies a wide range of measures designed to reduce air pollution exposure.

Therefore, in an effort to reduce air pollution exposure to the impacted disadvantaged community, the District recommends the City incorporate mitigation measures outlined in the South Central Fresno CERP for the areas of the General Plan that located near the South Central Fresno AB617 community. For more information regarding the CERP approved for South Central Fresno, please visit the District’s website at:
http://community.valleyair.org/selected-communities/south-central-fresno Project Related Emissions
At the federal level under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the District is designated as extreme nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standards and serious nonattainment for the particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5) standards. At the state level under California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the District is designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone, PM10, PM2.5 standards.

The District understands that the General Plan is a program-level project where future individual project-specific data may not be available at this time. As such, the DEIR and the General Plan should include a discussion of policies, which when San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 of 17 District Reference No: 20221690
February 16, 2023
implemented, will require assessment and characterization of project-level emissions, and subsequently require mitigation of air quality impacts to the extent feasible at the individual project-specific level.

Environmental reviews of potential impacts on air quality should incorporate the following items:

Construction Emissions
The District recommends, to reduce impacts from construction-related diesel exhaust emissions, future development projects should utilize the cleanest available off-road construction equipment, including the latest tier equipment.

Operational Emissions
For future development projects, operational (ongoing) air emissions from mobile sources and stationary sources should be analyzed separately. For reference, the District’s significance thresholds are identified in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf.

Recommended Mitigation Measure: At a minimum, project related impacts on air quality should be reduced to levels of significance through incorporation of design elements such as the use of cleaner Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks and vehicles, measures that reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMTs), and measures that increase energy efficiency. More information on transportation mitigation measures can be found at:
http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/Mitigation-Measures.pdf.

Recommended Model for Quantifying Air Emissions
Project-related criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operational sources should be identified and quantified. Emissions analysis should be performed using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which uses the most recent CARB-approved version of relevant emissions models and emission factors. CalEEMod is available to the public and can be downloaded from the CalEEMod website at: www.caleemod.com.

Health Risk Screening/Assessment
Based on the DEIR, the potential health risk impacts are potentially significant.

However, per the DEIR Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) could not be quantified for individual projects at this time. The District recommend the City evaluate the risk associated with the future development projects for sensitive receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day-care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) in the area and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 of 17 District Reference No: 20221690
February 16, 2023
mitigate any potentially significant risk to help limit exposure of sensitive receptors to emissions.

To determine potential health impacts on surrounding receptors (residences, businesses, hospitals, day-care facilities, health care facilities, etc.) a Prioritization and/or a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) should be performed for future development projects. These health risk determinations should quantify and characterize potential TACs identified by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment/California Air Resources Board (OEHHA/CARB) that pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

Health risk analyses should include all potential air emissions from the project, which include emissions from construction of the project, including multi-year construction, as well as ongoing operational activities of the project. Note, two common sources of TACs can be attributed to diesel exhaust emitted from heavy-duty off-road earth moving equipment during construction, and from ongoing operation of heavy-duty on-road trucks.

Prioritization (Screening Health Risk Assessment):

A “Prioritization” is the recommended method for a conservative screening-level health risk assessment. The Prioritization should be performed using the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) methodology.

The District recommends that a more refined analysis, in the form of an HRA, be performed for any project resulting in a Prioritization score of 10 or greater. This is because the prioritization results are a conservative health risk representation, while the detailed HRA provides a more accurate health risk evaluation.

To assist land use agencies and project proponents with Prioritization analyses, the District has created a prioritization calculator based on the aforementioned CAPCOA guidelines, which can be found here:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/emission_factors/Criteria/Toxics/Utilities/PRIORI TIZATION-CALCULATOR.xls
Health Risk Assessment:

Prior to performing an HRA, it is strongly recommended that land use agencies/ project proponents develop and submit for District review a health risk modeling protocol that outlines the sources and methodologies that will be used to perform the HRA. This step will ensure all components are addressed when performing the HRA.

A development project would be considered to have a potentially significant health risk if the HRA demonstrates that the project-related health impacts would exceed the District’s significance threshold of 20 in a million for carcinogenic risk, or 1.0 for either the Acute or Chronic Hazard Indices.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 5 of 17 District Reference No: 20221690
February 16, 2023
A project with a significant health risk would trigger all feasible mitigation measures.

The District strongly recommends that development projects that result in a significant health risk not be approved by the land use agency.

The District is available to review HRA protocols and analyses. For HRA submittals please provide the following information electronically to the District for review:
 HRA (AERMOD) modeling files
 HARP2 files
 Summary of emissions source locations, emissions rates, and emission factor calculations and methodologies.

For assistance, please contact the District’s Technical Services Department by:
 E-Mailing inquiries to: [email protected]
 Calling (559) 230-5900
Recommended Measure: Development projects resulting in TAC emissions should be located an adequate distance from residential areas and other sensitive receptors in accordance to CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective located at https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.

Ambient Air Quality Analysis
An Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emissions increases from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The District recommends an AAQA be performed for any future development projects with emissions that exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant.

An acceptable analysis would include emissions from both project-specific permitted and non-permitted equipment and activities. The District recommends consultation with District staff to determine the appropriate model and input data to use in the analysis.

Specific information for assessing significance, including screening tools and modeling guidance, is available online at the District’s website:
www.valleyair.org/ceqa.

Allowed Uses Not Requiring Project-Specific Discretionary Approval In some cases, for future development projects, the City may determine that a project be approved as an allowed use not requiring a project-specific discretionary San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 6 of 17 District Reference No: 20221690
February 16, 2023
approval from the City. The District recommends the DEIR include language supported by policy requiring such projects to prepare a technical assessment in consultation with the District, and recommending that a VERA be considered for development projects determined to result in a significant impact on air quality. For example, this requirement would apply to large development projects (e.g., large residential project, large distribution center, large warehouse, etc.) that would have the potential to significantly impact air quality and is determined by the City to be allowed by use, not requiring a project specific discretionary approval from the City.

Recommended Emission Reduction Strategies to Reduce Emissions from Future Development Projects
Industrial/Warehouse Emission Reduction Strategies
The District recommends the City consider the feasibility of incorporating emission reduction strategies that can reduce potential harmful health impacts, such as those listed below:
 Ensure solid screen buffering trees, solid decorative walls, and/or other natural ground landscaping techniques are implemented along the property line of adjacent sensitive receptors
 Ensure all landscaping be drought tolerant
 Orient loading docks away from sensitive receptors unless physically impossible
 Locate loading docks a minimum of 300 feet away from the property line of sensitive receptor unless dock is exclusively used for electric trucks  Incorporate signage and “pavement markings” to clearly identify on-site circulation patterns to minimize unnecessary on-site vehicle travel  Locate truck entries on streets of a higher commercial classification  Ensure all building roofs are solar-ready
 Ensure all portions of roof tops that are not covered with solar panels are constructed to have light colored roofing material with a solar reflective index of greater than 78
 Ensure rooftop solar panels are installed and operated to supply 100% of the power needed to operate all non-refrigerated portions of the development project
 Ensure power sources at loading docks for all refrigerated trucks have “plugin” capacity, which will eliminate prolonged idling while loading and unloading goods
 Incorporate bicycle racks and electric bike plug-ins
 Require the use of low volatile organic compounds (VOC) architectural and industrial maintenance coatings
 Designate an area during construction to charge electric powered construction vehicles and equipment, if temporary power is available San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 7 of 17 District Reference No: 20221690
February 16, 2023
 Prohibit the use of non-emergency diesel-powered generators during construction
 Inform the project proponent of the incentive programs (e.g., Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program) offered to reduce air emissions from the Project
Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
Future development projects within the General Plan could have a significant impact on air quality. The District recommends the DEIR include a feasibility discussion on implementing a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) as a mitigation measure for future development projects that are determined to exceed the District’s CEQA significance thresholds.

A VERA is a mitigation measure by which the project proponent provides pound-for-pound mitigation of emissions increases through a process that develops, funds, and implements emission reduction projects, with the District serving a role of administrator of the emissions reduction projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort. To implement a VERA, the project proponent and the District enter into a contractual agreement in which the project proponent agrees to mitigate project specific emissions by providing funds for the District’s incentives programs. The funds are disbursed by the District in the form of grants for projects that achieve emission reductions. Thus, projectrelated impacts on air quality can be mitigated. Types of emission reduction projects that have been funded in the past include electrification of stationary internal combustion engines (such as agricultural irrigation pumps), replacing old heavy-duty trucks with new, cleaner, more efficient heavy-duty trucks, and replacement of old farm tractors.

In implementing a VERA, the District verifies the actual emission reductions that have been achieved as a result of completed grant contracts, monitors the emission reduction projects, and ensures the enforceability of achieved reductions. After the project is mitigated, the District certifies to the Lead Agency that the mitigation is completed, providing the Lead Agency with an enforceable mitigation measure demonstrating that project-related emissions have been mitigated. To assist the Lead Agency and project proponent in ensuring that the environmental document is compliant with CEQA, the District recommends the environmental document includes an assessment of the feasibility of implementing a VERA.

On-Site Solar Deployment
It is the policy of the State of California that renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 8 of 17 District Reference No: 20221690
February 16, 2023
end-use customers by December 31, 2045. While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, the production of solar energy is contributing to improving air quality and public health. The District suggests that the City consider incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for future development projects.

Electric Vehicle Chargers
To support and accelerate the installation of electric vehicle charging equipment and development of required infrastructure, the District offers incentives to public agencies, businesses, and property owners of multi-unit dwellings to install electric charging infrastructure (Level 2 and 3 chargers).

The purpose of the District’s Charge Up! Incentive program is to promote clean air alternative-fuel technologies and the use of low or zero-emission vehicles.

The District recommends that the City and project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at project sites, and at strategic locations.

Please visit www.valleyair.org/grants/chargeup.htm for more information.

Truck Routing
Truck routing involves the assessment of which roads Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks take to and from their destination, and the emissions impact that the HHD trucks may have on residential communities and sensitive receptors.

Future development within the General Plan has to potential for industrial uses that would result in an increase in HHD truck trips.

The District recommends the City evaluate HHD truck routing patterns for future development projects, with the aim of limiting exposure of residential communities and sensitive receptors to emissions. This evaluation would consider the current truck routes, the quantity and type of each truck (e.g., Medium Heavy-Duty, HHD, etc.), the destination and origin of each trip, traffic volume correlation with the time of day or the day of the week, overall Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and associated exhaust emissions. The truck routing evaluation would also identify alternative truck routes and their impacts on VMT and air quality.

Cleanest Available Heavy-Duty Trucks
The San Joaquin Valley will not be able to attain stringent health-based federal air quality standards without significant reductions in emissions from HHD trucks, the single largest source of NOx emissions in the San Joaquin Valley.

The District’s CARB-approved 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes significant new reductions from HHD trucks, including emissions reductions by 2023 through San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 9 of 17 District Reference No: 20221690
February 16, 2023
the implementation of CARB’s Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation, which requires truck fleets operating in California to meet the 2010 standard of 0.2 gNOx/bhp-hr by 2023. Additionally, to meet federal air quality attainment standards, the District’s Plan relies on a significant and immediate transition of HHD fleets to zero or near-zero emissions technologies, including the nearzero truck standard of 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx established by CARB.

Since the General Plan could include industrial/warehouse type of development which could generate a high volume of HHD truck traffic, there is the potential of HHD trucks traveling to-and-from the project location at longer distribution trip length distances. The District recommends for future development projects, that the following measures be considered by the City to reduce Project-related operational emissions:
 Recommended Measure: Fleets associated with operational activities utilize the cleanest available HHD trucks, including zero and near-zero (0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx) technologies.
 Recommended Measure: All on-site service equipment (cargo handling, yard hostlers, forklifts, pallet jacks, etc.) utilize zero-emissions technologies.

Reduce Idling of Heavy-Duty Trucks
The goal of this strategy is to limit the potential for localized PM2.5 and toxic air contaminant impacts associated with the idling of Heavy-Duty trucks. The diesel exhaust from idling has the potential to impose significant adverse health and environmental impacts.

Since future development projects are expected to result in HHD truck trips, the District recommends the DEIR include measures to ensure compliance of the state anti-idling regulation (13 CCR § 2485 and 13 CCR § 2480) and discuss the importance of limiting the amount of idling, especially near sensitive receptors. In addition, the District recommends the City consider the feasibility of implementing a more stringent 3-minute idling restriction and requiring appropriate signage and enforcement of idling restrictions.

Electric On-Site Off-Road and On-Road Equipment
Future development projects may have the potential to result in increased use of offroad equipment (e.g., forklifts) and on-road equipment (e.g., mobile yard trucks with the ability to move materials). The District recommends that the City include requirements for project proponents to utilize electric or zero emission off-road and on-road equipment.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 10 of 17 District Reference No: 20221690
February 16, 2023
Under-fired Charbroilers
Future development projects have the potential to occupy restaurants with underfired charbroilers. Such charbroilers may pose the potential for immediate health risk, particularly when located in densely populated areas or near sensitive receptors.

Since the cooking of meat can release carcinogenic PM2.5 species, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, controlling emissions from new under-fired charbroilers will have a substantial positive impact on public health. The air quality impacts on neighborhoods near restaurants with under-fired charbroilers can be significant on days when meteorological conditions are stable, when dispersion is limited and emissions are trapped near the surface within the surrounding neighborhoods. This potential for neighborhood-level concentration of emissions during evening or multi-day stagnation events raises air quality concerns.

Furthermore, reducing commercial charbroiling emissions is essential to achieving attainment of multiple federal PM2.5 standards. Therefore, the District recommends that the DEIR be revised to include a measure requiring the assessment and potential installation, as technologically feasible, of particulate matter emission control systems for new large restaurants operating under-fired charbroilers.

The District is available to assist the City and project proponents with this assessment. Additionally, the District is currently offering substantial incentive funding that covers the full cost of purchasing, installing, and maintaining the system during a demonstration period covering two years of operation. Please contact the District at (559) 230-5800 or [email protected] for more information, or visit:
http://valleyair.org/grants/rctp.htm
Vegetative Barriers and Urban Greening
For future development projects within the Project area, and at strategic locations throughout the Project area in general, the District suggests the City consider incorporating vegetative barriers and urban greening as a measure to further reduce air pollution exposure on sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, schools, healthcare facilities).

While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, vegetative barriers have been shown to be an additional measure to potentially reduce a population’s exposure to air pollution through the interception of airborne particles and the update of gaseous pollutants. Examples of vegetative barriers include, but are not limited to the following: trees, bushes, shrubs, or a mix of these. Generally, a higher and thicker vegetative barrier with full coverage will result in greater reductions in downwind pollutant concentrations. In the same manner, urban greening is also a way to help San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 11 of 17 District Reference No: 20221690
February 16, 2023
improve air quality and public health in addition to enhancing the overall beautification of a community with drought tolerant, low-maintenance greenery.

Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment in the Community
Future development projects may consists of residential and commercial development, gas-powered residential and commercial lawn and garden equipment have the potential to result in an increase of NOx and PM2.5 emissions. Utilizing electric lawn care equipment can provide residents with immediate economic, environmental, and health benefits. The District recommends the Project proponent consider the District’s Clean Green Yard Machines (CGYM) program which provides incentive funding for replacement of existing gas powered lawn and garden equipment. More information on the District CGYM program and funding can be found at: http://www.valleyair.org/grants/cgym.htm
and http://valleyair.org/grants/cgym-commercial.htm.

District’s Bikeway Incentive Program
Incorporating design elements (e.g., installing bikeways) within the General Plan that enhance walkability and connectivity can result in an overall reduction of vehicles miles traveled (VMT) and improve air quality within the area. Future development projects are expected to result in an overall reduction in VMT by installing bikeways, and may be eligible for funding through the District’s Bikeway Incentive Program.

The Bikeway Incentive Program provides funding for eligible Class 1 (Bicycle Path Construction), Class II (Bicycle Lane Striping), or Class III (Bicycle Route) projects.

These incentives are designed to support the construction of new bikeway projects to promote clean air through the development of a widespread, interconnected network of bike paths, lanes, or routes and improving the general safety conditions for commuter bicyclists. Only municipalities, government agencies, or public educational institutions are eligible to apply. More information on the grant program can be found at:
http://valleyair.org/grants/bikepaths.htm
Guidelines and Project Eligibility for the grant program can be found at:
http://valleyair.org/grants/documents/bikepaths/2015_Bikeway_Guidelines.pdf Nuisance Odors
While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often resulting in citizen complaints.

The City should consider all available pertinent information to determine if future development projects could have a significant impact related to nuisance odors.

Nuisance odors may be assessed qualitatively taking into consideration the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 12 of 17 District Reference No: 20221690
February 16, 2023
proposed business or industry type and its potential to create odors, as well as proximity to off-site receptors that potentially would be exposed to objectionable odors. The intensity of an odor source’s operations and its proximity to receptors influences the potential significance of malodorous emissions. Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors should be deemed to have a significant impact.

According to the District Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), a significant odor impact is defined as more than one confirmed complaint per year averaged over a three-year period, or three unconfirmed complaints per year averaged over a three-year period. An unconfirmed complaint means that either the odor or air contaminant release could not be detected, or the source of the odor could not be determined.

As the future development projects that will fall within the General Plan do not yet exist the City should and stipulate odor mitigation measures in the DEIR as conditions of approval for those business and industry types. An example would be for a project proponent whose project is determined to have a potentially significant odor impact to draft and implement an odor management plan as a mitigation measure in the DEIR.

District Rules and Regulations
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources, and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the District’s regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. As an example, Regulation II (Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.

The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at: www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the project proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230-5888.

District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources
Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission. District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires operators of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 13 of 17 District Reference No: 20221690
February 16, 2023
emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) from the District. District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) and Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) and may require District permits. Prior to construction, the project proponents should submit to the District an application for an ATC.

Recommended Mitigation Measure: For projects subject to permitting by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, demonstration of compliance with District Rule 2201 shall be provided to the City before issuance of the first building permit.

For further information or assistance, project proponents may contact the District’s SBA Office at (559) 230-5888.

District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR)
Accordingly, future development projects within the General Plan may be subject to District Rule 9510 if upon full buildout, the project would equal or exceed any of the following applicability thresholds, depending on the type of development and public agency approval mechanism:

Table 1: ISR Applicability Thresholds
Development
Type
Discretionary
Approval Threshold
Ministerial Approval /
Allowed Use / By Right
Thresholds
Residential 50 dwelling units 250 dwelling units
Commercial 2,000 square feet 10,000 square feet
Light Industrial 25,000 square feet 125,000 square feet Heavy Industrial 100,000 square feet 500,000 square feet Medical Office 20,000 square feet 100,000 square feet
General Office 39,000 square feet 195,000 square feet
Educational Office 9,000 square feet 45,000 square feet Government 10,00 square feet 50,000 square feet
Recreational 20,000 square feet 100,000 square feet
Other 9,000 square feet 45,000 square feet
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 14 of 17 District Reference No: 20221690
February 16, 2023
District Rule 9510 also applies to any transportation or transit development projects where construction exhaust emissions equal or exceed two tons of NOx or two tons of PM.

The purpose of District Rule 9510 is to reduce the growth in both NOx and PM emissions associated with development and transportation projects from mobile and area sources; specifically, the emissions associated with the construction and subsequent operation of development projects. The Rule requires developers to mitigate their NOx and PM emissions by incorporating clean air design elements into their projects. Should the proposed development project clean air design elements be insufficient to meet the required emission reductions, developers must pay a fee that ultimately funds incentive projects to achieve off-site emissions reductions.

In the case the individual development project is subject to District Rule 9510, per Section 5.0 of the rule, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application is required to be submitted no later than applying for project-level approval from a public agency. It is preferable for the applicant to submit an AIA application as early as possible in the public agency’s approval process so that proper mitigation and clean air design under ISR can be incorporated into the public agency’s analysis.

Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRHome.htm.

The AIA application form can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRFormsAndApplications.htm.

District staff is available to provide assistance with determining if future development projects will be subject to Rule 9510, and can be reached by phone at (559) 230-5900 or by email at [email protected].

District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction)
Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) if the project would result in employment of 100 or more “eligible” employees. District Rule 9410 requires employers with 100 or more “eligible” employees at a worksite to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (eTRIP) that encourages employees to reduce singleoccupancy vehicle trips, thus reducing pollutant emissions associated with work commutes. Under an eTRIP plan, employers have the flexibility to select the options that work best for their worksites and their employees.

Information about District Rule 9410 can be found online at:
www.valleyair.org/tripreduction.htm.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 15 of 17 District Reference No: 20221690
February 16, 2023
For additional information, you can contact the District by phone at 559-230- 6000 or by e-mail at [email protected]
District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)
Future development projects will be subject to District Rule 4002 since the Project will include demolition, renovation, and removal of existing structures.

To protect the public from uncontrolled emissions of asbestos, this rule requires a thorough inspection for asbestos to be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or renovated. Any asbestos present must be handled in accordance with established work practice standards and disposal requirements.

Information on how to comply with District Rule 4002 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/asbestosbultn.htm.

Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 4002. This rule requires a thorough inspection for asbestos to be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or renovated. Information on how to comply with District Rule 4002 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/asbestosbultn.htm.

District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)
Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 4601 since it may utilize architectural coatings. Architectural coatings are paints, varnishes, sealers, or stains that are applied to structures, portable buildings, pavements or curbs. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings. In addition, this rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup and labeling requirements. Additional information on how to comply with District Rule 4601 requirements can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4601.pdf
District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions)
The project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 16 of 17 District Reference No: 20221690
February 16, 2023
Should the project result in at least 1-acre in size, the project proponent shall provide written notification to the District at least 48 hours prior to the project proponents intent to commence any earthmoving activities pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). Also, should the project result in the disturbance of 5- acres or more, or will include moving, depositing, or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials, the project proponent shall submit to the District a Dust Control Plan pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). For additional information regarding the written notification or Dust Control Plan requirements, please contact District Compliance staff at (559) 230-5950.

The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at:
https://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/PM10/forms/DCP-Form.docx Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/pm10/compliance_pm10.htm District Rule 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Heaters The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions of carbon monoxide and particulate matter from wood burning fireplaces, wood burning heaters, and outdoor wood burning devices. This rule establishes limitations on the installation of new wood burning fireplaces and wood burning heaters.

Specifically, at elevations below 3,000 feet in areas with natural gas service, no person shall install a wood burning fireplace, low mass fireplace, masonry heater, or wood burning heater.

Information about District Rule 4901 can be found online at:
http://valleyair.org/rule4901/
Other District Rules and Regulations
Future development projects may also be subject to the following District rules:

Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).

The following rules are specific to confined animal operations:
 Rule 4102 (Nuisance) – This rule applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials. In the event that the project or construction of the project creates a public nuisance, it could be in violation and be subject to District enforcement action.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 17 of 17 District Reference No: 20221690
February 16, 2023
 Rule 4550 (Conservation Management Practices) – The purpose of this rule is to limit fugitive dust emissions from agricultural operation sites. These sites include areas of crop production, animal feeding operations and unpaved roads/equipment areas. The District’s CMP handbook can be found online at the District’s website at:
http://www.valleyair.org/farmpermits/updates/cmp_handbook.pdf.  Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) – District Rule 4570 was adopted by the District’s Governing Board on June 15, 2006. Dairies with greater than or equal to 500 milk cows are subject to the requirements of District Rule 4570. Therefore, a Rule 4570 application shall also be submitted to the District.

Future Projects / Land Use Agency Referral Documents
Future development projects may require an environmental review and air emissions mitigation. A project’s referral documents and environmental review documents provided to the District for review should include a project summary, the land use designation, project size, air emissions quantifications and impacts, and proximity to sensitive receptors and existing emission sources, and air emissions mitigation measures. For reference and guidance, more information can be found in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf
If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Eric McLaughlin by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-5808.

Sincerely,
Brian Clements
Director of Permit Services
For: Mark Montelongo
Program Manager
City of Fowler 2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
March 2023 13

4. Response to commentsfrom San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District dated February 16, 2023.
4A The proposed Fowler 2040 General Plan includes policies that would encourage active living and the expansion of both pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the City. The City encourages the use of clean construction equipment and the implementation of project design that would limit impacts to the air basin. When future individual projects do not meet the thresholds applicable to the San Joaquin Valley Air Control District, the City would work with project proponents to lower projected emission totals in a variety of ways, including equipment use and project design.
4B Comment noted.
4C In the future, individual development projects would be analyzed under the appropriate level of environmental analysis required by the scope of a project. When applicable, analysis would include emissions modeling for construction- and operation-related emissions. 4D See Response 4C. When a proposed project may affect sensitive receptors, air quality modeling could include the completion of a Health Risk Assessment (HRA). In the event that an HRA is necessary, the completed HRA would be submitted to the District for review. 4E Comment noted. The City will work with project proponents whose project exceeds any applicable District threshold. In the event that a project’s estimated emissions can’t be reduced below a threshold, additional modeling and analysis may be used in order to better analyze the impacts that would result from implementation of a project. 4F Projects requiring only ministerial approval from the City should not be of such a scale that they would result in a significant impact to air quality resources and are likely to fall under the Districts Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL) program. For ministerial projects not meeting the SPAL requirements, the City will determine whether additional air quality analysis is needed despite the proposed use not being subject to discretionary action. 4G See Response 4A.
4H See Response 4A.
4I See Response 4A.
4J See Response 4A.
4K See Response 4A.
4L See Response 4A.
4M Comment noted. The City will take odor into consideration during the environmental analysis of future development projects. This consideration is addressed within the DEIR. 4N The City and future development projects are subject to all local, State, and federal laws and City of Fowler 2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
March 2023 14
regulations governing air quality resources and conservation. This includes District Rules and Regulations.
4O When applicable, the City will continue to route individual development projects to the District for its review and comment. During this process, the District may recommend mitigation measures or requirements for the City to impose on a project.

City of Fowler 2040 General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
March 2023 15

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section contains revisions to the DEIR based upon (1) additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of DEIR publication; and/or (3) typographical errors. Changes made to the DEIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions.

3.2 DEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO TECHNICAL AND

TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS
The following has been revised in response to a technical error in the DEIR.

Page 2 ends

Figure 2-4: Land Use Diagram depicts the land use designations within the City of Fowler. Within the DEIR, a Medium Density Residential area on this figure did not populate and therefore is not shown. The map has been revised to show this area on the map, and the revised map has been inserted to replace the one with the error. The land use acreage used throughout the DEIR was correct, but the map omitted this Medium Density Residential Area. The revision to this map to show the reader an accurate depiction of the General Plan land use designations within the City does not change any of the analysis contained within the DEIR. The revision simply serves to better visually support the reader. As a result, recirculation of the DEIR is not necessary.

The following text corrections were made in the DEIR.

Page 4 ends

“According to the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, the proposed Fowler 2040 GP would have a significant impact related to utilities and service systems wildfire if it would:” RESOLUTION NO. 2634

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOWLER

ADOPTING THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND CERTIFYING THE CITY OF FOWLER 2040 GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 2021110053)
WHEREAS, the Fowler City Council determined that the existing General Plan was in need of revision to bring the document into conformance with State law and to provide current information and internal consistency within its elements; and WHEREAS, in 2018 the Fowler City Council thence directed staff to undertake the development of the City of Fowler 2040 General Plan (Project); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council encouraged public input and comments on the Project; and
WHEREAS, in 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2023 the City of Fowler conducted several public workshops and scoping sessions, offering landowners, the general public, the Planning Commission, and the City Council the opportunity to provide input and direction as to the development of the Project; and
WHEREAS, City staff provided status reports on the development of the Project to the Planning Commission and the City Council during regularly scheduled meetings of both bodies throughout the Project process; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.) that preparation of an environmental impact report in conjunction with the Project was necessary to evaluate the potential of the Project to impact the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was submitted to the State Clearinghouse of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, and circulated for public review and comment for 58 days, commencing on December 21, 2022, and ending on February 15, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the DEIR, including a Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts, has been prepared, circulated, and made available for public comment pursuant to CEQA, Public Resources Code, sections 21000, et seq., and the Guidelines for implementation of CEQA, Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3 sections 15000, et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the City received three comments from members of the public and five comments from public agencies; and
WHEREAS, the City considered responses received and incorporated them as necessary into the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR); and
WHEREAS, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures contained within the City of Fowler 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), impacts to Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions would remain significant and unavoidable; and
WHEREAS, at a special meeting on March 28, 2023, the Fowler Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the FEIR; and
WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was published in the March 17, 2023 edition of The Business Journal, posted at City Hall and the City’s website, and sent to interested parties via email; and
WHEREAS, the FEIR is required to make the findings contained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15091; and
WHEREAS, based on the evidence of the record, the findings contained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 have been met; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, lead agencies may approve projects which have significant and unavoidable impacts if a State of Overriding Considerations is prepared; and
WHEREAS, a Finding of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared in regard to the resource sections of the FEIR which have been found to result in significant and unavoidable impacts, despite the implementation of feasible mitigation; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is responsible for reviewing updates to the General Plan and Map and forwarding a recommendation to the City Council on the adoption of, or adoption with modifications to, the General Plan and Map; and WHEREAS, via adoption of Resolution of Resolution No. 687, the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council makes the requisite findings of fact, adopt a statement of overriding consideration, and certify the Final Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the City Council is responsible for the adoption of, or adoption with modifications to, the General Plan and Map; and
WHEREAS, at a special meeting on April 18, 2023, at 6:00pm, the Fowler City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Project and City of Fowler 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was published in the April 7, 2023 edition of The Business Journal, posted at City Hall and the City’s website, and sent to interested parties via email; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the Project, and has evaluated and considered all comments, written and oral, received from persons who reviewed the Project, or otherwise commented on the Project.

NOW THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

1. That it has reviewed the recommendation of the staff.

2. That the FEIR, including a Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts as set forth in Exhibit “A” for the Project are adequate and have been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

3. That it has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR, including the Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Exhibit “A”), prior to approving the Project.

4. That it finds on the basis of the whole record before it, including the FEIR, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts, any oral or written comments received, and Findings of Fact (contained in Exhibit “B”), that there is no substantial evidence in the record that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with the exception of those to Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

5. Finds on the basis of the whole record before it, including the FEIR, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts, any oral or written comments received, and Findings of Fact (contained in Exhibit “B”), that the Project’s Significant and Unavoidable impacts to Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions cannot be reasonably or feasibly mitigated to less than significant and will remain significant and unavoidable for the foreseeable future and therefore require, pursuant to CEQA, adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Exhibit “B”.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Fowler hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained as “Exhibit B” herein, and certifies the FEIR (SCH# 2021110053).

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of April 2023, at a special meeting of the Fowler City Council by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
___________________________
Daniel T. Parra, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Angela Vasquez, City Clerk
Exhibit “A”
Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Aesthetics
Threshold 1: Have substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? No Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. No Impact Threshold 2: Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. No Impact Threshold 3: In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact
Threshold 4: Create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Policy CH-5: Establish lighting standards that limit public lighting to produce a warm color temperature that protects circadian rhythms.

Policy CDES-19: Establish lighting standards that limit public lighting to produce a warm color temperature that protects circadian rhythms.

Action Item CDES-19a: Review and revise, as needed, the Zoning Ordinance to integrate compatibility standards for commercial development adjacent to residential and other sensitive users. Such compatibility standards shall address, at a minimum, increased building setbacks, enhanced landscaping, lighting standards, masonry wall requirements, and/or loading or operational limitations.

Action Item CDES-23a: Adopt industrial standards in consideration of the following design principles:

Exterior lighting should be integrated within the architectural design for industrial buildings. Light sources should not be visible and should be shielded to reflect down onto the ground and not into streets or neighboring property. Utility connections should be coordinated with architectural elements of the site and/or building so as not to be a visual nuisance. Utilities should be underground or screened from view from the street.

Storage facilities should be screened and constructed to prevent visual clutter.

Less than Significant
Impact
Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Permanent outdoor storage should be screened by landscaping or materials compatible with the surrounding buildings’ architecture.

Varied architectural details should be applied to all façades exposed to public view. Blank end walls and long, monotonous façades shall be avoided. Treatments shall include architectural features, landscaping, or art elements that tie into the overall design theme.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Threshold 1: 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?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Policy LU-8: Annex land into the City in accordance with adopted growth management thresholds and reject proposals for annexation that do not comply with requirements of General Plan policies relating to orderly and contiguous development and provision of public services and facilities.

Policy LU-9: Allow annexation of residential land uses in the Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III development boundaries, as shown in Figure 4 3: Growth Management Tiers, according to the following thresholds:

Tier I:

Annexation of property designated Medium High Density Residential or High Density Residential may occur within Tier I once:
o 112 building permits for new dwelling units located on property designated either Medium High Density Residential or High Density Residential in the Primary Development Area (PDA) have been issued after December 31, 2021.
• Annexation of property designated Low Density Residential, Medium Low Density Residential, or Medium Density Residential may occur within Tier I once both of the following have occurred:
o 1,512 building permits for new dwelling units located on property designated Low Density Residential, Medium Low Density
Residential, or Medium Density Residential in the PDA have been issued after December 31, 2021.
o 155 building permits for new dwelling units located on property designated Medium High Density Residential or High Density Residential in the PDA have been issued after December 31, 2021.

Tier II:
• Annexation of property designated Medium High Density Residential or High Density Residential may occur within Tier II once:

Significant and
Unavoidable Impact
Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
o 789 building permits for new dwelling units located on property designated either Medium High Density Residential or High Density Residential in the PDA or Tier I have been issued. • Annexation of property designated Low Density Residential, Medium Low Density Residential, or Medium Density Residential may advance to Tier II once:
o 3,005 building permits for new dwelling units located on property designated Low Density Residential, Medium Low Density Residential, or Medium Density Residential in the PDA or Tier I have been issued after December 31, 2021.
o 1,068 building permits for new dwelling units on property designated Medium High Density Residential and High Density Residential in the PDA or Tier I have been issued after December 31, 2021. Building permits counted towards the higher density residential threshold may also be counted towards this
threshold.

Tier III:
• Annexation of property designated Medium High Density Residential and High Density Residential may advance to Tier III once:
o 1,492 building permits for new dwelling units on property designated Medium High Density Residential or High Density Residential in the PDA, Tier I, or Tier II have been issued after December 31, 2021.
• Annexation of property designated Low Density Residential, Medium Low Density Residential, and Medium Density Residential may advance to Tier III once:
o 5,245 building permits for new dwelling units on property designated Low Density Residential, Medium Low Density
Residential, and Medium Density Residential in the PDA, Tier I, or Tier II have been issued after December 31, 2021.
o 2,053 building permits for new dwelling units on property designated Medium High Density Residential or High Density Residential in the PDA, Tier I, or Tier II have been issued after December 31, 2021. Building permits counted towards the higher density residential threshold may also be counted towards this threshold.

Exceptions:

Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
The following exceptions apply to the growth thresholds for each growth tier:
• The development of deed restricted affordable housing may occur in the next growth tier, regardless of whether the building permit issuance threshold in the previous tier has been met.
• The City may provide an exception to the growth tier thresholds for master planned properties that include properties within two growth tiers.

Policy SAF-33: Promote the preservation and economic viability of agricultural land adjacent to the Fowler Planning Area.

Action Item SAF-33a: Amend local ordinances to require open space or other buffers for new development abutting agricultural areas planned for long-term use.

Policy SAF-34: Discourage the premature conversion of productive agricultural lands.

Action Item SAF-34a: Utilize master plans and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to implement the extension of urban services efficiently and responsibly.

Action Item SAF-34b: Support the use of Williamson Act contracts to prevent the premature conversion of farmland and review and revise, as needed, the Fowler Municipal Code to facilitate the continuation of Williamson Act Contracted parcels, as appropriate, following annexation.

Action Item SAF-34c: Review and revise, as appropriate, zoning regulations allowing for continued agriculture uses in the City limits where no development is proposed in the near-term.

Policy SAF-35: Require new development occurring in proximity to existing agricultural uses to acknowledge the potential effects of agricultural operations.

Action Item SAF-35a: Adopt a Right-to-Farm Ordinance.

Action Item SAF-35b: Prior to adoption of a Right-to-Farm Ordinance, continue to require that purchasers of homes located in the vicinity of agricultural operations be provided a Right-to-Farm notification of such activities by way of deeds and/or escrow documentation.

Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Threshold 2: Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Compliance with Fowler 2040 GP policies LU-8, LU-9, SAF-33, SAF-34, SAF35 and action items SAF-33a, SAF-34a, SAF-34b, SAF-34c, SAF-35a, and SAF-35b, as discussed above, would help reduce the level of impact the Project would have on agricultural resources.

Significant and
Unavoidable Impact
Threshold 3: 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 Mitigation measures are not warranted. No Impact Threshold 4: Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. No Impact Threshold 5: Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to the DEIR 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
Compliance with Fowler 2040 GP policies LU-8, LU-9, SAF-33, SAF-34, SAF35 and action items SAF-33a, SAF-34a, SAF-34b, SAF-34c, SAF-35a, and SAF-35b, as discussed above, would help reduce the level of impact the Project would have on agricultural resources.

Significant and
Unavoidable Impact
Air Quality
Threshold 1: Would the project conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Policy LU-13: Planned unit developments may include any combination of single family and multifamily dwellings. Planned unit developments larger than 10 acres in size may also include related office and commercial uses.

Action Item LU-13a: Review and revise the Zoning Ordinance, as necessary, to reflect increased density allowances for planned unit developments at the City’s discretion. Granting of additional density (not to exceed 25%) will depend on the developer's demonstration of the quality of design in such areas as access, circulation, building placement, parking, provision of open space, and architectural design and compatibility with the surrounding area.

Policy LU-18: Residential uses shall be permitted in the Community Commercial designation in support of mixed-use development.

Action Item LU-18a: Review and revise the Zoning Ordinance, as needed, to allow residential uses in the Community Commercial Designation.

Policy LU-19: Support neighborhood-serving commercial uses located near residential development with strong connectivity through walkable infrastructure.

Action Item LU-19a: Review and revise the Zoning Ordinance, as needed, to permit neighborhood-serving commercial uses, such as food markets, in residential zones through the Conditional Use Permit process.

Significant and
Unavoidable Impacts
Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policy LU-21: Encourage large, employment-generating developments to provide services such as cafeterias, childcare, and business support services that reduce the need for vehicle trips.

Policy CDES-16: Locate parking areas within commercial projects in a manner that promotes pedestrian activity.

Policy CDES-18: New commercial projects are designed in such a way that they enhance Fowler’s character.

Action Item CDES-18a: Adopt commercial standards in consideration of the following design principles:
• Commercial sites are designed with
human scale and pedestrian amenities.
• Landscaping is used to unify and improve
the visual quality of commercial sites.
• Where appropriate, commercial
development should be oriented along
the street edges of new commercial sites,
at street corners, or along main roadways
internal to larger developments.
• Encourage the use of shared parking
amongst various commercial and office
uses where possible. Minimize required
off-street parking.
• Ensure that commercial buildings
incorporate ground floor transparency
when appropriate.
• Encourage architectural elements that
contribute to the visual quality and
existing context of new commercial
development, such as varied massing and
roof types, articulating building façades,
and a variety of cohesive building
materials and color schemes.

Policy CDES-31: Electric vehicle charging facilities shall be permitted in accordance with the most recent state regulations.

Policy CH-1: Implement an active transportation network that links residential uses with schools, shopping, entertainment, recreation, and employment centers.

Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Action Item CH-1a: Identify gaps in the existing pedestrian and bicycle network to inform capital improvements programming and grant funding opportunities.

Action Item CH-1b: Prioritize pedestrian and bicycle improvement projects that close gaps in the mobility network and those which link the east and west sides of the city.

Action Item CH-1c: Amend road design standards, as necessary, to include complete street design principles.

Action Item CH-1d: Develop and implement an Active Transportation Plan.

Action Item CH-1e: Pursue funding for the adoption of a Safe Routes to School Master Plan to assist in the planning and funding of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements along school routes.

Policy CH-2: Promote walking and bicycling and reduce vehicle miles traveled by allowing complementary land uses in close proximity to one another.

Policy CH-3: Consider pedestrian and bicyclist safety and comfort in the design and development of streets, parks, and public spaces.

Action Item CH-3a: Conduct a visual quality assessment of bicycle and pedestrian facilities to determine the efficacy of existing active transportation improvements and to help prioritize future improvements.

Action Item CH-3b: Require street lighting within the rights-of-way of all public streets.

Policy CH-4: Require Street trees or other shade coverage along key pedestrian and bicycle routes and near transit stops.

Action Item CH-4a: Establish street design standards for each land use zone and require street trees of “medium” size or larger in commercial, residential, and mixed-use zones.

Policy CH-6: Evaluate land use decisions for consistency with siting recommendations as outlined in California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Land Use Compatibility Handbook.

Policy CH-7: Consider the use of solid and vegetative barriers as a means for reducing near-roadway air pollution concentrations along SR 99 and local expressways.

Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policy OS-10: The City shall implement the community trail network as shown Figure 8-2: Trail Facilities.

Policy OS-11: Neighborhood trails should be planned as part of a connected, City-wide open space network which connects neighborhoods, parks, community trails, and other destinations including the downtown and shopping districts.

Policy OS-12: Placement of neighborhood trails should be constructed along the most direct alignment possible to close network gaps in the trail system. Neighborhood trails may be required to be constructed as part a new development in order to accommodate that connection.

Policy MOB-4: Support the creation of a transportation network that provides for efficient movement of people and goods while accounting for environmental effects.

Action Item MOB-4a: Prepare guidelines for the evaluation of vehicle miles travelled. The guidelines should include significance criteria for evaluating impacts, thresholds of applicability for discretionary projects, and guidance on analyzing transportation impacts.

Action Item MOB-4b: Identify a range of actions available for developments to mitigate transportation impacts, specifically targeted at reducing vehicle miles travelled.

Policy MOB-5: Encourage a Level of Service (LOS) "C" throughout the local circulation network. LOS “D” may be allowed during peak hours at intersections of major streets, at SR 99 interchanges, and along street segments where additional improvements are not feasible. LOS “D” may also be allowed along streets with the potential for a high level of pedestrian and bicyclist activity. LOS “E” may be permitted during peak hour use of certain road intersections and segments where pedestrian and bicycle activity is prioritized.

Policy MOB-6: Use Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) to improve the safety and performance of the circulation network, consistent with the Fresno County ITS Strategic Plan.

Policy MOB-9: New development may be required to provide off-site pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities to address gaps in the active transportation network.

Policy MOB-11: Ensure street and road projects are adequately designed to accommodate safe and convenient pedestrian and bicyclist access.

Action Item MOB-11a: Review and revise, as needed, public works standards to include pedestrian and bicycle safety features where appropriate.

Action Item MOB-11b: Establish design standards to ensure the bikeway network is easily identifiable and consistent with standard signs and markings, as designated by the State of California Traffic Control Devices Committee and the State Bikeway Committee.

Policy MOB-12: Require traffic calming techniques in the design of new local streets where such techniques will manage traffic flow and improve safety for pedestrian and bicyclist users.

Policy MOB-13: Coordinate with Caltrans, FCOG, Fresno County Rural Transit Agency (FCRTA), and other responsible agencies to identify the need for additional mobility infrastructure and/or services along major commuter travel corridors.

Policy MOB-14: Identify opportunities for a multi-modal transit hub within the City.

Policy MOB-15: Support the development of paratransit service programs.

Policy MOB-16: Support transit operator efforts to maximize return for short- and long-range transit needs.

Action Item MOB-16a: Actively participate in the development of short and long-range transit plans, including the Fresno County Long Range Transit Plan and transit plans prepared by the Fresno County Rural Transit Agency (FCRTA).

Policy MOB-17: Incorporate the potential for public transit service expansion throughout the City.

Action Item MOB-17a: Review and revise, as needed, public works standards to incorporate design features to accommodate future public transit stops.

Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policy MOB-18: Improve route options and access for public transit Citywide, specifically west of SR 99.

Action Item MOB-18a: Coordinate with Fresno County Rural Transit Agency (FCRTA) and other public transit agencies to facilitate additional transit stops.

Action Item MOB-18b: Ensure that pedestrian and bicycle facilities are provided along and/or near transit routes, whenever feasible, to improve access and connectivity.

MM AQ-1: Consider impacts on regional air quality when reviewing proposals for new development. Short-term construction and long-term operational quality impacts shall be evaluated in accordance with SJVAPCD-recommended guidance.

Threshold 2: Would the project 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?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Implementation of Policies LU-21, CDES-31, CH-1, CH-6, MOB-4, MOB-9, MOB-10, MOB-11, MOB-12, MOB-13, MOB-14, MOB-15, MOB-16, MOB17, MOB-18, and MOB-19 of the 2040 Fowler GP would help to reduce increases in criteria pollutants. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures GHG1 and GHG-2, and Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ-1 shall be implemented to reduce project-generated emissions of air pollutants.

Significant and
Unavoidable Impacts
Threshold 3: Would the project expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Potentially Significant
Impact
MM AQ-2a: Consider the localized air quality impacts on surrounding land uses, including emissions of toxic air contaminants and odors, when reviewing proposals for new development.

MM AQ-2b: The City shall require new development projects to demonstrate LOS reductions for any project-associated intersection to an LOS E or F, or worsen an existing LOS F. If this requirement is not met, a project-specific CO Hotspot analysis shall be conducted. If the CO analysis shows levels above current applicable ambient air quality standards, the project proponent shall be required to make intersection improvements to reduce CO emissions at the intersection, alter the project to reduce the impact, or implement other measures sufficient to demonstrate a reduction in predicted localized CO concentrations to below applicable ambient air quality standards.

Less than Significant
Impact to Potentially
Significant Impact
Threshold 4: Would the General Plan result in other
emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of people?
Potentially Significant
Impact
MM AQ-2a: Consider the localized air quality impacts on surrounding land uses, including emissions of toxic air contaminants and odors, when reviewing proposals for new development.

Significant and
Unavoidable Impacts
Biological Resources
Threshold 1: Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Threshold 2: Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. No Impact Threshold 3: Would the project 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?
Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact
Threshold 4: Would the Project interfere substantially
with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact Threshold 5: Would the Project conflict with any local
policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant
Impact
Policy OS-24: Require the retention of trees of significance (such as heritage trees) by promoting stewardship of such trees and ensuring that the design of development projects provides for the retention of these trees wherever possible. Where tree removal cannot be avoided, the City shall require tree replacement or suitable mitigation.

Action Item OS-24a: Develop and implement a Tree Preservation Ordinance for the preservation of the City’s urban forest, including heritage trees, on public and private property.

Less than Significant
Impact
Threshold 6: Would the Project conflict with
provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. No Impact Cultural Resources
Threshold 1: Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to in Section 15064.5?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Policy CDES-10: Improvements to older buildings in the downtown area and throughout the City should enhance rather than weaken the original character of such buildings.

Policy CDES-12: All construction shall cease, and the Community Development Director and City Engineer shall be notified immediately if any prehistoric, archaeological, or fossil artifact or resource is uncovered during construction. All construction shall immediately stop and an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology shall be Less than Significant
Impact
Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
retained, at the applicant’s and/or successors-in-interest’s expense, to evaluate the find(s) and recommend appropriate action according to Section 15064.5 of CEQA Guidelines. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures would be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project subject to direction of the archaeologist while assessment of historic resources or unique archaeological resources is being carried out.

Policy CDES-13: All construction shall cease if any human remains are uncovered, and the Community Development Director, City Engineer and Fresno County Medical Examiner and Coroner shall be notified in accordance to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If human remains are determined to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted, and the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15064.5(e) shall be followed.

Threshold 2: Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Policies CDES-12 and CDES-13 of the Fowler 2040 GP, as outlined above, would ensure that potential impacts to unknown archaeological resources are less than significant.

Less than Significant
Impact
Threshold 3: Would the project disturb any human
remains, including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
Potentially Significant
Impact
All development facilitated by the Fowler 2040 GP would be required to adhere to existing regulations regarding the treatment of human remains.

Further, policies CDES-12 and CDES-13 of the Fowler 2040 GP, as outlined above, would ensure that potential impacts to unknown human remains are less than significant.

Less than Significant
Impact
Energy
Threshold 1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Policy LU-21: Encourage large, employment-generating developments to provide services such as cafeterias, childcare, and business support services that reduce the need for vehicle trips.

Policy CH-6: Evaluate land use decisions for consistency with siting recommendations as outlined in California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Land Use Compatibility Handbook.

Policy MOB-4: Support the creation of a transportation network that provides for efficient movement of people and goods while accounting for environmental effects.

Policy MOB-9: New development may be required to provide off-site pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities to address gaps in the active transportation network.

Policy MOB-10: Develop a multi-purpose recreational bikeway network and support facilities.

Less than Significant
Impact
Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policy MOB-11: Ensure street and road projects are adequately designed to accommodate safe and convenient pedestrian and bicyclist access.

Policy MOB-12: Require traffic calming techniques in the design of new local streets where such techniques will manage traffic flow and improve safety for pedestrian and bicyclist users.

Policy MOB-13: Coordinate with Caltrans, FCOG, FCRTA, and other responsible agencies to identify the need for additional mobility infrastructure and/or services along major commuter travel corridors.

Policy MOB-14: Identify opportunities for a multi-modal transit hub within the City.

Policy MOB-15: Support the development of paratransit service programs.

Policy MOB-16: Support transit operator efforts to maximize return for short- and long-range transit needs.

Policy MOB-17: Incorporate the potential for public transit service expansion throughout the City.

Policy MOB-18: Improve route options and access for public transit Citywide, specifically west of SR 99.

Threshold 2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact Geology and Soils
Threshold 1: Would the project directly or indirectly
cause potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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.

Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact Threshold 2: Would the project directly or indirectly
cause potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong
seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant
Impact
Policy SAF-26: Regularly review and enforce all seismic and geologic safety standards and require the use of best practices in site design and building construction methods.

Policy SAF-27: Promote the upgrading, retrofitting, and/or relocation of all existing critical facilities and other important public facilities that do not Less than Significant
Impact
Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
meet current building code standards and are susceptible to seismic or geologic hazards.

Action Item SAF-27a: Evaluate critical facilities for risk from seismic and geologic hazards. Prioritize improvements based on level of expected risk.

Policy SAF-28: Continue to use building codes as the primary tool for reducing seismic risk in structures.

Threshold 3: Would the project directly or indirectly
cause potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant
Impact Policies SAF-26 through SAF-28 outlined above. Less than Significant Impact
Threshold 4: Would the project directly or indirectly
cause potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? No Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. No Impact Threshold 5: Would the project result in substantial
soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact Threshold 6: Would the project be located on a
geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant
Impact Policies SAF-26 and SAF-27 outlined above. Less than Significant Impact Threshold 7: Would the project be located on
expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
No Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. No Impact Threshold 8: Would the project have soils incapable
of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
No Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. No Impact Threshold 9: Would the project directly or indirectly
destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geological feature?
Potentially Significant
Impact Policy CDES-12 outlined above. Less than Significant Impact
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold 1: Would the project generate greenhouse
gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Policy LU-1: Development shall occur in accordance with the planned land uses as shown on Figure 4-1: Land Use Diagram.

Policy LU-2: Density and intensity standards for each land use designation are shown in Table 4-1: Land Use Designations and Consistency Matrix.

Consistent zoning districts determined to be compatible with the identified land use designation are also included in Table 4-1 . Other zoning districts Significant and
Unavoidable Impact
Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
may be determined to be consistent with a land use designation based on compatibility with the intent of the designation and its specified density or intensity range. Such density or intensity range shall be calculated based on gross acres.

Policy LU-3: For a plan amendment and/or rezoning request, the City may require submittal of supplemental information to determine the need for the plan amendment or rezoning
Policy LU-13: Planned unit developments may include any combination of single family and multifamily dwellings. Planned unit developments larger than 10 acres in size may also include related office and commercial uses.

Policy LU-18: Residential uses shall be permitted in the Community Commercial designation in support of mixed-use development.

Policy LU-19: Support neighborhood-serving commercial uses located near residential development with strong connectivity through walkable infrastructure.

Policy LU-21: Encourage large, employment-generating developments to provide services such as cafeterias, childcare, and business support services that reduce the need for vehicle trips.

Policy CDES-16: Locate parking areas within commercial projects in a manner that promotes pedestrian activity.

Policy CDES-18: New commercial projects are designed in such a way that they enhance Fowler’s character.

Policy CDES-31: Electric vehicle charging facilities shall be permitted in accordance with the most recent state regulations.

Policy CH-1: Implement an active transportation network that links residential uses with schools, shopping, entertainment, recreation, and employment centers.

Policy CH-2: Promote walking and bicycling and reduce vehicle miles traveled by allowing complementary land uses in close proximity to one another.

Policy CH-3: Consider pedestrian and bicyclist safety and comfort in the design and development of streets, parks, and public spaces.

Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policy CH-4: Require street trees or other shade coverage along key pedestrian and bicycle routes and near transit stops.

Policy CH-6: Evaluate land use decisions for consistency with siting recommendations as outlined in California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Land Use Compatibility Handbook.

Policy MOB-1: Design and construct a multimodal circulation system as shown on Figure 9-1: Circulation Diagram.

Policy MOB-2: Streets are designated and planned according to the functional classifications listed in Table 9-2.

Policy MOB-3: The right of way for arterials and collectors may be reduced to avoid disrupting existing development if the travel way generally meets the street classification design requirements listed in Table 9-2.

Policy MOB-4: Support the creation of a transportation network that provides for efficient movement of people and goods while accounting for environmental effects.

Policy MOB-9: New development may be required to provide off-site pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities to address gaps in the active transportation network.

Policy MOB-10: Develop a multi-purpose recreational bikeway network and support facilities.

Policy MOB-11: Ensure street and road projects are adequately designed to accommodate safe and convenient pedestrian and bicyclist access.

Policy MOB-12: Require traffic calming techniques in the design of new local streets where such techniques will manage traffic flow and improve safety for pedestrian and bicyclist users.

Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policy MOB-13: Coordinate with Caltrans, Fresno COG, FCRTA, and other responsible agencies to identify the need for additional mobility infrastructure and/or services along major commuter travel corridors.

Policy MOB-14: Identify opportunities for a multi-modal transit hub within the City.

Policy MOB-15: Support the development of paratransit service programs.

Policy MOB-16: Support transit operator efforts to maximize return for short- and long-range transit needs.

Policy MOB-17: Incorporate the potential for public transit service expansion throughout the City.

Policy MOB-18: Improve route options and access for public transit Citywide, specifically west of SR 99.

Policy OS-10: The City shall implement the community trail network as shown in Figure 8-2: Trail Facilities.

Threshold 2: Would the project conflict with an
applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 outlined above.

MM GHG-1: The City shall develop a Climate Action Plan to identify ways to reduce GHG emissions and limit climate change impacts on the residents of the city of Fowler. The Climate Action Plan shall integrate the state’s future GHG-reduction goals, including the State’s goal of attaining carbon neutrality by 2045.

MM GHG-2: Until the City adopts a qualified Climate Action Plan consistent with Mitigation Measure GHG-1 the following measures shall be applied to new land use development projects:

Land use development projects shall be constructed with electrically powered appliances and building mechanical equipment in place of natural-gas fueled equipment.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Threshold 1: Would the project create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Policy SAF-8: Protect soils, surface water, and groundwater from contamination from hazardous materials.

Action Item SAF-8a: Continue to provide household hazardous waste collection programs to encourage proper disposal of products containing hazardous materials or hazardous wastes.

Action Item SAF-8b: Should a site be contaminated by hazardous waste, work with the Fresno County Environmental Health Division, related agencies, and landowners to enable the clean-up of these sites.

Policy SAF-9: Cooperate with State agencies and the Fresno County Environmental Health Division efforts to identify hazardous materials users, implement hazardous materials plans, and minimize risks associated with hazardous cargoes, agricultural spraying, and electromagnetic fields.

Action Item SAF-9a: Revise Zoning Ordinance to require industries which store and process hazardous materials to provide a buffer between the facilities and the property boundary.

Action Item SAF-9b: Ensure that industrial facilities are constructed and operated within the standards of the most up-to-date safety and environmental protocols.

Less than Significant
Impact
Threshold 2: Would the project create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Policies SAF-8 and SAF-9 as well as action items SAF-8a, SAF-8b, SAF-9a, and SAF-9b outlined above.

Policy SAF-11: Locate new critical facilities at least 100 feet from the railroad mainline and Highway 99 to minimize risks in the event of a hazardous cargo accident.

Policy SAF-12: Promote improvements, such as the construction of gradeseparated crossings, to increase overall safety and reduce potential risk from hazardous cargo.

Less than Significant
Impact
Threshold 3: Would the project emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
Potentially Significant
Impact Mitigation Measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact
Threshold 4: Would the project be located on a site
which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites Less than Significant
Impact
Policy SAF-10: Reference State hazardous waste site lists in the City development review process and address risk, as needed, with site development requirements.

Less than Significant
Impact
Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Action Item SAF-10a: Prepare and maintain a map of hazardous waste sites identified through regional, State, and federal resources.

Action Item SAF-10b: Ensure that the proponents of new developments address hazardous materials concerns through preparation of Phase I and Phase II studies, as necessary, as part of the design phase.

Action Item SAF-10c: Require buildings used for operations requiring a hazardous materials business plan to be investigated for the presence of hazardous materials and waste as part of the re-use, rehabilitation, or demolition process.

Policy CH-13: Increase awareness of warning signs for the presence of toxic substances related to aging housing stock.

Action Item CH-13a: Distribute informational materials on the warning signs of toxic substances through the Building Department.

Threshold 5: For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in
the project area?
Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact Threshold 6: Would the project impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Less than Significant
Impact
Policy SAF-2: Continue to implement the Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to address disasters such as earthquakes, drought, flooding, hazardous material spills, water contamination, epidemics, fires, extreme weather, major transportation accidents, and terrorism.

Action Item SAF-2a: Review and revise, as necessary, the Municipal Code to ensure effective organization, responsiveness, and continuity of government during declared emergencies.

Action Item SAF-2b: Procure generators, or another suitable alternative, for back-up power at City Hall, the Police Department, the Fire Department, and all domestic water distribution infrastructure.

Action Item SAF-2c: The City, in conjunction with other local, State, and Federal agencies, shall ensure operational readiness of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), conduct annual training for staff, and maintain, test, and update equipment to meet current standards.

Less than Significant
Impact
Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Action Item SAF-2d: Monitor potential risk from seismic and geologic hazards and implement actions identified by the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan to reduce these risks.

Action Item SAF-2e: Sponsor and support educational programs regarding emergency response, disaster preparedness protocols and procedures, and disaster risk reduction.

Action Item SAF-2f: Sponsor and support cooling centers during extreme heat days
Policy SAF-3: Continue to coordinate with Fresno County and other jurisdictions to prepare and implement Emergency Preparedness Plans and to conduct emergency and disaster preparedness exercises to test these plans.

Policy SAF-4: Provide a street network with safe and efficient routes for emergency vehicles, meeting necessary street widths, turn around radius, and other factors as determined in coordination with emergency service providers.

Threshold 7: Would the project expose people or
structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact Hydrology and Water Quality
Threshold 1: Would the project violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Policy PF-17: Continue to establish development fees and user rates that are sufficient to operate, maintain, and upgrade (for current and future regulatory requirements) the City’s water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure.

Policy PF-18: Continue to cooperate with the Selma-Kingsburg-Fowler (SKF) County Sanitation District to design and construct wastewater system infrastructure as needed to safely convey, treat and recycle, and dispose of current and future wastewater flows and achieve future regulatory and system requirements.

Policy PF-19: Actively participate in the Selma-Kingsburg-Fowler (SKF) County Sanitation District wastewater master plan update proves to ensure it aligns with planned land uses and projected demands for the City of Fowler.

Policy PF-20: Design and construct stormwater system infrastructure as needed to safely convey, detain, and dispose of current and future stormwater flows, protect water quality, and meet regulatory requirements.

Less than Significant
Impact
Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Action Item PF-20a: Develop a storm drainage master plan which outlines necessary infrastructure improvements to the storm drainage system.

Threshold 2: Would the project substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may
impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Policy SAF-13: Conserve and, where feasible, create or restore areas providing water quality benefits such as undeveloped open space areas, basins, and drainage canals.

Policy SAF-15: Require new development to protect water quality through site design, pollution prevention, storm water treatment, runoff reduction measures, BMPs, and LID strategies.

Action Item SAF-15a: Review and revise, as appropriate, City standards to allow for LID strategies. Periodically review City standards to ensure innovative or new site design strategies which protect water quality are permitted, as appropriate.

Policy SAF-16: Require the use of native, drought tolerant, or low water use landscaping in both public and private development to reduce or eliminate the need for landscape irrigation.

Action Item SAF-16a: Review and revise, as necessary, the adopted water efficient landscape standards for consistency with the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, as amended. As required, submit reports on the City’s implementation of its landscape standards to the California Department of Water Resources and/or other agencies.

Action Item SAF-16b: Update City design standards to require residential developers to provide a no-turf landscape option that is priced the same as the standard landscape option.

Policy SAF-17: Promote programs to improve water efficiency in new and existing buildings.

Policy SAF-18: Explore the use of recycled water to irrigate landscape areas.

Action Item SAF-18a: Coordinate with Selma-Kingsburg-Fowler (SKF) County Sanitation District on what options are available to reuse recycled water.

Policy SAF-25: Encourage low-impact development by allowing for alternative stormwater management techniques including the provision of vegetated areas, infiltration trenches, and dry wells.

Less than Significant
Impact
Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Action Item SAF-25a: Review and revise, as necessary, the Zoning Ordinance and other City standards to allow for low-impact stormwater management site design features.

Action Item PF-20b: Require all new development to contribute no net increase in stormwater runoff peak flows over existing conditions associated with a 100-year storm event.

Action Item PF-20c: Require new development to include grading and erosion control plans prepared by a registered engineer or land surveyor.

Policy PF-21: Protect groundwater resources within the Planning Area. This includes protecting the occurrence of groundwater recharge, as well as the quality and quantity of available groundwater resources.

Threshold 3: Would the project substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious surfaces,
in a manner which would:
• result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site; • substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site;
• 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; or
• impede or redirect flood flows?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Policies PF-20, PF-21, PF-22, PF-23, PF-24, SAF-13, and SAF-15 and action item SAF-15a, as outlined above.

Less than Significant
Impact
Threshold 4: Would the project in flood hazard,
tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants
due to project inundations?
Less than Significant
Impact
See Policies SAF-19, SAF-20, SAF-21, SAF-22, SAF-23, SAF-24, SAF-25 and Action Item SAF-25a as outlined above. No Impact
Threshold 5: Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact Land Use and Planning
Threshold 1: Would the project physically divide an
established community?
Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact Threshold 2: Would the project cause a significant
environmental conflict with any land use plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Mineral Resources
Threshold 1: Would the project result in the loss of
availability of a known mineral resource that would be
of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact Threshold 2: Would the project result in the loss of
availability of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact Noise
Threshold 1: Would the project result in generation of
a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Policy CH-25: New development of the land uses listed in Table 7-1 shall be located, designed, and operated in such a way that external noise levels from stationary noise sources do not exceed the maximum identified.

Noise levels shall be measured immediately within the property line of the affected land use. Where two land uses meet, the more restrictive standard shall be used.

Action Item CH-25a: Require an acoustical analysis as part of the environmental review process when uses are proposed within the contour lines as shown on Figure 7-1 that exceed the exterior noise levels identified in Table 7-1.

Action Item CH-25b: Require an acoustical analysis as part of the environmental review process when a proposed use is likely to exceed the permitted exterior noise levels identified in Table 7-1.

Action Item CH-25c: Temporary uses such as live music events, festivals, or markets that are considered short-term or intermittent may exceed maximum noise levels but shall incorporate noise reduction measures to the extent feasible.

Action Item CH-25d: Review and revise, as necessary, the Municipal Code to reflect the noise standards contained in this chapter.

Policy CH-26: New development shall be designed and operated in such a way that interior noise levels from both stationary and mobile noise sources do not exceed 45 dBA Ldn for adjacent residential uses or other uses where people normally sleep and 45 dBA Leq at peak hour for adjacent office, school, church, or similar use.

Policy CH-27: New uses increasing stationary and/or mobile noise levels shall be subject to the following thresholds for CEQA significance:
• Where existing ambient noise levels are less than 60 dB, an increase of 5 dB or more, measured at the outdoor activity area of a noisesensitive use, shall be considered significant; Less than Significant
Impact
Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
• Where existing ambient noise levels are between 60 and 65 dB, an increase of 3 dB or more, measured at the outdoor activity area of a noise-sensitive use, shall be considered significant;
• Where existing ambient noise levels are greater than 65 dB, an increase of 1.5 dB or more, measured at the outdoor activity area of a noise-sensitive use, shall be considered significant.

Policy CH-28: Require noise generators to provide increased setbacks, walls, landscaped berms, other sound-absorbing barriers, or a combination thereof to prevent excessive noise exposure and reduce noise levels to acceptable levels, as needed.

Policy CH-29: Require noise reduction methods along major roadways in order to protect adjacent, noise-sensitive land uses against excessive noise. Noise reduction methods shall include design strategies, including setbacks, landscaped berms, and other sound-absorbing barriers, when possible, in lieu of sound walls, to mitigate noise impacts and enhance aesthetics. Sound walls may also be appropriate noise-reduction strategies.

CH-30: When sound walls are proposed, encourage a combination of berms and/or landscaping and walls to produce a more visually pleasing streetscape.

CH-31: Require roof-mounted and detached mechanical equipment to be acoustically buffered when adjacent to residential uses to prevent equipment noise in excess of 55dBA as measured at the nearest residential property line.

CH-32: Purchase City vehicles and equipment with low noise generation.

Maintain City vehicles to minimize noise.

Action Item CH-32a: Consider City vehicles and equipment as part of the Capital Improvement Program process.

Threshold 2: Would the project result in generation of
excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
Potentially Significant
Impact
CH-33: Transportation and City infrastructure construction shall not be subject to typical noise standards so long as construction occurs between the hours of 7 AM and 7 PM, Monday through Friday, or between 8 AM and 5 PM on weekends and federal holidays. Construction may occur outside of these times if completing the work within these time frames is deemed infeasible.

Less than Significant
Impact
Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
CH-34: The City shall require an assessment of construction noise impacts on nearby noise-sensitive land uses and associated activities to minimize those impacts as part of the discretionary review process.

CH-35: Require construction projects anticipated to generate a significant amount of vibration to ensure acceptable interior vibration levels at nearby residential and commercial uses based on current City or FTA criteria.

CH-36: The City may require a project-specific vibration impact assessment and associated impact reduction measures for projects involving the use of major vibration-generating equipment which could result in vibration levels in excess of 0.2 in/sec peak particle velocity (PPV).

Threshold 3: For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Less than Significant
Impact Policies and Action Items listed above. Less than Significant Impact Population and Housing
Threshold 1: Would the project induce substantial
unplanned population growth in an area, either
directly (for Sample, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for Sample, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact Threshold 2: Would the project displace substantial
numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact
Public Services
Threshold 1: 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:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Policy PF-11: In cooperation with the Fresno County Fire Protection District, provide firefighting equipment, facilities, and staffing sufficient to assure adequate response and fire flow at all times.

Policy PF-12: Ensure adequate water supplies are available for fire suppression throughout the City and require development to construct all necessary fire suppression infrastructure and equipment.

Policy PF-13: Maintain mutual aid agreements with other fire and emergency service departments in Fresno County to ensure adequate service throughout the City of Fowler and its Planning Area.

Policy PF-14: Maintain staffing levels of City emergency service departments, including fire and police.

Less than Significant
Impact
Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Action Item PF-14a: Prepare a staffing plan for the Police Department to establish target staffing levels and update the plan periodically. The following staffing targets shall be used until the staffing plan is prepared and adopted:
• Target an average staffing level of 1.5 police officers per 1,000 persons when the City population is less than 10,000.
• Target an average staffing level of 1.25 police officer per 1,000 persons once the City reaches a population of 10,000 or more.

Action Item PF-14b: Explore options to staff full-time or part-time fire fighter and support staff.

Policy OS-1: Parks shall be developed according to the park classifications, access radii, and service level requirements outlined in Table 8-1.

Policy OS-3: Within single family residential projects, whether attached or detached, a minimum of 5% of the project site, not inclusive of existing or future major road rights-of-way, shall be developed with usable open space. Such open space shall be maintained by an assessment district, landscape/lighting district, homeowners' association, or other appropriate maintenance entity.

Action Item OS-3a: Adopt standards that establish minimum requirements for open space areas to qualify as usable for purposes of meeting the 5% usable open space requirement. Such standards shall require a minimum of a one-half acre park site. The remaining acreage needed to satisfy the 5% usable open space requirement may be made up of neighborhood trails or other usable open space areas meeting the minimum established requirements. In instances where 5% of a project site’s acreage, exclusive of rights of way, results in less than one-half acre, the park site for that project site may be constructed equal to the minimum acreage required to comply with 5% standard.

Policy OS-4: Usable open space areas, as required in, may fulfill the requirements for parkland dedication, per the City’s Quimby Ordinance. To qualify, such land shall be dedicated to the City and meet the minimum established requirements for usable open space.

Recreation
Threshold 1: 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?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Policy OS-1: Parks shall be developed according to the park classifications, access radii, and service level requirements outlined in Table 8-1.

Policy OS-3: Within single family residential projects, whether attached or detached, a minimum of 5% of the project site, not inclusive of existing or future major road rights-of-way, shall be developed with usable open Less than Significant
Impact
Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
space. Such open space shall be maintained by an assessment district, landscape/lighting district, homeowners' association, or other appropriate maintenance entity.

Policy OS-4: Usable open space areas, as required in Policy OS-3 in the General Plan, may fulfill the requirements for parkland dedication, per the City’s Quimby Ordinance. To qualify, such land shall be dedicated to the City and meet the minimum established requirements for usable open space.

Policy OS-17: The City shall use a broad range of funding and economic development tools to ensure high quality development, maintenance, and programming of the City parks, trails, and recreation system.

Funding and economic development tools may include exploring grant opportunities or establishing sponsorship opportunities, such “adopt-apark” programs.

Policy OS-18: All residential projects shall be subject to the payment of park development impact fees, as adopted by resolution of the City Council.

Payment of these development impact fees shall be in addition to any parkland dedication or in-lieu fee payment requirements in accordance with Fowler’s adopted Quimby Act Ordinance, as applicable, except as provided for in Policy OS-6.

Threshold 2: 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?
Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact
Transportation
Threshold 1: Would the project conflict with a plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Threshold 2: Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3
subdivision (b)?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Policy CH-4: Require street trees or other shade coverage along key pedestrian and bicycle routes and near transit stops.

Action Item CH-4a: Establish street design standards for each land use zone and require street trees of “medium” size or larger in commercial, residential, and mixed-use zones.

Policy MOB-1: Design and construct a multimodal circulation system as shown on Figure 9-1: Circulation Diagram.

Action Item MOB-1a: Establish and implement a Roadways Master Plan that addresses the following:
• Identification of design standards, and exceptions to those standards where deviations are appropriate, for the roadway network. Design standards should include pedestrian, bicycle, public transit, and vehicular accommodations to ensure the circulation network is designed for complete streets.
• Identification of Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies for
improving efficiencies in the circulation system for all modes of travel.
• Integration of a Vision Zero goal of reducing traffic fatalities and sever injuries to zero and adopting strategies to achieve this goal.

Policy MOB-14: Identify opportunities for a multi-modal transit hub within the City.

Policy MOB-15: Support the development of paratransit service programs.

Policy MOB-16: Support transit operator efforts to maximize return for short- and long-range transit needs.

Policy MOB-17: Incorporate the potential for public transit service expansion throughout the City.

Action Item MOB-17a: Review and revise, as needed, public works standards to incorporate design features to accommodate future public transit stops.

Less than Significant
Impact
Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policy MOB-18: Improve route options and access for public transit Citywide, specifically west of SR 99.

Action Item MOB-18a: Coordinate with Fresno County Rural Transit Agency (FCRTA) and other public transit agencies to facilitate additional transit stops.

Action Item MOB-18b: Ensure that pedestrian and bicycle facilities are provided along and/or near transit routes, whenever feasible, to improve access and connectivity.

Threshold 3: Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact
Threshold 4: Would the project result in inadequate
emergency access?
Less than Significant
Impact
Policy MOB-1: Design and construct a multimodal circulation system as shown on Figure 9-1: Circulation Diagram.

Policy MOB-2: Streets are designated and planned according to the functional classifications listed in Table 9-2.

Policy MOB-4: Support the creation of a transportation network that provides for efficient movement of people and goods while accounting for environmental effects.

Action Item MOB-4a: Prepare guidelines for the evaluation of vehicle miles travelled. The guidelines should include significance criteria for evaluating Less than Significant
Impact
Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
impacts, thresholds of applicability for discretionary projects, and guidance on analyzing transportation impacts.

Action Item MOB-4b: Identify a range of actions available for developments to mitigate transportation impacts, specifically targeted at reducing vehicle miles traveled.

Policy MOB-6: Use Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) to improve the safety and performance of the circulation network, consistent with the Fresno County ITS Strategic Plan.

Policy MOB-7: Prioritize operational solutions over major structural improvements to existing roadways where feasible.

Policy MOB-8: Explore opportunities for management and maintenance of traffic control facilities to fall under the City’s jurisdiction.

Policy MOB-9: New development may be required to provide off-site pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities to address gaps in the active transportation network.

Policy MOB-10: Develop a multi-purpose recreational bikeway network and support facilities.

Action Item MOB-10a: Review and revise, as needed, the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for short-term and long-term bicycle parking and storage facilities.

Policy MOB-11: Ensure street and road projects are adequately designed to accommodate safe and convenient pedestrian and bicyclist access.

Action Item MOB-11a: Review and revise, as needed, public works standards to include pedestrian and bicycle safety features where appropriate.

Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Action Item MOB-11b: Establish design standards to ensure the bikeway network is easily identifiable and consistent with standard signs and markings, as designated by the State of California Traffic Control Devices Committee and the State Bikeway Committee.

Policy MOB-12: Require traffic calming techniques in the design of new local streets where such techniques will manage traffic flow and improve safety for pedestrian and bicyclist users.

Policy MOB-13: Coordinate with Caltrans, Fresno COG, FCRTA, and other responsible agencies to identify the need for additional mobility infrastructure and/or services along major commuter travel corridors.

Policy MOB-14: Identify opportunities for a multi-modal transit hub within the City.

Policy MOB-15: Support the development of paratransit service programs.

Policy MOB-16: Support transit operator efforts to maximize return for short- and long-range transit needs.

Policy MOB-17: Incorporate the potential for public transit service expansion throughout the City.

Action Item MOB-17a: Review and revise, as needed, public works standards to incorporate design features to accommodate future public transit stops.

Policy MOB-18: Improve route options and access for public transit Citywide, specifically west of SR 99.

Action Item MOB-18b: Ensure that pedestrian and bicycle facilities are provided along and/or near transit routes, whenever feasible, to improve access and connectivity.

Policy MOB-19: Designated truck routes for use by heavy commercial and industrial traffic shall include Golden State Boulevard, Manning Avenue, and Temperance Avenue, as shown in Figure 9-2.

Policy MOB-20: Encourage the efficient movement of goods.

Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Action Item MOB-20a: Identify economically feasible street and highway improvement and maintenance projects that will improve goods movement.

Action Item MOB-20b: Identify opportunities to support commercial and industrial access to existing rail facilities within the Planning Area.

Policy MOB-21: Facilitate goods movement and delivery through internal site design of commercial and industrial areas.

Policy MOB-22: Ensure truck access points and loading facilities are designed to reduce conflict with sensitive land uses.

Policy MOB-23: Coordinate with Caltrans in the design of capital improvement projects near SR 99.

Policy MOB-24: Continue to support Golden State Boulevard as a secondary route connecting the Kingsburg Selma Fowler corridor and providing access to the City of Fresno, Calwa, and Malaga.

Policy MOB-25: Coordinate local transportation planning with the Fresno COG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Fresno County Rural Transit Agency (FCRTA), and other agencies on relevant transportation plans to ensure eligibility for state and federal funding.

Policy MOB-26: Collaborate with Fresno County to integrate right-of-way and improvement standards for roads that cross jurisdictional boundaries.

For development outside the City’s boundaries, but within the SOI, City and County staff will cooperate and agree on reasonable design standards and negotiate logical transitions from City to County Standards. In general, for such development under County jurisdiction but within the Sphere of Influence, City Standards should apply if annexation would logically occur in the short to intermediate range.

Policy MOB-27: Provide for the logical, timely, and economically efficient extension of road infrastructure improvements.

Action Item MOB-27a: Annually review and revise the CIP to ensure roadway improvements are prioritized and scheduled for construction over at least a 5-year period.

Policy MOB-28: Seek all available means to finance improvements, including State and Federal grants.

Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policy MOB-29: Use appropriate entitlement processes and financial tools to ensure new development contributes a fair share of the transportation improvements and/or costs to provide necessary improvements.

Action Item MOB-29a: Participate in the establishment of regional transportation mitigation fees and/or benefit districts to be assessed on new development. The fees shall cover a reasonable share of the costs of providing local and subregional transportation improvements needed for serving new development.

Policy MOB-30: Existing points of ingress and egress shall be consolidated whenever possible. Driveway consolidation for new development shall be consistent with City standards and implemented through access agreements along arterials.

Action Item MOB-30a: Review and revise, as necessary, City standards to establish criteria for site ingress and egress and driveway locations.

Policy MOB-31: Ingress and egress to shopping centers shall minimize left turn movements into and out of parking or loading areas.

Policy MOB-32: Review standards for traffic signalization and revise to reflect alternative ways, beyond the current warrant study, for the installation of traffic lights, stop signs, and alternative signalization methods.

Policy MOB-33: Require residential developments along arterials to back on to such streets with ornamental fencing, landscaping, and waiver of access, or to provide frontage roads with limited points of access to the street. “Open ended cul de sacs” to major streets are also required for pedestrian access.

Policy MOB-34: Limit access points and intersections of streets and highways based on the road’s General Plan classification and function.

Access points must be located a sufficient distance away from major intersections to allow for safe, efficient operation.

Action Item MOB-34a: The distance between commercial driveways on arterial streets should be not less than 400 feet. Where practical and desirable, commercial driveways should be located on adjacent collector streets rather than on arterial streets.

Action Item MOB-34b: Driveway access to major activity centers, including multifamily development, should be located no closer than 200 feet to the intersection of a collector or arterial street.

Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policy CH-1: Implement an active transportation network that links residential uses with schools, shopping, entertainment, recreation, and employment centers.

Action Item CH-1a: Identify gaps in the existing pedestrian and bicycle network to inform capital improvements programming and grant funding opportunities.

Action Item CH-1b: Prioritize pedestrian and bicycle improvement projects that close gaps in the mobility network and those which link the east and west sides of the city.

Action Item CH-1c: Amend road design standards, as necessary, to include complete street design principles.

Action Item CH-1d: Develop and implement an Active Transportation Plan.

Policy CH-2: Promote walking and bicycling and reduce vehicle miles traveled by allowing complementary land uses in close proximity to one another.

Action Item CH-2a: Review and revise the Zoning Ordinance, as needed, to include complementary land uses within zoning districts.

Policy CH-3: Consider pedestrian and bicyclist safety and comfort in the design and development of streets, parks, and public spaces.

Action Item CH-3b: Require street lighting within the rights-of-way of all public streets.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold 1: Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of
Potentially Significant
Impact
Policies CDES-10, CDES-12, and CDES-13, outlined in the Cultural Resources Section.

Less than Significant
Impact
Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:

Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in the
local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Utilities and Service Systems
Threshold 1: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
Potentially Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact Threshold 2: Would the project have sufficient water
supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Policy PF-16: Design and construct water system infrastructure as needed to meet current and future water demands and system requirements.

Action Item PF-16a: Prepare and maintain a water systems master plan to estimate future water demands, identify an adequate supply of water to meet future demands, and identify potential new water supplies.

Policy PF-17: Continue to establish development fees and user rates that are sufficient to operate, maintain, and upgrade (for current and future regulatory requirements) the City’s water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure.

Policy PF-22: Support local efforts to implement SGMA. Coordinate with applicable GSAs to implement appropriate policies and programs identified in adopted GSPs.

Policy PF-23: Where appropriate, integrate identified actions and projects from the GSP into the City’s Capital Improvement Program.

Less than Significant
Impact
Impact
Level of Significance
Before Policies,
Action Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Policies, Action Items, and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Policies, Action
Items, and
Mitigation Measures
Threshold 3: Would the project result in a
determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Policy PF-17: Continue to establish development fees and user rates that are sufficient to operate, maintain, and upgrade (for current and future regulatory requirements) the City’s water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure.

Less than Significant
Impact
Threshold 4: Would the project generate solid waste
in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Policy PF-26: Ensure solid waste pick-up and disposal facilities are sufficient to meet new development needs.

Less than Significant
Impact
Threshold 5: Would the project comply with federal,
state, and local management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
Potentially Significant
Impact
Policy PF-25: Facilitate activities that reduce waste production and/or encourage recycling or reuse of waste when possible to reduce the amount of solid waste sent to landfill in order to meet State targets.

Less than Significant
Impact
Wildfire
Threshold 1: Would the Project substantially impair
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact Threshold 2: Would the Fowler 2040 GP, due to slope,
prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact Threshold 3: Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact
Threshold 4: Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Less than Significant
Impact Mitigation measures are not warranted. Less than Significant Impact Exhibit “B”
Part 1 – CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
and
Part 2 – CEQA STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Part 1 – CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
A. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091) requires that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project that mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment.
(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

B. PROPOSED PROJECT
The Draft City of Fowler 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), included here in totality by reference, contains a thorough and detailed description of the City of Fowler 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and so is not repeated here.

The DEIR analyzes the potentially significant environmental effects that could result from the Project including Section 4.3 Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Section 4.4 Air Quality, and Section 4.9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Each of these sections describes in detail the nature of significant impacts that would result due to implementation of the Project and why the Project cannot mitigate them to a less than significant level the significant and unavoidable impacts to which it contributes.

C. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
The record, upon which all findings and determinations related to the approval City of Fowler 2040 General Plan (Project) and EIR are based, includes the following:
(1) The EIR and all documents referenced in or relied upon by the EIR; (2) All information, including written evidence and testimony, provided by City staff and the environmental consultants to the City relating to the Project and the EIR; (3) All information, including written evidence and testimony, presented to the City from other public agencies related to the Project and the EIR;
(4) All applications, letters, testimony, and presentations related to the Project and EIR. (5) All information, including written evidence and testimony, presented at any City scoping meeting, presentation, workshop, or hearing related to the Project and the EIR; (6) All City-adopted or City-prepared land use plans and ordinances, including without limitation, the General Plan, specific plans, and ordinances together with the attending environmental review documents, findings, mitigation monitoring programs, and other documents relevant to planned growth in the area;
(7) The Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts for the Project; (8) All other documents composing the record pursuant to Public Resources Code §21167.6(e).

D. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR The DEIR contains thorough descriptions of each potentially significant impact that could result from the proposed Project and recommended mitigation measures shown above in Exhibit “A” Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts. With the exception of DEIR Impact 4.3.4 thresholds 1,2, and 5, 4.4.4 thresholds 1,2,4, and cumulative impacts, and 4.9.4 thresholds 1 and 2 regarding agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions, the City of Fowler finds that by adoption of Exhibit “A” Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts, changes or alterations are thereby required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects resulting from the Project.

Part 2 below provides the necessary Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the impacts that were found by the DEIR to be significant and unavoidable even with the adoption of feasible mitigation measures.

Part 2 – CEQA STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093) requires a decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. For any significant effects that cannot be avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant level by the project, the lead agency must describe the reasons why mitigation to less than significant is infeasible (PRC Section 21081(a)(3)). Approval of a project that would have significant adverse effects on the environment requires that the agency identify the project benefits that are evaluated as outweighing its significant effects on the environment (PRC Section 21081(b)).

When an agency approves a project that will result in significant effects to the environment, the agency is required to state its rationale for support of the project based on the Final Environmental Impact Report and other information in the record.

The City Council of the City of Fowler approves the Project and therefore adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant, unavoidable impacts to Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions to which the Project will contribute, and which are outweighed by the below-identified anticipated benefits of the Project.

A. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES IMPACTS
Based on the analysis provided within Section 4.3.4 of the DEIR, no feasible mitigation measures are available that would reduce the loss of important agriculture land and the loss of Williamson Act contract land to a less than significant level. Although the City has incorporated policies and planning measures into the Project that recognizes agriculture as an important resource, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Implementation of the Project and the resulting increased urbanization in and surrounding the City of Fowler would contribute to the substantial conversion of agricultural resources to other uses.

Impacts remaining significant and unavoidable are listed below:
• The Project could convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use.
• The Project could conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. • The Project could involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to location and nature of the Project, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use.

Mitigation Deemed Infeasible
The California Council of Land Trusts has developed Conserving California’s Harvest – A Model Program and Ordinance for Local Governments, a guidebook for the preservation of farmland within California.1 The guidebook contains suggestions for the conservation of and mitigation for the loss of farmland.

Mitigation proposed under this guidebook suggests conserving or restricting land use via easements, covenants, or deeds in order to preserve farming on a particular piece of land. In return, a project could develop another property and convert the land use from agricultural to a non-agricultural use. The preservation of land elsewhere could be done at various ratios, including 1:1 and 2:1. Additionally, the guidebook suggests that in the absence of an available agricultural easement at the time that a project proposes to develop an agricultural property, they could pay into a fee system or mitigation bank. The money collected would then be used in the future for the purchase of an agricultural easement or be used towards the preservation of agricultural lands.

Important farmland and other farmland resources located throughout the state are a valuable, finite resource. While the preservation of farmland outside of a project site does preserve farmland, it still results in the loss of the resource. No new important farmland is being created. The use of easements or land preservations would also be dependent upon landowners voluntarily restricting the use of their land.

Some property owners may be more willing than others to sell land for easements or participate in land preservation practices, creating a scattering of land that could be used for conservation. This would result in patchwork development in the future, which would be detrimental to both agricultural and urban uses.

The use of fees would require the City to set up a fee system to accommodate this type of mitigation.

Under a fee structure, the amount being paid to mitigate for the loss of important farmland would be arbitrary and would not necessarily represent the level of mitigation required of the loss of farmland. The fees would pay for the preservation of farmland in areas outside of the City and would not benefit lands within the City. Additionally, to serve as mitigation, a fee would be collected and then the project applicant would be required to wait until the fee could be used towards the purchase of a land preservation or easement if one was unavailable at the time. This would require a project applicant to wait an unspecified period of time to complete their project and would be a detriment to the economic development and growth of the City. As a result, the use of mitigation measures that include the preservation of agricultural land elsewhere or the use of fees as mitigation has been deemed infeasible.

Effects of Impact
The Project planning area would include approximately 3,674 acres of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland. Additionally, the planning area would include approximately 1,374 acres that are under a Williamson Act contract. The buildout of the Project would result in the conversion of these agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. Other changes that are unforeseen at this time could result in additional significant impacts to agricultural resources within the 1 “Conserving California's Harvest.” California Council of Land Trusts, 4 Dec. 2015, https://www.calandtrusts.org/resources/conserving-californias-harvest/. planning area.

Overriding Considerations
As explained in greater detail in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project outweigh the remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project related to agriculture and forestry resources.

AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Based on the analysis provided within Section 4.4.4 of the DEIR, no feasible mitigation measures are available that would reduce the impacts to air quality to a less than significant level. Although the City has incorporated policies and planning measures into the Project that recognizes air quality as an important resource, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Implementation of the Project and the resulting increased urbanization in the City of Fowler would contribute to the substantial increases air quality emissions. Impacts remaining significant and unavoidable are listed below:
• The Project could result in conflicts with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) air quality management plan.
• The Project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
• The Project could result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Mitigation Deemed Infeasible
Other emission reducing measures are available, such as those recommended by the SJVAPCD. This includes the use of clean construction equipment, the use of increased vegetative barriers, etc. An overarching requirement for all developers wishing to construct projects within the City to comply with these requirements, some of which would be within the thresholds of the SJVAPCD standards, would be a detriment to the economic development of the City as it would serve as an increased cost to developers.

Rather, these measures may be included on a project-by-project basis and as needed. The SJVAPCD will have the opportunity to recommend emission reducing measures on future projects as they occur. As a result, wide-scale emissions reduction measures have been deemed infeasible in favor of a project-byproject evaluation.

Effects of Impact
The full buildout of the Project would result in the substantial increase in the City’s population, traffic, and number of development projects over the life of the Project. While each individual project would be required to meet the SJVAPCD’s Rules and Regulations, the region is within non-attainment levels for several criteria air pollutants and increased urbanization and expansion of the City would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality.

CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Based on the analysis provided within Section 4.4.4 of the DEIR, no feasible mitigation measures are available that would reduce the impacts to air quality to a less than significant level. Although the City has incorporated policies and planning measures into the Project that recognizes air quality as an important resource, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Implementation of the Project and the resulting increased urbanization in the City of Fowler would contribute to the substantial increases air quality emissions. Impacts remaining significant and unavoidable are listed below:
• The Project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Effects of Impact
The full buildout of the Project would result in the construction and operation of new development, which would result in increased area, mobile, and energy-related air emissions. The combination of these projects over the life of the Project is expected to result in a significant and unavoidable impact to air quality.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IMPACTS
Based on the analysis provided within Section 4.9.4 of the DEIR, no feasible mitigation measures are available that would reduce the impacts to greenhouse gas emissions to a less than significant level.

Although the City has incorporated policies and planning measures into the Project that recognizes greenhouse gas emissions as an important resource, this impact remains significant and unavoidable.

Implementation of the Project and the resulting increased urbanization in the City of Fowler would contribute to the substantial increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Impacts remaining significant and unavoidable are listed below:
• The Project could result in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment.
• The Project could conflict with the SJVAPCD’s plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Effects of Impact
The full buildout of the Project would result in a substantial increase in the City’s population and traffic.

Buildout of the Project is expected to result in an increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled within the City by approximately 400 percent. The buildout would also exceed the thresholds for metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions due to increased mobile sources and operational activities resulting from development within the City.

B. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City of Fowler adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the Significant and Unavoidable Impacts from:
• The loss of important farmlands (Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland) and the loss of lands under active Williamson Act contracts. • Conflicts with the SJVAPCD’s air quality management plan. • The cumulative net increase of criteria air pollutants that would contribute to non-attainment levels.
• The possible increase of other emissions, including those that emit odors. • The generation of greenhouse gas emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment.
• The generation of greenhouse gas emissions that would conflict with the plans, policies, and regulations of the SJVAPCD.

FINDINGS AND STATEMENT
The City of Fowler finds and determines that all but the aforementioned significant impacts of the Project will be reduced to an acceptable level by mitigation measures recommended in the DEIR.

However, as set forth above, the City’s approval of the Project will result in eight (including cumulative net increases in air quality emissions) significant and unavoidable impacts and one cumulatively considerable and significant impact that cannot be avoided even with incorporation of all feasible mitigation. The City chooses to approve Project because, in its view, the benefits resulting from the Project will render the significant effects acceptable.

The following statement identifies the reasons why, in the City’s judgement, the benefits of the Project outweigh the nine significant and unavoidable impacts. The substantial evidence supporting the listed benefits of the Project can be found in these findings, in the Project itself and in the record of proceedings. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a decision-making agency may make a decision that the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the potentially significant and unavoidable impacts of a project. Each of the overriding considerations set forth below constitute a separate and independent ground for findings that the benefits of the Project outweigh its potential adverse environmental effects and is overriding consideration warranting approval.

The City of Fowler finds that the Project, as approved, would have the following benefits:
• The Project has resulted from a series of public meetings and reflects the desire of the population and the City for orderly, responsible growth.
• The Project will serve as the foundation for the City’s future land use decisions based on goals and policies developed to serve the City’s development into the future. • The Project incorporates the most recent legislative requirements that must be addressed in a city’s general plan.
• The Project incorporates policies related to smart growth, sustainability, and walkability that will serve to enhance social physical, mental, and economic well-being. • The Project would better balance the jobs to housing ratio within the City, while providing a wide range of housing opportunities for all socioeconomic levels. Adequate housing availability for all income levels promotes social equity within the City.
• The Project would preserve Fowler’s urban interface, downtown, and form-based code area. • The Project would include policies that would preserve public health and promote public safety. • The Project would include policies to preserve and develop open space and recreational facilities for the residents of the City.
• Increased population and development within the City would result in an array of new types of businesses within the City, decreasing the likelihood that residents of the City have to travel out of the City for services. This would provide for economic development growth within the City, boosting the local economy and reducing the negative effects associated with reliance on other jurisdictions to provide services for residents of the City.

C. ABSENCE OF NEW INFORMATION
In accordance with CEQA:
• The City Council Recognizes that the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) incorporates information obtained and produced after the DEIR was, and that it contains additions, clarifications, and modifications.
• The City Council has reviewed and considered the FEIR and all of this information. • The FEIR does not add significant new information to the DEIR that would require recirculation of the EIR under CEQA.
• The new information added to the FEIR does not involve a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, of a feasible mitigation measure or alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed that the City declines to adopt and that would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project. • No Information indicates that the DEIR was inadequate or conclusory or that the public was deprived of meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the DEIR.

Therefore, the City Council finds that the changes and modifications made to the EIR after the DEIR was circulated for public review and comment do not individually or collectively constitute significant new information within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21092.1 or CEQA Guidelines §15088.5.

D. CETIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
For the reasons set forth herein:
• The City Council certifies that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. • The City Council has independently reviewed the record and the EIR prior to certifying the EIR and approving the Project.
• By these findings, the City Council confirms, ratifies, and adopts the findings and conclusions of the EIR as supplemented and modified by these findings. • The EIR and these findings represent the independent judgement and analysis of the City and the City Council.
• The City Council reviewed the entirety of the EIR and bases its determination on the substance of the information contained therein.
• The City Council certifies that the EIR is adequate to support approval of the action that is the subject of the staff report to which these CEQA findings are attached.

Therefore, the City Council certifies that the EIR is adequate to support approval of the Project and any minor modifications thereto.

RESOLUTION NO. 2635

A RESOLUTION BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOWLER ADOPTING THE CITY OF FOWLER 2040 GENERAL PLAN AND ERRATA WHEREAS, Section 65300 of the Government Code of the State of California requires cities to prepare long-range comprehensive guides known as general plans; and WHEREAS, the City of Fowler last updated its General Plan in 2004 and that the last comprehensive update of the Fowler General Plan occurred in 1976; and WHEREAS, the Fowler City Council determined that the existing General Plan was in need of revision to bring the document into conformance with State law and to provide current information and internal consistency within its elements; and WHEREAS, Section 65358 of the Government Code of the State of California limits the amendment of mandatory elements of general plans to four times during a calendar year; and WHEREAS, this resolution is presented as the first amendment of 2023; and WHEREAS, the City of Fowler 2040 General Plan (Project) will supersede the 2025 General Plan, which was adopted in 2004, in regard to text and maps in all regards, excepting therefrom, the 2015 Housing Element, which shall remain in full force and effect; and WHEREAS, in 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2023 the City of Fowler conducted several public workshops and scoping sessions, offering staff, landowners, the general public, the Planning Commission, and the City Council the opportunity to provide input and direction as to the development of the Project; and
WHEREAS, Staff provided status reports on the development of the Project to the Planning Commission and the City Council during regularly scheduled meetings of both bodies throughout the Project process; and
WHEREAS, Staff determined that pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the preparation of an environmental impact report in conjunction with the Project was necessary to evaluate the potential of the Project to impact the environment; and WHEREAS, via adoption of Resolution No. 687, the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council makes the requisite findings of fact, adopts a statement of overriding consideration, and certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, via adoption of Resolution No. 688, the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council adopt the Project and Errata; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is responsible for reviewing updates to the General Plan and Map and forwarding a recommendation to the City Council on the adoption of, or adoption with modifications to, the General Plan and Map; and WHEREAS, at a special meeting on March 28, 2023, the Fowler Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Project, Errata and City of Fowler 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was published in the March 17, 2023 edition of The Business Journal, posted at City Hall and the City’s website, and sent to interested parties via email; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is responsible for the adoption of, or adoption with modifications to, the General Plan and Map; and
WHEREAS, at a special meeting on April 18, 2023, at 6:00 pm, the Fowler City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Project, Errata, and City of Fowler 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was published in the April 7, 2023 edition of The Business Journal, posted at City Hall and the City’s website, and sent to interested parties via email; and
WHEREAS, via Resolution No. 2635, the City Council has passed a motion to make the requisite findings of fact, adopt a statement of overriding considerations, and certify the Final Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the Project, and has evaluated and considered all comments, written and oral, received from persons who reviewed the Project, or otherwise commented on the Project.

NOW THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES that the City Council of the City of Fowler hereby approves and adopts the City of Fowler 2040 General Plan.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of April 2023, at a special meeting of the Fowler City Council by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
___________________________
Daniel T. Parra, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Angela Vasquez, City Clerk

Fowler City CouncilApril 18, 2023

Fowler City Council
April 18, 2023