Exhibit H - Environmental Assessment August 19, 2022 — Fresno City Council, September 15, 2022 (part 3 of 3)

on DTSC’s EnviroStor data management system. The EnviroStor Map feature can be used to locate hazardous waste facilities and sites for a county, city, or a specific address. A search within EnviroStor indicates that hazardous waste facilities and sites in addition to those shown in the MND are present within the Project’s region.

DTSC recommends that the following issues be evaluated in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the MND:

1. The MND should acknowledge the potential for historic or future activities on or near the Project site to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances on the Project site. In instances in which releases have occurred or may occur, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. The MND should also identify the mechanism(s) to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation and the government agency who will be responsible for providing appropriate regulatory oversight.

2. Refiners in the United States started adding lead compounds to gasoline in the 1920s in order to boost octane levels and improve engine performance.

This practice did not officially end until 1992 when lead was banned as a fuel additive in California. Tailpipe emissions from automobiles using leaded gasoline contained lead and resulted in aerially deposited lead (ADL) being deposited in and along roadways throughout the state. ADL-contaminated soils still exist along roadsides and medians and can also be found underneath some existing road surfaces due to past construction activities. Due to the potential for ADL-contaminated soil, DTSC recommends collecting soil samples for lead analysis prior to performing any intrusive activities for the Project described in the MND.

3. If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC’s 2006 Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination from Lead Based Paint, Termiticides, and Electrical Transformers.

4. If any projects initiated as part of the proposed Project require the importation of soil to backfill any excavated areas, proper sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. DTSC recommends the Ms. Pagoulatos
July 26, 2022

Page 3 ends

imported materials be characterized according to DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material.

5. If any sites included as part of the proposed Project have been used for agricultural, weed abatement or related activities, proper investigation for organochlorinated pesticides should be discussed in the MND. DTSC recommends the current and former agricultural lands be evaluated in accordance with DTSC’s 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision).

DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND. Should you need any assistance with an environmental investigation, please visit DTSC’s Site Mitigation and Restoration Program page to apply for lead agency oversight. Additional information regarding voluntary agreements with DTSC can be found at DTSC’s Brownfield website.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 255-3710 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Gavin McCreary, M.S.

Project Manager
Site Evaluation and Remediation Unit
Site Mitigation and Restoration Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
cc: ( via email)
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Mr. Dave Kereazis
Office of Planning & Environmental Analysis
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]

3845 N. CLARK STREET. SUITE 101, FRESNO, CA 93726 PH. 559.485.1416 FAX 559.485.9109 [email protected] WWW.FRESNOMETOMIN.ORG TAX ID # 94-2181848

July 20, 2022
Fresno City Council
City of Fresno Planning Commission
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721

Subject: Development Code Text Amendment Application No. P22-02413 and related Environmental Finding for Environmental Assessment No. P22-02413 Related to Density in Mixed-Use Zone Districts Dear Fresno City Council Members and Planning Commissioners:

We are writing to express a perspective about the proposed Text Amendment Application as currently written.

We also have concerns with some of the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Measures Monitoring Checklist for Mixed Use Zoning Density Increase Text Amendment contained in the Environmental Assessment document.

Our perspective is that the subject text amendment is a unique opportunity to substantially enhance the implementation of the Fresno General Plan as especially regards goals for affordable infill housing development along key corridors, the goals of the One Fresno Housing Strategy, the Southern Blackstone Smart Mobility Strategy (SBSMS), and much more. This is also a significant opportunity to intentionally reduce regulatory disincentives for infill development, and not sustain or increase current disincentives which do in fact prevent development. We believe the City must take greater responsibility for developing complete streets as capital projects with adopted design standards (such as the SBSMS) and mitigating traffic impacts of new desirable development along complete streets, and not keep placing these responsibilities back onto infill development in piece meal fashion.

Likewise, with respect to TRANS-2, TRANS-3, TRANS-4 and TRANS-5 Mitigation Measures, we believe the City should get ahead of these issues, identify studies and mitigations the City should take responsibility to implement and fund as capital projects, and exempt affordable housing development from these exactions.

We request City Staff, in communication with central and south Fresno community-based entities, take more time for assessing what we suggest above before acting on the proposed Text Amendment Application.

KR Bergthold Jessica Hoff Berzac
Keith Bergthold, Executive Director Jessica Hoff Berzac, Principal Fresno Metro Ministry/Better Blackstone CDC Upholdings

1 Sophia Pagoulatos
From: Henrietta Walsh <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2022 2:34 PM
To: Sophia Pagoulatos
Subject: Re: Comments - MND General Plan Amendment (SCH 2022070081) External Email: Use caution with links and attachments

Hi Ms. Pagoulatos,

Could you please confirm receipt of my comments that were submitted yesterday morning, which was still during the review period for the environment document? I am requesting confirmation because I didn't receive a response and have not previously submitted comments via email.

Respectfully,

Henrietta Walsh
Henrietta Walsh
[email protected]

On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 9:46 AM Henrietta Walsh <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Ms. Pagoulatos,

The following are comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) for the General Plan Amendment/Development Code Text Amendment Application No. P22-02413.

Comment 1
The analysis does not provide an analysis on the project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants.

Page 50 ends

CODE TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. P22-02413 has the following information:
• (4) Toxic Air Contaminants: Exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC) would be considered significant if the probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (i.e., maximum individual risk) would exceed 10 in 1 million or would result in a Hazard Index greater than one (1). As recommended by the SJVAPCD, the latest approved California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) methodology was utilized as the TAC screening methodology. According to the CAPCOA Guidance Document titled “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects,” there are two (2) types of land use project that have the potential to cause long- term public health risk impacts. These project types are as follows:
§ Type A: Land use projects with toxic emissions that impact receptors, and § Type B: Land use project that will place receptors in the vicinity of existing toxics sources.

In addition, Mitigation Measure AIR-1 (page 54) should be revised to reflect that future development projects that consist of 225 residential units or less may still have the potential to have impacts from toxic air contaminants. For example, grading for any sized project could have the potential to generate toxic air contaminants to a level that would cause an adverse health impact to nearby sensitive receptors. This is one impact. A second, as identified on page 50, would be the potential to place receptors in the vicinity 2 of existing toxic sources. This second impact is not addressed anywhere in the document, nor do the mitigation measures ensure that this would be addressed for future development projects.

Comment 2
Appendix D contains a letter from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) dated January 6, 2022 that offered comments related to the project.

Page 2 ends

the future residential dwelling units development in comparison to heavy-duty truck routing patterns to help limit emission exposure to residential communities and sensitive receptors.” This was not elevated in the analysis. The air quality analysis should be revised to address this concern.

Comment 3
Appendix D contains a letter from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) dated January 6, 2022 that offered comments related to the project.

Comment 3b) on page 3 of the letter recognizes the project’s potential to have impacts related to toxic air contaminants and recommends that future development projects should include health risk assessments. This concern was not addressed in the air quality analysis. The air quality analysis and/or associated mitigation measures should be revised to ensure that all future development projects will be required to be evaluated for risks. Any potentially significant risks should be mitigated.

Best,

Henrietta Walsh
Henrietta Walsh
[email protected]

CITY OF FRESNO - Mixed Used Zoning Density Increase Text Amendment| 211 13 APPENDIX G: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Comments and Responses Matrix- Mixed Use Text Amendment (SCH 2022070081) COMMENT LETTER #1: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Brian Clements, Director of Permit Services, Dated August 3, 2022 Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared by the City of Fresno (City) for the General Plan Amendment and Development Code Text Amendments Application No.

P22-02413 (Amendments). Per the MND, the Amendments are applicable to 3,866 acres in the Fresno area within five zone districts (Neighborhood Mixed Use, Corridor/Center Mixed-Use, Regional Mixed- Use, Commercial – Main Street, and Commercial – Regional) that allow for mixed-use development. The Amendments will increase the zoning density for the five mixed -use zone districts to facilitate economically feasible and high quality development along transit corridors and address the need for housing.

The Amendments include: (1) remove the maximum density for mixed-use districts; (2) modify the restriction that prohibits ground floor residential uses in mixed-use districts so that only corner properties along arterials with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stops will have mandated commercial uses; and (3) revise Fresno Municipal Code (FMC) Section 15-4907 to allow ministerial approval of multi-family residential uses in mixed-use districts within the City’s Priority Areas for Development (Project).

The Project area lies within one of the communities in the state selected by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for investment of additional air quality resources and attention under Assembly Bill (AB) 617 (Garcia) in an effort to reduce air pollution exposure in impacted disadvantaged communities.

The District offers the following comments regarding the Project:

This is an introduction to the comment letter. The
introduction does not raise environmental issues or
request additional information relevant to
environmental issues. Therefore, no further response
is necessary.

1) Project Siting
The Amendments are the blueprint for future growth and provides guidance for the community’s development. Without appropriate mitigation and associated policy, future development projects within the City may contribute to negative impacts on air quality due to increased traffic and ongoing operational emissions. Appropriate project siting helps ensure there is adequate distance between differing land uses, which can prevent or reduce localized and cumulative air pollution impacts from business This comment references planning resources that may
be used to establish goals, policies, and objectives for siting land uses. It should be noted that many of these goals, policies, and objectives are reflected in the City’s General Plan and PEIR from which the subject ISMND
is tiered from. In addition, many of the goals, policies, and objectives are incorporated in MMs AIR-
2 and

operations that are in close proximity to receptors (e.g., residences, schools, health care facilities, etc.). The Amendments are siting-related goals, policies, and objectives should include measures and concepts outlined in the following resources:

AIR-3. Further, the proposed General Plan
Amendment/Development Code Text Amendment
would not result in addition of land within the city
already zoned and designated for residential uses, nor
would the proposed project alter the current
permitted location of commercial and industrial uses.

Therefore, the establishment of goals, policies , and
objectives for siting land uses is not applicable and
does not change the findings of the ISMND.

• CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.

The document includes tables with recommended buffer distances associated with various types of common sources (e.g., distribution centers, chrome platers, gasoline dispensing facilities, etc.), and can be found at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf
Not applicable, see above.
• CARB’s Freight Handbook Concept Paper: This document compiles best practices designed to address air pollution impacts, which may apply to the siting, design, construction, and operation of freight facilities to minimize health impacts on nearby communities, and can be found at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/2019.12.12%20- %20Concept%20Paper%20for%20the%20Freight%20Handbook_1.pdf This comment references a planning resource related
to freight facilities.

The proposed project does not
impact or allow additional freight facilities. As
described on Page 13 of the ISMND, the proposed text
amendment would (1) remove the maximum density
for mixed-use districts, (2) modify the restriction that prohibits ground floor residential uses in mixed -use
districts so that only corner properties along arterials with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stops will have mandated
commercial uses, and (3) revise Fresno Municipal Code
(FMC) Section 15-4907 to allow ministerial approval of
multi-family residential uses in mixed-
use districts
within the City’s Priority Areas for Development (areas identified on Figure IM -1 in the Fresno General Plan).

The text amendment
would only be applicable to
existing/current mixed- use districts and future
development within these districts that are consistent

with the underlying land use and zoning designations.

No land use or zoning changes are proposed by the
Project.
2) Assembly Bill 617
AB 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 disadvantaged communities, like those in which the Project is located. The So uth Central Fresno AB 617 community is one of the statewide communities selected by CARB for development and implementation of a CERP.

Following extensive community engagement and collaboration with the Community Steering Committee, the CERP for the South Central Fresno Community was adopted by the District’s Governing Board in September 2019 and by CARB in February 2020.

During the development of the CERP, the Community Steering Committee expressed concerns regarding the proximity of emission sources to nearby sensitive receptors like schools, homes, day care centers, and hospitals, and the potential future industrial development within the community that may exacerbate the cumulative exposure burden for community residents. The Community Steering Committee also expressed the desire for more meaningful avenues of engagement surrounding the land -use decisions in the area. As these issues can most effectively be addressed through strong partnerships between community members and local land-use agencies.

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 This comment references AB 617, encouraging the City
to further assess measures to reduce emissions as
outlined in the South Central Fresno Community CERP.

It should be noted that many of these measures are
reflected in the City’s General
Plan and PEIR from
which the subject ISMND is tiered from.

Further, it is acknowledged that there are 2,461 parcels totaling approximately 954 acres within mixed-use
districts that are within the AB 617 Fresno Community
Boundary. This accounts for less t
han 1 percent of
Project area. Any codified rules or permitting
requirements established by the SJVAPCD process will
be required of future development projects within the
Project Area.

Lastly, it should be noted that additional commercial
and industrial development are not proposed as part
of the project. No uses that have the potential to result in additional emissions or TACs (toxic air contaminants) are proposed. For construction -related emissions, it
should be noted that required compliance with District
rules and regulations as well as state mandates would
result in the use of cleaner equipment generating
fewer emissions, thereby lessening any TACs resulting
from construction.
3) Project Related Emissions
Per page 53 of the MND, the MND states future development projects within the Project area will be approved either by a discretionary or ministerial approval process. Future development projects within the Project area should identify and characterize proj ect The mitigation measures established for the proposed
project are in compliance with District standards
and/or in align with previously agreed upon
methodology established by the City of Fresno General
Plan PEIR and memorialized in several mitigation

construction and operational air emissions. The District recommends the air emissions be compared to the District significance thresholds as identified in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf. The District recommends that future projects be mitigated to the extent feasible, and that future projects with air emissions above the aforementioned thresholds be mitigated to below these thresholds.

The District understands that future individual project- specific data may not be available at this time. As such, the MND should include a discussion of policies, which when 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:
measures that are referenced and required in the
ISMND. Future projects within the Project Area would
only be considered ministerial if they were under the
District’s already established SPAL thresholds (Small
Project Analysis Levels). The District already uses this guidance to screen certain projects out from fu rther
review and analysis.

Any project that would otherwise be considered
ministerial, but would exceed the SPAL threshold,
would be subject to a CalEEMod screening to
determine if the project would exceed the District’s
established thresholds. If it woul
d not, no further
analysis would be required. If it would exceed
thresholds, a VERA would be required (as identified in
MM AIR-1 of the IS/MND).

Projects within the Project Area not deemed
ministerial would be required to implement the
already established air quality mitigation measures
established by the General Plan PEIR that are in line
with the District’s above noted Guidance document.
3a) Construction Emissions
The District recommends for future development projects, 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.
3b) Operational Emissions
The District recommends 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.

As noted above, the mitigation measures established
for the proposed project are in compli
ance with
District standards and/or in align with previously
agreed upon methodology established by the City of
Fresno General Plan PEIR and memorialized in several
mitigation measures that are referenced and required
in the ISMND. Future projects within the Project Area
would only be considered ministerial if they were
under the District’s already established SPAL
thresholds (Small Project Analysis Levels). The District already uses this guidance to screen certain projects
out from further review and analysis.

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 measur es can be found at: http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/Mitigation-Measures.pdf.

Any project that would otherwise be considered
ministerial, but would exceed the SPAL threshold,
would be subject to a CalEEMod screening to
determine if the project would exceed the District’s
established thresholds. If it would not, no further
analysis would be required. If it would exceed
thresholds, a VERA would be required (as identified in
MM AIR-1 of the ISMND).

This VERA, which would apply at the project level,
could implement the recommended measures noted
above. Given that individual devel
opment project
details are not known at this time, it is not possible to impose design and operational related mitigation
measures.

Future projects within the Project Area not deemed
ministerial would be required to implement the
already established air quality mitigation measures
established by the General Plan PEIR that are in line
with the District’s above noted Guidance document. If
significance levels are exceeded, these mitigation
measures would implement the recommended
mitigation m easures noted above. Given that
individual development project details are not known
at this time, it is not possible to impose specific design and operational related mitigation measures.
3c) Recommended Model for Quantifying Air Emissions
Future development 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
.

See response to 3a and 3b above. CALEEMod is the tool
required and is identified in the ISMND.

4) Health Risk Screening/Assessment
Future development projects will be located in various mixed -use zone districts (e.g. commercial, residential, etc.) throughout the City. Per page 53 of the MND, the MND states future development projects within the Project area will be approved either by a discretionary or ministerial approval process. Additionally the MND states on page 54 of the MND, the City would evaluate the health risk associated with future development within the Project area to limit exposure of emissions to sensitive receptors (e.g. residences, mixed-uses, commercial, etc.).

To determine potential health impacts on surrounding receptors 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 Toxic Air Contaminants (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 future development project, which include emissions from construction of the future development project, including multi-year construction, as well as ongoing operational activities of the future development 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 Prior itization 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 future development 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 wi th Prioritization analyses, the District has created a prioritization calculator based on the aforementioned CAPCOA guidelines, which can be found here:

This comment recommends that future development
projects be evaluated for potential health impacts to
surrounding sensitive receptors.

With regard to analyzing the exposure of sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations,
CEQA case law had concluded that agencies subject to
CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact
of existing environmental conditions on a project’s
future users or residents except in specific instances
where such conditions could be exacerbated due to
implementation of the project (California Building
Industry Association v Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (S213478, December 17, 2015).

Because the proposed Project would apply to zone
districts that are intended to facilitate pedestrian -
oriented, mixed-
use developments that include
residences, office, and commercial spaces, a wide
variety of sensitive receptors are in proximity to the
Project Area. The proposed Project would remove the
residential density limit on parcels within these zone
districts. Changes in the underlying land use or zoning designations of these parcels would not result from
implementation of the Project. Therefore, the Project
would not introduce new, incompatible, or
unpermitted uses that would otherwise exacerbate air
pollut
ion or environmental contaminants and
negatively impact nearby sensitive receptors.

It is acknowledged that much of the existing Project
Area is in the vicinity of major roadways and freeways.

Current regulatory action by CARB, Governor
Newsom’s Zero-Emission by 2035 Executive Order (N -
79-20), and other near zero emissions initiatives will

http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/emission_factors/Criteria/Toxics/Utilities/PRIORI TIZATION-CALCULATOR.xls
result in reduction of the amount of mobile source
emissions and particulates. As newer, less polluting
vehicles replace on-road diesel trucks and high carbon
emission v ehicles, traffic growth along the roadways
and freeways would be expected to be offset to some
degree as to not exacerbate air pollution or
environmental contaminants for nearby sensitive
receptors.

In addition, the ISMND indicates that emissions
generated during construction or operations of future
projects would not exceed significance thresholds and
are not anticipated to result in concentrations that
reach or surpass ambient air quality requirements.

Further, implementation of the proposed Project
would facilitate future residential development, which
is not a use identified by CAPCOA or CARB that results
in toxic air contaminants or excessive pollutant
concentrations known to be a risk to human health
which could impact sensitive receptors.

Of note, the ISMND does not state on page 54 that “the
City would evaluate the health risk associated with
future development within the Project area to limit
exposure of emissions to sensitive receptors (e.g.
residences, mixed-uses, commercial, etc.)” as written
in this comment.

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 As noted above, CEQA requires an analysis of a
project’s impacts on the environment and not the
environment’s impact on a project (see legal
reference, above). Thus, when looking at the Project (a text amendment to increase residential density on
property already zoned and planned to permit
residential uses), a Health Risk Assessment is not

District’s significance threshold of 20 in a million for carcinogenic risk, or 1.0 for either the Acute or Chronic Hazard Indices.

A project with a significant health risk would trigger all feasible mitigation measu res.

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. required given that residential uses are not uses
identified by CAPCOA or CARB as uses known to be
generators of TACs or other pollutants known to be a
risk to human health.
5) Ambient Air Quality Analysis
An Ambient Air Q uality 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 Future projects within the Project Area would only be
considered ministerial if they were under the District’s already established SPAL thresholds . The District
already uses this guidance to screen certain projects
out from further review and analysis. Projects that are under the SPAL thresholds do not have the potential to
general 100 pounds per day of any pollutant.

Any project that would otherwise be considered
ministerial, but would exceed the SPAL threshold,
would be subject to a CalEEMod screening.

analysis.

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

Future projects within the Project Area be required to
implement the already established air quality
mitigation measures established by the General Plan
PEIR that are in line with the District’s above noted
Guidance document. If signif
icance levels are
exceeded, these mitigation measures would
implement the recommended mitigation measures
noted above. Given that individual development
project details are not known at this time, it is not
possible to impose specific design and operationa l
related mitigation measures.
6) Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement
Future development projects located within the Project area could result in a significant impact on air quality. As such, at a minimum, the District recommends 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 su ccessful 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 As noted in the ISMND, a VERA is a viable option for
projects that exceed established District thresholds. As the District recommends in the comment above, a
discussion on implementing a VERA as a mitigation
measure for future development projects that are
determined to exceed the District’s CEQA significance
thresholds sho
uld be included in the ISMND. This
discussion is included in the ISMND through MM AIR-
1, which requires a VERA if thresholds are exceeded.

emission reductions. Thus, project -related 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 certifi es 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. 7) 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 projects (e.g. commercial) within the Project area have the potential to generate truck trips. As such, 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. Th e truck routing evaluation would also identify alternative truck routes and their impacts on VMT and air quality.

The proposed text amendment is only applicable to
future residential development in mixed -use zone
districts. Therefore, future development pr ojects that will directly result from the proposed project do not
have the potential to generate commercial truck trips
as described above. 8) Cleanest Available Heavy-Duty Trucks The San Joaquin Valley will not be able to attain stringent health-based fe deral 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 the implementation of CARB’s Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation, which requires truck fleets operating in California As noted above, the proposed text amendment is only
applicable to future residential development in mixed-
use zone districts. Therefore, future development
projects that will directly res ult from the Proposed
Project do not have the potential to generate Heavy
Truck trips as described above.

The City acknowledges the District’s recommendation

to meet the 2010 standard of 0.2 g -NOx/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 near- zero truck standard of 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx established by CARB.

Future development projects (e.g. commercial) within the Project area have the potential to generate truck trips. For future development projects, the District recommends 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. to use cleanest available HHD trucks and on -site
service equipment. CEQA requires lead agencies to
impose feasible mitigation measures as part of
“project” approval with the intent to lessen or avoid
significant adverse impacts of the project on the
physical environment. CalEEMod was used to
determine the potential criterion pollutants for f uture development projects resulting from the
implementation of the Project. A set of assumptions
(See CalEEMod Assumptions) were used in order to
reasonably estimate potential impacts. As shown in
Table 4 -2 and Table 4 -
3 of the ISMND, estimated
construction and operational emissions of criteria air
pollutants of the assumed future development are
below all significance thresholds and can therefore be
deemed to be consistent with the GAMAQI.
9) Reduce Idling of Heavy-Duty Trucks
The goal of this strategy i s 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.

Future developm ent projects (e.g. commercial) within the Project area have the potential to generate truck trips. The District recommends the City 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.

The City acknowledges the District’s recommendation
to minimize idling, especially near sensitive receptors.

CEQA requires lead agencies to impose feasible
mitigation measures as part of “project” approval with
the intent to lessen or avoid significant adverse
impacts of the project on the physical environment.

Excessive idling would be addressed through state
regulations that prohibit idling for more than five (5) minutes (13
CCR § 2485 and 13 CCR § 2480).

Mitigation Measure AIR -2 in the ISMND addresses
restriction of equipment and truck idling pursuant to
these state regulations.
10) Electric On-Site Off-Road and On-Road Equipment
Future development projects may have the pot ential to result in increased use of off - road 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 As noted above, the proposed General Plan
Amendment/Development Code Text Amendment is
only applicable to future residential development in
mixed-
use zone districts. Therefore, future

requirements for project proponents to utilize electric or zero emission off-road and on- road equipment.
development projects that will directly result from the Proposed Project do not have the potential to result in increased use of off - road equipment (e.g., forklifts) and on-road equipment (e.g., mobile yard trucks with
the ability to move materials) since these are all related to non-residential uses.
11) Under-fired Charbroilers
Future development projects will be located in various mixed-use zone districts (e.g. commercial, etc.) throughout the City. The Amendments have the potential to result in future commercial development projects with under -fired 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 City 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
The City acknowledges the District’s recommendation
to assess and potentially install a particulate matter
emission control system for new
large restaurants
operating under-fired char broilers. CEQA requires lead agencies to impose feasible mitigation measures as
part of “project” approval with the intent to lessen or avoid significant adverse impacts of the project on the physical environmen
t. The proposed General Plan
Amendment/Development Code Text Amendment
would only apply to future residential development in
mixed-
use districts. Therefore, future commercial
development projects that propose use of char broilers
are do not qualify for pro posed provisions under the
General Plan Amendment/Development Code Text
Amendment, are not considered in the ISMND, and
would be subject to separate discretionary and
environmental review.

12) Vegetative Barriers and Urban Greening
The Project is expected to result in future development (e.g. commercial, residential, etc.). As such, 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 improve air quality and public health in addition to enhancing the overall beautification of a community with drought tolerant, low-maintenance greenery.

The City acknowledges the District’s suggestion
regarding incorporation of vegetative barriers and
urban greening for further reduction of criteria
pollutant exposure to sensitive receptors. The impact
analysis for air quality did not incorporate vegetative barriers or urban greening as part of the CalEEMod
assumptions for project design because no physical
development is proposed by the General Plan
Amendment/Development Code Text Amendment.

The City’s Development Code already requires
landscape buffers between residential and non-
residential uses which would still apply to future
developments within the project area.

Future projects within the Project Area would be
required to implement the already established air
quality mitigation measures established by the General
Plan PEIR that are in line with the District’s above noted Guidance document. If significance levels are
exceeded, these mitigation measures w ould
implement the recommended mitigation measures
noted above. Given that individual development
project details are not known at this time, it is not
possible to impose specific design and operational
related mitigation measures.
13) Clean Lawn and Garden Equipment in the Community
Since the Project 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 repla cement of
existing gas powered lawn and garden equipment. More information on the District Noted. This is not a measure that can be implemented
at this time since no specific development or use is
currently proposed.

CGYM program and funding can be found at:
http://www.valleyair.org/grants/cgym.htm and http://valleyair.org/grants/cgym- commercial.htm.
14) 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 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 recommends incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for future development projects.

Noted. This is not a measure that can be implemented
at this time since no specific development or use is
currently proposed.
15) 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 the installation of electric vehicle chargers at project sites as a miti gation measure for future development projects.

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

Noted. This is not a measure that can be implemented
at this time since n o specific development or use is
currently proposed. However, the California Building
Code requires that multi -
family projects provide a
certain number of EV ready parking stalls, thus this will already be required of future projects that may result
from the proposed text amendment.
16) 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 All futu re development projects within the City of
Fresno, whether ministerial or discretionary, are
subject to the District’s rules. The proposed Text
Amendment does not change the applicability of
District Rules and Regulations . A condition will be
added to futu re ministerial projects requiring
compliance with District Rules and Regulations.

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 Dis trict 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. 16a) 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 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, demonstra tion 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.
16b) District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review (ISR)
Accordingly, future development projects within the Project area 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 Ministerial Approval / Allowed Use

Threshold / 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
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 fo r 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].
16c) District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 9410 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 single-occupancy vehicle trips, thus reducing poll utant 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.

For additional information, you can contact the District by phone at 559 -230- 6000 or by e-mail at [email protected]
16d) 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. 16e) 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 16f) 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.

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 16g) District Rule 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Heaters The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions of carbon monoxide and particulate matter from wo
od 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/
16h) 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).
17) Future Projects / Land Use Agency Referral Documents Future development projects may require an environmental review and air emissions mitigation. A project’s referral d
ocuments 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
Noted. This comment does not raise environmental
issues, thus no response is necessary.
18) District Comment Letter
The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent.

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Eric McLaughlin by e-mail at [email protected]
or by phone at (559) 230-5808.

Sincerely,
Brian Clements
Director of Permit Services
Noted. This comment does not raise environmental
issues, thus no response is necessary.

COMMENT LETTER #2: Fresno County Historical Landmarks and Records Advisory Commission, Bill Secrest, Heritage Center, Fresno County Public Library, Dated July 12, 2022
On behalf of Fresno County’s Historical Landmarks and Records Advisory Commission, I Comment noted. Does not require any modification to

have reviewed the abo ve-mentioned document. The text at pp. 21 -23 and 73 -78 is consistent with State of California/Fresno city and county best standards and practices for the evaluation (and preservation, when necessary) of cultural resources within urban development zones. The City is to be commended for filing a report which covers all the major historic preservation contingencies in such a comprehensive manner. the IS/MND.

COMMENT LETTER #3: California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Gavin McCreary, Project Manager, Dated July 26, 2022 Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the General Plan
Amendment/Development Code Text
Amendment Application No. P22 -02413 (Project). The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because the Project includes one or more of the following:
groundbreaking activities, work in close proximity to a roadway, work in close proximity to mining or suspected mining or former mining activities, presence of site buildings that may require demolition or modifications, importation of backfill soil, and/or work on or in close proximity to an agricultural or former agricultural site.

The MND references the listing compiled in accordance with California Government Code Section 65962.5, commonly known as the Cortese List. Not all sites impacted by hazardous waste or hazardous materials will be found on the Cortese List. DTSC recommends that the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the MND address actions to be taken for any sites impacted by hazardous waste or hazardous materials within the Project area, not just those found on the Cortese List. DTSC recommends consulting with other agencies that may provide oversight to hazardous waste facilities and sites in order to determine a comprehensive listing of all sites impacted by hazardous waste or hazardous materials within the Project area. DTSC hazardous waste facilities and sites with known or suspected contamination issues can be found on DTSC’s EnviroStor data management system. The EnviroStor Map feature can be used to locate hazardous waste facilities and sites for a county, city, or a specific address. A search within EnviroStor indicates that hazardous waste facilities and sites in addition to those shown in the MND are present within the Project’s region.

DTSC recommends that the following issues be evaluated in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the MND:

This is the introduction to the comment letter and does not raise environmental issues, thus no response is
necessary.

1. The MND should acknowledge the potential for historic or future activities on or near the Project site to result in the release of ha zardous wastes/substances on the Project site. In instances in which releases have occurred or may occur, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. The MND should also identify the mechanism(s) to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation and the government agency who will be responsible for providing appropriate regulatory oversight.

The Draft MND has been revised to acknowledge the
potential for historic or future activities on or near the project site to result in the release of hazardous
wastes/substances on the Project site. As currently
required by the Fresno General Plan (GP Policy NS-4-c)
and in practice by the Planning Division’s
Environmental Assessment checklist , a Phase 1
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is required when
a project is located on a site that previously utilized by a use that has the potential for contamination such as
agricu
ltural uses (pesticides), gas stations or dry
cleaners. Further discussion with DTSC resulted in a
clarification that Phase 1 ESAs are to be performed for all project sites. This will be added as a mitigation
measure.

2. Refiners in the United States started adding lead compounds to gasoline in the 1920s in order to boost octane levels and improve engine performance. This practice did not officially end until 1992 when lead was banned as a fuel additive in California. Tailpipe emissions from automobiles using leaded gasoline
contained lead and resulted in aerially deposited lead (ADL) being deposited in and along roadways throughout the state. ADL-contaminated soils still exist along roadsides and medians and can also be found underneath some existing road surfaces due to past construction activities. Due to the potential for ADL - contaminated soil, DTSC recommends collecting soil samples for lead analysis prior to performing any intrusive activities for the Project described in the MND.

Compliance with the miti gation measure discussed
above (requirement for a Phase I ESA) will help ensure
projects will be constructed on property that does not
pose major risks to human health through soil
contamination.

3. If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead - based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC’s 2006 Interim After discussing this comment with DTSC, it has been
determined that this should be handled by the City,
County or other local entity that would provide the
permit. The City of Fresno Building and Safety Division handles demolit
ion permits for property within the
City of Fresno. As part of the demolition permit
process, a Demolition Release Certification Form is

Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination from Lead Based Paint, Termiticides, and Electrical Transformers. required to be issued and signed by the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District (District). As part of this review process, the District requires an asbestos
survey be performed. A certified consultant must
perform this survey and a detailed report/form is
required. The City of Fresno also requires that a Waste Management Plan for Construction and Demolition
Debris be submitted with a demolition permits. This
ensures the safe disposal of demolition debris.

Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material.

The testing of imported soil for contamination is
currently not standard practice for development
projects in the state of California. In discussing this with DTSC, a reasonable mitigation or way to address
thi
s concern would be to require testing of soil
imported from a property that has the potential for soil contamination. A mitigation measure has been added
requiring testing of fill if received from a site containing or formerly containing one of the “undesi rable” use
types identified in above noted Advisory document.

In discussing this with DTSC, this should be handled on case-by-
case basis given that it is difficult to know
when a site has been subject to extensive weed
abatement utilizing pesticides. As noted by DTSC in a
follow-
up email, “Oftentimes, a history of
contamination from weed abatement can be indicated
by observation of darkened soil….”. Aerial
photography is one of the methods utilized by
environmental consultants when preparing a Phase I
ESA. Compliance with this mitigation measure
discussed above (requi rement for a Phase I ESA) will
help ensure projects will be constructed on property
that does not pose major risks to human health

through soil contamination.

COMMENT LETTER #4: Fresno Irrigation District, Laurence Kimura, Chief Engineer, Dated August 4, 2022 Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:

The Fresno Irrigation District (FID) has reviewed the City of Fresno Mixed Use Text Amendment. The project locations are in the Planning Area of the City of Fresno. This amendment proposes to remove the maximum density for mixed -use districts; modify the restriction that prohibits ground floor residential uses in mixed-use districts so that only corner properties along arterial with Bus Rapid Transit stops will have mandated commercial uses; and revise Fresno Municipal Code Section 15-4907 to allow ministerial approval of multi -family residential uses in mixed-use districts with the City's Priority Areas for Development. The proposed text amendment will not revise other property development standards contained in the Fresno Municipal Code. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the subject documents for the proposed Plan. the proposed amendment is a significant project and requires thorough and careful consideration of all the potential impacts. Our comments are as follows:

This is the introduction to the comment letter and does not raise environmental issues, thus no response is
necessary.

1. FID previously reviewed and commented on the project area on May 29, 2019, as Notice of Preparation of a Program Environmental Impact Report, an Update to the Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Fresno General Plan. A copy of FID's previous comments has been attached for your reference. The comments and conditions still apply. As there may still be a w ater deficit within the project area by 2040, FID recommends the City carefully consider and evaluate all the potential impacts of an increase in population density within any residential, commercial, industrial zoned district or urban development. These impacts must be mitigated or considered as part of your determination.

This concern for increased population density within
the Project Area has been addressed in Section 2.9
Project Description Environmental Assumptions Tables
2-2 and 2 -3. Although the pro posed text amendment
would eliminate density caps for 5 zone districts, the
MND includes what the actual maximums would be
based on the limitations of property development
standards. Additionally, the MND notes that upzoning
has not historically been shown to increase the overall population but rather redistribute the population.

Further, a discussion of hydrology and water quality,
specifically groundwater, is provided in Section 4.10 of the Draft MND. An analysis of water demand is
provided and it was found that high density residential has more than 3 ½ times less water demand than
medium low density development. Impacts to

groundwater supplies are less than significant.

This comment and the subsequent comments in the
comment letter provided do not pert ain to the
recirculated Draft MND, but rather pertain to the Draft Master Environmental Impact Report for the Draft
General Plan for the City of Fresno and Related Items.

From the May 29, 2019 comment memo regarding the Notice of Preparation of a Program Environmental Impact Report, an Update to the Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Frenso General Plan FID facilities: Various Water Supply Impact

1. The project encompasses the City of Fresno Growth Area 1 and 2 and portions of the project are not entitled to water under the current City of Fresno Conveyance Agreement. Growth Area 2 is a new issue under the recently executed agreement between the City of Fresno and FID. The document must consider how to best handle future developments, if any, w ithin the areas designated Growth Area 2 and areas outside of the agreement to evaluate all potential impacts.

2. The document must evaluate whether the City's Water Master Plan needs to be updated and how the Cooperative Agreement between the City of Fresno and FID may impact the previous plan. The report must evaluate the City's growth with the recent water issues and whether the City's Water Master Plan can still provide the necessary guidance for the City.

3. The City of Fresno has implemented many of the projects proposed in the City's Water Master Plan. The Proposed document should consider and evaluated whether the constructed projects have resulted in benefits that were anticipated.

4. The proposed land use (or changes in land use) should be such that the need for water is minimized and/or reduced so that groundwater impacts to the proposed project area and any surrounding areas are eliminated.

5. If treated surface water will be used and the City has a deficit water supply or groundwater levels continue to drop, the City must acquire additional water from a water purveyor, such as FID for that purpose, so as to not impact water supplies to or create greater water supply deficits in other areas of the City or in the This comment does not pertain to the recirculated
Draft MND for the proposed text amendment, but
rather pertains to the Notice of Preparation of a
Program Environmental Impact Report, an Update to
the Master Environmental Impact Report for the City
of Fresno General Plan FID facilities: Various

groundwater basin. Water supply issues must b e resolved before any further "hardening" of the water supply demand is allowed to take place.

6. The potential for increase in water consumption by the project will result in additional groundwater overdraft. There is a significant cone of depression beneath the City of Fresno. FID is concerned that the increased water demand due to a change in land use may have a significant impact to the groundwater quantity and/or quality underneath the City of Fresno, FID and the Kings Groundwater Sub-ba sin. The "demand" side of water consumed needs to be evaluated or scrutinized as much as the "supply" side of the water supply. Many of the areas are historically native, and/or rural residential with minimal to no water use. Under current circumstances the project area is experiencing a modest but continuing groundwater overdraft. Should the proposed project result in a significant increase in dependence on groundwater, this deficit will increase. FID recommends the City of Fresno require proposed projects balance anticipated groundwater use with sufficient recharge of imported surface water in order to preclude increasing the area's existing groundwater overdraft problem.

7. California enacted landmark legislation in 2014 known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The act requires the formation of local groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) that must assess conditions in their local water basins and adopt locally-based management plans. FID and the City of Fresno are members of the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency which will manage the groundwater basin within the FID service area. This area is in an over drafted groundwater basin and SGMA will impact all users of groundwater and those who rely on it. The City of Fresno should consider the impacts of the project on the City's ability to comply with the requirements of SGMA.

Thank you for making available to us the City of Fresno's General Plan Amendment/Development Code Text Amendment Ap plication No. P22 -02413 for our review and allowing us the opportunity to provide comments. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the subject documents for this project. While it is difficult to envision all the potential impacts without all the improvement details, we attempted to provide you as much information as possible. We reserve the right to provide additional comments when more detailed information becomes available. If This is the ending to the comment letter and does not
raise environmental issues, thus no response is
necessary.

you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (559 ) 233 -7161 extension 7103 or [email protected].

COMMENT LETTER #5: Bakman Water District (District), David J. Miller, Nossaman LLP, Dated August 4, 2022 Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:

This letter is submitted on behalf of Bakman Water Company (“Bakman ”) to provide input regarding the City of Fresno’s (“City’) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the City’s proposed General Plan Amendment/Development Code Text Amendment Application No. P22 -02413 (“Plan Amendment”). These comments echo issues Bakman has raised in the past regarding both the City’s 2014 Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan Update and 2014 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City’s General Plan Update. It once again appears that the City’s proposed project – the Plan Amendment – could and will have significant impacts on Bakman and its customers, and yet those potential impacts have not been adequately discussed in the City’s IS/MND.

Bakman is a Class “B” water utility that has served the community since 1948 andcurrently provides water service to a population of approximately 17,000 – 18,000 people in southeast Fresno. Bakman’s service area and territory boundary, authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission, is defined in Bakman’s Tariff Book as, “The area bounded by Olive Avenue, East Kings Canyon Road, Winery Avenue and Fowler Avenue, located approximately 1- 1/2 miles east of Fresno and vicinity, Fresno County.” For your reference, attached hereto is Exhibit A from the Notice of Intent for the IS/MND that includes a depiction of Bakman’s general service area and territory boundary.

While Bakman’s authorized service area is located within the area studied in the IS/MND and impacted by the Plan Amendment, the City’s environmental documentation for yet another
project simply ignores Bakman and its customers, despite the Plan Amendment’s clear potential for impacts. While Bakman is not opposed entirely to the General Plan Amendment as a whole, Bakman is concerned with the exclusion of its operations from the environmental document, especially given the fact that certain parcels specifically identified as mixed-use –
and therefore subject to the Plan
Amendment – represent areas that Bakman serves.

This is the introduction to the comment letter and does not raise environmental issues, thus no response is
necessary.

Bakman submits the following comments for the Plan’s IS/MND:

Environmental Baseline. The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that a mitigated negative declaration include a description of baseline physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a).) The City’s IS/MND for the Plan Amendment fails to do this. The environmental baseline used in the IS/MND simply ignores the existence of Bakman and its wells, distribution lines, and affected customers – conditions that existed at the time the IS/MND was prepared and Notice of Inten t was issued. The IS/MND therefore does not analyze “conditions on the ground” as required by CEQA. (See Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319 - 320 [citing line of cases concluding baseli ne for CEQA analysis must be the existing physical conditions in the affected area or the “real conditions on the ground”].) The discussion within the IS/MND has been updated to
include the Bakman Water District.

As noted above, Bakman serves a population of over 17,000 customers and pumps water from 13 groundwater wells to provide water service to its customers.

Additionally, Bakman has installed extensive infrastructure to service its customers, including distribution lines, water tanks, pumping stations, etc. As a utility regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), Bakman is required to provide service to each and every commercial, residential, or industrial customer within its service area for residential, commercial, industrial, landscape, or other use, pursuant to the terms approved by the CPUC. The CPUC has set forth the requirements and process by which Bakman must install infrastructure to serve present and future customers, which cannot be circumvented in any way by the Plan Amendment.

All development projects, including those considered
ministerial by the proposed Text Amendment, will be
routed for review when within the District’s
boundaries as is the normal and standard process.

Despite the reality that Bakman exists and op erates within the area impacted by the Plan Amendment, the IS/MND does not mention the presence of Bakman, its infrastructure, or its customers. In fact, in discussing the environmental setting for the Plan Amendment and its impacts on water, it simply sta
tes “[t]he City of Fresno
manages and operates the City of Fresno’s water system.” (IS/MND, p. 112.) This statement ignores Bakman and its authorized service area in southeast Fresno. In fact, nowhere in the IS/MND does the City acknowledge that Bakman exists, operates within the City, and may be impacted by increased density acknowledged to result from the Plan Amendment.

The discussion within the IS/MND has been updated to
include the Bakman Water District.

An accurate environmental baseline is necessary to accurately evaluate potential impacts to the physical environment required by CEQA. Therefore, the IS/MND must identify and describe Bakman, its operations, and its service area. Correcting the inaccurate baseline is necessary to conduct an adequate an alysis of how the Plan Amendment may affect Bakman’s service area, and to allow for the identification, analysis, and mitigation of potential environmental effects of the Plan Amendment on Bakman and its customers. Such potential environmental effects incl ude, but are not limited to, the effects on Bakman’s water quality and quantity.

The Draft MND has been revised to acknowledge and
describe Bakman’s service within the Project area in
the Environmental Settings. See Section 4.10 and
Section 4.1 9 of the rec irculated public review draft
IS/MND. Some of this discussion has also been
provided below.

Bakman Water Company
Bakman Water Company is a Class “B” water utility
that has served the community since 1948 and
currently provides water service to a population of
approximately 17,000 – 18,000 people in southeast
Fresno. Figure 4 10 shows Bakman’s service area
overlaid on the P roject area. Bakman’s infrastructure
system includes 13 groundwater wells, distribution
lines, water tanks, pumping stations, etc. Bakman is
regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to provide service to all commercial,
residential, o r industrial customer within its service area. There are 343 mixed -use parcels totaling
approximately 323.3 acres within Bakman’s service
area, which is 8.4% of the Project Area (mixed use
districts). Of these mixed -use parcels, 88 parcels,
totaling approximately 85.6 acres, are within the area
proposed for ministerial approval, and of those,
currently four (4) parcels, approximately 5.9 acres, are identified as vacant and underutilized. Consequently,
the density redistribution is not concentrated in the
Bakman service area.

As an example, the IS/MND concludes that the Plan Amendment will not significantly impact water supply, stating that “[a]lthough the text amendment will increase density, the overall increases will not result in an overall population i ncrease beyond that analyzed in the General Plan. Rather, it will redistribute population to infill areas.” The proposed Text Amendment is not intended to
serve as a pretext for the City to extend service,
directly or indirectly, to present customers in the
Bakman service area. The lack of discussion of the

(IS/MND, p. 114, emphasis added.) Much of the City’s projected future growth and construction is planned for the southeast Fresno area. The inaccura te environmental baseline obscures that such redistribution may disproportionately impact Bakman’s service area. The IS/MND fails to disclose any such potential impacts.

It is important that the City include mitigation for the Plan Amendment that ensures the City’s proposal does not affect any current or future Bakman facilities or customers.

Absent an accurate environmental baseline, any such necessary mitigation cannot be addressed. Bakman previously allowed the City to install a water transmission line along Clovis Avenue from Kings Canyon Road to the South and Olive Avenue to the North in order to facilitate closure of a gap in the City’s system. Bakman did so in reliance on the City’s assurances that the City’s water transmission line would be installed six feet deep for transmission purposes only and not be used to serve customers within Bakman’s service area. Bakman is entitled to the assurance that the Plan Amendment will not serve as a pretext for the City to extend service, directly or indirectly, t o present customers in the Bakman service area.

Bakman Water District in the original IS/MND was an
unfortunate oversight.

As the IS/MND references (IS/MND, p. 120) the City’s membership with the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (“NKGSA”), it should be noted that Bakman is also a voting member of the NKGSA and utilized the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for preparing its updated 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (“UWMP”). As required by California Water Code, the efforts to prepare the UWMP were coordinated with appropriate agencies, including the City of Fresno. However, Bakman is more than willing to provide any and all additional information required regarding its operations to enable the City to provide an accurate, clear picture of the existing conditions on the ground and to enable the City to perform the analysis using the environmental baseline required by CEQA.

The Draft MND has been revised to acknowledge and
describe Bakman’s service within the Project area in
the Environmental Settings.

Groundwater Impact. In the past, Bakman has worked with the City with regards to the construction of new wells and the monitoring of the aquifer. For example, for the Fancher Creek development, Bakman agreed to utilize a 400,000 gallon storage tank as opposed to constructing a new well due to concerns about the effect of such a well on the City’s existing water supply. Bak man also agreed to work with the City on well use scheduling if Bakman wells were to affect City wells and vice versa in its current eastern boundary. This arrangement was negotiated and memorialized as a mitigating factor The purported arrangement would not be affected as
part of the Text Amendment proposed.

needed for approval on a conditional use permit related to Bakman’s infrastructure that created liabilities for both parties if not adhered to.

Bakman now asks that the City extend it the same courtesy. The IS/MND acknowledges that the potential effects from the Plan Amendment and conditions of approval “may affect the City’s groundwater supply and/or ability to provide potable water and fire protection as developments continue.” (IS/MND, p. 179.) This may result in new or expanded infrastructure in areas of the City, including potentially adjacent to Bakman’s service area, in conjunction with future developments. For example, could the redistribution of infill development adjacent to Bakman’s service areas necessitate new groundwater wells and, if so, what would the effects of those new wells on Bakman’s existing wells be? The IS/MND does not address this. In fact, the IS/MND does not evaluate the Plan Amendment’s potential effects on Bakman’s current operations or planned future well placement and production considerations. The impacts of new infrastructure, including new wells, must be analyzed as part of the environmental review to determine the potential environmental impacts that any new infrastruct ure may have on Bakman, its customers, and to Bakman’s water quality and quantity of water pumped from its wells. Only then can adequate mitigation measures be adopted to address any such impacts.

Since the project anticipates the redistribution of
housing instead of overall increased housing citywide,
the analysis expects that “from an overall system
perspective, the proposed project will not result in the need for expanded water facilities. However,
individual pipeline replacements and expansions will
be
needed for larger individual projects within the
Project Area.” (IS/MND, p. 183) As such, the IS/MND
does not expect the installation of new groundwater
wells as a result of the project. Impacts regarding water pipeline infrastructure will be mitigated in compliance with Mitigation Measure UTL-1.

Additionally, as added in the Environmental Settings,
the Bakman service area includes “ 88 parcels, totaling approximately 85.6 acres, that are within the area
proposed for ministerial approval, and of those,
currently four (4) parcels, approximately 5.9 acres, are identified as vacant and underutilized.” Even though
the 5.9 acres could be developed to create 265 more
dwelling units under the Text Amendment compared
to current code, the 2018 Water Demand Factors by
Land Use Classification shows that high density
residential uses have more than 3 ½ times less water
demand per unit than medium low -density
development. Thus the proposed text amendment
does not have the potential to result in the need for
additional wells within the Bakman Water District.

COMMENT LETTER #6: Fresno Metro Ministry, Keith Bergthold, Executive Director , Upholdings, Jessica Hoff Berzac, Principal, Dated July 20, 2022

Dear Fresno City Council Members and Planning Commissioners:

We are writing to express a perspective about the proposed Text Amendment Application as currently written. We also have concerns with some of the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Measures Monitoring Checklist for Mixed Use Zoning Density Increase Text Amendment contained in the Environmental Assessment document.

This is the introduction to the comment letter and does not raise environmental issues, thus no response is
necessary.

Our perspective is that the subject text amendment is a unique opportunity to substantially enhance the implementation of the Fresno General Plan as especially regards goals for affordable infill housing development along key corridors, the goals of the On e Fresno Housing Strategy, the Southern Blackstone Smart Mobility Strategy (SBSMS), and much more. This is also a significant opportunity to intentionally reduce regulatory disincentives for infill development, and not sustain or increase current disincentives which do in fact prevent development. We believe the City must take greater responsibility for developing complete streets as capital projects with adopted design standards (such as the SBSMS) and mitigating traffic impacts of new desirable development along complete streets, and not keep placing these responsibilities back onto infill development in piece meal fashion.

We believe the TRANS- 1 Mitigation Measure, for example, is headed in the right direction, and should contain an additional exemption clause for any affordable housing development along the SBSMS corridor segment. Likewise, with respect to TRANS-2, TRANS-3, TRANS-4 and TRANS -5 Mitigation Measures, we believe the City should get ahead of these issues, identify studies and mitigations the City should take responsibility to implement and fund as capital projects, and exempt affordable housing development from these exactions.

We request City Staff, in communication with central and south Fresno community - based entities, take more time for assessing what we suggest above before acting on the proposed Text Amendment Application.

Thank you for reviewing and providing comments on
the proposed text amendment and related IS/MND.

The analysis and mitigation measures established by
the IS/MND do not preclude the City from funding
infrastructure improvements within the project area in
the future.

COMMENT LETTER #7: Henrietta Walsh, [email protected], Dated August 4, 2022 Comment 1 The above analysis was followed to the extent required. CEQA requires an analysis of a project’s

The analysis does not provide an analysis on the project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants.

Page 50 ends

AMENDMENT/DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. P22 -02413 has the following information:
(4) Toxic Air Contaminants: Exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC) would be considered significant if the probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (i.e., maximum individual risk) would exceed 10 in 1 million or would result in a Hazard Index greater than one (1). As recommended by the SJVAPCD, the latest approved California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) methodology was utilized as the TAC screening methodology. According to t he CAPCOA Guidance Document titled “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects,” there are two (2) types of land use project that have the potential to cause long - term public health risk impacts. These project types are as follows:
• Type A: Land use projects with toxic emissions that impact receptors, and • Type B: Land use project that will place receptors in the vicinity of existing toxics sources.

The impact analysis on page 56 then does not follow these guidelines and instead refers back to the regional thresholds of significance to conclude that “The project would have a less than significant impact on nearby sensitive receptors.” The analysis should be revised to address the project’s potential to (1) generate toxic air contaminants and (2) place receptors in the vicinity of existing toxicity sources. impacts on the environment and not the
environment’s impact on a project (California Building Industry Association v Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (S213478, December 17, 2015).

Thus, when looking at the Project (a text amendment
to increase residential density on property already
zoned and planned to permit residential uses), further
analysis as it relates to TACs is not required given that residential uses are not uses identified by CAPCOA or
CARB as uses known to be generators of Toxic Air
Contaminants (TACs) or other pollutants known to be
a risk to human health. As discussed in the IS/MND, the Type A example uses identified by this Guidance
document include the following:
• combustion related power plants,
• gasoline dispensing facilities,
• asphalt batch plants,
• warehouse distribution centers,
• quarry operations, and
• other stationary sources that emit toxic
substances.

Given that no additional commercial or industrial
development is proposed as part of the Proposed
Project, further analysis of TACs is not required.

Mitigation Measure AIR-2 , which addresses
construction related impacts, including the use of
diesel powered tools, vehicles and equipment, will be
revised to apply to all projects, including ministerial projects and projects proposing 225 residential units or less.

A second, as identified on page 50, would be the potential to place receptors in the vicinity of existing toxic sources. This second impact is not addressed anywhere in the document, nor do the mitigation measures ensure that this would be addressed for future development projects.

CEQA requires an analysis of a project’s impacts on the environment and not the envir onment’s impact on a
project (California Building Industry Association v Bay Area Air Quality Management District (S213478,
December 17, 2015). Thus, when looking at the Project
(a text amendment to increase residential density on
property already zone and planned to permit
residential uses), this analysis is not required given that residential uses are not uses identified by CAPCOA or
CARB as uses known to be generators of Toxic Air
Contaminants (TACs) or other pollutants known to be
a risk to human health. As described on Page 13 of the
ISMND, the proposed project is increasing the
residential density permitted in certain zone districts in the City of Fresno. Additional commercial and
industrial development is not proposed as part of the
project. No uses that have the potential to result in
excessive TACS (toxic air contaminants) are proposed.

Comment 2
Appendix D contains a letter from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) dated January 6, 2022 that offered comments related to the project.

Page 2 ends

District that “the City evaluate the siting of the future residential dwelling units development in comparison to heavy-duty truck routing patterns to help limit emission exposure to residential communities and sensitive receptors.” This was not elevated in the analysis. The air quality analysis should be revised to address this concern.

The proposed General Plan Amendment/Development
Code Text Amendment is only applicable to future
residential development in mixed-use zone districts.

Therefore, future development projects that will
directly result from the Proposed Project do not have
the potential to generate commercial truck trips as
described above.

Comment 3
Appendix D contains a letter from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) dated January 6, 2022 that offered comments related to the project.

Comment 3b) on page 3 of the letter recognizes the project’s potential to have impacts related to toxic air contaminants and recommends that future development projects As noted above, CEQA requires an analysis of a
project’s impacts on th e environment and not the
environment’s impact on a project (California Building Industry Association v Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (S213478, December 17, 2015).

Thus, when looking at the Project (a text amendment

should include health risk assessments. This concern was not addressed in the air quality analysis. The air quality analysis and/or associate d mitigation measures should be revised to ensure that all future development projects will be required to be evaluated for risks. Any potentially significant risks should be mitigated. to increase residential dens ity on property already
zone and planned to permit residential uses), a Health
Risk Assessment is not required given that residential
uses are not uses identified by CAPCOA or CARB as uses
known to be high generators of Toxic Air Contaminants
(TACs). New commercial and industrial development
is not proposed as part of the project. No uses that
have the potential to result in additional emissions or TACS (toxic air contaminants) are proposed.

Fresno City CouncilSeptember 15, 2022

Fresno City Council
September 15, 2022