Exhibit J
Public Comment Letters
From: Secrest Jr., William
To: Sophia Pagoulatos
Cc: Coletti, Karen
Subject: RE: Fresno General Plan and Development Code Text Amendment P22-02413 Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 9:35:25 AM
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
On behalf of Fresno County’s Historical Landmarks and Records Advisory Commission, I have reviewed the above-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.
Bill Secrest
Heritage Center
Fresno County Public Library
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.
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.
KR Bergthold Jessica Hoff Berzac
Keith Bergthold, Executive Director Jessica Hoff Berzac, Principal Fresno Metro Ministry/Better Blackstone CDC Upholdings
Printed on Recycled Paper
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
July 26, 2022
Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
[email protected]
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT/DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMEMDMENT APPLICATION
NO. P22-012413 – DATED JUNE 2022 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER:
2022070081)
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 Ms. Pagoulatos
July 26, 2022
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
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]
August 3, 2022
Sophia Pagoulatos
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Third Floor
Fresno, CA, 93721
Project: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment and Development Code Text Amendment Application No. P22-02413 District CEQA Reference No: 20220923
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.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 of 15 District Reference No: 20220923
August 3, 2022
The District offers the following comments regarding the Project:
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 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:
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
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
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 South 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 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 of 15 District Reference No: 20220923
August 3, 2022
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
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 project 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:
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.
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.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 of 15 District Reference No: 20220923
August 3, 2022
Recommended Mitigation Measure: At a minimum, project related impacts on air quality should be reduced to levels of significance through incorporation of design elements such as the use of cleaner Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks and vehicles, measures that reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMTs), and measures that increase energy efficiency. More information on transportation mitigation measures can be found at:
http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/Mitigation-Measures.pdf.
Recommended Model for Quantifying Air Emissions
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.
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.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 5 of 15 District Reference No: 20220923
August 3, 2022
Prioritization (Screening Health Risk Assessment):
A “Prioritization” is the recommended method for a conservative screening-level health risk assessment. The Prioritization should be performed using the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) methodology.
The District recommends that a more refined analysis, in the form of an HRA, be performed for any 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 with Prioritization analyses, the District has created a prioritization calculator based on the aforementioned CAPCOA guidelines, which can be found here:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/emission_factors/Criteria/Toxics/Utilities/PRIORI TIZATION-CALCULATOR.xls
Health Risk Assessment:
Prior to performing an HRA, it is strongly recommended that land use agencies/ project proponents develop and submit for District review a health risk modeling protocol that outlines the sources and methodologies that will be used to perform the HRA. This step will ensure all components are addressed when performing the HRA.
A development project would be considered to have a potentially significant health risk if the HRA demonstrates that the project-related health impacts would exceed the District’s significance threshold of 20 in a million for carcinogenic risk, or 1.0 for either the Acute or Chronic Hazard Indices.
A project with a significant health risk would trigger all feasible mitigation measures.
The District strongly recommends that development projects that result in a significant health risk not be approved by the land use agency.
The District is available to review HRA protocols and analyses. For HRA submittals please provide the following information electronically to the District for review:
HRA (AERMOD) modeling files
HARP2 files
Summary of emissions source locations, emissions rates, and emission factor calculations and methodologies.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 6 of 15 District Reference No: 20220923
August 3, 2022
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 resid ential areas and other sensitive receptors in accordance to CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective located at https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.
Ambient Air Quality Analysis
An Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) uses air dispersion modeling to determine if emissions increases from a project will cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The District recommends an AAQA be performed for any future development projects with emissions that exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant.
An acceptable analysis would include emissions from both project-specific permitted and non-permitted equipment and activities. The District recommends consultation with District staff to determine the appropriate model and input data to use in the analysis.
Specific information for assessing significance, including screening tools and modeling guidance, is available online at the District’s website:
www.valleyair.org/ceqa.
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 successful mitigation effort. To implement a VERA, the project proponent and the District enter into a contractual agreement in which the project proponent agrees to mitigate project specific emissions by providing funds for the District’s incentives programs.
The funds are disbursed by the District in the form of grants for projects that achieve emission reductions. Thus, project-related impacts on air quality can be mitigated.
Types of emission reduction projects that have been funded in the past include San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 7 of 15 District Reference No: 20220923
August 3, 2022
electrification of stationary internal combustion engines (such as agricultural irrigation pumps), replacing old heavy-duty trucks with new, cleaner, more efficient heavy-duty trucks, and replacement of old farm tractors.
In implementing a VERA, the District verifies the actual emission reductions that have been achieved as a result of completed grant contracts, monitors the emission reduction projects, and ensures the enforceability of achieved reductions. After the project is mitigated, the District certifies to the Lead Agency that the mitigation is completed, providing the Lead Agency with an enforceable mitigation measure demonstrating that project-related emissions have been mitigated.
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. The truck routing evaluation would also identify alternative truck routes and their impacts on VMT and air quality.
Cleanest Available Heavy-Duty Trucks
The San Joaquin Valley will not be able to attain stringent health-based federal air quality standards without significant reductions in emissions from HHD trucks, the single largest source of NOx emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. The District’s CARB-approved 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes significant new reductions from HHD trucks, including emissions reductions by 2023 through the implementation of CARB’s Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation, which requires truck fleets operating in California to meet the 2010 standard of 0.2 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
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 8 of 15 District Reference No: 20220923
August 3, 2022
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.
Reduce Idling of Heavy-Duty Trucks
The goal of this strategy is to limit the potential for localized PM2.5 and toxic air contaminant impacts associated with the idling of Heavy-Duty trucks. The diesel exhaust from idling has the potential to impose significant adverse health and environmental impacts.
Future development 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.
Electric On-Site Off-Road and On-Road Equipment
Future development projects may 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). The District recommends that the City include requirements for project proponents to utilize electric or zero emission off-road and on-road equipment.
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 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 9 of 15 District Reference No: 20220923
August 3, 2022
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
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.
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 replacement of existing gas powered lawn and garden equipment. More information on the District CGYM program and funding can be found at:
http://www.valleyair.org/grants/cgym.htm
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 10 of 15 District Reference No: 20220923
August 3, 2022
and http://valleyair.org/grants/cgym-commercial.htm.
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.
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 mitigation measure for future development projects.
Please visit www.valleyair.org/grants/chargeup.htm for more information.
District Rules and Regulations
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources, and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the District’s regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. As an example, Regulation II (Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.
The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at: www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the project proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (559) 230-5888.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 11 of 15 District Reference No: 20220923
August 3, 2022
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, demonstration of compliance with District Rule 2201 shall be provided to the City before issuance of the first building permit.
For further information or assistance, project proponents may contact the District’s SBA Office at (559) 230-5888.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 12 of 15 District Reference No: 20220923
August 3, 2022
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 Threshold
Ministerial Approval /
Allowed Use / By Right
Thresholds
Residential 50 dwelling units 250 dwelling units
Commercial 2,000 square feet 10,000 square feet
Light Industrial 25,000 square feet 125,000 square feet Heavy Industrial 100,000 square feet 500,000 square feet Medical Office 20,000 square feet 100,000 square feet
General Office 39,000 square feet 195,000 square feet
Educational Office 9,000 square feet 45,000 square feet Government 10,00 square feet 50,000 square feet
Recreational 20,000 square feet 100,000 square feet
Other 9,000 square feet 45,000 square feet
District Rule 9510 also applies to any transportation or transit development projects where construction exhaust emissions equal or exceed two tons of NOx or two tons of PM.
The purpose of District Rule 9510 is to reduce the growth in both NOx and PM emissions associated with development and transportation projects from mobile and area sources; specifically, the emissions associated with the construction and subsequent operation of development projects. The Rule requires developers to mitigate their NOx and PM emissions by incorporating clean air design elements into their projects. Should the proposed development project clean air design elements be insufficient to meet the required emission reductions, developers must pay a fee that ultimately funds incentive projects to achieve off-site emissions reductions.
In the case the individual development project is subject to District Rule 9510, per Section 5.0 of the rule, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application is required to be submitted no later than applying for project-level approval from a public agency. It is preferable for the applicant to submit an AIA application as early as possible in the public agency’s approval process so that proper mitigation and clean air design under ISR can be incorporated into the public agency’s analysis.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 13 of 15 District Reference No: 20220923
August 3, 2022
Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRHome.htm.
The AIA application form can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRFormsAndApplications.htm.
District staff is available to provide assistance with determining if future development projects will be subject to Rule 9510, and can be reached by phone at (559) 230-5900 or by email at [email protected].
District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction)
Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 9410 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 pollutant emissions associated with work commutes. Under an eTRIP plan, employers have the flexibility to select the options that work best for their worksites and their employees.
Information about District Rule 9410 can be found online at:
www.valleyair.org/tripreduction.htm.
For additional information, you can contact the District by phone at 559-230- 6000 or by e-mail at [email protected]
District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)
Future development projects will be subject to District Rule 4002 since the Project will include demolition, renovation, and removal of existing structures.
To protect the public from uncontrolled emissions of asbestos, this rule requires a thorough inspection for asbestos to be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or renovated. Any asbestos present must be handled in accordance with established work practice standards and disposal requirements.
Information on how to comply with District Rule 4002 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/asbestosbultn.htm.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 14 of 15 District Reference No: 20220923
August 3, 2022
District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)
Future development projects may be subject to District Rule 4601 since it may utilize architectural coatings. Architectural coatings are paints, varnishes, sealers, or stains that are applied to structures, portable buildings, pavements or curbs. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings. In addition, this rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup and labeling requirements. Additional information on how to comply with District Rule 4601 requirements can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4601.pdf
District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions)
The project proponent may be required to submit a Construction Notification Form or submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.
Should the project result in at least 1-acre in size, the project proponent shall provide written notification to the District at least 48 hours prior to the project proponents intent to commence any earthmoving activities pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). Also, should the project result in the disturbance of 5- acres or more, or will include moving, depositing, or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials, the project proponent shall submit to the District a Dust Control Plan pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). For additional information regarding the written notification or Dust Control Plan requirements, please contact District Compliance staff at (559) 230-5950.
The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at:
https://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/PM10/forms/DCP-Form.docx
Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/pm10/compliance_pm10.htm
District Rule 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Heaters
The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions of carbon monoxide and particulate matter from wood burning fireplaces, wood burning heaters, and outdoor wood burning devices. This rule establishes limitations on the installation of new wood burning fireplaces and wood burning heaters.
Specifically, at elevations below 3,000 feet in areas with natural gas service, no San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 15 of 15 District Reference No: 20220923
August 3, 2022
person shall install a wood burning fireplace, low mass fireplace, masonry heater, or wood burning heater.
Information about District Rule 4901 can be found online at:
http://valleyair.org/rule4901/
Other District Rules and Regulations
Future development projects may also be subject to the following District rules:
Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).
Future Projects / Land Use Agency Referral Documents
Future development projects may require an environmental review and air emissions mitigation. A project’s referral documents and environmental review documents provided to the District for review should include a project summary, the land use designation, project size, air emissions quantifications and impacts, and proximity to sensitive receptors and existing emission sources, and air emissions mitigation measures. For reference and guidance, more information can be found in the District’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf
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
For: Mark Montelongo
Program Manager
60593976
August 4, 2022
Sophia Pagoulatos
Planning Manager
City of Fresno Planning and Development
Department
City Hall
2600 Fresno Street, Rm. 3043
Fresno, CA 93721-3604
[email protected];
[email protected]
Re: Bakman Water Company Comments on City of Fresno’s Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment/Development Code Text Amendment Application No. P22-02413
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 and currently 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
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
18101 Von Karman Avenue
Suite 1800
Irvine, CA 92612
T 949.833.7800
F 949.833.7878
David J. Miller
D 949.477.7638
[email protected]
Refer To File # 503961-0001 VIA EMAIL
Sophia Pagoulatos
August 4, 2022
60593976
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.
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 Intent 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 baseline for CEQA analysis must be the existing physical conditions in the affected area or the “real conditions on the ground”].) 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.
Despite the reality that Bakman exists and operates 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 states “[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.
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 analysis 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 include, but are not limited to, the effects on Bakman’s water quality and quantity.
Sophia Pagoulatos
August 4, 2022
60593976
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 increase beyond that analyzed in the General Plan. Rather, it will redistribute population to infill areas.” (IS/MND, p. 114, emphasis added.) Much of the City’s projected future growth and construction is planned for the southeast Fresno area. The inaccurate 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, to present customers in the Bakman service area.
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.
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. Bakman 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 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 Sophia Pagoulatos
August 4, 2022
60593976
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 infrastructure 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.
Thank you for giving due consideration to these comments. Bakman Water Company has and will continue to be a good neighbor to the City of Fresno’s water system. Bakman believes that addressing the issues raised herein is vital to maintaining that relationship. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.
Best regards,
David J. Miller
Nossaman LLP
DJM:art
Attachment
Exhibit A
Vicinity Map
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 T
hu, 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.
CODE TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. P22-02413 has the following information:
• ( 4) Toxic Air Contaminants: Exposure to toxic air c ontaminants (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 e missions 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.
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.
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]
September 8, 2022
City of Fresno, Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
ATT: Sophia Pagoulatos
RE: Text Amendment Application No. P22 -02413
The Board of Directors of the Sunnys ide Property Owners Association would like to provide comment regarding the above referenced Text Amendment and General Plan Amendment that would increase the residential density for the five zone districts within the City of Fresno that allow mixed -use development , modify the restrictio n that prohibits ground floor residential uses in mixed-use districts so that only corner properties along arterials with Bus Rapid Transit Stops will have mandated commercial uses, and provide ministerial approval of multi -family residential uses within the City’s Priority Areas for Development.
The Kings Canyon Transit Corrid or runs from Highway 41 to South Argyle Avenue . The corridor hosts a variety of businesses and residential uses from semi- rural to dense multifamily developments. Many of the older residential areas are struggling to keep their identity, while being pressed to accept more intense and often incongruent new land uses.
New mixed-use zoning adopted in the City’s General Plan has been applied along Kings Canyon and portions of Clovis A venue. The entire area in and around Sunnyside lies within the City’s Priority Area of Development .
When the General Plan was updated, the thought was to house people and commercial activities together along the transit corridors. Overlooked parcels were labeled “infill’ and given incentives to develop. The maximum density was increased throughout the residential zones and the new mixed-use areas mirrored the density in multi-family land uses (maximum du/ac range s from 16 to 45). These new mixed-use developments were promoted as pedestrian friendly and the corridors as vibrant, diverse, and attractive that would support a mix of pedestrian-oriented retail, offices and residential uses in order to achieve an active social environment within a revitalized streetscape. The allowed height was increased to a range of 40 -75 feet. The development code was updated to require additional mitigation such as stepped up heights and improved building facades when developments were located next to residential.
Even so, it was a big, bold decision, to place such incongruent densities and commercial businesses in older established neighborhoods. Many of these areas are struggling with crime, noise, traffic, poor air quality, student performance , and t he myriad issues surrounding the un -housed population suffering from severe mental il lness and addiction.
Since the General Plan was updated, most of the mixed-use projects have been built or are planned for downtown where public noticing and maximum density caps are not required. This area is mostly developed, and the existing landscape features tall government buildings, offices, Chuckshansi Park, restaurants, hotels, and the growing Brewery District. New, dense development is compatible and residents have an increasing selection of venues at their disposal. It is estimated that if this text amendment is adopted, the maximum densities for these mixed-use zone districts could increase to: • Commercial Regional from 16-80 • Commercial Main Street from 16-48 • Neighborhood Mixed Use from 16-64 • Corridor Mixed Use from 30-75 • Regional Mixed Use from 45-90 The City’s Housing Element requires land capacity for 36,866 new housing units to include 15,324 low-income units. The City estimates a 30,000 affordable housing shortfall. The current parking requirement for mixed-use housing developments is .75 space for 1 bedroom and studio apartments, 1 space for a two-bedroom unit, and 1.5 spaces for three or more bedrooms. One additional guest parking space must be provided for every 4 units for projects greater than 4 units. While this text amendment would remove the maximum cap on densities, all development code requirements would still apply. However affordable housing incentives would allow up to 20% modification of those requirements including, but not limited to; reduced minimum building setbacks, increased maximum lot coverage, reduced outdoor and/or private open space requirements and increased building height. Parking requirements may be reduced by 25% and for Transit-Serviced Developments; the number of parking spaces cut in half. So a 100 unit affordable housing development with an equal mix of one and two bedroom apartments would only be required to provide 50 parking spaces, while supporting 300 or more residents. Because most of these mixed-use zone districts are positioned along mass transit routes, the expectation was that residents would choose to ride the bus. When the City of Fresno General Plan was updated in December of 2014, the Fresno Council of Government’s Travel Mode (2012) showed less than 1% (0.86) used mass transit as their primary mode of travel. Despite the fact that buses now run at 15-minute intervals along Blackstone, Ventura/Kings Canyon, Cedar and Shaw Avenues, mass transit remains an unpopular option for Fresno County commuters, even among those who can’t afford a car. Just fewer than 2% of workers, or just over 4,000 people, take the bus to work, compared to 5% statewide, according to census data. Because the majority of mixed-use projects in the pipeline are downtown, where the maximum density cap has been removed and a ministerial approval process is already in place, the City now wants to change the rules for the transit corridors, with the hope that in time they may be applied to other areas within the City.
So what does this text amendment do? It will eliminate the ground floor commercial use requirement in mixed-use applications changing mixed-use to multi-family only for all midblock developments. It will increase the density far beyond any of the other multi-family zoning in the rest of the City (an estimated 200 to 500% increase from existing maximum density caps). It will allow multi-family projects that fall within the City’s Priority Area of Development to circumvent the regular planning process; eliminating all review by District Implementation and Design Review Committees (Three of which voted to deny the ministerial provision). And most importantly, for the vast majority of neighborhoods that host the transit corridors, projects will be reviewed at an administrative level only without any public participation at all. While allowing open-ended densities without public input may be a gift to developers (this text amendment is largely the result of their input) and satisfy the City’s requirement to house some of their residents, it becomes an even more egregious, disproportionate, and unfair burden for those who live along or next to transit corridors. Despite the two to five-fold increase in density, there is no additional mitigation to negate the increase in traffic, noise, and pollution. New residents will be expected to ride the bus, which will be delayed because the acceptable Level of Service for these corridors is E (unstable flow, operating at capacity) and F (forced or breakdown flow). Even though engaging the public in the development mix may slow the process, it remains imperative that we are invited to participate. On behalf of all the neighborhoods that have been rezoned to mixed-use and are now facing a monumental increase in density, absent additional mitigation and public recourse, we ask that the Council deny this text amendment. We request instead that staff look to other methodologies that are equitable, negate the affects of increased density, protect vulnerable neighborhoods and include them in the decision making process. Thank you for considering our comments, Sue Williams For the Directors of the Sunnyside Property Owners Association Cc: Fresno City Council Printed on Recycled Paper
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
September 19, 2022
Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
[email protected]
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT/DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION
NUMBER P22-012413 – DATED JUNE 2022 AND RECIRCULATED AUGUST 2022 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2022070081)
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 Number P22-02413 (Project) dated June 2022 on July 6, 2022.
DTSC provided comments on the MND in a letter dated July 26, 2022. DTSC’s comment #4 recommended proper sampling of imported soil that follows DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material (Advisory) for any projects requir ing imported fill.
A meeting to discuss DTSC’s comments was held by request of the City of Fresno on August 10, 2022. Following the meeting, DTSC provided additional clarification on comments via emails sent to the City of Fresno on August 10 and August 11, 2022. In the August 11th email, DTSC clarified that the Advisory should be followed for all backfill soil sources to confirm that soil is free of contaminants. Confirmation of receipt of this email was received in a response email on A ugust 11, 2022.
DTSC subsequently received an MND with revised text and Responses to Comments (RTCs) that was recirculated on August 19, 2022. The response to DTSC’s comment #4 stated, “a mitigation measure has been added requiring testing of fill if received fr om a site containing or formerly containing one of the “undes irable” use types identified in Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos
September 19, 2022
above noted Advisory document.” DTSC reasserts its recommendation that the Advisory is followed for projects requiring imported fill.
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,
G
avin 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]