Species utilize movement corridors in several ways. “Passage species” are those species that use corridors as thru-ways between outlying habitats. The habitat requirements for passage species are generally less than those for corridor dwellers. Passage species use corridors for brief durations, such as for seasonal migrations or movement within a home range. As such, movement corridors do not necessarily have to meet any of the habitat requirements necessary for a passage species everyday survival. “Corridor dwellers” are those species that have limited dispersal capabilities – a category that includes most plants, insects, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, and birds – and use corridors for a greater length of time.
The CNDDB record search did not reveal any documented wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites on or adjacent to the Plan Area. There is a reasonable chance that movement corridors could be impacted throughout the buildout of the individual projects in the Plan Area. The agricultural areas are not migratory wildlife corridors, although some species may move through this area.
Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the City’s General Plan, proposed Specific Plan, and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of movement corridors. The Specific Plan includes Policy IPR 3.6, which states, “Where sensitive biological habitats have been identified or are discovered on or immediately adjacent to a project site, the project shall include appropriate mitigation measures determined by a qualified biologist.” While future development has the potential to result in significant impacts to protected movement corridors, the implementation of Policy IPR 3.6, as well as Federal and State regulations, would ensure impacts to these resources to a less than significant level.
Impact 3.4-5: Specific Plan implementation would not conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. (Less than Significant)
The Plan Area overlaps with areas that are covered by PG&E’s San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP covers PG&E’s routine operations and maintenance activities, as well as minor new construction, on any PG&E gas and electrical transmission and distribution facilities, easements, private access routes, or lands owned by PG&E.
The proposed Specific Plan would not be expected to conflict or interfere with the HCP activities.
Future buildout of the Plan Area, however, would likely result in a need for PG&E gas and electrical transmission and distribution facilities to support new residential and other developed land uses not covered by the HCP; however, construction of PG&E gas and electrical transmission and distribution facilities in the Plan Area would be covered by General Plan Policies POSS-5-a through POSS-5-f, and the proposed mitigation measures described herein.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-42 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan The Plan Area is also located in the planning area of the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, which addresses recovery needs and goals for the San Joaquin kit fox, among other species. Project-level implementation of the General Plan Policies POSS-5-a through POSS-5-f, and Mitigation Measure 3.4-5 discussed in Impact 3.4-1, will reduce potential project impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox and other wildlife covered by the Recovery Plan and their associated habitat, and require consultation with the USFWS if take of federally-listed species would occur. Thus, with implementation of these measures, the proposed Specific Plan would not be expected to conflict with the goals of the Recovery Plan. The proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Impact 3.4-6: Specific Plan implementation would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. (Less than Significant)
State law requires any decision by a city affecting land use and development to be consistent with its General Plan. This determination is ultimately made by the City Council. If an action, program or project is inconsistent with the General Plan, State law requires it be reconciled. This may involve modification to the action, program, or project, or amendment of the General Plan. Therefore, this impact discussion will evaluate the proposed projects’ consistency with the Fresno General Plan as it related to biological resources. The evaluation will consider the proposed Plan’s consistency with the adopted General Plan policies included within the Parks, Open Space, and Schools Element of the Fresno General Plan. This impact discussion also includes an evaluation of the Plan’s consistency with the City of Fresno Municipal Code.
FRESNO GENERAL PLAN
The following discussion analyzes the project’s consistency with the relevant policies of the City’s General Plan.
Policy POSS-5-a: Habitat Area Acquisition. Support federal, State, and local programs to acquire significant habitat areas for permanent protection and/or conjunctive educational and recreational use.
The Plan Area does not contain significant habitat areas. It is noted, however, that the Specific Plan land use plan includes 248.4 acres of open space uses, including pocket parks, neighborhood parks, community parks, open space, and ponding basins. These open space uses could be used for educational and/or recreational uses. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy.
Policy POSS-5-b: Habitat Conservation Plans. Participate in cooperative, multijurisdictional approaches for area-wide habitat conservation plans to preserve and protect rare, threatened, and endangered species.
As discussed in Impact 3.4-5, the Plan Area overlaps with areas that are covered by PG&E’s San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance HCP. The Plan Area is also located in the planning area of the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, which addresses BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-43 recovery needs and goals for the San Joaquin kit fox, among other species. The proposed Specific Plan would participate in both plans, as applicable, and would not conflict with PG&E’s San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance HCP or the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy.
Policy POSS-5-c: Buffers for Natural Areas. Require development projects, where appropriate and warranted, to incorporate natural features (such as ponds, hedgerows, and wooded strips) to serve as buffers for adjacent natural areas with high ecological value.
The Plan Area does not contain areas with high ecological value. The San Joaquin River and associated riparian habitat, which has high ecological value, is located northwest of the northwestern corner of the Plan Area along the San Joaquin River; however, this riparian habitat is not found on-site. The rectangular parcel located closest to the River and associated riparian habitat is the site of the future Fresno Aquarium. The Aquarium would overlook the River but would be physically buffered from this natural area. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy.
Policy POSS-5-d: Guidelines for Habitat Conservation. Establish guidelines for habitat conservation and mitigation programs, including:
• Protocols for the evaluation of a site's environmental setting and proposed design and operating parameters of proposed mitigation measures.
• Methodology for the analysis depiction of land to be acquired or set aside for mitigation activities.
• Parameters for specification of the types and sources of plant material used for any revegetation, irrigation requirements, and post-planting maintenance and other operational measures to ensure successful mitigation.
• Monitoring at an appropriate frequency by qualified personnel and reporting of data collected to permitting agencies.
As discussed above, the Specific Plan would not conflict with PG&E’s San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance HCP or the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy. The mitigation measures outlined throughout the above impact discussions include guidelines for future projects to implement in order to conserve habitat and mitigate potential impacts. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy.
Policy POSS-5-e: Pursue development of conjunctive habitat and recreational trail uses in flood control and drainage projects.
The Specific Plan includes two policies which address flood protection and design. Policy IPR 2.9 states, “Plant locally appropriate, drought-tolerant landscaping and, where possible, incorporate designs that can contribute to groundwater recharge, flood protection, and reduced urban heat island effects.” Policy LUH 5.1 states, “Update the Development Code so that when land proposed for urban development abuts active farmland, planned farmland, or rural
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-44 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan residential, the development project shall include and provide for the maintenance of one of the following design features to provide a rural/urban buffer:
• Provide landscaping and setbacks to fully obscure the new development’s buildings and fences.
• Do not include fencing, or provide only see-through fencing no greater than four feet in height between the new development and the existing property. • Provide open space such as edible gardens, landscaped walkways, or permanent on-site flood control/drainage facilities.
• Locate boundary streets between the new and existing developments.” These two Specific Plan policies supports conjunctive use of flood control facilities as recreational or open space amenities. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy.
Policy POSS-5-f: Regional Mitigation and Habitat Restoration. Coordinate habitat restoration programs with responsible agencies to take advantage of opportunities for a coordinated regional mitigation program.
As discussed above, the Specific Plan would not conflict with PG&E’s San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance HCP or the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy. Additionally, the mitigation measures outlined throughout the above impact discussions include guidelines for future projects to implement in order to conserve habitat and mitigate potential impacts. The City will continue to coordinate habitat restoration programs with responsible agencies in order to take advantage of opportunities for a coordinated regional mitigation program. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy.
FRESNO MUNICIPAL CODE
Article 3, Street Trees and Parkways, of Chapter 13 of the Fresno Municipal Code contains the public tree policy, tree beautification and preservation regulations, and Special Tree List authorization.
Section 13-302, Public Tree Policy, declares that the public interest and welfare require that the city maintain a program for the planting and preservation of trees on all public property in the city as a municipal affair in order to beautify the city, purify its air, and provide shade for its inhabitants.
Section 13-304, Tree Beautification, establishes and defines the Master Tree Plan requirements, Parkway Tree requirements, and other requirements related to new and existing development and the provision of parkway trees. Section 13-305, Tree Preservation, outlines tree removal and maintenance requirements, tree permit conditions, and payment of fees in-lieu of replacing a removed tree. Lastly, Section 13-306, Special Tree List, outlines the Special Tree List requirements and tree removal requests for Special Trees.
There are trees located throughout the Plan Area. Any removal of these trees would be required to comply with the provisions of the Fresno Municipal Code, including Article 3, Street Trees and Parkways, of Chapter 13. This is an existing standard and regulation that is enforced by the City of Fresno during the improvement/grading plan and/or building plan phase of a project.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-45
CONCLUSION
The proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The future project proponents would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. As demonstrated above, the proposed Specific Plan is generally consistent with the above relevant open space and conservation policies of the General Plan, as well as the City’s Municipal Code. Overall, the proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-46 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
N Marks Ave
W Sierra Ave
W Ashlan Ave
W Bullard Ave
N Da
nte Ave W Shields Ave
N Gates Ave
N Cornelia Ave
N Brawley Ave
W Gettysburg Ave
N Blythe Ave
W Herndon Ave
W San Jose Ave
N Polk Ave
W Dakota Ave
W Spruce Ave
W Figarden Dr
N Valentine Ave
W Clinton Ave
N Weber Ave
N Bryan Ave
W Shaw Ave
N Hayes Ave
N Emerson Ave
N Golden State Blvd
N
Figa rden Dr
W Barstow Ave
N
Marty Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N Riverside Dr
N 99 Hwy
N Grantland Ave
CITY OF FRESNO
SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
UV99
Sources: CalFire FVEG15_1, 2015; Fresno County; City of Fresno. Map date: July 25, 2019. Revised: May 29, 2020; March 1, 2021.
BOUNDARIES
Specific Plan of the West
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
LAND COVER TYPES
Annual Grassland
Barren
Deciduous Orchard
Dryland Grain Crops
Evergreen Orchard
Irrigated Grain Crops
Irrigated Hayfield
Irrigated Row and Field Crops
Lacustrine
Pasture
Riverine
Urban
Vineyard
Figure 3.4-1. Cover Types
q 0 ¼ ½
Miles
LAND COVER TYPE
ACRES WITHIN THE
SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE
WEST AREA
Annual Grassland 149.1
Barren 34.4
Deciduous Orchard 2088.7
Dryland Grain Crops 22.7
Evergreen Orchard 12.7
Irrigated Grain Crops 1.3
Irrigated Hayfield 384.4
Irrigated Row and Field Crops 875.9
Lacustrine 3.8
Pasture 11.8
Riverine 8.0
Urban 3133.6
Valley Foothill Riparian 1.9
Vineyard 349.0
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-48 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
MADERA GREGG LANES BRIDGE FRIANT
BIOLA HERNDON FRESNO NORTH CLOVIS
KERMAN KEARNEY PARK FRESNO SOUTH MALAGA
CITY OF FRESNO
SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
Figure 3.4-2. California Natural
Diversity Database
Special Status Species Occurrences
Plant (80m)
Plant (specific)
Plant (non-specific)
Plant (circular)
Animal (80m)
Animal (specific)
Animal (non-specific)
Animal (circular)
Terrestrial Comm. (specific)
Terrestrial Comm. (non-specific)
Terrestrial Comm. (circular)
Multiple (80m)
Multiple (specific)
Multiple (non-specific)
Multiple (circular)
Sensitive Environmental Occurrence
12-Quad Search*
Project Location
*The Specific Plan of the West Area lies within two USGS quads, therefore the required 9-quad search was expanded to 12 quads to encompass the entire project area's 9-quad region.
CNDDB version 06/30/2019. Please Note: the occurrences shown on this map represent the known locations of the species listed here as of the date of this version. There may be additional occurrences or additional species within this area which have not been surveyed and/or mapped. Lack of information in the CNDDB about a species or an area can never be used as proof that no special status species occur in an area. Basemap: ArcGIS Online Topographic Map Service. Map date: July 26, 2019. p 0 1 2
Miles
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-50 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-1 This section provides a background discussion of the prehistoric period background, ethnographic background, and historic period background, as well as the known cultural resources in the region and the Plan Area. The purpose of this section is to disclose and analyze the potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources associated with development of the proposed Specific Plan.
Information in this section is derived primarily from the following:
• Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Fresno West Area Specific Plan Project (Cogstone, October 2019 – included in Appendix D).
Two comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the following: The Native American Heritage Commission (August 13, 2019) and the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe (August 6, 2019). The portion of this comment letter which relates to this topic is addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.
KEY TERMS
Cultural and Historic Resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, or objects that may have historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. Preservation of the city’s cultural heritage should be considered when planning for the future.
Archaeology. The study of historic or prehistoric peoples and their cultures by analysis of their artifacts and monuments.
Ethnography. The systematic study of contemporary human cultures.
3.5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PREHISTORY
Humans are believed to have resided in Fresno County for at least the past 5,000 years.
Archeologists who have studied these past cultures have uncovered evidence of widespread activities that allowed them to divide these previous 13,000 years into periods or phases based on the kinds of subsistence behaviors practiced.
Three periods have been identified with locally defined phases and regional cultures as identified below:
• Paleoindian and Lower Archaic Period, 11,500 – 5,550 B.C • Upper Archaic Period, 550 cal B.C.– cal 1100 A.D.
• Emergent/Late Prehistoric Period, cal 1100 A.D. – Historic Contact.
Paleoindian and Lower Archaic Periods (11,500 – 5,550 B.C.) Few archaeological sites that predate 5,000 years ago have been discovered in the region. Near the end of the Pleistocene (approximately 9,050 cal B.C.) and during the early Middle Holocene (approximately 5,550 cal B.C.), there were periods of climate change and associated alluvial deposition throughout the central California lowlands. Recent geoarchaeological studies have
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
3.5-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan verified that large segments of the Late Pleistocene landscape were removed or buried by periodic episodes of deposition or erosion during the Middle Holocene. This confirms hypotheses that Paleoindian and Lower Archaic sites were buried during the last 5,000 to 6,000 years by deposits of Holocene alluvium up to 10 meters thick along the lower stretches of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River drainage systems. Archaeological evidence for the Paleoindian Period is scant, comprised primarily by fluted projectile points. The Lower Archaic Period is also mainly represented by isolated finds, such as at the Tulare Lake basin in the southern San Joaquin Valley. As a consequence of the natural alluvial deposition processes, only one site on the valley floor has produced cultural material dating to this period, and featured stone tools, remains of birds, fish and shellfish but no plant remains or milling tools. At two Lower Archaic Period sites in the foothills of Calaveras County, abundant handstones and milling slabs have been recovered.
Spears, angling hooks, composite bone hooks, and baked clay artifacts that may have been used as net or line sinkers represent the variety of fishing implements found at sites dating to this period.
Other baked clay items include pipes and discoids, as well as cooking “stones.” Impressions of twined basketry, bone tools, shell beads, and ground and polished charmstones have also been recovered.
A variety of grave goods accompanied burials in cemetery areas, which were separate from habitation areas. The presence during the Middle Archaic of an established trade network is indicated by a variety of exotic cultural materials, including obsidian tools, quartz crystals, and Olivella shell beads.
Upper Archaic Period (550 cal B.C – cal 1100 A.D)
The Upper Archaic Period features more specialized technology, with innovations and new types of bone tools, Olivella shell beads, Haliotis ornaments, charmstones, and ceremonial blades. An abundance of grinding tools (mortars and pestles) and plant remains, accompanied by a decrease in slab milling stones and handstones, indicates a shift to a greater reliance on acorns as a dietary staple during the Upper Archaic Period. A wide variety of natural resources were exploited during this period. Subsistence strategies varied regionally, focusing on seasonally available resources suited for harvesting in bulk, such as salmon, shellfish, deer, rabbits, and acorns. Numerous large shell mounds dating to this period are located near fresh or salt water and indicate exploitation of aquatic resources was relatively intensive. The accumulations of cultural debris and habitation features, such as rock-lined ovens, house floors, burials, hearths, and fire-cracked rock, reflect longterm residential occupation.
In the western margins of the San Joaquin Valley, discrete cemeteries date to the Upper Archaic Period. In the southern San Joaquin Valley, villages on the shores of Buena Vista Lake were occupied year-round. Trade in marine shell beads and obsidian, among other items, continued to be important.
Emergent/Late Prehistoric Period (cal A.D. 1100 – Historic Contact) The archaeological record in the Central Valley for the Emergent/Late Prehistoric Period documents an increase in the diversity and number of artifacts and in the number of archaeological sites. Along with an increase in sedentism and population that led to the development of social stratification, with an elaborate ceremonial and social organization, a number of cultural innovations shaped the CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-3 Emergent Period. These include the introduction of the bow and arrow and more diverse fishing equipment (bone fish hooks, harpoons, and gorge hooks). Fishing, hunting, and gathering plant foods continue as the foci of subsistence practices, including intensive harvesting of acorns and an increased emphasis on fishing. Hopper mortars and shaped mortars and pestles, as well as bone awls used for producing coiled baskets, are common. Locally made Cosumnes Brownware has been recovered from some sites in the lower Sacramento Valley, while pottery in the Tulare basin was obtained through trade. Baked clay balls, probably used for cooking in the absence of stone, remain common.
Ceremonial and ritual items include flanged tubular pipes and baked clay effigies representing humans and animals. Clamshell disk beads were used as currency and accompanied the development of extensive exchange networks. Mortuary practices included flexed burials, the cremation of high-status individuals, and pre-interment burning of offerings in grave pits. Overall, the cultural patterns known from historic period Native American groups inhabiting the Central Valley are reflected in the subsistence and land use patterns practiced during the Emergent Period.
ETHNOLOGY
The Plan Area is located within the traditional territory of the Yokuts. Historically, the Yokuts people collectively inhabited the San Joaquin Valley as well as the eastern foothills of the Sierra Nevada from the Calaveras River southward to the Kern River. Ethnographers and linguists have traditionally divided Yokuts into three geographic groups, based on linguistic similarities and differences:
Northern Valley, Southern Valley, and Foothill. The Plan Area is located in the area historically occupied by the Northern Valley Yokuts according to Kroeber (1925: 462), who suggested that they lived along the San Joaquin River. The Northern Valley Yokuts tribes’ territory extended southward from the Calaveras River to the upper San Joaquin River and from the crest of the Coast (Diablo) Range east to the Sierra Nevada foothills.
Information on the Yokuts lifeways has been compiled by Kroeber (1925:474-543), Wallace (1978:462-470), and Latta (1977) and is summarized here. The Northern Valley Yokuts grouping consisted of 11 or more tribes, each containing 300 or so people. Most members lived within a single settlement that often had the same name as the political unit. These were generally established on low rises along the major watercourses. The eastern side of the San Joaquin River was more heavily populated than the land to the west of the river, due to greater water availability. A village generally contained at least three types of structures – oval single-family dwellings made of tule, ceremonial chambers, and sweathouses. According to Kroeber’s informants, a tribe of Yokuts known as the Hewchi lived close to the Plan Area, near Fresno River (1925: 470).
The fundamental economy of the Yokuts was subsistence fishing, hunting, and collecting plant foods. Acorns, collected in the fall and then stored in granaries, were a staple food (Wallace 1978:464). During the fall and spring runs, salmon was a dietary mainstay. Wildfowl, such as geese and ducks, were also an important staple. Additional dietary plant parts included seeds, berries and tule roots. Large game included deer, elk, antelope, and black bears.
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
3.5-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan A wide variety of tools, implements, and enclosures were used by the Northern Valley Yokuts to gather, collect, and process food resources. These included bow and arrows, nets, traps, slings, and blinds for hunting land mammals and birds; and harpoons, hooks, and nets, as well as tule rafts.
Sharpened digging sticks and woven tools (seed beaters, burden baskets, and carrying nets) would have been used to collect plant resources and a variety of implements (stone mortars and pestles, bedrock and portable mortars, stone knives, and bone tools) used for processing resources. The Northern Valley Yokuts traded with neighboring groups for bows and arrows, baskets, shell ornaments and beads, obsidian, and mussels and abalone.
The San Joaquin Valley was never settled during the Spanish and Mexican periods, but influences from the coastal missions and presidios were felt inland by the late 1700s. By 1805, Northern Valley Yokuts were transported to the San José, Santa Clara, Soledad, San Juan Bautista, and San Antonio missions that were established during the Spanish era. Later, disease and military raids claimed many lives during the Mexican period, followed by displacement during the early American Period by gold seekers and farmers.
Pre-contact population density for Northern Valley Yokuts has been estimated at 25,000 to 31,000.
In 1852, representatives of only three Northern Valley Yokuts tribes (including the Heuchi) remained to sign one of a series of statewide treaties. Today, people of Yokuts descent live on the Tule River Reservation in Tulare County and on three rancherias: Picayune in Madera County at Coarsegold, Santa Rosa in Kings County, and Table Mountain in Fresno County near Friant. Some Foothill Yokuts also live with Central Sierran Miwok on the Tuolumne Rancheria in Tuolumne County.
HISTORIC PERIOD BACKGROUND
The general history of the exploration and settlement of Fresno County has been documented in a number of sources. This section focuses on the specific history of Fresno and the Plan Area.
Spanish Exploration
Juan Cabrillo was the first European to sail along the coast of California in 1542 and was followed in 1602 by Sebastian Vizcaino (Bean and Rawls 1993). The Spanish colonization of what was then known as Alta California began with the 1769 overland expedition, led by Gaspar de Portolá, with a crew of 63 men, in order to explore the land between San Diego and Monterey. Between 1769 and 1822, the Spanish had colonized California and established missions, presidios, and pueblos and documented the people and landscape along the way (McCawley 1996).
Following the Portolá Expedition, vast tracts of land were granted to the missions. The goals of the missions were tri-fold: they establish a Spanish presence on the west coast, proselytize Christianity to the native peoples, and serve to exploit the native population as laborers. The Spanish also hoped each mission would become a town center, whereas, “the pueblo would receive a ground of four square leagues of land… and other property would be parceled out among the Indians”. The missionaries, or padres, would essentially serve as a mayor, or head of the town (Bean 1968).
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-5 Mexican Period
In 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain and worked to lessen the wealth and power held by the missions. The Secularization Act was passed in 1833, appropriating the vast mission lands to the Mexican governor and downgrading the missions’ status to that of parish churches. The governor then redistributed the former mission lands, in the form of land grants, to private owners (Bean and Rawls 1993). The lands were typically granted to soldiers who proved their loyalty to the Mexican government once liberated from the Spanish crown.
Fresno History
The County of Fresno was founded in 1856 from portions of Tulare, Merced, and Mariposa Counties.
In 1872, Central Pacific Railroad, predecessor to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, arrived in the San Joaquin Valley. The local train station, “Fresno Station,” represented the epicenter of Fresno (Planning Resource Associates, Inc. 2008).
Fresno’s original land plan was organized on a grid system which extended eastward from the Central Pacific Railroad tracks along what is currently H Street. In 1872, the Railroad began selling lots to entrepreneurs and by the end of the year Fresno consisted of a few residential homes, multiple livery stables, four restaurants and hotels, and two stores (Planning Resource Associates, Inc. 2008).
In 1874, the Fresno County seat was transferred from Millerton, which had experienced years of floods and a catastrophic fire, to the City of Fresno (Hoover & Kyle 2002). Fresno’s new position as the County seat resulted in a boost of prosperity and by 1885 Fresno was incorporated with a population of approximately 2,000 (Victor Gruen Associates 1968).
Fresno’s economic success came from its agricultural production in conjunction with the railroad.
Fresno County became the number one agricultural producer in California in addition to one of the nation’s best producers of cotton, figs, grapes, and raisins (Hoover & Kyle 2002). In 1911, the SunMaid Raisin Cooperative was founded in the City of Fresno as the principle packing center and hosted multiple packinghouses throughout the City (Hattersley-Drayton 2013). To this day, Fresno County is ranked as the nation’s highest agricultural producer with annual sales totaling over $3 billion per annum.
By the late 1890s and early 1900s, Fresno’s population and economy continued to grow with the U.S. Census showing the City’s population doubling from 12,470 in 1900 to 24,892 in 1910 (U.S.
Census 1910). The Fresno City Board of Trustees approved the establishment of the City’s first planning commission in 1916, in anticipation of further growth. By 1923, the plans were adopted and included parks and recreation centers, and streets to accommodate the increased population (Planning Resource Associates, Inc. 2008).
Fresno’s early 20th century residential development located north of the downtown area caused the expansion of the electric Fresno Street Railway established in 1888. The Railway was later taken over by the Fresno City Railway Company in 1901 and built northward to connect the suburban areas
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
3.5-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan to the City’s center. The electric streetcar would remain the primary form of mass transit in Fresno City until its replacement by the bus by 1939 (Planning Resource Associates, Inc. 2008).
During the Post-War Economic Boom (1945-1973), the population shifted from Fresno’s center to the newly developed suburbs as a result of increased population and increase in personal car ownership. This shift in population caused the decline of the City’s urban center and in the 1960s, Fresno began an urban revitalization project for downtown resulting in the construction of the Fulton Mall in 1964. This six-block pedestrian mall was considered an innovative model and effective response to what was considered at the time to be America’s “Urban Crisis” (Victor Gruen Associates 1968).
During the 1970s to 1990s, development continued to expand outward from Fresno’s City center.
Plan Area History
The Plan Area boundaries are defined by Clinton Avenue at its southern boundary, North Garfield Avenue at its western boundary, and the State Route 99 (SR-99) running northwest/southeast connecting the northern end of Garfield Avenue to the eastern end of Clinton Avenue. Historic topographic maps from 1923 (Bullard 7.5x15 minute) to approximately 1965 (Fresno North 7.5 minute) show the vast majority of the Plan Area occupied by farmland and various farmhouses. The Post-War Economic Boom (1945-1973) is depicted in historic aerials from 1962 and 1972 as an increase in tract homes on previous agricultural land as the population shifted from urban to suburban locations. The tract homes spread west of SR-99 through the Plan Area. By 1998, nearly a third of the Plan Area was developed and closely resembled the Plan Area’s built environment at it exists today.
CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
California Historic Resources Information System
The purpose of the cultural records search is to identify all previously recorded cultural resources (prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, historic buildings, structures, objects, or districts) within the Plan Area. All cultural resources, as well as cultural resource surveys, performed within the Plan Area boundaries were reviewed.
A search of the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) was requested from the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) located at California State University, Bakersfield on July 30, 2019, which included the entire Plan Area. Results of the record search indicate that 36 previous studies have been completed within the Plan Area (Table 3.5-1).
In addition to the SSJVIC records search, a variety of sources were consulted to obtain information regarding the cultural context of the Plan Area. Sources included the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), California Historical Resources Inventory (CHRI), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), and California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI). Specific information about the Plan Area, obtained from historic-era maps and aerial photographs, is presented in the Plan Area History section.
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-7 TABLE 3.5-1: PREVIOUS STUDIES WITHIN THE PLAN AREA
REPORT
NO.(FR-)
AUTHOR(S) TITLE YEAR
00069 Hudlow, Scott M. and
de la Garza, Theresa
A Phase I Architectural Survey for the Highway City Specific Plan Area City of Fresno, California
1996
00135 Hatoff, Brian, Voss,
Barb, Waechter,
Sharon, Benté, Vance,
and Wee, Stephen
Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project.
1995
00166 Kus, James S. Negative Archaeological Survey Report for Proposed Fresno Housing Authority Clinton Avenue Project
1994
00191 Wren, Donald G. An Archaeological Survey: Central Unified School District Stadium Project 1998 00271 Bissonnette, Linda
Dick
Cultural Resources Survey for Central Unified School District Adult School, Fresno County, California
1991
00287 Bissonnette, Linda
Dick
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment: Central Unified School District, Milburn/Dakota Elementary School Site, Fresno County, California 1992
00294 Bissonnette, Linda
Dick
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Central Unified School District, New High School Project, Northwest of Dakota and Cornelia Avenues, Fresno County
1993
00302 Bissonnette, Linda
Dick
Grantland Avenue Sewer Trunk and Herndon Expressway Cultural Resources Assessment
1994
00393 Dondero, Steven Negative Archaeological Survey Report for the Herndon Avenue Overcrossing, Fresno County
1988
00433 Davis, Alan, Dick,
Linda, and Varner,
Dudley
An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Gates Substation to the Proposed Gregg Substation 500 KV Transmission Line, Fresno and Madera Counties
1977
00447 Jackson, Scott R. Environmental Impact Evaluation: An Archaeological Assessment of God's Family Church Property, Fresno County, California
1990
00677 Roop, William A Cultural Resources Evaluation of Tracts 4488 (APN 311-03124) and 4581 (APN 404-071-17), Fresno, Fresno County, California
1993
00760 Varner, Dudley M. Highway City Sewer Project (Improvement Dist. #166) 1974 01640 Binning, Jeanne Day Negative Archaeological Survey Report Installation of Traffic Surveillance Stations along Interstate 5, State Route 41, and State Route 99 in Madera and Fresno Counties
1999
01656 Wren, Donald G. A Cultural Resource Study: Stormwater Retention Basin EN and EO, Fresno County, California
2000
01702 Wren, Donald G. A Cultural Resource Study: Basin CD Project, Fresno County, California 2001 01710 Szeto, Andy Site Location Map and Site Description for PL-754-01 1998 01808 Wren, Donald G. An Archaeological Survey Central Unified Education Center, Fresno County, California
2002
01811 Hildebrand, Karen and
Roper, C. Kristina
Hardpan and Adobe Brick: A National Register Evaluation of Two Highway City Adobe Buildings, Fresno, California
1997
01942 Hudlow, Scott M. and
de la Garza, Theresa
A Phase I Architectural Survey for the Highway City Specific Plan Area, City of Fresno, California
1996
01953 Wren, Donald G. Draft Environmental Impact Report: Central Unified Education Center:
State Clearinghouse No. 2002021064
2002
02029 Brady, Jon L. Historic Property Survey for the Proposed La Estancia Housing Project, Fresno, California
2004
02212 Nettles, Wendy M. Phase I Cultural Resources Study of Assessor's Parcel No. 311140-14, 5901 W. Shaw Avenue, Fresno, California
2006
02227 Losee, Caroyln New Tower Submission Packet, FCC Form 620 2006
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
3.5-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan REPORT
NO.(FR-)
AUTHOR(S) TITLE YEAR
02256 Hobbs, Kelly Historic Property Survey Report: State Route 99/Shaw Avenue Interchange Improvement Project, Fresno, California
2002
02256 Brady, Jon Underground Caverns 4951 N. Dale, Fresno California, Historic Evaluation and Determination of Significance
2000
02256 Kiaha, Krista Archaeological Survey Report for the Shaw Avenue Interchange Reconstruction at State Route 99 Fresno County, California 2001
02256 Hobbs, Kelly Historic Architecture Survey Report/Historic Resource Evaluation for State Route 99/Shaw Avenue Interchange Improvements
2002
SOURCE: COGSTONE, 2019.
The results of the records search indicate a total of 82 cultural resources have been previously recorded within the Plan Area. Of these cultural resources, four are historic archaeological sites and 78 are historic built environment resources. No fossils are known from the Plan Area or the Fresno area. No prehistoric archaeological sites have been previously recorded within the Plan Area.
Four historical archaeological sites have been recorded in the Plan Area. Three of the historic archaeological sites are in the vicinity of Teague Elementary School and one historic archaeological site, the San Joaquin River Quarry, is located just south of Highway 99 in the northern portion of the Plan Area.
Historical resources include current and former locations of historic buildings, historical archaeological sites (often near historic use areas) and the location of extant historic homes more than 45 years old. The majority of the historic built resources are historic residences clustered around North Polk Avenue and West Acacia Avenue in the northern portion of the Plan Area.
NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION
Pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52, consultation letters were sent via certified mail on August 20, 2019 requesting information related to cultural resources or heritage sites within the Plan Area. Additional attempts at contact were made by email or phone on September 6 and September 19, 2019. The letters were sent to: the Native American Heritage Commission; Ms.
Elizabeth D. Kipp, Chairperson, Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians; Carol Bill, Chairperson, Cold Springs Rancheria; Mr. Robert Ledger Sr, chairperson, Dumna Wo-Wah Tribal Government; Mr. Benjamin Charley Jr., Tribal Chair, Dunlap Band of Mono Indians; Mr. Dick Charley, Tribal Secretary, Dunlap Band of Mono Indians; Mr. Stan Alec, Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe; Mr. Ron Goode, Chairperson, North Fork Mono Tribe; Mr. Rueben Barrios Sr., Chairperson, Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe; Ms. Leanne Walker-Grant, Chairperson, and Mr. Bob Pennell, Cultural Resources Director, Table Mountain Rancheria; Mr. David Alvarez, Chairperson, and Mr.
Rick Osborne, Cultural Resources, Traditional Choinumni Tribe; and Mr. Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson, Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band. To date, three responses have been received and are summarized below. All consultation correspondence and a contact log are provided in Appendix C of Appendix D.
• On August 26, 2019 Mr. Charley, tribal secretary for the Dunlap Band of Mono Indians, responded via phone that the Plan Area is outside the Tribe's interest and that they would CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-9 not be commenting or requesting consultation. Mr. Charley recommended contacting Big Sandy or Table Mountain Rancheria for comments.
• On September 19, 2019 Mr. Alec of the Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe, responded via phone that the Tribe has no concerns with the Specific Plan. • On August 6, 2019, Mr. Pennell, Cultural Resources Director of the Table Mountain Rancheria, responded by letter stating that the Tribe is interested in the Specific Plan and requested any cultural resource reports received from the record search. Mr. Pennell requested that the City contact the Tribal office to coordinate a discussion and meeting date for the Specific Plan. On October 7, 2019 Cogstone replied to Mr. Pennell with the results of the cultural records search.
3.5.2 REGULATORY SETTING
There are a number of regulatory agencies whose responsibility includes the oversight of the cultural and tribal cultural resources of the state and nation including the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), National Register of Historic Places, and the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). These agencies often oversee the preservation of historic, cultural and tribal cultural resources. The following is an overview of the federal, State and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.
FEDERAL
National Historic Preservation Act
Most regulations at the Federal level stem from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and historic preservation legislation such as the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. NHPA established guidelines to "preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and to maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and a variety of individual choice." The NHPA includes regulations specifically for Federal landholding agencies, but also includes regulations (Section 106) which pertain to all projects that are funded, permitted, or approved by any Federal agency and which have the potential to affect cultural resources. All projects that are subject to NEPA are also subject to compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and NEPA requirements concerning cultural resources. Provisions of NHPA establish a National Register of Historic Places (The National Register) maintained by the National Park Service, the Advisory Councils on Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Offices, and grants-in-aid programs.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act and Native American Graves and Repatriation Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act recognizes that Native American religious practices, sacred sites, and sacred objects have not been properly protected under other statutes. It establishes as national policy that traditional practices and beliefs, sites (including right of access), and the use of sacred objects shall be protected and preserved. Additionally, Native American remains are protected by the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act of 1990.
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
3.5-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Other Federal Legislation
Historic preservation legislation was initiated by the Antiquities Act of 1966, which aimed to protect important historic and archaeological sites. It established a system of permits for conducting archaeological studies on Federal land, as well as setting penalties for noncompliance. This permit process controls the disturbance of archaeological sites on Federal land. New permits are currently issued under the Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979. The purpose of ARPA is to enhance preservation and protection of archaeological resources on public and Native American lands. The Historic Sites Act of 1935 declared that it is national policy to “Preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance.” STATE
California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR)
California State law also provides for the protection of cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources identified in documents prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under CEQA, a cultural resource is considered an important historical resource if it meets any of the criteria found in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Criteria identified in the CEQA Guidelines are similar to those described under the NHPA.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains the CRHR. Historic properties listed, or formally designated for eligibility to be listed, on the National Register are automatically listed on the CRHR. State Landmarks and Points of Interest are also automatically listed. The CRHR can also include properties designated under local preservation ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA requires that lead agencies determine whether projects may have a significant effect on archaeological and historical resources. This determination applies to those resources which meet significance criteria qualifying them as “unique,” “important,” listed on the CRHR, or eligible for listing on the CRHR. If the agency determines that a project may have a significant effect on a significant resource, the project is determined to have a significant effect on the environment, and these effects must be addressed. If a cultural resource is found not to be significant under the qualifying criteria, it need not be considered further in the planning process.
CEQA emphasizes avoidance of archaeological and historical resources as the preferred means of reducing potential significant environmental effects resulting from projects. If avoidance is not feasible, an excavation program or some other form of mitigation must be developed to mitigate the impacts. In order to adequately address the level of potential impacts, and thereby design appropriate mitigation measures, the significance and nature of the cultural resources must be determined. The following are steps typically taken to assess and mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources for the purposes of CEQA:
• Identify cultural resources,
• evaluate the significance of the cultural resources found, CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-11 • evaluate the effects of the project on cultural resources, and • develop and implement measures to mitigate the effects of the project on cultural resources that would be significantly affected.
Treatment of paleontological resources under CEQA is generally similar to treatment of cultural resources, requiring evaluation of resources in a project’s area of potential affect, assessment of potential impacts on significant or unique resources, and development of mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts, which may include monitoring combined with data recovery and/or avoidance. Impacts to paleontological resources are discussed in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils.
State Laws Pertaining to Human Remains
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the county coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the California Native American Heritage Commission. CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.5) specify the procedures to be followed in case of the discovery of human remains on non-Federal land. The disposition of Native American burials falls within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission.
State Laws Pertaining to Paleontological Resources
Section 5097.5 of the California Public Resources Code prohibits “knowing and willful” excavation, removal, destruction, injury, and defacement of any “vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints,” on public lands, except where the agency with jurisdiction has granted express permission. “As used in this section, ‘public lands’ means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.” Section 30244 of the California Public Resources Code requires reasonable mitigation for impacts on paleontological resources that occur as a result of development on public lands.
The California Administrative Code relating to the State Division of Beaches and Parks affords protection to geologic features and “paleontological materials” but grant the director of the State park system authority to issue permits for specific activities that may result in damage to such resources, if the activities are in the interest of the State park system and for State park purposes (California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 4307–4309).
Senate Bill 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes 2004)
Senate Bill (SB) 18, authored by Senator John Burton and signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in September 2004, requires local (city and county) governments to consult with California Native American tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places (“cultural places”) through local land use planning. This legislation, which amended §65040.2, §65092, §65351, §65352, and §65560, and added §65352.3, §653524, and §65562.5 to the Government Code; also requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to include in the General Plan Guidelines advice to local governments on how to conduct these consultations.
The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
3.5-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places. These consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of both general plans (defined in Government Code §65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in Government Code §65450 et seq.).
Assembly Bill 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014)
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of CEQA and equates significant impacts on “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts (PRC Section 21084.2). AB 52 defines a “California Native American Tribe” as a Native American tribe located in California, and included on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. AB 52 requires formal consultation with California Native American Tribes prior to determining the level of environmental document if a tribe has requested to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects. AB 52 also requires that the consultation address project alternatives and mitigation measures, for significant effects, if requested by the California Native American Tribe, and that consultation be concluded when either the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, or the agency concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.
LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan identifies the following objectives and policies related to cultural and tribal resources:
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT
Objective HCR-1: Maintain a comprehensive, citywide preservation program to identify, protect and assist in the preservation of Fresno’s historic and cultural resource.
Policy HCR-1-a: Maintain the City’s status as a Certified Local Government (CLG), and use CLG practices as the key components of the City’s preservation program.
Policy HCR-1-b: Maintain the Preservation Office, Historic Preservation Commission, and preservation program to administer the City’s preservation functions and programs.
Policy HCR-1-c: Maintain the provisions of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, as may be amended, and enforce the provisions as appropriate.
Objective HCR-2: Identify and preserve Fresno’s historic and cultural resources that reflect important cultural, social, economic, and architectural features so that residents will have a foundation upon which to measure and direct physical change.
Policy HCR-2-a: Work to identify and evaluate potential historic resources and districts and prepare nomination forms for Fresno’s Local Register of Historic Resources and California and National registries, as appropriate.
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-13 Policy HCR-2-b: Prepare historic surveys according to California Office of Historic Preservation protocols and City priorities as funding is available.
Policy HCR-2-c: Prior to project approval, continue to require a project site and its Area of Potential Effects (APE), without benefit of a prior historic survey, to be evaluated and reviewed for the potential for historic and/or cultural resources by a professional who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Qualifications. Survey costs shall be the responsibility of the project developer. Council may, but is not required, to adopt an ordinance to implement this policy.
Policy HCR-2-d: Work with local Native American tribes to protect recorded and unrecorded cultural and sacred sites, as required by State law, and educate developers and the community-at-large about the connections between Native American history and the environmental features that characterize the local landscape.
Policy HCR-2-e: Develop and adopt Alternate Public Improvement Standards for historic landscapes to ensure that new infrastructure is compatible with the landscape; meets the needs of diverse users, including motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians; and provides for proper traffic safety and drainage.
Policy HCR-2-f: Consider State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines when establishing CEQA mitigation measures for archaeological resources.
Policy HCR-2-g: Review all demolition permits to determine if the resource scheduled for demolition is potentially eligible for listing on the Local Register of Historic Resources.
Consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance, refer potentially eligible resources to the Historic Preservation Commission and as appropriate to the City Council.
Policy HCR-2-h: Continue to support enforcement of the minimum maintenance provisions of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, as may be amended, and enforce the provisions as appropriate.
Policy HCR-2-i: Consider creating a preservation mitigation fund to help support efforts to preserve and maintain historic and cultural resources.
Policy HCR-2-j: City staff will evaluate potential opportunities for identification of window replacements to ensure historic integrity is maintained while encouraging sustainability. In addition, city staff will evaluate window replacements in federally funded housing projects on a project-by-project basis with consideration for health, safety, historic values, sustainability, and financial feasibility.
Policy HCR-2-k: Maintain all City-owned historic and cultural resources in a manner that is consistent with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, as appropriate.
Policy HCR-2-l: Establish an inter-departmental Historic Preservation team to coordinate on matters of importance to history and preservation.
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
3.5-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy HCR-2-m: Recommend that property owners, who receive funds from the City of Fresno for rehabilitation of a property, consent to listing it on the Local Register of Historic Resources if the property meets the criteria for age, significance, and integrity.
Publicly funded rehabilitation properties which may meet Local Register criteria will be presented to the City’s Historic Preservation Commission for review.
Policy HCR-2-n: Identify all historic resources within the city designated on the Local, State, or National register, and potential significant resources (building, structure, object or site) in existence for at least 45 years, and provide this information on the City’s website.
Objective HCR-3: Promote a “New City Beautiful” ethos by linking historic preservation, public art, and planning principles for Complete Neighborhoods with green building and technology.
Policy HCR-3-a: Promote the adaptive reuse and integration of older buildings into new projects as part of the City’s commitment to nurturing a sustainable Fresno.
Policy HCR-3-a: Collaborate with the arts community to promote the integration of public art into historic buildings and established neighborhoods. Link arts activities (such as Art Hop) with preservation activities.
Policy HCR-3-c: Work with architects, developers, business owners, local residents and the historic preservation community to ensure that infill development is context sensitive in its design, massing, setbacks, color, and architectural detailing.
Objective HCR-4: Foster an appreciation of Fresno’s history and cultural resources.
Policy HCR-4-a: Foster cooperation with public agencies and non-profit groups to provide activities and educational opportunities that celebrate and promote Fresno’s history and heritage.
Policy HCR-4-b: Promote heritage tourism and the public’s involvement in preservation through conferences, walking tours, publications, special events, and involvement with the local media.
Policy HCR-4-c: Provide training, consultation, and support in collaboration with Historic Preservation Commissioners to community members regarding Fresno’s history, use of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and the California Historical Building Code, as time and resources allow.
Policy HCR-4-d: Maintain public archives that include information on all designated historic properties, as well as historic surveys, preservation bulletins, and general local history reference materials. Post survey reports, Historic Preservation Commission minutes and agendas, and other information of public interest on the historic preservation page of the City’s website.
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-15 Policy HCR-4-e: Continue to recognize the best work in preservation and neighborhood revitalization as may be appropriate through programs such as the biennial Mayoral Preservation Awards program.
Policy HCR-4-f: Investigate the potential for developing a Mills Act program and possible sources of funding for the Historic Rehabilitation Financing Program.
City of Fresno Historic Preservation Ordinance
Article 16, Historic Preservation Ordinance, of Chapter 12 of the City’s Municipal Code provides standards for historic and cultural resources in an effort to preserve, promote and improve the historic resources and districts of the City of Fresno for educational, cultural, economic and general welfare of the public; protect and review changes to these resources and districts which have a distinctive character or a special historic, architectural, aesthetic or cultural value to this City, state and nation; safeguard the heritage of the city by preserving and regulating its historic buildings, structures, objects, sites and districts which reflect elements of the City's historic, cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history; preserve and enhance the environmental quality and safety of these landmarks and districts; and to establish, stabilize and improve property values and to foster economic development.
The Ordinance establishes three categories of designation for properties in Fresno: Historic Resource, Heritage Property, and Local Historic District. The criteria for City of Fresno historic designation correspond closely with criteria established for State and National Register eligibility, and are as follows:
HISTORIC RESOURCE DESIGNATION
The City of Fresno Historic Preservation Commission and City Council may designate any building, structure, object or site as a Historic Resource if it is found to meet the following criteria:
It has been in existence more than 50 years and it possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and:
a) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
b) It is associated with the lives of persons significant in or past; or c) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or d) It has yielded or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Additionally, a property may be eligible for designation as a Historic Resource if it is less than 50 years old and meets the above-listed criteria, and is found to have exceptional importance within an appropriate historical context at the local, state, or national level.
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
3.5-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
HERITAGE PROPERTY DESIGNATION
Any building, structure, object or site may also be eligible for designation as a Heritage Property by the City of Fresno Historic Preservation Commission if it is found by the Commission to be worthy of preservation because of its historical, architectural, or aesthetic merit.
LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION
In order for a group of properties to be designated as a Local Historic District (LHD) by the City of Fresno, there must be a finite group of resources related to one another in a clearly distinguishable way; or a geographically definable area that possesses a significant concentration, linkage or continuity of sites, buildings, structures or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. Additionally, the proposed LHD must meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural heritage; or
2. It is identified with a person or group that contributed significantly to the culture and development of the city; or
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or
4. Structures within the area exemplify a particular architectural style or way of life to the city; or
5. The area is related to a designated historic resource or district in such a way that its preservation is essential to the integrity of the designated resource or Local Historic District; or
6. The area has potential for yielding information of archaeological interest.
3.5.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project is considered to have a significant impact on cultural and tribal resources if it will:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5;
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5;
• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-17 o Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
o A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts to paleontological resources are discussed in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.5-1: Specific Plan implementation may cause a substantial adverse change to a significant historical or archaeological resource, as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, or a significant tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code §21074. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
According to the Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment, a total of 82 cultural resources have been previously recorded within the Plan Area. Of these cultural resources, four are historic archaeological sites and 78 are historic built environment resources.
HISTORIC RESOURCES
The majority of the historic built resources within the Plan Area are historic residences clustered around North Polk Avenue and West Acacia Avenue. However, as full buildout of the Specific Plan would occur over several years, there is the potential for other buildings to reach 45 years old during implementation of the Specific Plan. Any future development within the Plan Area with the potential to impact a historic resource or potentially historic resource would be required to comply with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 regarding determining significant impacts to historic resources, and Mitigation Measure 3.5-1. Project specific mitigation measures would be required to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource. It is not anticipated that future ground disturbing activities associated with future development projects within the Plan Area would result in impacts to historical resources.
However, future development in proximity to a historic resource or potentially historic resource would be reviewed for the potential to generate vibration that could result in damage to a historic resource pursuant to CEQA. Potential impacts to historic resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Although no prehistoric archaeological sites have been recorded within the Plan Area, unknown resources may be present. Four historical archaeological sites have been recorded in the Plan Area.
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
3.5-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Three of the historic archaeological sites are in the vicinity of the Teague School and one historic archaeological site, the San Joaquin River Quarry, is located just south of SR 99 in the northern portion of the Plan Area. No other archaeological resources have been identified in the Plan Area.
Ground disturbing activities associated with future development projects within the Plan Area could result in impacts to currently unknown archaeological resources. The implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-2 requiring ground disturbance activities to be halted, a qualified archaeologist to be retained, and mitigation measures for the handling of any resource to be implemented, would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level.
TRIBAL RESOURCES
According to the NAHC, there are no known sacred lands within the Plan Area. Consultation requests were made to Native American Tribes pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52 to ascertain the potential for tribal cultural resources to occur within the area. To date, three responses have been received and are summarized below.
• On August 26, 2019 Mr. Charley, tribal secretary for the Dunlap Band of Mono Indians, responded via phone that the Specific Plan is outside the Tribe's interest and that they would not be commenting or requesting consultation. Mr. Charley recommended contacting Big Sandy or Table Mountain Rancheria for comments.
• On August 6, 2019, Mr. Pennell, Cultural Resources Director of the Table Mountain Rancheria, responded with by letter stating that the Tribe is interested in the Specific Plan and requested any cultural resource reports received from the record search. Mr. Pennell requested that the City contact the Tribal office to coordinate a discussion and meeting date for the Specific Plan. On 10/7/2019 Cogstone replied to Mr. Pennell with the results of the cultural records search.
• On September 19, 2019 Mr. Alec of the Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe, responded via phone that the Tribe has no concerns with the Specific Plan.
While no specific resources have been identified through consultation with affiliated tribes, it is possible that unknown tribal cultural resources may be present within the Plan Area. Site-specific development projects would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis pursuant to CEQA, which would include AB 52 consultation that could lead to the identification of potential site specific tribal resources. All future development projects would be required to comply with local policies, ordinances, and applicable permitting procedures related to protection of tribal resources. These include policies included in the proposed Specific Plan that consider State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines when establishing CEQA mitigation measures for archaeological resources; and require a project site and its Area of Potential Effects (APE), without benefit of a prior historic survey, to be evaluated and reviewed for the potential for historic and/or cultural resources by a professional who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Qualifications. Impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2. Compliance with the State and local guidelines would provide an opportunity to identify, disclose, and avoid or minimize the disturbance of and impacts to a tribal resource through tribal consultation and CEQA review CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-19 procedures. Therefore, impacts related to tribal resources would be considered less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: The City shall require project applicants for future projects with intact extant building(s) more than 45 years old to provide a historic resource technical study evaluating the significance and data potential of the resource. If significance criteria are met, detailed mitigation recommendations shall be included as part of the technical study. All work shall be performed by a qualified architectural historian meeting Secretary of the Interior Standards. The historic resource technical study shall be submitted to the City for review prior to any site disturbance within the vicinity of the building(s).
Mitigation Measure 3.5-2: If cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated artifacts and features) are discovered during the course of construction within the Specific Plan Area, work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the discovery, the City of Fresno shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery.
The City of Fresno shall consider mitigation recommendations presented by the qualified archaeologist for any unanticipated discoveries and future project proponents shall carry out the measures deemed feasible and appropriate. Such measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures. The project proponent shall be required to implement any mitigation necessary for the protection of cultural resources.
Impact 3.5-2: Specific Plan implementation may disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
There are no human remains or known burial sites identified in the Plan Area. Additionally, there are no human remains or known burial sites that have been identified in the Plan Area on maps and files maintained by the SSJVIC. There have been 36 previous cultural resource studies that examined portions of the Plan Area and no human remains or known burial sites were documented. In addition to the SSJVIC records search, a variety of sources (e.g., NRHP, CRHR, CHRI, CHL, and CPHI) were consulted to obtain information regarding the cultural context of the Plan Area, and no human remains or known burial sites were identified within the Plan Area.
It is not anticipated that future ground disturbing activities associated with future development projects within the Plan Area would result in impacts to human remains or known burial sites given that none are believed to be present. If during ground disturbance activities human remains are discovered, activities would be halted in accordance with Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 and appropriate steps taken to identify the remains and proper treatment. Compliance with Mitigation Measure 3.5- 3 would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level.
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
3.5-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.5-3: If human remains are found during ground disturbance activities associated with implementation of the Specific Plan, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 50 feet of the discovery and a qualified archeological monitor and the coroner of Fresno County shall be contacted as stated in Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If it is determined that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if:
a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-1 This section describes the regional geology, site geology, faults and seismicity, seismic hazards, and non-seismic hazard conditions in the regional and the Plan Area. The purpose of this section is to disclose and analyze the potential impacts related to geology and soils associated with development of the proposed Specific Plan. Information in this section is based in part on the following documents, reports, and studies:
• 2000 Fresno County General Plan Background Report (County of Fresno, 2000); • Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• Draft Master Environmental Impact Report General Plan and Development Code Update, City of Fresno, Fresno County, California (City of Fresno, 2014); • Fresno General Plan Public Review Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (City of Fresno, 2020);
• Fresno Municipal Code (City of Fresno, 2007);
• Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update (Krazen and Associates, 2012); • Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (County of Fresno, 2018); • Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Fresno West Area Specific Plan Project (Cogstone, October 2019 – included in Appendix D; and • Web Soil Survey (NRCS, 2019).
One comment was received during the public review period for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from Cathy Caples (August 2019). The portion of this comment letter which relates to this topic is addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.
3.6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The Plan Area is in the Great Valley Geomorphic Province, which is about 400 miles long and 50 miles wide between the Coast Ranges and Sierra Nevada. The Plan Area is in the San Joaquin Valley, the southerly of two large valleys comprising the province; the Sacramento Valley is the northerly valley. The San Joaquin Valley is surrounded by the Sierra Nevada to the east, the Coast Ranges to the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Sacramento Valley to the north.
1 The Fresno Metropolitan area is set on gently southwest-sloping alluvial fans and plains formed by the San Joaquin and Kings rivers.2
1 California Geological Survey (CGS). 2002, December. Note 36: California Geomorphic Provinces.
Available at: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/cgs_notes/Pages/index.aspx. 2 City of Fresno, 2014. Master Environmental Impact Report General Plan and Development Code Update City of Fresno, Fresno County, California, Section 5.6, Geology and Soils, July 22. https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/Sec-05-06-Geo-Fresno-MEIR.pdf, accessed September 3, 2019.
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Great Valley Geomorphic Province
The Great Valley is an alluvial plain drained by the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, which join and enter San Francisco Bay. The eastern border is the west-sloping Sierran bedrock surface, which continues westward beneath alluvium and older sediments. The western border is underlain by east-dipping Cretaceous and Cenozoic strata that form a deeply buried synclinal trough, lying beneath the Great Valley along its western side.
SITE GEOLOGY
Soil Survey
A Web Soil Survey was completed for the Plan Area using the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey program. The NRCS Soils Map is provided in Figure 3.6-1. Table 3.6- 1 identifies the type and range of soils found in the Plan Area.
TABLE 3.6-1: PLAN AREA SOILS
NAME ACRES IN PLAN AREA PERCENT OF PLAN AREA
Exeter loam 215.7 3.1%
Exeter sandy loam 1,227.6 17.5%
Exeter sandy loam, shallow 150.2 2.1%
Hanford gravelly sandy loam 15.0 0.2%
Hanford sandy loam, benches 17.3 0.2%
Hesperia fine sandy loam, moderately deep 1.7 0.0%
Pollasky fine sandy loam, 2-9% slopes 2.6 0.0%
Pollasky sandy loam, 9-15% slopes 5.3 0.1%
San Joaquin loam, 0-3% slopes 213.4 3.0%
San Joaquin loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes 757.6 10.8%
San Joaquin sandy loam, 0-3% slopes, MLRA 17 1,523.4 21.7% San Joaquin sandy loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes 2,872.8 41.0% Water 12.1 0.2%
SOURCE: NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY, 2019.
Hanford sandy loam. This soil is located on approximately 32.3 acres on the northern corner of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6-1). Hanford soils consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in moderately coarse textured alluvium dominantly from granite. Hanford soils are on stream bottoms, floodplains and alluvial fans at elevations of 150 to 3,500 feet. Slopes range from 0 to 15 percent. The climate is dry subhumid mesothermal with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters.
Exeter Loam. This soil is located throughout the plan area, particularly on the eastern half, covering approximately 1,593.5 acres of the Plan area (see Figure 3.6-1). The Exeter series consists of moderately deep to a duripan, moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvium mainly from granitic sources. Exeter soils are on alluvial fans and stream terraces and have slopes of 0 to 9 percent. This soil is used for irrigated cropland growing oranges, olives and deciduous orchards, GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-3 vineyards and row crops. It is also used for dairy and cattle production and building site development. Vegetation in uncultivated areas is mainly annual grasses and forbs. Moderately well drained; very slow to medium runoff; moderately slow permeability above the duripan.
Permeability of the duripan is very slow.
Hesperia Sandy Loam. This soil is located on approximately 1.7 acres on the northern corner of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6-1). The Hesperia series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in alluvium derived primarily from granite and related rocks. Hesperia soils are on alluvial fans, valley plains and stream terraces and have slopes of 0 to 9 percent. Used for desert range, and for production of irrigated orchards, row crops, field crops, grain, hay, pasture and grapes.
Native vegetation consists of creosotebush in the high desert and sparse annuals in the valley.
Well drained; negligible to low runoff, moderately rapid permeability.
Pollasky Sandy Loam. This soil is located on approximately 7.9 acres on the northern portion of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6-1). The Pollasky series consists of moderately deep, well drained, moderately coarse textured Regosols formed in the residuum from softly to moderately consolidated arkosic sediments. They occur on undulating to steep dissected terraces under annual grasses and forbs. They have brown, slightly acid sandy loam A horizons and pale brown to yellowish brown, slightly acid to neutral, sandy loam C horizons abruptly overlying consolidated granitic sediments. Pollasky soils occur at elevations below 500 feet to semiarid mesothermal climate having a mean annual precipitation ranging from about 9 to 16 inches with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. The Pollasky series is mapped along the eastern edge of the San Joaquin Valley of California where it is moderately extensive. Used as annual range and dry farmed small grain, usually barley, with limited sprinkler irrigated pasture.
San Joaquin Loam. This soil is located throughout the entirety of the plan area on approximately 5,367.2 acres (see Figure 3.6-1). The San Joaquin series consists of moderately deep to a duripan, well and moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvium derived from mixed but dominantly granitic rock sources. They are on undulating low terraces with slopes of 0 to 9 percent. Well and moderately well drained; medium to very high runoff; very slow permeability. Some areas are subject to rare or occasional flooding. Typically used as cropland and livestock grazing; crops are small grains, irrigated pasture and rice; vineyards, fruit and nut crops.
FAULTS AND SEISMICITY
Faults and Fault Systems
A fault is a fracture in the crust of the earth along which rocks on one side have moved relative to those on the other side. A fault trace is the line on the earth's surface defining the fault.
Displacement of the earth's crust along faults releases energy in the form of earthquakes and in some cases in fault creep. Most faults are the result of repeated displacements over a long period of time.
Surface rupture occurs when movement on a fault deep within the earth breaks through to the surface. Surface ruptures have been known to extend up to 50 miles with displacements of an inch
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan to 20 feet. Fault rupture almost always follows preexisting faults, which are zones of weakness.
Rupture may occur suddenly during an earthquake or slowly in the form of fault creep. Sudden displacements are more damaging to structures because they are accompanied by shaking.
The State of California designates faults as active, potentially active, and inactive depending on how recent the movement that can be substantiated for a fault. Table 3.6-2 presents the California fault activity rating system.
TABLE 3.6-2: FAULT ACTIVITY RATING
FAULT ACTIVITY RATING GEOLOGIC PERIOD OF LAST RUPTURE TIME INTERVAL Active (A) Holocene Within last 11,700 Years
Potentially Active (PA) Quaternary Age Undifferentiated Inactive (I) Pre-Quaternary Greater than 1.6 Million Years SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CALIFORNIA.
No active faults are mapped within the City of Fresno.3 Active faults are those showing evidence of surface displacement within the last 11,000 years.4The nearest faults to the Plan Area include the Nunez fault, located approximately 50 miles to the southwest, and the San Joaquin fault, located approximately 50 miles to the west of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6-2). The San Andreas fault zone is located approximately 60 miles to the southwest of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6-2).
Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone
A fault rupture occurs when the surface of the earth breaks as a result of an earthquake, although this does not happen with all earthquakes. These ruptures generally occur in a weak area of an existing fault. Ruptures can be sudden (i.e. earthquake) or slow (i.e. fault creep). The Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act requires active earthquake fault zones to be mapped and it provides special development considerations within these zones. The Plan Area does not have surface expression of active faults and fault rupture is not anticipated.
The nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone to the Plan Area is along the Nunez Fault about 50 miles to the southwest (see Figure 3.6-2).
Seismicity
The amount of energy available to a fault is determined by considering the slip-rate of the fault, its area (fault length multiplied by down-dip width), maximum magnitude, and the rigidity of the displaced rocks. These factors are combined to calculate the moment (energy) release on a fault.
The total seismic energy release for a fault source is sometimes partitioned between two different recurrence models, the characteristic and truncated Gutenberg-Richter (G-R) magnitudefrequency distributions. These models incorporate our knowledge of the range of magnitudes and relative frequency of different magnitudes for a particular fault. The partition of moment and the weights for multiple models are given in the following summary. 3 U.S. Geologic Survey, 2019.
4 California Geological Survey, 2019. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo, accessed September 3, 2019.
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-5 Earthquakes are generally expressed in terms of intensity and magnitude. Intensity is based on the observed effects of ground shaking on people, buildings, and natural features. By comparison, magnitude is based on the amplitude of the earthquake waves recorded on instruments, which have a common calibration. The Richter scale, a logarithmic scale ranging from 0.1 to 9.0, with 9.0 being the strongest, measures the magnitude of an earthquake relative to ground shaking. Table
3.6-3 provides a description and a comparison of intensity and magnitude.
The California Building Standards Code (CBSC) places all of California in the zone of greatest earthquake severity because recent studies indicate high potential for severe ground shaking.
TABLE 3.6-3: RICHTER MAGNITUDE SCALE FOR EARTHQUAKES
RICHTER
MAGNITUDE
EFFECTS OF INTENSITY
0.1 – 0.9 Earthquake shaking not felt
1.0 – 2.9 Shaking felt by those at rest.
3.0 – 3.9 Felt by most people indoors, some can estimate duration of shaking.
4.0 – 4.5 Felt by most people indoors. Hanging objects rattle, wooden walls and frames creak.
4.6 – 4.9 Felt by everyone indoors, the duration of shaking can be estimated by most people. Standing autos rock. Crockery clashes, dishes rattle and glasses clink. Doors open, close and swing.
5.0 – 5.5 Felt by all who estimate duration of shaking. Sleepers awaken, liquids spill, objects are displaced, and weak materials crack.
5.6 – 6.4 People frightened and walls unsteady. Pictures and books thrown, dishes and glass are broken. Weak chimneys break. Plaster, loose bricks and parapets fall.
6.5 – 6.9 Difficult to stand. Waves on ponds, cohesionless soils slump. Stucco and masonry walls fall.
Chimneys, stacks, towers, and elevated tanks twist and fall.
7.0 – 7.4 General fright as people are thrown down, hard to drive. Trees broken, damage to foundations and frames. Reservoirs damaged, underground pipes broken.
7.5 – 7.9 General panic. Ground cracks, masonry and frame buildings destroyed. Bridges destroyed, railroads bent slightly. Dams, dikes and embankments damaged.
8.0 – 8.4 Large landslides, water thrown, general destruction of buildings. Pipelines destroyed, railroads bent.
8.5 + Total nearby damage, rock masses displaced. Lines of sight/level distorted. Objects thrown into air.
SOURCE: UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.
SEISMIC HAZARDS
Seismic Ground Shaking
The Fresno region has historically been subject to low to moderate ground shaking. Two of the historic earthquakes that caused ground shaking in the region, the Owens Valley Earthquake of 1872 and the Coalinga Earthquake of 1983, each generated ground shaking of intensity VII in the region. Seismic ground shaking in the Plan Area is expected over the lifetime of the Specific Plan implementation.
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Liquefaction
Liquefaction typically requires a significant sudden decrease of shearing resistance in cohesionless soils and a sudden increase in water pressure, which is typically associated with an earthquake of high magnitude. The potential for liquefaction is highest when groundwater levels are high, and loose, fine, sandy soils occur at depths of less than 50 feet. Liquefaction potential in the City of Fresno is considered low to moderate.5 No liquefaction has been observed in Fresno from any historic earthquake.6 Additionally, liquefaction zones have not been identified in Fresno County by the State.7
Seismic Ground Settlement
Ground shaking can cause unconsolidated sediments to settle. Due to the nature of the soils underlying the City, and the history of low to moderate ground shaking, seismic settlement is not considered a significant hazard in the region.8
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading typically results when ground shaking moves soil toward an area where the soil integrity is weak or unsupported, and it typically occurs on the surface of a slope, although it does not occur strictly on steep slopes. Oftentimes, lateral spreading is directly associated with areas of liquefaction. Lateral spreading is not considered a substantial hazard in the region for the same reasons given for seismic ground settlement.
Landslides
Landslides include rockfalls, deep slope failure, and shallow slope failure. Factors such as the geological conditions, drainage, slope, vegetation, and others directly affect the potential for landslides. One of the most common causes of landslides is construction activity that is associated with road building (i.e. cut and fill). The potential for landslides is considered remote in the Plan Area, as the site has a relatively flat slope. Additionally, landslide zones have not been identified in Fresno County by the State.9
5 Krazen and Associates, Inc. June 15, 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update. 6 County of Fresno. 2018. Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=24743
7 California Department of Conservation. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps. Accessed May 27, 2002. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/ 8 Krazen and Associates, Inc. 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update.
Accessed on September 3, 2019.
9 California Department of Conservation. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps. Accessed May 27, 2002. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/ GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-7
NON-SEISMIC HAZARDS
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils can undergo significant volume change with changes in moisture content. They shrink and harden when dried and expand and soften when wet. Soils underlying the Fresno region consist partly of clays that are considered slightly to moderately expansive.10 The Plan Area is not mapped as having moderate to high expansion potential (County of Fresno, 2018).
Erosion
Erosion naturally occurs on the surface of the earth as surface materials (i.e. rock, soil, debris, etc.) are loosened, dissolved, or worn away, and transported from one place to another by gravity. Two common types of soil erosion include wind erosion and water erosion. The steepness of a slope is an important factor that affects soil erosion. Erosion potential in soils is influenced primarily by loose soil texture and steep slopes. Loose soils can be eroded by water or wind forces, whereas soils with high clay content are generally susceptible only to water erosion. The potential for erosion generally increases as a result of human activity, primarily through the development of facilities and impervious surfaces and the removal of vegetative cover.
The Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies two types of areas with moderate to high erosion potential: 1) certain soil types in the Sierra Nevada and foothills (both Sierra Nevada and Coast Ranges) on slopes generally over 30 percent, and 2) certain soil types in the western San Joaquin Valley and the Coast Ranges, both in western Fresno County. The Plan Area is not mapped in an area of moderate to high erosion potential (County of Fresno, 2018).
Subsidence
Land subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of an area with little or no horizontal motion due to changes taking place underground. It is a natural process, although it can also occur (and is greatly accelerated) as a result of human activities. Common causes of land subsidence from human activity include: pumping water, oil, and gas from underground reservoirs; dissolution of limestone aquifers (sinkholes); collapse of underground mines; drainage of organic soils; and initial wetting of dry soils. The Fresno region is not known to be subject to subsidence hazards. Areas of subsidence in Fresno County mapped in the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan are in western Fresno County over 20 miles west and southwest from the Plan Area (County of Fresno, 2018).
MINERAL RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION
Pursuant to Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), the California State Mining and Geology Board oversees the mineral resource zone (MRZ) classification system. The MRZ system characterizes both the location and known/presumed economic value of underlying mineral resources. The mineral resource classification system uses four main MRZs based on the degree of available geologic information, the likelihood of significant mineral resource occurrence, and the 10 Krazen and Associates, Inc. 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update. Accessed on September 3, 2019.
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan known or inferred quantity of significant mineral resources. The four classifications are described in Table 3.6-4.
TABLE 3.6-4: MINERAL RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION
MRZ-1
Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.
MRZ-2
Areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence.
MRZ-3 Areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated.
MRZ-4
Areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ classification.
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, 2002.
MINERAL RESOURCES
Mineral resources include commercially viable oil and gas deposits, and nonfuel mineral resources deposits. Nonfuel mineral resources include metals such as gold, silver, iron, and copper; industrial metals such as boron compounds, rare-earth elements, clays, limestone, gypsum, salt, and dimension stone; and construction aggregate, including sand, gravel, and crushed stone. California is the largest producer of sand and gravel in the nation.
According to Fresno County’s existing General Plan Background Report, Fresno County has been a leading producer of minerals because of the abundance and wide variety of mineral resources that are present in the county. Extracted resources include aggregate products (sand and gravel), fossil fuels (oil and coal), metals (chromite, copper, gold, mercury, and tungsten), and other minerals used in construction or industrial applications (asbestos, high-grade clay, diatomite, granite, gypsum, and limestone). Aggregate and petroleum have been historically considered the county’s most significant extractive mineral resources.
The principal area for mineral resources in the City is located in and immediately adjacent to the San Joaquin River Corridor. However, the Plan Area is located outside of the immediate vicinity of the San Joaquin River corridor.
The City of Fresno permits mining only within the Mining (M) Overlay District (Citywide Development Code). The Plan Area does not include any land within the M Overlay District. MRZ-2 zones are those areas documented to have regionally significant mineral resources; the Plan Area is not within a MRZ-2 zone. The boundaries of the Plan Area are classified as MRZ-3, which are defined as potential, but unproven mineral resource reserves (State of California, Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 99-02).
LOCATION OF PERMITTED AGGREGATE MINES
The California Office of Mine Reclamation periodically publishes a list of qualified permitted aggregate mines regulated under SMARA that is generally referred to as the AB 3098 List. The Public Contract Code precludes mining operations that are not on the AB 3098 List from selling sand, gravel, aggregates or other mined materials to State or local agencies. As of February 27, GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-9 2020, there are no aggregate mines on the AB 3098 list within the Plan Area. The closest mine is located approximately 0.5 miles west of the Plan Area (the Glamis Pit-Reclaimed Mine; Mine ID # 91-13-0094).
3.6.2 REGULATORY SETTING
The following is an overview of the State and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.
STATE
The State of California has established a variety of regulations and requirements related to seismic safety and structural integrity, including the California Building Code, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act.
California Building Standards Code
The California Building Standards Code (CBSC) is included in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and includes the California Building Code (CBC). Under State law, all building standards must be centralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable.
The CBSC is a compilation of three types of building criteria from three different origins:
• Building standards that have been adopted by State agencies without change from building standards contained in national model codes;
• Building standards that have been adopted and adapted from the national model code standards to meet California conditions; and
• Building standards, authorized by the California legislature, that constitute extensive additions not covered by the model codes that have been adopted to address particular California concerns.
Through the CBSC, the State provides a minimum standard for building design and construction.
The CBSC contains specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site demolition. It also regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control.
The potential for seismic ground shaking is expected in California. As a result of the foreseeable seismicity in California, the State requires special design considerations for all structural improvements in accordance with the seismic design provisions in the CBSC. These seismic design provisions require enhanced structural integrity based on several risk parameters.
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 sets forth the policies and criteria of the State Mining and Geology Board, which governs the exercise of governments’ responsibilities to prohibit the location of developments and structures for human occupancy across the trace of active faults. The policies and criteria are limited to potential hazards resulting from surface
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan faulting or fault creep within Earthquake Fault Zones, as delineated on maps officially issued by the State Geologist. Working definitions include:
• Fault – a fracture or zone of closely associated fractures along which rocks on one side have been displaced with respect to those on the other side; • Fault Zone – a zone of related faults, which commonly are braided and sub parallel, but may be branching and divergent. A fault zone has a significant width (with respect to the scale at which the fault is being considered, portrayed, or investigated), ranging from a few feet to several miles;
• Sufficiently Active Fault – a fault that has evidence of Holocene surface displacement along one or more of its segments or branches (last 11,000 years); and • Well-Defined Fault – a fault whose trace is clearly detectable by a trained geologist as a physical feature at or just below the ground surface. The geologist should be able to locate the fault in the field with sufficient precision and confidence to indicate that the required site-specific investigations would meet with some success. “Sufficiently Active” and “Well Defined” are the two criteria used by the State to determine if a fault should be zoned under the Alquist-Priolo Act.
The California legislature passed the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act in 1972 to address seismic hazards associated with faults and to establish criteria for developments for areas with identified seismic hazard zones. The California Geologic Survey (CGS) evaluates faults with available geologic and seismologic data and determines if a fault should be zoned as active, potentially active, or inactive. If CGS determines a fault to be active, then it is typically incorporated into a Special Studies Zone in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Act. Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones are usually one-quarter mile or less in width and require site-specific evaluation of fault location and require a structure setback if the fault is found traversing a Project site.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, passed in 1990, addresses non-surface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including liquefaction and seismically-induced landslides. Under the Act, seismic hazard zones are to be mapped by the State Geologist to assist local governments in land use planning.
The program and actions mandated by the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act closely resemble those of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (which addresses only surface fault-rupture hazards) and are outlined below:
The State Geologist is required to delineate the various “seismic hazard zones.” • Cities and Counties, or other local permitting authority, must regulate certain development “projects” within the zones. They must withhold the development permits for a site within a zone until the geologic and soil conditions of the site are investigated and appropriate mitigation measures, if any, are incorporated into development plans. • The State Mining and Geology Board provides additional regulations, policies, and criteria, to guide cities and counties in their implementation of the law. The Board also provides GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-11 guidelines for preparation of the Seismic Hazard Zone Maps and for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards.
• Sellers (and their agents) of real property within a mapped hazard zone must disclose that the property lies within such a zone at the time of sale.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required for discharges of pollutants to navigable waters of the United States, which includes any discharge to surface waters, including lakes, rivers, streams, bays, the ocean, dry stream beds, wetlands, and storm sewers that are tributary to any surface water body. NPDES permits are issued under the Federal Clean Water Act, Title IV, Permits and Licenses, Section 402 (33 USC 466 et seq.) The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issues these permits in lieu of direct issuance by the Environmental Protection Agency, subject to review and approval by the Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator. The terms of these NPDES permits implement pertinent provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act and the Act’s implementing regulations, including pretreatment, sludge management, effluent limitations for specific industries, and anti-degradation.
In general, the discharge of pollutants is to be eliminated or reduced as much as practicable so as to achieve the Clean Water Act’s goal of “fishable and swimmable” navigable (surface) waters.
Technically, all NPDES permits issued by the RWQCB are also Waste Discharge Requirements issued under the authority of the California Water Code.
These NPDES permits regulate discharges from publicly owned treatment works, industrial discharges, stormwater runoff, dewatering operations, and groundwater cleanup discharges.
NPDES permits are issued for five years or less, and are therefore to be updated regularly. The rapid and dramatic population and urban growth in the Central Valley Region has caused a significant increase in NPDES permit applications for new waste discharges. To expedite the permit issuance process, the RWQCB has adopted several general NPDES permits, each of which regulates numerous discharges of similar types of wastes. The SWRCB issues general permits for stormwater runoff from construction sites statewide. Stormwater discharges from industrial and construction activities in the Central Valley Region can be covered under these general permits, which are administered jointly by the SWRCB and RWQCB.
In accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit requirements, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for projects that disturb at least one acre of soil. The SWPPP must be submitted to the RWQCB.
Mandated by Congress under the Clean Water Act, the NPDES Stormwater Program is a comprehensive two-phased national program for addressing the non-agricultural sources of stormwater discharges which adversely affect the quality of our nation's waters. The program uses the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting mechanism to require the implementation of controls designed to prevent harmful pollutants, including soil erosion, from being washed by stormwater runoff into local water bodies. The construction activities that would
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan occur as part of Specific Plan implementation would be governed by the General Permit 2009- 0009-DWQ (amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ), which states:
“…Particular attention must be paid to large, mass graded sites where the potential for soil exposure to the erosive effects of rainfall and wind is great and where there is potential for significant sediment discharge from the site to surface waters. Until permanent vegetation is established, soil cover is the most cost-effective and expeditious method to protect soil particles from detachment and transport by rainfall. Temporary soil stabilization can be the single most important factor in reducing erosion at construction sites. The discharger is required to consider measures such as: covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. These erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. Erosion control BMPs should be the primary means of preventing storm water contamination, and sediment control techniques should be used to capture any soil that becomes eroded…”
General Permit 2009-0009-DWQ (amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ) further states that:
“Sediment control BMPs should be the secondary means of preventing storm water contamination. When erosion control techniques are ineffective, sediment control techniques should be used to capture any soil that becomes eroded. The discharger is required to consider perimeter control measures such as: installing silt fences or placing straw wattles below slopes. These sediment control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed…Inappropriate management of run-on and runoff can result in excessive physical impacts to receiving waters from sediment and increased flows. The discharger is required to manage all run-on and runoff from a project site. Examples include: installing berms and other temporary run-on and runoff diversions…All measures must be periodically inspected, maintained and repaired to ensure that receiving water quality is protected. Frequent inspections coupled with thorough documentation and timely repair is necessary to ensure that all measures are functioning as intended…” State Laws Pertaining to Paleontological Resources
Section 5097.5 of the California Public Resources Code prohibits “knowing and willful” excavation, removal, destruction, injury, and defacement of any “vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints,” on public lands, except where the agency with jurisdiction has granted express permission. “As used in this section, ‘public lands’ means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.”
Section 30244 of the California Public Resources Code requires reasonable mitigation for impacts on paleontological resources that occur as a result of development on public lands.
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-13 The California Administrative Code relating to the State Division of Beaches and Parks affords protection to geologic features and “paleontological materials” but grant the director of the State park system authority to issue permits for specific activities that may result in damage to such resources, if the activities are in the interest of the State park system and for State park purposes (California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 4307–4309).
LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan establishes the following objectives and policies directly related to geology and soils.
NOISE AND SAFETY ELEMENT
Objective NS-2: Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic risks.
Policy NS-2-a: Seismic Protection. Ensure seismic protection is incorporated into new and existing construction, consistent with the Fresno Municipal Code.
Policy NS-2-b: Soil Analysis Requirement. Identify areas with potential geologic and/or soils hazards, and require development in these areas to conduct a soil analysis and mitigation plan by a registered civil engineer (or engineering geologist specializing in soil geology) prior to allowing on-site drainage or disposal for wastewater, stormwater runoff, or swimming pool/spa water.
PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT
Objective PU-5: Preserve groundwater quality and ensure that the health and safety of the entire Fresno community is not impaired by use of private, on-site disposal systems.
Policy PU-5-a: Mandatory Septic Conversion. Continue to evaluate and pursue where determined appropriate the mandatory abatement of existing private wastewater disposal (septic) systems and mandatory connection to the public sewage collection and disposal system.
Policy PU-5-b: Non-Regional Treatment. Discourage, and when determined appropriate, oppose the use of private wastewater (septic) disposal systems, community wastewater disposal systems, or other nonregional sewage treatment and disposal systems within or adjacent to the Metropolitan Area if these types of wastewater treatment facilities would cause discharges that could result in groundwater degradation.
Fresno Municipal Code
The City of Fresno has incorporated and adopted the 2016 CBC with the City's amendments as Municipal Code Section 11-102, referred to as the Fresno Building Code.
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan A preliminary soils report is required under Municipal Code Section 12-1022 for every subdivision for which a final map is required. Grading and erosion control requirements are set forth in Section 12-1023.
3.6.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Specific Plan will have a significant impact on geology, soils, and seismicity if it will:
• Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
o Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault;
o Strong seismic ground shaking;
o Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; and/or o Landslides;
• Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; • Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;
• Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property; and/or • Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
There would be no impact associated with the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, since septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems would not be implemented within the Plan Area as part of Specific Plan implementation. Therefore, this issue will not be addressed further.
Additionally, consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project will have a significant impact on mineral resources if it would:
• Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State; and/or
• Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-15
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 3.6-1: Specific Plan implementation would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking or seismic related ground failure. (Less than Significant)
The Plan Area is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone. There are no known faults (active, potentially active, or inactive) that traverse the city. Faults with known or estimated activity during the Holocene are generally located in the San Francisco Bay Area to the west, or in the Lake Tahoe area to the east. However, the CBSC places all of California in the zone of greatest earthquake severity because recent studies indicate high potential for severe ground shaking.
There is the potential for groundshaking caused by seismic activity anywhere in California, including the Plan Area. In order to minimize potential damage to the buildings and site improvements, all construction in California is required to be designed in accordance with the latest seismic design standards of the CBC. Design in accordance with these standards would reduce any potential impact to a less than significant level. Refer to Impact 3.6-3 for a discussion of impacts related to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, and liquefaction.
Impact 3.6-2: Specific Plan construction and implementation has the potential to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Although the Plan Area is not mapped in an area of moderate to high erosion potential, soil erosion and the loss of topsoil is one of the most common sources of polluted stormwater runoff during construction activities. When left uncontrolled, storm water runoff can erode soil and cause sedimentation in waterways, which collectively result in the destruction of fish, wildlife, and aquatic life habitats; a loss in aesthetic value; and threats to public health due to contaminated food, drinking water supplies, and recreational waterways.
As noted above in the Regulatory Setting, the future construction activities that would occur as part of Specific Plan implementation would be governed by the General Permit 2009-0009-DWQ (amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ). Construction activities associated with implementation of the Specific plan, would be required to comply with all requirements set forth in the NPDES permit for construction activities, including preparation of a SWPPP containing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and sediments to meet water quality standards.
Such BMPs may include: temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover. The BMPs and overall SWPPP is reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of the permitting process. The SWPPP, once approved, is kept on site and implemented during construction activities and must be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB and/or the lead agency.
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Nevertheless, in accordance with the NPDES Stormwater Program, Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 requires an approved SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The RWQCB has stated that these erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and are existing regulatory requirements. Additionally, as discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality, construction activities would be subject to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District rules and regulations pertaining to dust control. Specifically, Under Rule 8021, a Dust Control Plan is required for any residential project that will include 10 or more acres of disturbed surface area, a nonresidential project with 5 or more acres of disturbed surface area, or a project that relocates 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials for at least three days. The Dust Control Plan is required to be submitted to SJVAPCD prior to the start of any construction activity. The Dust Control Plan must also describe fugitive dust control measure to be implemented before, during, and after any dust-generating activity. For sites smaller than those listed above, the project is still required to notify SJVAPCD a minimum of 48 hours prior to commencing earthmoving activities.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6-1, and compliance with the Dust Control Plan required by SJVAPCD Rule 8021, would ensure that construction during Specific Plan implementation would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Prior to clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation for each phase of the Project, the Project proponent shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the RWQCB to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ). The SWPPP shall be designed with Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the RWQCB has deemed as effective at reducing erosion, controlling sediment, and managing runoff.
These include: covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. Sediment control BMPs, installing silt fences or placing straw wattles below slopes, installing berms and other temporary run-on and runoff diversions. These BMPs are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. Final selection of BMPs will be subject to approval by City of Fresno and the RWQCB. The SWPPP will be kept on site during construction activity and will be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB.
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-17 Impact 3.6-3: Specific Plan implementation has the potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of Specific Plan implementation, and potentially result in landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
LIQUEFACTION
As stated above, the Plan Area is not located within an area mapped by the State as having the potential for liquefaction. Liquefaction potential in the City of Fresno is considered low to moderate and liquefaction has not been observed in Fresno from any historic earthquake.
Additionally, liquefaction zones have not been identified in Fresno County by the State.11 Nevertheless, Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 is included below. This measure requires that future project proponents in the Plan Area complete and submit a final geotechnical evaluation of the soils at a design-level, as required by the requirements of the California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 18, Section 1803.1.1.2.
LATERAL SPREADING
Lateral spreading is not considered a substantial hazard in the region. However, since the potential for liquefaction is low to moderate within the Plan Area, the potential for lateral spreading is also present. As such, Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 is included below. This measure requires that future project proponents in the Plan Area complete and submit a final geotechnical evaluation of the soils at a design-level, as required by the requirements of the California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 18, Section 1803.1.1.2.
LANDSLIDES
As noted previously, landslide zones have not been identified in Fresno County by the State.12 The Plan Area is essentially flat; therefore, the potential for a landslide within the Plan Area is virtually non-existent.
SUBSIDENCE
Areas of subsidence in Fresno County mapped in the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan are in western Fresno County over 20 miles west and southwest from the Plan Area.13 The Fresno region is not known to be subject to subsidence hazards. Areas of subsidence in Fresno County mapped in the 11 California Department of Conservation. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps. Accessed May 27, 2002. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/ 12 California Department of Conservation. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps. Accessed May 27, 2002. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/ 13 County of Fresno. 2018. Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=24743
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan are in western Fresno County over 20 miles west and southwest from the Plan Area (County of Fresno, 2018).
CONCLUSION
The Plan Area does not have a significant risk of becoming unstable as a result landslide, subsidence, or soil collapse. There is a potential for liquefaction, liquefaction induced settlement, and lateral spreading. However, through the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-2, implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Prior to earthmoving activities associated with future development activities within the Plan Area , a certified geotechnical engineer, or equivalent, shall be retained to perform a final geotechnical evaluation of the soils at a design-level as required by the requirements of the California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 18, Section 1803.1.1.2 related to expansive soils and other soil conditions. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements outlined in California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16, Chapter 17, and Chapter 18, which addresses structural design, tests and inspections, and soils and foundation standards. The final geotechnical evaluation shall include design recommendations to ensure that soil conditions do not pose a threat to the health and safety of people or structures, including threats from liquefaction or lateral spreading. The grading and improvement plans, as well as the storm drainage and building plans shall be designed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the final geotechnical evaluation.
Impact 3.6-4: The Specific Plan would not be located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property. (Less than Significant) Soils underlying the Fresno region consist partly of clays that are considered slightly to moderately expansive.14 The Plan Area is not mapped as having moderate to high expansion potential.15 The California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 18, Section 1803.1.1.2 requires specific geotechnical evaluation when a preliminary geotechnical evaluation determines that expansive or other special soil conditions are present, which, if not corrected, would lead to structural defects.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-2, presented above, provides the requirement for a final geotechnical evaluation in accordance with the standards and requirements outlined in the California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16, Chapter 17, and Chapter 18, which addresses structural design, tests and inspections, and soils and foundation standards. The final geotechnical evaluation would include design recommendations to ensure that soil conditions do not pose a threat to the health and safety of people or structures. The grading and improvement plans, as well as the storm 14 Krazen and Associates, Inc. 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update. Accessed on September 3, 2019.
15 County of Fresno. 2018. Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=24743
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-19 drainage and building plans, are required to be designed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the final geotechnical evaluation. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6- 2 (requiring a final Geotechnical Evaluation and implementation of site recommendations), implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.6-2.
Impact 3.6-5: Project implementation has the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Although no paleontological resources have been recorded within the Plan Area, unknown resources may be present. It is possible that undiscovered paleontological resources could be encountered during ground-disturbing activities.
Damage to or destruction of a paleontological resource would be considered a potentially significant impact under local, State, or federal criteria. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6- 3 would ensure steps would be taken to reduce impacts to paleontological resources in the event that they are discovered during construction. This mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.6-3: If any paleontological resources are found during grading and construction activities, all work shall be halted immediately within a 200-foot radius of the discovery until a qualified paleontologist has evaluated the find.
Work shall not continue at the discovery site until the paleontologist evaluates the find and makes a determination regarding the significance of the resource and identifies recommendations for conservation of the resource, including preserving in place or relocating within the Plan Area, if feasible, or collecting the resource to the extent feasible and documenting the find with the University of California Museum of Paleontology.
Impact 3.6-6: Specific Plan implementation would not have the potential to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State, or in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. (Less than Significant)
The City of Fresno permits mining only within the Mining (M) Overlay District (Citywide Development Code). Moreover, the boundaries of the Plan Area are classified as MRZ-3, which are defined as potential, but unproven mineral resource reserves (State of California, Division of Mines
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan and Geology, Open File Report 99-02). MRZ-2 zones are those areas documented to have regionally significant mineral resources.
As of February 27, 2020, there are no aggregate mines on the AB 3098 list within the Plan Area.
The closest mine is located approximately 0.5 miles west of the Plan Area (the Glamis PitReclaimed Mine; Mine ID # 91-13-0094). Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this environmental topic.
N Marks Ave
W Bullard Ave
N Da
nte Ave W Shields Ave
N Gates Ave
N Cornelia Ave
W Shaw Ave
N Brawley Ave
W Gettysburg Ave
N Blythe Ave
W Herndon Ave
W San Jose Ave
N Polk Ave
W Dakota Ave
W Spruce Ave
W Figarden Dr
N Valentine Ave
W Clinton Ave
N Weber Ave
N Bryan Ave
W Ashlan Ave
N Hayes Ave
W Sierra Ave
N Emerson Ave
N Golden State Blvd
N
Figa rden Dr
W Barstow Ave
N
Marty Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N Riverside Dr
N 99 Hwy
N Grantland Ave
CITY OF FRESNO
SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
UV99
Sources: ArcGIS Online USA Soils; Fresno County; City of Fresno. Map date: March 1, 2021.
BOUNDARIES
Specific Plan of the West Area
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
MAP UNIT GROUP
Delhi loamy sand
Exeter loam
Hanford loam
Hesperia loam
Pits
Pollasky loam
San Joaquin loam
Water
Figure 3.6-1. Soil Types
q 0 ¼ ½
Miles
NRCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION
ACRES
WITHIN THE
SPECIFIC
PLAN OF THE
WEST AREA
Delhi loamy sand 10.1
Delhi loamy sand, 0-3% slopes, MLRA 17 0.6
Delhi loamy sand, 3-9% slopes 9.5
Exeter loam 1,616.2
Exeter loam 232.8
Exeter sandy loam 1,232.9
Exeter sandy loam, shallow 150.5
Hanford loam 43.3
Hanford fine sandy loam, silty substratum 5.2
Hanford gravelly sandy loam 17.9
Hanford sandy loam, benches 20.1
Hesperia loam 4.8
Hesperia fine sandy loam, deep 4.8
Pits 9.7
Pits 9.7
Pollasky loam 8.5
Pollasky fine sandy loam, 2-9% slopes 2.6
Pollasky sandy loam, 9-15% slopes 5.9
San Joaquin loam 5,372.7
San Joaquin loam, 0-3% slopes 213.3
San Joaquin loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes 757.3
San Joaquin sandy loam, 0-3% slopes 1,522.3
San Joaquin sandy loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes 2,879.8
Water 12.1
Water 12.1
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
Nunez fault
San Joaquin fault
Panoche Hills fault
Mariposa County
Madera County
Merced County
Fresno County
San Benito
County
Monterey
County
Kings County
§¨¦5
UV59
UV152
UV198
UV145
UV41
UV33
UV41
UV168
UV99
UV233
UV63
UV65
UV49
UV25
UV99
UV201
UV137
UV33
UV216
UV41
UV198
UV140
UV69
UV180
UV33
UV41
UV269
UV145
UV43
UV49
UV165
UV132
UV198
UV140
UV180
Mammoth
Lakes
Kingsburg
Huron
Exeter
Coalinga
Riverdale
Los Banos
Reedley
Mendota
Clovis
Lemoore
Avenal
Tulare
Chowchilla
Pixley
Parlier
Selma
Turlock
Fowler
Hardwick
Kerman
Goshen
Monmouth
Sanger
Waterford
Hanford
Laton
Lindsay
San Joaquin
Atwater
Visalia
Firebaugh
Madera
Fresno
Merced
Willow
C r
Salinas R
Kings R
San Joa quin R, S Fk
Sa nJoaquin R , M
Fk
Chowchilla R
Merced R
Tule R
Tuolumne R
Kawe ah R
Merced R
San Joaquin
R
Ki ngs R
San Joaquin R
Figure 3.6-2. Known Faults
Data sources: US Geologic Survey; CalAtlas. Map date: August 2, 2019.
LEGEND
Specific Plan of the West Area
QuaternaryFaults
Hartley Springs fault zone
Hilton Creek fault zone
O'Neill fault system
Ortigalita fault zone
Rinconada fault zone
San Andreas fault zone
Alquist-Priolo Zone
CITY OF FRESNO
SPECIFIC PLAN
OF THE WEST AREA
Long Valley Caldera
ring fault
Tulare County
p 0 5 10
Miles
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-1 This section provides a background discussion of greenhouse gases and climate change linkages and effects of global climate change. This section is organized with an existing setting, regulatory setting, approach/methodology, and impact analysis. The analysis and discussion of the greenhouse gas (GHG), climate change, and energy conservation impacts in this section focuses on the proposed Specific Plan’s consistency with local, regional, and statewide climate change planning efforts and discusses the context of these planning efforts as they relate to the proposed project. Disclosure and discussion of the Specific Plan’s estimated energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions are provided.
Comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVPACD) (July 15, 2019), and Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019). Each of the comments related to this topic are addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.
3.7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE LINKAGES
Various gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric GHGs, play a critical role in determining the Earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters Earth’s atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The Earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation.
Naturally occurring GHGs include water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Several classes of halogenated substances that contain fluorine, chlorine, or bromine are also GHGs, but they are, for the most part, solely a product of industrial activities. Although the direct GHGs CO2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally in the atmosphere, human activities have changed their atmospheric concentrations. From the pre-industrial era (i.e., ending about 1750) to 2011, concentrations of these three GHGs have increased globally by 40, 150, and 20 percent, respectively (IPCC, 2013).
GHGs, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by the industrial and electricity generation sectors (California Energy Commission, 2020).
As the name implies, global climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern,
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan respectively. California produced 440 million gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO2e) in 2016 (California Air Resources Board, 2018a).
Carbon dioxide equivalents are a measurement used to account for the fact that different GHGs have different potential to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. This potential, known as the global warming potential of a GHG, is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted.
Consumption of fossil fuels in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California’s GHG emissions in 2017, accounting for 41% of total GHG emissions in the state. This category was followed by the industrial sector (24%), the electricity generation sector (including both in-state and out of-state sources) (15%), the agriculture sector (8%), the residential energy consumption sector (7%), and the commercial energy consumption sector (5%) (California Air Resources Board, 2020c).
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
The effects of increasing global temperature are far-reaching and extremely difficult to quantify.
The scientific community continues to study the effects of global climate change. In general, increases in the ambient global temperature as a result of increased GHGs are anticipated to result in rising sea levels, which could threaten coastal areas through accelerated coastal erosion, threats to levees and inland water systems and disruption to coastal wetlands and habitat.
If the temperature of the ocean warms, it is anticipated that the winter snow season would be shortened. Snowpack in the Sierra Nevada provides both water supply (runoff) and storage (within the snowpack before melting), which is a major source of supply for the State. The snowpack portion of the supply could potentially decline by 50% to 75% by the end of the 21st century (National Resources Defense Council, 2014). This phenomenon could lead to significant challenges securing an adequate water supply for a growing state population. Further, the increased ocean temperature could result in increased moisture flux into the State; however, since this would likely increasingly come in the form of rain rather than snow in the high elevations, increased precipitation could lead to increased potential and severity of flood events, placing more pressure on California’s levee/flood control system.
Sea level has risen approximately seven inches during the last century and it is predicted to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by 2100, depending on the future GHG emissions levels (California Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). If this occurs, resultant effects could include increased coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion and disruption of wetlands. As the existing climate throughout California changes over time, mass migration of species, or failure of species to migrate in time to adapt to the perturbations in climate, could also result. Under the emissions scenarios of the Climate Scenarios report (California Environmental Protection Agency, 2010), the impacts of global warming in California are anticipated to include, but are not limited to, the following.
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-3 Public Health
Higher temperatures are expected to increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to air pollution formation. For example, days with weather conducive to ozone formation are projected to increase from 25% to 35% under the lower warming range and to 75% to 85% under the medium warming range. In addition, if global background ozone levels increase as predicted in some scenarios, it may become impossible to meet local air quality standards. Air quality could be further compromised by increases in wildfires, which emit fine particulate matter that can travel long distances depending on wind conditions. The Climate Scenarios report indicates that large wildfires could become up to 55% more frequent if GHG emissions are not significantly reduced.
In addition, under the higher warming scenario, there could be up to 100 more days per year with temperatures above 90oF in Los Angeles and 95oF in Sacramento by 2100. This is a large increase over historical patterns and approximately twice the increase projected if temperatures remain within or below the lower warming range. Rising temperatures will increase the risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke/exhaustion, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress caused by extreme heat.
Water Resources
A vast network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts capture and transport water throughout the State from northern California rivers and the Colorado River. The current distribution system relies on Sierra Nevada snow pack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months. Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snow pack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages.
The State’s water supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater would degrade California’s estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. Saltwater intrusion caused by rising sea levels is a major threat to the quality and reliability of water within the southern edge of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta, a major State fresh water supply. Global warming is also projected to seriously affect agricultural areas, with California farmers projected to lose as much as 25% of the water supply they need; decrease the potential for hydropower production within the State (although the effects on hydropower are uncertain); and seriously harm winter tourism. Under the lower warming range, the snow dependent winter recreational season at lower elevations could be reduced by as much as one month. If temperatures reach the higher warming range and precipitation declines, there might be many years with insufficient snow for skiing, snowboarding, and other snow dependent recreational activities.
If GHG emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snow pack by as much as 70% to 90%. Under the lower warming scenario, snow pack losses are expected to be only half as large as those expected if temperatures were to rise to the higher warming range. How much snow pack will be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projections for which remain uncertain. However, even under the wetter climate projections, the loss of snow pack would pose challenges to water managers, hamper hydropower generation, and nearly eliminate all skiing and other snow-related recreational activities.
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Agriculture
Increased GHG emissions are expected to cause widespread changes to the agriculture industry reducing the quantity and quality of agricultural products statewide. Although higher carbon dioxide levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency, California’s farmers will face greater water demand for crops and a less reliable water supply as temperatures rise.
Plant growth tends to be slow at low temperatures, increasing with rising temperatures up to a threshold. However, faster growth can result in less-than-optimal development for many crops, so rising temperatures are likely to worsen the quantity and quality of yield for a number of California’s agricultural products. Products likely to be most affected include wine grapes, fruits, and nuts.
Crop growth and development will be affected, as will the intensity and frequency of pest and disease outbreaks. Rising temperatures will likely aggravate ozone pollution, which makes plants more susceptible to disease and pests and interferes with plant growth.
In addition, continued global warming will likely shift the ranges of existing invasive plants and weeds and alter competition patterns with native plants. Range expansion is expected in many species while range contractions are less likely in rapidly evolving species with significant populations already established. Should range contractions occur, it is likely that new or different weed species will fill the emerging gaps. Continued global warming is also likely to alter the abundance and types of many pests, lengthen pests’ breeding season, and increase pathogen growth rates.
Forests and Landscapes
Global warming is expected to alter the distribution and character of natural vegetation through decreases in precipitation, thereby resulting in a possible increased risk of large wildfires. If temperatures rise into the medium warming range, the risk of large wildfires in California could increase by as much as 55%, which is almost twice the increase expected if temperatures stay in the lower warming range. However, since wildfire risk is determined by a combination of factors, including precipitation, winds, temperature, and landscape and vegetation conditions, future risks will not be uniform throughout the State. For example, if precipitation increases as temperatures rise, wildfires in southern California are expected to increase by approximately 30% toward the end of the century. In contrast, precipitation decreases could increase wildfires in northern California by up to 90%.
Moreover, continued global warming will alter natural ecosystems and biological diversity within the State. For example, alpine and sub-alpine ecosystems are expected to decline by as much as 60% to 80% by the end of the century as a result of increasing temperatures. The productivity of the State’s forests is also expected to decrease as a result of global warming.
Rising Sea Levels
Rising sea levels, more intense coastal storms, and warmer water temperatures will increasingly threaten the State’s coastal regions. Under the higher warming scenario, sea level is anticipated to rise 22 to 35 inches by 2100. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-5 saltwater, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats.
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Energy in California is consumed from a wide variety of sources. Fossil fuels (including gasoline and diesel fuel, natural gas, and energy used to generate electricity) are most widely used form of energy in the State. However, renewable sources of energy (such as solar and wind) are growing in proportion to California’s overall energy mix. A large driver of renewable sources of energy in California is the State’s current Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires the State to derive at least 33% of electricity generated from renewable resources by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and to achieve zero-carbon emissions by 2045 (as passed in September 2018, under AB 100).
Overall, in 2018, California’s per capita energy usage was ranked fourth-lowest in the nation (U.S.
EIA, 2020b). California’s per capita rate of energy usage has remained relatively constant since the 1970’s. Many State regulations since the 1970’s, including new building energy efficiency standards, vehicle fleet efficiency measures, as well as growing public awareness, have helped to keep per capita energy usage in the State in check.
The consumption of non-renewable energy (i.e. fossil fuels) associated with the operation of passenger, public transit, and commercial vehicles, results in GHG emissions that contribute to global climate change. Alternative fuels such as natural gas, ethanol, and electricity (unless derived from solar, wind, nuclear, or other energy sources that do not produce carbon emissions) also result in GHG emissions and contribute to global climate change.
Electricity Consumption
California relies on a regional power system composed of a diverse mix of natural gas, renewable, hydroelectric, and limited nuclear generation resources with a plan to increase renewables and the elimination of nuclear power in 2025. In 2018, about 28% of the electricity supply comes from facilities outside of the State. Much of the power delivered to California from states in the Pacific Northwest was generated by renewable energy including hydro and wind . States in the Southwest delivered power generated at coal-fired power plants, at natural gas-fired power plants, and from nuclear generating stations (U.S. EIA, 2020a). In 2016, approximately 50 percent of California’s utility-scale net electricity generation was fueled by natural gas. In addition, about 25 percent of the State’s utility-scale net electricity generation came from non-hydroelectric renewable technologies, such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass. Another 14 percent of the State’s utility-scale net electricity generation came from hydroelectric generation, and nuclear energy powered an additional 11 percent. The amount of electricity generated from coal negligible (approximately 0.2 percent) (U.S. EIA, 2020a). The percentage of renewable resources as a proportion of California’s overall energy portfolio is increasing over time, as directed the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).
According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), total statewide electricity consumption increased from 166,979 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in 1980 to 228,038 GWh in 1990, which is an estimated annual growth rate of 3.66 percent. The statewide electricity consumption in 1997 was
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 246,225 GWh, reflecting an annual growth rate of 1.14 percent between 1990 and 1997 (U.S. EIA, 2020b). Statewide consumption was 274,985 GWh in 2010, an annual growth rate of 0.9 percent between 1997 and 2010. In 2018, electricity consumption in Fresno County was 7,651 GWh (California Energy Commission, 2018).
Oil
The primary energy source for the United States is oil, which is refined to produce fuels like gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Oil is a finite, nonrenewable energy source. World consumption of petroleum products has grown steadily in the last several decades. As of 2016, world consumption of oil had reached 96 million barrels per day. The United States, with approximately five percent of the world’s population, accounts for approximately 19 percent of world oil consumption, or approximately 18.6 million barrels per day (U.S. EIA, 2020c). The transportation sector relies heavily on oil. In California, petroleum-based fuels currently provide approximately 96 percent of the State’s transportation energy needs.
Natural Gas/Propane
Most of the natural gas used in California comes from out-of-state natural gas basins. In 2017, for example, California utility customers received 38% of their natural gas supply from basins located in the U.S. Southwest, 27% from Canada, 27% from the U.S. Rocky Mountain area, and 8% from production located in California (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021). In 2018, California gas utilities were estimated to deliver about 4740 million cubic feet per day (MMcfd) of gas to their customers, on average, under normal weather conditions (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021). PG&E is the largest publicly-owned utility in California and provides natural gas for residential, industrial, and agency consumers within the Fresno County area, including the City of Fresno. In 2018, natural gas consumption in Fresno County was 347 million therms (California Energy Commission, 2018).
3.7.2 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
Clean Air Act
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) was first signed into law in 1970. In 1977, and again in 1990, the law was substantially amended. The FCAA is the foundation for a national air pollution control effort, and it is composed of the following basic elements: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria air pollutants, hazardous air pollutant standards, State attainment plans, motor vehicle emissions standards, stationary source emissions standards and permits, acid rain control measures, stratospheric ozone protection, and enforcement provisions.
The EPA is responsible for administering the FCAA. The FCAA requires the EPA to set NAAQS for several problem air pollutants based on human health and welfare criteria. Two types of NAAQS were established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect the public welfare from non-health-related adverse effects such as visibility reduction.
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-7 On April 2, 2007, in the court case of Massachusetts et al. vs. the USEPA et al. (549 U.S. 497), the U.S. Supreme Court found that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the federal Clean Air Act (42 USC §§ 7401-7671q). The Supreme Court held that the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency must determine whether or not emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In making these decisions, the Administrator is required to follow the language of Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
On December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed GHGs (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. • Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution, which threatens public health and welfare.
These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, this action was a prerequisite for implementing GHG emission standards for vehicles. In collaboration with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) developed emission standards for light-duty vehicles (2012-2025 model years), and heavy-duty vehicles (2014- 2027 model years).
Energy Policy and Conservation Act
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 sought to ensure that all vehicles sold in the U.S. would meet certain fuel economy goals. Through this Act, Congress established the first fuel economy standards for on-road motor vehicles in the United States. Pursuant to the Act, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, which is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards.
Since 1990, the fuel economy standard for new passenger cars has been 27.5 mpg. Since 1996, the fuel economy standard for new light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less) has been
20.7 mpg. Heavy-duty vehicles (i.e., vehicles and trucks over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight) are not currently subject to fuel economy standards. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is determined on the basis of each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of its vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, which is administered by the EPA, was created to determine vehicle manufacturers’ compliance with the fuel economy standards. The EPA calculates a CAFE value for each manufacturer based on city and highway fuel economy test results and vehicle sales. Based on the information generated under the CAFE program, the USDOT is authorized to assess penalties for noncompliance.
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct)
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was passed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign petroleum and improve air quality. EPAct includes several parts intended to build an inventory of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. EPAct requires certain federal, State, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light duty AFVs capable of running on alternative fuels each year. In addition, financial incentives are included in EPAct. Federal tax deductions will be allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of AFVs. States are also required by the act to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs.
Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was signed into law on August 8, 2005. Generally, the act provides for renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for a clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy.
Federal Climate Change Policy
According to the EPA, “the United States government has established a comprehensive policy to address climate change” that includes slowing the growth of emissions; strengthening science, technology, and institutions; and enhancing international cooperation. To implement this policy, “the Federal government is using voluntary and incentive-based programs to reduce emissions and has established programs to promote climate technology and science.” The EPA administers multiple programs that encourage voluntary GHG reductions, including “ENERGY STAR”, “Climate Leaders”, and Methane Voluntary Programs. However, as of this writing, there are no adopted federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws directly regulating GHG emissions.
Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
On September 22, 2009, EPA issued a final rule for mandatory reporting of GHGs from large GHG emissions sources in the United States. In general, this national reporting requirement will provide EPA with accurate and timely GHG emissions data from facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 per year. This publicly available data will allow the reporters to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and aid in identifying cost effective opportunities to reduce emissions in the future. Reporting is at the facility level, except that certain suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial GHGs along with vehicle and engine manufacturers will report at the corporate level. An estimated 85% of the total U.S. GHG emissions, from approximately 10,000 facilities, are covered by this final rule.
STATE
The California Legislature has enacted a series of statutes in recent years addressing the need to reduce GHG emissions all across the State. These statutes can be categorized into four broad categories: (i) statutes setting numerical statewide targets for GHG reductions, and authorizing GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-9 CARB to enact regulations to achieve such targets; (ii) statutes setting separate targets for increasing the use of renewable energy for the generation of electricity throughout the State; (iii) statutes addressing the carbon intensity of vehicle fuels, which prompted the adoption of regulations by CARB; and (iv) statutes intended to facilitate land use planning consistent with statewide climate objectives. The discussion below will address each of these key sets of statutes, as well as CARB “Scoping Plans” intended to achieve GHG reductions under the first set of statutes and recent building code requirements intended to reduce energy consumption.
Statutes Setting Statewide GHG Reduction Targets
ASSEMBLY BILL 32 (GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT)
In September 2006, the California State Legislature enacted the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Health & Saf. Code, § 38500 et seq.), also known as Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (Stats. 2006, ch. 488). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. This reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that was phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources.
SENATE BILL 32
Effective January 1, 2017, SB 32 (Stats. 2016, ch. 249) added a new section 38566 to the Health and Safety Code. It provides that “[i]n adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions authorized by [Division 25.5 of the Health and Safety Code], [CARB] shall ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030.” In other words, SB 32 requires California, by the year 2030, to reduce its statewide GHG emissions so that they are 40 percent below those that occurred in 1990.
Between AB 32 (2006) and SB 32 (2016), the Legislature has codified some of the ambitious GHG reduction targets included within certain high-profile Executive Orders issued by the last two Governors. The 2020 statewide GHG reduction target in AB 32 was consistent with the second of three statewide emissions reduction targets set forth in former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2005 Executive Order known as S-3-05, which is expressly mentioned in AB 32. (See Health & Saf.
Code, § 38501, subd. (i).) That Executive Branch document included the following GHG emission reduction targets: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. To meet the targets, the Governor directed several State agencies to cooperate in the development of a climate action plan. The Secretary of Cal-EPA leads the Climate Action Team, whose goal is to implement global warming emission reduction programs identified in the Climate Action Plan and to report on the progress made toward meeting the emission reduction targets established in the executive order.
In April 2015, Governor Brown issued another Executive Order, B-30-15, which created a “new interim statewide GHG emission reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1990 levels by 2030 is established in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.” SB 32 codified this target.
In September 2018, the Governor issued Executive Order B-55-18, which established a statewide goal to “achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and maintain and achieve negative emissions thereafter.” The order directs the CARB to work with other State agencies to identify and recommend measures to achieve those goals.
Notably, the Legislature has not yet set a 2045 or 2050 target in the manner done for 2020 and 2030 through AB 32 and SB 32, though references to a 2050 target can be found in statutes outside the Health and Safety Code. In the 2015 legislative session, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 350 (SB 350) (Stats. 2015, ch. 547) (discussed in more detail below). This legislation added to the Public Utilities Code language that essentially puts into statute the 2050 GHG reduction target already identified in Executive Order S-3-05, albeit in the limited context of new state policies (i) increasing the overall share of electricity that must be produced through renewable energy sources and (ii) directing certain State agencies to begin planning for the widespread electrification of the California vehicle fleet. Section 740.12(a)(1)(D) of the Public Utilities Code now states that “[t]he Legislature finds and declares [that] … [r]educing emissions of [GHGs] to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 will require widespread transportation electrification.” Furthermore, Section 740.12(b) now states that the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC), in consultation with CARB and the California Energy Commission (CEC), must “direct electrical corporations to file applications for programs and investments to accelerate widespread transportation electrification to reduce dependence on petroleum, meet air quality standards, … and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.”
Statute Setting Target for the Use of Renewable Energy for the Generation of Electricity
CALIFORNIA RENEWABLES PORTFOLIO STANDARD
In September 2002, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1078 (Stats. 2002, ch. 516), which established the Renewables Portfolio Standard program, requiring retail sellers of electricity, including electrical corporations, community choice aggregators, and electric service providers, to purchase a specified minimum percentage of electricity generated by eligible renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, geothermal, small hydroelectric, biomass, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas. (See Pub.
Utilities Code, § 399.11 et seq. [subsequently amended].) The legislation set a target by which 20 percent of the State’s electricity would be generated by renewable sources. (Pub. Utility Code, § 399.11, subd (a) [subsequently amended].) As described in the Legislative Counsel’s Digest, Senate Bill 1078 required “[e]ach electrical corporation … to increase its total procurement of eligible renewable energy resources by at least one percent per year so that 20 percent of its retail sales are procured from eligible renewable energy resources. If an electrical corporation fails to procure sufficient eligible renewable energy resources in a given year to meet an annual target, the electrical corporation would be required to procure additional eligible renewable resources in subsequent years to compensate for the shortfall, if funds are made available as described. An electrical GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-11 corporation with at least 20 percent of retail sales procured from eligible renewable energy resources in any year would not be required to increase its procurement in the following year.” In September 2006, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 107 (Stats. 2006, ch. 464), which modified the Renewables Portfolio Standard to require that at least 20 percent of electricity retail sales be served by renewable energy resources by year 2010. (Pub. Utility Code, § 399.11, subd (a) [subsequently amended].)
In April 2011, the Legislature, in a special session, enacted Senate Bill X1-2 (Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 1), which set even more aggressive statutory targets for renewable electricity, culminating in the requirement that 33 percent of the State’s electricity come from renewables by 2020. This legislation applies to all electricity retailers in the State, including publicly owned utilities, investor-owned utilities, electricity service providers, and community choice aggregators. All of these entities must meet renewable energy goals of 20 percent of retail sales from renewables by the end of 2013, 25 percent by the end of 2016, and 33 percent by the end of 2020. (See Pub. Utility Code, § 399.11 et seq. [subsequently amended].)
In 2015, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 350 (SB 350) (Stats. 2015, ch. 547) (discussed above). It increases the Renewable Portfolio Standard to require 50 percent of electricity generated to be from renewables by 2030. (Pub. Utility Code, § 399.11, subd (a); see also § 399.30, subd. (c)(2).) Of equal significance, Senate Bill 350 also embodies a policy encouraging a substantial increase in the use of electric vehicles. As noted earlier, Section 740.12(b) of the Public Utilities Code now states that the PUC, in consultation with CARB and the CEC, must “direct electrical corporations to file applications for programs and investments to accelerate widespread transportation electrification to reduce dependence on petroleum, meet air quality standards, … and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.” In March 2012, Governor Brown had issued an Executive Order, B-16-12, which embodied a similar vision of a future in which zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) will play a big part in helping the State meet its GHG reduction targets. Executive Order B-16-12 directed the State government to accelerate the market for in California through fleet replacement and electric vehicle infrastructure. The Executive Order set the following targets:
• By 2015, all major cities in California will have adequate infrastructure and be “ZEV ready”; • By 2020, the State will have established adequate infrastructure to support 1 million ZEVs in California;
• By 2025, there will be 1.5 million ZEVs on the road in California; and • By 2050, virtually all personal transportation in the State will be based on ZEVs, and GHG emissions from the transportation sector will be reduced by 80 percent below 1990 levels.
In 2018, the Legislature enacted, and the Governor signed, Senate Bill 100 (Stats. 2018, ch. 312), which revise the above-described deadlines and targets so that the State will have to achieve a 50% renewable resources target by December 31, 2026 (instead of by 2030) and achieve a 60% target by December 31, 2030. The legislation also establishes a State policy that eligible renewable energy
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100% of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045.
In summary, California has set a statutory goal of requiring that, by the year 2030, 60 percent of the electricity generated in California should be from renewable sources, with increased generation capacity intended to sufficiently allow the mass conversion of the statewide vehicle fleet from petroleum-fueled vehicles to electrical vehicles and/or other ZEVs. By 2045, all electricity must come from renewable resources and other carbon-free resources. Former Governor Brown had an even more ambitious goal for the State of achieving carbon neutrality as soon as possible and by no later than 2045. The Legislature is thus looking to California drivers to buy electric cars, powered by green energy, to help the State meet its aggressive statutory goal, created by SB 32, of reducing statewide GHG emissions by 2030 to 40 percent below 1990 levels. Another key prong to this strategy is to make petroleum-based fuels less carbon-intensive. A number of statutes in recent years have addressed that strategy. These are discussed immediately below.
Statutes and CARB Regulations Addressing the Carbon Intensity of Petroleum-based Transportation Fuels
ASSEMBLY BILL 1493, PAVLEY CLEAN CARS STANDARDS
In July 2002, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 1493 (“Pavley Bill”) (Stats. 2002, ch. 200), which directed the CARB to develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks beginning with model year 2009. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 43018.5.) In September 2004, pursuant to this directive, CARB approved regulations to reduce GHG emissions from new motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year.
These regulations created what are commonly known as the “Pavley standards.” In September 2009, CARB adopted amendments to the Pavley standards to reduce GHG emissions from new motor vehicles through the 2016 model year. These regulations created what are commonly known as the “Pavley II standards.” (See California Code of Regulations, Title 13, §§ 1900, 1961, and 1961.1 et seq.)
In January 2012, CARB adopted an Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) program aimed at reducing both smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions for vehicles model years 2017-2025. This historic program, developed in coordination with the USEPA and NHTSA, combined the control of smogcausing (criteria) pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated set of requirements for model years 2015 through 2025. The regulations focus on substantially increasing the number of plug-in hybrid cars and zero-emission vehicles in the vehicle fleet and on making fuels such as electricity and hydrogen readily available for these vehicle technologies. The components of the ACC program are the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulations that reduce criteria pollutants and GHG emissions from light- and medium-duty vehicles, and the Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) regulation, which requires manufacturers to produce an increasing number of pure ZEVs (meaning battery electric and fuel cell electric vehicles), with provisions to also produce plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the 2018 through 2025 model years. (See California Code of Regulations, Title 13, §§ 1900, 1961, 1961.1, 1961.2, 1961.3, 1965, 1968.2, 1968.5, 1976, 1978, 2037, 2038, 2062, 2112, 2139, 2140, 2145, 2147, 2235, and 2317 et seq.)
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-13 It is expected that the Pavley regulations will reduce GHG emissions from California passenger vehicles by about 34 percent below 2016 levels by 2025, all while improving fuel efficiency and reducing motorists’ costs.
Electric Car Mandate
The transportation sector, including all passenger cars and light trucks, heavy-duty trucks, off-road vehicles, and the fuels needed to power them, is responsible for more than half of California’s greenhouse gas emissions. In 2020, Governor Newsom issued an Executive Order, N-79-20, which calls for the elimination of new internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2035. Existing vehicles that run on fossil fuel would be allowed to keep operating. The executive order will not prevent Californians from owning gasoline-powered cars or selling them on the used car market.
Innovative Clean Transit Rules for Public Transportation The Innovative Clean Transit Regulation is the first of its kind to support these programs. It was adopted in December 2018 to replace the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. The regulation requires all public transit agencies to gradually transition to a 100-percent zero-emission bus fleet and encourages them to provide innovative first and last-mile connectivity and improved mobility for transit riders.
Through the deployment of zero-emission technologies, the ICT regulation will provide significant benefits across the state, including:
• Reduce NOx and GHG emissions for all Californians, especially transit-dependent and disadvantaged communities. The majority of these benefits will be in the State’s most populated and impacted areas where transit buses are most prevalent • Increase penetration of the first wave of zero-emission heavy-duty technologies into applications that are well suited to their use to further achieve emission reduction benefits • Save energy and reduce dependency on petroleum and other fossil fuels • Expand zero-emission vehicle industry to bring high quality green jobs to local communities and trained workforce to California
• Provide other societal benefits by encouraging improved mobility and connectivity with zero-emission transportation modes and reduced growth in light-duty vehicle miles traveled.
Cap and Trade Program
On October 20, 2011, in a related action, CARB adopted the final cap‐and‐trade program for California. (See California Code of Regulations, Title 17, §§ 95801-96022.) The California cap‐and‐ trade program has created a market‐based system with an overall emissions limit for affected sectors. The program is intended to regulate more than 85 percent of California’s emissions and staggers compliance requirements according to the following schedule: (1) electricity generation and large industrial sources (2012); (2) fuel combustion and transportation (2015).
According to 2012 guidance published by CARB, “[t]he Cap-and-Trade Program will reduce GHG emissions from major sources (covered entities) by setting a firm cap on statewide GHG emissions
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan while employing market mechanisms to cost-effectively achieve the emission-reduction goals. The statewide cap for GHG emissions from major sources, which is measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e), will commence in 2013 and decline over time, achieving GHG emission reductions throughout the program’s duration. Each covered entity will be required to surrender one permit to emit (the majority of which will be allowances, entities are also allowed to use a limited number of CARB offset credits) for each ton of GHG emissions they emit. Some covered entities will be allocated some allowances and will be able to buy additional allowances at auction, purchase allowances from others, or purchase offset credits.” The guidance goes on to say that “[s]tarting in 2012, major GHG-emitting sources, such as electricity generation (including imports), and large stationary sources (e.g., refineries, cement production facilities, oil and gas production facilities, glass manufacturing facilities, and food processing plants) that emit more than 25,000 MTCO2e per year will have to comply with the Cap-and-Trade Program.
The program expands in 2015 to include fuel distributors (natural gas and propane fuel providers and transportation fuel providers) to address emissions from transportation fuels, and from combustion of other fossil fuels not directly covered at large sources in the program’s initial phase.” In early April 2017, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the lawfulness of the cap-and-trade program as a “fee” rather than a “tax.” (See California Chamber of Commerce et al. v. State Air Resources Board et al. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 604.)
In early 2017, the Legislature enacted, and the Governor signed, AB 398 (Stats. 2017, ch. 135), which extended the life of the existing Cap and Trade Program through December 2030.
Statute Intended to Facilitate Land Use Planning Consistent with Statewide Climate Objectives
CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 375 (SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY) This 2008 legislation built on AB 32 by setting forth a mechanism for coordinating land use and transportation on a regional level for the purpose of reducing GHGs. The focus is to reduce miles traveled by passenger vehicles and light trucks. CARB is required to set GHG reduction targets for each metropolitan region for the years 2020 and 2035. Each of California’s metropolitan planning organizations then prepares a sustainable communities strategy that demonstrates how the region will meet its GHG reduction target through integrated land use, housing, and transportation planning. Once adopted by the metropolitan planning organizations, the sustainable communities strategy is to be incorporated into that region’s federally enforceable regional transportation plan.
If a metropolitan planning organization is unable to meet the targets through the sustainable communities strategy, then an alternative planning strategy must be developed which demonstrates how targets could be achieved, even if meeting the targets is deemed to be infeasible.
Climate Change Scoping Plans
AB 32 SCOPING PLAN
In December 2008, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which contains the main strategies California will implement to achieve reduction of approximately 118 million metric tons GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-15 (MMT) CO2e, or approximately 22 percent from the State’s projected 2020 emission level of 545 MMT of CO2e under a business-as-usual scenario. This is a reduction of 47 MMT CO2e, or almost 10 percent, from 2008 emissions. CARB’s original 2020 projection was 596 MMT CO2e, but this revised 2020 projection takes into account the economic downturn that occurred in 2008. The Scoping Plan also includes CARB recommended GHG reductions for each emissions sector of the State GHG inventory. CARB estimates the largest reductions in GHG emissions would be by implementing the following measures and standards:
• improved emissions standards for light-duty vehicles (26.1 MMT CO2e); • the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (15.0 MMT CO2e);
• energy efficiency measures in buildings and appliances (11.9 MMT CO2e); and • renewable portfolio and electricity standards for electricity production (23.4 MMT CO2e).
In 2011, CARB adopted a cap-and-trade regulation. The cap-and-trade program covers major sources of GHG emissions in the State such as refineries, power plants, industrial facilities, and transportation fuels. The cap-and-trade program includes an enforceable emissions cap that will decline over time. The State distributes allowances, which are tradable permits, equal to the emissions allowed under the cap. Sources under the cap are required to surrender allowances and offsets equal to their emissions at the end of each compliance period. Enforceable compliance obligations started in 2013. The program applies to facilities that comprise 85 percent of the State’s GHG emissions.
With regard to land use planning, the Scoping Plan expects that reductions of approximately 3.0 MMT CO2e will be achieved through implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 375, which is discussed further below.
2014 SCOPING PLAN UPDATE
In response to comments on the 2008 Scoping Plan, and AB 32’s requirement to update the Scoping Plan every five years, CARB revised and reapproved the Scoping Plan, and prepared the First Update to the 2008 Scoping Plan in 2014 (2014 Scoping Plan). The 2014 Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will implement to achieve a reduction of 80 MMT of CO2e emissions, or approximately 16 percent, from the State’s projected 2020 emission level of 507 MMT of CO2e under the business-as-usual scenario defined in the 2014 Scoping Plan. The 2014 Scoping Plan also includes a breakdown of the amount of GHG reductions CARB recommends for each emissions sector of the State’s GHG inventory. Several strategies to reduce GHG emissions are included: the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, the Pavley Rule, the ACC program, the Renewable Portfolio Standard, and the Sustainable Communities Strategy.
2017 SB 32 SCOPING PLAN
With the passage of SB 32, the Legislature also passed companion legislation AB 197, which provides additional direction for developing the scoping plan. In response to these two pieces of legislation, CARB adopted an updated Scoping Plan in December 2017. The document represents a second update to the scoping plan to reflect the 2030 target of reducing statewide GHG emissions by 40
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan percent below 1990 levels codified by SB 32. The GHG reduction strategies in the plan that CARB will implement to meet the target include:
• SB 350 - achieve 50 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) by 2030 and doubling of energy efficiency savings by 2030;
• Low Carbon Fuel Standard - increased stringency (reducing carbon intensity 18 percent by 2030, up from 10 percent in 2020);
• Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario) – o Estimated 85% of passenger vehicles will be ZEV and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV) by 2045;
o Estimated 77% of heavy-duty fleet will be ZEV by 2045. • Sustainable Freight Action Plan - improve freight system efficiency, maximize use of nearzero emission vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy, and deploy over 100,000 zero-emission trucks and equipment by 2030;
• Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy - reduce emissions of methane and hydrofluorocarbons 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030 and reduce emissions of black carbon 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030;
• SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies - increased stringency of 2035 targets; • Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program - declining caps, continued linkage with Québec, and linkage to Ontario, Canada;
• 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from the refinery sector; and • By 2018, develop an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink.
Building Code Requirements Intended to Reduce GHG Emissions
CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
The California Energy Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), which is incorporated into the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, was first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. Although these standards were not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, increased energy efficiency results in decreased GHG emissions because energy efficient buildings require less electricity and thus less consumption of fossil fuels, which emit GHGs. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The current 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, commonly referred to as the “Title 24” standards, include changes from the previous standards that were adopted, to do the following:
• Provide California with an adequate, reasonably priced, and environmentally sound supply of energy.
• Respond to Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which mandates that California must reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. • Pursue California energy policy that energy efficiency is the resource of first choice for meeting California's energy needs.
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-17 • Act on the California Energy Commission’s Integrated Energy Policy Report, which finds that standards are the most cost effective means to achieve energy efficiency, states an expectation that the Building Energy Efficiency Standards will continue to be upgraded over time to reduce electricity and peak demand, and recognizes the role of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards in reducing energy related to meeting California's water needs and in reducing GHG emissions.
• Meet the West Coast Governors' Global Warming Initiative commitment to include aggressive energy efficiency measures into updates of State building codes. • Meet Executive Order S-20-04, the Green Building Initiative, to improve the energy efficiency of non-residential buildings through aggressive standards.
The most recent Title 24 standards are the 2019 Title 24 standards. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards improve upon the 2016 Energy Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. Buildings permitted on or after January 1, 2020, must comply with the 2019 Standards. The California Energy Commission updates the standards every three years. The 2019 Title 24 standards include the requirement by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan for net zero energy consumption for new residential development starting in 2020 and will ultimately incorporate requirements for net zero in new non‐residential development by 2030.
Single-family homes built with the 2019 standards will use about 7 percent less energy due to energy efficiency measures versus those built under the 2016 standards. Once rooftop solar electricity generation is factored in, homes built under the 2019 standards will use about 53 percent less energy than those under the 2016 standards. This will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 700,000 metric tons over three years, equivalent to taking 115,000 fossil fuel cars off the road. Nonresidential buildings will use about 30 percent less energy due mainly to lighting upgrades.
CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CALGREEN CODE) In 2008, the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) adopted Part 11 of CCR Title 24, titled the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) which became effective on August 1, 2009 as a voluntary code. The 2010 CALGreen Code was the first mandatory edition, took effect on January 1, 2011, and is now a part of the CBSC 3-year update cycle. The 2019 CALGreen Code standards became effective on January 1, 2020. The CALGreen Code establishes mandatory measures for residential and non-residential building construction and encourages sustainable construction practices in the following five categories: (1) planning and design, (2) energy efficiency, (3) water efficiency and conservation, (4) material conservation and resource efficiency, and (5) indoor environmental quality. Although the CALGreen Code was adopted as part of the State’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions, the CALGreen Code standards have co-benefits of reducing energy consumption from residential and non-residential buildings subject to the standard.
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan CEQA Direction
In 2008, the Schwarzenegger administration, through the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), issued Guidance regarding assessing significance of GHGs in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents; that Guidance stated that the adoption of appropriate significance thresholds was a matter of discretion for the lead agency. The OPR Guidance states:
“[T]he global nature of climate change warrants investigation of a statewide threshold of significance for GHG emissions. To this end, OPR has asked the CARB technical staff to recommend a method for setting thresholds which will encourage consistency and uniformity in the CEQA analysis of GHG emissions throughout the state. Until such time as state guidance is available on thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, we recommend the following approach to your CEQA analysis.”
Determine Significance
• When assessing a project’s GHG emissions, lead agencies must describe the existing environmental conditions or setting, without the project, which normally constitutes the baseline physical conditions for determining whether a project’s impacts are significant. • As with any environmental impact, lead agencies must determine what constitutes a significant impact. In the absence of regulatory standards for GHG emissions or other scientific data to clearly define what constitutes a “significant impact,” individual lead agencies may undertake a project-by-project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice.
• The potential effects of a project may be individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Lead agencies should not dismiss a proposed project’s direct and/or indirect climate change impacts without careful consideration, supported by substantial evidence. Documentation of available information and analysis should be provided for any project that may significantly contribute new GHG emissions, either individually or cumulatively, directly or indirectly (e.g., transportation impacts). • Although climate change is ultimately a cumulative impact, not every individual project that emits GHGs must necessarily be found to contribute to a significant cumulative impact on the environment. CEQA authorizes reliance on previously approved plans and mitigation programs that have adequately analyzed and mitigated GHG emissions to a less than significant level as a means to avoid or substantially reduce the cumulative impact of a project.
The OPR Guidance did not require Executive Order S-3-05 (by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels) to be used as a significance threshold under CEQA. Rather, OPR recognized that, GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-19 until the CARB establishes a statewide standard, selecting an appropriate threshold was within the discretion of the lead agency.
In 2010, the California Natural Resources Agency added section 15064.4 to the CEQA Guidelines, providing new legal requirements for how agencies should address GHG-related impacts in their CEQA documents. As amended in early 2019, section 15064.4 provides as follows:
(a) The determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions in section 15064. A lead agency shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to:
(1) Quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project; and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. (b) In determining the significance of a project's greenhouse gas emissions, the lead agency should focus its analysis on the reasonably foreseeable incremental contribution of the project's emissions to the effects of climate change. A project's incremental contribution may be cumulatively considerable even if it appears relatively small compared to statewide, national or global emissions. The agency's analysis should consider a timeframe that is appropriate for the project.
The agency's analysis also must reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes. A lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, when determining the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment:
(1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
(3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (see, e.g., section 15183.5(b)). Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project's incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. In determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project's consistency with the State's long-term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial evidence supports the
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan agency's analysis of how those goals or strategies address the project's incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project's incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable. (c) A lead agency may use a model or methodology to estimate greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project's incremental contribution to climate change. The lead agency must support its selection of a model or methodology with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use.
Section 15126.4, subdivision (c), provides guidance on how to formulate mitigation measures addressing GHG-related impacts:
Consistent with section 15126.4(a), lead agencies shall consider feasible means, supported by substantial evidence and subject to monitoring or reporting, of mitigating the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Measures to mitigate the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions may include, among others:
(1) Measures in an existing plan or mitigation program for the reduction of emissions that are required as part of the lead agency's decision; (2) Reductions in emissions resulting from a project through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F;
(3) Off-site measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required, to mitigate a project's emissions;
(4) Measures that sequester greenhouse gases;
(5) In the case of the adoption of a plan, such as a general plan, long range development plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, mitigation may include the identification of specific measures that may be implemented on a project-by-project basis. Mitigation may also include the incorporation of specific measures or policies found in an adopted ordinance or regulation that reduces the cumulative effect of emissions.
California Supreme Court Decisions
THE “NEWHALL RANCH” CASE
On November 30, 2015, the California Supreme Court released its opinion on Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204 (hereafter referred to as the Newhall Ranch Case).
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-21 Because of the importance of the Supreme Court as the top body within the California Judiciary, and because of the relative lack of judicial guidance regarding how GHG issues should be addressed in CEQA documents, the opinion provides very important legal guidance to agencies charged with preparing EIRs.
The case involved a challenge to an EIR prepared by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for the Newhall Ranch development project in Los Angeles County, which consists of approximately 20,000 dwelling units as well as commercial and business uses, schools, golf courses, parks and other community facilities in the City of Santa Clarita.
In relation to GHG analysis, the Newhall Ranch Case illustrates the difficulty of complying with statewide GHG reduction targets at the local level using CEQA to determine whether an individual project’s GHG emissions will create a significant environmental impact triggering an EIR, mitigation, and/or statement of overriding consideration. The EIR utilized compliance with AB 32’s GHG reduction goals as a threshold of significance and modelled its analysis on the CARB’s business-asusual (BAU) emissions projections from the 2008 Scoping Plan. The EIR quantified the project’s annual emissions at buildout and projected emissions in 2020 under a BAU scenario, in which no additional regulatory actions were taken to reduce emissions. Since the Scoping Plan determined a reduction of 29 percent from BAU was needed to meet AB 32’s 2020 reduction goal, the EIR concluded that the project would have a less-than-significant impact because the project’s annual GHG emissions were projected to be 31 percent below its BAU estimate.
The Supreme Court concluded that the threshold of significance used by the EIR was permissible; however, the BAU analysis lacked substantial evidence to demonstrate that the required percentage reduction from BAU is the same for an individual project as for the entire State. The court expressed skepticism that a percentage reduction goal applicable to the State as a whole would apply without change to an individual development project, regardless of its size or location. Therefore, the Supreme Court determined that the EIR’s GHG analysis was not sufficient to support the conclusion that GHG impacts would be less than significant.
In addition, the Supreme Court provided the following guidance regarding potential alternative approaches to GHG impact assessment at the project level for lead agencies:
1. The lead agency determination of what level of GHG emission reduction from business-asusual projection that a new land development at the proposed location would need to achieve to comply with statewide goals upon examination of data behind the Scoping Plan’s business-as-usual emission projections. The lead agency must provide substantial evidence and account for the disconnect between the Scoping Plan, which dealt with the State as a whole, and an analysis of an individual project’s land use emissions (the same issues with CEQA compliance addressed in this case);
2. The lead agency may use a project’s compliance with performance based standards – such as high building energy efficiency – adopted to fulfill a statewide plan to reduce or mitigate GHG emissions to assess consistency with AB 32 to the extent that the project features comply with or exceed the regulation (See Guidelines Section 15064.4(a)(2), (b)(3); see also
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3)). A significance analysis would then need to account for the additional GHG emissions – such as transportation emissions – beyond the regulated activity. Transportation emissions are in part a function of the location, size, and density or intensity of a project, and thus can be affected by local governments’ land use decision making. Additionally, the lead agency may use a programmatic effort including a general plan, long range development plan, or a separate plan to reduce GHG emissions (such as a Climate Action Plan or a SB 375 metropolitan regional transportation impact Sustainable Communities Strategy) that accounts for specific geographical GHG emission reductions to streamline or tier project level CEQA analysis pursuant to Guidelines 15183.5(a)-(b) for land use and Public Resources Code Section 21155.2 and 21159.28 and Guidelines Section 15183.5(c) for transportation.
3. The lead agency may rely on existing numerical thresholds of significance for GHG emissions (such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s proposed threshold of significance of 1,100 MT CO2E in annual emission for CEQA GHG emission analysis on new land use projects). The use of a numerical value provides what is “normally” considered significant but does not relieve a lead agency from independently determining the significance of the impact for the individual project (See Guidelines Section 15064.7).
THE SANDAG CASE
In Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497 (SANDAG), the Supreme Court addressed the extent to which, if any, an EIR for a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) with a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) must address the proposed project’s consistency with the 2050 target set forth in Executive Order S-03-05 (i.e., 80 percent below 1990 levels). The Court held that SANDAG did not abuse its discretion by failing to treat the 2050 GHG emissions target as a threshold of significance. The Court cautioned, however, that its decision applies narrowly to the facts of the case and that the analysis in the challenged EIR should not be used as an example for other lead agencies to follow going forward. Notably, the RTP itself covered a planning period that extended all the way to 2050.
The Court acknowledged the parties’ agreement that “the Executive Order lacks the force of a legal mandate binding on SANDAG[.]” (Id. at p. 513.) This conclusion was consistent with the Court’s earlier decision in Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger (2010) 50 Cal.4th 989, 1015, which held the Governor had acted in excess of his executive authority in ordering the furloughing of State employees as a money-saving strategy. In that earlier case, which is not mentioned in the SANDAG decision, the Court held that the decision to furlough employees was legislative in character, and thus could only be ordered by the Legislature, and not the Governor, who, under the State constitution, may only exercise executive authority. In SANDAG, the Court thus impliedly recognized that Governors do not have authority to set statewide legislative policy, particularly for decades into the future. Even so, however, the Court noted, and did not question, the parties’ agreement that “the Executive Order's 2050 emissions reduction target is grounded in sound science.” (3 Cal.5th at p. 513.) Indeed, the Court emphasized that, although “the Executive Order ‘is not an adopted GHG reduction plan’ and that ‘there is no legal requirement to use it as a GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-23 threshold of significance,’” the 2050 goal nevertheless “expresses the pace and magnitude of reduction efforts that the scientific community believes necessary to stabilize the climate.
This scientific information has important value to policymakers and citizens in considering the emission impacts of a project like SANDAG's regional transportation plan.” (Id. at p. 515.) Towards the end of the decision, the Court even referred to “the state’s 2050 climate goals” as though the 2050 target from E.O. S-03-05 had some sort of standing under California law. (Id. at p. 519.) The Court seemed to reason that, because the Legislature had enacted both AB 32 and SB 32, which followed the downward GHG emissions trajectory recommended in the Executive Order, the Legislature, at some point, was also likely to adopt the 2050 target as well: “SB 32 … reaffirms California's commitment to being on the forefront of the dramatic greenhouse gas emission reductions needed to stabilize the global climate.” (Id. at p. 519.) Finally, the Court explained that “planning agencies like SANDAG must ensure that CEQA analysis stays in step with evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes.” (Ibid.)
In sum, the Court recognized that the Executive Order did not carry the force of law, but nevertheless considered it to be part of “state climate policy” because the Legislature, in enacting both AB 32 and SB 32, seems to be following both the IPCC recommendations for reducing GHG emissions worldwide and evolving science. Nothing in the decision, however, suggests that all projects, regardless of their buildout period, must address the 2050 target or treat it as a significance threshold.
LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan includes the following objectives and policies that pertain directly to air quality, greenhouse gases, and energy.
URBAN FORM, LAND USE AND DESIGN ELEMENT
Objective UF-1: Emphasize the opportunity for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, and housing types.
Policy UF-1-c: Identifiable City Structure. Focus integrated and ongoing planning efforts to achieve an identifiable city structure, comprised of a concentration of buildings, people, and pedestrian-oriented activity in Downtown; along a small number of prominent east-west and north-south transit-oriented, mixed-use corridors with distinctive and strategically located Activity Centers; and in existing and new neighborhoods augmented with parks and connected by multi-purpose trails and tree lined bike lanes and streets.
Policy UF-1-e: Unique Neighborhoods. Promote and protect unique neighborhoods and mixed use areas throughout Fresno that respect and support various ethnic, cultural and historic enclaves; provide a range of housing options, including furthering affordable housing opportunities; and convey a unique character and lifestyle attractive to Fresnans.
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Support unique areas through more specific planning processes that directly engage community members in creative and innovative design efforts.
Objective UF-12: Locate roughly one-half of future residential development in infill areas – defined as being within the City on December 31, 2012 – including the Downtown core area and surrounding neighborhoods, mixed-use centers and transit-oriented development along major BRT corridors, and other non-corridor infill areas, and vacant land.
Policy UF-12-a: BRT Corridors. Design land uses and integrate development site plans along BRT corridors, with transit-oriented development that supports transit ridership and convenient pedestrian access to bus stops and BRT station stops.
Policy UF-12-b: Activity Centers. Mixed-use designated areas along BRT and/or transit corridors are appropriate for more intensive concentrations of urban uses. Typical uses could include commercial areas; employment centers; schools; compact residential development; religious institutions; parks; and other gathering points where residents may interact, work, and obtain goods and services in the same place.
Policy UF-12-d: Appropriate Mixed-Use. Facilitate the development of vertical and horizontal mixed-uses to blend residential, commercial, and public land uses on one site or adjacent sites. Ensure land use compatibility between mixed-use districts in Activity Centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Policy UF-12-e: Access to Activity Centers. Promote adoptions and implementation of standards supporting pedestrian activities and bicycle linkages from surrounding land uses and neighborhoods into Activity Centers and to transit stops. Provide for priority transit routes and facilities to serve the Activity Centers.
Policy UF-12-f: Mixed-Use in Activity Centers. Update the Development Code to include use regulations and standards to allow for mixed-uses and shared parking facilities, including multi-story and underground parking facilities, within Activity Centers.
Objective UF-14: Create an urban form that facilitates multi-modal connectivity.
Policy UF-14-a: Design Guidelines for Walkability. Develop and use design guidelines and standards for a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment with a network of streets and connections for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as transit and autos.
Policy UF-14-b: Local Street Connectivity. Design local roadways to connect throughout neighborhoods and large private developments with adjacent major streets and pathways of existing adjacent development. Create access for pedestrians and bicycles where a local street must dead end or be designed as a cul-de-sac to adjoining uses that provide services, shopping, and connecting pathways for access to the greater community area.
Objective LU-2: Plan for infill development that includes a range of housing types, building forms, and land uses to meet the needs of both current and future residents.
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-25 Policy LU-2-a: Infill Development and Redevelopment. Promote development of vacant, underdeveloped, and redevelopable land uses within the City Limit where urban services are available considering the establishment and implementation of supportive regulations and programs.
Policy LU-2-b: Infill Development for Affordable Housing. Consider a priority infill incentive program for residential infill development of existing vacant lots and underutilized sites within the City as a strategy to help to meet the affordable housing needs of the community.
Policy LU-3-c: Zoning for High Density on Major BRT Corridors. Consider the adoption of supportive zoning regulations for compact development along BRT corridors leading to the Downtown Core that will not diminish the long-term growth and development potential for Downtown.
Policy LU-5-f: High Density Residential Uses. Promote high-density residential uses to support Activity Centers and BRT Corridors, affordable housing and walkable access to transit stops.
Policy LU-6-d: Neighborhood and Community Commercial Center Design. Plan for neighborhood mixed use and community commercial uses to implement the Urban Form concepts of the General Plan, promote the stability and identity of neighborhood and community shopping areas, and allow efficient access without compromising the operational effectiveness of the street system.
• Neighborhoods will be anchored by community commercial centers with a mix of uses that meet the area’s needs and create a sense of place. • Community commercial centers will be located within Activity Centers.
Policy LU-6-f: Auto-Oriented Commercial Uses. Direct highway-oriented and auto-serving commercial uses to locations that are compatible with the Urban Form policies of the General Plan. Ensure adequate buffering measures for adjacent residential uses noise, glare, odors, and dust.
Policy LU-8-b: Access to Public Facilities. Ensure that major public facilities and institutions have adequate multi-modal access and can be easily reached by public transit.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RESILIENCY ELEMENT
Objective RC-4: In cooperation with other jurisdictions and agencies in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, take necessary actions to achieve and maintain compliance with State and federal air quality standards for criteria pollutants.
Policy RC-4-a: Support Regional Efforts. Support and lead, where appropriate, regional, State and federal programs and actions for the improvement of air quality, especially the SJVAPCD’ efforts to monitor and control air pollutants from both stationary and mobile
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan sources and implement Reasonably Available Control Measures in the Ozone Attainment Plan.
Policy RC-4-b: Conditions of Approval. Develop and incorporate air quality maintenance requirements, compatible with Air Quality Attainment and Maintenance Plans, as conditions of approval for General Plan amendments, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and development proposals.
Policy RC-4-c: Evaluate Impacts with Models. Continue to require the use of computer models used by SJVAPCD to evaluate the air quality impacts of plans and projects that require such environmental review by the City.
Policy RC-4-d: Forward Information. Forward information regarding proposed General Plan amendments, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and development proposals that require air quality evaluation, and amendments to development regulations to the SJVAPCD for their review of potential air quality and health impacts.
Policy RC-4-e: Support Employer-Based Efforts. Support and promote employer implementation of staggered work hours and employee incentives to use carpools, public transit and other measures to reduce vehicular use and traffic congestion.
Policy RC-4-f: Municipal Operations and Fleet Actions. Continue to control and reduce air pollution emissions from vehicles owned by the City operations and municipal operations and facilities by undertaking the following:
• Expand the use of alternative fuel, electric, and hybrid vehicles in City fleets. • Create preventive maintenance schedules that will ensure efficient engine operation.
• Include air conditioning recycling and charging stations in the City vehicle maintenance facilities, to reduce freon gases being released into the atmosphere and electrostatic filtering systems in City maintenance shops, when feasible or when required by health regulations.
• Use satellite corporation yards for decentralized storage and vehicle maintenance. • Convert City-owned emergency backup generators to natural gas fuels whenever possible, and
• Create an advanced energy storage system.
Policy RC-4-g: FAX Actions. Continue efforts to improve Fresno Area Express (FAX) bus transit system technical performance, reduce emission levels, streamline system operations, and implement BRT where supportive land uses are proposed by Figure LU-1:
Land Use Diagram.
Policy RC-4-h: Airport Actions. Support Airport efforts to develop and maintain programs and policies to support City, State and Federal efforts to achieve and maintain air quality standards.
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-27 Policy RC-4-j: All Departments. Continue to develop and implement in all City departments, operational policies to reduce air pollution.
Policy RC-4-k: Electric Charging. Develop standards to facilitate electric charging infrastructure in both new and existing public and private buildings, in order to accommodate these vehicles as the technology becomes widespread.
Policy RC-8-j: Alternative Fuel Network. Support the development of a network of integrated charging and alternate fuel station for both public and private vehicles, and if feasible, open up municipal stations to the public as part of network development.
HEALTHY COMMUNITIES ELEMENT
Objective HC-3: Create healthy, safe, and affordable housing.
Policy HC-3-d: Green Standards for Affordable Housing. Provide appropriate incentives for affordable housing providers, agencies, non-profit and market rate developers to use LEED and CalGreen Tier 1 or Tier 2 standards or third party equivalents.
Policy HC-3-f: New Drive-Through Facilities. Include in the Development Code design review to reduce vehicle emissions resulting from queued idling vehicles at drive-through facilities in proximity to residential neighborhoods.
MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Objective MT-1: Create and maintain a transportation system that is safe, efficient, provides access in an equitable manner, and optimizes travel by all modes.
Policy MT-1-f: Match Travel Demand with Transportation Facilities. Designate the types and intensities of land uses at locations such that related travel demands can be accommodated by a variety of viable transportation modes and support Complete Neighborhoods while avoiding the rerouting of excessive or incompatible traffic through local residential streets.
Policy MT-1-g: Complete Streets Concept Implementation. Provide transportation facilities based upon a Complete Streets concept that facilitates the balanced use of all viable travel modes (pedestrians, bicyclists, motor vehicle and transit users), meeting the transportation needs of all ages, income groups, and abilities and providing mobility for a variety of trip purposes, while also supporting other City goals.
Policy MT-1-m: Standards for Planned Bus Rapid Transit Corridors and Activity Centers.
Independent of the Traffic Impact Zones identified in MT-2-I and Figure MT-4, strive to maintain the following vehicle LOS standards on major roadway segments and intersections along Bus Rapid Transit Corridors and in Activity Centers:
• LOS E or better at all times, including peak travel times, unless the City Traffic Engineer determines that mitigation to maintain this LOS would be infeasible and/or conflict with the achievement of other General Plan policies.
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Accept LOS F conditions in Activity Centers and Bus Rapid Transit Corridors only if provisions are made to improve the overall system and/or promote non-vehicular transportation and transit as part of a development project or a City-initiated project.
In accepting LOS F conditions, the City Traffic Engineer may request limited analyses of operational issues at locations near Activity Centers and along Bus Rapid Transit Corridors, such as queuing or left-turn movements.
• Give priority to maintaining pedestrian service first, followed by transit service and then by vehicle LOS, where conflicts between objectives for service capacity between different transportation modes occur.
• Identify pedestrian-priority and transit-priority streets where these modes would have priority in order to apply a multi-modal priority system, as part of the General Plan implementation.
Policy MT-2-b: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and Trips. Partner with major employers and other responsible agencies, such the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and the Fresno Council of Governments, to implement trip reduction strategies, such as eTRIP, to reduce total vehicle miles traveled and the total number of daily and peak hour vehicle trips, thereby making better use of the existing transportation system.
Policy MT-2-c: Reduce VMT through Infill Development. Provide incentives for infill development that would provide jobs and services closer to housing and multi-modal transportations corridors in order to reduce citywide vehicle miles travelled (VMT).
Policy MT-2-g: Transportation Demand Management and Transportation System Management. Pursue implementation of Transportation Demand Management and Transportation System Management strategies to reduce peak hour vehicle traffic and supplement the capacity of the transportation system.
Objective MT-4: Establish and maintain a continuous, safe, and easily accessible bikeways system throughout the metropolitan area to reduce vehicle use, improve air quality and the quality of life, and provide public health benefits.
Policy MT-4-b: Bikeway Improvements. Establish and implement property development standards to assure that projects adjacent to designated bikeways provide adequate rightof-way and that necessary improvements are constructed to implement the planned bikeway system shown on Figure MT-2 to provide for bikeways, to the extent feasible, when existing roadways are reconstructed; and alternative bikeway alignments or routes where inadequate right-of-way is available.
Policy MT-4-d: Prioritization of Bikeway Improvements. Prioritize bikeway components that link existing separated sections of the system, or that are likely to serve the highest concentration of existing or potential cyclists, particularly in those neighborhoods with low vehicle ownership rates, or that are likely to serve destination areas with the highest demand such as schools, shopping areas, recreational and park areas, and employment centers.
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-29 Policy MT-5-a: Sidewalk Development. Pursue funding and implement standards for development of sidewalks on public streets, with priority given to meeting the needs of persons with physical and vision limitations; providing safe routes to school; completing pedestrian improvements in established neighborhoods with lower vehicle ownership rates; or providing pedestrian access to public transportation routes.
Policy MT-5-b: Sidewalk Requirements. Assure adequate access for pedestrians and people with disabilities in new residential developments per adopted City policies, consistent with the California Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Policy MT-8-c: New Development Facilitating Transit. Continue to review development proposals in transportation corridors to ensure they are designed to facilitate transit.
Coordinate all projects that have residential or employment densities suitable for transit services, so they are located along existing or planned transit corridors or that otherwise have the potential for transit orientation to FAX, and consider FAX’s comments in decisionmaking.
City of Fresno GHG Reduction Plan
The City of Fresno adopted its first GHG Reduction Plan (GHG Plan) in December 2014. The GHG Plan established a target of reducing per capita GHG emissions in the city by 21.7 percent below 2020 business-as-usual (BAU) levels by 2020 and includes GHG reduction measures designed to achieve the reduction target. The GHG Plan is considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5.2.
It should be noted that, since adoption of the GHG Plan, two significant regulations/decisions have been established. First, on September 28, 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 32 into law that sets a Statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
Additionally, on November 30, 2015, the California Supreme Court published its decision on the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan invalidating the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a variety of reasons, including the use of 29 percent below business-as-usual (BAU) as a threshold to determine significance of GHG emissions under CEQA without any supporting evidence.
The City of Fresno recently released an updated version of the GHG Plan (the GHG Plan Update) for public comment along with the City’s Recirculated Draft General Plan Program (PEIR), to ensure conformity with the mandates of California Supreme Court in the Newhall Ranch case and the State of California’s latest GHG regulations. The final version of the GHG Plan Update was adopted on September 30, 2021.
The GHG Plan Update re-evaluatesthe City’s GHG reduction targets and existing reduction strategies from the 2014 GHG Plan. New goals and supporting measures are proposed to reflect and ensure compliance with changes in the local and State policies and regulations such as SB 32 and California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. The City’s GHG inventory, based on the most recent data available for the year 2016 is evaluated and the future growth in emissions for the BAU and adjusted BAU (ABAU) scenarios (the ABAU scenario takes into account the State policies) for the years 2020, 2030, and 2035 are projected. The 2020 and 2030 forecast years in the GHG Plan Update are
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan consistent with the goals identified in Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and SB 32, which identify Statewide GHG reduction targets by 2020 and 2030. The 2035 forecast year correspond to the City’s General Plan horizon year and will allow the City to develop long-term strategies to continue GHG reductions.
The GHG inventory for the City of Fresno in the updated GHG Plan is summarized in Table 3.7-1.
Table 3.7-2 provides the City’s Adjusted Business-as-Usual (ABAU) Emissions forecast, and Table 3.7- 3 provides the State-Aligned GHG Emissions Reduction Targets by Year.
TABLE 3.7-1: CITY OF FRESNO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR 2016 AND BUSINESS-AS-USUAL (BAU) PROJECTIONS
EMISSIONS SECTOR 2016 2020 2030 2035
Transportation 1,520,052 1,594,888 1,798,498 1,909,852
Commercial Energy 524,838 557,142 627,373 657,379
Residential Energy 479,371 514,053 579,546 603,951
Fugitive Emissions 270,130 288,573 335,316 357,008
Solid Waste 119,167 127,303 147,923 157,493
Industrial Energy 10,055 10,506 11,528 12,035
Agriculture Energy 20 20 20 20
Total 2,923,633 3,092,486 3,500,204 3,697,738
NOTE: TOTALS MAY NOT ADD UP DUE TO ROUNDING.
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, 2021
TABLE 3.7-2: CITY OF FRESNO ADJUSTED BUSINESS-AS-USUAL (ABAU) GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS SECTOR 2016 2020 2030 2035
Transportation 1,520,052 1,170,329 1,131,034 1,072,955
Commercial Energy 524,838 355,121 290,950 255,226
Residential Energy 479,371 324,760 190,210 124,904
Fugitive Emissions 270,130 144,287 167,658 178,504
Solid Waste 119,167 127,303 147,923 157,493
Industrial Energy 10,055 10,506 11,528 12,035
Agriculture Energy 20 20 20 20
Total 2,923,633 2,132,326 1,939,325 1,801,137
NOTE: TOTALS MAY NOT ADD UP DUE TO ROUNDING.
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, 2021
TABLE 3.7-3: CITY OF FRESNO STATE-ALIGNED GHG EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETS BY YEAR EMISSIONS SECTOR 2016 2020 2030 2035
BAU Emissions (MT CO2e) 2,923,633 3,092,486 3,500,204 3,697,738 Adjusted BAU Emissions (MT CO2e) 2,923,633 2,132,326 1,939,325 1,801,137 State-Aligned Target
(Percent change from 1990) - 0 -40 -50
State-Aligned Target
(Percent change from 2010) - -15 -49 -58
State-Aligned Emissions Goal (MT CO2e) - 3,183,348 1,910,009 1,591,674 Reductions from Adjusted BAU needed to
meet the State-Aligned Target (MT CO2e) - Target Met 29,316 209,463 NOTE: TOTALS MAY NOT ADD UP DUE TO ROUNDING.
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, 2021
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-31
3.7.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, climate change-related impacts are considered significant if implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would do any of the following:
• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The vast majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a projectspecific impact through a direct influence to climate change; therefore, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355).
For future projects, the significance of GHG emissions may be evaluated based on locally adopted quantitative thresholds, or consistency with a regional GHG reduction plan (such as a Climate Action Plan).
The City of Fresno developed its first GHG Plan in 2014. More recently, the City of Fresno released an updated version of the GHG Plan (the GHG Plan Update) for public comment along with the City’s Recirculated Draft General Plan EIR. The GHG Plan Update was adopted on September 30, 2021. This document will ensure conformity with the mandates of California Supreme Court in the Newhall Ranch case and the State of California’s latest GHG regulations. The GHG Plan Update re-evaluates the City’s GHG reduction targets and existing reduction strategies from the 2014 GHG Plan. The City’s GHG inventory, based on the most recent data available for the year 2016 is evaluated and the future growth in emissions for the BAU and adjusted BAU (ABAU) scenarios (the ABAU scenario takes into account the State policies) for the years 2020, 2030, and 2035 are projected. The 2020 and 2030 forecast years are consistent with the goals identified in Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and SB 32, which identify Statewide GHG reduction targets by 2020 and 2030. The 2035 forecast year corresponds to the City’s General Plan horizon year and will allow the City to develop long-term strategies to continue GHG reductions. Therefore, the proposed project is evaluated in comparison with the existing GHG Plan as well as with the forthcoming GHG Plan Update (where applicable).
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE (ENERGY CONSERVATION)
Consistent with Appendices F and G of the CEQA Guidelines, energy-related impacts are considered significant if implementation of the Specific Plan would do the following:
• Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. • Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan In order to determine whether or not the proposed Specific Plan would result in a significant impact on energy use, this EIR includes an analysis of proposed Specific Plan energy use, as provided under Impacts and Mitigation Measures below.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.7-1: Specific Plan implementation could generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. A project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale relative to global emissions, but could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact. Implementation of the project would contribute to increases of GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of CO2 and other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), from mobile sources and utility usage.
The short-term construction-related and long-term operational GHG emissions associated with future buildout of the Plan Area allowed under the proposed Specific Plan were estimated using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)TM (v.2016.3.2). CalEEMod is a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify GHG emissions from land use projects. The model quantifies direct GHG emissions from construction and operation (including vehicle use), as well as indirect GHG emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. Emissions are expressed in annual metric tons of CO2 equivalent units of measure (i.e., MT CO2e), based on the global warming potential of the individual pollutants.
SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Estimated unmitigated GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed project are summarized in Table 3.7-4. These emissions include all worker vehicle, vendor vehicle, hauler vehicle, and off-road construction vehicle GHG emissions. For the purposes of this analysis, based on the anticipated buildout year, the proposed project is assumed to commence construction in 2021 and finish in 2035. It should be noted that this schedule is an approximation and may change over time. A regularized construction schedule was utilized for modelling purposes for the sake of simplicity.
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-33 TABLE 3.7-4: CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS (UNMITIGATED AVERAGE MT CO2E/YEAR) YEAR BIO- CO2 NON-BIO- CO2 TOTAL CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E
2020 0 101,058 101,058 9 0 101,272
2021 0 143,582 143,582 12 0 144,053
2022 0 150,529 150,529 12 0 150,819
2023 0 145,922 145,922 8 0 146,126
2024 0 143,930 143,930 8 0 144,133
2025 0 140,375 140,375 8 0 140,576
2026 0 138,019 138,019 8 0 138,218
2027 0 135,633 135,633 8 0 135,829
2028 0 133,051 133,051 8 0 133,243
2029 0 131,733 131,733 8 0 131,922
2030 0 130,187 130,187 7 0 130,371
2031 0 128,822 128,822 7 0 129,003
2032 0 128,168 128,168 7 0 128,348
2033 0 126,226 126,226 7 0 126,401
2034 0 125,418 125,418 7 0 125,591
2035 0 8,077 8,077 0 0 8,080
SOURCES: CALEEMOD (V.2016.3.2)
OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Estimated GHG emissions associated with the proposed project is summarized in Table 3.7-5, below.
TABLE 3.7-5: OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS (UNMITIGATED METRIC TONS/YEAR) CATEGORY BIO-CO2 NBIO-CO2 TOTAL CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E
Area 0 53,549 53,549 2 1 53,877
Energy 0 365,420 365,420 14 4 367,057
Mobile 0 1,536,405 1,536,405 112 0 1,539,212
Waste 23,325 0 23,325 1,378 0 57,787
Water 2,846 20,087 22,933 293 7 32,377
Total 26,171 1,975,461 2,001,632 1,799 12 2,050,310
SOURCES: CALEEMOD (V.2016.3.2)
The significance thresholds for GHG emissions should be related to compliance with AB 32 and SB 32, and the City of Fresno, as lead agency, has chosen to evaluate the project’s conformity with the City’s f GHG Reduction Plan Update to determine consistency with this CEQA impact. The rationale for using this threshold is outlined in the previous subsection, entitled “Thresholds of Significance”.
As stated under the previous subsection, entitled “Thresholds of Significance”, the GHG Plan is considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5.2. The GHG Plan Update is also considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5.2. Project consistency with the GHG Plan Update ensures conformity with the mandates of California Supreme Court in the Newhall Ranch case and the State of California’s latest GHG regulations.
The GHG Plan Update re-evaluates the City’s GHG reduction targets and existing reduction strategies from the 2014 GHG Plan. New goals and supporting measures are included to reflect and ensure compliance with changes in the local and State policies and regulations such as SB 32 and California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. The City’s GHG inventory, based on the most recent data available for the year 2016 is evaluated and the future growth in emissions for the BAU and adjusted BAU (ABAU) scenarios (the ABAU scenario takes into account the State policies) for the years 2020,
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2030, and 2035 are projected. The 2020 and 2030 forecast years are consistent with the goals identified in Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and SB 32, which identify Statewide GHG reduction targets by 2020 and 2030. The 2035 forecast year correspond to the City’s General Plan horizon year and will allow the City to develop long-term strategies to continue GHG reductions.
This GHG Plan Update provides a description of General Plan policies that support a reduction in GHGs from all sources within the City’s ability to control or influence. These strategies enhance the effectiveness of State strategies by ensuring that the city is developed in ways that minimize emissions. In order to reach the long-term reduction targets, the City would also need to implement local reduction measures. These measures encourage Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reductions through mixed use and infill development, transportation demand management, development and penetration of electric vehicles (EVs), energy efficiency enhancement and conservation, water conservation, and increased waste diversion and recycling strategies. Public education and outreach would play a crucial role in educating stakeholders about the importance of implementing these measures.
Analysis of GHG emissions and potential climate change impacts for new development is required under CEQA. The GHG Plan Update provides strategies and guidelines for the reduction of GHG emissions in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. A GHG Reduction Plan Consistency Checklist (Checklist) is presented to provide a streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
Finally, the GHG Plan Update in itself is not enough to meet the reduction goals without a commitment to implementation and recurring monitoring. The GHG Plan Update identifies the process for implementing and monitoring the GHG reduction strategies. Through successful implementation of this GHG Plan Update, the City will demonstrate the potential economic, social, and environmental benefits of reducing GHG emissions and providing environmental stewardship within the community.
CONCLUSION
Short-term construction GHG emissions are a one-time release of GHGs and are not expected to significantly contribute to global climate change. Additionally, the implementation of the mitigation measures presented in Section 3.2: Air Quality of this EIR would further reduce the overall annual GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. Lastly, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The project would be consistent with the current version of the City GHG Reduction Plan, which is considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5, thereby allowing for streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Moreover, the project would be required to be consistent with the adopted version of the GHG Plan Update, including with GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-35 its Project Consistency Checklist, as described by Mitigation Measure 3.7-1, below. The GHG Plan Update would also be considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5.
Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7-1, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, directly and indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment. The mitigation measure below would reduce this impact to less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: Prior to the City’s approval of the project (i.e. the Specific Plan) as well as individual development projects within the Specific Plan Area, the Director of the City Planning and Development Department, or designee, shall confirm that the Specific Plan and each individual development project is consistent with the 2021 GHG Reduction Plan Update, and shall implement all measures deemed applicable to the Specific Plan and each individual development project through the GHG Reduction Plan Update-Project Consistency Checklist (Appendix B of the GHG Reduction Plan Update).
Impact 3.7-2: Specific Plan implementation would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources, or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Less than Significant)
The CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of the potentially significant energy implications of a project. CEQA requires mitigation measures to reduce “wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary” energy usage (Public Resources Code Section 21100, subdivision [b][3]). According to the CEQA Guidelines, the means to achieve the goal of conserving energy include decreasing overall energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In particular, the proposed project would be considered “wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary” if it were to violate State and federal energy standards and/or result in significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy inefficiencies, energy intensiveness of materials, cause significant impacts on local and regional energy supplies or generate requirements for additional capacity, fail to comply with existing energy standards, otherwise result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources, or conflict or create an inconsistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation.
The proposed project is a large-scale Specific Plan, and incorporates residential, commercial, public/institutional, and open space uses. The amount of energy used by the proposed project during operation would directly correlate with the number, size, and type of project buildings, the energy efficiency of associated building equipment and appliances, and outdoor lighting, and energy use associated with other on-site buildings and activities. Other project energy uses include fuel used by vehicle trips generated during project construction and operation, fuel used by off-road construction vehicles during construction activities, and fuel used by project maintenance activities during project operation. The following discussion provides a detailed calculation of energy usage expected for the proposed project, for the unmitigated and mitigated scenarios, as provided by
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan applicable modelling software (i.e. CalEEMod v2016.3.2 and the CARB EMFAC2017). Additional assumptions and calculations are provided within Appendix B of this EIR.
ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS
Electricity and natural gas used by the proposed project would be used primarily to generate energy for on-site buildings, lighting, and water pumping, treatment, and conveyance. As shown in the following tables, “Energy” is one of the categories that was modeled for GHG emissions. The total unmitigated and mitigated GHG emissions generated from the “Energy” category in buildout year 2035 is 367,057 MT CO2e. The following discussion includes a more detailed breakdown of energy consumption in terms of natural gas and electricity consumption. The proposed project would consider effective ways to encourage alternative energy use throughout the Specific Plan Area, as described by mitigation measure provided in Section 3.2: Air Quality of this EIR.
Natural Gas: Unmitigated natural gas energy consumption for Year 2035 is estimated to be 1,904,254,144 kBTU (as provided by the CalEEMod results). See Appendix B of this EIR for further detail.
Electricity: Unmitigated electricity energy consumption for Year 2035 is estimated to be 907,952,145 kWh (as provided by the CalEEMod results). See Appendix B of this EIR for further detail.
ON-ROAD VEHICLES (OPERATION)
The proposed project would generate vehicle trips during its operational phase. A description of project operational on-road mobile energy usage is provided below.
According to the VMT Analysis prepared for the proposed project (Kittelson & Associates, 2020), and as described in more detail in Section 3.14: Transportation and Circulation of this EIR, the project would generate approximately 991,667 ADT. In order to calculate operational on-road vehicle energy usage and emissions, De Novo Planning Group used fleet mix data from the CalEEMod (v2016.3.2) output for the proposed project, Year 2035 gasoline and diesel MPG (miles per gallon) factors for individual vehicle classes as provided by EMFAC2017, weighted average MPG factors for gasoline and diesel were derived. Therefore, upon full buildout, the proposed project would generate operational vehicle trips that would use a total of approximately 75,063,072 gallons of gasoline and 25,808,784 gallons of diesel per day, or 27,398,021,200 gallons of gasoline and 9,420,206,008 gallons of diesel per year.
ON-ROAD VEHICLES (CONSTRUCTION)
The proposed project would also generate on-road vehicle trips during project construction (from construction workers and vendors travelling to and from the Plan Area). De Novo Planning Group estimated the vehicle fuel consumed during these trips based the assumed construction schedule, vehicle trip lengths and number of workers per construction phase as provided by CalEEMod, and Year 2035 gasoline and diesel MPG factors provided by EMFAC2017 (year 2035 factors were used to represent the buildout year). For the sake of simplicity, it was assumed that all construction worker GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-37 light duty passenger cars and truck trips use gasoline as a fuel source, and all medium and heavyduty vendor trucks use diesel fuel). Table 3.7-6 describes gasoline and diesel fuel consumed during each construction phase (in aggregate).
As shown, the vast majority of on-road mobile vehicle fuel used during the construction of the proposed project would occur during the building construction phase. There is no feasible mitigation available that would reduce on-road mobile vehicle GHG emissions generated by the project construction activities (requiring the use of electric construction vehicles was deemed infeasible, given price and availability concerns). The Plan Area is relatively flat, so no hauling was assumed for grading. Additionally, hauling for demolition activities were assumed to be minimal. See Appendix B of this EIR for a detailed accounting of construction on-road vehicle fuel usage estimates.
TABLE 3.7-6: ON-ROAD MOBILE FUEL GENERATED BY PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES – BY PHASE
CONSTRUCTION
PHASE
# OF
DAYS
TOTAL DAILY
WORKER
TRIPS(A)
TOTAL DAILY
VENDOR
TRIPS(A)
TOTAL HAULER
WORKER
TRIPS(A)
TOTAL GALLONS OF
GASOLINE FUEL(B)
TOTAL GALLONS OF
DIESEL FUEL(B)
Demolition 20 15 0 0 89 123,433
Site Preparation 65 18 0 0 455 0
Grading 65 20 0 0 505 0
Underground
Utilities 65 30 0 0 525 0
Paving 85 6 0 0 495 0
Building
Construction 3,833 65,164 24,601 0 4,853,381 6,397,974
Architectural
Coating 3,656 13,033 0 0 925,867 0
Total 7,789 N/A N/A N/A 5,781,317 6,521,407
NOTE:
(A) PROVIDED BY CALEEMOD OUTPUT.(B)
SEE APPENDIX B OF THIS EIR FOR FURTHER DETAIL
SOURCE: CALEEMOD (V.2016.3.2); EMFAC2017.
OFF-ROAD VEHICLES (CONSTRUCTION)
Off-road construction vehicles would use diesel fuel during the construction phase of the proposed project. A non-exhaustive list of off-road constructive vehicles expected to be used during the construction phase of the proposed project includes: forklifts, generator sets, tractors, excavators, and dozers. Based on the total amount of CO2 emissions expected to be generated by the proposed project (as provided by the CalEEMod output), and standard conversion factors (as provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration), the proposed project would use a total of approximately 31,752 gallons of diesel fuel for off-road construction vehicles. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix B of this EIR.
OTHER
The proposed project could also use other sources of energy not identified here. Examples of other energy sources include alternative and/or renewable energy (such as solar PV) and/or on-site
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan stationary sources (such as on-site diesel generators) for electricity generation. However, these sources of energy are not planned at this time.
CONCLUSION
The proposed project would use energy resources for the operation of project buildings (electricity and natural gas), for on-road vehicle trips (e.g. gasoline and diesel fuel) generated by the proposed project, and from off-road construction activities associated with the proposed project (e.g. diesel fuel). Each of these activities would require the use of energy resources. The proposed project would be responsible for conserving energy, to the extent feasible, and relies heavily on reducing per capita energy consumption to achieve this goal, including through statewide and local measures.
The proposed project would be in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. For example, PG&E, the electric and natural gas provider to the proposed project, is responsible for the mix of energy resources used to provide electricity for its customers, and it is in the process of implementing the statewide RPS to increase the proportion of renewable energy (e.g. solar and wind) within its energy portfolio. PG&E has achieved more than a 33% mix of renewable energy resources by 2020, and is required to achieve a 60% mix of renewable energy resources by 2030. Additionally, energy-saving regulations, including the latest State Title 24 building energy efficiency standards (“part 6”), would be applicable to the proposed project. These regulations would require the proposed project buildings to achieve a high level of energy efficiency.
For example, part 6 of the latest Title 24 building energy efficiency standards would require improvements for attics, walls, water heating, and lighting, as compared with the previous version of these standards. Other statewide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy-duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g. the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard), would improve vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time.
Furthermore, as described previously, the implementation of the mitigation measures provided in Section 3.2: Air Quality of this Draft EIR would reduce project energy usage (including from electricity, natural gas, and on-road vehicle gasoline and diesel sources). Overall, the incorporation of mitigation measures would ensure that the proposed project would avoid and reduce inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. The proposed project would comply with all existing energy standards, including those established by the City of Fresno, the Air District (i.e.
SJVAPCD) and the State of California, and would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources. For these reasons, the proposed project would not cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources nor cause a significant impact on any of the threshold as described by the CEQA Guidelines. This is a less than significant impact.
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-39 Impact 3.7-3: Specific Plan implementation would not generate a cumulative impact on climate change from increased project-related greenhouse gas emissions. (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
As the California Supreme Court has emphasized, all CEQA analyses of the environmental effects of GHG emissions are inherently cumulative in character. “[B]ecause of the global scale of climate change, any one project's contribution is unlikely to be significant by itself. With respect to climate change, an individual project's emissions will most likely not have any appreciable impact on the global problem by itself, but they will contribute to the significant cumulative impact caused by greenhouse gas emissions from other sources around the globe. The question therefore becomes whether the project's incremental addition of greenhouse gases is ‘cumulatively considerable’ in light of the global problem, and thus significant.’” (Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 219, quoting (Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under CEQA: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (July 2011) 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J. 203, 207–208.) Thus, the analysis below considers the entire planet as a backdrop while focusing on whether the proposed project’s incremental contribution to worldwide GHG emissions is cumulatively considerable.
In California, there has been extensive legislation passed with the goal of reducing GHG emissions.
The legislative goals are as follows: 1) 1990 levels by 2020 and 2) 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.
An additional goal -- 80% below the 1990 levels by the year 2050 – was set by Governor Schwarzenegger through Executive Order S-03-05. An even more ambitious goal of achieving carbon neutrality “as soon as possible, and no later than 2045,” was set by Governor Brown through Executive Order B-55-18. To achieve these legislative and executive goals, the CARB has developed regional GHG emission reduction targets for the automobile and light truck sectors (the largest single source of GHG emissions) for 2020 and 2040. The regional GHG emission reduction targets for each region in California were established by the CARB.
As described in Impact 3.7-2, implementation of the Specific Plan is consistent with the current version of the City GHG Reduction Plan, which is considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5. Additionally, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.7-1, the City will be required to demonstrate that Specific Plan is consistent with the 2021 GHG Plan Update , thereby allowing for streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, directly and indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment. Moreover, the Specific Plan incorporates goals and policies that emphasize compact, walkable communities, and where incorporated into the design of the proposed project, would help minimize GHG emissions generated by the proposed project. Further, the proposed project would be required to implement mitigation measures that are intended to reduce GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The State of California continues to implement measures that are intended to reduce emissions on a State-wide scale (i.e. vehicle fuel efficiency standards in fleets, low carbon fuels, etc.) that are consistent with AB 32 and SB 32. These types of statewide measures will benefit the proposed project (and city as a whole) in the long-term
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-40 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan as they come into effect; however, the City does not have the jurisdiction to create far-reaching (i.e. statewide) measures to reduce GHG emissions. On a project-by-project case, the City of Fresno evaluates a project and the potential to impose project-specific mitigation, which has been done through this GHG analysis. For these reasons, implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable contribution impact to GHGs.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-1 This section describes the physical setting, hazards assessment, hazardous material sites, fire hazards, regulatory setting, and impacts that are expected related to hazards and hazardous materials. This section is based in part on the following documents, reports, and studies:
• Cortese List Data Resources (Cal EPA, 2019);
• Draft Master Environmental Impact Report General Plan and Development Code Update, City of Fresno, Fresno County, California (City of Fresno, 2014); • Fresno General Plan Public Review Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (City of Fresno, 2020);
• Envirostor Data Management System (California DTSC, 2019); • Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission, 2018).
• Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• Fresno Municipal Code (City of Fresno, 2007);
• GeoTracker (California State Water Resources Board, 2019); and • Web Soil Survey (NRCS, 2019).
One comment was received during the public review period for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from Cathy Caples (August 2019). The portion of this comment letter which relates to this topic is addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.
3.8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PHYSICAL SETTING
Project Location
The Plan Area is triangular in shape and located west of State Route 99. It is bounded on the south by West Clinton Avenue, and to the west by Grantland and Garfield Avenues. The Plan Area includes the southwest portion of Highway City adjacent to State Route 99. See Figure 2.0-1 for the regional location map and Figure 2.0-2 for the Plan Area vicinity map. Figures 2.0-1 and 2.0-2 found in Section
2.0 illustrate the regional location and vicinity map.
Existing Site Uses
Large portions of the Plan Area are improved with existing residential, public facilities, commercial, mixed use, undeveloped rural land, and agricultural uses. These uses are spread throughout the entire Plan Area. Agricultural uses are primarily located in the western portion of the Plan Area. The developed uses are aggregated in the central and eastern portions of the Plan Area.
A portion of the Plan Area is located within the City of Fresno City limits, and a portion is within unincorporated Fresno County (within the City’s Sphere of Influence [SOI]). The City of Fresno General Plan designates the existing Plan Area as: Low Density Residential, Medium Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Urban Neighborhood Residential, High Density Residential, Community Commercial, General Commercial, Recreation Commercial, Office, Business Park, Light
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.8-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Industrial, Corridor/Center Mixed Use, Regional Mixed Use, Community Park, Open Space – Ponding Basin, Neighborhood Park, Open Space, Public/Quasi-Public Facility, Special School, Elementary School, Elementary, Middle & High School, and High School. See Figure 2.0-4 for the existing City General Plan land use designations.
Existing Surrounding Uses
Existing surrounding land uses include State Route 99; the historic communities of Herndon and Highway City; incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the northeast; incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the east (including mostly industrial uses); unincorporated Fresno County and incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the south (including farmland uses, rural residential uses, low density residential uses, and underutilized parcels); and unincorporated Fresno County to the west (including farmland and rural residential uses).
Site Topography
The Plan Area is relatively flat with natural gentle slope near State Route 99. The Plan Area topography ranges in elevation from approximately 283 to 315 feet above mean sea level. A large amount of land in the Plan Area is farmland or rural residential lots with large, uneven, and underutilized parcels.
Site Soils
A Web Soil Survey was completed for the Plan Area using the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey program. The NRCS Soils Map is provided in Figure 3.8-1. Table 3.8- 1 identifies the type and range of soils found in the Plan Area.
TABLE 3.8-1: PLAN AREA SOILS
NAME ACRES IN PLAN AREA PERCENT OF PLAN AREA
Exeter loam 215.7 3.1%
Exeter sandy loam 1,227.6 17.5%
Exeter sandy loam, shallow 150.2 2.1%
Hanford gravelly sandy loam 15.0 0.2%
Hanford sandy loam, benches 17.3 0.2%
Hesperia fine sandy loam, moderately deep 1.7 0.0%
Pollasky fine sandy loam, 2-9% slopes 2.6 0.0%
Pollasky sandy loam, 9-15% slopes 5.3 0.1%
San Joaquin loam, 0-3% slopes 213.4 3.0%
San Joaquin loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes 757.6 10.8%
San Joaquin sandy loam, 0-3% slopes, MLRA 17 1,523.4 21.7% San Joaquin sandy loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes 2,872.8 41.0% Water 12.1 0.2%
SOURCE: NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY, 2019.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-3
HAZARDS ASSESSMENT
For the purposes of this EIR, “hazardous material” is defined as provided in California Health & Safety Code, Section 25501:
• Any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. “Hazardous materials” include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.
“Hazardous waste” is a subset of hazardous materials. For the purposes of this EIR, the definition of hazardous waste is essentially the same as that in the California Health & Safety Code, Section 25517, and in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Section 66261.2:
• Hazardous wastes are wastes that, because of their quantity, concentration, physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.
CCR Title 22 categorizes hazardous waste into hazard classes according to specific characteristics of ignitibility, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. Hazardous waste with any of these characteristics is also known as a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste.
Hazardous materials can be categorized as hazardous non-radioactive chemical materials, radioactive materials, toxic materials, and biohazardous materials. The previous definitions are adequate for non-radioactive hazardous chemicals. Radioactive and biohazardous materials are further defined as follows:
• Radioactive materials contain atoms with unstable nuclei that spontaneously emit ionizing radiation to increase their stability.
• Radioactive wastes are radioactive materials that are discarded (including wastes in storage) or abandoned.
• Toxic wastes are harmful or fatal when ingested or absorbed (e.g., containing mercury, lead). When toxic wastes are land disposed, contaminated liquid may leach from the waste and pollute groundwater.
• Biohazardous materials include materials containing certain infectious agents (microorganisms, bacteria, molds, parasites, and viruses) that cause or significantly contribute to increased human mortality or organisms capable of being communicated by invading and multiplying in body tissues.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.8-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Medical wastes include both biohazardous wastes (byproducts of biohazardous materials) and sharps (devices capable of cutting or piercing, such as hypodermic needles, razor blades, and broken glass) resulting from the diagnosis, treatment, or immunization of human beings, or research pertaining to these activities.
There are several categories of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes that could be found on any given property based on past uses. Some common examples include agrichemicals (chlorinated herbicides, organophosphate pesticides, and organochlorine pesticides, such as such as Mecoprop (MCPP), Dinoseb, chlordane, dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and dichloro-diphenyldichloroethylene (DDE)), petroleum based products (oil, gasoline, diesel fuel), a variety of chemicals including paints, cleaners, and solvents, and asbestos-containing or lead-containing materials (e.g., paint, sealants, pipe solder).
“Recognized Environmental Conditions” is one of the terms used to identify environmental liability within the context of a Phase I Environmental Sites Assessment (ESA). The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) defines the recognized environmental condition in the E1527-13 standard as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.” Adjoining Properties
The Plan Area is bounded on the north and east by Highway 99, to the south by West Clinton Avenue, and to the west by Grantland and Garfield Avenues.
Historical Use Information
Historical information was reviewed to develop a history of the previous uses within the Plan Area and surrounding area, in order to evaluate the Plan Area and adjoining properties for evidence of environmental concerns. Standard historical sources reviewed during the preparation of this report included the following, as available:
ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS AND DATABASES
De Novo Planning Group performed a search of local, state, and federal agency databases for the Plan Area and known contaminated sites in the vicinity.
The USEPA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) does not list data on disposal or other releases of toxic chemicals in the Plan Area (USEPA, 2017). The nearest TRI site is located east of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, along North Brawley Avenue.
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains the Envirostor Data Management System, which provides information on hazardous waste facilities (both permitted and corrective action) as well as any available site cleanup information. There are four sites listed in the database within the Plan Area:
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-5 • West Shields Elementary School: This site is located at 4108 Shields Avenue, and is a part of the DTSC – Site Cleanup Program. The cleanup status is active as of 1/4/2017. A Phase 1 assessment was completed on this site on January 4, 2017. Past uses that caused contamination are not specified. The Potential materials (e.g. soil, water, etc.) affected were also not specified.
• Golden State Ranch Property: This site is located at Ashlan Avenue and Grantland Avenue, and the DTSC is the oversight agency for this site. The cleanup status is active as of 2/27/2002. Past uses that caused contamination include agricultural – row crops. No contaminants were found at this site.
• Parc West Development: This site is located at the intersection of Shields, Grantland, Garfield, and Gettysburg avenues. The cleanup status is currently inactive. Past uses that caused contamination included agricultural – orchard and agricultural – row crop uses.
Potential contaminants of concern are under investigation, and the potential materials affected are soils.
The Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) is a database of solid waste facilities that is maintained by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). The SWIS data identifies active, planned and closed sites. The Plan Area does not have any active or planned solid waste facilities listed in the database.
There is a broad list of federal and state databases that provide information for sites with varying potential for risk from the possible existence of hazardous materials. There are numerous redundancies among these various database listings. Below is a brief summary of each.
National Priorities List: The National Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund Sites and Proposed NPL Sites is USEPA’s database of more than 1,200 sites designated or proposed for priority cleanup under the Superfund program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. No site listed in this database is located within the Plan Area. The closest site listed in this database is the Fresno Municipal Sanitary Landfill, located south of SR 180.
RCRIS System: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) is a USEPA database that includes selective information on sites that generate, transport, store, treat, and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by RCRA. Identification on this list does not indicate that there has been an impact on the environment. No portion of the Plan Area is listed in this database.
CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report (CORRACTS) is a USEPA database that identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity. No portion of the Plan Area is listed in this database.
PADS System: PCB Activity Database System (PADS) is a USEPA database that identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers, and/or brokers and disposers of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) who are required to notify USEPA of such activities. No portion of the Plan Area is listed in this database.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.8-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Cortese Database: The Cortese database identifies public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, sites with known toxic material identified through the abandoned site assessment program, sites with underground storage tanks (USTs) having a reportable release, and all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is known hazardous substance migration. The source of this database is the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). No portion of the Plan Area is listed in this database.
GeoTracker: GeoTracker provides online access to environmental data and is the interface to the Geographic Environmental Information Management System, a data warehouse which tracks regulatory data about underground fuel tanks, fuel pipelines, and public drinking water supplies.
GeoTracker has replaced past databases, such as the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System and the Underground Storage Tank (UST) database. Information on hazardous material sites provided by the GeoTracker database is provided in greater detail below.
Hazardous Material Sites
As noted above, the State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (also known as the “Cortese List”) is a planning document used by the state, local agencies, and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for providing information about the location of hazardous materials sites. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires Cal EPA to annually update the Cortese List. DTSC is responsible for preparing a portion of the information that comprises the Cortese List. Other state and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information that is part of the complete list.
Searches of the GeoTracker database identified one active and one inactive hazardous material sites located within the Plan Area known to handle and store hazardous materials that are associated with a hazardous material related release or occurrence. The terms "release" or “occurrence” include any means by which a substance could harm the environment: by spilling, leaking, discharging, dumping, injecting, or escaping.
Table 3.8-2 displays the known hazardous material sites located within the Plan Area with a description of the type, status, and address. As shown, one active and one inactive site are located within the Plan Area, with the remaining sites are designated as completed, no action required, no further action, or not specified.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-7 TABLE 3.8-2: GEOTRACKER KNOWN HAZARDOUS MATERIAL RELEASE SITES WITHIN THE PLAN AREA
SITE NAME TYPE STATUS ADDRESS
7-Eleven #24180 LUST Cleanup Site Completed 426 West Ashlan Avenue AT&T California – SBR29 Permitted UST -- 4309 North Polk Avenue Chevron #9-9093 LUST Cleanup Site Completed 3996 Parkway Drive North Di Redo Dry Yard LUST Cleanup Site Completed 6150 Shaw Avenue West EZ Trip LUST Cleanup Site Completed 6639 Parkway Drive North Former Sieberts’ Oil Company LUST Cleanup Site Completed 2837 North Parkway Drive Fresno Gas & Liquor Permitted UST -- 3110 West Shields Avenue Golden State Ranch Property School Investigation No Action Required Ashlan Avenue/Grantland Avenue Johnny Quik #175 Permitted UST -- 4395 West Ashlan Avenue Jura Farms, Inc. LUST Cleanup Site Completed 5545 Dakota West Moore Truck Lines LUST Cleanup Site Completed 3693 Parkway North Parkway Mini-Mart Permitted UST --
Proposed Constance-Sierra
Elementary School School Investigation No Further Action Northeast Corner of Constance and Sierra Avenues Quick ‘N’ E-Z #19 Permitted UST --
Siebert’s Oil Company LUST Cleanup Site Completed 2837 Parkway Drive North Shop N Go, #607 Permitted UST -- 4245 West Ashlan
Sugahara Farm LUST Cleanup Site Completed 4108 Shields Avenue West Vallee Food Store LUST Cleanup Site Completed 2414 Marks North Westlake Proposed 430 Acre
Development Voluntary Cleanup Inactive Bounded by Shields, Grantland, Garfield, and Gettysburg West Shields Elementary School School Investigation Active 4108 Shields Avenue SOURCE: STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD GEOTRACKER (2019).
NOTE: -- = NOT SPECIFIED WITHIN THE GEOTRACKER DATABASE.
The West Shields Elementary School site has an active permitted underground storage tank (UST).
The permitting agency for this site is the DTSC. On January 4, 2017, DTSC received the Phase I for review. This site is currently a vacant lot with native grasses. The site has been used for agricultural purposes from at least 1937 through at least 1998. Multiple structures were formerly located at the site. In 1993, remediation of petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil was performed after removing a 500-gallon single-walled gasoline UST from the site. In addition, a water well was observed within the southwest quadrant of the site. The Phase I concludes that the only recognized environmental condition (REC) at the site is the potential application of persistent herbicides and pesticides due to the historical agricultural use of the site. The Phase I identifies the UST removal activities as a historical REC and indicates that no additional investigation appears warranted at this time.
Moreover, the Phase I identifies the following Site Development Issues: the potential presence of septic systems likely associated with the water well and the former on-site structures. The Phase I recommends properly abandoning and/or destroying the septic system and water well in accordance with all applicable state and local guidelines. On January 18, 2017, based on the provided information, DTSC determined that a Preliminary Environmental Assessment (PEA) is needed for the site. On August 4, 2017, DTSC conducted a site walk-through with the District and their consultant followed by the PEA scoping meeting. DTSC received the draft PEA Workplan on May 7, 2018 and issued comments on May 25, 2018. DTSC received the draft final PEA Workplan on June 23, 2018 and issued and approval letter or July 23, 2018. On September 4, 2018, DTSC conducted oversight
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.8-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan of the PEA fieldwork. DTSC received the draft PEA Report on 11 December 2018 and issued comments in a letter dated January 11, 2019. No subsequent information is available for the site.
The Inactive Westlake Proposed 430 Acre Development site is a voluntary (inactive) cleanup site.
The DTSC is the lead agency for the site. A Preliminary Endangerment Assessment was planned for this former agricultural property. The site is proposed as a Planned Residential Community. The DTSC had a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with the applicant for the Planned Residential Community. Potential media affected includes soils. Potential contaminants of concern are under investigation. Should the site be developed in the future, future cleanup activities would be required prior to development on this site, as applicable.
Emergency Response
The City of Fresno Fire Department provides fire prevention, suppression and investigation services, airport fire and rescue, urban search and rescue, response to medical emergencies (EMS), and response to hazardous materials incidents. The FFD service areas consists of the City of Fresno, and also includes extra-territorial services via contracts to provide services to the Fig Garden Fire Protection District, Fresno Yosemite International Airport, and surrounding areas through mutual aid and automatic aid requests.
Transportation of Hazardous Materials
The nearest roadway and transportation route approved for the transportation of explosives, poisonous inhalation hazards, and radioactive materials in the city is State Route 99.
WILDFIRE HAZARDS
Wildfires are a major hazard in the State of California. Wildfires burn natural vegetation on developed and undeveloped lands and include timber, brush, woodland, and grass fires. While low intensity wildfires have a role in the County’s ecosystem, wildfires put human health and safety, structures (e.g., homes, schools, businesses, etc.), air quality, recreation areas, water quality, wildlife habitat and ecosystem health, and forest resources at risk.
Wildland fire hazards exist in varying degrees within the Plan Area. None of the Plan Area is located within or near to a State Responsibility Area (SRA). The Plan Area is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). Most of the Plan Area is located in the “LRA Unzoned” Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). However, small areas within the northern, central, and southern portions of the Plan Area are located in the “LRA Moderate” FHSZ. There are no very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ) located within or near the Plan Area.
3.8.2 REGULATORY SETTING
The following is an overview of the federal, State, and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-9
FEDERAL
The primary federal agencies that are responsible for overseeing regulations and policies regarding hazardous materials are the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Department of Transportation (DOT). Several laws governing the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials are governed by these agencies as well as oversight for contaminated sites cleanup. Federal laws and regulations that are applicable to hazards and hazardous materials are presented below.
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as amended, is the basic statute regulating hazardous materials transportation in the United States. The purpose of the law is to provide adequate protection against the risks to life and property inherent in transporting hazardous materials in interstate commerce. This law gives the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and other agencies the authority to issue and enforce rules and regulations governing the safe transportation of hazardous materials.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The 1976 Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the 1984 RCRA Amendments regulate the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. The legislation mandated that hazardous wastes be tracked from the point of generation to their ultimate fate in the environment. This includes detailed tracking of hazardous materials during transport and permitting of hazardous material handling facilities.
The 1984 RCRA amendments provided the framework for a regulatory program designed to prevent releases from USTs. The program establishes tank and leak detection standards, including spill and overflow protection devices for new tanks. The tanks must also meet performance standards to ensure that the stored material will not corrode the tanks.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (the Act) introduced active federal involvement to emergency response, site remediation, and spill prevention, most notably the Superfund program. The Act was intended to be comprehensive in encompassing both the prevention of, and response to, uncontrolled hazardous substances releases. The Act deals with environmental response, providing mechanisms for reacting to emergencies and to chronic hazardous material releases. In addition to establishing procedures to prevent and remedy problems, it establishes a system for compensating appropriate individuals and assigning appropriate liability. It is designed to plan for and respond to failure in other regulatory programs and to remedy problems resulting from action taken before the era of comprehensive regulatory protection.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.8-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act authorizes the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety to regulate pipeline transportation of natural (flammable, toxic, or corrosive) gas and other gases as well as the transportation and storage of liquefied natural gas. The Office of Pipeline Safety regulates the design, construction, inspection, testing, operation, and maintenance of pipeline facilities. While the federal government is primarily responsible for developing, issuing, and enforcing pipeline safety regulations, the pipeline safety statutes provide for State assumption of the intrastate regulatory, inspection, and enforcement responsibilities under an annual certification.
To qualify for certification, a state must adopt the minimum federal regulations and may adopt additional or more stringent regulations as long as they are not incompatible.
Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 provides the EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from Toxic Substances Control Act, including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics and pesticides. The Toxic Substances Control Act addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including PCBs, asbestos, radon and lead-based paint.
Various sections of Toxic Substances Control Act provide authority to:
• Require, under Section 5, pre-manufacture notification for "new chemical substances" before manufacture
• Require, under Section 4, testing of chemicals by manufacturers, importers, and processors where risks or exposures of concern are found
• Issue Significant New Use Rules (SNURs), under Section 5, when it identifies a "significant new use" that could result in exposures to, or releases of, a substance of concern. • Maintain the Toxic Substances Control Act Inventory, under Section 8, which contains more than 83,000 chemicals. As new chemicals are commercially manufactured or imported, they are placed on the list.
• Require those importing or exporting chemicals, under Sections 12(b) and 13, to comply with certification reporting and/or other requirements. • Require, under Section 8, reporting and record-keeping by persons who manufacture, import, process, and/or distribute chemical substances in commerce. • Require, under Section 8(e), that any person who manufactures (including imports), processes, or distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture and who obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment to immediately inform EPA, except where EPA has been adequately informed of such information. EPA screens all Toxic Substances Control Act b§8(e) submissions as well as voluntary "For Your Information" (FYI) submissions. The latter are not required by law, but are submitted by industry and public interest groups for a variety of reasons.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-11 The Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (also known as Title III of the Federal Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, or “SARA III”) (42 United States Code 11001, et seq.), was established by the EPA to allow for emergency planning at the state and local level regarding chemical emergencies, to provide notification of emergency release of chemicals, and to address community right-to-know regarding hazardous and toxic chemicals. SARA III was designed to increase community access and knowledge about chemical hazards as well as facilitate the creation and implementation of state/Native American tribe emergency response commissions, responsible for coordinating certain emergency response activities and for appointing local emergency planning committees. Section 1910.1200(c) Title 29 of the CFR defines “chemicals or hazardous materials” for the purposes of SARA III.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 United States Code 136, et seq.) was originally passed in 1947. It has been amended several times, most extensively in 1972, and most recently by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. The purpose of FIFRA is to establish federal jurisdiction over the distribution, sale, and use of pesticides. It also gives EPA the authority to study the effects of pesticide use. Other key provisions of FIFRA require pesticide applicators to pass a licensing examination for status as “qualified applicators,” create a review and registration process for new pesticide products, and ensure thorough and understandable labeling that includes instructions for use.
STATE
The primary state agencies that are responsible for overseeing regulations and policies regarding hazardous materials are the California Office of Emergency Services (OES), California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Highway Patrol (CHP), California Water Quality Control Board, and the California Air Resources Board. Several laws governing the generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials are administered by these agencies. State laws and regulations that are applicable to hazards and hazardous materials are presented below.
California Health and Safety Code
Cal-EPA has established rules governing the use of hazardous materials and the management of hazardous wastes. Many of these regulations are embodied in the California Health and Safety Code.
The code includes regulations that govern safe drinking water, substances control, land reuse and revitalization, remediation, restoration, and methamphetamine contaminated cleanups.
California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program Business Plan
When hazardous materials are improperly handled or stored, they can result in a threat to employees, public health, and/or the contamination of the environment. State and Federal Community Right-to-Know laws were passed in 1984. These laws allow public access to information
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.8-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan about the types and amounts of chemicals being used at local businesses. The laws also require businesses to plan and prepare for a chemical emergency through the preparation of a Hazardous Materials Inventory that is certified annually and a Hazardous Materials Business Plan that is certified tri-annually. Businesses are inspected at least once every three years by a Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) inspector to verify compliance with the California Health and Safety Code and California Code of Regulations.
A Business Emergency Response Plan and Inventory is required of any facility which handles hazardous materials or waste in amounts greater than:
• 55 gallons for liquids;
• 500 pounds for solids; or
• 200 cubic feet for compressed gases.
On October 8, 2011, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill (AB) 408. AB 408 amends the Health & Safety Code Chapter 6.95, Section 25503.5 hazardous materials inventory reporting thresholds. With passage of this legislation, inventory reporting quantities were changed as follows:
1. For a solid or liquid hazardous material that is classified as a hazard solely as an irritant or sensitizer, the new reporting quantity is 5,000 pounds.
2. For a hazardous material that is a gas, at standard temperature and pressure, and for which the only health and physical hazards are simple asphyxiation and the release of pressure, the new reporting quantity is 1,000 cubic feet. (Reporting of gases in a cryogenic state remains unchanged).
3. For oil-filled electrical equipment that is not contiguous to an electrical facility, the new reporting quantity for the oil is 1,320 gallons.
California Code of Regulations Title 22 and Title 26
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 provides state regulations for hazardous materials, and CCR Title 26 provides regulation of hazardous materials management. In 1996, Cal EPA established the “Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program” (Unified Program) which consolidated the six administrative components of hazardous waste and materials into one program.
California Government Code Section 65962.5
The provisions in Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the “Cortese List” (after the Legislator who authored the legislation that enacted it). The list, or a site’s presence on the list, has bearing on the local permitting process as well as on compliance with CEQA. Government Code § 65962.5 was originally enacted in 1985, and per subsection (g), the effective date of the changes called for under the amendments to this section was January 1, 1992.
While Government Code Section 65962.5 refers to the preparation of a “list,” many changes have occurred related to web-based information access since 1992 and this information is now largely available on the Internet sites of the responsible organizations. Those requesting a copy of the HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-13 Cortese “list” are now referred directly to the appropriate information resources contained on the Internet web sites of the boards or departments that are referenced in the statute.
Section 65962.5(a)(1) requires that DTSC “shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least annually, and shall submit to the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a list of all the following:
….(1) [a]ll hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code (“HSC”).”
The hazardous waste facilities identified in HSC § 25187.5 are those where DTSC has taken or contracted for corrective action because a facility owner/operator has failed to comply with a date for taking corrective action in an order issued under HSC § 25187, or because DTSC determined that immediate corrective action was necessary to abate an imminent or substantial endangerment.
Occupational Safety and Health Act
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) was passed to prevent workers from being killed or otherwise harmed at work. The law requires employers to provide their employees with working conditions that are free of known dangers. The OSH Act created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which sets and enforces protective workplace safety and health standards. OSHA also provides information, training and assistance to employers and workers.
The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, better known as Cal/OSHA, protects and improves the health and safety of workers in California and the safety of passengers riding on elevators, amusement rides, and tramways – through the following activities:
• Setting and enforcing standards;
• Providing outreach, education, and assistance; and
• Issuing permits, licenses, certifications, registrations, and approvals.
LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan establishes the following objectives and policies directly related to hazards and hazardous materials.
NOISE AND SAFETY ELEMENT
Objective NS-4: Minimize the risk of loss of life, injury, serious illness, and damage to property resulting from the use, transport, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes.
Policy NS-4-a: Processing and Storage. Require safe processing and storage of hazardous materials, consistent with the California Building Code and Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by the City.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.8-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy NS-4-b: Coordination. Maintain a close liaison with the Fresno County Environmental Health Department, Cal-EPA Division of Toxics, and the State Office of Emergency Services to assist in developing and maintaining hazardous material business plans, inventory statements, risk management prevention plans, and contingency/emergency response action plans.
Policy NS-4-c: Soil and Groundwater Contamination Reports. Require an investigation of potential soil or groundwater contamination whenever justified by past site uses. Require appropriate mitigation as a condition of project approval in the event soil or groundwater contamination is identified or could be encountered during site development.
Policy NS-4-d: Site Identification. Continue to aid federal, State, and County agencies in the identification and mapping of waste disposal sites (including abandoned waste sites), and to assist in the survey of the kinds, amounts, and locations of hazardous wastes.
Policy NS-4-e: Compliance with County Program. Require that the production, use, storage, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials conform to the standards and procedures established by the County Division of Environmental Health. Require compliance with the County’s Hazardous Waste Generator Program, including the submittal and implementation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, when applicable.
Policy NS-4-f: Hazardous Materials Facilities. Require facilities that handle hazardous materials or hazardous wastes to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable materials and waste management laws and regulations.
Policy NS-4-g: Hazmat Response. Include policies and procedures appropriate to hazardous materials in the City’s disaster and emergency response preparedness and planning, coordinating with implementation of Fresno County’s Hazardous Materials Incident Response Plan.
Policy NS-4-h: Household Collection. Continue to support and assist with Fresno County’s special household hazardous waste collection activities, to reduce the amount of this material being improperly discarded.
Policy NS-4-i: Public Information. Continue to assist in providing information to the public on hazardous materials.
Objective NS-5: Protect the safety, health, and welfare of persons and property on the ground and in aircraft by minimizing exposure to airport-related hazards.
Policy NS-5-a: Land Use and Height. Incorporate and enforce all applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCPs) through land use designations, zoning, and development standards to support the continued viability and flight operations of Fresno’s airports and to protect public safety, health, and general welfare.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-15 • Limit land uses in airport safety zones to those uses listed in the applicable ALUCPs as compatible uses, and regulate compatibility in terms of location, height, and noise.
• Ensure that development, including public infrastructure projects, within the airport approach and departure zones complies with Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations (Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace), particularly in terms of height.
Policy NS-5-b: Airport Safety Hazards. Ensure that new development, including public infrastructure projects, does not create safety hazards such as glare from direct or reflective sources, smoke, electrical interference, hazardous chemicals, fuel storage, or from wildlife, in violation of adopted safety standards.
Policy NS-5-c: Avigation Easements. Employ avigation easements in order to secure and protect airspace required for unimpeded operation of publicly owned airports.
Policy NS-5-d: Disclosure. As a condition of approval for residential development projects, require sellers to prepare and provide State Department of Real Estate Disclosure statements to property buyers notifying of noise and safety issues related to airport operations.
Policy NS-5-e: Planned Expansion. Allow for the orderly expansion and improvement of publicly-owned airports, while minimizing adverse environmental impacts associated with these facilities.
• Periodically update airport facility master plans in accordance with FAA regulations. • Require land use within the boundaries of the Fresno-Yosemite International Airport and Chandler Downtown Airport to conform to designations and policies specified in adopted City of Fresno compatible land use plans. • Provide local jurisdictions surrounding the City's publicly owned airports with specific guidelines for effectively dealing with the presence and operation of these airports.
Objective NS-6: Foster an efficient and coordinated response to emergencies and natural disasters.
Policy NS-6-a: County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan. Adopt and implement the Fresno County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan and City of Fresno Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex.
Policy NS-6-b: Disaster Response Coordination. Maintain coordination with other local, State, and Federal agencies to provide coordinated disaster response.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.8-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy NS-6-c: Emergency Operations Plan. Update the City’s Emergency Operations Plan periodically, using a whole community approach which integrates considerations for People with access and functional needs in all aspects of planning.
Policy NS-6-d: Evacuation Planning. Maintain an emergency evacuation plan in consultation with the Police and Fire Departments and other emergency service providers, which shows potential evacuation routes and a list of emergency shelters to be used in case of catastrophic emergencies.
Policy NS-6-e: Critical Use Facilities. Ensure critical use facilities (e.g., City Hall, police and fire stations, schools, hospitals, public assembly facilities, transportation services) and other structures that are important to protecting health and safety in the community remain operational during an emergency.
• Site and design these facilities to minimize their exposure and susceptibility to flooding, seismic and geological effects, fire, and explosions. • Work with the owners and operators of critical use facilities to ensure they can provide alternate sources of electricity, water, and sewerage in the event that regular utilities are interrupted in a disaster.
Policy NS-6-f: Emergency Vehicle Access. Require adequate access for emergency vehicles in all new development, including adequate widths, turning radii, hard standing areas, and vertical clearance.
Policy NS-6-g: Emergency Preparedness Public Awareness Programs. Continue to conduct programs to inform the general public, including people with access and functional needs, of the City’s emergency preparedness and disaster response procedures.
PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT
Objective PU-2: Ensure that the Fire Department’s staffing and equipment resources are sufficient to meet all fire and emergency service level objectives and are provided in an efficient and cost effective manner.
Policy PU-2-a: Unify Fire Protection. Pursue long-range transfer of fire protection service agreements with adjacent fire districts that, in concert with existing automatic aid agreements, will lead to the eventual unification of fire protection services in the greater Fresno area.
Policy PU-2-b: Maintain Ability. Strive to continually maintain the Fire Department’s ability to provide staffing and equipment resources to effectively prevent and mitigate emergencies in existing and new high-rise buildings and in other high-density residential and commercial development throughout the city.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-17 Policy PU-2-c: Rescue Standards. Develop appropriate standards, as necessary, for rescue operations, including, but not limited to, confined space, high angle, swift water rescues, and the unique challenges of a high speed train corridor.
Policy PU-2-d: Station Siting. Use the General Plan, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, and Concept Plans, the City’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database, and a fire station location program to achieve optimum siting of future fire stations.
Policy PU-2-e: Service Standards. Strive to achieve a community wide risk management plan that include the following service level objectives 90 percent of the time:
• First Unit on Scene – First fire unit arriving with minimum of three firefighters within 5 minutes and 20 seconds from the time the unit was alerted to the emergency incident.
• Effective Response Force – Provide sufficient number of firefighters on the scene of an emergency within 9 minutes and 20 seconds from the time of unit alert to arrival.
The effective response force is measured as 15 firefighters for low risk fire incidents and 21 firefighters for high risk fire incidents and is the number of personnel necessary to complete specific tasks required to contain and control fire minimizing loss of life and property.
Objective PU-3: Enhance the level of fire protection to meet the increasing demand for services from an increasing population.
Policy PU-3-a: Fire Prevention Inspections. Develop strategies to enable the performance of annual fire and life safety inspection of all industrial, commercial, institutional, and multifamily residential buildings, in accordance with nationally recognized standards for the level of service necessary for a large Metropolitan Area, including a self-certification program.
Policy PU-3-b: Reduction Strategies. Develop community risk reduction strategies that target high service demand areas, vulnerable populations (e.g. young children, older adults, non-English speaking residents, persons with disabilities, etc.), and high life hazard occupancies
Policy PU-3-c: Public Education Strategies. Develop strategies to re-establish and enhance routine public education outreach to all sectors of the community.
Policy PU-3-d: Review Development Applications. Continue Fire Department review of development applications, provide comments and recommend conditions of approval that will ensure adequate on-site and off-site fire protection systems and features are provided.
Policy PU-3-e: Building Codes. Adopt and enforce amendments to construction and fire codes, as determined appropriate, to systematically reduce the level of risk to life and property from fire, commensurate with the City’s fire suppression capabilities.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.8-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy PU-3-f: Adequate Infrastructure. Continue to pursue the provision of adequate water supplies, hydrants, and appropriate property access to allow for adequate fire suppression throughout the City.
Policy PU-3-g: Cost Recovery. Continue to evaluate appropriate codes, policies, and methods to generate fees or other sources of revenue to offset the ongoing personnel and maintenance costs of providing fire prevention and response services.
Fresno Municipal Code
Various provisions of the City of Fresno Municipal Code are relevant to hazards and hazardous materials, including portions of Chapter 15, Chapter 10, and Chapter 11. Discussion of these relevant portions of the Fresno Municipal Code are provided below.
Chapter 15 of the Fresno Municipal Code replaced the former development code in its entirety. It establishes new zone districts, permitted uses, development standards, and procedures in a contemporary, well-organized, and comprehensive manner. The new code reflects contemporary planning and business practices and sets clear criteria for new development. Proposals that conform to the new vision will have a streamlined approval process designed to boost economic development. In addition, infill development will be more feasible in Fresno under the new Development Code, designed for balanced growth in the future.
Article 25 (Performance Standards) of the Citywide Development Code (CDC) has the following purposes: 1) Establish permissible limits and allow objective measurement of nuisances, hazards, and objectionable conditions; and 2) Ensure that all uses will provide necessary control measures to protect the community from nuisances, hazards, and objectionable conditions. The General Standard of Article 25 is stated as follows: “Land or buildings shall not be used or occupied in a manner creating any dangerous, injurious, or noxious conditions, chemical fires, explosive, blight, or other hazards that could adversely affect the surrounding area.” Article 27 (Standards for Specific Uses and Activities) of the CDC states: “The purpose of this article is to establish standards for specific uses and activities that are permitted or conditionally permitted in some or all districts. These provisions are supplemental standards and requirements to minimize the impacts of these uses and activities on surrounding properties and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their occupants and of the general public.” This article specifies regulation governing the operation of various types of facilities and activities, including hazardous waste management facilities, recycling facilities, and hazardous materials storage activities.
Section 15-2727, Development of Former Landfill Sites and Hazardous Sites, states “A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for the development of all former Landfill Sites and other sites deemed hazardous, regardless of the proposed use. As part of the application, the applicant shall at a minimum, provide a geotechnical report that provides a complete analysis of on-site soil conditions, fault hazards, underground water conditions, and recommendations as well as a post-closure plan that outlines remediation measures. Applicants shall comply with all State and federal regulations related to operation, post-closure remediation, and monitoring.” HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-19 Separately, Chapter 10, Regulations Regarding Public Nuisances and Real Property Conduct and Use, includes:
Article 14, Hazardous Spills Expense Recovery. The intent of Article 14 is stated as follows: “Surface waters, groundwater, soils, vegetation, and atmosphere inside the City of Fresno are susceptible to damage from the handling, storage, use, processing and disposal of hazardous material and the expense incurred by the taxpayers as a result of the City of Fresno or its Designee having to respond in an emergency to protect life, property and the environment when there has been a release of hazardous materials should be recovered from the person responsible for the emergency.” In conjunction with Chapter 15, Article 27 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code, Article 14 pertains to the recovery of expenses associated with hazardous spills. Specifically, the code states that “Any person causing a release or threatened release which results in an emergency action shall be liable to the City of Fresno for the recoverable costs resulting from the emergency action.” Additionally, Chapter 11, Building Permits and Regulations, includes Article 2, Section 11-218, Debris and Excavations, which requires of demolition projects that the permit holder properly cap the sanitary sewer house connection, and to properly fill or otherwise protect all basements, cellars, septic tanks, wells, and other excavations, and said lot or parcel shall be left level and in a condition to be disked for control of weeds.
Fire Department Hazardous Materials Response Team
The City of Fresno Fire Department recognizes the potential for a large chemical release to occur which could expose thousands of people to hazardous or toxic vapors. The City of Fresno Fire Department Hazardous Materials Response Team (HMRT) has embraced an all-hazards approach to emergency response to ensure that the City receives effective protection from the risk of hazardous materials releases.
Emergency Operations Plan
In addition to emergency response to hazardous materials incidents, both the City of Fresno and the County of Fresno implement programs to facilitate emergency preparedness for other types of incidents within the Plan Area. Specifically, the City of Fresno has an Emergency Operations Plan that describes what the City’s actions will be during a response to an emergency. This plan also describes the role of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and the coordination that occurs between the EOC, City departments, and other response agencies. The plan establishes a requirement for the emergency management organization to mitigate any significant emergency disaster affecting the City of Fresno. The plan also identifies the policies, responsibilities, and procedures required to protect the health and safety of City communities, public and private property, and the environmental effects of natural or technological disasters. In addition, the plan establishes the operation concepts and procedures associated within initial response operations (field response) to emergencies, the extended response operations (City of Fresno Emergency Operations Center Activities), and the recovery process. Furthermore, the plan complies with the State of California Emergency Operations Plan “Cross Walk” checklist for determining whether an emergency plan has addressed critical elements of California’s Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the National Incident Management System (NIMS).
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.8-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Fresno County Environmental Health Department
The Fresno County Environmental Health Department maintains a Hazardous Materials Management Plan/Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMMP/HMBP). The HMMP/HMBP describes agency roles, strategies and processes for responding to emergencies involving hazardous materials.
The Environmental Health Department maintains a Hazardous Materials Database and Risk and Flood Maps available to the public on its website.
Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan The Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) (May 2018), aims to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from hazards. Fresno County, along with 17 participating jurisdictions, including the City of Fresno, prepared the MJHMP to demonstrate the community’s commitment to reducing risks from hazards and serves as a tool to help decision makers direct mitigation activities and resources.
Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA)
The California Environmental Protection Agency designates specific local agencies as Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA), typically at the county level. The Fresno County Department of Environmental Health is the CUPA designated for Fresno County. The Fresno County Department of Environmental Health is responsible for the implementation of statewide programs within its jurisdiction, including: Underground storage of hazardous substances (USTs), Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMP) requirements, California Accidental Release Prevention (Cal-ARP) program, etc.
Implementation of these programs involves permitting, inspecting, providing education/guidance, investigations, and enforcement. The Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) is the local CUPA.
3.8.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Specific Plan will have a significant impact from hazards and hazardous materials if it will:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. • Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-21 • For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. • Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
• Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
Additionally, consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project will have a significant impact from wildfire if it is located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, and if the proposed project will:
• Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. • Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
• Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. • Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.8-1: Specific Plan implementation has the potential to create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The unauthorized releases of hazardous materials into the environment could create environmental impacts to properties, the natural environment, and human health. The significance of these impacts could vary according to the release location and the quantity and nature of the substance released.
Hazardous releases can occur in areas that treat, store, transport and use hazardous materials; however, certain areas are at higher risk for releases. In the event of an unauthorized release of hazardous materials/substances, emergency response measures must be implemented to mitigate potential risks and ensure the protection of human health and the natural environment.
CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS
Construction activities would occur in phases through the implementation of the Specific Plan.
Construction equipment and materials would likely require the use of petroleum-based products (oil, gasoline, diesel fuel), and a variety of chemicals including paints, cleaners, and solvents. The use
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.8-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan of these materials at a construction site will pose a reasonable risk of release into the environment if not properly handled, stored, and transported.
Additionally, properties within the Plan Area may have residual soil (and potentially groundwater) contamination that may require remediation. Also, potentially hazardous building materials (e.g., asbestos containing materials, lead-based paint, etc.) could be encountered during demolition of existing structures to accommodate new development. A release into the environment could pose significant impacts to the health and welfare of people and/or wildlife, and could result in contamination of water (groundwater or surface water), habitat, and countless important resources.
Like most agricultural and farming operations in the Central Valley, agricultural practices in the area have used agricultural chemicals including pesticides and herbicides as a standard practice. Residual concentrations of pesticides may be present in soil as a result of historic agricultural application and storage. Continuous spraying of crops over many years can potentially result in a residual buildup of pesticides in farm soils. Of highest concern relative to agrichemicals are chemicals such as chlorinated herbicides, organophosphate pesticides, and organochlorine pesticides, such as Mecoprop (MCPP), Dinoseb, chlordane, dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and dichlorodiphenyl-dichloroethylene (DDE). Other chemicals may also be present due to other built-up uses.
As described in the Environmental Setting, there is a historical record of soil contamination at the Proposed Constance-Sierra Elementary School site, the Westlake Proposed 430 Acre Development, and the West Shields Elementary School site, each of which are at differing levels of cleanup status.
Therefore, there is the potential for other sites to have experienced contamination or have a history of hazardous materials being used as part of previous or current operations. Implementation of the Specific Plan could involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with future construction and/or remediation activities. The transport of hazardous materials and any potential remediation activities would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations.
Additionally, the proposed project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-10, which provide requirements for any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well; require Phase I and Phase II site assessments, and other remediation activities including surveys and assessments, cleanup plans, programs, and activities, as applicable; and requires actions to ensure that developing a property within the Plan Area does not present an unacceptable risk to human health, if applicable, through the use of an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP).
Therefore, the potential for existing or new hazards within the Plan Area or generated by the proposed project is limited. Additional requirements include those related to evaluation of potential asbestos and lead prior to planned renovation or demolition of residential and/or commercial structures in the Plan Area, and soil sampling for hazardous materials. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-10 would reduce potential impacts that could occur due to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment associated with construction activities within the Plan area to a less than significant level.
OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS
The operational phase of implementation of the Specific Plan would occur after construction is completed and business operators/employees, and residents move in to occupy the structures and HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-23 facilities on a day-to-day basis. Hazardous waste generators in the Plan Area include industries, businesses, public and private institutions, and households. Facilities that store, use or handle hazardous materials above reportable amounts are required to prepare and file a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (Business Plan) for the safe storage and use of chemicals. In the event of an emergency, firefighters, health officials, planners, public safety officers, health care providers and others rely on the Business Plan. Implementation of the Business Plan should prevent or reduce damage to the health and safety of people and the environment if a hazardous material is released.
The FCEHD, as the local CUPA, is responsible for administering/overseeing compliance with the Hazardous Materials Business Plan requirements, as well as other related regulatory programs such as those involving USTs, hazardous waste generation, hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility permitting, and hazardous materials releases.
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in the continued use and storage of hazardous materials, including common cleaning products, building maintenance products, paints and solvents, and other similar items. Routinely used hazardous materials, however, would not be of the type or occur in sufficient quantities to pose a significant hazard to public health and safety or to the environment. It is anticipated that some facilities within the Specific Plan area would use certain classes of hazardous materials that require risk management plans to protect surrounding land uses. Future development also would result in continued generation of hazardous waste by certain facilities. Therefore, the transport of hazardous materials could occur during future operational activities. However, transport of hazardous materials would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations, as well as cooperation with the local CUPA and the City of Fresno Fire Department (FFD).
Implementation of the Specific Plan will allow for the development of a wide variety of land uses, including Low Density Residential, Medium Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, Urban Neighborhood Residential, High Density Residential, Community Commercial, Recreation Commercial, General Commercial, Regional Commercial, Office, Business Park, Light Industrial, Corridor/Center Mixed Use, Regional Mixed Use, Pocket Park, Neighborhood Park, Community Park, Open Space, Ponding Basin, Public Facility, Church, Special School, Elementary School, Elementary, Middle & High School, High School, and Fire Station uses, as well as the required transportation and utility improvements.
Each of these uses will likely use a variety of hazardous materials commonly found in urban areas including: paints, cleaners, and cleaning solvents. There could be a risk of release of these materials into the environment if they are not stored and handled in accordance with best management practices approved by Fresno County Environmental Health Division and the FFD. In addition, Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 requires that, prior to bringing hazardous materials onsite, the applicant shall submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to Fresno County Environmental Health Division (CUPA) for review and approval. This would further reduce the potential for a significant impact to this topic. Compliance with the applicable regulations, as well as implementation of the following mitigation measures, as appropriate, would ensure that the implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this issue.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.8-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Prior to bringing hazardous materials onsite, the applicant shall submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to Fresno County Environmental Health Division (CUPA) for review and approval. If during the construction process the applicant or their subcontractors generates hazardous waste, the applicant must register with the CUPA as a generator of hazardous waste, obtain an EPA ID# and accumulate, ship and dispose of the hazardous waste per Health and Safety Code Ch. 6.5. (California Hazardous Waste Control Law).
Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well, the applicant shall hire a licensed well contractor to obtain a well abandonment permit from Fresno County Environmental Health Department, and properly abandon the on-site wells, pursuant to review and approval of the City Engineer and the Fresno County Environmental Health Department.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-3: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that a Phase I ESA (performed in accordance with the current ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process [E 1527]) shall be conducted for each individual property prior to development or redevelopment to ascertain the presence or absence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HRECs), and Potential Environmental Concerns (PECs) relevant to the property under consideration. The findings and conclusions of the Phase I ESA shall become the basis for potential recommendations for follow-up investigation, if found to be warranted.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-4: In the event that the findings and conclusions of the Phase I ESA for a property result in evidence of RECs, HRECs and/or PECs warranting further investigation, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that a Phase II ESA shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of a significant impact to the subject site from hazardous materials.
The Phase II ESA may include but may not be limited to the following: (1) Collection and laboratory analysis of soils and/or groundwater samples to ascertain the presence or absence of significant concentrations of constituents of concern; (2) Collection and laboratory analysis of soil vapors and/or indoor air to ascertain the presence or absence of significant concentrations of volatile constituents of concern; and/or (3) Geophysical surveys to ascertain the presence or absence of subsurface features of concern such as USTs, drywells, drains, plumbing, and septic systems. The findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA shall become the basis for potential recommendations for follow-up investigation, site characterization, and/or remedial activities, if found to be warranted.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-5: In the event the findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA reveal the presence of significant concentrations of hazardous materials warranting further investigation, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that site characterization shall be conducted in the form of additional Phase II ESAs in order to characterize the source and maximum extent of impacts from constituents of concern. The findings and conclusions of the site HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-25 characterization shall become the basis for formation of a remedial action plan and/or risk assessment.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-6: If the findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA(s), site characterization and/or risk assessment demonstrate the presence of concentrations of hazardous materials exceeding regulatory threshold levels, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, property owners and/or developers of properties shall complete site remediation and potential risk assessment with oversight from the applicable regulatory agency including, but not limited to, the CalEPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD). Potential remediation could include the removal or treatment of water and/or soil. If removal occurs, hazardous materials shall be transported and disposed at a hazardous materials permitted facility.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-7: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an individual property within the Plan Area with residual environmental contamination, the agency with primary regulatory oversight of environmental conditions at such property ("Oversight Agency") shall have determined that the proposed land use for that property, including proposed development features and design, does not present an unacceptable risk to human health, if applicable, through the use of an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) that could include institutional controls, site-specific mitigation measures, a risk management plan, and deed restrictions based upon applicable riskbased cleanup standards. Remedial action plans, risk management plans and health and safety plans shall be required as determined by the Oversight Agency for a given property under applicable environmental laws, if not already completed, to prevent an unacceptable risk to human health, including workers during and after construction, from exposure to residual contamination in soil and groundwater in connection with remediation and site development activities and the proposed land use.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-8: For those sites with potential residual volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil, soil gas, or groundwater that are planned for redevelopment with an overlying occupied building, a vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed by a licensed environmental professional.
If the results of the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the potential for significant vapor intrusion into the proposed building, the project design shall include vapor controls or source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or the Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) requirements. Soil vapor mitigations or controls could include passive venting and/or active venting.
The vapor intrusion assessment as associated vapor controls or source removal can be incorporated into the ESMP.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-9: In the event of planned renovation or demolition of residential and/or commercial structures on the subject site, prior to the issuance of demolition permits, asbestos and lead based paint (LBP) surveys shall be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and/or LBP. Removal of friable ACM, and non-friable ACMs that have the potential to become friable, during demolition and/or renovation shall conform to the standards set forth by the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.8-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is the responsible agency on the local level to enforce the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) and shall be notified by the property owners and/or developers of properties (or their designee(s)) prior to any demolition and/or renovation activities. If asbestos-containing materials are left in place, an Operations and Maintenance Program (O&M Program) shall be developed for the management of asbestos containing materials.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-10: Prior to the import of a soil to a particular property within the Plan Area as part of that property’s site development, such soils shall be sampled for toxic or hazardous materials to determine if concentrations exceed applicable Environmental Screening Levels for the proposed land use at such a property, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or the Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) requirements.
Impact 3.8-2: Specific Plan implementation has the potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (Less than Significant)
The Specific Plan has the potential for the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, as described under Impact 3.8-1. There are several schools located within the Plan Area. These schools include: Glacier Point Middle School, Harvest Elementary School, Herndon-Barstow Elementary School, Teague Elementary School, John Steinbeck Elementary School, Central High School (East Campus), and Justin Garza High School. Other schools located within 0.25 miles from the Plan Area include James K. Polk Elementary School and Hanh Phan Tilley Elementary School. In addition, new schools are anticipated to be developed near to the Plan Area over time. However, as provided under Impact 3.8-1, with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-10, potential risks associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan would be reduced to a less than significant level.
For example, Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 requires businesses generating hazardous waste to comply with a HMBP and to register with the CUPA, as appropriate. Mitigation Measure 3.8-2 provides requirements for any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well. Additional requirements are provided in Mitigation Measures 3.8-3 through 3.8-10, such as Phase I and Phase II site assessments, and other remediation activities including surveys and assessments, cleanup plans, programs, and activities, as applicable. Therefore, the potential for existing or new hazards within the Plan Area or generated by the proposed project to affect nearby schools is limited. Moreover, compliance with the applicable General Plan objectives and policies would ensure that the Specific Plan implementation would have a limited potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste with one-quarter of an existing school. Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact with respect to emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-27 Impact 3.8-3: Specific Plan implementation would not result in impacts from being included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. (Less than Significant) The Plan Area is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact with regards to this environmental issue.
Impact 3.8-4: Specific Plan implementation would not result in safety hazards for people residing or working in the Plan Area as a result of public airport or public use airport. (Less than Significant)
There are no documented public airports or public use airports within two miles of the Plan Area, and the Plan Area is not located within an airport land use plan. The closest public or public use airport is the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located approximately 2.5 miles to the south of the Plan Area, at its closest point. Therefore, implementation of the Plan would have a less than significant impact with regards to this environmental issue.
Impact 3.8-5: Specific Plan implementation would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Less than Significant) Future construction activities within the Plan Area could affect access along nearby roadways during construction, as short-term, temporary lane closures may occur. However, emergency access would be required to remain open and accessible at all times. Future applicants would be required to provide alternate route (i.e. detour) plans with a tentative schedule of planned closures prior to the beginning of construction to ensure that activities would not impede emergency access. These plans would be subject to review and approval by the City of Fresno Public Works Department, the Fresno Fire Department, and the Fresno Police Department. Construction activities are not expected to result in any unknown significant road closures, traffic detours, or congestion that could hinder the emergency vehicle access or evacuation in the event of an emergency.
Separately, the proposed project would develop new roadways within the Plan Area. However, the new roadways would be required to comply with the City’s police and fire standards for emergency access. Specifically, new roadways within the Plan Area would also be subject to review and approval by the City of Fresno Public Works Department, the Fresno Fire Department, and the Fresno Police Department and would provide increased access to and within the Plan Area. Therefore, roadways within the Plan Area would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Moreover, the proposed project would not conflict with the goals and objectives of the Fresno County’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
For example, Objective 1.3 of the Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan requires the improvement of transportation corridors to allow for better evacuation routes for the public and better access for emergency responders. Implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact with regards to this environmental issue.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.8-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Impact 3.8-6: Specific Plan implementation would not have the potential to expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death from wildland fires, or result in any other wildfire impact. (Less than Significant)
HAZARDS RELATED TO WILDLAND FIRES
The Plan Area is not located in or near to any SRA or land classified as VHFHSZs. Small areas within the northern, central, and southern portions of the Plan Area are identified as having a moderate potential for wildland fires. According to the Fresno General Plan, the City is largely urbanized or working agricultural land without steep topographies; thus, wildland fire threats are minimal.
Although Fresno is proximate to high and very high fire hazard designated areas, the City is largely categorized as little or no threat or moderate fire hazard, which is largely attributed to paved areas.
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in increased urbanization of the area; including increased paved area. Future development would be required to comply with the current fire code (i.e. included in the Fresno Fire Code Section as established by the City of Fresno Fire Department), as well as all applicable City Municipal Code requirements. For example, City Municipal Code Chapter 11, Article 1 provides building code requirements, and City Municipal Code Chapter 10, Article 5 describes the City’s fire prevention requirements including adoption of the 2019 California Fire Code. Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact with regards to the potential to expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury, or death from wildland fires.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-1 This section describes the regulatory setting, regional hydrology and water quality impacts that are likely to result from Specific Plan implementation, and measures to reduce potential impacts to water quality. This section is based in part on the following documents, reports and studies:
• Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• Draft Master Environmental Impact Report General Plan and Development Code Update, City of Fresno, Fresno County, California (City of Fresno, 2014); • California’s Groundwater Update 2020 (Department of Water Resources [DWR], 2020); • Web Soil Survey (NRCS, 2019);
• Specific Plan of the West Area Water Supply Assessment (West Yost Associates, 2022, see Appendix F of this EIR);
• City of Fresno Specific Plan for the West Area Utility Background Summary (West Yost Associates, 2022, see Appendix D of this EIR).
Comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the following: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) (August 1, 2019), Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019), and California Department of Water Resources (July 19, 2019). Each of the comments related to this topic are addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.
3.9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGIONAL HYDROLOGY
Fresno County is located in the San Joaquin River watershed. The San Joaquin River is about 300 miles long. It begins in the Sierra Nevada mountain range on California’s eastern border. The river runs down the western slope of the Sierra and flows roughly northwest through the Central Valley, to where it meets the Sacramento River at the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, a 1,000-square-mile maze of channels and islands that drains more than 40 percent of the state’s lands (SJRGA 2013).
Because the Central Valley receives relatively little rainfall (12 to 17 inches a year, falling mostly October through March), snowmelt runoff from the mountains is the main source of fresh water in the San Joaquin River. Over its 300-mile length, the San Joaquin River is fed by many other streams and rivers, most notably the Stanislaus, Tuolumne and Merced rivers.
Most of the surface water in the upper San Joaquin River is stored and diverted at Millerton Lakes’ Friant Dam, near Fresno. From Friant Dam, water gravity flows north through the Madera Canal and south through the Friant-Kern canal to irrigation districts and other water retailers, which then deliver the water directly to the end users in the southern portion of the watershed.
In the central and northern portions of the watershed, many agricultural and municipal users receive water from irrigation districts, such as the Modesto, Merced, Oakdale, South San Joaquin and Turlock Irrigation Districts. That water is provided through diversions from rivers that are tributary to the San Joaquin, such as the Mokelumne, Stanislaus, Tuolumne and Merced rivers.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Climate
The summer climate is hot and sub-humid with warm, dry summers, and cool, moist winters. In the entire San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), daily summer high temperatures average 95 degrees.
Over the last 30 years, temperatures in the SJVAB averaged 90 degrees or higher for 106 days a year, and 100 degrees or higher for 40 days a year.
The daily summer temperature variation can be as high as 30 degrees. In winter, the Pacific highpressure cell weakens and shifts southward, resulting in wind flow offshore, the absence of upwelling, and the occurrence of storms. Average high temperatures in the winter are in the 50s, but lows in the 30s and 40s can occur on days with persistent fog and low cloudiness. The average daily low winter temperature is 45 degrees.
Precipitation in Fresno occurs mostly as rain during the months of November through April.
According to the City’s General Plan EIR, annual rainfall between 1948 and 2012 averaged 10.89 inches, but is variable. Recorded annual rainfall has ranged from a low of 3.01 inches to a high of
21.61 inches.
Watersheds
A watershed is a region that is bound by a divide that drains to a common watercourse or body of water. Watersheds serve an important biological function, oftentimes supporting an abundance of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife including special-status species and anadromous and native local fisheries. Watersheds provide conditions necessary for riparian habitat.
The State of California uses a hierarchical naming and numbering convention to define watershed areas for management purposes. This means that boundaries are defined according to size and topography, with multiple sub-watersheds within larger watersheds. Table 3.9-1 shows the primary watershed classification levels used by the State of California. The second column indicates the approximate size that a watershed area may be within a particular classification level, although variation in size is common.
TABLE 3.9-1: STATE OF CALIFORNIA WATERSHED HIERARCHY NAMING CONVENTION
WATERSHED
LEVEL
APPROXIMATE
SQUARE MILES
(ACRES)
DESCRIPTION
Hydrologic
Region (HR) 12,735 (8,150,000) Defined by large-scale topographic and geologic considerations. The State of California is divided into ten HRs.
Hydrologic
Unit (HU)
672
(430,000)
Defined by surface drainage; may include a major river watershed, groundwater basin, or closed drainage, among others.
Hydrologic
Area (HA)
244
(156,000)
Major subdivisions of hydrologic units, such as by major tributaries, groundwater attributes, or stream components.
Hydrologic
Sub-Area (HSA)
195
(125,000)
A major segment of an HA with significant geographical
characteristics or hydrological homogeneity.
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, 2012.
Additionally, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) maintains a national database of watersheds in the United States. The USGS maintains a hierarchical system of hydrologic units, with HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-3 each unit assigned a Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC). There are currently six levels in the hierarchy, represented by HUC codes from 2 to 12 digits long, called regions, subregions, subbasins, watersheds, and subwatersheds. Each level in the hierarchy is nested within the previous level. Table
3.9-2 shows the system’s hydrologic unit levels and their characteristics.
TABLE 3.9-2: USGS WATERSHED HIERARCHY NAMING CONVENTION
HYDROLOGIC UNIT LEVEL DIGIT NUMBER OF HUCS NAME
Region 1 2 22 Two-Digit Hydrologic Unit
Subregion 2 4 219 Four-Digit Hydrologic Unit
Basin 3 6 378 Six-Digit Hydrologic Unit
Subbasin 4 8 2,283 Eight-Digit Hydrologic Unit
Watershed 5 10 17,828 Ten-Digit Hydrologic Unit
Subwatershed 6 12 97,442 Twelve-Digit Hydrologic Unit
SOURCE: UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, WATERSHED BOUNDARY DATASET, 2016.
The southern and eastern portion of the Plan Area is located in the Gates Lake subwatershed, a swath of the northern portion of the Plan Area is located in the Town of Rolinda-James Bypass subwatershed, and the northern point of the Plan Area is located in the Kennedy Owens Canal-James Bypass subwatershed. The “subwatershed” (i.e. twelve-digit hydrologic unit) represents the most fine-grained level of data available for watersheds from the USGS. Figure 3.9-1 provides a map of these subwatersheds within the Plan Area.
Hydrologic Region
Fresno County is located in the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region. The Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region covers approximately 10.9 million acres (17,000 square miles) and includes all of Kings and Tulare counties and most of Fresno and Kern counties. Significant geographic features include the southern half of the San Joaquin Valley, the Temblor Range to the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the southern Sierra Nevada to the east. The region has 12 distinct groundwater basins and seven subbasins of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. Groundwater has historically been important to both urban and agricultural uses, accounting for 41 percent of the region’s total annual supply and 35 percent of all groundwater use in the State. Groundwater use in the region represents about 10 percent of the State’s overall supply for agricultural and urban uses. In general, groundwater quality throughout the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region is suitable for most urban and agricultural uses with only local impairments. The primary constituents of concern are high total dissolved solids, nitrate, arsenic, and organic compounds.
Groundwater
The City of Fresno is located in the northern part of the Kings Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin Area. The San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin is un-adjudicated and currently in overdraft. A basin management plan has been developed and the Department of Water Resources (DWR) has listed the basin as a high priority.
The following section describes the Kings Subbasin, including its water-bearing formations, water levels, and water quality. Much of the following information has been incorporated from the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Except where noted, the description of the sub-basin
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan is based largely on information provided in the 2016 DWR Bulletin 118 Interim Update, in which the groundwater basin description was last updated in December 2016.
The Kings Subbasin is not adjudicated and there are no legal restrictions to groundwater pumping.
The Kings Subbasin is generally bounded on the north by the San Joaquin River; on the west by the Fresno Slough; on the south by the Kings River and Cottonwood Creek; and on the east by the Sierra foothills. The upper several hundred feet within the Kings Subbasin generally consists of highly permeable, coarse-grained deposits, which are termed older alluvium. Coarse-grained stream channel deposits, associated with deposits by the ancestral San Joaquin and Kings Rivers, underlie much of the northwest portions of the City. Below the older alluvium to depths ranging from about 600 to 1,200 feet below ground surface, the finer-grained sediments of the Tertiary-Quaternary continental deposits are typically encountered. Substantial groundwater has been produced and utilized from these depths by the City; however, deeper deposits located in the southeastern and northern portions of the City have produced less groundwater. There are also reduced deposits in the northern and eastern portions of the City, at depths generally below 700 or 800 feet, which are associated with high concentrations of iron, manganese, arsenic, hydrogen sulfide, and methane gas. Groundwater at these depths does not generally provide a significant source for municipal supply wells. The City’s average groundwater depth in 2015 is approximately 130 below the ground surface.
Groundwater quality is a concern because the groundwater basin has several major contaminant plumes involving organic compounds, inorganic compounds, solvents, pesticides, and other contaminants. A number of the City’s wells are currently being treated or blended to address various contaminants. The total well capacity, when the City’s Water Master Plan was written, was approximately 460 million gallons per day (mgd).
According to the Utility Background Summary completed for the Specific Plan, groundwater within the Kings Subbasin generally meets primary and secondary drinking water standards1for municipal water use. However, groundwater contamination has caused the City to close over 30 wells and to construct well-head treatment facilities to other wells. Wellhead treatment for 1,2- Dibromo-3- chloropropane; ethylene dibromide; 1-2-3 trichloropropane; volatile organic compounds (including trichlorethylene, tetrachloroethylene), nitrate, manganese, radon, chloride, and iron are required in some areas of the City. Nitrates are a significant cause of groundwater contamination in the City. 1 EPA has established National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) that set mandatory water quality standards for drinking water contaminants. These are enforceable standards called "maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) which are established to protect the public against consumption of drinking water contaminants that present a risk to human health. An MCL is the maximum allowable amount of a contaminant in drinking water which is delivered to the consumer.
In addition, EPA has established National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWRs) that set nonmandatory water quality standards for 15 contaminants. EPA does not enforce these "secondary maximum contaminant levels" (SMCLs). They are established as guidelines to assist public water systems in managing their drinking water for aesthetic considerations, such as taste, color, and odor. These contaminants are not considered to present a risk to human health at the SMCL. (EPA website, https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/secondary-drinking-water-standards-guidance-nuisance-chemicals) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-5 Nitrates come primarily from on-site wastewater treatment systems (septic tanks and leach fields) and fertilizer. Water contaminated with nitrate is difficult to treat. A transmission grid main (TGM) system on a half-mile grid decreases water quality variation between wells. While most wells discharge directly to the TGM system, there are some that are treated or blended first to address specific water quality issues. Twelve well sites City-wide have de-aeration facilities where groundwater is pumped to a tank to allow for de-aeration before entering the TGM (West Yost, 2014). With wellhead treatment and/or blending, the water supplied by the City meets all the primary and secondary drinking water standards for municipal water use and is safe and healthy to consume.
As part of a partnership of local municipal water purveyors, irrigation districts, a flood control district, and the overlying county, the Fresno Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan (FARGMP) was prepared in conformance with AB 3030 and SB 1938. The objectives of the FARGMP have been developed to monitor, protect, and sustain groundwater within the region. The City of Fresno and the other participating agencies subsequently adopted the groundwater management plan in 2006. The City of Fresno falls within the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NKGSA). As a high priority basin, the Kings Subbasin must be managed under a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) by January 31, 2020. The NKGSA completed the GSP on January 28, 2020.
LOCAL SETTING
The Plan Area is relatively flat with natural gentle slope near State Route 99. The Plan Area topography ranges in elevation from approximately 283 to 315 feet above mean sea level. A large amount of land in the Plan Area is farmland or rural residential lots with large, uneven, and underutilized parcels.
Groundwater
The Plan Area is underlain by the Kings subbasin, which, along with six other sub‐basins, comprises the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. According to the Utility Background Summary completed for the Specific Plan, until 2004, groundwater was the sole source of potable water supply for the City. As of 2018, there were approximately 260 operational groundwater wells with a total production of 25,000 million gallons per year.
GROUNDWATER WELLS IN THE PLAN AREA
The Plan Area is served by eight active wells, as summarized in Table 3.9-3. As shown, the total well pumping capacity of the wells in the Plan Area is 13,510 gallons per minute (gpm).
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TABLE 3.9-3: PLAN AREA WELL CAPACITY
WELL NUMBER PUMP HORSEPOWER RATED CAPACITY (GPM)1
Well 104 125 1,500
Well 138 125 1,800
Well 169 200 2,400
Well 171-1 60 600
Well 171-2 150 1,750
Well 192 150 2,000
Well 358 (has backup power) 200 2,100
Well 364 100 1,000
Total Well Pumping Capacity (GPM) 13,150
NOTE:
1 PUMP CAPACITY AND BACKUP POWER INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CITY STAFF (GPM = GALLONS PER MINUTE).
SOURCE: UTILITY BACKGROUND REPORT, WEST YOST ASSOCIATES, 2022.
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
According to the Utility Background Summary completed for the Specific Plan, the Plan Area tends to have better ground water quality than the City as a whole, with only a small portion of the Plan Area (near State Route 99) having nitrates in excess of the allowable limit of 45 mg/L as NO3 or 10 mg/L as NO3N. Well 171-2 is the only well that requires treatment within the West Area, and uses granular activated carbon (GAC).
Drainage
The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) has primary responsibility for managing the local stormwater flows for the City, as well as a large area beyond the City’s boundaries. The City’s stormwater drains to urban stormwater basins, where it is retained for groundwater recharge or pumped to local irrigation canals owned by Fresno Irrigation District (FID) and then conveyed away from the municipal area.
The City of Fresno is located in the alluvial fans of numerous foothill streams and creeks that drain the western slope of the Sierra Nevada foothills. These streams include Big Dry Creek, Alluvial Drain, Pup Creek, Dog Creek, Redbank Creek, Mud Creek, and Fancher Creek. The City has hot dry summers and cool mild winters, with temperatures of mid-90°F in the summer and 60°F in the winter. The precipitation averages 11 inches per year and occurs almost entirely in the fall, winter, and spring.
Regionally, the City is protected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Redbank-Fancher Creeks Flood Control Project. This project includes dams, detention basins, and levees designed to control upstream flood flows to approximately the 200-year storm event. Major facilities of this project include levee systems, the Big Dry Creek, Fancher Creek, and Redbank Creek dams and reservoirs, and the Alluvial Drain, Redbank Creek, Pup Creek, Fancher Creek, Big Dry Creek, Pup Creek Enterprise, and Dry Creek Extension detention basins.
Locally, the FMFCD drainage system consists of approximately 680 miles of pipeline and more than 150 stormwater retention basins. The storm drainage pipeline system is designed to accept the peak flow rate of runoff from a two-year intensity storm event (a storm that has a 50 percent probability of occurring in any given year). When storm events occur that exceed the two-year intensity, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-7 ponding begins to occur in the streets until the pipeline system can remove the water. In the event of larger storms, “major storm breakover”, the FMFCD has planned for streets or other conveyance to move the excess runoff to the basins. The FMFCD facilities in the Plan Area are shown in Figure
3.9-2.
The drainage system discharges to a system of irrigation canals, creeks, and the San Joaquin River, but is designed to retain and infiltrate as much runoff as possible into the underlying groundwater aquifer. The local drainage service area is subdivided into over 160 drainage areas, most of which drain to a retention basin. Drainage channels within the Plan Area include:
• East Branch Victoria Canal • Teague School Canal
• Epstein Canal • Tracy Ditch
• Herndon Canal • West Branch Victoria Canal
• Minor Thornton Ditch • Wheaton Ditch
• Silvia Ditch • Austin Ditch
The Plan Area is drained by 15 drainage watersheds, six of which are fully within the Plan Area, and nine of which drain to areas immediately south or west of the Plan Area. There are seven existing retention basins within the Plan Area and an additional five that serve the Plan Area. An additional basin is planned to serve the drainage shed in the far southwestern corner of the Plan Area. The Plan Area’s storm drain system is shown on Figure 3.15-2 in Section 3.15, Utilities.
Flooding
Flooding events can result in damage to structures, injury or loss of human and animal life, exposure of waterborne diseases, and damage to infrastructure. In addition, standing floodwater can destroy agricultural crops, undermine infrastructure and structural foundations, and contaminate groundwater.
Predicted flood conditions in the vicinity of the Plan Area are shown on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) but are largely based on hydraulic modeling performed in 1981 (FEMA, 2016). The entire Plan Area is designated unshaded Zone X - minimal flood hazard, and would not be expected to have a flood hazard up to the level of the 0.2- percent annual chance flood. Lands designated as unshaded Zone X are outside of the Special Flood Hazard Areas. Changes to land surfaces in these areas do not trigger map revisions and no flood insurance requirements are imposed on structures in these areas. Figure 3.9-3 shows the flood boundaries, as delineated by the FEMA FIRM and USACE.
Although the Plan Area’s northern boundary is very near the San Joaquin River, the area is not within a Special Flood Hazard Area. Local flooding can occur for events larger than a two-year event, but runoff is generally contained in the streets or other breakover easements. Such flooding is not reflected on FEMA’s maps. Improvements to storm drainage facilities are accomplished either as a part of privately funded on-site developments or as a part of the master plan, funded by drainage fees. FMFCD maintains an on-going update to the system hydraulic model for flood control and prepares a capital improvement plan update every five years.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Dam Failure
A small portion of the Plan Area located in the northernmost point is located within the dam failure inundation area for the Friant Dam. Potential inundation from the Friant Dam is shown in Figure 3.9-
4. Dam failure is generally a result of structural instability caused by improper design or construction, instability resulting from seismic shaking, or overtopping and erosion of the dam. Larger dams that are higher than 25 feet or with storage capacities over 50 acre-feet of water are regulated by the California Dam Safety Act, which is implemented by the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (DSD). The DSD is responsible for inspecting and monitoring these dams.
The Act also requires that dam owners submit to the California Office of Emergency Services inundation maps for dams that would cause significant loss of life or personal injury as a result of dam failure. The Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan outlines the mitigation strategy for reducing potential losses identified in Chapter 4, Risk Assessment, of the Plan.
Stormwater Quality
Potential hazards to surface water quality include the following nonpoint pollution problems: high turbidity from sediment resulting from erosion of improperly graded construction projects, concentration of nitrates and dissolved solids from agriculture or surfacing septic tank failures, contaminated street and lawn run-off from urban areas, and warm water drainage discharges into cold water streams.
The most critical period for surface water quality is following a rainstorm which can produce significant amounts of drainage runoff into streams at low flow, resulting in poor dilution of contaminates in the low flowing stream. Such conditions are most frequent during the fall at the beginning of the rainy season when stream flows are near their lowest annual levels. Besides the greases, oils, pesticides, litter, and organic matter associated with such runoff, heavy metals such as copper, zinc, and cadmium can cause considerable harm to aquatic organisms when introduced to streams in low flow conditions.
Urban stormwater runoff was managed as a non-point discharge (a source not readily identifiable) under the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500, Section 208) until the mid-1980's. However, since then, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency has continued to develop implementing rules which categorize urban runoff as a point source (an identifiable source) subject to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Rules now affect medium and large urban areas, and further rulemaking is expected as programs are developed to meet requirements of federal water pollution control laws.
Surface water pollution is also caused by erosion. Excessive and improperly managed grading, vegetation removal, quarrying, logging, and agricultural practices all lead to increased erosion of exposed earth and sedimentation of watercourses during rainy periods. In slower moving water bodies these same factors often cause a buildup of siltation, which ultimately reduces the capacity of the water system to percolate and recharge groundwater basins, as well as adversely affecting both aquatic resources and flood control efforts.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-9 The current drainage system in the Plan Area discharges to a system of irrigation canals, creeks, and the San Joaquin River, but is designed to retain and infiltrate as much runoff as possible into the underlying groundwater aquifer.
303(D)IMPAIRED WATER BODIES
Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires States to identify waters that do not meet water quality standards or objectives and thus, are considered "impaired." Once listed, Section 303(d) mandates prioritization and development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The TMDL is a tool that establishes the allowable loadings or other quantifiable parameters for a waterbody and thereby the basis for the States to establish water quality-based controls. The purpose of TMDLs is to ensure that beneficial uses are restored and that water quality objectives are achieved.
The primary surface water features within the vicinity of the Plan Area are the San Joaquin River and Millerton Lake. Both water features are considered Section 303(d) impaired waterbodies. The portion of the San Joaquin River nearest the Plan Area appears on the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB’s) Impaired Water Bodies/303(d) List for invasive species (non‐native fish species).
Millerton Lake is included on the Impaired Water Bodies/303(d) List for mercury.
3.9.2REGULATORY SETTING
There are a number of regulatory agencies whose responsibility includes the oversight of the water resources of the State and nation (including Fresno County), including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards, including the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The following is an overview of the federal, State and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.
FEDERAL
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA), initially passed in 1972, regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the nation. Section 402(p) of the act establishes a framework for regulating municipal and industrial stormwater discharges under the NPDES Program. Section 402(p) requires that stormwater discharges associated with an industrial activity, a discharge from a municipal separate storm sewer system serving a population of 250,000 or more, or a discharge associated with a municipal separate storm sewer system serving a population of 100,000 or more but less than 250,000, that discharges either directly to surface waters or indirectly through municipal separate storm sewers must be regulated by an NPDES permit.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The City of Fresno is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a Federal program administered by FEMA. Participants in the NFIP must satisfy certain mandated floodplain management criteria. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 has adopted as a desired level of
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan protection, an expectation that developments should be protected from floodwater damage of the Intermediate Regional Flood (IRF). The IRF is defined as a flood that has an average frequency of occurrence on the order of once in 100 years, although such a flood may occur in any given year.
Communities are occasionally audited by the DWR and FEMA to insure the proper implementation of FEMA floodplain management regulations.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required for discharges of pollutants to navigable waters of the United States, which includes any discharge to surface waters, including lakes, rivers, streams, bays, the ocean, dry stream beds, wetlands, and storm sewers that are tributary to any surface water body. NPDES permits are issued under the Federal Clean Water Act, Title IV, Permits and Licenses, Section 402 (33 USC 466 et seq.).
The RWQCB issues these permits in lieu of direct issuance by the Environmental Protection Agency, subject to review and approval by the Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator. The terms of these NPDES permits implement pertinent provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations, including pre-treatment, sludge management, effluent limitations for specific industries, and anti-degradation. In general, the discharge of pollutants is to be eliminated or reduced as much as practicable so as to achieve the Clean Water Act goal of “fishable and swimmable” navigable (surface) waters. Technically, all NPDES permits issued by the RWQCB are also Waste Discharge Requirements issued under the authority of the CWA.
NPDES permits regulate discharges from publicly owned treatment works, industrial discharges, stormwater runoff, dewatering operations, and groundwater cleanup discharges. NPDES permits are issued for five years, and are therefore to be updated regularly. The SWRCB has adopted several general NPDES permits, each of which regulates numerous discharges of similar types of wastes. The SWRCB has issued general permits for stormwater runoff from industrial and construction sites statewide. Stormwater discharges from industrial and construction activities in the Central Valley Region can be covered under these general permits, which are administered jointly by the SWRCB and RWQCB.
The City of Fresno is a co‐permittee with the FMFCD, the County of Fresno, the City of Clovis, and California State University Fresno in the Phase 1 NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). This Phase 1 MS4 Permit requires that the City and its co‐permittees implement water quality and watershed protection measures for all development projects. The waste discharge requirements contained in the NPDES Permit have been designed to be consistent with the water quality standards and goals established in the Central Valley RWQCB’s Basin Plan. The Phase 1 MS4 Permit prohibits discharges from violating applicable water quality standards or creating a nuisance or water quality impairment in receiving waters.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-11 STATE
California Water Code
The Federal Clean Water Act places the primary responsibility for the control of surface water pollution and for planning the development and use of water resources with the States, although this does establish certain guidelines for the States to follow in developing their programs and allows the Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw control from States with inadequate implementation mechanisms.
California’s primary statute governing water quality and water pollution issues with respect to both surface waters and groundwater is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Division 7 of the California Water Code) (Porter-Cologne Act). The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and each of the RWQCBs power to protect water quality, and is the primary vehicle for implementation of California’s responsibilities under the Federal Clean Water Act. The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and the RWQCBs authority and responsibility to adopt plans and policies, to regulate discharges to surface and groundwater, to regulate waste disposal sites and to require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter-Cologne Act also establishes reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substance, sewage, or oil or petroleum product.
Each RWQCB must formulate and adopt a water quality control plan (Basin Plan) for its region the regional plans are to conform to the policies set forth in the Porter-Cologne Act and established by the SWRCB in its State water policy. The Porter-Cologne Act also provides that a RWQCB may include within its regional plan water discharge prohibitions applicable to particular conditions, areas, or types of waste.
The Water Code Section 13260 requires all dischargers of waste that may affect water quality in waters of the state to prepare and provide a water quality discharge report to the RWQCB. Section 13260a-c is as follows:
(a) Each of the following persons shall file with the appropriate regional board a report of the discharge, containing the information that may be required by the regional board:
(1) A person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the quality of the waters of the state, other than into a community sewer system.
(2) A person who is a citizen, domiciliary, or political agency or entity of this state discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, outside the boundaries of the state in a manner that could affect the quality of the waters of the state within any region. (3) A person operating, or proposing to construct, an injection well. (b) No report of waste discharge need be filed pursuant to subdivision (a) if the requirement is waived pursuant to Section 13269.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (c) Each person subject to subdivision (a) shall file with the appropriate regional board a report of waste discharge relative to any material change or proposed change in the character, location, or volume of the discharge.
State Water Resources Control Board
The SWRCB is responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act and does so through issuing NPDES permits to cities and counties through regional water quality control boards. Federal regulations allow two permitting options for stormwater discharges (individual permits and general permits).
The SWRCB elected to adopt a statewide general permit (Water Quality Order No. 2013-001-DWQDWQ) for small municipal separate storm sewer systems.
LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan establishes the following policies relative to hydrology and water quality:
NOISE AND SAFETY ELEMENT
Objective NS-3: Minimize the risks to property, life, and the environment due to flooding and stormwater runoff hazards.
Policy NS-3-a: Stormwater Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan. Support the full implementation of the FMFCD Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan, the completion of planned flood control and drainage system facilities, and the continued maintenance of stormwater and flood water retention and conveyance facilities and capacities. Work with the FMFCD to make sure that its Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan is consistent with the General Plan.
Policy NS-3-b: Curb and Gutter Installation. Coordinate with Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) to install curbing, gutters, and other drainage facilities with priority to existing neighborhoods with the greatest deficiencies and consistent with the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan.
Policy NS-3-c: Dual Use Facilities. Support multiple uses of flood control and drainage facilities as follows:
• Use, wherever practical, FMFCD facilities for groundwater management and recharge; and
• Promote recreational development of ponding basin facilities located within or near residential areas, compatible with the stormwater and groundwater recharge functions.
Policy NS-3-d: Landscaped Buffer. City will support the development of FMFCD ponding basins including the landscaping and irrigation for the top one third of the side sloped areas consistent with the FMFCD Basin Design Criteria.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-13 Policy NS-3-e: Pollutants. Work with FMFCD to prevent and reduce the existence of urban stormwater pollutants pursuant to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems Act.
Policy NS-3-f: Flooding Emergency Response Plans. Work with responsible agencies to update emergency dam failure inundation plans, evacuation plans and other emergency response plans for designated flood-prone areas, including the San Joaquin riverbottom.
Policy NS-3-g: Essential Facilities Siting Outside of Floodplains. Avoid siting emergency response and essential public facilities, such as fire and police stations, within a 100-year floodplain, unless it can be demonstrated that the facility can be safely operated and accessed during flood events.
Policy NS-3-h: Runoff Controls. Implement grading regulations and related development policies that protect area residents from flooding caused by urban runoff produced from events that exceed the capacity of the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan system of facilities. Place all structures and/or flood-proofing in a manner that does not cause floodwaters to be diverted onto adjacent property, increase flood hazards to other property, or otherwise adversely affect other property.
Policy NS-3-i: New Development Must Mitigate Impact. Require new development to not significantly impact the existing storm drainage and flood control system by imposing conditions of approval as project mitigation, as authorized by law. As part of this process, closely coordinate and consult with the FMFCD to identify appropriate conditions that will result in mitigation acceptable and preferred by FMFCD for each project.
Policy NS-3-j: National Flood Insurance Program. Continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by ensuring compliance with applicable requirements.
Review NFIP maps periodically to determine if areas subject to flooding have been added or removed and make adjustments to the Land Use Diagram Figure LU-1.
Policy NS-3-k: 100-Year Floodplain Policy. Require developers of residential subdivisions to preserve those portions of development sites as open space that may be subject to 100- year flood events, unless the flood hazard can be substantially mitigated by development project design.
Policy NS-3-l: 200-Year Floodplain Protection. Promote flood control measures that maintain natural conditions within the 200-year floodplain of rivers and streams and, to the extent possible, combine flood control, recreation, water quality, and open space functions.
Discourage construction of permanent improvements that would be adversely affected by periodic floods within the 200-year floodplain, particularly in the San Joaquin river bottom.
Policy NS-3-m: Flood Risk Public Awareness. Continue public awareness programs to inform the general public and potentially affected property owners of flood hazards and potential dam failure inundation. Remind households and businesses located in flood-prone areas of opportunities to purchase flood insurance.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy NS-3-n: Precipitation Changes. Work with FMFCD to evaluate the planned and existing stormwater conveyance system in light of possible changes to precipitation patterns in the future.
PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT
Objective PU-5: Preserve groundwater quality and ensure that the health and safety of the entire Fresno community is not impaired by use of private, on-site disposal systems.
Objective PU-8: Manage and develop the City’s water facilities on a strategic timeline basis that recognizes the long life cycle of the assets and the duration of the resources, to ensure a safe, economical, and reliable water supply for existing customers and planned urban development and economic diversification.
Policy PU-8-f: Water Quality. Continue to evaluate and implement measures determined to be appropriate and consistent with water system policies, including prioritizing the use of groundwater, installing wellhead treatment facilities, constructing above-ground storage and surface water treatment facilities, and enhancing transmission grid mains to promote adequate water quality and quantity.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RESILIENCE ELEMENT
Objective RC-6: Ensure that Fresno has a reliable, long-range source of drinkable water.
Policy RC-6-g: Protect Recharge Areas. Continue to protect areas of beneficial natural groundwater recharge by preventing uses that can contaminate soil or groundwater.
Policy RC-6-i: Natural Recharge. Support removal of concrete from existing canals and change the practice of lining new and existing canals with concrete to allow for natural recharge.
PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND SCHOOLS ELEMENT
Objective POSS-6: Maintain and restore, where feasible, the ecological values of the San Joaquin River corridor.
Policy POSS-6-b: Effects of Stormwater Discharge. Support efforts to identify and mitigate cumulative adverse effects on aquatic life from stormwater discharge to the San Joaquin River.
• Avoid discharge of runoff from urban uses to the San Joaquin River or other riparian corridors.
• Approve development on sites having drainage (directly or indirectly) to the San Joaquin River or other riparian areas only upon a finding that adequate measures for preventing pollution of natural bodies of water from their runoff will be implemented.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-15 • Periodically monitor water quality and sediments near drainage outfalls to riparian areas. Institute remedial measures promptly if unacceptable levels of contaminant(s) occur.
Fresno Municipal Code
Chapter 6, Municipal Services and Utilities, Article 7, Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control, of the Fresno Municipal Code establishes provisions regarding stormwater discharges. The purpose and intent of Article 7 is to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of residents, and to protect the water quality of surface water and groundwater resources in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Federal CWA by reducing pollutants in urban stormwater, discharges to the maximum extent practicable, and by effectively prohibiting non‐ stormwater discharges to the storm drain system.
Chapter 12, Impact Fees, Historic Resources, and Other Miscellaneous Topics, Section 12-2304, Development Application, Infrastructure Improvement Plans, and Building Permit Review and Processing Timelines, outlines the City’s grading plan check process. The grading plan check process is a review process that requires anyone who develops property:
1. Properly grade their property in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC).
2. Submit a grading plan showing the proposed grading of the development.
3. Obtain approval of the FMFCD indicating conformance of the grading plan with the Storm Drainage Master Plan.
4. Obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit and comply with the requirements of the permit, including developing an erosion control site plan.
FMFCD Storm Drainage Master Plan
The Storm Drainage Master Plan contains proposed elevations for tops of curbs in undeveloped areas, delineation of storm drain inlet watershed areas, collection system pipeline alignments and sizes, and retention basin or urban detention (water quality) basin locations and geometry. The development of land in conformance with the Storm Drainage Master Plan ensures that development is graded to drain to storm drainage facilities that are designed to collect and dispose of stormwater from the planned development.
North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan
The NKGSA finalized the Groundwater Sustainability Plan and submitted it to the DWR on January 28, 2020. The sustainability goal of the Kings Subbasin and the NKGSA is to ensure that by 2040 the basin is being managed to maintain a reliable water supply for current and future beneficial uses without experiencing undesirable results.
Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan) includes a summary of beneficial water uses, water quality objectives needed to protect the identified
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan beneficial uses, and implementation measures. The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for all the ground and surface waters of the region. The term “water quality standards,” as used in the Federal Clean Water Act, includes both the beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the levels of quality that must be met and maintained to protect those uses. The Basin Plan includes an implementation plan describing the actions by the RWQCB and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain the water quality standards.
The RWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region’s ground and surface water. Permits are issued under a number of programs and authorities.
The terms and conditions of these discharge permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means. Water quality problems in the region are listed in the Basin Plan, along with the causes, where they are known. For water bodies with quality below the levels necessary to allow all the beneficial uses of the water to be met, plans for improving water quality are included. The Basin Plan reflects, incorporates, and implements applicable portions of a number of national and statewide water quality plans and policies, including the California Water Code and the Clean Water Act.
3.9.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Specific Plan will have a significant impact on the environment associated with hydrology and water quality if it will:
• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.
• Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
o Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; o Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
o Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
• In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation;
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-17
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 3.9-1: The Specific Plan would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction. (Less than Significant)
According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, polluted stormwater runoff is a leading cause of impairment to the nearly 40 percent of surveyed U.S. water bodies which do not meet water quality standards. Over land or via storm sewer systems, polluted runoff is discharged, often untreated, directly into local water bodies. Soil erosion is one of the most common sources of polluted stormwater runoff during construction activities. When left uncontrolled, storm water runoff can erode soil and cause sedimentation in waterways, which collectively result in the destruction of fish, wildlife, and aquatic life habitats; a loss in aesthetic value; and threats to public health due to contaminated food, drinking water supplies, and recreational waterways.
Mandated by Congress under the Clean Water Act, the NPDES Stormwater Program is a comprehensive two-phased national program for addressing the non-agricultural sources of stormwater discharges which adversely affect the quality of our nation's waters. The program uses the NPDES permitting mechanism to require the implementation of controls designed to prevent harmful pollutants, including soil erosion, from being washed by stormwater runoff into local water bodies. Future construction activities for the proposed Specific Plan would be governed by the General Permit 2009-0009-DWQ (amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ), which states:
“…Particular attention must be paid to large, mass graded sites where the potential for soil exposure to the erosive effects of rainfall and wind is great and where there is potential for significant sediment discharge from the site to surface waters. Until permanent vegetation is established, soil cover is the most cost-effective and expeditious method to protect soil particles from detachment and transport by rainfall. Temporary soil stabilization can be the single most important factor in reducing erosion at construction sites. The discharger is required to consider measures such as: covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. These erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. Erosion control BMPs should be the primary means of preventing storm water contamination, and sediment control techniques should be used to capture any soil that becomes eroded…”
General Permit 2009-0009-DWQ (amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ) further states that:
“Sediment control BMPs should be the secondary means of preventing storm water contamination. When erosion control techniques are ineffective, sediment control techniques should be used to capture any soil that becomes eroded. The discharger is required to consider perimeter control measures such as: installing silt fences or placing straw wattles below slopes. These sediment control measures are only examples of what
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed…Inappropriate management of run-on and runoff can result in excessive physical impacts to receiving waters from sediment and increased flows. The discharger is required to manage all run-on and runoff from a Specific Plan Area. Examples include: installing berms and other temporary run-on and runoff diversions…All measures must be periodically inspected, maintained and repaired to ensure that receiving water quality is protected. Frequent inspections coupled with thorough documentation and timely repair is necessary to ensure that all measures are functioning as intended…” Grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with construction activities could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Construction activities also could result in soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas. To ensure that construction activities are covered under General Permit 2009-0009-DWQ (amended by 2010-0014- DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ), projects in California must prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) containing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and sediments to meet water quality standards. Such BMPs may include: temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover. The BMPs and overall SWPPP is reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City of Fresno as part of the permitting process. The SWPPP, once approved, is kept on site and implemented during construction activities and must be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB and/or the City of Fresno.
In accordance with the NPDES Stormwater Program, future development projects disturbing one or more acre within the Plan Area would be required to comply with existing regulatory requirements to prepare a SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The RWQCB has stated that these erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and are an existing regulatory requirement.
CONCLUSION
Future development in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction. Pursuant to the SWPPP that would be required for future projects that disturb one or more acres, the use of BMPs during construction activities would be required in order to reduce erosion, control sediment, and manage runoff from the Plan Area. The BMPs may include: covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. The use of these measures would prevent polluted, non-treated runoff from entering the nearby storm drains and waterways. The various RWQCBs have evaluated the effectiveness of the types of BMPs required by a SWPPP and have determined that BMPs are known to be effective in protecting HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-19 receiving waters2. Through compliance with future site-specific SWPPPs, the proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Impact 3.9-2: The Specific Plan would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during operation. (Less than Significant) Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires States to identify waters that do not meet water quality standards or objectives and thus, are considered "impaired." Once listed, Section 303(d) mandates prioritization and development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The TMDL is a tool that establishes the allowable loadings or other quantifiable parameters for a waterbody and thereby the basis for the States to establish water quality-based controls. The purpose of TMDLs is to ensure that beneficial uses are restored and that water quality objectives are achieved.
Waters that are listed under Section 303(d) of the CWA are known as “impaired.” The primary surface water features within the vicinity of the Plan Area are the San Joaquin River and Millerton Lake. Both water features are considered Section 303(d) impaired waterbodies. The portion of the San Joaquin River nearest the Plan Area appears on the SWRCB’s Impaired Water Bodies/303(d) List for invasive species (non‐native fish species). Millerton Lake is included on the Impaired Water Bodies/303(d) List for mercury. Additionally, although outside of the Plan Area, surface water from the Kings River is delivered to the area for intentional groundwater recharge. Two portions of the lower reaches of the Kings River are considered impaired waterbodies: from Island Weir to Stinson and Empire Weirs and from Pine Flat Reservoir to Island Weir. The Island Weir to Stinson and Empire Weirs segment of the Kings River appears on the SWRCB’s Impaired Water Bodies/303(d) List for conductivity (salinity/total dissolved solids/chlorides/sulfates), molybdenum metals (other than mercury), and toxaphene (pesticide). The Pine Flat Reservoir to Island Weir segment of the Kings River appears on the SWRCB’s Impaired Water Bodies/303(d) List for alkalinity/carbonate as CaCO3 ( pH/Acidity/Caustic Conditions) and toxicity (total toxics).
The long-term operations of future development projects in the Plan Area could result in long-term impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff. The proposed Specific Plan would result in new impervious areas associated with roadways, driveways, parking lots, buildings, and landscape areas. Normal activities in developed areas include the use of various automotive petroleum products (i.e. oil, grease, and fuel), common household hazardous materials, heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and sediment. Within urban areas, these pollutants are generally called nonpoint source pollutants. The pollutant levels vary based on factors such as time between storm events, volume of storm event, type of uses, and density of people.
The majority of development allowed under the Specific Plan would be within areas currently developed with urban uses, and the amount and type of runoff generated by various future development and infrastructure projects would be similar to existing conditions. However, new development and infrastructure projects on lands that are used for agricultural operations, or are 2 Refer to “Review of Stormwater Best Management Practices at Large Construction Sites” by the Los Angeles RWQCB; Available online:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb4/water_issues/programs/stormwater/bmp/largeconstreportaugust-06.pdf
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan vacant and undeveloped, have the potential to result in increases in the amount of impervious surfaces throughout the Plan Area. The undeveloped and underdeveloped lands which do not contain impervious surfaces are scattered throughout the Plan Area, but are mainly located along the western and southern fringes. Future increases in impervious surfaces would result in increased urban runoff, pollutants, and first flush roadway contaminants, as well as an increase in nutrients and other chemicals from landscaped areas. These constituents could result in water quality impacts to onsite and offsite drainage flows to area waterways.
Storm water runoff may play a role in the water quality impairments described above. Runoff that occurs as overland flow across yards, driveways, and public streets is intercepted by the storm water drainage system and conveyed to local drainages before eventually being routed to the Pacific. This storm water can carry pollutants that can enter the local waterways and result in the types of water quality impairments described above. Common sources of storm water pollution in the City include litter, trash, pet waste, paint residue, organic material (yard waste), fertilizers, pesticides, sediments, construction debris, metals from automobile brake pad dust, air pollutants that settle on the ground or attach to rainwater, cooking grease, illegally dumped motor oil, and other harmful fluids.
In accordance with the NPDES Stormwater Program, an approved SWPPP would be required for future development projects in the Plan Area and designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. Such BMPs shall include: temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover or other equally or more effective measures. The BMPs and overall SWPPP are submitted to the RWQCB and the City of Fresno as part of the permitting process. The SWPPP is kept on site and implemented during construction activities and must be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB and/or the City of Fresno. The RWQCB has stated that these erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude equally or more effective new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB.
Due to future development and implementation of new infrastructure anticipated by the Specific Plan, the overall volume of runoff in Fresno could be increased compared to existing conditions. If the FMFCD drainage system is not adequately designed, Specific Plan buildout could result in localized higher peak flow rates. Localized increases in flow would be significant if increases exceeded system capacity or contribute to bank erosion. Each future development and infrastructure project is required to prepare a detailed project specific drainage plan and a SWPPP that will control storm water runoff and erosion, both during and after construction. If the project involves the discharge into surface waters, the project proponent will need to acquire a Dewatering permit, NPDES permit, and Waste Discharge permit from the CVRWQCB.
As described above, under the Regulatory Setting, the City is required to implement a range of measures and procedures when reviewing new development and infrastructure projects.
Implementation of the City’s General Plan policies and actions, as well as the City’s adopted Municipal Code requirements, would ensure that water quality is preserved.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-21 Chapter 6, Municipal Services and Utilities, Article 7, Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control, of the Fresno Municipal Code establishes provisions regarding stormwater discharges. The purpose and intent of Article 7 is to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of residents, and to protect the water quality of surface water and groundwater resources in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Federal CWA by reducing pollutants in urban stormwater, discharges to the maximum extent practicable, and by effectively prohibiting non‐ stormwater discharges to the storm drain system. Chapter 12, Impact Fees, Historic Resources, and Other Miscellaneous Topics, Section 12-2304, Development Application, Infrastructure Improvement Plans, and Building Permit Review and Processing Timelines, outlines the City’s grading plan check process. The grading plan check process is a review process that requires anyone who develops property:
1. Properly grade their property in accordance with the CBC.
2. Submit a grading plan showing the proposed grading of the development.
3. Obtain approval of the FMFCD indicating conformance of the grading plan with the Storm Drainage Master Plan.
4. Obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit and comply with the requirements of the permit, including developing an erosion control site plan.
While the primary regulatory mechanisms for ensuring that future development and infrastructure projects do not result in adverse water quality impacts are contained in the Fresno Municipal Code, the City of Fresno has developed the Specific Plan to include additional policies that, when implemented, will further reduce water pollution from construction, new development, and new infrastructure projects, and protect and enhance natural storm drainage and water quality features.
The policies identified below include numerous requirements that would reduce the potential for Specific Plan implementation to result in increased water quality impacts.
CONCLUSION
The entire Plan Area is in areas served by FMFCD retention basins. Operation of projects developed under the proposed Specific Plan could generate the same categories of pollutants that construction could. Water quality treatment for post-construction discharges to stormwater in the FMFCD urban flood control system area is provided by retention basins. Land development in the FMFCD Master Plan Area is exempt from further water quality requirements provided that the FMFCD’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan is implemented.
Storm drainage improvements are funded by local drainage fees paid by developments and are built by the FMFCD, by developers, or both. Basins are highly effective at reducing average concentrations of a broad range of contaminants, including several polyaromatic hydrocarbons, total suspended solids, and most metals. Pollutants are removed by filtration through soil, and thus don’t reach the groundwater aquifer. Basins are built to design criteria exceeding Statewide Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan standards. The urban flood control system provides treatment for all types of development.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Additionally, compliance with the Specific Plan policies shown below would further ensure that water quality standards or waste discharge requirements are not violated during operation of future projects in the Plan Area. For example, adequate stormwater and flooding infrastructure would be required for new development. Through compliance with the FMFCD’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan, City General Plan policies, City Municipal Code requirements, and proposed Specific Plan policies, the proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
SPECIFIC PLAN POLICIES
IPR 3.2: Continue to evaluate Capital Improvement Programs and update them to add missing infrastructure and to meet the demand for new development.
IPR 3.3: Continue to set appropriate conditions of approval for each new development proposal to ensure that water resource facilities are in place prior to construction and building occupancy.
IPR 3.4: Continue to plan for, install, and operate recycled water systems to benefit the West Area and to support local resource conservation goals.
Impact 3.9-3: The Specific Plan would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. (Less than Significant)
The quantity of ground water in the San Joaquin Valley has been declining for decades, as evidenced by the substantial lowering of water levels in the aquifers. Impacts on groundwater in the Fresno area are an important consideration in any development plan. See Impact 3.15-6 in Section 3.15, Utilities, for further discussions regarding groundwater demand, groundwater supplies, groundwater recharge, and groundwater quality. Impacts related to groundwater supplies and interference with groundwater recharge are considered in two ways: (1) conversion of pervious surfaces (which allow for groundwater recharge), and (2) use of groundwater as a water supply (which reduces the amount of local groundwater supply).
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
Future development projects in the Plan Area would result in new impervious surfaces and could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge in those areas. Infiltration rates vary depending on the overlying soil types. In general, sandy soils have higher infiltration rates and can contribute to significant amounts of ground water recharge; clay soils tend to have lower percolation potential; and impervious surfaces such as pavement significantly reduce infiltration capacity and increase surface water runoff.
As noted previously, the FMFCD drainage system consists of approximately 680 miles of pipeline and more than 150 stormwater retention basins. The storm drainage pipeline system is designed to accept the peak flow rate of runoff from a two-year intensity storm event (a storm that has a 50 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-23 percent probability of occurring in any given year). The FMFCD storm drain and flood control system is designed to retain and infiltrate as much stormwater and urban runoff as possible.
The current drainage system in the Plan Area discharges to a system of irrigation canals, creeks, and the San Joaquin River, but is designed to retain and infiltrate as much runoff as possible into the underlying groundwater aquifer. Future development would include water quality BMPs, detention basins, and retention basins designed to minimize or eliminate increases in runoff from these new impervious surfaces entering existing surface water courses and existing storm drains. Peak runoff and total volume of runoff will be minimized by future development of storm drainage design which retains water to the maximum extent possible. Consequently, infiltration into the groundwater aquifers will be maximized to the extent possible through the storm drainage design.
Additionally, future development projects in the Plan Area may result in new rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge with the development of new pervious surfaces and maintenance of existing pervious surfaces. The Specific Plan incorporates best practices to support sustainable development including bioswale/run-off collection and large permeable green surfaces (i.e., park and open space areas) that would reduce new impervious surfaces, rainwater infiltration, and support groundwater recharge. Future development would include storm water quality BMPs designed to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces entering existing storm drains and surface water courses. Peak runoff and total volume of runoff will be minimized by future development of storm drainage design which retains water to the maximum extent possible.
Further, the City’s Recharge Fresno Program is intended to improve the pipelines and water system facilities that will capture, treat, and deliver water to Fresno homes and businesses, including surface water from the Sierra Nevada Mountains. This program has the following objectives: ensure a reliable and sustainable water supply for Fresno’s present and future prosperity by increasing the available water supply; bring new, treated surface water from the Sierra Nevada Mountains to our community; improve natural and intentional groundwater recharge; maintain focus on conservation and its role in ensuring a sustainable water supply for Fresno; and ensure a safe and reliable water supply.
Future development of the Plan Area under the proposed land use plan will modify the movement of water across the land surface and the infiltration of rain water into the groundwater system. The aquifers underlying the Plan Area are impacted by several major contaminant plumes involving organic compounds, inorganic compounds, solvents, pesticides, and other contaminants. Future development projects in the Plan Area, if no means were provided to preserve infiltration of rainwater, would likely reduce net infiltration of rain water and runoff into the groundwater system and reduce the diluting effect of this fresh water supply. The net impact would be a further build-up of contaminants in the groundwater in the Kings Subbasin. However, the proposed Specific Plan would also likely decrease the amount of pesticides and other agricultural contaminants entering the groundwater from the Plan Area, due to elimination of agricultural activity in the Plan Area, including fertilizer application. Surface water quality detention basins and BMPs would also have the potential to add to groundwater contamination levels if they are not properly designed and sited. It is also noted that the City is in the process of planning and constructing a comprehensive Recycled Water System, which will include parts of the Plan Area. Many of the segments of the
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan overall System are either under construction or already completed, and a Water Reuse Master Plan is underway to evaluate all options and plan for the future use of recycled water throughout the city.
The FMFCDs Storm Water Quality Management Plan, City General Plan policies, City Municipal Code requirements, the Recharge Fresno program, and proposed Specific Plan policies include BMPs aimed at preserving water quality and groundwater recharge areas. The BMPs required as part of future development of the Plan Area are designed to infiltrate as much storm water runoff as practicable into the ground. A portion of the retained runoff will infiltrate into the ground, helping to replenish the aquifers. The required BMPs are designed to trap contaminants and to beneficially make use of nutrients in the vegetated swales and planted areas. In addition, application rates of fertilizers on urbanized areas is less than that typically used in intensive agriculture. The aggregate effect of the proposed Specific Plan will, therefore, be to decrease the loading of nutrients (in particular, nitrates) into the groundwater.
GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES
The proposed Specific Plan would be served from the City’s existing and future water supplies. As discussed in Section 3.15, Utilities, the City currently receives water from four water supply sources:
surface water from the FID Agreement for Kings River water, surface water from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division Contract for San Joaquin River water, groundwater that is pumped from wells in the City, and recycled water (planned to be used for nonpotable uses).
The City of Fresno forecasts that it will have sufficient water supplies for demands in its service area over the 2020 to 2040 period in normal, single-dry-year, and multiple-dry-year conditions.
Additionally, the Specific Plan water demand is not expected to exceed the City’s supplies in any normal, single dry, or multiple dry year between 2020 and 2040.
SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) directs DWR to identify groundwater basins and subbasins that are in conditions of critical overdraft. This designation is determined based upon the presence of "undesirable impacts" such as seawater intrusion, land subsidence, groundwater depletion, and chronic lowering of groundwater levels. Per DWR's current list of critically overdrafted basins, finalized in February 2019, the Kings Subbasin is designated as a critically overdrafted basin.
As part of the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program, DWR is required to prioritize California groundwater basins to help identify, evaluate, and determine the need for additional groundwater level monitoring. Per the current CASGEM draft prioritization, completed in April 2019, the Kings Subbasin is a high priority subbasin.
The City has long made efforts toward offsetting the decline of groundwater levels and minimizing overdraft conditions through an active intentional recharge program that started in 1971. Through cooperative agreements with FMFCD and FID, the City has access to not only City-owned basins, but HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-25 also those of these two agencies. The City has averaged over 60,000 AFY the previous five years and plans to gradually increase recharge by about 540 AFY each year. However, during wet years the City will recharge more water when it is available to allow to the City to draw on additional groundwater during dry years when surface water is not available.
In short, SGMA is landmark legislation that, for the first time in the history of California, requires comprehensive groundwater management, with the mandatory goal of bringing all currently overdrafted basins into sustainable conditions by no later than 2040 or 2042, with five-year increments of progress starting in 2025 and 2027.
As noted previously, the FARGMP was prepared in conformance with AB 3030 and SB 1938. The objectives of the FARGMP have been developed to monitor, protect, and sustain groundwater within the region. The City of Fresno and the other participating agencies subsequently adopted the groundwater management plan in 2006. The City of Fresno falls within the NKGSA. As a high priority basin, the Kings Subbasin must be managed under a GSP by January 31, 2020. The NKGSA finalized the GSP and submitted it to the California DWR on January 28, 2020, ahead of the January 31, 2020 mandate. The FARGMP is discussed below.
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
As noted previously, the FARGMP was prepared in conformance with AB 3030 and SB 1938. The objectives of the FARGMP have been developed to monitor, protect, and sustain groundwater within the region. The City of Fresno and the other participating agencies subsequently adopted the groundwater management plan in 2006. The City of Fresno falls within the NKGSA. As a high priority basin, the Kings Subbasin must be managed under a GSP by January 31, 2020. The NKGSA completed the GSP on January 28, 2020.
As discussed above, the Specific Plan would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Plan may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The Specific Plan includes park, open space, and ponding basin areas which would allow for infiltration of groundwater on-site. Existing City and FMFCD regulations require development in the Plan Area to address water quality and changes to the drainage pattern through BMPs and low impact development (LID) measures. LID measures and strategies can be used to meet the FMFCD’s development standards and include use of bioretention/infiltration landscape areas, disconnected hydrologic flow paths, reduced impervious areas, functional landscaping, and grading to maintain natural hydrologic functions that existed prior to development, such as interception, shallow surface storage, infiltration, evapotranspiration, and groundwater recharge. Further, Recharge Fresno, a City program to improve the pipelines and water system facilities that will capture, treat and deliver water to Fresno homes and businesses, including surface water from the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Groundwater-related objectives of Recharge Fresno include: improve natural and intentional groundwater recharge, maintain focus on conservation and its role in ensuring a sustainable water supply for Fresno, and ensure a safe and reliable water supply.. These guiding documents and requirements would ensure that stormwater quality treatment measures are implemented and maintained throughout the life of the Specific Plan.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
CONCLUSION
The required stormwater BMPs and retention basins would be designed to reduce runoff below that which occurs currently during storm events and ensure groundwater recharge from the Plan Area to the extent possible. Additionally, the Specific Plan water demand is not expected to exceed the City’s supplies in any normal, single dry, or multiple dry year between 2020 and 2040, and the Plan would not conflict with the FARGMP. Further, the Specific Plan includes two policies, listed below, which would encourage nonporous surfaces for groundwater recharge and other design strategies to maximize recharge. Therefore, impacts related to groundwater recharge would be less than significant.
SPECIFIC PLAN POLICIES
IPR 2.9: Plant locally appropriate, drought-tolerant landscaping and, where possible, incorporate designs that can contribute to groundwater recharge, flood protection, and reduced urban heat island effects.
IPR 3.1: Encourage the incorporation of water conservation methods in new development, such as greywater systems, drought-resilient landscaping, and reduction of nonporous surfaces.
Impact 3.9-4: The Specific Plan would not alter the existing drainage pattern in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite, or create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. (Less than Significant)
Future development would include water quality BMPs, detention basins, and retention basins designed to minimize or eliminate increases in runoff entering existing surface water courses and storm drains. Peak runoff and total volume of runoff will be minimized by the storm drainage design which retains water to the maximum extent possible.
The proposed Specific Plan will not alter drainage patterns in a manner which will cause flooding, erosion, or siltation. Surface runoff from the area will be managed via parcel-based LID measures, detention/retention basins, and flow reducing BMPs to prevent local flooding within the site. These features will also reduce peak flows from the Plan Area to receiving creeks and storm drains to amounts equal to or less than flows under existing conditions. Sediment in the stormwater flows will be captured in detention ponds designed to prevent siltation. Flooding, erosion, or siltation is not anticipated by the proposed Specific Plan given the storm drain design requirements and best management practices that will be implemented.
The proposed Specific Plan would not alter the existing drainage pattern in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, flooding, or polluted runoff. With the implementation of the Specific Plan policies already presented above, compliance with existing regulatory requirements HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-27 which pertain to water quality and runoff, and with the design and construction of the improvements included in the proposed storm drainage system, the proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Impact 3.9-5: The Specific Plan would not release pollutants due to Plan Area inundation by flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche. (Less than Significant) As shown in Figure 3.9-2, the entire Plan Area is designated unshaded Zone X - minimal flood hazard, and would not be expected to have a flood hazard up to the level of the 0.2-percent annual chance flood. Lands designated as unshaded Zone X are outside of the Special Flood Hazard Areas. Changes to land surfaces in these areas do not trigger map revisions and no flood insurance requirements are imposed on structures in these areas.
Although the Plan Area’s northern boundary is very near the San Joaquin River, the area is not within a Special Flood Hazard Area. Local flooding can occur for events larger than a two-year event, but runoff is generally contained in the streets or other breakover easements. Such flooding is not reflected on FEMA’s maps. Improvements to storm drainage facilities are accomplished either as a part of privately funded on-site developments or as a part of the master plan, funded by drainage fees. FMFCD maintains an on-going update to the system hydraulic model for flood control and prepares a capital improvement plan update every five years.
A tsunami is a sea wave caused by a submarine earthquake, landslide, or volcanic eruption. Tsunami can cause catastrophic damage to shallow or exposed shorelines. The Plan Area is approximately 105 miles from the coast, which is sufficiently distant to preclude effects from a tsunami.
Additionally, tsunami inundation maps show no risk of tsunami inundation for the Plan Area.
Seiches are changes or oscillations of water levels within a confined water body. Seiches are caused by fluctuation in the atmosphere, tidal currents or earthquakes. The effect of this phenomenon is a standing wave that would occur when influenced by the external causes. The Plan Area is not adjacent to any lakes that pose significant a risk from a seiche event.
A small portion of the Plan Area located in the northernmost point is located within the dam failure inundation area for the Friant Dam. Potential inundation from the Friant Dam is shown in Figure 3.9-
3. Dam failure is generally a result of structural instability caused by improper design or construction, instability resulting from seismic shaking, or overtopping and erosion of the dam. The DSD is responsible for inspecting and monitoring these dams. The Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan outlines the mitigation strategy for reducing potential losses identified in Chapter 4, Risk Assessment, of the Plan.
Provided that the storm drain system and detention/retention facilities to be installed as part of the proposed development are adequately sized and properly installed and maintained, additional flooding and/or impedance or redirection of flows will not be induced by the proposed Specific Plan.
As a result, the proposed Specific Plan would have a less-than-significant impact relative to this topic.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Impact 3.9-6: The Specific Plan would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. (Less than Significant)
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region and the GSP are the two guiding documents for water quality and sustainable groundwater management in the Plan Area.
Consistency with the two plans are discussed below.
WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL VALLEY REGION The Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region (Basin Plan) includes a summary of beneficial water uses, water quality objectives needed to protect the identified beneficial uses, and implementation measures. The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for all the ground and surface waters of the region. The RWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region’s ground and surface water. Permits are issued under a number of programs and authorities. The terms and conditions of these discharge permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means. Water quality problems in the region are listed in the Basin Plan, along with the causes, where known.
As discussed in Impacts 3.9-1 and 3.9-2, impacts related to water quality during construction and operation of future projects in the Plan Area would be less than significant. Through compliance with future site-specific SWPPPs, the proposed project Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to construction. Through compliance with the FMFCD’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan, City General Plan policies, City Municipal Code requirements, and proposed Specific Plan policies, the proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to operation.
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
As part of a partnership of local municipal water purveyors, irrigation districts, a flood control district, and the overlying county, the FARGMP was prepared in conformance with AB 3030 and SB 1938. The objectives of the FARGMP have been developed to monitor, protect, and sustain groundwater within the region. The City of Fresno and the other participating agencies subsequently adopted the groundwater management plan in 2006. The City of Fresno falls within the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NKGSA). As a high priority basin, the Kings Subbasin must be managed under a GSP by January 31, 2020. The NKGSA completed the GSP on January 28, 2020.
As discussed in Impact 3.9-3, Specific Plan implementation would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Specific Plan may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The required stormwater BMPs and retention basins would be designed to reduce runoff below that which occurs currently during storm events and ensure groundwater recharge from the Plan Area to the extent possible. Additionally, the Specific Plan water demand is not expected to exceed the City’s supplies in any normal, single dry, or multiple dry year between 2020 and 2040, and the Plan would not conflict with the FARGMP.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-29 Further, the Specific Plan includes two policies, listed above, which would encourage nonporous surfaces for groundwater recharge and other design strategies to maximize recharge.
CONCLUSION
Overall, implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to conflicts with the Basin Plan and the GSP.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
N Dante Ave
W Gettysburg Ave
N Blythe Ave
W Shields Ave
N Figarden Dr
W Sierra Ave
W Dakota Ave
W Spruce Ave
N Polk Ave
W Figarden Dr
N Golden State Blvd
N Emerson Ave
W Clinton Ave
N Marks Ave
N Weber Ave
W Barstow Ave
N Brawley Ave
N Gates Ave
W Shaw Ave
N Valentine Ave
N Cornelia Ave
N Bryan Ave
W Bullard Ave
N
Milburn Ave
N Hayes Ave
N Grantland Ave
W Ashlan Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N
Ma rty Ave
W San Jose Ave
W Herndon Ave
CITY OF FRESNO
SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
UV99
Sources: USGS Watershed Boundary Dataset; Fresno County; City of Fresno. Map date: August 2, 2019. Revised: May 29, 2020.
BOUNDARIES
Specific Plan of the West Area
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
HYDROLOGIC UNITS
Watershed Boundary (HUC-10)
Subwatershed Area (HUCBethany Cemetery-San Joaquin
River
Empire Ditch-James Bypass
Gates Lake
Kennedy Owens Canal-James
Bypass
Scout Island-San Joaquin River
Town of Rolinda-James Bypass
Figure 3.9-1. Watersheds
q 0 ¼ ½
Miles
James Bypass Watershed
Cottonwood Creek - San Joaquin River Watershed
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
N Dante Ave
W Gettysburg Ave
W Shields Ave
N Blythe Ave
N Figarden Dr
W Sierra Ave
W Dakota Ave
W Spruce Ave
N Polk Ave
W Figarden Dr
N Golden State Blvd
N Emerson Ave
N Marks Ave
W Clinton Ave
N Weber Ave
W Barstow Ave
N Brawley Ave
N Gates Ave
W Shaw Ave
N Cornelia Ave
W Bullard Ave
N Valentine Ave
N Bryan Ave
N
Milburn Ave
N Hayes Ave
N Grantland Ave
W Ashlan Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N
Marty A ve
W San Jose Ave
W Herndon Ave
EL
CD
AE
AH2
AH1
EJ
AB
K
AG
EH
EM
MM
EG
AJ
EN
AI
EO
AK
AF
AD
EF
AC
CITY OF FRESNO
SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
UV99
Sources: FMFCD Map App, 1-31-2020; Fresno County; City of Fresno. Map date: July 31, 2020. Revised: May 29, 2020.
UV99
Figure 3.9-2.
Fresno Metropolitan Flood
Control District
Facilities and Basins
q 0 ¼ ½
Miles
FMFCD FEATURES
FID Facilities
Basin
BOUNDARIES
Specific Plan of the West Area
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
N Dante Ave
W Gettysburg Ave
N Blythe Ave
W Shields Ave
N Figarden Dr
W Sierra Ave
W Dakota Ave
W Spruce Ave
N Polk Ave
W Figarden Dr
W Alluvial Ave
N Golden State Blvd
N Emerson Ave
W Clinton Ave
N Valentine Ave
N Marks Ave
N Bryan Ave
N
Brawley Ave
N Weber Ave
W Barstow Ave
N Gates Ave
W Shaw Ave
N Cornelia Ave
W Bullard Ave
N
Milburn Ave
N Hayes Ave
N Grantland Ave
W Ashlan Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N
Ma rty Ave
W San Jose Ave
W Herndon Ave
UV99
Sources: FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer; Fresno County; City of Fresno. Map date: August 2, 2019. Revised: May 29, 2020.
BOUNDARIES
Specific Plan of the West Area
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
FEMA FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION
100-year Flood Zone
Area of Minimal Flood Hazard
CITY OF FRESNO
SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
Figure 3.9-3.
FEMA Flood Zones
q 0 ¼ ½
Miles
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
N Dante Ave
W Gettysburg Ave
N Blythe Ave
W Shields Ave
N Figarden Dr
W Sierra Ave
W Dakota Ave
W Spruce Ave
N Polk Ave
W Figarden Dr
N Golden State Blvd
N Emerson Ave
W Clinton Ave
N Valentine Ave
N Marks Ave
N
Brawley Ave
N Weber Ave
N Bryan Ave
W Barstow Ave
N Gates Ave
W Shaw Ave
N Cornelia Ave
W Bullard Ave
N
Milburn Ave
N Hayes Ave
N Grantland Ave
W Ashlan Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N
Ma rty Ave
W San Jose Ave
W Herndon Ave
UV99
Sources: Cal OES Dam Inundation Areas, ArcGIS Online, 8/2/2019; Fresno County; City of Fresno. Map date: August 2, 2019. Revised: May 29, 2020.
BOUNDARIES
Specific Plan of the West Area
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
DAM INUNDATION AREAS
Friant Dam
CITY OF FRESNO
SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
Figure 3.9-4.
Dam Inundation Areas
q 0 ¼ ½
Miles
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.9-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
LAND USE 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-1 This section describes the existing land uses in the Plan Area and in the surrounding area, describes the applicable land use regulations, and evaluates the environmental effects of implementation of the proposed Specific Plan related to land use. Information in this section is based on information provided in the project materials, and the following reference documents:
• Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• Draft Master Environmental Impact Report General Plan and Development Code Update, City of Fresno, Fresno County, California (City of Fresno, 2014); • Fresno General Plan Public Review Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (City of Fresno, 2020);
• Fresno Municipal Code (City of Fresno, 2007); and
• Fresno County General Plan (County of Fresno, 2000).
Two comments were received during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) review period regarding environmental impacts associated with land use: Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019) and Jeff Roberts (July 24, 2019). Full comments are included in Appendix A.
3.10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
EXISTING PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
The City of Fresno is located in north central portion of Fresno County in the Central Valley region.
The City is near the geographical center of California and lies approximately 220 miles (350 km) north of Los Angeles, 170 miles (270 km) south of the state capitol, Sacramento. State Route 99 travels through the western portion of the City of Fresno.
Plan Area
The Plan Area encompasses approximately 7,077 acres (or a little more than 11 square miles) in the City of Fresno city limits and unincorporated Fresno County. Of the eleven square miles within the Plan Area, 6.9 square miles are in the City limits and 4.1 square miles are in the growth area. The growth area is land outside the City limits but within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary, which is the adopted limit for future growth.
The Plan Area is triangular in shape and located west of State Route 99. It is bounded on the south by West Clinton Avenue, and to the west by Grantland and Garfield Avenues. The Plan Area includes the southwest portion of Highway City adjacent to State Route 99. See Chapter 2.0 (Project Description) Figure 2.0-1 for the regional location map and Figure 2.0-2 for the Plan Area vicinity map.
Existing Land Uses
A portion of the Plan Area is located within the City of Fresno City limits, and a portion is within unincorporated Fresno County (but within the City’s SOI). The City of Fresno General Plan designates the Plan Area as: Low Density Residential, Medium Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Urban Neighborhood Residential, High Density Residential, Community Commercial,
3.10 LAND USE
3.10-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan General Commercial, Recreation Commercial, Office, Business Park, Light Industrial, Corridor/Center Mixed Use, Regional Mixed Use, Community Park, Open Space – Ponding Basin, Neighborhood Park, Open Space, Public/Quasi-Public Facility, Special School, Elementary School, Elementary, Middle & High School, and High School. See Chapter 2.0 (Project Description) Figure 2.0-4 for the existing City General Plan land use designations.
A large amount of land in the Plan Area is farmland or rural residential lots with large, uneven, and underutilized parcels. The Plan Area has approximately eight different existing land uses which include the following:
• Rural/Estate Residential: Approximately 27 percent, or 1,911 acres, of the existing land uses within the Plan Area are currently used as rural/estate residential. Of the 6,109 acres of developable lands within the Plan Area, 1,640.68 acres are low-density single-family homes that are occupied lots with a size of two to nine acres per dwelling units. • Multiple Family Residential: Approximately two percent, or 141 acres, of the Plan Area account for multi-family residential development. These uses are primarily located adjacent to arterial roads with easy access to State Route 99, and Fresno Area Express (FAX) service lines.
• Single-Family Residential: Approximately 21 percent of the existing uses within the Plan Area are currently developed with single-family residential sues. These uses are located primarily within the city limits.
• Vacant Land: Approximately 15 percent of the land in the Plan Area, or 911.34 acres, account for vacant lands. Vacant areas are located throughout the Plan Area, in both the city limits and SOI. Vacant areas represent infill opportunities within the Plan Area’s densest neighborhoods.
• Public/Government Facilities: Approximately six percent, or 337.83 acres, of land within the Plan Area contain public or government facilities. These land uses include Central Unified School District facilities, churches, the Dante Club, and the Hacienda facility. • Open Space/Agricultural Land: Approximately 25 percent or 1,554.06 acres, in the Plan Area contain open space or agricultural land. While there are some open space land uses within the City, most of these uses are primarily located in the SOI. These uses include parks and ponding basins.
• Industrial Uses: Approximately one percent, or 57.33 acres, of the Plan Area account for industrial uses. The largest industrial land use in the Plan Area contains an agricultural business located at the intersection of West Dakota Avenue and North Grantland Avenue. • Commercial Uses: Approximately three percent, or 219.76 acres, of the Plan Area account for commercial uses. Commercial uses are spread throughout the eastern and southeastern portions of the Plan Area, closer to State Route 99.
Existing Zoning
The City of Fresno Zoning Map provides zoning for those portions of the Plan Area located within the City limits, but not for areas within the unincorporated County. Zoning designations are generally LAND USE 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-3 consistent with the existing General Plan land uses. The City zoning designations for the Plan Area include: Residential Estate (RE), Residential Single-Family, Extremely Low Density (RS-1), Residential Single-Family, Very Low Density (RS-2), Residential Single-Family, Low Density (RS-3), Residential Single-Family, Medium Low Density (RS-4), Residential Single-Family, Medium Density (RS-5), Residential Multi-Family, Medium High Density (RM-1), Residential Multi-Family, Urban Neighborhood (RM-2), Residential Multi-Family, High Density (RM-3), Mobile Home Park (RM-MH), Commercial Community (CC), Commercial General (CG), Commercial Regional (CR), Commercial Recreation (CRC), Light Industrial (IL), Corridor/Center Mixed Use (CMX), Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMX), Regional Mixed Use (RMX), Business Park (BP), Office (O), Open Space (OS), and Park and Recreation (PR). See Chapter 2.0 (Project Description) Figure 2.0-5 for the existing zoning designations.
The Fresno County Zoning Map designates the portions of the Plan Area outside the City limits as:
Rural Commercial Center (RCC), Central Trading (C4), General Commercial (C6), Light Industrial (M1), Exclusive Agricultural (AE20), Limited Agricultural (AL20), Rural Residential (RR), Single Family Residential Agricultural (RA), Single Family Residential (12,500) (R1B), and Trailer Park Residential (TP). Upon a proposal to annex unincorporated land into the City limits, the City of Fresno would prezone the land to a zone that is consistent with the General Plan land use. Once annexation occurs, the County zoning would no longer apply to the parcel.
Surrounding Land Uses
Surrounding land uses include State Route 99; the historic communities of Herndon and Highway City; incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the northeast; incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the east (including mostly industrial uses); unincorporated Fresno County and incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the south (including farmland uses, rural residential uses, low density residential uses, and underutilized parcels); and unincorporated Fresno County to the west (including farmland and rural residential uses).
3.10.2 REGULATORY SETTING
This section provides an overview of the regulatory setting including applicable plans and policies, and land use laws. A variety of sources, including applicable General Plans, the Fresno Citywide Development Code, and Government Code sections relevant to land use are discussed.
STATE
Government Code
California Government Code Section 65300 et seq. establishes the obligation of cities and counties to adopt and implement general plans. The general plan is a comprehensive, long-term, and general document that describes plans for the physical development of a jurisdiction and of any land outside its boundaries that, in the jurisdiction’s judgment, bears relation to its planning. The general plan addresses a broad range of topics, including, at a minimum, land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. In addressing these topics, the general plan identifies
3.10 LAND USE
3.10-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan the goals, objectives, policies, principles, standards, and plan proposals that support the jurisdiction’s vision for the area. The general plan is a long-range document that typically addresses the physical character of an area over a 20-year period. Although the general plan serves as a blueprint for future development and identifies the overall vision for the planning area, it remains general enough to allow for flexibility in the approach taken to achieve the plan's goals.
The State Zoning Law (California Government Code Section 65800 et seq.) establishes that zoning ordinances, which are laws that define allowable land uses within a specific district, are required to be consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plans. When amendments to the general plan are made, corresponding changes in the zoning ordinance may be required within a reasonable time to ensure the land uses designated in the general plan would also be allowable by the zoning ordinance (Government Code, Section 65860, subd. [c]).
State of California Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act establishes procedures for local government changes of organization, including city incorporations, annexations to a city or special district, and city and special district consolidations. In approving an annexation, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) will consider the following factors:
• Population and population density; land area and land use; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries, and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; and the likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas during the next ten years.
• The need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in the area; probable future needs for those services and controls; and the probable effect of the proposed incorporation, formation, annexation, exclusion and of alternative courses of action on the cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area and adjacent areas.
• The effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions on adjacent areas, on mutual social and economic interests, and on the local government structure of the county. • The conformity of both the proposal and its anticipated effects with both the adopted commission policies on providing planned, orderly, and efficient patterns of urban development, and the policies and priorities set forth in Government Code section 56377. • The effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of agricultural lands, as defined by Government Code section 56016.
• The definiteness and certainty of the boundaries of the territory, nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries. • Consistency with city or county general and specific plans. • The sphere of influence of any local agency that may be applicable to the proposal being reviewed.
LAND USE 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-5 • The comments of any affected local agency.
• The ability of the newly formed or receiving entity to provide the services that are the subject of the application to the area, including the sufficiency of revenues for those services following the proposed boundary change.
• Timely availability of water supplies adequate for projected needs as specified in Government Code section 65352.5.
• The extent to which the proposal will affect a city or cities and the county in achieving their respective fair shares of the regional housing needs, as determined by the appropriate council of governments consistent with Housing Element laws. • Any information or comments from lawmakers.
• Any information relating to existing land use designations.
In addition to the above factors, LAFCo may also consider any resolution raising objections to the action that may be filed by an affected agency; and any other matters which the commission deems material.
LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
As noted above, General Plans are prepared under a mandate from the State of California, which requires each city and county to prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its jurisdiction and any adjacent related lands.
Key themes of the Fresno General Plan include the strengthening of existing centers of activity and commercial corridors in the City, as well as expansion of the City’s industrial capacity, retail base, and new residential neighborhoods. The Fresno General Plan has been prepared to do the following:
• Establish a long-range vision that reflects the aspirations of the community and outlines steps to achieve this vision;
• Establish long-range land use development policies that will guide development decisionmaking by City departments by providing a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in harmony with the outcomes envisioned in the Fresno General Plan policies;
• Reflect the City’s current planning, resource conservation, and economic development efforts;
• Guide development in a manner that improves the quality of life for the whole community and meets future land needs based on the projected population and job growth; • Allow the City, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will preserve and enhance community character and environmental resources, promote resiliency, and minimize hazards; and
3.10 LAND USE
3.10-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Provide the basis for establishing detailed plans and implementation programs, such as the zoning and subdivision regulations, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and the Capital Improvement Program.
GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS
The General Plan is organized into the following elements:
• Introduction: This introductory element includes General Plan goals, State requirements, and requirements for administration of the Plan. In addition, the projected development under General Plan Horizon and General Plan Buildout are summarized, and overarching themes of the Plan are presented.
• Economic Development and Fiscal Sustainability: This element addresses strategies for the City to boost the strength and range of existing businesses, expand economic opportunities for current and future residents, and ensure the long-term ability of the City to deliver a high level of public services.
• Urban Form, Land Use and Design: This element provides the physical framework for development in the city. It establishes policies related to the location and intensity of new development, citywide land use and growth management policies. The Urban Form, Land Use and Design Element, including the Land Use Map, is discussed in further detail below. • Mobility and Transportation: This element includes policies, programs, and standards to maintain efficient circulation for vehicles and alternative modes of transportation. It creates a framework for provision of Complete Streets; identifies future street and bikeway improvements; and addresses trails, parking, public transit, goods movement, and longterm plans for the municipal airport. • Parks, Open Space, and Schools: This element provides an inventory of existing and planned parks, recreation facilities, other open space, and public schools, and defines policies and standards relating to these services and amenities. This element also outlines policies relating to the preservation of open space and natural resources. • Public Utilities and Services: The element addresses the provision of police, fire, wastewater treatment, drinking water, drainage, and solid waste disposal services. • Resource Conservation and Resilience: This element provides strategies for improving critical environmental conditions regarding air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, ensuring long-term water and energy supplies, and strengthening the city for potential future changes in resource supply and climate change. The element complies with the requirements of AB 170 for jurisdictions in the San Joaquin Valley to amend their general plans to include goals, data and analysis, policies and feasible implementation strategies designed to improve air quality.
• Historic and Cultural Resources: This element provides policy guidance to protect, preserve, and celebrate the city’s history and its architectural and cultural heritage. • Noise and Safety: This element addresses the risks posed by geologic hazards, wildland fire, hazardous materials, and flooding. It also discusses emergency response, safety service LAND USE 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-7 response standards, and evacuation routes. The element also includes policies and standards to limit the impacts of noise sources throughout the city. Future noise contours are illustrated in order to facilitate administration of noise policies and standards. • Healthy Communities: This element focuses specifically on subjects not fully discussed in other elements, in particular the relationships between the built, natural, and social environments, community health and wellness outcomes, youth leadership and community engagement, healthy food access, community gardens and urban agriculture. • Housing Element Consistency: This chapter provides information regarding the consistency between the General Plan and the adopted Housing Element, including a matrix showing how the General Plan consistently implements the requirements of the Housing Element. • Implementation: The Implementation element provides an implementation and monitoring program for this General Plan.
General Plan Land Use Map: The Fresno General Plan Land Use Map portrays the ultimate uses of land in the city of through land use designations. The City of Fresno General Plan designates the Plan Area as: Low Density Residential, Medium Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Urban Neighborhood Residential, High Density Residential, Community Commercial, General Commercial, Recreation Commercial, Office, Business Park, Light Industrial, Corridor/Center Mixed Use, Regional Mixed Use, Community Park, Open Space – Ponding Basin, Neighborhood Park, Open Space, Public/Quasi-Public Facility, Special School, Elementary School, Elementary, Middle & High School, and High School. See Figure 2.0-4 for the existing City General Plan land use designations.
GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTING POLICIES
General Plan policies associated with specific environmental topics (aesthetics, air quality, agriculture, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils/mineral resources, hazards, hydrology/water quality, noise, public services/recreation, transportation, utilities, etc.) are discussed in the relevant chapters of this EIR. The policies included within the City’s Land Use Element are intended to support the overarching goals including:
1. Increase opportunity, economic development, business, and job creation. Use urban form, land use, and Development Code policies to streamline permit approval, promote local educational excellence and workforce relevance, significantly increase business development and expansion, retain and attract talented people, create jobs and sustained economic growth, strategically locate employment lands and facilities, and avoid over - saturation of a single type of housing, retail, or employment.
2. Support a successful and competitive Downtown. Emphasize infill development and a revitalized central core area as the primary activity center for Fresno and the region by locating substantial growth near the Downtown core and along the corridors leading to the Downtown. Use vision - based policies in a development code specific to the Downtown, when adopted, to ensure the creation of a unique sense of place in the central core.
3.10 LAND USE
3.10-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
3. Emphasize conservation, successful adaptation to climate and changing resource conditions, and performance effectiveness in the use of energy, water, land, buildings, natural resources, and fiscal resources required for the long-term sustainability of Fresno.
7. Provide for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, housing types (including affordable housing), residential densities, job opportunities, recreation, open space, and educational venues that appeal to a broad range of people throughout the City.
8. Develop Complete Neighborhoods and districts with an efficient and diverse mix of residential densities, building types, and affordability which are designed to be healthy, attractive, and centered by schools, parks, and public and commercial services to provide a sense of place and that provide as many services as possible within walking distance.
Intentionally plan for Complete Neighborhoods as an outcome, rather than collections of subdivisions which do not result in Complete Neighborhoods.
9. Promote a city of healthy communities and improve quality of life in established neighborhoods. Emphasize supporting established neighborhoods in Fresno with safe, well maintained, and accessible streets, public utilities, education and job training, proximity to jobs, retail services, and health care, affordable housing, youth development opportunities, open space and parks, transportation options, and opportunities for home grown businesses.
10. Emphasize increased land use intensity and mixed-use development at densities supportive of greater use of transit in Fresno. Greater densities can be achieved through encouragement, infrastructure, and incentives for infill and revitalization along major corridors and in Activity Centers.
12. Resolve existing public infrastructure and service deficiencies, make full use of existing infrastructure, and invest in improvements to increase competitiveness and promote economic growth. Emphasize the fair and necessary costs of maintaining sustainable water, sewer, streets, and other public infrastructure and service systems in rates, fees, financing, and public investments to implement the General Plan. Adequately address accumulated deferred maintenance, aging infrastructure, risks to service continuity, desired standards of service to meet quality - of - life goals, and required infrastructure to support growth, economic competitiveness and business development.
13. Emphasize the City as a role model for good growth management planning, efficient processing and permit streamlining, effective urban development policies, environmental quality, and a strong economy. Work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and institutions to further these values throughout the region. Positively influence the same attributes in other jurisdictions of the San Joaquin Valley – and thus the potential for regional sustainability – and improve the standing and credibility of the City to pursue appropriate State, LAFCO, and other regional policies that would curb sprawl and prevent new unincorporated community development which compete with and threaten the success of sustainable policies and development practices in Fresno.
15. Improve Fresno's visual image and enhance its form and function through urban design strategies and effective maintenance.
LAND USE 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-9
17. Recognize, respect, and plan for Fresno's cultural, social, and ethnic diversity, and foster an informed and engaged citizenry. Emphasize shared community values and genuine engagement with and across different neighborhoods, communities, institutions, businesses and sectors to solve difficult problems and achieve shared goals for the success of Fresno and all its residents.
In addition to the City of Fresno General Plan overarching land use goals, Objective UF-13 call for the City to locate roughly one-half of future residential development in the Growth Areas (including the West Development Area), which are to be developed with Complete Neighborhoods that include housing, services, and recreation; mixed-use centers; or along future bus rapid transit (BRT) corridors. Objectives, and Implementing Policies related to the development within Growth Areas identified by the City of Fresno General Plan are included below:
Objective
UF-13 Locate roughly one-half of future residential development in the Growth Areas— defined as unincorporated land as of December 31, 2012 SOI—which are to be developed with Complete Neighborhoods that include housing, services, and recreation; mixed-use centers; or along future BRT corridors.
Implementing Policy
UF-13-a Future Planning to Require Design Principles. Require future planning, such as Specific Plans, neighborhood plans or Concept Plans, for Development Areas and BRT Corridors designated by the General Plan to include urban design principles and standards consistent with the Urban Form, Land Use, and Design Element.
Objective
UF-14 Create an urban form that facilitates multi-modal connectivity.
Implementing Policy
UF-14-a Design Guidelines for Walkability. Develop and use design guidelines and standards for a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment with a network of streets and connections for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as transit and autos.
Fresno Municipal Code Chapter 15: Citywide Development Code The purpose of this Development Code is to implement the General Plan and, if applicable, operative plans, to protect and promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the City of Fresno. More specifically, the Development Code is adopted to achieve the following, consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and any other operative plan:
3.10 LAND USE
3.10-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan A. To provide a precise guide for the physical development of the city in a manner as to progressively achieve the arrangement of land uses depicted in the General Plan.
B. To foster a harmonious and workable relationship among land uses and ensure compatible infill development.
C. To support economic development and job creation.
D. To provide for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
E. To promote high quality architecture and sustainable design. Sustainable Design is a philosophy that seeks to maximize the quality of the built environment, while minimizing or eliminating negative impact to the natural environment.
F. To promote the stability of existing land uses that conform to the General Plan, protecting them from inharmonious influences and harmful intrusions.
G. To promote a safe and efficient traffic circulation system, including bicycle facilities and pedestrian amenities, and to support a multi-modal transportation system.
H. To facilitate the appropriate location of community facilities, institutions, parks, and recreational areas.
I. To protect and enhance real property values.
J. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the city.
K. K. To define duties and powers of governing bodies and officials responsible for the implementation of this Code.
ZONING MAP
The Zoning Map identifies zoning districts within the City at the parcel level. The City of Fresno Zoning Map provides zoning for those portions of the Plan Area located within the City limits, but not for areas within the unincorporated County. Zoning designations are generally consistent with the existing General Plan land uses. The City zoning designations for the Plan Area include:
Residential Estate (RE), Residential Single-Family, Extremely Low Density (RS-1), Residential SingleFamily, Very Low Density (RS-2), Residential Single-Family, Low Density (RS-3), Residential SingleFamily, Medium Low Density (RS-4), Residential Single-Family, Medium Density (RS-5), Residential Multi-Family, Medium High Density (RM-1), Residential Multi-Family, Urban Neighborhood (RM-2), Residential Multi-Family, High Density (RM-3), Mobile Home Park (RM-MH), Commercial Community (CC), Commercial General (CG), Commercial Regional (CR), Commercial Recreation (CRC), Light Industrial (IL), Corridor/Center Mixed Use (CMX), Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMX), Regional Mixed Use (RMX), Business Park (BP), Office (O), Open Space (OS), and Park and Recreation (PR). See Chapter 2.0 (Project Description) Figure 2.0-5 for the existing zoning designations.
County of Fresno General Plan
The Fresno County General Plan is a policy guide for physical and economic growth of the County.
Unincorporated land located within the Project site is currently under the jurisdiction of the County.
The County General Plan Land Use Map designates the Plan Area with the following county land use LAND USE 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-11 designations: Rural Residential, Medium Density Residential, Reserve Medium Residential, and Proposed Ponding Basin.
Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission
The Fresno LAFCo is responsible for coordinating orderly reorganization to local jurisdictional boundaries, including annexations. Any annexation of the Plan Area to the City is subject to LAFCo approval, and LAFCo will review proposed annexations for consistency with LAFCo’s Annexation Policies and Procedures.
No annexations are proposed as part of the Specific Plan Adoption; however, future projects within the Specific Plan area may include annexation requests and would be required to adhere to LAFCo policies. Any future proposals for annexations into the City would be required to be consistent with LAFCo policies and procedures.
Fresno LAFCo has adopted Policies and Procedures for Annexation and Detachment to and from all agencies within their jurisdiction. It is Fresno LAFCo policy (102-01) that “within the sphere of influence each agency should implement an orderly, phased annexation program. A proposal should not be approved solely because the area falls within the sphere of influence of an agency.” The City of Fresno follows the Policies and Procedures for Annexation and Detachment when annexing land into the City. LAFCo recommends that each local agency fulfill this policy through the exercise of one or more of the following basic principles and actions.
1. The annexation program is consistent with LAFCo’s Sphere of influence (SOI) for the city.
Suggested actions:
• City and county shall reach agreement on development standards and planning and zoning requirements within the sphere to ensure that development within the sphere occurs in a manner that reflects the concerns of the affected city and is accomplished in a manner that promotes the logical and orderly development of areas within the sphere. GC §56425 • City responds to a request to extend service outside of its city limits and SOIs in consultation with GC §56133 and Fresno LAFCo policy.
2. The annexation program clearly implements the city’s general plan.
Suggested actions:
• City annexation applications shall describe how the proposal implements the city’s general plan, and support these statements with information from other official sources such as the annual budget, capital improvement plan, and so forth.
• A prezoning ordinance shall not be encumbered with extraneous conditions that preclude the ordinance’s effective date by the time of LAFCo hearing on the annexation.
3. The annexation program emphasizes the use of cities’ resolution of application versus property owner/registered voter petitions.
3.10 LAND USE
3.10-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Suggested action:
• For the city to consider opposing property owner petition-initiated reorganizations as these would not have proceeded through the process of city development review and approval, which is an important step in the management of a city’s general plan.
4. The annexation program supports orderly growth by identifying areas to be annexed, general time frames for growth, and a plan for extension of services to these areas.
Suggested actions:
• Capital improvement plan and/or facilities plans include all lands within the SOI; • Development impact fees that fund the extension of services are established and maintained;
• Impacts to service delivery are assessed in the city’s EIR or project-specific CEQA documents and appropriately-scaled mitigation is approved and implemented. • The city coordinates its public policy documents in support of the annexation program.
5. The annexation program anticipates changes of organization of existing service districts and service areas in the SOI or adjacent to the SOI.
Suggested action:
• The Program should describe the transition of services that will occur when the city annexes/detaches (CID, NCFPD, FCFPD, KRCD, etc.); inversely, the document describes the status of or continuation of services when annexations do not result in detachment (FID, FMFCD, etc.).
6. The annexation program anticipates the location of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within a city’s sphere of influence.
Suggested action:
• Cities should become proficient in implementing their responsibilities under Senate Bill 244, should review Fresno LAFCo DUC policy and review Senate Bill 244 Technical Advisory.
7. The annexation program informs citizens in annexation areas of their rights, benefits, and changes that will occur on annexation.
Suggested actions:
• City to establish and maintain on its website a description of the information above, how citizens can engage the process, how the city engages citizens and stakeholders and other information related to annexation. This information should include a description of the SOI, protest processes, and how LAFCo is involved.
LAND USE 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-13 • For those portions of a city’s SOI that contain a large number of rural residential parcels that are planned for urban uses, the city is strongly encouraged to develop a long-term plan to annex and serve these areas.
8. The annexation program will be coordinated with LAFCo’s Municipal Services Review (MSR) for the city.
Suggested action:
• City applications should include an assessment of current MSR determinations and recommendations.
9. The annexation program is managed by an assigned and responsible city staff member.
Suggested action:
• City identifies a staff member to serve as a genuine point of contact with LAFCo, that is, a staff member responsible and accountable for managing applications, knowledgeable of the project and of LAFCo’s process, and empowered to facilitate the city’s annexation program.
10. City entitlement analysis is integrated with LAFCo policies Suggested action:
• Local agencies, including Fresno County, are strongly advised to include Fresno LAFCo in their initial request for comments.
• When initial planning applications that will eventually require annexation are submitted to cities, they are encouraged to submit a pre-application to LAFCo so that LAFCo can track the project at its beginning, and provide comments that would facilitate annexation in time for these to be considered in a timely and efficient manner.
3.10.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Specific Plan will have a significant impact on land use and planning if it will:
• Physically divide an established community; or
• Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
3.10 LAND USE
3.10-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.10-1: The proposed Specific Plan would not physically divide an established community. (Less than Significant)
The proposed Specific Plan establishes the City’s vision for future growth and development within the Plan Area. The Plan Area is located at the western edge of the City of Fresno west of State Route 99 and primarily consists of and is adjacent to undeveloped lands, sporadic residential and suburban developments and agricultural lands as shown on Figure 2.0-3 located in Chapter 2.0, Project Description.
The existing land use pattern within the Specific Plan Area consists of a patchwork of land uses, including subdivisions, industrial and commercial areas, recreation areas, schools, farmland, and vacant areas. Many pockets of residential land uses are adjacent to vacant land, or agriculture uses.
The implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would enhance the connectivity from the existing uses within the Specific Plan Area to adjacent land uses through improved roadways and pedestrian and bicycle paths and lanes, and develop a cohesive network of planned land uses that would result in greater connectivity within the Specific Plan Area.
Development of the Specific Plan Area would result in a westerly extension of developed uses within Fresno City limits and SOI which would include the development of commercial lands, office, mixed use, residential, and public services and open spaces within the Specific Plan Area. Development allowed under the Specific Plan would require new roadway improvements and pedestrian pathways to connect the Plan Area to the existing circulation system and create connections and to allow access to and from the site and to other areas of the City. As such, development of the Specific Plan Area would not result in any substantial physical barriers, such as a highway, or other division, that would divide an existing community, but would serve as a westerly extension of existing and planned development and create a land use plan for the orderly expansion of the Planning Area.
Because the overall purpose of the proposed Specific Plan is to refine the vision for the Plan Area established in the General Plan, as well as other infrastructure improvements required to accommodate new development, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not adversely impact community connectivity nor divide the physical arrangement of the community.
There are no development applications being processed as part of the Specific Plan, however individual future projects may require additional site-specific environmental review under CEQA, and would be required to undergo design review as part of development review process. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant.
LAND USE 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-15 Impact 3.10-2: The proposed Specific Plan would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Less than Significant)
The proposed Specific Plan will establish the land use planning and regulatory guidance, including the land use and zoning designations and policies, for the approximately 7,077-acre Plan Area.
Existing land use plans, policies, and regulations that govern land uses within the Plan Area include the City of Fresno General Plan and Development Code, and Fresno County General Plan and Development Code.
CONSISTENCY WITH STATE PLANS
The proposed Specific Plan was prepared in conformance with State laws and regulations associated with the preparation of specific plans. Discussion of the proposed Specific Plan’s consistency with State regulations, plans, and policies associated with specific environmental issues (e.g., air quality, traffic, water quality, etc.) is provided in the relevant chapters of this Draft EIR. The State would continue to have authority over any State-owned lands and resources in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area and the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with continued application of State land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects.
CONSISTENCY WITH FRESNO GENERAL PLAN
General Plan Land Use Map: The General Plan aims to achieve efficient, attractive, and resilient development in the Development Areas. The General Plan identifies that in growth areas, subsequent Specific Plans are anticipated to refine land use and transportation design integration and intensity with necessary public facilities, maintenance, and services financing and design standards.
The Specific Plan contains development standards, distribution of land uses, infrastructure requirements, and implementation measures for the development of a specific geographic area. The Specific Plan’s land use plan defines various land use designations by their allowable uses and maximum development densities, and each use is consistent with the adopted General Plan’s land uses. These designations implement both the Specific Plan and the City’s General Plan vision, policies, for each land use classifications and for the specific desire for a comprehensive planned growth area. The proposed Specific Plan would continue to carry forward and implement, policies and objectives from the City’s existing General Plan that were intended for environmental protection and would not remove or conflict with City plans, policies, or regulations adopted for environmental protection.
The proposed Specific Plan would require modifications to the City’s General Plan Land Use Map to provide consistency between the General Plan and Specific Plan; however, these modifications will not remove or adversely modify portions of the General Plan or policies that were adopted to mitigate an environmental effect. The proposed Specific Plan would refine the land use vision and
3.10 LAND USE
3.10-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan amend the land uses for the Plan Area. The draft land use map proposes the relocation of higher density land uses away from the most western and southwestern portions of the Plan Area where they are distant from public transit and community amenities and transfers those higher density land use designations to major corridors. The Plan would amend the land uses for approximately half of the land within the Plan Area. The remaining parcels would maintain their existing land use and zoning designations. The parcels that are proposed for change by the proposed land use map are shown in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, Figure 2.0-7.
The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan land use plan utilizes the City’s existing General Plan land use designations to maintain or re-designate some parcels in the West Area. Chapter 2.0, Project Description, shows the parcel acreages by land use classification for the existing General Plan and proposed Specific Plan, and Figure 2.0-6 shows the proposed General Plan land use designations. As indicated in Table 2.0-1, the Specific Plan would result in an increase in land designated for employment, mixed use, open space and public facilities uses and a decrease in land designated for residential and commercial uses.
General Plan Policies: Table 3.10-1 provides an analysis of the Project’s consistency with the relevant General Plan policies adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Since general plans often contain numerous policies emphasizing differing legislative goals, a development project may be “consistent” with a general plan, taken as a whole, even though the project appears to be inconsistent or arguably inconsistent with some individual policies. (Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Association v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 719.) TABLE 3.10-1: GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
URBAN FORM, LAND USE, AND DESIGN ELEMENT
UF-13-a Future Planning to Require Design
Principles. Require future planning, such
as Specific Plans, neighborhood plans or
Concept Plans, for Development Areas
and BRT Corridors designated by the
General Plan to include urban design
principles and standards consistent with
the Urban Form, Land Use, and Design
Element.
Consistent. The proposed West Area
Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes design
principles and standards in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of
the Specific Plan. This Specific Plan Chapter is
consistent with the Urban Form, Land Use, and
Design Element.
LU-1-c Provision of Public Facilities and
Services. Promote orderly land use
development in pace with public facilities
and services needed to serve
development.
Consistent. The proposed West Area
Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes plans for the
provision of public facilities, services, and utilities in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Specific Plan. Future
development of the Specific Plan Area in
accordance with the proposed land use map would
not occur unless public facilities and services were
adequately provided.
LU-5-g Scale and Character of New
development. Allow new development
in or adjacent to established
neighborhoods that is compatible in
scale and character with the surrounding
Consistent. The proposed West Area
Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes design
principles and standards in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of
the Specific Plan which address compatibility with
existing neighborhoods, including scale and
LAND USE 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-17
GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
area by promoting a transition in scale
and architectural character between new
buildings and established
neighborhoods, as well as integrating
pedestrian circulation and vehicular
routes.
character. Compliance with the principles and
standards in this Specific Plan Chapter would ensure
that future development in the Plan Area is
compatible with the scale and character of future
buildings. Further, the proposed Specific Plan
includes pedestrian, vehicular, and other circulation
routes in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Specific Plan.
MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
MT-1-b Circulation Plan Diagram
Implementation. Design and construct
planned streets and highways that
complement and enhance the existing
network, as well as future improvements
to the network consistent with the goals,
objectives and policies of the General
Plan, as shown on the Circulation
Diagram (Figure MT-1), to ensure that
each new and existing roadway
continues to function as intended.
Consistent. The proposed West Area
Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes pedestrian,
vehicular, and other circulation routes in Chapters 3
and 4 of the Specific Plan. This Specific Plan Chapter
is consistent with the Circulation Diagram (Figure
MT-1).
MT-1-d Integrate Land Use and Transportation
Planning. Plan for and maintain a
coordinated and well integrated land use
pattern, local circulation network and
transportation system that
accommodates planned growth, reduces
impacts on adjacent land uses, and
preserves the integrity of established
neighborhoods.
Consistent. The proposed West Area
Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes pedestrian,
vehicular, and other circulation routes in Chapters 3
and 4 of the Specific Plan. This Specific Plan Chapter
is consistent with the Circulation Diagram (Figure
MT-1).
MT-4-k Bicycle Safety, Awareness, and
Education. Promote bicycle ridership by
providing secure bicycle facilities,
promoting traffic safety awareness for
both bicyclists and motorists, promoting
the air quality benefits, promoting nonrenewable energy savings, and promoting the public health benefits of
physical activity.
Consistent. The proposed West Area
Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes bicycle
facilities and routes in Chapters 3 and 4 of the
Specific Plan. This Specific Plan Chapter encourages
the use of secure bicycle facilities and promotes the
use of active transportation throughout the Plan
Area.
MT-5-b Sidewalk Requirements. Assure
adequate access for pedestrians and
people with disabilities in new residential
developments per adopted City policies,
consistent with the California Building
Code and the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Consistent. The proposed West Area
Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes pedestrian
facilities in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Specific Plan. This Specific Plan Chapter promotes the use of active
transportation throughout the Plan Area. All future
improvements in the Plan Area would be consistent
with the California Building Code and the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
MT-6-i Path and Trail Design Standards.
Designate and design paths and trails in
accordance with design standards
established by the City that give
consideration to all path and trail users
(consistent with design, terrain and
Consistent. The proposed West Area
Neighborhoods Specific Plan discusses the system
of park and open space facilities, including paths
and trails, in Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan. This
Specific Plan Chapter includes design standards
(including widths, storm water and drainage
3.10 LAND USE
3.10-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
habitat limitations) and provide for
appropriate widths, surfacing, drainage,
design speed, barriers, fences, signage,
visibility, intersections, bridges, and
street cleaning.
practices, and other standards) and policies to
encourage development of a cohesive trail system
throughout the Plan Area.
MT-6-k Path and Trail Buffers. Use landscaping
with appropriate and adequate physical
and visual barriers (e.g., masonry walls,
wrought iron, or square-tube fencing) to
screen path and trail rights-of ways and
separate paths and trails from mining
operations, drainage facilities, and
similar locations as warranted.
Consistent. As noted above, the proposed West
Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan discusses the
system of park and open space facilities, including
paths and trails, in Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan.
This Specific Plan Chapter includes design standards
(including the use of buffers and visual barriers, as
appropriate) and policies to encourage
development of a cohesive trail system throughout
the Plan Area.
MT-6-m Environmentally Sensitive Path and Trail
Design. Develop paths and trails with
minimum environmental impact by
taking the following actions:
• Surface paths and trails with materials
that are conducive to maintenance and
safe travel, choosing materials that blend
in with the surrounding area;
• Design paths and trails to follow
contour lines where the least amount of
grading (fewest cuts and fills) and least
disturbance of the surrounding habitat
will occur;
• Beautify path and trail rights-of-way in
a manner consistent with intended use,
safety, and maintenance;
• Use landscaping to stabilize slopes,
create physical or visual barriers, and
provide shaded areas; and
• Preserve and incorporate native plant
species into the landscaping.
Consistent. As noted above, the proposed West
Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan discusses the
system of park and open space facilities, including
paths and trails, in Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan.
This Specific Plan Chapter includes design standards
(including trail materials, buffers and visual barriers, landscaping, and native plant usage) and policies
aimed at reducing environmental impacts to the
extent feasible.
MT-6-n Emergency Vehicle Access along Paths
and Trails. Provide points of emergency
vehicle access within the path and trail
corridors, via parking areas, service
roads, emergency access gates in
fencing, and firebreaks.
Consistent. As noted above, the proposed West
Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan discusses the
system of park and open space facilities, including
paths and trails, in Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan.
Emergency vehicle access would be provided as
individual parks, trails, and open space areas are
developed in the future.
PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT
PU-3-f Adequate Infrastructure. Continue to
pursue the provision of adequate water
supplies, hydrants, and appropriate
property access to allow for adequate
fire suppression throughout the City.
Consistent. The proposed West Area
Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes plans for the
provision of utilities, including water supplies, in
Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan. Future development
of the Specific Plan Area in accordance with the
proposed land use map would not occur unless
facilities and supplies, including emergency access,
were adequately provided.
LAND USE 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-19
GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
PU-4-c System Extension and Cost Recovery.
Pursue enlargement or extension of the
sewage collection system where
necessary to serve planned urban
development, with the capital costs and
benefits allocated equitably and fairly
between the existing users and new
users.
Consistent. The proposed West Area
Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes plans for the
provision of utilities, including wastewater
distribution and treatment, in Chapter 3 of the
Specific Plan. Future development of the Specific
Plan Area in accordance with the proposed land use
map would not occur unless facilities and supplies,
including emergency access, were adequately
provided. Development Impact Fees would be paid
by future project applicants throughout the City,
including the Plan Area.
PU-8-g Review Project Impact on Supply.
Mitigate the effects of development and
capital improvement projects on the
long-range water budget to ensure an
adequate water supply for current and
future uses.
Consistent. As noted above, the proposed West
Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes plans for
the provision of utilities, including water supplies, in Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan. Future development
of the Specific Plan Area in accordance with the
proposed land use map would not occur unless
water facilities and supplies were adequately
provided.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RESILIENCE ELEMENT
RC-2-a Link Land Use to Transportation.
Promote mixed-use, higher density infill
development in multi-modal corridors.
Support land use patterns that make
more efficient use of the transportation
system and plan future transportation
investments in areas of higher-intensity
development. Discourage investment in
infrastructure that would not meet these
criteria.
Consistent. The proposed Specific Plan would
encourage infill development in multi-modal
corridors. As outlined in Chapter 2.0, Project
Description, of this EIR, the proposed Specific Plan
includes four objectives pertaining to
transportation. Together, these objectives promote
transit services and other alternative transportation
facilities (bicycle and pedestrian) in the West Area
by locating routes near or adjacent to higherintensity development, such as community centers, schools, parks, and retail centers.
RC-4-c Evaluate Impacts with Models. Continue
to require the use of computer models
used by SJVAPCD to evaluate the air
quality impacts of plans and projects that
require such environmental review by
the City.
Consistent. Air quality impacts are discussed in
Section 3.3 of this EIR. The California Emissions
Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which is the SJVAPCDpreferred computer model, was used to estimate the air quality emissions resulting from future
buildout of the Plan Area.
RC-4-d Forward Information. Forward
information regarding proposed General
Plan amendments, community plans,
Specific Plans, neighborhood plans,
Concept Plans, and development
proposals that require air quality
evaluation, and amendments to
development regulations to the SJVAPCD
for their review of potential air quality
and health impacts.
Consistent. Information regarding the proposed
Specific Plan, including all requested entitlements,
will be forwarded to the SJVAPCD for their review of
potential air quality and health impacts. The
SJVAPCD reviewed the NOP for the Specific Plan and
provided a NOP comment letter on July 15, 2019.
Once the EIR is available for public review, the EIR
will be provided to the SJVAPCD.
RC-5-d SCS and CAP Conformity Analysis.
Ensure that the City includes analysis of a
project’s conformity to an adopted
regional Sustainable Community Strategy
Consistent. Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gases, Climate
Change, and Energy, of this EIR discusses conformity
with the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, the
Fresno Council of Governments Regional
3.10 LAND USE
3.10-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
or Alternative Planning Strategy (APS), an
adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP), and
any other applicable City and regional
greenhouse gas reduction strategies in
effect at the time of project review.
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy, and other applicable City regulations
which aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As
discussed in Impact 3.7-1 and shown in Table 3.7-6,
the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the
City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. The Specific
Plan is also consistent with the Fresno Council of
Governments’ Regional Transportation Plan.
RC-5-e Ensure Compliance. Ensure ongoing
compliance with GHG emissions
reduction plans and programs by
requiring that air quality measures are
incorporated into projects’ design,
conditions of approval, and mitigation
measures.
Consistent. Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gases, Climate
Change, and Energy, of this EIR discusses
compliance with GHG emissions reductions plans
and programs which aim to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. As discussed, the proposed Specific Plan
is consistent with the City’s Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Plan. Because all impacts were
determined to be less than significant, mitigation
measures are not warranted or required.
RC-5-g Evaluate Impacts with Models. Continue
to use computer models such as those
used by SJVAPCD to evaluate greenhouse
gas impacts of plans and projects that
require such review.
Consistent. Greenhouse gas emission impacts are
discussed in Section 3.3 of this EIR. CalEEMod, which
is the SJVAPCD-preferred computer model, was
used to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions
resulting from future buildout of the Plan Area.
RC-6-c Land Use and Development Compliance.
Ensure that land use and development
projects adhere to the objective of the
Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources
Management Plan to provide sustainable
and reliable water supplies to meet the
demand of existing and future customers
through 2025.
Consistent. Section 3.15, Utilities, of this EIR,
analyzes potential impacts associated with water
supplies and demands in the near and long term
(until 2040). As discussed, future development of
the Plan Area would not result in insufficient water
supplies. As such, the proposed Specific Plan meets
the objective of the Fresno Metropolitan Water
Resources Management Plan to provide sustainable
and reliable water supplies to meet the demand of
existing and future customers through 2025.
RC-6-g Protect Recharge Areas. Continue to
protect areas of beneficial natural
groundwater recharge by preventing
uses that can contaminate soil or
groundwater.
Consistent. Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality, of this EIR, analyzes potential impacts
associated with groundwater recharge, depletion of
groundwater resources, and conflicts with the
groundwater management plan. As discussed in
Impact 3.9-3, the required stormwater best
management practices (BMPs) and retention basins
would be designed to reduce runoff below that
which occurs currently during storm events and
ensure groundwater recharge from the Plan Area to
the extent possible. Additionally, the Specific Plan
water demand is not expected to exceed the City’s
supplies in any normal, single dry, or multiple dry
year between 2020 and 2040, and the Plan would
not conflict with the Fresno Area Regional
Groundwater Management Plan (FARGMP).
Further, the Specific Plan includes two policies that
would encourage nonporous surfaces for
LAND USE 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-21
GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
groundwater recharge and other design strategies
to maximize recharge.
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT
HCR-2-c Project Development. Prior to project
approval, continue to require a project
site and its Area of Potential Effects
(APE), without benefit of a prior historic
survey, to be evaluated and reviewed for
the potential for historic and/or cultural
resources by a professional who meets
the Secretary of Interior’s Qualifications.
Survey costs shall be the responsibility of
the project developer. Council may, but
is not required, to adopt an ordinance to
implement this policy.
Consistent. Section 3.5, Cultural and Tribal
Resources, of this EIR, analyzes potential impacts
associated with historical resources, archaeological
resources, human remains, and tribal cultural
resources. A Cultural and Paleontological Resource
Assessment for the Fresno West Area Specific Plan
Project was conducted (Cogstone, 2019). Due to the
programmatic nature of this EIR, future projects in
the Plan Area would be required to be evaluated for
project-specific impacts under CEQA at the time of
application. CEQA guidelines require tribal
consultation and the protections of any identified
archeological and tribal resources. This is
considered a potentially significant impact, which
would be mitigated to a less than significant level
through the implementation of the mitigation
measures included in Section 3.5. Specifically,
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 requiresthat all work stop
within 50 meters of a cultural resources discovery,
and a qualified archaeologist that meets the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical
archaeology be retained to determine the
significance of the discovery.
HCR-2-f Archaeological Resources. Consider
State Office of Historic Preservation
guidelines when establishing CEQA
mitigation measures for archaeological
resources.
Consistent. Section 3.5, Cultural and Tribal
Resources, of this EIR, analyzes potential impacts
associated with archaeological resources. The
mitigation measures in this section were
established within the Cultural and Paleontological
Resource Assessment for the Fresno West Area
Specific Plan Project (Cogstone, 2019). The
measures generally follow the State Office of
Historic Preservation guidelines.
NOISE AND SAFETY ELEMENT
NS-1-i Mitigation by New Development.
Require an acoustical analysis where new
development of industrial, commercial
or other noise generating land uses
(including transportation facilities such
as roadways, railroads, and airports) may
result in noise levels that exceed the
noise level exposure criteria established
by Tables 9-2 and 9-3 to determine
impacts, and require developers to
mitigate these impacts in conformance
with Tables 9-2 and 9-3 as a condition of
permit approval through appropriate
means.
Consistent. Section 3.11, Noise, of this EIR, analyzes
potential noise and vibration impacts associated
with future development of the Plan Area. This
section is based on the acoustical analysis that was
prepared for the Specific Plan. The acoustical
analysis includes mitigation measures consistent
with this policy. As discussed in Impact 3.11-1,
buildout of the Plan Area would result in substantial
increases in ambient traffic noise levels resulting in
potentially significant impacts to existing and
proposed receptors. Mitigation Measure 3.11-1
would require the implementation of performance
standards based on project-specific acoustical
analysis for new residential and noise sensitive uses
3.10 LAND USE
3.10-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Noise mitigation measures may include:
• The screening of noise sources such
as parking and loading facilities,
outdoor activities, and mechanical
equipment;
• Providing increased setbacks for
noise sources from adjacent
dwellings;
• Installation of walls and landscaping
that serve as noise buffers;
• Installation of soundproofing
materials and double-glazed
windows; and
• Regulating operations, such as hours
of operation, including deliveries and
trash pickup.
Alternative acoustical designs that
achieve the prescribed noise level
reduction may be approved by the City,
provided a qualified Acoustical
Consultant submits information
demonstrating that the alternative
designs will achieve and maintain the
specific targets for outdoor activity areas
and interior spaces. As a last resort,
developers may propose to construct
noise walls along roadways when
compatible with aesthetic concerns and
neighborhood character. This would be a
developer responsibility, with no City
funding.
exposed to significant exterior community noise
levels from transportation, which may include noise
walls and/or berms. Mitigation Measure 3.11-1
would assist in reducing traffic noise level impacts.
Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation,
buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would result
in a lessthan significant impact relative to this topic.
As discussed in Impact 3.11-4, due to the
suburban/rural nature of the Plan Area,
development of the West Area Specific Plan will
result in a substantial increase in existing ambient
noise conditions. Increases in ambient noise levels
associated with existing and future stationary noise
impacts may result in potentially significant
impacts. However, enforcement of the Sections 10-
105 through 10-109 of the City’s Noise Ordinance
and analysis of noise producing projects, along with
implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-5,
would ensure that the nearby sensitive receptors to
the Plan Area would not be subject to stationary
noise levels in excess of the City’s standards.
Further, Mitigation Measure 3.11-6 would ensure
that the future land uses within the Specific Plan
would not be subject to interior noise levels in
excess of the City’s standards.
NS-1-j Significance Threshold. Establish, as a
threshold of significance for the City's
environmental review process, that a
significant increase in ambient noise
levels is assumed if the project would
increase noise levels in the immediate
vicinity by 3 dB LDN or CNEL or more
above the ambient noise limits
established in this General Plan Update.
Consistent. As noted previously, Section 3.11,
Noise, of this EIR, analyzes potential noise and
vibration impacts associated with future
development of the Plan Area. This section is based
on the acoustical analysis that was prepared for the
Specific Plan. The acoustical analysis assumes that
an increase in noise levels by 3 dB LDN or CNEL or
more above the ambient noise limits would be
considered a significant increase.
NS-1-k Proposal Review. Review all new public
and private development proposals that
may potentially be affected by or cause a
significant increase in noise levels, per
Policy NS-1-i, to determine conformance
with the policies of this Noise Element.
Require developers to reduce the noise
Consistent. As noted previously, Section 3.11,
Noise, of this EIR, analyzes potential noise and
vibration impacts associated with future
development of the Plan Area. The acoustical
analysis was performed at the program-level.
Future development projects within the Plan Area
would be required to reduce the noise impacts on
adjacent properties, as appropriate and feasible.
LAND USE 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-23
GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
impacts of new development on adjacent
properties through appropriate means.
NS-1-m Transportation Related Noise Impacts.
For projects subject to City approval,
require that the project sponsor mitigate
noise created by new transportation and
transportation-related stationary noise
sources, including roadway
improvement projects, so that resulting
noise levels do not exceed the City’s
adopted standards for noise sensitive
land uses.
Consistent. As noted previously, Section 3.11,
Noise, of this EIR, analyzes potential transportation
and transportation-related noise impacts
associated with future development of the Plan
Area. The acoustical analysis was performed at the
program-level. Future development projects within
the Plan Area would be required to reduce the
transportation noise impacts on adjacent
properties, as appropriate and feasible.
NS-2-b NS-2-b Soil Analysis Requirement.
Identify areas with potential geologic
and/or soils hazards, and require
development in these areas to conduct a
soil analysis and mitigation plan by a
registered civil engineer (or engineering
geologist specializing in soil geology)
prior to allowing on-site drainage or
disposal for wastewater, stormwater
runoff, or swimming pool/spa water.
Consistent. Section 3.6, Geology, Soils, and
Seismicity, of this EIR, analyzes potential geologic
impacts associated with future development of the
Plan Area. This EIR section identifies areas with
potential geologic and soils hazards. Future
development within the Plan Area, as required by
the California Building Code, would be required to
complete a design-level geotechnical analysis
conducted by a registered civil engineer (or
engineering geologist specializing in soil geology).
Should wastewater disposal, stormwater facilities,
or swimming pools be included as part of these
future development projects, the design-level
geotechnical analysis would include soil analysis and
mitigation to address any potential soils hazards.
NS-3-i New Development Must Mitigate
Impact. Require new development to not
significantly impact the existing storm
drainage and flood control system by
imposing conditions of approval as
project mitigation, as authorized by law.
As part of this process, closely coordinate
and consult with the FMFCD to identify
appropriate conditions that will result in
mitigation acceptable and preferred by
FMFCD for each project.
Consistent. Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality, of this EIR, analyzes potential storm
drainage and flooding impacts associated with
future development of the Plan Area. Impacts
associated with storm drainage and flooding,
including flood control, were determined to be less
than significant or less than significant with
implementation of mitigation. As such, future
development of the Plan Area would mitigate,
where necessary and applicable, potential storm
drainage and flooding related impacts.
NS-4-c Soil and Groundwater Contamination
Reports. Require an investigation of
potential soil or groundwater
contamination whenever justified by
past site uses. Require appropriate
mitigation as a condition of project
approval in the event soil or groundwater
contamination is identified or could be
encountered during site development.
Consistent. Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality, of this EIR, analyzes potential storm
drainage and flooding impacts associated with
future development of the Plan Area. Impacts
associated with storm drainage and flooding,
including flood control, were determined to be less
than significant or less than significant with
implementation of mitigation. As such, future
development of the Plan Area would mitigate,
where necessary and applicable, potential storm
drainage and flooding related impacts.
NS-4-e Compliance with County Program.
Require that the production, use,
Consistent. Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, of this EIR, analyzes potential storm
3.10 LAND USE
3.10-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
storage, disposal, and transport of
hazardous materials conform to the
standards and procedures established by
the County Division of Environmental
Health. Require compliance with the
County’s Hazardous Waste Generator
Program, including the submittal and
implementation of a Hazardous
Materials Business Plan, when
applicable.
impacts associated with production, use, storage,
disposal, and transport of hazardous materials. As
discussed, prior to bringing hazardous materials
onsite, future development projects would be
required to submit a Hazardous Materials Business
Plan to the County Environmental Health
Department.
NS-6-f Emergency Vehicle Access. Require
adequate access for emergency vehicles
in all new development, including
adequate widths, turning radii, hard
standing areas, and vertical clearance.
Consistent. Section 3.14, Transportation and
Circulation, of this EIR, analyzes potential storm
impacts associated emergency vehicle access.
Future development within the Plan Area would not
result in inadequate emergency vehicle access.
The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the adopted General Plan and has been designed to encourage implementation of the General Plan’s primary objectives. The General Plan’s overarching land use objective for the Growth Areas includes Objective UF-13 that calls for the City to locate roughly one-half of future residential development in the Growth Areas (including the West Development Area), which are to be developed with Complete Neighborhoods that include housing, services, and recreation; mixed-use centers; or along future BRT corridors. As discussed throughout the proposed Specific Plan, the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan holds firm to the goal of achieving Complete Neighborhoods.
The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan will serve as an implementation tool to support the General Plan’s goals and objectives as well as a vital instrument for much needed comprehensive planning, to improve area-wide connectivity, housing opportunities, recreation, services and infrastructure improvements.
CITY OF FRESNO ZONING CODE
The Specific Plan includes certain development regulations and standards that are intended to be specific to the Specific Plan Area. Where there is a matter or issue not specifically covered by the Specific Plan development regulations and design standards, the Fresno Zoning Code would apply.
Where there is a conflict between the Specific Plan and the Zoning Code, the Zoning Code would prevail.
The Specific Plan is intended to be adopted by the City Council and to serve as a tool for the City of Fresno to implement. The Specific Plan is to be used by designers, developers, builders, and planners, to guide development of the Plan Area. The land use, development standards, and design guidelines are provided to ensure that all proposed developments remain consistent with the vision established by the Specific Plan as the Project is built over time. The Specific Plan development concepts, design guidelines, and standards are in accordance with the City’s General Plan, Municipal Ordinances, and City Specifications. The Specific Plan shall be used to review, process, and approve LAND USE 3.10
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-25 development proposals for the Project site including but not limited to site specific development applications and site improvement plans.
As previously indicated, the City of Fresno Zoning Map designates the Plan Area as: RE, RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4, RS-5, RM-1, RM-2, RM-3, RM-MH, CC, CG, CR, CRC, IL, CMX, NMX, RMX, BP, O, OS, and PR. The Fresno County Zoning Map designates the portions of the Plan Area outside the city limits as: RCC, C4, C6, M1, AE20, AL20, RR, RA, R1B, and TP. In conjunction with the approval of the Specific Plan, the parcels in the City which would have a changed land use designation as a result of the Specific Plan would be rezoned to the corresponding City zoning designation. Zoning designations are generally consistent with the existing General Plan land uses. The proposed Specific Plan would require modifications to the City’s Zoning Map to provide consistency between the General Plan and zoning; however, these modifications will not remove or adversely modify portions of the Fresno Municipal Code that were adopted to mitigate an environmental effect.
The parcels that are currently within the County will not be rezoned. Instead, upon a proposal to annex unincorporated land into the city limits, the City of Fresno would prezone the land to a zone that is consistent with the General Plan land use. Once annexation occurs, the County zoning would not apply to the parcel.
CONSISTENCY WITH FRESNO COUNTY’S LAND USE PLANS
The proposed Specific Plan land use designations are not entirely consistent with the County land use designations and Zoning Designations for areas outside the Fresno City limits, but within the Plan Area. The Fresno County Zoning Map designates the portions of the Plan Area outside the Fresno City limits as: Rural Commercial Center (RCC), Central Trading (C4), General Commercial (C6), Light Industrial (M1), Exclusive Agricultural (AE20), Limited Agricultural (AL20), Rural Residential (RR), Single Family Residential Agricultural (RA), Single Family Residential (12,500) (R1B), and Trailer Park Residential (TP). The parcels that are currently within the County will not be rezoned. Instead, upon a proposal to annex unincorporated land into the City limits, the City of Fresno would prezone the land to a zone that is consistent with the General Plan land use. Once annexation occurs, the County zoning would no longer apply to the parcel. As described in the requested entitlements in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, no annexations are being requested as part of the proposed Specific Plan. The properties currently located outside of the current City of Fresno City limits, within the County, would continue to be governed under the Fresno County land use policies and designations until such time that 1) the property owners desire to annex the subject properties into the City, 2) all applicable project entitlements have been approved by the City Council, and 3) the LAFCo of Fresno County approves the annexation request. As such, all figures and text in the Specific Plan and this Draft EIR (as they pertain to these unincorporated properties) have been provided for conceptual planning purposes.
The County’s General Plan includes the major theme of directing urban growth to existing communities, including the City of Fresno. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this land use theme in that the Specific Plan would result in extension of an existing community, the City of
3.10 LAND USE
3.10-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Fresno, in any area located adjacent to the City limits. Any future development on County land that is eventually annexed into the City of Fresno would be phased and would include the provision of adequate City services.
CONCLUSION
Subsequent development projects within the Specific Plan Area would be required to be consistent with all applicable policies, standards, and regulations, including those land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted to mitigate environmental effects by the City as well as those adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over components of future development projects. Any potential environmental impact associated with conflicts with land use requirements including conflicts with policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would be less than significant.
NOISE 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-1 This section provides a general description of the existing noise sources in the Plan Area vicinity, a discussion of the regulatory setting, and identifies potential noise impacts associated with the proposed project. Specific Plan impacts are evaluated relative to applicable noise level criteria and to the existing ambient noise environment. Mitigation measures have been identified for significant noise-related impacts. This section is based on the West Area Specific Plan Noise Impact Study completed for the project (MD Acoustics, September 2020), which can be found in Appendix F.
Comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the following: Cathy Caples (dated August 1, 2019). Cathy Caples noted that, in addition to traffic noise, residents in the area hear gunfire from the Sheriff’s Gun Range; however, no specific-concerns were expressed. The comments related to this topic are addressed within this section; see Impact 3.11-1 regarding traffic noise and Impact 3.11-4 regarding stationary noise. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.
3.11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
KEY TERMS
Acoustics The science of sound.
Ambient Noise The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given area consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre-project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study.
Attenuation The reduction of noise.
A-Weighting A frequency-response adjustment of a sound level meter that conditions the output signal to approximate human response.
Decibel or dB Fundamental unit of sound, defined as ten times the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure squared over the reference pressure squared.
CNEL Community noise equivalent level. Defined as the 24-hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 - 10 p.m.) weighted by a factor of three and nighttime hours weighted by a factor of 10 prior to averaging.
Frequency The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic acoustic signal, expressed in cycles per second or Hertz.
Impulsive Sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay.
Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting.
Leq Equivalent or energy-averaged sound level.
3.11 NOISE
3.11-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Lmax The highest root-mean-square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time.
L(n) The sound level exceeded a described percentile over a measurement period.
For instance, an hourly L50 is the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during the one hour period.
Loudness A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound.
Noise Unwanted sound.
SEL Sound exposure levels. A rating, in decibels, of a discrete event, such as an aircraft flyover or train passby, that compresses the total sound energy into a one-second event.
FUNDAMENTALS OF ACOUSTICS
Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to human (or animal) ears. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), then they can be heard and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound, and is expressed as cycles per second or Hertz (Hz).
Noise is a subjective reaction to different types of sounds. Noise is typically defined as (airborne) sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected or undesired, and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person.
Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals), as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness.
The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by A-weighted sound levels. There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this section are in terms of A-weighted levels, but are expressed as dB, unless otherwise noted.
The decibel scale is logarithmic, not linear. In other words, two sound levels 10 dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic decibel is A-weighted, an increase NOISE 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-3 of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70 dBA sound is half as loud as an 80 dBA sound, and twice as loud as a 60 dBA sound.
Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq), which corresponds to a steady-state A weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptor, Ldn, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise.
The day/night average level (Ldn) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a +10 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours.
The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because Ldn represents a 24-hour average, it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment. CNEL is similar to Ldn, but includes a +5 dB penalty for evening noise. Table 3.11-1 lists several examples of the noise levels associated with common situations.
TABLE 3.11-1: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
COMMON OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES NOISE LEVEL (DBA) COMMON INDOOR ACTIVITIES -- --110-- Rock Band
Jet Fly-over at 300 m (1,000 ft) --100-- --
Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft) --90-- --
Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft),
at 80 km/hr (50 mph) --80--
Food Blender at 1 m (3 ft)
Garbage Disposal at 1 m (3 ft)
Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
Gas Lawn Mower, 30 m (100 ft) --70-- Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft) Commercial Area
Heavy Traffic at 90 m (300 ft) --60-- Normal Speech at 1 m (3 ft) Quiet Urban Daytime --50--
Large Business Office
Dishwasher in Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime --40--
Theater, Large Conference Room
(Background)
Quiet Suburban Nighttime --30-- Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime --20--
Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall
(Background)
--10-- Broadcast/Recording Studio
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing --0-- Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing SOURCE: CALTRANS, TECHNICAL NOISE SUPPLEMENT, TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS PROTOCOL. NOVEMBER 2009.
EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE
The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories:
• Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction; • Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning; and • Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling.
3.11 NOISE
3.11-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise.
Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so-called ambient noise level.
In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur:
• Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a 1 dBA change cannot be perceived; • Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference; • A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and
• A 10 dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause an adverse response.
Stationary point sources of noise – including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles – attenuate (lessen) at a rate of approximately 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e. atmospheric conditions and either vegetative or manufactured noise barriers, etc.). Widely distributed noises, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres, or a street with moving vehicles, would typically attenuate at a lower rate.
EXISTING NOISE LEVELS
Four long-term 24-hour noise measurements and 12 short-term noise measurements were conducted throughout the Plan Area to document the existing noise environment. Noise measurement locations are shown in Figure 3.11-1.
Short-Term Noise Measurements
The results of the 12 short-term noise measurement are presented below in Table 3.11-2. The measured noise levels within the Plan Area range between 54.4 and 74.8 dBA Leq. The primary source of ambient noise included vehicle noise associated with surface streets and SR 99, as well as the existing rail. Secondary noise sources included typical residential activities and landscaping equipment. Field notes and meter output are provided in the Noise Impact Study found in Appendix F.
NOISE 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-5 TABLE 3.11-2: SHORT-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT SUMMARY
LOCATION APPROX. ADDRESS TIME
A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL (DBA)
LEQ LMAX LMIN L2 L8 L25 L50
1 Herndon Ave./
N. Parkway Dr. 9:28 AM 67.6 78.3 54.5 74.7 71.3 68.0 65.6 2 N. Bryan Ave./
W. Shaw Ave. 9:48 AM 69.5 84.1 40.9 78.3 75.8 69.4 60.4 3 N. Polk Ave./
W. Gettysburg Ave. 10:15 AM 61.5 82.5 41.3 68.1 62.2 58.8 54.2 4 N. Bryan Ave./
W. Ashlan Ave. 10:32 AM 54.4 69.5 37.8 63.1 58.4 53.7 50.0 5 N. Polk Ave./
W. Ashlan Ave. 12:13 PM 64.6 86.5 45.4 71.6 67.7 64.3 60.8 6 N. Dakota Ave./
W. Brawley Ave. 2:19 PM 74.8 99.8 50.2 79.2 72.6 67.5 64.3 7 N. Grantland Ave./
W. Shields Ave. 12:38 PM 72.8 93.4 37.5 81.4 74.7 65.0 56.2 8 N. Polk Ave./
W. Shields Ave. 12:54 PM 66.1 86.3 51.5 75.5 70.1 62.6 58.9 9 N. Blythe Ave./
W. Shields Ave. 1:09 PM 64.4 79.9 48.1 73.5 68.9 63.4 59.5 10 N. Bryan Ave./
W. Clinton Ave. 1:26 PM 59.6 79.5 31.9 70.4 61.6 52.7 43.8 11 N. Cornelia Ave./
W. Clinton Ave. 1:42 PM 65.8 85.0 44.7 73.4 68.7 64.7 60.4 12 N. Marks Ave./
W. Clinton Ave. 2:00 PM 68.8 85.2 55.2 75.9 72.7 69.6 65.6 SOURCE: MD ACOUSTICS, 2020.
Long-Term Noise Measurements
Four long-term noise measurements (24 consecutive hours) were taken in order to document the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) at different locations throughout the Plan Area. The results of the long-term noise measurement are presented below in Table 3.11-3, which outlines the daytime (7AM to 7PM), evening (7PM to 10PM), and nighttime (10PM to 7AM) Leq levels at each location. These represent the average level over each time period (day/evening/night).
As shown in Table 3.11-3, the measured CNEL ranged between 60.5 and 70.2 dBA, and the primary noise source was vehicle traffic. Field notes and meter output are provided in the West Area Specific Plan Noise Impact Study found in Appendix F.
3.11 NOISE
3.11-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TABLE 3.11-3: LONG-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT SUMMARY
LOCATIO
N
APPROX.
ADDRESS
DATE DESCRIPTION
A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL (DBA)
DAY-TIME
LEQ
EVENING
LEQ
NIGHTTIME LEQ
CNEL
LT1
N. Grantland
Ave./W.
Barstow Ave.
6/3-
6/4
Vehicle traffic on N.
Valentine Ave. and SR 99 58.8 56.1 52.7 60.7
LT2
N. Valentine
Ave./W.
Shields Ave.
6/3-
6/4
Vehicle traffic on N.
Grantland Ave. and W.
Barstow Ave.
65.4 62.1 63.4 70.8
LT3
N. Blythe
Ave./W.
Ashlan Ave.
6/4-
6/5
Vehicle traffic on N. Blythe
Ave. and W. Ashlan Ave. 67.3 65.5 61.5 69.1
LT4
N. Hayes
Ave./W.
Ashlan Ave.
6/3-
6/4
Vehicle traffic on N. Hayes
Ave. and W. Ashlan Ave. 65.8 61.3 58.6 67.1
SOURCE: MD ACOUSTICS, 2020.
EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
Existing land uses within the Plan Area include single and multiple family residential development, commercial, recreational, and industrial land uses. Noise sources associated with existing land uses include residential maintenance, parking lot noise, heating and cooling system (HVAC) noise, property maintenance noise, trash truck noise, loading and unloading noise, and recreational noise.
Roadway Noise
The primary noise source in the community is vehicle traffic traveling on surface streets and on State Route (SR) 99. Long-term (24-hour) and short-term (10-minute) noise measurements were taken at 16 locations throughout the Plan Area, as shown in Figure 3.11-1. Existing modeled and measured noise levels associated with acoustically significant roadways within the Plan Area are shown on Figure 3.11-2, as well as in Table 3.11-4 below. The modeled noise levels do not take into account factors such as existing buildings, walls, etc. that may reduce or in some cases, amplify noise sources.
The measured noise levels do take into account existing structures as well as other noise sources. It should be noted that the road segment modeling assumptions for the existing exterior noise levels found in Table 3.11-4 can be found within the West Area Specific Plan Noise Impact Study found in Appendix F.
TABLE 3.11-4: EXISTING EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS ALONG ROADWAYS (DBA, CNEL)
ROADWAY SEGMENT
DISTANCES TO CONTOUR
@100 ft 70 65 60 55
SR 99 W. Herndon Ave to
W. Shaw Ave 83 695 1,497 3,225 6,948
SR 99 W. Shaw Ave to
W. Ashlan Ave 82 672 1,447 3,118 6,718
SR 99 W. Ashlan Ave to
W. Dakota Ave 84 826 1,780 3,834 8,261
NOISE 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-7
ROADWAY SEGMENT
DISTANCES TO CONTOUR
@100 ft 70 65 60 55
SR 99 W. Dakota Ave to
W. Shields Ave 84 821 1,768 3,810 8,208
SR 99 W. Shields Ave to
W. Clinton Ave 82 615 1,324 2,852 6,145
W. Herndon Ave N. Garfield Ave to
N. Parkway Drive No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data W. Bullard Ave N Garfield Ave to
N. Grantland Ave 48 3 7 16 33
W. Bullard Ave N. Grantland Ave to
N. Bryan Ave 55 10 21 44 96
W. Bullard Ave N. Bryan Ave to
SR 99 23 0 0 0 1
W. Barstow Ave N Garfield to
N. Grantland Ave 53 8 17 37 79
W. Barstow Ave N. Grantland Ave to
N. Bryan Ave 49 4 9 19 41
W. Barstow Ave N. Bryan Ave to
N. Contessa Ave No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data W. Barstow Ave N. Contessa Ave to
N. Island Waterpark
Drive
No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
W. Shaw Ave N Garfield Ave to
N. Grantland Ave 59 19 41 89 193
W. Shaw Ave N. Grantland Ave to N.
Bryan Ave 60 22 46 100 215
W. Shaw Ave N. Bryan Ave to 1,300 ft
east of N. Hayes Ave 61 24 51 110 238
W. Shaw Ave 1,300 ft east of
N. Hayes Ave to
N. Polk Ave
63 36 77 166 358
W. Shaw Ave N. Polk Ave to
SR 99 66 57 124 266 574
W. Gettysburg
Ave
1,300 ft west of
N. Bryan Ave to
Bryan Ave
51 5 11 25 53
W. Gettysburg
Ave
N. Bryan Ave to
N. Hayes Ave 52 7 14 31 67
W. Gettysburg
Ave
N. Hayes Ave to
N. Polk Ave 53 7 16 34 73
W. Gettysburg
Ave
N. Polk Ave to
N. Barcus 54 8 17 37 80
W. Ashlan Ave N. Garfield to
N. Grantland No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
W. Ashlan Ave N. Grantland Ave to
N. Bryan Ave 59 18 38 82 177
3.11 NOISE
3.11-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ROADWAY SEGMENT
DISTANCES TO CONTOUR
@100 ft 70 65 60 55
W. Ashlan Ave N. Bryan Ave to
N. Hayes Ave 56 12 27 58 124
W. Ashlan Ave N. Hayes Ave to
N. Polk Ave 55 9 20 44 94
W. Ashlan Ave N. Polk Ave to
N. Cornelia Ave 60 20 44 94 203
W. Ashlan Ave N. Cornelia Ave to
N. Blythe Ave 64 38 81 174 376
W. Ashlan Ave N. Blythe Ave to
SR 99 65 48 103 223 480
W. Dakota Ave N. Hayes Ave to
N. Barcus Ave 53 7 16 34 73
W. Dakota Ave N. Barcus Ave to
N. Polk Ave 56 11 24 51 109
W. Dakota Ave N. Polk Ave to
N. Cornelia Ave 57 14 30 65 139
W. Dakota Ave N. Cornelia Ave to
N. Blythe Ave 56 12 27 57 123
W. Dakota Ave N. Blythe Ave to
N Brawley Ave 55 10 22 47 101
W. Dakota Ave N Brawley Ave to
N. Parkway Drive 54 8 18 39 84
W. Shields Ave N. Garfield Ave to
Grantland Ave 54 9 20 42 91
W. Shields Ave N. Grantland Ave to
N. Bryan Ave 54 9 20 43 92
W. Shields Ave N. Bryan Ave to
N. Hayes Ave 56 11 24 51 109
W. Shields Ave N. Hayes Ave to
N. Polk Ave 55 10 22 48 103
W. Shields Ave N. Polk Ave to
N. Dante Ave 58 17 36 78 169
W. Shields Ave N. Dante Ave to
N. Cornelia Ave 58 17 36 78 169
W. Shields Ave N. Cornelia Ave to
N. Blythe Ave 57 13 28 60 130
W. Shields Ave N. Blythe Ave to
N. Brawley Ave 57 13 27 59 126
W. Shields Ave N Brawley Ave to
N. Valentine Ave 58 15 33 70 152
W. Shields Ave N. Valentine Ave to
N. Marks Ave 58 17 37 79 170
W. Clinton Ave N. Grantland Ave to
N. Bryan Ave 48 3 7 15 32
NOISE 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-9
ROADWAY SEGMENT
DISTANCES TO CONTOUR
@100 ft 70 65 60 55
W. Clinton Ave N. Bryan Ave to
N. Hayes Ave 50 5 10 21 46
W. Clinton Ave N. Hayes Ave to
N. Polk Ave 52 6 13 28 60
W. Clinton Ave N. Polk Ave to 1,900 ft
east of N. Polk Ave 52 6 13 28 60
W. Clinton Ave 1,900 ft east of N. Polk
Ave to N. Cornelia Ave 59 18 40 86 184
W. Clinton Ave N. Cornelia Ave to
N. Milburn Ave 63 34 74 159 343
W. Clinton Ave N. Milburn Ave to
N. Blythe Ave 62 29 62 133 286
W. Clinton Ave N. Blythe Ave to
N Sonora Ave 65 44 95 204 440
W. Clinton Ave N. Sonora Ave to
N Brawley Ave 63 37 79 170 367
W. Clinton Ave N Brawley Ave to
N. Knoll Ave 64 38 82 177 381
W. Clinton Ave N. Knoll Ave to 850 ft
east of N. Knoll Ave 64 37 81 174 374
W. Clinton Ave 850 ft east of N. Knoll
Ave to N. Valentine
Ave
61 27 58 124 268
W. Clinton Ave N. Valentine Ave to
N. Marks Ave 64 41 88 190 410
W. Clinton Ave N. Marks Ave to
W. Vassar Ave 68 73 158 340 733
N Garfield Ave W. Herndon Ave to
W. Bullard Ave No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
N Garfield Ave W. Bullard Ave to
W. Barstow Ave No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
N Garfield Ave W. Barstow Ave to
1,000 ft south of W.
Barstow Ave
No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
N Garfield Ave 1,000 ft south of W.
Barstow Ave to
W. Shaw Ave
No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
N Garfield Ave W. Shaw Ave to
W. Gettysburg Ave No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data N Garfield Ave W. Gettysburg to
W. Ashlan Ave No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
N Garfield Ave W. Ashlan Ave to
W. Dakota Ave No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
N Garfield Ave W. Dakota Ave to
W. Shields Ave No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
3.11 NOISE
3.11-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ROADWAY SEGMENT
DISTANCES TO CONTOUR
@100 ft 70 65 60 55
N. Parkway
Drive
N Herndon Ave to
W. Herndon Ave No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
N. Grantland
Ave
N. Parkway Drive to
W. Bullard Ave No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
N. Grantland
Ave
W. Bullard Ave to
W. Barstow Ave 62 31 68 146 315
N. Grantland
Ave
W. Barstow Ave to
W. Shaw Ave 62 29 62 134 290
N. Grantland
Ave
W. Shaw Ave to
W. Gettysburg Ave 57 14 31 67 144
N. Grantland
Ave
W. Gettysburg Ave to
W. Ashlan Ave 60 21 44 95 205
N. Grantland
Ave
W. Ashlan Ave to
W Dakota Ave 59 17 37 80 171
N. Grantland
Ave
W. Dakota Ave to
W. Shields Ave No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
N. Grantland
Ave
W Shields Ave to
W. Clinton Ave 57 14 31 66 142
N. Bryan Ave W. Shaw Ave to
W. Santa Ana Ave 54 8 18 39 84
N. Bryan Ave W. Santa Ana Ave to
W. Gettysburg Ave 54 8 18 39 84
N. Bryan Ave W. Gettysburg Ave to
W. Ashlan Ave 58 15 32 69 149
N. Bryan Ave W. Ashlan Ave to
W. Dakota Ave 55 10 22 47 102
N. Bryan Ave W. Dakota Ave to
W Shields Ave 53 7 15 32 68
N. Bryan Ave W Shields Ave to
W. Clinton Ave 48 4 8 16 35
N. Hayes Ave W. Shaw Ave to
W. Santa Ana Ave 57 14 30 64 138
N. Hayes Ave W. Santa Ana Ave to
W. Gettysburg Ave 57 14 29 63 136
N. Hayes Ave W. Gettysburg Ave to
W. Swift Ave 55 10 21 46 100
N. Hayes Ave W. Swift Ave to
W. Ashlan Ave 52 7 14 31 67
N. Hayes Ave W. Ashland Ave to
W. Dakota Ave 54 8 18 39 84
N. Hayes Ave W. Dakota Ave to
1,300 ft South of
W. Dakota Ave
53 8 17 36 78
NOISE 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-11
ROADWAY SEGMENT
DISTANCES TO CONTOUR
@100 ft 70 65 60 55
N. Hayes Ave 1,300 ft South of
W. Dakota Ave
to W Shields Ave
56 12 25 54 116
N. Hayes Ave W Shields Ave to W.
Clinton Ave 52 7 14 30 66
N. Polk Ave North of W. Shaw Ave 60 22 47 102 219
N. Polk Ave W. Shaw Ave to
W. Acacia Ave 62 31 66 142 307
N. Polk Ave W. Acacia Ave to
W. Gettysburg Ave 62 31 67 145 312
N. Polk Ave W. Gettysburg Ave to
W. Ashlan Ave 58 17 36 78 167
N. Polk Ave W. Ashland Ave to W.
Griffith Way 59 18 40 85 184
N. Polk Ave W. Griffith Way to
W. Dakota Ave 61 26 55 119 257
N. Polk Ave W. Dakota Ave to
W Shields Ave 58 17 36 78 168
N. Polk Ave W Shields Ave to
W. Clinton Ave 57 14 30 65 141
N. Cornelia Ave N. Parkway Drive to W.
Gettysburg Ave 60 22 48 104 223
N. Cornelia Ave W. Gettysburg to
W. Ashlan Ave 60 22 48 104 223
N. Cornelia Ave W. Ashland Ave to
W. Bellaire Way 62 27 59 128 275
N. Cornelia Ave W. Bellaire Way to
W. Dakota Ave 62 27 59 128 275
N. Cornelia Ave W. Dakota Ave to
W Shields Ave 58 15 33 70 152
N. Cornelia Ave W Shields Ave to
W. Clinton Ave 60 22 47 102 220
N. Blythe Ave W. Ashlan Ave to
W. Dakota Ave 60 21 45 96 207
N. Blythe Ave W. Dakota Ave to
W Shields Ave 57 13 29 62 133
N. Blythe Ave W Shields Ave to
W. Clinton Ave 57 14 29 63 136
N Brawley Ave N. Parkway Drive to W.
Dakota Ave 58 17 36 77 165
N Brawley Ave W. Dakota Ave to
W. Dayton Ave 58 16 35 75 161
N Brawley Ave W. Dayton Ave to
W. Cortland Ave 61 24 52 111 240
3.11 NOISE
3.11-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ROADWAY SEGMENT
DISTANCES TO CONTOUR
@100 ft 70 65 60 55
N Brawley Ave W. Cortland Ave to
W. Shields Ave 58 16 35 75 161
N Brawley Ave W Shields Ave to
W. Clinton Ave 58 16 33 72 155
N. Valentine
Ave
N. Parkway Drive to
W Shields Ave 54 9 19 41 89
N. Valentine
Ave
W Shields Ave to
W. Clinton Ave 53 8 17 36 77
N. Marks Ave W Princeton Ave to
W. Clinton Ave 59 20 44 95 205
NOTES:
1. EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS CALCULATED AT 5-FEET ABOVE GROUND.
2. NOISE LEVELS CALCULATED FROM CENTERLINE OF SUBJECT ROADWAY.
3. REFER TO APPENDIX C OF APPENDIX F FOR PROJECTED NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS.
4. THE PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS AT 100 FT ARE THEORETICAL AND DO NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE EFFECT OF
TOPOGRAPHY, NOISE BARRIERS, STRUCTURES OR OTHER FACTORS WHICH WILL REDUCE THE ACTUAL NOISE LEVEL IN THE OUTDOOR LIVING AREAS. THESE FACTORS CAN REDUCE THE ACTUAL NOISE LEVELS BY 5-10 DBA FROM WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE TABLE.
THEREFORE, THE LEVELS THAT ARE SHOWN ARE FOR COMPARATIVE PURPOSES ONLY TO SHOW THE DIFFERENCE IN PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS WITHOUT AND WITH THE PROJECT.
SOURCE: MD ACOUSTICS, 2020.
As shown in Table 3.11-4 and Figure 3.11-2, areas in the City that currently experience sound levels greater than 60 dBA Ldn are typically near major vehicular traffic corridors. Highway traffic noise levels typically depend on three factors: (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the average speed of traffic, and (3) the vehicle mix (i.e., the percentage of trucks versus automobiles in the traffic flow). Vehicle noise includes noises produced by the engine, exhaust, tires, and wind generated by taller vehicles.
Other factors that affect the perception of traffic noise include the distance from the highway, terrain, vegetation, and natural and structural obstacles. While tire noise from automobiles is generally located at ground level, some truck noise sources may emanate from 12 feet or more above the ground.
Vehicle traffic generated noise associated with SR 99 is the dominant noise source in the eastern portion of the Plan Area with average daily vehicle trips (ADTs) ranging between 77,000-107,000 adjacent to the Plan Area. Existing modeled noise contours shown in Figure 3.11-2 show that traffic noise associated with SR 99 dominates the noise environment of the easternmost portion of the Plan Area. Most noise sensitive land uses adjacent to SR 99 are shielded by existing sound walls, topography, or buildings, however, the attenuation provided by them is not represented in the noise contour map.
Rail Noise
Noise associated with the existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line that generally runs parallel to SR 99 also contributes to noise in the Plan Area. The Union Pacific Railroad extends in a southeast/northwest direction ranging between 320 and 2,100 feet east of the project area. Based on count data available provided by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA 2020) fourteen train NOISE 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-13 trips per day (split evenly between daytime and nighttime hours) utilize the rail lines located east of the project area and SR 99 and north of West Ashlan Avenue. There are existing residential land uses located within the project area as close as 380 feet to the rail lines north of West Ashlan Avenue and 380 feet from the rail lines south of West Ashlan Avenue. There is a rail yard east of SR 99 that extends from approximately 450 feet north of Clinton Avenue to West Ashlan Avenue. Noise level contours associated with the UPRR are shown in Figure 3.11-3.
Airport/Aircraft Noise
There are no airports located within the Plan Area and the Plan Area is not located within any airport noise contours (City of Fresno, 2014). The Plan Area is, however, affected by fly-over noise associated with the Fresno Yosemite International airport, the Fresno‐Chandler Downtown Airport, and the Sierra Sky Park Airport. Commercial jet aircraft operations are limited to the Fresno Yosemite International Airport. The Air National Guard is also stationed there and operates military jets and other aircraft. Private and commercial operations with smaller aircraft use the Fresno Chandler Downtown Airport, while only small private aircraft use the Sierra Sky Park Airport.
VIBRATION SOURCES IN THE PLAN AREA
The main sources of vibration in the project area are related to vehicles, rail, and construction.
Typical roadway traffic, including heavy trucks, rarely generates vibration amplitudes high enough to cause structural or cosmetic damage. However, there have been cases in which heavy trucks traveling over potholes or other discontinuities in the pavement have caused vibration high enough to result in complaints from nearby residents.
3.11.2 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
Noise Control Act of 1972
The Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) originally was tasked with implementing the Noise Control Act. However, it was eventually eliminated leaving other federal agencies and committees to develop noise policies and programs. Some examples of these agencies are as follows:
• The Department of Transportation (DOT) assumed a significant role in noise control through its various agencies.
• The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) is responsible to regulate noise from aircraft and airports. • The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is responsible to regulate noise from the interstate highway system.
• The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for the prohibition of excessive noise exposure to workers.
3.11 NOISE
3.11-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan The federal government advocates that local jurisdiction use their land use regulatory authority to arrange new development in such a way that “noise sensitive” uses are either prohibited from being constructed adjacent to a highway, or alternatively that the developments are planned and constructed in such a manner that potential noise impacts are minimized.
Since the federal government has preempted the setting of standards for noise levels that can be emitted by the transportation source, the City is restricted to regulating the noise generated by the transportation system through nuisance abatement Codes and land use planning.
STATE
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G, indicate that a significant noise impact may occur if a project exposes persons to noise or vibration levels in excess of local general plans or noise ordinance standards, or cause a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels. CEQA standards are discussed more below under the Thresholds of Significance criteria section.
Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code
Section 1206.4 of the California Building Code (2019), Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 12 (Interior Environment), establishes an interior noise criteria of 45 dBA CNEL for “dwelling units”. Per California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 2 (Definitions), a residential dwelling unit is intended to be used as a residence that is primarily long-term in nature. Residential dwelling units do not include transient lodging, inpatient medical care, licensed long-term care, and detention or correctional facilities.
California Building Code (2019), Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 5 (Nonresidential Mandatory Measures), applies to all proposed buildings that people may occupy but are not residential dwelling units, with the exception of factories, stadiums, storage, enclosed parking structures, and utility buildings.
Section 5.507.4.1 requires wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source making up the building, or addition envelope or altered envelope, shall meet a composite Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of at least 50 or a composite Outdoor to Indoor Transmission Class (OITC) rating of no less than 40, with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 or OITC of 30.
LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
For the purposes of evaluating noise impacts due to new projects, the objectives and policies of the City of Fresno General Plan Noise Element are used. The Fresno General Plan Noise Element sets forth noise standards for transportation noise sources. Ideally, proposed land uses would be developed in areas where future noise levels due to transportation noise sources (except aircraft) would not exceed those presented in Table 3.11-5. Additionally, the Fresno General Plan Element NOISE 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-15 also includes standards for stationary noise sources to regulate noise emanating from one property to another, which are presented in Table 3.11-6.
TABLE 3.11-5: TRANSPORTATION (NON-AIRCRAFT) NOISE SOURCES
NOISE SENSITIVE LAND USES
OUTDOOR ACTIVITY AREAS1,3 INTERIOR SPACES
LDN/CNEL, DB LDN/CNEL, DB LEQ DB2, 4
Residential 65 45 --
Transient Lodging 65 45 --
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 65 45 --
Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls -- -- 35
Churches, Meeting Halls 65 -- 45
Office Buildings -- -- 45
Schools, Libraries Museums -- -- 45
NOTES: 1. WHERE THE LOCATION OF OUTDOOR ACTIVITY AREAS IS UNKNOWN OR IS NOT APPLICABLE, THE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL STANDARD SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE RECEIVING LAND USE.
2. EXCLUDES FRONT OR SIDE YARD AREAS, AND FRONT OR SIDE PORCHES. BALCONIES OR ROOF DECKS FACING FRONT AND SIDE
YARDS SHALL BE INCLUDED IN DESIGNATED AREAS TO BE PROTECTED FROM NOISE WHERE THESE SPACES ARE USED TO CALCULATE COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIRED OUTDOOR LIVING AREA AS REQUIRED BY ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
3. RESIDENTIAL AND NOISE SENSITIVE USES LOCATED ALONG BUS RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDORS OR WITHIN ACTIVITY CENTERS AS
IDENTIFIED IN THE CITY OF FRESNO GENERAL PLAN, ARE EXEMPT FROM EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS WHERE IT IS DETERMINED
APPLICATION OF NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE REALIZATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN'S MIXED USE POLICIES. INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS SHALL STILL APPLY.
4. AS DETERMINED FOR A TYPICAL WORST-CASE HOUR DURING PERIODS OF USE.
SOURCE: CITY OF FRESNO GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT (TABLE 9-2), 2014.
TABLE 3.11-6: STATIONARY NOISE SOURCE STANDARDS
DAYTIME
(7:00 AM – 10:00 PM)
NIGHTTIME
(10:00 PM – 7:00 AM)
Hourly Equivalent Sound Level (Leq),
dBA 50 45
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax), dBA 70 60
NOTES: 1. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR, ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, MAY
DESIGNATE LAND USES OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN IN THIS TABLE TO BE NOISE-SENSITIVE, AND MAY REQUIRE APPROPRIATE NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES.
2. AS DETERMINED AT OUTDOOR ACTIVITY AREAS. WHERE THE LOCATION OF OUTDOOR ACTIVITY AREAS IS UNKNOWN OR NOT APPLICABLE, THE NOISE EXPOSURE STANDARD SHALL BE APPLIED AT THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE RECEIVING LAND USE. WHEN
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS EXCEED OR EQUAL THE LEVELS IN THE TABLE, MITIGATION SHALL ONLY BE REQUIRED TO LIMIT NOISE TO THE AMBIENT PLUS FIVE DBA.
SOURCE: CITY OF FRESNO GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT, 2014.
The Noise Element outlines the following objectives and policies which are pertinent to the project.
This list does not include all noise-related policies, but provides policies which are relevant to the project.
NOISE ELEMENT
Objective NS-1: Protect the citizens of the City from the harmful effects of exposure to excessive noise.
3.11 NOISE
3.11-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy NS-1-a: Desirable and Generally Acceptable Exterior Noise Environment. Establish 65 dB Ldn or CNEL as the standard for the desirable maximum average exterior noise levels for defined usable exterior areas of residential and noise-sensitive uses for noise, but designate 60 dB Ldn or CNEL (measured at the property line) for noise generated by stationary sources impinging upon residential and noise-sensitive uses. Maintain 65 dB Ldn or CNEL as the maximum average exterior noise levels for non-sensitive commercial land uses, and maintain 70 dB Ldn or CNEL as maximum average exterior noise level for industrial land uses, both to be measured at the property line of parcels where noise is generated which may impinge on neighboring properties.
Commentary: The noise ordinance will define usable exterior areas for single family and multiple family residential and noise sensitive uses to include rear yards and other outdoor areas intended to accommodate leisure or active use, excluding front or side yard areas, and front or side porches. Balconies or roof decks facing from side yards shall be included in designated areas to be protected from noise where these spaces are used to calculate compliance with required outdoor living area as required by adopted development standards.
Policy NS-1b: Conditionally Acceptable Exterior Noise Exposure Range. Establish conditionally acceptable noise exposure level range for residential and other noise sensitive uses to be 65 dB Ldn or require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determined by a site specific acoustical analysis to comply with the desirable and conditionally acceptable exterior noise level and the required interior noise level standards set in Table 9-2.
Policy NS-1c: Generally Unacceptable Exterior Noise Exposure Range. Establish the exterior noise exposure of greater than 65 dB Ldn or CNEL to be generally unacceptable for residential or other noise sensitive uses for noise generated by sources in Policy NS-1-a, and study alternative less noise sensitive uses for these areas if otherwise appropriate. Require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determined by a site specific acoustical analysis to comply with the generally acceptable exterior noise and the required 45 dB interior noise level standards et in Table 9-2 as conditions of permit approval.
Policy NS-1i: Mitigation of New Developments. Require an acoustical analysis where new development of industrial, commercial or other noise generating land uses (including transportation facilities such as roadways, railroads, and airports) may result in noise level that exceed the noise level exposure criteria established in Tables 9-2 and 9-3 to determine impacts, and require developers to mitigate these impacts in conformance with tables 9-2 and 9-3 as a condition of permit approval through appropriate means.
Noise mitigation measures may include:
• The screening of noise sources such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment;
• providing increased setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings; NOISE 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-17 • Installation of walls and landscaping that serve as noise buffers; • Installation of soundproofing materials and double-glazed windows; and • Regulating operations, such as hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup.
Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level reduction may be approved by the City, provided a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces. As a last resort, developers may propose to construct noise walls along roadways when compatible with aesthetic concerns and neighborhood character.
Policy NS-1j: Significance Threshold. Establish, as a threshold of significance for the City's environmental review process, that a significant increase in ambient noise levels is assumed if the project would increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity by 3 dB Ldn or CNEL, or more above the ambient noise limits established in this General Plan Update.
Commentary: When an increase in noise would result in a "Significant" impact (increase of three dBA or more) to residents or businesses, then noise mitigation would be required to reduce noise exposure. If the increase in noise is less than three dBA, then the noise impact is considered insignificant and no noise mitigation is needed.
Policy NS-1k: Proposal Review. Review all new public and private development proposals that may potentially be affected by or cause a significant increase in noise levels, per Policy NS-1-i, to determine conformance with the policies of this Noise Element. Require developers to reduce the noise impacts of new development on adjacent properties through appropriate means.
Policy NS-1l: Enforcement. Continue to enforce applicable State Noise Insulation Standards and Uniform Building Code noise requirements, as adopted by the City.
Policy NS-1m: Transportation Related Noise Impacts. For projects subject to the City approval, require that the project sponsor mitigate noise created by new transportation and transportation-related stationary noise sources, including roadway improvement projects, so that resulting noise levels do not exceed the City's adopted standards for noise sensitive land uses.
Policy NS-1n: Best Available Technology. Require new noise sources to use best available control technology to minimize noise emissions.
Commentary: Noise from mechanical equipment can be reduced by soundproofing materials and sound-deadening installation; controlling hours of operation will also reduce noise impacts during the morning or evening.
Policy NS-1o: Sound Wall Guidelines. Acoustical studies and noise mitigation measures for projects shall specify the heights, materials, and design for sound walls and other noise
3.11 NOISE
3.11-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan barriers. Aesthetic considerations shall also be addressed in these studies and mitigation measures such as variable noise barrier heights, a combination of a landscaped berm with wall, and reduced barrier height in combination with increased distance or elevation differences between noise source and noise receptor, with a maximum allowable height of 15 feet. The City will develop guidelines for aesthetic design measures of sound walls, and may commission area wide noise mitigation studies that can serve as templates for acoustical treatment that can be applied to similar situations in the urban area.
Commentary: While acoustical studies need to be site-specific in order to appropriately assess particular settings, having prototypical design measures and noise control templates that can be applied for similar situations and contexts can facilitate infill and other development. These can be provided in this noise report and carried forward into the Specific Plan.
Policy NS-1p: Airport Noise Compatibility. Implement the land use and noise exposure compatibility provisions of the adopted Fresno Yosemite International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Master and Environs Specific Plan, and the Sierra Sky Park Land Use Policy Plan to assess noise compatibility of proposed uses and improvements within airport influence and environs areas.
City of Fresno Noise Ordinance
Article 1 of Chapter 10 of the City's Municipal Code contains the City's Noise Ordinance, which establishes excessive noise guidelines and exemptions. The standards for ambient noise for varying land uses are somewhat generic and are assumed to be overridden by actual noise measurements and modeling of noise sources. Those applicable to this analysis are presented below.
SEC. 10-102. Definitions.
(b) Ambient Noise. “Ambient noise” is the all‐encompassing noise associated with a given environment, being usually a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. For the purpose of this ordinance, ambient noise level is the level obtained when the noise level is averaged over a period of fifteen minutes, without inclusion of the offending noise, at the location and time of day at which a comparison with the offending noise is to be made.
Where the ambient noise level is less than what is presented in Table 3.11-7 for the applicable type of land use, the sound level presented in Table 3.11-7, shall be deemed to be the ambient noise level for that location.
TABLE 3.11-7: AMBIENT NOISE
DISTRICT TIME SOUND LEVEL DECIBELS
Residential
10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 50
7:00 PM to 10:00 PM 55
7:00 AM to 7:00 PM 60
Commercial 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 60
7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 65
Industrial Anytime 70
NOISE 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-19 SOURCE: CITY OF FRESNO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 10-102(B) SEC. 10-105. Excessive Noise Prohibited.
No person shall make, cause, or suffer or permit to be made or caused upon any premises or upon any public street, alley, or place within the city, any sound or noise which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing or working in the area, unless such noise or sound is specifically authorized by or in accordance with this article. The provisions of this section shall apply to, but shall be limited to, the control, use, and operation of the following noise sources:
(a) Radios, musical instruments, phonographs, television sets, or other machines or devices used for the amplification, production, or reproduction of sound or the human voice. (b) Animals or fowl creating, generating, or emitting any cry or behavioral sound. (c) Machinery or equipment, such as fans, pumps, air conditioning units, engines, turbines, compressors, generators, motors or similar devices, equipment, or apparatus. (d) Construction equipment or work, including the operation, use or employment of pile drivers, hammers, saws, drills, derricks, hoists, or similar construction equipment or tools.
SEC. 10-107. Schools, Hospitals, and Churches.
No person shall create any noise on any street, sidewalk, or public place adjacent to any school, institution of learning, or church while the same is in use, or adjacent to any hospital, which noise unreasonably interferes with the workings of such institution or which disturbs or unduly annoys patients in the hospital, provided conspicuous signs are displayed in such street, sidewalk, or public place indicating the presence of a school, church, or hospital.
SEC. 10-109. Exceptions.
(a) Construction, repair or remodeling work accomplished pursuant to a building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or other construction permit issued by the city or other governmental agency, or to site preparation and grading, provided such work takes place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday. (b) Emergency work.
(c) Any acts or acts which are prohibited by any law of the State of California or the United States.
City of Fresno Community Plans
The City of Fresno is divided in to nine Community Plan Areas. The project site is within the West Area Community Plan Area. The West Area Community Plan includes a few land use related policies that encourage good design and avoidance of potential noise issues. These policies are presented below.
3.11 NOISE
3.11-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy W-7-e: All loading spaces shall be located not less than 150 feet from the boundary of any residential property; however, the proximity of loading areas may be reduced when adequate design and operational measures (such as restricted hours for loading activities) are approved to mitigate noise, lights, and other nuisances associated with loading areas, in order to protect adjacent residential uses. In all cases, loading areas shall be screened from view of adjoining property zoned, planned, or approved for residential uses. This screening shall be accomplished by either placing loading docks and areas on the sides of buildings that face away from residential property, or by a combination of landscape planting and a solid masonry wall. Where possible, loading areas should not be visible from, nor take access from, local streets with residential frontage.
Policy W-7-f: Roof-mounted and detached mechanical equipment for commercial and office uses should be screened from view of adjacent residential areas, and acoustically baffled to prevent the noise level rating for the equipment from exceeding the applicable city standard for ambient noise at residential property lines.
3.11.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the project will have a significant impact related to noise if it will result in:
• Generation of a temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; and/or
• Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. • For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Noise Standards
The noise standards applicable to the project include the relevant portions of the City of Fresno General Plan, as described in the Regulatory Setting section above, and the following standards.
Based upon the General Plan Noise and Safety Element, the project will have a significant increase in noise if it exceeds a 3 dB Ldn. This is consistent with Table 3.11-8 which is based upon recommendations made by the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) to provide guidance in the assessment of changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft operations.
The recommendations are based upon studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, it has been accepted that they are applicable to all sources of noise described in terms of cumulative noise exposure metrics such as the Ldn.
NOISE 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-21 TABLE 3.11-8: SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGES IN NOISE EXPOSURE
AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL WITHOUT PROJECT, LDN INCREASE REQUIRED FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACT <60 dB +5.0 dB or more
60-65 dB +3.0 dB or more
>65 dB +1.5 dB or more
SOURCE: FEDERAL INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON NOISE (FICON).
Vibration Standards
Vibration is like noise in that it involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. While vibration is related to noise, it differs in that in that noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface.
As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception to the vibration will depend on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating.
Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration measures in terms of peak particle velocities in inches per second. Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of peak particle velocities.
The City of Fresno does not establish criteria for vibration impacts. However, the Federal Transit Administration establishes vibration impact thresholds for construction/demolition projects. These thresholds are shown in Table 3.11-9 on the following page.
TABLE 3.11-9: GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION CRITERIA
ARCHITECTURAL DAMAGE BUILDING CATEGORY PPV (IN/SEC) LV (VDB)A I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 NOTE:
A RMS VELOCITY CALCULATED FROM VIBRATION LEVEL (VDB) USING THE REFERENCE OF ONE MICRO-INCH/SECOND.
SOURCE: FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, TRANSIT NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 2006.
Table 3.11-9 indicates that the threshold for damage to structures ranges from 0.2 to 0.5 peak particle velocity in inches per second (in/sec p.p.v). One-half this minimum threshold or 0.1 in/sec p.p.v. is considered a safe criterion that would protect against architectural or structural damage.
The general threshold at which human annoyance could also occur is typically noted as 0.1 in/sec p.p.v.
3.11 NOISE
3.11-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.11-1: Specific Plan implementation could potentially substantially increase mobile noise levels at existing and proposed receptors. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
EXTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS – PROPOSED RECEPTORS
Upon future buildout of the Plan Area, the primary noise source in the community will continue to be vehicle traffic traveling on surface streets and on SR 99. Future noise levels associated with acoustically significant roadways within the Plan Area are shown on Figure 3.11-4. Vehicle traffic generated noise associated with SR 99 will continue to be the dominant noise source in the eastern portion of the Plan Area with ADTs ranging between 77,000 and 107,000 adjacent to the Plan Area.
Although most noise sensitive land uses adjacent to SR 99 are shielded by existing sound walls, topography or buildings, there are still some noise sensitive land uses where existing plus project plus cumulative noise levels will exceed the City’s 60 dBA Ldn noise standard. Thus, traffic noise impacts to proposed receptors would be potentially significant.
EXTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS – EXISTING RECEPTORS
Buildout of the Plan Area will result in substantial increases in ambient noise levels. According to the West Area Specific Plan Noise Impact Study, the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used to predict noise levels due to the Specific Plan traffic. Traffic volumes for existing conditions were obtained from the traffic data prepared for the Specific Plan. The potential off-site noise impacts caused by the increase in vehicular traffic from the operation of the proposed project on the nearby roadways was calculated by comparing the existing and existing plus project plus cumulative noise levels. Table 3.11-10 compares the existing and existing plus project cumulative noise levels along the Plan Area roadways.
TABLE 3.11-10: CHANGE IN NOISE ALONG ROADWAYS DUE TO THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN (DBA, CNEL)
ROADWAY SEGMENT
CNEL AT 100 FEET DBA2
EXISTING
EXISTING +
PROJECT +
CUMULATIVE
CHANGE
EXCEEDS
COMPATIBILITY
CRITERIA
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT4
SR 99
W. Herndon Ave to
W. Shaw Ave 82.6 82.6 0.0 Yes No
SR 99
W. Shaw Ave to
W. Ashlan Ave 82.4 82.4 0.0 Yes No
SR 99
W. Ashlan Ave to
W. Dakota Ave 83.8 83.8 0.0 Yes No
SR 99
W. Dakota Ave to
W. Shields Ave 83.7 83.7 0.0 Yes No
SR 99 W. Shields Ave to
W. Clinton Ave 81.8 83.8 2.0 Yes No
W. Herndon Ave N. Garfield Ave to
N. Parkway Drive No Data No Data n/a n/a n/a
NOISE 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-23
ROADWAY SEGMENT
CNEL AT 100 FEET DBA2
EXISTING
EXISTING +
PROJECT +
CUMULATIVE
CHANGE
EXCEEDS
COMPATIBILITY
CRITERIA
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT4
W. Bullard Ave
N Garfield Ave to
N. Grantland Ave 47.9 58.3 10.5 No No
W. Bullard Ave N. Grantland Ave to
N. Bryan Ave 54.7 60.0 5.2 No No
W. Bullard Ave
N. Bryan Ave to
SR 99 No Data No Data n/a n/a n/a
W. Barstow Ave
N Garfield to
N. Grantland Ave 53.5 53.8 0.4 No No
W. Barstow Ave
N. Grantland Ave to
N. Bryan Ave 49.1 61.8 12.7 No No
W. Barstow Ave
N. Bryan Ave to
N. Contessa Ave No Data No Data n/a n/a n/a
W. Barstow Ave
N. Contessa Ave to
N. Island Waterpark
Drive
No Data No Data n/a n/a n/a
W. Shaw Ave
N Garfield Ave to
N. Grantland Ave 59.3 63.7 4.5 No No
W. Shaw Ave
N. Grantland Ave to N.
Bryan Ave 60.0 68.3 8.3 Yes Yes
W. Shaw Ave
N. Bryan Ave to 1,300
ft east of N. Hayes Ave 60.6 68.1 7.5 Yes Yes
W. Shaw Ave
1,300 ft east of
N. Hayes Ave to
N. Polk Ave
63.3 71.0 7.7 Yes Yes
W. Shaw Ave
N. Polk Ave to
SR 99 66.4 73.3 6.9 Yes Yes
W. Gettysburg
Ave
1,300 ft west of
N. Bryan Ave to
Bryan Ave
50.9 58.5 7.6 No No
W. Gettysburg
Ave
N. Bryan Ave to
N. Hayes Ave 52.4 60.5 8.1 No No
W. Gettysburg
Ave
N. Hayes Ave to
N. Polk Ave 53.0 62.8 9.8 No No
W. Gettysburg
Ave
N. Polk Ave to
N. Barcus 53.6 62.3 8.8 No No
W. Ashlan Ave
N. Garfield to
N. Grantland No Data 64.3 n/a n/a n/a
W. Ashlan Ave
N. Grantland Ave to
N. Bryan Ave 58.7 70.4 11.7 Yes Yes
W. Ashlan Ave
N. Bryan Ave to
N. Hayes Ave 56.4 67.5 11.2 Yes Yes
W. Ashlan Ave
N. Hayes Ave to
N. Polk Ave 54.6 68.0 13.4 Yes Yes
3.11 NOISE
3.11-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
ROADWAY SEGMENT
CNEL AT 100 FEET DBA2
EXISTING
EXISTING +
PROJECT +
CUMULATIVE
CHANGE
EXCEEDS
COMPATIBILITY
CRITERIA
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT4
W. Ashlan Ave
N. Polk Ave to
N. Cornelia Ave 59.6 67.8 8.2 Yes Yes
W. Ashlan Ave
N. Cornelia Ave to
N. Blythe Ave 63.6 69.2 5.6 Yes Yes
W. Ashlan Ave
N. Blythe Ave to
SR 99 65.2 69.7 4.5 Yes No
W. Dakota Ave
N. Hayes Ave to
N. Barcus Ave 53.0 62.2 9.2 No No
W. Dakota Ave
N. Barcus Ave to
N. Polk Ave 55.6 64.7 9.2 No No
W. Dakota Ave
N. Polk Ave to
N. Cornelia Ave 57.2 61.8 4.6 No No
W. Dakota Ave
N. Cornelia Ave to
N. Blythe Ave 56.4 61.6 5.3 No No
W. Dakota Ave
N. Blythe Ave to
N Brawley Ave 55.1 61.3 6.2 No No
W. Dakota Ave
N Brawley Ave to
N. Parkway Drive 53.9 58.8 4.9 No No
W. Shields Ave
N. Garfield Ave to
Grantland Ave 54.4 No Data n/a n/a n/a
W. Shields Ave
N. Grantland Ave to
N. Bryan Ave 54.5 61.3 6.9 No No
W. Shields Ave
N. Bryan Ave to
N. Hayes Ave 55.6 62.0 6.4 No No
W. Shields Ave
N. Hayes Ave to
N. Polk Ave 55.2 61.0 5.8 No No
W. Shields Ave
N. Polk Ave to
N. Dante Ave 58.4 66.0 7.6 Yes Yes
W. Shields Ave
N. Dante Ave to
N. Cornelia Ave 58.4 66.0 7.6 Yes Yes
W. Shields Ave
N. Cornelia Ave to
N. Blythe Ave 56.7 63.0 6.3 No No
W. Shields Ave
N. Blythe Ave to
N. Brawley Ave 56.5 63.3 6.8 No No
W. Shields Ave
N Brawley Ave to
N. Valentine Ave 57.7 63.0 5.3 No No
W. Shields Ave
N. Valentine Ave to
N. Marks Ave 58.5 62.9 4.5 No No
W. Clinton Ave
N. Grantland Ave to
N. Bryan Ave 47.5 55.4 7.9 No No
W. Clinton Ave
N. Bryan Ave to
N. Hayes Ave 49.9 61.6 11.7 No No
NOISE 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-25