Fresno City Council
October 13, 2022

ROADWAY SEGMENT
CNEL AT 100 FEET DBA2

EXISTING
EXISTING +
PROJECT +

CUMULATIVE
CHANGE

EXCEEDS

COMPATIBILITY

CRITERIA

POTENTIALLY

SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT4
W. Clinton Ave
N. Hayes Ave to
N. Polk Ave 51.7 62.0 10.3 No No
W. Clinton Ave
N. Polk Ave to 1,900 ft
east of N. Polk Ave 51.7 62.9 11.2 No No
W. Clinton Ave
1,900 ft east of N. Polk
Ave to N. Cornelia Ave 59.0 66.9 8.0 Yes Yes
W. Clinton Ave
N. Cornelia Ave to
N. Milburn Ave 63.0 68.9 5.9 Yes Yes
W. Clinton Ave
N. Milburn Ave to
N. Blythe Ave 61.8 68.5 6.6 Yes Yes
W. Clinton Ave
N. Blythe Ave to
N Sonora Ave 64.6 68.9 4.2 Yes No
W. Clinton Ave
N. Sonora Ave to
N Brawley Ave 63.5 67.7 4.2 Yes No
W. Clinton Ave
N Brawley Ave to
N. Knoll Ave 63.7 68.5 4.7 Yes No
W. Clinton Ave
N. Knoll Ave to 850 ft
east of N. Knoll Ave 63.6 68.3 4.7 Yes No
W. Clinton Ave
850 ft east of N. Knoll
Ave to N. Valentine
Ave

61.4 66.2 4.7 Yes No
W. Clinton Ave
N. Valentine Ave to
N. Marks Ave 64.2 69.7 5.5 Yes Yes
W. Clinton Ave
N. Marks Ave to
W. Vassar Ave 68.0 72.6 4.6 Yes No
N Garfield Ave
W. Herndon Ave to
W. Bullard Ave No Data 57.8 n/a n/a n/a
N Garfield Ave
W. Bullard Ave to
W. Barstow Ave No Data 58.4 n/a n/a n/a
N Garfield Ave
W. Barstow Ave to
1,000 ft south of W.

Barstow Ave
No Data 60.9 n/a n/a n/a
N Garfield Ave
1,000 ft south of W.

Barstow Ave to
W. Shaw Ave
No Data 60.9 n/a n/a n/a
N Garfield Ave
W. Shaw Ave to
W. Gettysburg Ave No Data 59.0 n/a n/a n/a
N Garfield Ave
W. Gettysburg to
W. Ashlan Ave No Data 58.8 n/a n/a n/a
N Garfield Ave
W. Ashlan Ave to
W. Dakota Ave No Data 21.5 n/a n/a n/a
N Garfield Ave
W. Dakota Ave to
W. Shields Ave No Data 58.5 n/a n/a n/a

3.11 NOISE

3.11-26 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
N. Parkway
Drive
N Herndon Ave to
W. Herndon Ave No Data 57.7 n/a n/a n/a
N. Grantland
Ave
N. Parkway Drive to
W. Bullard Ave No Data No Data n/a n/a n/a
N. Grantland
Ave
W. Bullard Ave to
W. Barstow Ave 62.5 64.4 2.0 Yes No
N. Grantland
Ave
W. Barstow Ave to
W. Shaw Ave 61.9 65.5 3.6 Yes No
N. Grantland
Ave
W. Shaw Ave to
W. Gettysburg Ave 57.4 68.0 10.6 Yes Yes
N. Grantland
Ave
W. Gettysburg Ave to
W. Ashlan Ave 59.7 71.1 11.5 Yes Yes
N. Grantland
Ave
W. Ashlan Ave to
W Dakota Ave 58.5 No Data n/a n/a n/a
N. Grantland
Ave
W. Dakota Ave to
W. Shields Ave No Data 69.7 n/a n/a n/a
N. Grantland
Ave
W Shields Ave to
W. Clinton Ave 57.3 67.7 10.5 Yes Yes
N. Bryan Ave
W. Shaw Ave to
W. Santa Ana Ave 53.9 63.4 9.5 No No
N. Bryan Ave
W. Santa Ana Ave to
W. Gettysburg Ave 53.9 63.4 9.5 No No
N. Bryan Ave
W. Gettysburg Ave to
W. Ashlan Ave 57.6 65.3 7.7 Yes Yes
N. Bryan Ave
W. Ashlan Ave to
W. Dakota Ave 55.1 No Data n/a n/a n/a
N. Bryan Ave
W. Dakota Ave to
W Shields Ave 52.5 62.9 10.3 No No
N. Bryan Ave
W Shields Ave to
W. Clinton Ave 48.2 61.4 13.2 No No
N. Hayes Ave
W. Shaw Ave to
W. Santa Ana Ave 57.1 66.4 9.3 Yes Yes
N. Hayes Ave
W. Santa Ana Ave to
W. Gettysburg Ave 57.0 66.2 9.3 Yes Yes
N. Hayes Ave
W. Gettysburg Ave to
W. Swift Ave 55.0 66.8 11.8 Yes Yes
N. Hayes Ave
W. Swift Ave to
W. Ashlan Ave 52.4 64.2 11.8 Yes No
N. Hayes Ave
W. Ashland Ave to
W. Dakota Ave 53.9 64.9 11.0 Yes No
N. Hayes Ave
W. Dakota Ave to
1,300 ft South of
W. Dakota Ave

53.4 63.3 9.9 Yes No
NOISE 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-27

ROADWAY SEGMENT
CNEL AT 100 FEET DBA2

EXISTING
EXISTING +
PROJECT +

CUMULATIVE
CHANGE

EXCEEDS

COMPATIBILITY

CRITERIA

POTENTIALLY

SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT4
N. Hayes Ave
1,300 ft South of
W. Dakota Ave
to W Shields Ave

56.0 65.9 9.9 Yes Yes
N. Hayes Ave
W Shields Ave to W.

Clinton Ave 52.3 62.5 10.3 Yes No
N. Polk Ave
North of W. Shaw Ave

60.1 61.8 1.7 Yes No
N. Polk Ave
W. Shaw Ave to
W. Acacia Ave 62.3 67.8 5.5 Yes Yes
N. Polk Ave
W. Acacia Ave to
W. Gettysburg Ave 62.4 67.9 5.5 Yes Yes
N. Polk Ave
W. Gettysburg Ave to
W. Ashlan Ave 58.3 66.5 8.1 Yes Yes
N. Polk Ave
W. Ashland Ave to W.

Griffith Way 59.0 66.5 7.5 Yes Yes
N. Polk Ave
W. Griffith Way to
W. Dakota Ave 61.1 68.7 7.5 Yes Yes
N. Polk Ave
W. Dakota Ave to
W Shields Ave 58.4 65.3 6.9 Yes Yes
N. Polk Ave
W Shields Ave to
W. Clinton Ave 57.2 64.9 7.7 No No
N. Cornelia Ave
N. Parkway Drive to W.

Gettysburg Ave 60.2 62.3 2.1 No No
N. Cornelia Ave
W. Gettysburg to
W. Ashlan Ave 60.2 66.1 5.9 Yes Yes
N. Cornelia Ave
W. Ashland Ave to
W. Bellaire Way 61.6 64.6 3.0 No No
N. Cornelia Ave
W. Bellaire Way to
W. Dakota Ave 61.6 64.6 3.0 No No
N. Cornelia Ave
W. Dakota Ave to
W Shields Ave 57.7 62.6 4.9 No No
N. Cornelia Ave
W Shields Ave to
W. Clinton Ave 60.1 64.4 4.3 No No
N. Blythe Ave
W. Ashlan Ave to
W. Dakota Ave 59.7 63.8 4.1 No No
N. Blythe Ave
W. Dakota Ave to
W Shields Ave 56.8 62.5 5.6 No No
N. Blythe Ave
W Shields Ave to
W. Clinton Ave 57.0 62.2 5.2 No No
N Brawley Ave
N. Parkway Drive to W.

Dakota Ave 58.3 63.3 5.0 No No
N Brawley Ave
W. Dakota Ave to
W. Dayton Ave 58.0 62.2 4.1 No No

3.11 NOISE

3.11-28 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
N Brawley Ave
W. Dayton Ave to
W. Cortland Ave 60.6 64.7 4.1 No No
N Brawley Ave
W. Cortland Ave to
W. Shields Ave 57.9 62.0 4.1 No No
N Brawley Ave
W Shields Ave to
W. Clinton Ave 57.6 62.1 4.5 No No
N. Valentine
Ave
N. Parkway Drive to
W Shields Ave 53.9 60.7 6.8 No No
N. Valentine
Ave
W Shields Ave to
W. Clinton Ave 52.9 60.4 7.5 No No
N. Marks Ave
W Princeton Ave to
W. Clinton Ave 59.2 61.5 2.3 No No
NOTE:
1 EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS CALCULATED AT 5 FEET ABOVE GROUND LEVEL. 2 NOISE LEVELS CALCULATED FROM CENTERLINE OF SUBJECT ROADWAY. 3 SEE TABLE 3.11-4.
4 SIGNIFICANT IF RESULTS IN A 3 DB INCREASE IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS AND EXCEEDS STANDARD IN TABLE 3.11-4.

SOURCE: MD ACOUSTICS, SEPTEMBER 2020.

As shown in Table 3.11-10, existing plus project plus cumulative traffic conditions will result in significant increases in ambient noise levels along the following road segments:
• Traffic noise levels along W. Shaw Avenue are expected to range between 68.1 and 73.3 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 6.9 and 8.3 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along W. Ashlan Avenue between N. Grantland Avenue and N. Blythe Avenue are expected to range between 67.5 and 70.4 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 5.6 and 13.4 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along W. Shields Avenue between N. Polk Avenue and N. Cornelia Avenue are expected to reach up to 66 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in an increase in ambient noise level of 7.6 dBA CNEL. • Traffic noise levels along W. Clinton Avenue between N. Polk Avenue and N. Blythe Avenue and between N. Valentine Avenue and N. Marks Avenue are expected to range between

66.9 and 69.7 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases in ambient noise levels ranging between 5.5 and 8.0 dBA CNEL • Traffic noise levels along N. Grantland Avenue between W. Gettysburg Avenue and W.

Dakota Avenue and between W. Shields Avenue and W. Clinton Avenue are expected to range between 67.7 and 71.0 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases in ambient noise levels between 10.5 and 11.5 dBA CNEL.

NOISE 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-29 • Traffic noise levels along N. Bryan Avenue between W. Gettysburg Avenue and W. Ashlan Avenue are expected to reach up to 65.3 dBA CNEL, resulting in an increase of 7.7 dBA CNEL in ambient noise levels.
• Traffic noise levels along N. Hayes Avenue between W. Shaw Avenue and W. Swift Avenue and between W. Dakota Avenue and W. Shields Avenue are expected to range between

65.9 and 66.8 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases in ambient noise levels ranging between 9.3 and 11.8 dBA CNEL. • Traffic noise levels along N. Polk Avenue between W. Shaw Avenue and W. Shields Avenue are expected to range between 65.3 and 68.7 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases in ambient noise levels between 5.5 and 8.1 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along N. Cornelia Avenue between W. Gettysburg Avenue and W.

Ashlan Avenue are expected to reach up to 66.1 dBA CNEL, resulting in an increase of 5.9 dBA CNEL in ambient noise levels.

Based upon Policy NS-1j of the City’s General Plan, which is used as a threshold of significance for the City's environmental review process, 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 above the ambient noise limits established in the General Plan Update (or in this case, the modeled increase in traffic noise levels due to the project). Future traffic noise is anticipated to result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels on existing sensitive receptors, ranging in increases between 5.5 dBA to 13.4 dBA at the roadway segments listed above. Therefore, this is a potentially significant impact.

RAIL NOISE IMPACTS
Noise associated with the existing UPRR line is expected to remain the same or end altogether. The California High-Speed Train Project, which is currently under construction east of SR 99 will introduce more noise into the eastern portion of the Plan Area. According to the Noise and Vibration Technical Report prepared for the Merced to Fresno Section of the High Speed Train (CAHST, FRA 2012), trains in the Fresno area are expected to result in noise levels between 65 to 76 dB Ldn at nearby receptors. All of the receptors which would be moderately or severely impacted by the HighSpeed Train are located outside of the Plan Area to the east. High-Speed Train noise is not expected to result in significant noise impacts within the Plan Area. As such, this impact would be less than significant.

AGRICULTURAL NOISE IMPACTS
The Plan Area is currently exposed to agricultural noise including field and crop maintenance, hauling, and crop dusting from small aircraft. The noise from these sources mostly occurs within the confines of the agricultural fields, and is seasonal. A characteristic of agricultural noise is short periods of noisy activities separated by long periods of little or no noise-producing activities. The FAA regulates noise associated with aircraft once they leave the ground. FAA regulations require

3.11 NOISE

3.11-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan that all aircraft maintain a height of at least 500 feet above ground or objects on the ground, like a house. A crop duster can go below this height only to operate to apply chemicals and for no other reason.

Future development of the Plan Area may result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to agricultural noise. However, noise associated with crop cultivation is specifically exempt from compliance with the noise regulations presented in Section 15-2506 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code. As such, this impact would be less than significant.

CONCLUSION
As described above, 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. With respect to future sensitive receptors, noise levels in the Plan Area are expected to exceed 65 dBA CNEL in most areas where shielding from traffic noise is not provided. Additionally, future traffic noise is anticipated to result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels on existing sensitive receptors. Of the 115 roadway segments analyzed in Table 3.11-10, 30 segments would experience substantial noise increases greater than 3 dBA attributable to buildout of the proposed Specific Plan, with noise levels that exceed 65 dB CNEL.

For these reasons, future development projects within the Plan Area would be required to implement mitigation measures that are specifically intended to ensure compliance with the City of Fresno noise standards and minimize the impact associated with the substantial increase in ambient noise levels. 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 exposed to significant exterior community noise levels from transportation, which may include noise walls and/or berms, or setbacks.

Walls/Berms: As shown in the diagram below, when a noise barrier is inserted between a noise source and receiver, the direct noise path along the line of sight between the two is interrupted.

Some of the acoustical energy will be transmitted through the barrier material and continue to the source, although at a reduced level. The amount of this reduction depends on the material’s mass and rigidity, and is called the transmission loss (TL), which is expressed in decibels. To be effective, noise barriers need to be solid, without holes and cracks. Concrete walls and earthen berms tend to provide the most noise attenuation, but other materials can be used. The exact amount of reduction provided by a barrier will range depending on the material, location and height of the barrier but barriers can be used to mitigate significant noise impacts to sensitive receptors in outdoor activity areas. Because the Plan Area is flat, noise walls and/or berms would be highly effective.

NOISE 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-31 SOURCE: CALTRANS 2013A
Setbacks: Traffic noise is not a single, stationary point source. The movement of vehicles makes the noise source of the sound appear to be emanate from a line rather than from a point when viewed over a time interval. Noise levels associated with vehicle traffic are reduced by 3 dB for every doubling of distance from the receiver. For this reason, increasing the distance between the noise source and the receiver can be used to avoid significant impacts related to traffic noise at sensitive receptors within the Plan Area.

Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 would reduce traffic noise levels to a less-than-significant level.

Therefore, with implementation of mitigation, buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts relative to this topic.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.11-1: Future project proponent(s) for development projects in the Plan Area which involve residential or other noise sensitive uses shall implement performance standards for noise reduction for new residential and noise sensitive uses exposed to exterior community noise levels from transportation sources above 65 dB Ldn or CNEL, as shown on Exhibit G: Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Noise Contours of the West Area Specific Plan Noise Impact Study prepared by MD Acoustics (dated September 30, 2020), or as identified by a project-specific acoustical analysis based on the target acceptable noise levels set in Table 9-2 of the Fresno General Plan Noise Element (Table 3.11-5 of this EIR).

If future exterior noise levels are expected to exceed the applicable standards presented in Table 9-2 of the Fresno General Plan Noise Element (Table 3.11-5 of this EIR), the mitigation measure presented below shall be implemented, as applicable. A qualified Acoustical Consultant shall provide information demonstrating that site specific mitigation will be effective at reaching the applicable noise standard.
• Install noise walls, berms and/or a combination of a landscaped berm with wall, and reduced barrier height in combination with increased distance or elevation differences

3.11 NOISE

3.11-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan between noise source and noise receptor. The City of Fresno has established a maximum allowable height for noise walls of 15 feet. As such, the noise walls, berms and/or a combination of a landscaped berm with wall shall not exceed 15 feet.

The aforementioned measure is not exhaustive and alternative designs may be approved by the City, provided that a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative design(s) will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces.

Impact 3.11-2: Specific Plan implementation would not substantially increase noise levels associated with construction and demolition activities. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled data regarding the noise generated characteristics of typical construction activities. The data is presented in Table 3.11-11. These noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 86 dBA measured 50 feet from the noise source would reduce to 80 dBA at 100 feet. At 200 feet from the noise source, the noise level would reduce to 74 dBA. At 400 feet from the noise source, the noise level would reduce by another 6 dBA to 68 dBA.

Contractors are required to comply with the City of Fresno’s Noise Ordinance during construction, as described in Section 10‐109.

TABLE 3.11-11: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
TYPE1 NOISE LEVELS (DBA) AT 50 FEET

EQUIPMENT POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

EARTH MOVING
Compactors (rollers) 73 – 76
Front Loaders 73 – 84
Backhoes 73 – 92
Tractors 75 – 95
Scrapers, Graders 78 – 92
Pavers 85 – 87
Trucks 81 – 94

MATERIALS HANDLING
Concrete Mixers 72 – 87
Concrete Pumps 81 – 83
Cranes (Moveable) 72 – 86
Cranes (Derrick) 85 – 87

STATIONARY
Pumps 68 – 71
Generators 71 – 83
Compressors 75 – 86

IMPACT EQUIPMENT
Saws 71 – 82
Vibrators 68 – 82
SOURCE: REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NOISE 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-33

CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC
Future development projects in the Plan Area would result in short-term noise impacts associated with construction activities. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project. First, construction crew commute and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site for the proposed project would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. Truck traffic associated with project construction should be limited to within the permitted construction hours, as listed in the City’s Municipal Code.

Although there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential at a maximum of 87 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from passing trucks, causing possible short-term intermittent annoyances, the effect on ambient noise levels would be less than 1 dBA when averaged over one hour or 24 hours.

In other words, the changes in noise levels over 1 hour or 24 hours attributable to passing trucks would not be perceptible to the normal human ear. Therefore, short-term construction-related impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport on local streets leading to the project site would result in a less than significant impact on noise-sensitive receptors along the access routes.

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
The site preparation phase, which includes grading and paving, tends to generate the highest noise levels, since the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backhoes, bulldozers, and front loaders.

Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.

Future development projects in the Plan Area are expected to require the use of scrapers, bulldozers, motor grader, and water and pickup trucks. Noise associated with the use of construction equipment is estimated to reach between 79 and 89 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the active construction area for the grading phase. The maximum noise level generated by each scraper is assumed to be approximately 87 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from the scraper in operation. Each bulldozer would also generate approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The maximum noise level generated by the sound sources with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. The worst-case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 91 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from an active construction area. Noise reduction potential will be project and site specific.

Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels will be loudest during grading phase. A likely worst-case construction noise scenario during grading assumes the use of a grader, a dozer, and two (2) excavators, two (2) backhoes and a scrapper operating at 50 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor.

Assuming a usage factor of 40 percent for each piece of equipment, unmitigated noise levels at 50 feet have the potential to reach 90 dBA Leq and 92 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptors during

3.11 NOISE

3.11-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan grading. Noise levels for the other construction phases would be lower and range between 85 to 90 dBA. For this reason, the West Area Specific Plan Noise Impact Study identifies a number of measures to minimize construction noise impacts associated with the buildout of the Specific Plan, which have been incorporated as mitigation measures. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would ensure that the nearby sensitive receptors to the Plan Area would not be subject to construction noise levels in excess of the City’s standards, resulting in a less than significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.11-2: Construction within the Plan Area must follow the City’s Municipal Noise Code Section 10‐109 which exempts 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.

Mitigation Measure 3.11-3: The project proponent(s) and/or construction contractor(s) shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department, that buildout of the Specific Plan complies with the following:
• Truck traffic associated with project construction shall be limited to within the permitted construction hours, as listed in the City’s Municipal Code above. • Stationary construction noise sources such as generators or pumps shall be located at least 300 feet from sensitive land uses, as feasible.
• Construction staging areas shall be located as far from noise sensitive land uses as feasible. • During construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise attenuating devices. The use of manufacturer certified mufflers would generally reduce the construction equipment noise by 8 to 10 dBA. • Idling equipment shall be turned off when not in use. • Equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging.

Impact 3.11-3: Specific Plan implementation would not substantially increase noise vibration association with construction activities. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The effects of vibration on structures have been the subject of extensive research. The Federal Transit Administration has compiled data regarding the vibration levels for various construction equipment and activities and is detailed in Table 3.11-12.

The Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual for the California Department of Transportation has various recommended vibration thresholds for various types of projects and land uses. According to the Konan Vibration Criteria for Historic and Sensitive Buildings, the criteria for transient vibration sources should not exceed 0.3 peak particle velocity (PPV) (Section 6 – Structures, Table 11). In addition, 0.035 inches per second PPV is barely perceptive.

NOISE 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-35 TABLE 3.11-12: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

TYPE OF EQUIPMENT
PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY @ 25 FEET
(INCHES/SECOND)

APPROXIMATE VIBRATION LEVEL
LV (VDB) @ 25 FEET
Pile Drive (impact)

1.518 (upper range) 112

0.644 (typical) 104
Pile driver (sonic)

0.734 (upper range) 105

0.170 (typical) 93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson Drill 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
SOURCE: FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, TRANSIT NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES, MAY 2006 Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent land uses. Typical development projects in the Plan Area would not likely require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. For example, the primary vibration source during most future construction may be from a bulldozer. A large bulldozer has a vibration impact of 0.089 inches per second PPV at 25 feet, which is perceptible but below any risk to architectural damage. As shown in Table 3.11-9, a PPV of 0.20 is the threshold at which there is a risk to “architectural” damage to normal dwellings. It also the level at which ground-borne vibration are annoying to people in buildings. Impacts would be significant if construction activities result in ground-borne vibration of 0.20 inches per second PPV or higher at sensitive receptors.

For buildout of the proposed Specific Plan, the distance of the construction equipment would likely be at least 10 feet or more from any existing structure. At a distance of 10 feet, a large bulldozer would yield a worst-case 0.244 inches per second PPV which may be perceptible for short periods of time during site preparation of the southeastern corner of the project site, but no damage is expected. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-4 would further reduce construction related groundborne vibration. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.11-4: For future projects which would require the use of highly vibratory equipment in the Plan Area, an additional site- and project-specific analysis shall be conducted by a noise and vibration specialist prior to project approval. The analysis shall evaluate potential groundborne vibration impacts to existing structures and sensitive receptors, and shall also recommend additional mitigation measures, as necessary. The recommendations of the site- and project-specific analysis shall be implemented by the project proponent(s), to the satisfaction of the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department.

3.11 NOISE

3.11-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Impact 3.11-4: Specific Plan implementation would not substantially increase stationary noise at sensitive receptors. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The Specific Plan 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 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. Typical stationary noise sources and associated noise levels as measured ten-feet from the source are presented in Table 3.11-13.

TABLE 3.11-13: TYPICAL STATIONARY NOISE LEVELS
TYPE NOISE LEVELS (DBA) AT 10 FEET1
Parking Lot Noise 50 – 75
HVAC 55 – 100
Property Maintenance 75 – 95
Trash Truck 85 – 90
Loading/Unloading 65 – 82
Recreational Noise 50 – 90
Amplified Music 85 – 105
Car Wash 85 – 105
Event Venue 65 – 75
Idling Heavy Traffic 72
NOTE:

1. THE NOISE RANGES PRESENTED ARE INTENDED TO GIVE A GENERAL IDEA OF TYPICAL URBAN/SUBURBAN STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES. DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF PATRONS AND THE SPECIFIC ACTIVITY, I.E. OUTDOOR WINERY CONCERT VS. A ROCK BAND, NOISE LEVELS WILL VARY.

SOURCE: MD ACOUSTICS, 2020.

Due to the suburban/rural nature of the Plan Area, future development of the Plan Area 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. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.11-5: In order to reduce the potential for stationary noise impacts, development projects in the Plan Area shall implement the following measures:
• Avoid the placement of new noise producing uses in proximity to noise-sensitive land uses; NOISE 3.11
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.11-37 • Apply noise level performance standards provided in Table 9-2 of the City of Fresno General Plan Noise Element (Table 3.11-5 of this EIR) to proposed new noise producing uses; and • Require new noise-sensitive uses in near proximity to noise-producing facilities include mitigation measures that would ensure compliance with noise performance standards in Table 9-2 of the City of Fresno General Plan Noise Element (Table 3.11-5 of this EIR).

Impact 3.11-5: Specific Plan implementation would not substantially increase ambient interior noise at future sensitive receptors. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Based on the data provided in the EPA’s Protective Noise Levels (EPA 550/9-79-100, Nov 1979), standard homes in California provide at least 12 dBA of noise exterior to interior noise attenuation with windows open and 20 dBA with windows closed. Therefore, residences would need to be exposed to exterior noise levels exceeding 65 dBA CNEL (45 dBA + 20 dBA = 65 dBA) to potentially exceed the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL with windows closed. A windows closed condition is defined as: the interior noise level with the windows closed. Upgrades are required for residential structures that would experience interior noise levels exceeding the 45 dBA CNEL noise standard when windows are closed (e.g. higher grade of insulation in outdoor walls, and/or double-paned windows and air condition units).

As discussed in Impact 3.11-1, the existing and future traffic noise levels anticipated from implementation of proposed Specific Plan would result in exterior noise levels exceeding 65 dBA, which could result in the interior noise levels at future land uses exceeding the City’s interior noise level standards of 45dBA, as presented in 3.11-5. To reduce the interior noise impacts, site-specific noise analyses will be required for future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.11-6. The site-specific noise analyses will be required to finetune and finalize noise reduction features and must demonstrate the interior noise level will not exceed the City’s 45 dBA CNEL noise limit. Potential noise reduction features may include a “windows closed” condition and possibly upgraded windows with increased STC ratings for doors and windows.

Implementation of 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. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.11-6: Prior to approval, site- and project-specific noise analyses development projects under the proposed Specific Plan shall be completed and submitted to the City in order to fine-tune and finalize noise reduction features. The site-specific noise analyses must demonstrate the interior noise level will not exceed the City’s 45 dBA CNEL noise limit.

A qualified Acoustical Consultant shall provide information demonstrating that site specific mitigation will be effective at reaching the applicable noise standard, which includes:

3.11 NOISE

3.11-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Install noise walls, berms and/or 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. The City of Fresno has established a maximum allowable height for noise walls of 15 feet. As such, the noise walls, berms and/or a combination of a landscaped berm with wall shall not exceed 15 feet.
• Utilize façades with substantial weight and insulation. • Install sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas. • Install sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas. • Install acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic and gable ends. • Install mechanical ventilation systems that provide fresh air under closed window conditions.

The aforementioned measures are not exhaustive and alternative designs may be approved by the City, provided that a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative design(s) will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces.

Impact 3.11-6: Specific Plan implementation would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport or aircraft noise. (Less than Significant)
There are no airports located within the Plan Area and noise contours associated with airports in the vicinity of the Plan Area are not expected to encroach into the Plan Area (City of Fresno 2014).

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. The Plan Area will however, continue to be affected by fly-over noise associated with the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, the Fresno‐Chandler Downtown airport, and the Sierra Sky Park Airport.

However, airport noise and aircraft noise are not expected to result in significant impacts in the Plan Area. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

Figure 3.11-1
Noise Measurement Location Map
Existing Noise Environment
37 1 = Short Term measurement (10-Minute)
1 = Long Term measurement (24-Hour)
4 6
7 8 9
10 11
2 3
= West Area Specific Plan Boundary
West Area Specific Plan
Noise Impact Study
City of Fresno, CA
12 1
2 3
5 1
4 3.11 NOISE

3.11-40 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
41 Existing Noise Environment
West Area Specific Plan
Noise Impact Study
City of Fresno, CA
Figure 3.11-2
Existing Roadway Noise Level Contours (CNEL)

3.11 NOISE

3.11-42 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
42 Figure 3.11-3
Union Pacific Railroad Noise Level Contours (CNEL)
West Area Specific Plan
Noise Impact Study
City of Fresno, CA Existing Noise Environment

3.11 NOISE

3.11-44 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
46 West Area Specific Plan
Noise Impact Study
City of Fresno, CA Future Noise Environment Impacts and Mitigation Figure 3.11-4
Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Roadway Noise Level Contours (CNEL)

3.11 NOISE

3.11-46 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.12-1 The purpose of this EIR section is to analyze and disclose the anticipated growth in population that would result from plan implementation, analyze the plan’s consistency with relevant planning documents and policies related to population and housing, and recommend mitigation measures to avoid or minimize the significance of potential impacts. Information in this section is based on information provided by the City of Fresno, site survey, ground and aerial photographs, and the following reference materials:
• 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);
• City of Fresno Housing Element (City of Fresno, 2017); • City of Fresno, Chapter 15, Citywide Development Code (City of Fresno, Adopted December 2015);
• US Census data (U.S. Census data, 2019);
• California Department of Finance Population and Housing Estimates (E-5 Reports) (California Department of Finance, 2019).

Comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the following: Cathy Caples (August 1, 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.

3.12.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

DEMOGRAPHICS

POPULATION TRENDS
U.S. Census data indicates that the City of Fresno experienced moderate population growth from 1990 to 2000, increasing from 354,091 to 427,719 persons at an annual average increase of 2.1 percent as shown in Table 3.12-1. During the decade from 2000 to 2010, the rate of growth continued at an annual average increase of 1.6 percent, reaching a total population of 494,665 in 2010. The city’s population has increased during this decade to a population of 542,012in 2019.

TABLE 3.12-1: POPULATION GROWTH – FRESNO

YEAR POPULATION ANNUAL AVERAGE CHANGE
1990 354,091 --
2000 427,719 2.1%
2010 494,665 1.6%
2015 522,369 1.1%
2017 531,440 0.9%
2018 536,593 1.0%
2019 542,012 1.0%

3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING

3.12-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan SOURCE: STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, E-4 POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR CITIES, COUNTIES, AND THE STATE, 2001-2010, WITH 2000 & 2010 CENSUS COUNTS AND E-5 POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR CITIES, COUNTIES, AND THE STATE, 2011-2020, WITH 2010 CENSUS BENCHMARK.

HOUSING STOCK
Table 3.12-2 summarizes the growth of the City of Fresno’s housing stock from the years 2000 to 2019, based on information from the US Census and California Department of Finance. The number of housing units has increased from 171,288 in 2010 to 180,632 in 2019, an average annual increase of 0.6 percent.

TABLE 3.12 -2: HOUSING UNIT GROWTH – FRESNO

YEAR HOUSING UNITS ANNUAL AVERAGE CHANGE
2000 149,053 --
2010 171,288 1.5%
2015 176,915 0.7%
2017 178,819 0.5%
2019 180,632 0.5%
SOURCE: STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, E-8 HOUSING ESTIMATES FOR CITIES, COUNTIES, AND THE STATE, 2000-2010 AND E-5 HOUSING ESTIMATES FOR CITIES, COUNTIES, AND THE STATE, 2011-2020, WITH 2010 CENSUS BENCHMARK.

PERSONS PER DWELLING UNIT
The average number of persons residing in a dwelling unit in Fresno is 2.97 (California Department of Finance, 2019).

JOBS:HOUSING BALANCE
As described in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, implementation of the City of Fresno General Plan Update is realistically expected to result in the construction of 76,000 new residential dwellings by the 2035 planning horizon to arrive at a total of 267,000 housing units and a population of 771,000. The City’s General Plan population projection assumes total buildout of all available residential lands in the city will not be reached by the year 2035, in which case substantial population and housing growth will continue. According the City’s General Plan, at the Horizon Year 2035, the General Plan can accommodate 0.48 jobs per new resident, approximately equivalent to the current percentage of the city’s population in the labor force (46 percent according the 2010 U.S. Census).

At General Plan horizon, the SOI could accommodate approximately a total of 108,000 new jobs above current levels, based on 0.48 jobs per 226,000 new residents anticipated by 2035. At General Plan Buildout, well after 2035, it is estimated that there would be 0.45 jobs per new resident, roughly equivalent to the current percentage of the city’s population in the labor force (46 percent according to the 2010 US Census). At General Plan buildout, the SOI could accommodate approximately a total of 189,500 new jobs above current levels based on 0.45 jobs per 425,000 new residents anticipated.

GROWTH PROJECTIONS
As described in the Fresno General Plan, the city’s growth is realistically expected to result in the construction of 76,000 new residential dwellings by the 2035 planning horizon to arrive at a total of POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.12-3 267,000 housing units and a population of 771,000. The City’s General Plan residential development projection anticipates that the city will continue to develop beyond the General Plan Horizon. The city will grow into the remaining portions of the SOI that were not developed during the horizon of the General Plan. Full Buildout of this SOI is anticipated to occur well after 2035.

3.12.2 REGULATORY SETTING

STATE REGULATIONS
Senate Bill 330 “The Housing Crisis Act of 2019” is a statewide bill intended to reduce the time it takes to approve housing developments in California. SB 330 would declare a statewide housing emergency to be in effect until January 1, 2030. During that period, cities and counties found to have high rents and low rental vacancy rates would:
• Be prohibited from reducing housing densities, increasing development fees, or taking a range of other actions affecting housing development (both for-sale and rental); • Have any such actions taken since January 1, 2018 declared null and void; • Be prohibited from imposing fees on new units that are deed restricted for families earning less than 80% of the area median income;
• Be prohibited from enforcing requirements that new developments include parking; • Be required to process housing development applications under the general plan and zoning ordinance in effect at the time the application is deemed complete.

Other provisions of SB 330 would apply to all jurisdictions not only those with high rents and low vacancy rates. These include requiring cities and counties to process housing development applications under the general plan and zoning ordinance in effect at the time the application is deemed complete, a ban on holding more than three de novo public hearings on a project, and a requirement that cities and counties post all development standards online. The bill would also call for the State Department of Housing and Community Development to update building standards for “occupied substandard buildings.”

FRESNO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
The Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) is an association of local governments from cities within Fresno County. The member agencies include City of Clovis, City of Coalinga, City of Firebaugh, City of Fowler, City of Fresno, City of Huron, City of Kerman, City of Kingsburg, City of Mendota, City of Orange Cove, City of Parlier, City of Reedley and City of San Joaquin, City of Sanger, City of Selma, and County of Fresno. FCOG is responsible for the preparation of, and updates to, the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) for the region. The RTP/SCS provides a 25-year transportation vision and strategies for air emissions reduction. The 2018 MTP/SCS was adopted by the FCOG board in July 2017.

3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING

3.12-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The 2018 RTP is a long-range plan for transportation improvements in the region. The RTP identifies existing and future transportation related needs, while considering all modes of travel, analyzing alternative solutions, and identifying anticipated available funding for the over 3,000 projects and multiple programs. The plan is based on projections for growth in population, housing, and jobs.

FCOG determines the regional growth projections by evaluating baseline data (existing housing units and employees, jobs/housing ratio, and percent of regional growth share for housing units and employees), historic reference data (based upon five- and ten-year residential building permit averages and historic county-level employment statistics), capacity data (General Plan data for each jurisdiction), and current RTP data about assumptions used in the most recent RTP/SCS. FCOG staff then meets with each jurisdiction to discuss and incorporate more subjective considerations about planned growth for each area. Finally, FCOG makes a regional growth forecast for new homes and new jobs, based upon an economic analysis provided by a recognized expert in order to estimate regional growth potential based on market analysis and related economic data. This growth forecast is then incorporated into the RTP/SCS.

Regional Housing Needs Plan
California General Plan law requires each city and county to have land zoned to accommodate a fair share of the regional housing need. The share is known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). FCOG is the lead agency for developing the RHNA that includes Fresno County and the City of Fresno. The latest housing allocation for the City of Fresno covers the nearly eight-year period from 2013 through 2023 and consists of 23,565 units (2,833 extremely low, 2,833 very low, 3,289 low, 3,571 moderate, and 11,039 above moderate income). The City is not required to make development occur; however, the City must facilitate housing production by ensuring that land is available and that unnecessary development constraints have been removed. The City prepared and adopted an updated Housing Element to cover the 2013-2023 regional housing needs cycle (adoption date: April, 2017).

If a jurisdiction failed to make adequate sites available to accommodate the RHNA in the previous planning period, AB 1233 (Government Code Section 65584.09) requires the jurisdiction to identify and, if necessary, rezone sites in the first year of the current planning period to address the unaccommodated lower-income RHNA from the previous planning period. This requirement is in addition to the requirement to identify other specific sites to accommodate the RHNA for the current planning period. The City may not count capacity on the same sites for both planning periods. The City of Fresno must carry over 3,172 extremely- and very low-income units and 3,304 low-income units, for a total of 6,476 lower-income units from the 2008-2014 RHNA, as indicated by HCD in a letter to the City dated August 11, 2016 (corrected November 1, 2016).

FRESNO GENERAL PLAN
The Fresno General Plan articulates the community's vision of its long-term physical form and development. The Fresno General Plan is comprehensive in scope and represents the city's POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.12-5 expression of quality of life and community values. General plans are prepared under a mandate from the State of California, which requires that each city and county prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its jurisdiction and any adjacent related lands. State law requires general plans to address seven mandated components: circulation, conservation, housing, land use, noise, open space, and safety. Fresno General Plan population, housing, and growth policies relevant to this EIR are identified below.

Urban Form, Land Use, and DesignElement
Objective UF-1. Emphasize the opportunity for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, and housing types.

Policy Uf-1-a: Diverse Neighborhoods. Support development projects that provide Fresno with a diversity of urban and suburban neighborhood opportunities.

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 transit-oriented, mixeduse corridors 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-d: Range of Housing Types. Provide for diversity and variation of building types, densities, and scales of development in order to reinforce the identity of individual neighborhoods, foster a variety of market-based options for living and working to suit a large range of income levels, and further affordable housing opportunities throughout the city.

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.

Support unique areas through more specific planning processes that directly engage community members in creative and innovative design efforts.

Policy UF-1-f: Complete Neighborhoods, Densities, and Development Standards. Use Complete Neighborhood design concepts and development standards to achieve the development of Complete Neighborhoods and the residential density targets of the General Plan.

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.

3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING

3.12-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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-c: Local-Serving Neighborhood Centers. Design Neighborhood Centers for local services and amenities that build upon the character and identity of surrounding neighborhoods and communities.

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 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. Access to Activity Centers. Promote adoption 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. Mixed-Use in Activity Centers. Adopt a new Development Code which includes use regulations and standards to allow for mixed-uses and shared parking facilities.

Policy UF-12-g: Impacts on Surrounding Uses. Impacts on Surrounding Uses. Establish design standards and buffering requirements for high-intensity Activity Centers to protect surrounding residential uses from increased impacts from traffic noise and vehicle emissions, visual intrusion, interruption of view and air movement, and encroachment upon solar access.

Policy UF-12-h: Parking Standards for Shared Parking. Parking Standards for Shared Parking.

Explore opportunities to provide shared parking within mixed-use designations to reduce the need to construct large parking lots or structures needed for peak use times only.

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.

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 POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.12-7 Corridors designated by the General Plan to include urban design principles and standards consistent with the Urban Form, Land Use and Design Element.

Land Use Element
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.

Policy LU-2-a: Infill Development and Redevelopment. Promote development of vacant, underdeveloped, and re-developable land within the City Limits where urban services are available by considering the establishment and implementation of supportive regulations and programs.

Policy LU-2-b: Infill Development for Affordable Housing. Establish 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-2-c: Infill Design Toolkit. Incorporate standards in the Development Code to preserve the existing residential quality of established neighborhoods.

Objective LU-4. Enhance existing residential neighborhoods through regulations, code enforcement, and compatible infill development.

Policy LU-4-a: Neighborhood Nuisance Abatement. Continue proactive and responsive code enforcement and nuisance abatement programs to improve the attractiveness of residential neighborhoods.

Policy LU-2-b: Neighborhood Reinvestment. Promote and consider partnerships with lending institutions that provide a variety of financing alternatives and adhere to the provisions of the federal Community Reinvestment Act.

Policy LU-2-c: Housing Task Force. Establish an interagency housing task force to coordinate the housing programs of the City with similar programs of other local jurisdictions and the Fresno Housing Authority to develop a coordinated affordable housing implementation plan.

Objective LU-5. Plan for a diverse housing stock that will support balanced urban growth, and make efficient use of resources and public facilities.

Policy LU-5-a: Low Density Residential Uses. Promote low density residential uses only where there are established neighborhoods with semi-rural or estate characteristics.

Policy LU-5-b: Medium-Low Density Residential Uses. Promote medium-low density residential uses to preserve existing uses of that nature or provide a transition between low and medium density residential areas.

3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING

3.12-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy LU-5-c: Medium Density Residential Uses. Promote medium density residential uses to maximize efficient use of residential property through a wide range of densities.

Policy LU-5-d: Medium-High Density Residential Uses. Promote medium-high density residential uses to optimize use of available or planned public facilities and services and to provide housing opportunities with convenient access to employment, shopping, services, and transportation.

Policy LU-5-e: Urban Neighborhood Residential Uses. Promote urban neighborhood residential uses to support compact communities and Complete Neighborhoods that include community facilities, walkable access to parkland and commercial services, and transit stops.

Policy LU-5-f: High Density Residential Uses. Promote high-density residential uses to support Activity Centers and BRT Corridors, and walkable access to transit stops.

Policy 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 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.

Policy LU-5-h: Housing Offering Amenities. Support housing that offers residents a range of amenities, including public and private open space, landscaping, and recreation facilities with direct access to commercial services, public transit, and community gathering spaces.

Policy LU-5-i: Housing for Seniors. Facilitate the development of senior housing projects that are accessible to public transportation and services.

Policy LU-5-j: Campus-Centered Communities. Encourage development of campus-centered communities by focusing growth around existing and planned academic facilities and by directing infrastructure to those areas.

Housing Element
Goal 2. New construction of Affordable Housing.

Policy 2-1: New Construction. The General Plan is not inconsistent with this program. As discussed above in the narrative, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) identified a need for approximately 20,967 units for the 2008-2013 planning period. The number of potential dwelling units allowable in the land use designations proposed by the General Plan, and by zoning in the updated Development Code meet and exceed this amount. Details can be found throughout the General Plan, including increased density and development intensity (such as Table 3-1 and Table 3-2) and infill/growth area construction (Objectives UF-1, UF-12, UF-13, LU-2, LU-4, and LU-5 and supporting Policies).

POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.12-9 Goal 3. Housing Rehabilitation, Acquisition and Neighborhood Improvements.

Policy 3-1: Neighborhood Revitalization. Although the RDA has been dissolved, this General Plan recognizes and supports the function of the RDA as is now administered by the City of Fresno in its capacity of the Housing Successor to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Fresno, and the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Fresno. See Goal 7, 8, and 9; also Objective LU-5.

Goal 4. Housing Rehabilitation, Acquisition and Neighborhood Improvements.

3.12.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Based on the standards established by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Specific Plan will have a significant impact on population and housing if it will:
• Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure);
• Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.12-1: Implementation of the Specific Plan would not induce unplanned substantial population growth. (Less than Significant) The proposed Specific Plan would be expected to increase the population of the city of Fresno through the future development of a mixed-use, commercial and residential development.

However, the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan seeks to provide for the orderly and consistent development that promotes enhanced transportation infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation of additional parkland, and development of a diverse housing stock.

The Plan Area does not currently have commercial amenities, forcing residents to travel east of State Route 99 for retail services. The Plan Area also lacks a complete roadway network and parkland.

The Specific Plan would allow for the future development of up to 54,953 dwelling units (DU) (including 67 DU in the commercial category, 47,072 DU in the residential category and 7,814 DU in the mixed use category), and 60,621,006.31 square feet (SF) of non-residential uses. The proposed land use plan also designates public facility uses that are currently existing within the Plan Area.

There are also planned public facilities, including schools, ponding basins, and churches, which will be developed within the proposed Plan. In the northern portion of the Plan Area, Fire Station No. 18 is temporarily located off of West Bullard Avenue at 5938 North La Ventana Avenue. Fire Station 18 will be permanently relocated to a location on the south side of the 6000 block of West Shaw Avenue to maximize the department’s response time goal. Additionally, the proposed land use plan would

3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING

3.12-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan allow for approximately 248 acres of park, open space, and ponding basin uses. The Specific Plan also includes circulation and utility improvements, some of which are planned in the City’s current program for capital improvements.

Based on the City’s General Plan Housing Element estimate of approximately 2.97 persons per dwelling unit, the proposed Specific Plan is estimated to accommodate 163,211 total residents in the City of Fresno at buildout. Population growth by itself is not considered a significant environmental impact. However, development of housing, infrastructure, and facilities and services to serve this growth can have significant environmental impacts through land conversion, commitment of resources, and other mechanisms.

The proposed Specific Plan would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (i.e., by proposed new unplanned homes) or indirectly (i.e., by the extension of roads or other infrastructure). As part of the proposed Specific Plan, 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 proposed land use plan utilizes the City’s existing General Plan land use designations to maintain or re-designate some parcels in the Plan Area. Some of the designation changes include: Low Density Residential (1 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre [DU/AC]), Medium Low Density Residential (3.5 to 6 DU/AC), Medium Density Residential (5 to 12 DU/AC), Medium High Density Residential (12 to 16 DU/AC), Urban Neighborhood Residential (16 to 30 DU/AC), High Density Residential (30 to 45 DU/AC), Community Commercial (1.0 maximum floor-area-ratio [FAR]), Recreation Commercial (0.5 maximum FAR), General Commercial (2.0 maximum FAR), Regional Commercial (16 DU/AC and 1.0 maximum FAR), Office (2.0 maximum FAR), Business Park (1.0 maximum FAR), Light Industrial (1.0 maximum FAR), Corridor/Center Mixed Use (16 to 30 DU/AC and 1.5 maximum FAR), Neighborhood Mixed Use (12 to 16 DU/AC and 1.5 maximum FAR), Regional Mixed Use (30 to 45 DU/AC and 2.0 maximum FAR), 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. The City of Fresno Zoning Map designates the Plan Area as: RE, RS-1, RS2, 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. 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.

If the Plan Area were developed based on the land use designations in the General Plan, there would be an increase of 288.66 acres of residential uses and a decrease of 153.53 acres of mixed uses (see Table 2.0-1 of Chapter 2.0 for the existing General Plan land use acreages for the Plan Area). Given POPULATION AND HOUSING 3.12
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.12-11 the wide density ranges specified in the General Plan for residential and mixed use development, the proposed land use designations for this Specific Plan do not vary substantially from the existing General Plan Land use designations. Therefore, the Specific Plan does not directly induce substantial unplanned population growth. This is considered a less than significant impact in this regard.

The Specific Plan also does not induce substantial unplanned growth indirectly (through the extension of roads or other infrastructure). Roads and infrastructure would be developed throughout the Plan Area to provide internal circulation and utilities to the proposed development and would not extend outside the Plan boundaries. Furthermore, proposed growth and annexation of the city’s SOI has been accounted for within the City’s General Plan 10-year planning horizon and would therefore, not induce unplanned growth through the extension of city roads and other infrastructure. This is considered a less than significant impact in this regard.

It is also noted that an important outcome of the proposed Specific Plan is to increase housing opportunity and stability for existing and future Plan Area residents, which is an important tool related to environmental justice. The increase of housing variety in a neighborhood offers a greater range of pricing points for entry, with accessory dwelling units and missing middle housing types typically being more affordable. Section 5.7.B of the Specific Plan discusses housing opportunities and stability.

Overall, the Specific Plan is consistent with the regional growth projections prepared by FCOG.

Additionally, the City’s General Plan and housing densities requirements would ensure that the population growth associated with the Plan is consistent with the City’s growth management requirements. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

Impact 3.12-2: Implementation of the Specific Plan would not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing. (Less than significant) The proposed Specific Plan sites where new development is focused are mostly vacant and would not result in significant displacements of residents or the loss of existing dwelling units. Even though several sites may be razed, redeveloped or converted as a result of new development, the addition of homes at all market levels will offset the loss of the few homes that exist. The proposed Specific Plan would also focus new development onto infill and vacant sites located throughout the Plan Area. New development in the Plan Area could result in the loss of a limited number of dwelling units as future sites are redeveloped to a more efficient mixed use or residential project. However, any loss of existing units that may occur as a result of future infill development is not expected to be significant. Overall, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan could result in the development of 54,953 additional residential units in the proposed specific Plan Area, primarily complementary in nature to existing single family residential currently existing in the Plan Area.

Overall, construction and operation of the proposed Specific Plan would not remove a substantial number of existing housing units within the City of Fresno, and would not displace substantial numbers of residents. Therefore, this impact is considered a less than significant.

3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING

3.12-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-1 This section describes and evaluates potential impacts associated with the provision of police protection, fire protection and emergency services, schools, parks, and other services for the proposed project. The information in this section is derived primarily from:
• City of Fresno Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update (City of Fresno, 2016);
• Fresno Parks Master Plan (City of Fresno, 2017);
• Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• Response to Comments on the Draft Master Environmental Impact Report General Plan and Development Code Update - City of Fresno, Fresno County, California (City of Fresno, 2014); • FBI Uniform Crime Reporting, Table 8, Offenses Known to Law Enforcement (2016-2018).

Comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the following: Forgotten Fresno (July 17, 2019), Central Grizzlies Youth Football & Cheer (August 2, 2019), and Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019). The portions of these comment letters which relate to this topic are addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.

3.13.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

POLICE PROTECTION
The Fresno Police Department is responsible for enforcement of state and city laws, investigation of crimes, apprehension of criminals, reducing traffic collisions, maintenance of ongoing crime prevention programs, and building ties with the community and other local law enforcement agencies. The Police Department is divided into four divisions—the patrol division, the investigation division, the administrative division, and the support division. The Chief of Police supervises all divisions. As of April 3, 2020, the Fresno Police Department employs 1,061 FTE authorized personnel, including 809 FTE sworn safety members and 252 FTE civilians.1There are no police department facilities within the Plan Area.

The Patrol Division covers an area of 104.8 square miles provided by officers traveling by vehicle, bicycle, horse (mounted patrol), helicopter (Skywatch), and on foot. The Patrol Division includes five districts with individual needs and responses to crime. There are 505 staff in the patrol division as of April 24, 2020 with 94 personnel dedicated to the southwest district, 78 in the northwest district, 91 in the southeast district, 86 in the northeast district, and 90 in the central district. In addition, the Police Department has gang focused tactical teams to provide focused and proactive crime 1 Personal communication with Mindy Casto, Police Captain for the Fresno Police Department, September 21, 2021.

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

3.13-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan suppression as a citywide resource for the patrol division. For example, 25 sworn personnel are assigned to the multi-agency gang enforcement consortium (MAGEC).

During 2020, Fresno Police Department received 385,177 emergency “911” calls and 520,029 nonemergency calls to the dispatch center. After being entered into the computer-aided dispatch system, each call is assigned a priority and then sent out to the field to be handled by officers.

Typically, the demand for police services and the need for police staff grows as population and businesses within the City of Fresno grow. Table 3.13-1 provides statistics on police calls/service from 2016 through 2018. The most frequent crimes requiring police services from 2016 through 2018 are related to larceny and burglary/theft. Violent crimes accounted for roughly 7.1% of crimes within the City of Fresno in 2018.

TABLE 3.13-1: CITY OF FRESNO CRIME STATISTICS (2016-2018) CATEGORY/CRIME 2016 2017 2018
Total Violent Crimes 3,206 2,974 2,953
Homicide 39 56 32
Rape 158 174 170
Robbery 1,122 958 909
Assault 1,887 1,786 1,842
Total Property Crimes 20,523 20,220 17,787
Burglary 3,697 3,649 2,949
Motor Vehicle Theft 3,284 2,789 2,365
Larceny 13,542 13,782 12,473
Arson 260 217 264
SOURCE: FBI CRIME STATISTICS; HTTPS://UCR.FBI.GOV/.

FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
The Fresno Fire Department (FFD) was established in 1877 and is one of the oldest fire departments in the United Stated. FFD 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 are comprised of the City of Fresno, and also includes extra-territorial services via contracts to provide services to the Fig Garden Fire Protection District and Fresno Yosemite International Airport.

The Fire Chief has an executive assistant and supervises the operations division, administration division, and prevention, investigation and support services division. The FFD operates out of 21 stations (including a specialized airport station), a fire apparatus shop, and headquarters. FFD’s21 stations are divided into four battalions that cover the City. As of April 2020, the Department is staffed by 346 authorized personnel, including 302 sworn safety members and 44 sworn non-safety and civilian personnel. The current daily staffing throughout the service area is as follows: City of PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-3 Fresno - 75; Airports - 2; Fig Garden Fire Protection District - 3; for a total of 80 firefighters.2 Specialized teams within FFD include Urban Search and Rescue (USAR), Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF), Hazardous Materials Response Team (HMRT), and a Communication Team. Figure

3.13-1 shows the FFD facilitates in the Plan Area.

FFD is a full-service fire department and provides services including, but not limited to, fire protection, emergency medical services, hazardous material response, and public assistance. There has been a general increasing trend in the number of calls for service since 2007, with some spikes and declines in the intervening years. Call volumes within the City tend to vary less by volume than type during each season. Typical of most fire providers, the City responds to a large proportion of emergency medical calls. The FFD response times for the first arriving unit are shown in Table 3.13-

2. TABLE 3.13-2: FFD RESPONSE TIMES WITHIN CITY BOUNDARIES (2019)

PERCENTILE (MINS) TURNOUT TRAVEL RESPONSE
Median 0:00:59 0:03:30 0:04:30
Mean 0:00:59 0:03:44 0:04:43
Standard Deviation 0:00:32 0:01:50 0:01:56
10% 0:00:11 0:01:56 0:02:46
20% 0:00:32 0:02:26 0:03:21
30% 0:00:43 0:02:49 0:03:46
40% 0:00:51 0:03:09 0:04:08
50% 0:00:59 0:03:30 0:04:30
60% 0:01:05 0:03:51 0:04:53
70% 0:01:14 0:04:15 0:05:19
80% 0:01:24 0:04:49 0:05:53
90% 0:01:38 0:05:45 0:06:51
SOURCE: CITY OF FRESNO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE, FIGURE 10-7.

The three performance areas tracked by FFD are the 911-dispatch alarm process time, turnout time and travel time. These performance areas have been identified in both the Commission on Fire Accreditation International process and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710. The benchmark for the 911 dispatch alarm process time is 60 seconds, as defined by the time between answering the call at the Fire/EMS dispatch center and activation of the station and/or company alerting devices by the computer-aided operator. The benchmarks for the turnout time are 60 seconds between 7:00 am and 9:59 pm and 90 seconds between 10:00 pm and 6:59 am. The interval between the activation of station and/or company alerting devices and the time when the responding crew begins rolling toward the call defines the turnout time. Travel time is defined as 2 Personal communication with Cody Charette, Data Analyst for the Fresno Fire Department, April 23, 2020.

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

3.13-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan the time between the responding crew/apparatus signaling the dispatch center they are responding to the alarm and when the team arrives on scene.

While the 911 dispatch processing time benchmark is 60 seconds, 90 percent of the time, the Department’s processing time is somewhat longer at 57 seconds 50 percent of the time and greater than 90 seconds at 90 percent of the time. The greater processing times are in large part due to the use of cell phones for 911 calls. When a 911 call is received from a cell phone, the address information is not captured by the emergency call system, thereby requiring the dispatch staff to ask a series of questions to determine location. In response to the increase in cell phone use for 911 calls, a discussion of the relativity and appropriateness of the 60-second benchmark is underway at the national level.

SCHOOLS
Central Unified School District
The Specific Plan Area is within the Central Unified School District (CUSD). CUSD has 28 schools, including six preschools, 14 elementary schools, three middle schools, two high schools, and three alternative schools. Collectively, CUSD’s school facilities have a capacity of 20,287 seats. Of these 20,287 seats, 11,502 are at the elementary school level, 3,557 are at the middle school level, and 4,778 are at the high school level. Based on student enrollment data for school year 2017/2018, the enrollment of the CUSD is 15,883 students.

Additionally, a second high school in the CUSD area has recently opened. Justin Garza High School, located adjacent to Glacier Point Middle School at the intersection of West Ashlan and North Grantland Avenues, recently opened to freshman and sophomores in August 2021. The CUSD’s original high school, Central High, is split into two campuses — Central East, which opened in 1996 and sits on Cornelia and Dakota avenues, and Central West, which opened in 1922 and sits on McKinley and Dickenson avenues. About 4,200 students are split between those two campuses.

Since Justin Garza High School opened, the attendance boundaries have been split between Central East and Garza.3
Table 3.13-3 provides the enrollment and capacity for each school within the CUSD for the 2017/2018 school year. As shown in the table, all CUSD schools are currently operating under capacity, except for the Central Learning Adult/Alternative School Site (C.L.A.S.S.). Figure 3.13-1 shows the schools in the Plan Area.
3 The Fresno Bee. Does Fresno’s new high school favor rich families on the north side? Here’s the map.

Published November 11, 2020.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-5 TABLE 3.13-3: CENTRAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: SCHOOL INVENTORY AND 2017/2018 ENROLLMENT AND

CAPACITY

SCHOOL ENROLLMENT CAPACITY DIFFERENCE

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Biola-Pershing Elementary School 235 240 -5
Harvest Elementary School 724 918 -194
Herndon-Barstow Elementary School 660 860 -200
Houghton-Kearney K-8 School 233 351 -118
Liddell Elementary School 717 876 -159
Madison Elementary School 695 1,010 -315
McKinley Elementary School 830 976 -146
Polk Elementary School 811 927 -116
River Bluff Elementary School 799 1,010 -211
Roosevelt Elementary School 490 786 -296
Saroyan Elementary School 745 927 -182
Steinbeck Elementary School 769 985 -216
Teague Elementary School 713 894 -181
Tilley Elementary School 442 742 -300

MIDDLE SCHOOLS
El Capitan Middle School 712 1,129 -417
Glacier Point Middle School 918 1,060 -142
Rio Vista Middle School 863 1,368 -505

HIGH SCHOOL
Central High School 4,168 4,778 -610

ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS
C.L.A.S.S. 218 175 +43
Pathway Community Day School 24 75 -51
Pershing Continuation High School 117 200 -83
TOTAL 15,883 20,287 --
SOURCES: SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT CARDS (PUBLISHED BY THE CUSD DURING THE 2018-2019 SCHOOL YEAR); AND CUSD FACILITIES MASTER PLAN (2016).

LIBRARY SERVICES
Library services in the City of Fresno are provided by the Fresno County Public Library. The Fresno County Public Library provides collections and services through its Central Resource Library and 34 branches. The County Public Library is part of the San Joaquin Valley Library System (SJVLS), a cooperative network of 10 public library jurisdictions in the counties of Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced and Tulare.

The Plan Area contains one library, the Teague Branch, located in a newly constructed community resource center across from Teague Elementary School on Polk Avenue. The other nearest libraries to the Plan Area include the Biola Branch Library, the Fig Garden Regional Library, Gillis Branch Library, and the Central Library:

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

3.13-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan The Teague Branch Library is located at 4718 North Polk Avenue. The library was originally hosted in Teague Elementary from 1932 to 1950, reopening in 2014. The library was relocated to the community resource center in 2019.

The Biola Branch Library is located at 4885 North Biola Avenue. Opened in 1924, this branch operated in several different town locations. This branch was replaced by Fresno County Bookmobile service from 1963 to 2012. In 2012, the Biola Branch Library reopened at the Biola-Pershing Elementary School.

The Fig Garden Regional Library is located at 3071 West Bullard Avenue in a 9,929 square foot building. This library opened in 1962 to meet the needs of northern Fresno's growing population.

This library was first located in the Fig Garden Village shopping center, but relocated in 1995 to a larger facility at Bullard and Marks Avenues.

The Gillis Branch Library is located at 629 West Dakota Avenue in a 6,263 square foot building. This branch opened in 1940 on Olive Avenue, in rented space; the branch moved to the corner of Dakota and Fruit Avenues in 1975. This library was named in honor of James Gillis (1857-1917), founder of the California county library system.

The Central Library is located at 2420 Mariposa Street in an 82,716 square foot building. The Central Library is the successor to several different downtown Fresno libraries; the first of which opened in 1876. The first true Fresno public library opened in 1891 and occupied its first real home on Broadway in 1904. The current Central Library branch opened its doors in 1959 and is known for its Heritage Center and Government Documents collection.

PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM
City of Fresno Parks, After School, Recreation and Community Services (PARCS) Department owns and operate numerous parks including regional parks, neighborhood parks, trails, dog parks, community centers, action sports facilities, play structures, pools, splash parks, and golf courses.

PARCS offers recreation opportunities through sports activities for youth and adults at a minimum or no cost.

The City maintains approximately 1,617 acres of open space and nearly 230,000 square feet of building space dedicated to recreational/educational purposes. Other facilities include nine community pools, four splash parks, 518 picnic tables, 153 barbeque grills, three amphitheaters, 54 baseball/softball fields, 53 football/soccer fields, 40 basketball courts, 11 volleyball courts, 40 tennis courts, seven skate parks, and five dog parks. The park system also provides and maintains 115 acres of paths and trails for pedestrians and bicyclists. Figure 3.13-1 shows the parks in the Plan Area.

The City of Fresno presently operates three regional parks. The Regional Sports Complex is located at Jensen and West Avenues and is a 114.3-acre sports center. This park contains six softball and nine soccer fields. In addition, it also has an 8.68-acre paintball shooting complex. The PARCS PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-7 Department offers softball leagues and tournaments for approximately 1,380 teams each year. The sports complex also hosts a number of major music concerts throughout the year. The Regional Sports Complex is located approximately 5.1 miles south of the southern boundary of the Plan Area.

Roeding Park has evolved into a regional park since its inception in 1903. Although originally intended as a large community park that would provide picnicking and recreation space for Fresno residents, the addition of Storyland, Playland and the Fresno Chaffee Zoo have turned this into a major regional park site. This park now services a significant number of guests who live outside of Fresno and visit the park for the major attractions located at the facility. Roeding Park is located approximately 1.3 miles south of the southern boundary of the Plan Area.

Woodward Park is a 300-acre site that contains the Rotary Amphitheater, the Shinzen Japanese Garden, numerous walking trails, picnic shelters and serves as a gateway to the San Joaquin River.

Because of its size and mature trees, this facility draws thousands of visitors for exercise and major cultural arts functions. Woodward Park is located approximately 6.5 miles northeast of the eastern boundary of the Plan Area.

Table 3.13-4 summarizes the City’s park and recreation facilities, including the facility name, location, size, hours, and amenities.

TABLE 3.13-4: CITY OF FRESNO PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES

FACILITY LOCATION SIZE HOURS OPEN PURPOSE/AMENITIES
Alfonso
Hernandez
Youth Center
1515 E.

Divisadero St.

N/A Dawn - 10PM Recreation room, computer lab
Almy Park 228 W Almy Ave. 0.5 acres Dawn - Dusk Playground, grass areas, picnic tables Al Radka Park 5897 E. Belmont
Ave.

14.35 acres
Dawn - 10PM Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
field lights, picnic tables & BBQ, shade
structures, restrooms, community
garden.

Belcher
Neighborhood
Park
2158 E. Alluvial
Ave

5.50 acres Mon - Sun
7AM – 10PM
Turf areas, playground, picnic
tables & BBQs, restrooms.

Bigby Villa 1329 E. Florence,
Ave.

2.43 acres Dawn - Dusk Pocket park with turf areas,
playground.

California/Mayo
r/A
607 Mayor Ave. 0.13 acres Dawn - Dusk Pocket park with a picnic table & BBQ.

California/
Tupman
2094 S. Tupman
St.

0.95 acres Dawn - Dusk Pocket park with 3 picnic tables & a BBQ.

Maxie L. Parks
Community
Center
1802 E.

California Ave.

2.12 acres Mon - Fri 9AM –
8PM
Gymnasium, meeting rooms, kitchen.

Camp Fresno 53849 Dinkey
Creek Rd.,
Shaver Lake

40.0 acres Late May - Late
Oct
51 rental cabins with wood burning
stove, table and stools. BBQ pit,
picnic table and campfire ring. Cold

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

3.13-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

FACILITY LOCATION SIZE HOURS OPEN PURPOSE/AMENITIES
lockers in a walk-in refrigerator,
washing machines and showers
located throughout camp. Recreation
hall.

Camp Fresno
Junior
53849 Dinkey
Creek Rd.,
Shaver Lake
N/A Late May - Late
Oct
Two dorms, three counselor cabins,
dining pavilion, fully equipped
kitchen and shower house with
washing machines.

Carozza
Neighborhood
Park
4921 E. Olive
Ave.

6.0 acres Dawn - 10PM Turf areas, playground, baseball & softball fields, restrooms
Cary
Neighborhood
Park
4750 N. Fresno
St.

8.8 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf areas, playground, baseball & softball fields, football & soccer fields,
in-line hockey court, tennis courts,
picnic tables & BBQs, restrooms.

Centex Park 5626 E. Burns
Ave.

0.98 acres Dawn - Dusk Pocket Park. Turf area, picnic
tables.

Chandler 1225 S Crystal
Ave.

1.93 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf areas, playground, basketball courts, picnic tables & BBQs.

Cultural Arts
District Park
1615 Fulton St. 0.15 acres 9AM – 6PM Playground, shade areas, grass areas, picnic tables & BBQs.

Dickey
Playground
50 N. Calaveras
St.

2.02 acres Dawn - 10PM Turf areas, playground,baseball & softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball court, tennis courts, splash
park, picnic shelter, picnic tables &
BBQs, restrooms.

El Capitan Dog
Park (Basin AH1)
4257 W. Alamos
Ave.

1.5 acres May -
November:
7AM – 10PM
daily
Turf areas, picnic tables.

East Fresno Boys
& Girls Club
1621 S. Cedar
Ave.

4.63 acres M-F Turf areas, baseball & softball
fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball court, gymnasium,
social hall, kitchen, restrooms.

Eaton Plaza 2330 Fresno St. 2.93 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf areas, amphitheater. Movies in the Park program
Einstein
Neighborhood
Center
3566 E. Dakota
Ave.
12 acres Park: Dawn -
10PM
Center: 3PM -
7PM
Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball court, tennis courts,
volleyball courts, learner pool, picnic
shelter, picnic tables & BBQs, social
hall, computer lab, kitchen, restrooms.

El Dorado Mini
Park
1343 E. Barstow
Ave.

1.64 acres Center: 3PM -
7PM
Turf areas, basketball courts,
picnic tables, computer lab,
restrooms. Recreational activities.

Emerald Park 3599 W. Wathen
Ave.

1.28 acres
Dawn - Dusk Pocket Park. Turf area.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-9

FACILITY LOCATION SIZE HOURS OPEN PURPOSE/AMENITIES
Figarden Loop
Park
4265 W.

Figarden Dr.

8.54 acres Dawn - 10PM Turf areas, playground, baseball fields, splash park, picnic shelter, picnic
tables & BBQs, shade structures,
restrooms, and concession building.

Fink-White
Neighborhood
Center
535 S. Trinity St. 8.71 acres Park: Dawn -
10PM
Center: 3PM -
7PM
Summer Pool:
1-5PM
Turf areas, playground,baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball court, learner pool, wading
pool, picnic shelter, picnic tables &
BBQs, picnic shelter, social hall,
computer lab, kitchen, restrooms.

First & Nevada 253 N First St. 0.08 acres Dawn - Dusk Pocket Park. Turf area Frank H. Ball
Neighborhood
Center
760 Mayor Ave. 2.94 acres Pool: Seasonal
Park: Dawn -
10PM
Center: 3PM -
8PM
Sat. 12-5PM
Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball courts, gymnasium,
swimming pool, wading pool, picnic
tables & BBQs, social hall, computer
lab, kitchen, restrooms.

Granny's Park 2024 E. Pontiac
Way

1.15 acres Park: Dawn -
10PM
Turf areas, basketball courts,
picnic tables & BBQs.

Recreational facility.

Habitat Park 300 W. Garrett
Ave.

1.05 acres Dawn - Dusk Pocket Park. Turf area
Highway City
Neighborhood
Center
5140 N. State St. 2.0 acres Science
Workshop: 3-7
PM Mon-Fri
Playground, picnic tables, BBQ.

Hinton
Neighborhood
Park
2385 S. Fairview
Ave.

6.23 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf area, baseball/softball
fields, soccer/football field,
tennis courts, picnic table, BBQ.

Holmes
Neighborhood
Center
212 S. First St. 9.10 acres Park: Dawn -
10PM
Center: 3PM -
7PM
Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball courts, tennis courts, lawn
bowling court, outdoor stage,
gymnasium, wading pool, picnic tables
& BBQs, social hall, computer lab,
kitchen, restrooms. Full-service center
offering many recreational programs.

Holman
Neighborhood
Park
6522 N. West
Ave.

4.55 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf areas, playground, baseball & softball fields, football & soccer fields,
volleyball courts, picnic tables & BBQs,
picnic shelter, restrooms
Hyde
Neighborhood
Park
319 W. Florence
Ave.
19 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf areas
Inspiration
Park*
5770 Gettysburg
Ave.

7.9 acres Dawn - Dusk Grass areas, playground, baseball field, basketball courts, picnic shelter,
restrooms.

Kaiser
Neighborhood
Park
425 E. Alluvial
Ave.

4.66 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf areas, playground, baseball/ softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball court, court lights, skate

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

3.13-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

FACILITY LOCATION SIZE HOURS OPEN PURPOSE/AMENITIES
park, picnic tables & BBQs, restrooms.

Kearney/Fresno
Park
Kearney Blvd. &
Fresno St.

1.0 acres Dawn - Dusk Pocket Park. Turf area, playground.

Keith Tice
Memorial
Neighborhood
Park
8695 N.

Millbrook Ave.

4.06 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf areas, playground, par/fitness course, picnic tables & BBQs,
restrooms. Turf areas, playground,
football & soccer fields, basketball
court, picnic tables & BBQs,
restrooms.

Koligian
Neighborhood
Park
5165 W. Alluvial
Ave.

7.20 acres Dawn - Dusk Grass area, playground, picnic tables.

Lafayette
Neighborhood
Center
1516 E.

Princeton Ave.

4.13 acres Park: Dawn -
10PM
Center: 3PM -
7PM
Summer Wader
Pool: 1-5PM
Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball courts, handball courts
tennis courts, volleyball courts, wading
pool, picnic tables, social hall,
computer lab, kitchen, restrooms.

Recreational programs.

Large
Neighborhood
Park
4424 N
Millbrook Ave.

6.24 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf areas, football & soccer field.

Lewis S. Eaton
Trail
Northeast edge
of Woodward
Park and
continuing north
parallel to Friant
Ave.
4 miles Dawn - Dusk Benches, bridges, trees.

Lions
Neighborhood
Park
4650 N. Marks
Ave.

9.02 acres Park: Dawn -
10PM
Skate: 3PM -
7PM
Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
tennis courts, volleyball courts, court
lights, picnic tables & BBQs,
restrooms, skate park.

Logan
Neighborhood
Park
5450 N. Santa Fe
Ave.

9.0 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf areas, playground,baseball & softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball court, tennis courts, court
lights, picnic tables & BBQs,
restrooms.

Manchester
Neighborhood
Park
3414 N. Fresno
St.

9.4 acres Park: Dawn -
Dusk
Summer Wader
Pool: 1-5PM
Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball court, wading pool, picnic
tables & BBQs, restrooms.

Maple/Huntingt
on Park
Maple Ave. &
Huntington Blvd.

0.03 acre Dawn - Dusk Pocket park. Turf area.

Maple/McKinley
Park
Maple Ave. &
University Ave.

0.11 acre Dawn - Dusk Pocket park. Turf area with picnic table.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-11

FACILITY LOCATION SIZE HOURS OPEN PURPOSE/AMENITIES
Martin Ray
Reilly Park
770 N. Chestnut
Ave.

3.38 acres Dawn - Dusk Turf areas, playground, football & soccer fields, basketball court, picnic
tables & BBQs, splash pad, restrooms.

Mary Ella Brown
Community
Center
1350 E.

Annadale Ave.

4.48 acres Pool: Seasonal
Park: Dawn -
10PM
Center: 3PM -
7PM
Turf areas, playground, swimming
pool, social hall, community center,
computer lab, kitchen, restrooms.

Open recreation activities and Fresno
Connect Computer Lab.

Mayor &
Ventura Park
Mayor Ave. &
Ventura Ave.

0.11 acre Dawn – Dusk Pocket park. Turf area
Melody
Neighborhood
Center
5935 E. Shields
Ave.
5 acres Park: Dawn -
10PM
Center: 3PM -
7PM
Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball courts, tennis courts, court
lights, skate, park, picnic tables & BBQs,
social hall, computer lab, kitchen,
restrooms. Crafts programs.

Mosqueda
Community
Center
4670 E. Butler
Ave.

10.02 acres
Pool: Seasonal
Park: Dawn -
10PM
Center: 3PM -
7PM
Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball courts, bike park, swimming
pool, picnic tables & BBQ, community
center, social hall, computer lab,
library, auditorium with stage, meeting
& conference rooms, kitchen,
restrooms. Senior hot meals &
recreation, dance classes, martial arts,
Fresno Connect Computer Lab.

Nielsen
Neighborhood
Park
1730 S. Fruit St. 4.44 acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, playground, baseball & softball fields, basketball courts, picnic
tables & BBQs, restrooms.

Ninth & Tulare
Park
3925 E Tulare
Ave.

0.15 acre Dawn – Dusk Pocket park, turf area
Orchid
Neighborhood
Park
3420 W. Fir Ave. 5.18 acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, playground, baseball & softball fields, football & soccer fields,
tennis courts, picnic tables & BBQs,
restrooms.

Oso de Oro Lake
Neighborhood
Park
5550 N. Forkner
Ave.

5.6 acres N/A Turf areas, playground, basketball
courts, lake, picnic tables & BBQs,
covered pavilion, restrooms.

Pilibos
Neighborhood
Park
4945 E. Lane
Ave.

13.29 acres
Dawn - 10PM Turf areas, playground, football &
soccer fields, picnic tables & BBQs,
picnic shelter, restrooms.

Pinedale
Community
Center
7170 N. San
Pablo Ave.

0.50 acre Mon-Fri: 8AM -
8:30PM
Pool: Seasonal
Turf areas, playground, basketball
courts, learner pool, social hall with a
stage, computer lab, kitchen,
restrooms, parking lot. Senior
nutrition program, open recreation
activities, youth club, special summer
activities.

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

3.13-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

FACILITY LOCATION SIZE HOURS OPEN PURPOSE/AMENITIES
Pride Park Fresno Ave. &
California Ave.

0.75 acre Dawn – Dusk Pocket park. Turf area, picnic table, BBQ.

Quigley
Neighborhood
Center
808 W. Dakota
Ave.

8.26 acres Pool: Seasonal
Park: Dawn -
10PM
Center: 3PM -
7PM
Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
basketball courts, tennis courts,
volleyball courts, court lights, learner
pool, picnic tables & BBQs, computer
lab,
kitchen, restrooms.

Radio
Neighborhood
Park
2233 N First St. 7.51 acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, playground,baseball & softball field, football & soccer field,
picnic tables, restrooms, parking lot.

Home to the Fresno Arts Center which
displays art exhibits, provides classes,
workshops, concerts, festivals.

Reedy Discovery
Center
1944 N. Winery
Ave.

5.64 acres Tues-Sun:
10AM-4PM
Garden of the
Sun: Mon, Wed
Fri, Sat 9AM1PM
Home to the Garden of the Sun
Demonstration Garden, Discovery
Center science education center and
Deutsch Cactus Garden.

Regional Sports
Complex
1707 W. Jensen
Ave.
116.09
acres
Dawn - 10PM Turf areas, playgrounds, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer fields,
field lights, vert ramp, paintball zone,
concession booth, picnic tables &
BBQs, picnic shelter, restrooms.

Riverbottom
Park
6038 W. Bluff
Ave.

41.22 acres
Dawn – Dusk Located along the river (no amenities)
Riverside
Municipal Golf
Course
7492 N.

Riverside Dr.,
Fresno
10 acres Dawn – Dusk 18-hole driving range, practice putting green, coffee shop, pro shop,
restrooms, parking. New cart paths,
greens and water hazard. Fees
charged per round of golf.

Robinson
Neighborhood
Park
401 E. Browning
Ave.

4.97acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, playground, football & soccer field, picnic tables.

Roeding
Regional Park
890 W. Belmont
Ave.
145.47
acres
Apr-Oct: 6AM –
10PM
Nov - Mar: 6AM
–7PM
Turf areas, playgrounds, football &
soccer fields, handball courts, tennis
courts, volleyball court, court lights,
par/fitness course, dog park, lake,
picnic shelter, picnic tables & BBQs,
restrooms. Home to the Fresno
Chaffee Zoo and Rotary Storyland and
Playland.

Romain
Neighborhood
Center
745 N. First St. 8.02 acres N/A Turf areas, playground,baseball & softball field, football & soccer field,
basketball courts, skate park,
gymnasium, learner pool, picnic tables
& BBQs, social hall, computer lab,
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-13

FACILITY LOCATION SIZE HOURS OPEN PURPOSE/AMENITIES
kitchen, restrooms. Full-service center
providing swim lessons, youth
leagues, day camps.

Rotary East
Neighborhood
Park
6464 N. Cedar
Ave.

4.27 acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, playground,baseball & softball field, football & soccer field,
tennis courts, picnic tables & BBQs,
restrooms.

Rotary West
Neighborhood
Park
3202 E.

Gettysburg Ave.

13.64 acres
Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, football & soccer field,
basketball court, picnic tables & BBQs,
restrooms.

Safety Park 6350 N. Rafael
Ave.

0.89 acre Dawn – Dusk Pocket park. Turf area
San Pablo Family
Park
511 N. San Pablo
Ave.

1.45 acres Dawn – Dusk Playground
Selma Layne
Neighborhood
Park
2065 E.

Shepherd Ave.

8.52 acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, playground,baseball & softball field, football & soccer field,
basketball court, picnic shelter, picnic
tables & BBQs, restrooms.

Spano Park 8090 N. Palm
Ave.

1.22 acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, picnic tables
Stallion
Neighborhood
Park
6245 N. Polk
Ave.

5.65 acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, playground,baseball & softball field, football & soccer field,
basketball court, picnic tables & BBQs,
restrooms.

Sugar Pine Trail Copper Avenue
to Nees Avenue
N/A Dawn – Dusk Paved trail, benches, large variety of
trees
Sunnyside
Neighborhood
Park
5279 E. Butler
Ave.

4.27 acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, playground,baseball & softball field, football & soccer field,
picnic tables & BBQs, restrooms.

Sunset
Neighborhood
Center
1345 W. Eden
Ave.

0.97 acres Mon-Fri 3PM -
7PM Wader Pool:

Seasonal
Turf areas, playground, wading pool,
picnic tables & BBQ, social hall,
community center, computer lab,
kitchen, restrooms.

Ted C. Wills
Community
Center
770 N. San
Pablo Ave.

4.28 acres Mon-Fri 7AM – 8
PM
Turf areas, playground, baseball &
softball fields, basketball courts,
volleyball courts, field lights, picnic
tables & BBQ, gymnasium, social hall,
community center, meeting &
conference rooms, computer lab,
library, kitchen, restrooms, parking lot.

Senior nutrition program, EOC
Headstart program, and the Valley Art
and Science Academy (VASA) Charter
School.

Todd Beamer
Neighborhood
Park
9797 N Maple
Ave.

6.94 acres 6AM – 10PM
daily
Turf areas, playgrounds, football &
soccer field, basketball courts, par &
fitness course, skate park, splash park,

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

3.13-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

FACILITY LOCATION SIZE HOURS OPEN PURPOSE/AMENITIES
dog park, picnic tables & BBQs,
restrooms.

Trolley Creek
Park
5100 E.

Huntington Ave.

3.0 acres N/A Turf areas, playgrounds, amphitheater,
picnic shelters & BBQs, restrooms
University
Neighborhood
Park
4085 S. Angus St.2.38 acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, picnic tables & BBQs Jaswant Singh
Khalra Park
3861 West
Clinton Ave.

19.71 acres
6AM – 10PM
daily
Turf areas, playgrounds, baseball &
softball field, football & soccer fields,
basketball courts, court lights, dog
park, shade structures & picnic
shelter, picnic tables & BBQs,
restrooms.

Victoria
Neighborhood
Park
3165 W. Shields
Ave.

19.71 acres
Dawn – Dusk Grass areas, shade areas, picnic tables
& BBQs
Vinland
Neighborhood
Park
4695 E.

Gettysburg Ave.

7.88 acres Dawn - 10PM Turf areas, playgrounds, baseball & softball field, football & soccer fields,
tennis courts,
court lights, picnic tables & BBQs,
restrooms.

Willow/Balch
Pocket Park
4963 E. Balch
Ave.

1.15 acres Dawn – Dusk Turf areas, playground, picnic tables & BBQs.

Woodward
Regional Park
7775 N. Friant
Rd.
300 acres Spring and
Summer: 6AM -
10PM
Fall and Winter:
6AM – 7PM
Turf areas, playgrounds, lake, Shinzen
Japanese Garden with tea house, par
& fitness course, dog park, shade
structures & picnic shelters, picnic
tables & BBQs, amphitheater,
restrooms. BMX track, Disc Golf
Course, Art of Life Garden.

NOTE: * = WITHIN PLAN AREA.

SOURCE: FRESNO MSR, FIGURE 12-1.

3.13.2 REGULATORY SETTING
The following is an overview of the federal, State and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.

STATE
Police Protection
There are no State regulations related to police protection services applicable to the proposed project.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-15 Fire Protection and Emergency Response

CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 8 Sections 1270 "Fire Prevention" and 6773 "Fire Protection and Fire Equipment" the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) has established minimum standards for fire suppression and emergency medical services. The standards include, but are not limited to, guidelines on the handling of highly combustible materials, fire hose sizing requirements, restrictions on the use of compressed air, access roads, and the testing, maintenance, and use of all firefighting and emergency medical equipment.

The State of California passed legislation authorizing the Office of Emergency Services (OES) to prepare a Standard Emergency Management System (SEMS) program, which sets forth measures by which a jurisdiction should handle emergency disasters. Non-compliance with SEMS could result in the State withholding disaster relief from the non-complying jurisdiction in the event of an emergency disaster.

CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE AND UNIFORM FIRE CODE
The California Fire Code contains regulations relating to construction and maintenance of buildings and the use of premises. Topics addressed in the Code include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions to protect and assist first responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire safety requirements for new and existing buildings and premises.

Additionally, the Uniform Fire Code with the State of California Amendments contains regulations relating to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings. Topics addressed in the California Fire Code include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized firesafety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises. The Fire Code contains specialized technical regulations related to fire and life safety.

CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
State fire regulations are set forth in Sections 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code.

This includes regulations for building standards (as also set forth in the California Building Code), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building and childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training.

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

3.13-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION 1710
The NFPA 1710 Standards are applicable to urban areas and where staffing is comprised of career Firefighters. According to these guidelines, a career fire department needs to respond within six minutes, 90 percent of the time with a response time measured from the 911 call to the time of arrival of the first responder.

The standards are divided as follows:
• Dispatch time of one (1) minute or less for at least 90 percent of the alarms • Turnout time of one (1) minute or less for EMS calls (80 seconds for fire and special operations response)
• Fire response travel time of four (4) minutes or less for the arrival of the first arriving engine company at a fire incident and eight (8) minutes or less travel time for the deployment of an initial full alarm assignment at a fire incident • Eight (8) minutes or less travel time for the arrival of an advanced life support (ALS) (4 minutes or less if provided by the fire department
Parks/Recreation

QUIMBY ACT
The Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) states that “the legislative body of a city or county may, by ordinance, require the dedication of land or impose a requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative or parcel map.” Requirements of the Quimby Act apply only to the acquisition of new parkland and do not apply to the physical development of new park facilities or associated operations and maintenance costs. The Quimby Act seeks to preserve open space needed to develop parkland and recreational facilities; however, the actual development of parks and other recreational facilities is subject to discretionary approval and is evaluated on a caseby-case basis with new residential development. The City collects impact fees for both parks and recreation, but anticipates that a West Area Parks Impact Fee will be established. For residential projects, the fees are collected at the time of occupancy and include both capital impacts and land acquisition. Commercial projects are required to pay impact fees at building permit issuance.

Schools

CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
The California Code of Regulations, Title 5 Education Code, governs all aspects of education within the State.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
The California Department of Education (CDE) School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) prepared a School Site Selection and Approval Guide that provides criteria for locating appropriate school sites PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-17 in the State of California. School site and size recommendations were changed by the CDE in 2000 to reflect various changes in educational conditions, such as lowering of class sizes and use of advanced technology. The expanded use of school buildings and grounds for community and agency joint use and concern for the safety of the students and staff members also influenced the modification of the CDE recommendations.

Specific recommendations for school size are provided in the School Site Analysis and Development Guide. This document suggests a ratio of 1:2 between buildings and land. CDE is aware that in a number of cases, primarily in urban settings, smaller sites cannot accommodate this ratio. In such cases, the SFPD may approve an amount of acreage less than the recommended gross site size and building-to-ground ratio.

Certain health and safety requirements for school site selection are governed by State regulations and the policies of the SFPD relating to:
• Proximity to airports, high-voltage power transmission lines, railroads, and major roadways; • Presence of toxic and hazardous substances;
• Hazardous facilities and hazardous air emissions within one-quarter mile; • Proximity to high-pressure natural gas lines, propane storage facilities, gasoline lines, pressurized sewer lines, or high-pressure water pipelines; • Noise;
• Results of geological studies or soil analyses;
• Traffic and school bus safety issues.

THE KINDERGARTEN-UNIVERSITY PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES BOND ACT OF 2002 (PROP 47) This Act was approved by California voters in November 2002 and provides for a bond issue of $13.05 billion to fund necessary education facilities to relieve overcrowding and to repair older schools.

Funds will be targeted at areas of greatest need and must be spent according to strict accountability measures. Funds have also been used to upgrade and build new classrooms in the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California in order to provide adequate higher education facilities to accommodate growing student enrollment.

LEROY F. GREENE SCHOOL FACILITIES ACT OF 1998 (SB 50)
The “Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998,” also known as Senate Bill No. 50 or SB 50 (Chapter 407, Statutes of 1998), governs a school district’s authority to levy school impact fees. This comprehensive legislation, together with the $9.2 billion education bond act approved by the voters in November 1998 known as “Proposition 1A”, reformed methods of school construction financing in California. SB 50 instituted a new school facility program by which school districts can apply for State construction and modernization funds. It imposed limitations on the power of cities and counties to require mitigation of school facilities impacts as a condition of approving new development and provided the authority for school districts to levy fees at three different levels:

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

3.13-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Level I fees are the current statutory fees allowed under Education Code 17620. This code section provides the basic authority for school districts to levy a fee against residential and commercial construction for the purpose of funding school construction or reconstruction of facilities. These fees vary by district for residential construction and commercial construction and are increased biannually.
• Level II fees are outlined in Government Code Section 65995.5, allowing school districts to impose a higher fee on residential construction if certain conditions are met. These conditions include having a substantial percentage of students on multi-track year-round scheduling, having an assumed debt equal to 15–30 percent of the district’s bonding capacity (percentage is based on revenue sources for repayment), having at least 20 percent of the district’s teaching stations housed in relocatable classrooms, and having placed a local bond on the ballot in the past four years which received at least 50 percent plus one of the votes cast. A Facility Needs Assessment must demonstrate the need for new school facilities for unhoused pupils is attributable to projected enrollment growth from the construction of new residential units over the next five years.
• Level III fees are outlined in Government Code Section 655995.7. If State funding becomes unavailable, this code section authorizes a school district that has been approved to collect Level II fees to collect a higher fee on residential construction. This fee is equal to twice the amount of Level II fees. However, if a district eventually receives State funding, this excess fee may be reimbursed to the developers or subtracted from the amount of State funding.

LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan contains the following objectives and policies that are relevant to public services and recreation:

PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT
Objective PU-1: Provide the level of law enforcement and crime prevention services necessary to maintain a safe, secure, and stable urban living environment through a Police Department that is dedicated to providing professional, ethical, efficient and innovative service with integrity, consistency and pride.

Policy PU-1-a: Integration of Crime Data. Develop a mechanism to share pertinent crime data from multiple sources with other law enforcement agencies as a means of improving service delivery, officer safety, and providing a safer community for the citizens of Fresno. • Strive to develop and implement data sharing agreements externally throughout County of Fresno Law Enforcement Agencies with the intent of participating in region-wide data sharing agreements throughout the State of California. • Utilize developing technologies internally to ensure that crime specific data is PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-19 made available for first responders and criminal investigators. • Develop advanced predictive policing capabilities to ensure that limited law enforcement resources are properly placed to reduce criminal activity in locations of the city that are identified as having a high probability of criminal activity. • Fully implement a Real Time Crime Center which provides responding officers integrated computer data, video data from the Video Policing Unit, and up-to-date emergency dispatch information as a means of improving officer safety to critical incidents and service delivery to the community.

Policy PU-1-b: Involvement in General Plan. Facilitate Police Department participation in the implementation of General Plan policies, including citizen participation efforts and the application of crime prevention design measures to reduce the exposure of neighborhoods to crime and to promote community security.
• Facilitate Police Department communication with citizen advisory committees. • Refer appropriate development entitlements to the Police Department for review and comment.

Policy PU-1-c: Safety Considerations in Development Approval. Continue to identify and apply appropriate safety, design and operational measures as conditions of development approval, including, but not limited to,street access control measures, lighting and visibility of access points and common areas, functional and secure on-site recreational and open space improvements within residential developments, and use of State licensed, uniformed security.

Policy PU-1-d: New Police Station Locations. Consideration will be given to collocating new police station facilities with other public property including, but not limited to, schools, parks, playgrounds, and community centers to create a synergy of participation in the neighborhood with the potential result of less vandalism and promotion of a better sense of security for the citizens using these facilities.

Policy PU-1-e: Communication with Public. Maximize communication and cooperative efforts with residents and businesses in order to identify crime problems and optimize the effectiveness of crime prevention measures and law enforcement programs.

Policy PU-1-f: Law Enforcement Collaboration. Collaborate with community-based public, non-profit and private agencies to:
• Develop comprehensive narcotics and violence prevention programs designed to discourage delinquent behavior and narcotics abuse and to encourage viable alternative behaviors.
• Develop a more concentrated understanding of how to assist and support citizens with a variety of disabilities, especially those with cognitive and developmental auditory disabilities.

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

3.13-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Maintain active involvement in youth development and delinquency prevention activities.

Policy PU-1-g: Plan for Optimum Service. Create and adopt a program to provide targeted police services and establish long-term steps for attaining and maintaining the optimum levels of service - 1.5 unrestricted officers per 1,000 residents.

Policy PU-1-h: Retail Conversion. Assist community groups seeking information on conversion of establishments with off-site or on-site liquor sales licenses to other retail products that better meet community needs.

Policy PU-1-i: Crime and Nuisances. Assist community and neighborhood groups seeking to reduce crime and nuisances they associate with high concentrations of establishments with off-sale or on-sale liquor licenses through Police Department consultations, other available services, and programs such as Neighborhood Watch.

Policy PU-1-j: Lighting and Safety. Ensure adequate lighting at off-sale liquor stores to help deter crime and to promote a more inviting and safe atmosphere around them.

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.

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:

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-21 • 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.

Policy PU-2-f: Plan for Optimum Service. Create and adopt a program to provide appropriate number of employees to effectively respond to call volume and type; and establish a long-term plan to attain a level of service of 0.81 firefighters per 1,000 residents.

Policy PU-2-g: Community Facilities District for Emergency Services. Develop strategies on the formation of Community Facilities Districts in new Development Areas to fund emergency services.

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 multi-family 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.

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.

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

3.13-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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.

Policy PU-3-h: Annexations. Develop annexation strategies to include the appropriate rights-of-way and easements necessary to provide cost effective emergency services.

Policy PU-3-i: New Fire Station Locations. Consideration will be given to co-locating new Fire Station facilities with other public property including, but not limited to, police substations, schools, parks, playgrounds, and community centers to create a synergy of participation in the neighborhood with the potential result of less vandalism and promotion of a better sense of security for the citizens using these facilities.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
Objective ED-5: Achieve fiscal sustainability.

Policy ED-5-b: Fair and Proportional Payments. Require new residential and commercial development that requires annexation to the City to pay its fair and proportional share of needed community improvements through impact fees, assessment districts, and other mechanisms. Approve new residential and commercial development projects that require annexation to the City only after making findings that all of the following conditions are met:
• No City revenue will be used to replace or provide developer funding that has or would have been committed to any mitigation project;
• The development project will fully fund public facilities and infrastructure as necessary to mitigate any impacts arising from the new development; • The development project will pay for public facilities and infrastructure improvements in proportion to the development’s neighborhood and citywide impacts; and
• The development will fully fund ongoing public facility and infrastructure maintenance and public service costs.

LAND USE ELEMENT
Objective LU-1: Establish a comprehensive citywide land use planning strategy to meet economic development objectives, achieve efficient and equitable use of resources and infrastructure, and create an attractive living environment.

Policy LU-1-e: Annexation Requirements. Adopt implementing policies and requirements that achieve annexations to the City that conform to the General Plan Land Use Designations and open space and park system, and are revenue neutral and cover all costs for public infrastructure, public facilities, and public services on an ongoing basis consistent with the requirements of ED-50b.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-23 Objective LU-11: Encourage coordination with adjacent jurisdictions in providing public services, infrastructure and cooperative economic development.

Policy LU-11-a: Regional Programs. Coordinate with the County of Fresno, County of Madera, the City of Clovis and other cities or special districts to:
• Promote resource management programs to avoid overlap and duplication of effort;
• Promote the development of a regional justice system program to meet future needs of the justice system, both adult and juvenile, including the judicial system and law enforcement;
• Promote the development of a regional public health program to meet future needs including community, environmental and mental health services; and • Promote the development of a regional program to meet future library, recreational and social service needs of the region.

PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND SCHOOLS ELEMENT
Objective POSS-1: Provide an expanded, high quality and diversified park system, allowing for varied recreational opportunities for the entire Fresno community.

Policy POSS-1-a: Parkland standard. Implement a standard of at least three acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents for Pocket, Neighborhood, and Community parks throughout the city, while striving for five acres per 1,000 residents for all parks throughout the city, subject to identifying additional funding for regional parks and trails.

Policy POSS-1-b: Parks Implementation Planning. Conduct ongoing planning to implement park policies established in this General Plan and continue to strive for well-maintained and fully accessible playgrounds, with accessible amenities, throughout the city. • Keep an up-to-date inventory of existing and planned parks, including locations mapped on the Parks and Open Space Diagram;
• Plan for acquiring new parkland designated in the General Plan, as shown in Figure POSS-1;
• Establish a standard protocol for working with new development to arrange for parkland acquisition and dedication;
• Establish a protocol for working with established neighborhoods to provide needed parks, including the fostering of neighborhood and district associations to help plan, acquire, improve and care for public parks, and coordinating new City service facilities to provide new open space;
• Establish detailed design, construction, and maintenance standards; • Prepare an assessment of the recreation needs of existing and future residents; • Create an action plan defining priorities, timeframes, and responsibilities; • Adopt and implement a comprehensive financing strategy for land acquisition,

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

3.13-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan park development, operations, and maintenance;
• Identify opportunities for using existing or planned park space as passive stormwater storage, treatment, and conservation areas that also provide scenic and/or recreational opportunities;
• Identify opportunities for siting and using existing or planned park space as passive “purple pipe” waste water storage, treatment, and conservation areas that also provide scenic and/or recreational opportunities; and
• Update the Parks Master Plan.

Policy POSS-1-c: Public Input in Park Planning. Continue to provide opportunities for public participation in the planning and development of park facilities and in creation of social, cultural, and recreational activities in the community.

Policy POSS-1-d: Additional Parkland in Certain Areas. Strive to obtain additional parkland of sufficient size to adequately serve underserved neighborhood areas and along BRT corridors in support of new and intense residential and mixed use infill development. • Identify, where appropriate, joint use opportunities in siting parks with other City service facility needs.

Policy POSS-1-e: Criteria for Parks in Development Areas. Continue to use park size and service area criteria for siting new parks and planning for parks in Development Areas:

PARK TYPE SIZE RANGE (ACREAGE) POPULATION SERVED SERVICE AREA RADIUS Neighborhood 2.01 to 10 10,000 - 15,000 Up to 1 mile
Community 10.01 to 40 50,000 - 80,000 Up to 4 miles
Regional More than 401 100,000 100,000 residents
1 Or when amenities provide regional service.

Policy POSS-1-f: Parks and Open Space Diagram. Require parks to be sited and sized as shown on the Parks and Open Space Diagram (Figure POSS-1) of the General Plan, subject to the following:
• All new park designations carry dual land use designations, so that if a park is not needed, private development consistent with zoning and development standards may be approved. (See Figure LU-2: Dual Designation Diagram in the Urban Form, Land Use, and Design Element);
• Revised and/or additional park sites will be identified through subsequent implementation and planning in established neighborhoods and Development Areas;
• Locations for future park sites as shown on Figure POSS-1 are schematic to the extent that park sites may be relocated as necessity and opportunity dictate, and a General Plan amendment is not required if the park continues to serve the target areas as determined by the Planning Director; and
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-25 • A park may be located on any suitable land in the general vicinity of the sites depicted. However, the zoning of potential park site must be made consistent with the General Plan.

Policy POSS-1-g: Regional Urban Forest. Maintain and implement incrementally through new development projects, additions to Fresno’s urban forest to delineate corridors and the boundaries of urban areas, and to provide tree canopy for bike lanes, sidewalks, parking lots, and trails.

Objective POSS-2: Ensure that adequate land, in appropriate locations, is designated and acquired for park and recreation uses in infill and growth areas.

Policy POSS-2-a: Identify opportunities to site, develop and co-locate Fire and Police stations with needed parks and open space as joint-use facilities. • Capital Improvement Plans should be updated to reflect this policy.

Policy POSS-2-b: Park and Recreation Priorities. Use the following priorities and guidelines in acquiring and developing parks and recreation facilities:
• Acquire and develop neighborhood park space in existing developed neighborhoods that are deficient of such space and in areas along BRT corridors that are designated as priorities for encouraging new mixed-use transit-oriented development;
• Provide accessible recreation facilities in established neighborhoods with emphasis on those neighborhoods currently underserved by recreation facilities; • Improve established neighborhood parks with emphasis on those neighborhoods with the greatest need;
• Acquire and develop neighborhood and community parks in new Development Areas;
• Recognize community parks as a special need in areas that lack these facilities or are planned for transit supportive urban densities, and explore all potential sources of revenue to secure and develop appropriate sites including joint use facilities;
• Develop new special purpose parks, such as outdoor gym equipment, natural resource based trail parks, equestrian centers, dog parks, and amphitheaters, as well as alternative recreation facilities, such as community recreation centers, passive wildlife observation park, cultural heritage and diversity park, military veterans memorial park, and universal access open space park; and • Acquire and develop park and open space in established neighborhoods and Development Areas, prioritizing existing neighborhoods with the greatest deficiencies, so that all residents have access to park or open space within one-half mile of their residence. Develop these facilities to be fully accessible to individuals with disabilities as required by law.

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

3.13-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy POSS-2-c: Review of Development Applications. Coordinate review of all development applications (i.e., site plans, conditional use permits, and subdivision maps) in order to implement the parks and open space standards of this Plan. • Assure the provision of adequate active and passive open spaces and facilities as appropriate within residential subdivisions through Development Code requirements for mandatory dedication and improvement of land and/or development fees.
• Require the provision of appropriate outdoor living areas or private open space in multi-family residential developments not subject to the Subdivision Map Act. • Request open space easements where feasible and warranted to secure appropriate public use of sensitive areas with scenic or recreation values, and for buffering space for sensitive areas.
• Require provision of appropriate open space areas in private projects, in the form of trails, enhanced landscaped setbacks, parks, and water features. • Evaluate the merits of establishing a development bonus entitlement program in which development incentives (i.e., bonus densities, bonus floor area square footage) are provided for contributions to public recreational facilities on-site or in the vicinity of the development project.

Policy POSS-2-e: Open Space Dedication for Residential Development. Ensure new residential developments provide adequate land for parks, open space, landscaping, and trails through the dedication of land or otherwise providing for Pocket Parks, planned trails, and other recreational space, maintained by an HOA, CFD, or other such entity.

Objective POSS-3: Ensure that park and recreational facilities make the most efficient use of land; that they are designed and managed to provide for the entire Fresno community; and that they represent positive examples of design and energy conservation.

Policy POSS-3-a: Centralized Park Locations. Site parks central and accessible to the population served, while preserving the integrity of the surrounding neighborhood.

Policy POSS-3-b: Park Location and Walking Distance. Site Pocket and Neighborhood Parks within a half-mile walking distance of new residential development.

Policy POSS-3-c: Link Parks with Walkways. Link public open space to adjacent, schools, and residential uses and Activity Centers through a series of landscaped linear walkways and bikeways that enhance and encourage pedestrian use.

Policy POSS-3-d: Sidewalks to Connect Neighborhoods. Sidewalks should be designed for internal neighborhood circulation, and to connect neighborhoods to other residential areas, parks, community trails, shopping, and major streets.

Policy POSS-3-e: Minimum Park Size for Active Recreation. Minimize City acquisition or acceptance of dedication of park sites less than two acres in size for active recreational PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-27 uses, except where maintenance costs are secured through a CFD, HOA, or other such mechanism.

URBAN FORM, LAND USE, AND DESIGN ELEMENT
Objective D-4: Preserve and strengthen Fresno’s overall image through design review and create a safe, walkable and attractive urban environment for the current and future generations of residents.

Policy D-4-d: Design for Safety. Continue to involve the City’s Police Department in the development review process to ensure new buildings are designed with security and safety in mind.

Fresno Parks Master Plan
The Fresno Parks Master Plan was adopted in December 2017. The Plan articulates a vision for improving Fresno’s park and open space system based on robust community engagement and thorough analysis. The Parks Master Plan is an update to the 1989 Master Plan for Parks and Recreation, which was a component of the 1984 General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element.

The 2017 Plan accounts for changes that have occurred since the 1984 General Plan was drafted, and reflects a vision for improving the city’s park and recreation system so that it better serves current and future needs of the people of Fresno.

City of Fresno Impact Fees
The City includes a development impact fee schedule to fund public services and facilities, including but not limited to fees to fund police and fire, library, and recreation services. The fees are established in Chapter 12, Impact Fees, Historic Resources, and Other Miscellaneous Topics.

Article 4.6 – Payment of Development Fees and Charges, notes that the development of real property within the city creates demands on existing municipal facilities, improvements, and services. Various development fees and charges are imposed upon new development in order to mitigate such demands. Payment of those fees and charges is required at various stages of the development process, including the amendment of applicable land use plans, rezoning, tentative tract map, tentative parcel map, Urban Growth Management permit, the issuance of special permits, building permits, certificates of occupancy, and similar entitlements. To facilitate the orderly collection and administration of such development fees and charges, this article sets forth the terms and conditions upon which the payment thereof may be deferred and paid simultaneously upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the buildings or structures within such development.

Article 4.7 – Park Facilities Fee, notes that, in order to implement the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan, and to mitigate the impacts caused by future development in the city, certain park facilities must be constructed. The City Council has determined that a park facilities fee is

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

3.13-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan needed in order to finance these public facilities and to pay for each development's fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements.

Article 4.8 – Police Facilities Fee, notes that, in order to implement the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan, and to mitigate the impacts caused by future development in the city, certain police facilities must be constructed. The City Council has determined that a Police Facilities Fee is needed in order to finance these public facilities and to pay for each development's fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements.

Article 4.9 – Fire Facilities Fee, notes that, in order to implement the goals and objectives of the City's general plan, and to mitigate the impacts caused by future development in the city, certain fire department facilities must be constructed. The City Council has determined that a Fire Facilities Fee is needed in order to finance these public facilities and to pay for each development's fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements.

3.13.3 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 public services if it would result in:

Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisions of new or physically altered government facilities, and/or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
• Fire Protection
• Police Protection
• Schools
• Parks
• Other public facilities
It is important to note that, in addressing public service demand issues under CEQA, the appropriate focus is on the environmental effects of whatever steps might be necessary to achieve or maintain adequate service. For example, if proposed new development would create an increased demand for law enforcement or fire protection services, an EIR should inquire as to whether new or expanded physical facilities may be required in order to provide such service. The “impacts” addressed under CEQA are the physical effects of providing service, not any possible failure to provide adequate service under applicable standards. (See City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of the Cal. State University (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 843 [“[t]he need for additional fire protection services is not an environmental impact that CEQA requires a project proponent to mitigate”]; Goleta Union School Dist. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1031–1034 [school PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-29 overcrowding attributable to new development is not an environmental effect subject to CEQA, though the physical effects of new facility construction to serve new students would be]; and CEQA Guidelines, § 15131, subd. (a) [“[e]conomic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment”].)
This does not mean, however, that a city or county is powerless to require new development to take the steps needed to ensure adequate public services, such as law enforcement service. Such steps are simply beyond the scope of CEQA. They should instead be imposed under some other body of State statutory law (e.g., the Planning and Zoning Law [Gov. Code, § 65300 et seq.] or the Subdivision Map Act [Gov. Code, § 66410 et seq.]) or under a local government’s broad police power under the California Constitution. (See Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 7; Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 878, 885.)
It is also important to understand that special legal principles apply to impacts to school facilities.

According to Government Code Section 65996, the development fees authorized by Senate Bill 50 (1998) (described earlier) are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation” for impact caused by new development. The legislation also recognized the need for the fee to be adjusted periodically to keep pace with inflation. The legislation indicated that in January 2000, and every two years thereafter, the State Allocation Board would increase the maximum fees according to the adjustment for inflation in the statewide index for school construction.

Section 65996 also prohibits public agencies from using CEQA or “any other provision of state or local law” to deny approval of “a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property or any change in governmental organization or reorganization” on the basis of the project’s impacts on school facilities.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.13-1: The proposed Specific Plan may require the construction of fire department facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The FFD 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. These services are provided 24-hours per day from 21 fire stations strategically located throughout the City of Fresno. Additionally, FFD has an extensive inventory of fire and emergency response equipment. The FFD service areas are comprised of the City of Fresno, and also includes extra-territorial services via contracts to provide services to the Fig Garden Fire Protection District and Fresno Yosemite International Airport.

Fresno General Plan Policy PU-1-g sets forth the following plan for optimum services: “Create and adopt a program to provide appropriate number of employees to effectively respond to call volume

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

3.13-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan and type; and establish a long-term plan to attain a level of service of 0.81 firefighters per 1,000 residents.”
Additionally, Fresno General Plan Policy PU-2-e outlines the following fire response 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.

As such, fire protection service level is generally defined in terms of the timely arrival of a sufficient number of personnel necessary to stabilize and mitigate various types of emergencies (including low and high-risk fire incidents). This is accomplished through a community wide risk management plan that strives to meet the service objectives for first unit on scene (5 minutes and 20 seconds or less, 90 percent of the time) and effective response force (9 minutes and 20 seconds, 90 percent of the time).

The Plan Area is currently served by Stations 18 (5938 N. La Ventana, Fresno), 16 (2510 N. Polk, Fresno), and 14 (6239 N. Polk, Fresno). Station 18 was constructed in 2005 and is in good condition; this station is staffed with three FFD employees daily (one captain, one engineer and one firefighter) and has one fire engine. Station 18 will be relocated to a permanent location on the south side of the 6000 block of West Shaw Avenue to maximize the department’s “4 Minutes to Excellence” response time goal. Relocation of Station 18 is not proposed as part of the Specific Plan; as such, relocation of this station would occur regardless of the proposed Specific Plan. Future relocation of Station 18 would undergo a separate environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Station 16 was constructed in 2009 and is in good condition; this station is staffed with three FFD employees daily (one captain, and two engineers) and has one fire engine and one HAZMAT vehicle. Station 14 was constructed in 1992 and is in good condition; this station is staffed with three FFD employees daily (one captain, one engineer and one firefighter) and has one fire engine, one water tender, and one relief engine.

As shown in Table 2.0-3 in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this EIR, the proposed land use map for the Plan Area would result in the addition of up to 54,953 new residential units and up to PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-31 60,621,006.31 square feet of non-residential uses at project build‐out. The proposed land use plan also designates public facility uses that are currently existing within the Plan Area, including schools and churches. Consistent with the City’s General Plan Master EIR, Mitigation Measure PS-1, as future fire facilities are planned (including the relocation of Station 18), the fire department shall evaluate if specific environmental effects would occur. Typical impacts from fire facilities include noise, traffic, and lighting. Typical mitigation to reduce potential impacts, as noted in Mitigation Measure PS-1 of the General Plan Master EIR, includes:
• Noise: Barriers and setbacks on the fire department sites. • Traffic: Traffic devices for circulation and a “keep clear zone” during emergency responses. • Lighting: Provision of hoods and deflectors on lighting fixtures on the fire department sites.

The proposed Specific Plan would not create a need for new or expanded fire protection facilities that could result in offsite physical impacts on the environment. Relocation of Station 18, which was planned independent of the proposed Specific Plan, would improve response times in the Plan Area.

Any future development under the approved General Plan, which includes development within the Plan Area, is required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the General Plan and Draft Master EIR (City of Fresno, 2014). Additionally, Development Impact Fees will recover future development’s proportionate share of FFD capital asset costs. As outlined in Article 4.9 of the City’s Municipal Code, the City collects Development Impact Fees from new development based upon projected impacts from the development, for purposes of mitigating for project impacts on public facilities, including fire protection facilities. The City also reviews the adequacy of impact fees on an annual basis to ensure that the fee is commensurate with anticipated future facilities demands, assessed on a fair share basis for new development.

CONCLUSION
The proposed project may require the construction of fire department facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. Payment of the applicable impact fees by the future project applicants, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by future projects and/or as specified in a Development Agreement, would ensure that project impacts to fire services are less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.13-1: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each future dwelling unit to be developed within the Plan Area (and prior to issuance of building permits for nonresidential uses), the applicant shall pay all applicable project impact fees per the impact fee schedule.

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

3.13-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Impact 3.13-2: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of police department facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. (Less than Significant)
The Fresno Police Department is responsible for enforcement of state and city laws, investigation of crimes, apprehension of criminals, reducing traffic collisions, maintenance of ongoing crime prevention programs, and building ties with the community and other local law enforcement agencies. The Police Department is divided into four divisions — the patrol division, the investigation division, the professional standards division, and the support division. The Chief of Police supervises all divisions. As of April 24, 2020, the Fresno Police Department employs 1,145 FTE authorized personnel, including 836 FTE sworn safety members and 309 FTE civilians. There are no police department facilities within the Plan Area.

Fresno General Plan Policy PU-1-g sets forth the following plan for optimum services: “Create and adopt a program to provide targeted police services and establish long-term steps for attaining and maintaining the optimum levels of service—1.5 unrestricted officers per 1,000 residents.” As noted above, the proposed land use map for the Plan Area would result in the addition of up to 54,953 new residential units and up to 60,621,006.31 square feet of non-residential uses at project build‐ out. To keep current staffing levels throughout the City, the addition of 163,211 residents would require an additional 244 unrestricted officers, based upon the 1.5 officers per capita standard.

Additional equipment may also be required to accommodate the additional personnel and ensure adequate levels of service and response times throughout the Plan Area. The proposed Specific Plan would not create a need for new or expanded police protection facilities that could result in offsite physical impacts on the environment. Any future development under the approved General Plan, which includes development within the Plan Area, is required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the General Plan and Draft Master EIR (City of Fresno, 2014). Additionally, Development Impact Fees are currently collected for the provision of capital facilities for fire facilities that will provide for future facilities as the City’s population increases. Future development within the Plan Area would be subject to the Police Facilities Fee outlined in Article 4.8 of the City’s Municipal Code.

CONCLUSION
The proposed Specific Plan would not result in, or have the potential to require the construction of police department facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.

Development of the Plan Area would not directly trigger the need for a new facility; however, additional staffing and patrols are required to serve the proposed Plan Area. The City collects Development Impact Fees from new development based upon projected impacts from the development. The City also reviews the adequacy of impact fees on an annual basis to ensure that the fee is commensurate with anticipated future facilities demands, assessed on a fair share basis PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-33 for new development. Payment of the applicable impact fees by future project applicants as required by Mitigation Measure 3.13-1, and ongoing revenues that would come from, property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by future buildout of the Plan Area, would ensure that project impacts to police services are less than significant.

Impact 3.13-3: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of school facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. (Significant and Unavoidable)
As shown in Table 2.0-2 in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this EIR, the proposed land use map for the Plan Area would result in the addition of up to 54,953 new residential units and up to 60,621,006.31 square feet of non-residential uses at project build‐out. The increase in population would result in the introduction of additional students to the CUSD.

According to the CUSD Facilities Master Plan (2016), 0.351 students are generated from each residential unit. Using this factor, future buildout of the Specific Plan is expected to generate approximately 19,289 additional students for the CUSD. It is also important to understand that special legal principles apply to impacts to school facilities. According to Government Code Section 65996, the development fees authorized by Senate Bill 50 (1998) (described earlier) are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation” for impact caused by new development. The legislation also recognized the need for the fee to be adjusted periodically to keep pace with inflation. The legislation indicated that in January 2000, and every two years thereafter, the State Allocation Board would increase the maximum fees according to the adjustment for inflation in the statewide index for school construction. However, even where applicants have agreed to pay school impact mitigation fees, if the proposed development requires the construction or expansion of additional facilities that would cause other physical environmental impacts, then those physical impacts to non-school resources may be analyzed under CEQA (Gov. Code § 65995(i)).

Currently, as shown in Figure 3.13-1, 13 schools are located in the Plan Area, including nine elementary schools, three middle schools, and one high school. The proposed land use map includes an additional 10.0 acres of Elementary School land uses from what is shown in the Fresno General Plan Planned Land Use Map. This additional 10.0 acres for future development of an elementary school is located at the northwestern corner of the N. Brawley Avenue and W. Shields Avenue intersection. This elementary school would be part of the CUSD. In addition to this 10.0-acre elementary school site, there are also proposed and not yet built school sites in the Plan Area, including the following: an elementary school off Shields Avenue and west of Hayes Avenue, an elementary school at the northwest corner of Grantland and Dakota Avenues, and an elementary school off Dakota Avenue and east of Hayes Avenue
Physical impacts from future construction of this 10.0-acre elementary school site within the Plan Area is addressed within this EIR. A discussion of relevant operational and construction impacts can

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

3.13-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan be found in each respective section of this EIR. Impacts associated with development of the Plan Area, as proposed, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact

3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3- 3), and utilities (Impacts 3.15-1 through 3.15-3). Furthermore, site-specific environmental review would be required for this future school by the CUSD prior to approval of a design for the facility and would consider any site-specific impacts unknown at this time.

CONCLUSION
Future buildout of the Specific Plan would include construction of a 10.0-acre elementary school site in the Plan Area, which has the potential to cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. Potential environmental impacts associated with the future buildout of the proposed land use map, including the 10.0-acre school site within the Plan Area, are addressed throughout this EIR.

This EIR analyzes the physical environmental effects that may occur as a result of development and introduction of new urban land uses within the Plan Area. This future school, if constructed, would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR.

It is noted, however, that future development of schools within the proposed Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), and air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in this Draft EIR, impacts related to constructing a school facility to serve the Plan Area are considered significant and unavoidable.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.13-2: Prior to the issuance of future building permits for each dwelling unit to be constructed in the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan, the applicant shall pay applicable school fees mandated by SB 50 to the Central Unified School District (CUSD) and provide documentation of said payment to the City.

Impact 3.13-4: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of park facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. (Significant and Unavoidable)
Fresno General Plan Policy POSS-1-a establishes the following parkland dedication standard, consistent with the State Quimby Act:

Implement a standard of at least three acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents for Pocket, Neighborhood, and Community parks throughout the city, while striving for five acres per 1,000 residents for all parks throughout the city, subject to identifying additional funding for regional parks and trails.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-35 For the purposes of extracting and collecting fees to mitigate for increase park demands (Quimby Act), the California Government Code Section 66477 states: The amount of land dedicated or fees paid shall be based upon the residential density, which shall be determined on the basis of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map or parcel map and the average number of persons per household. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the average number of persons per household by units in a structure is the same as that disclosed by the most recent available federal census or a census taken pursuant to Chapter 17 (commencing with Section 40200) of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 4. As noted, the Quimby Act population should be based on the most recent available federal census. According the most recent U.S. Census (2014-2018) estimate, the average number of persons residing in a dwelling unit in the City of Fresno is 3.16. As noted above, the proposed land use map for the Plan Area would result in the addition of up to 54,953 new residential units and up to 60,621,006.31 square feet of non-residential uses at project build‐out. Using this most recently available federal census figure of 3.16 persons per household and the potential maximum buildout of 54,953 units, the Quimby Act population would be 173,652 persons.4This Quimby Act population would require 521 acres of parkland in order to meet the City’s parkland dedication standard of three acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents for Pocket, Neighborhood, and Community parks throughout the city.

The proposed Specific Plan land use map includes a total of 118.8 acres of park and open space uses, including pocket parks (1.55 acres), neighborhood parks (86.26 acres), community parks (24.20 acres), and open spaces (6.79 acres). The proposed project would increase the demand for parks and other recreational facilities based on the future maximum population growth, and the amount of parkland and open space provided within the Plan Area does not meets the City’s General Plan parkland dedication standard outlined in Policy POSS-1-a. Future development within the Plan Area would be subject to the Park Facilities Fee outlined in Article 4.7 of the City’s Municipal Code.

CONCLUSION
As noted previously, the City collects Development Impact Fees from new development based upon projected impacts from the development. The City also reviews the adequacy of impact fees on an annual basis to ensure that the fee is commensurate with anticipated future facilities demands, assessed on a fair share basis for new development. Payment of the applicable impact fees by future project applicants as required by Mitigation Measure 3.13-1, and ongoing revenues that would come from, property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by future buildout of the Plan Area, would ensure that project impacts to park facilities are reduced to the extent feasible.

Specific Plan implementation may result in effects on parks, or has the potential to require the construction of park facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impact. 4 The Quimby Act Population was calculated pursuant to California Government Code Section 66477 using the most recently available federal census figure of 3.16 persons per household and the potential maximum buildout of 54,953 units.

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

3.13-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Potential environmental impacts associated with the future construction of park and other recreational facilities within the Plan Area are addressed throughout this EIR. This EIR analyzes the physical environmental effects that may occur as a result of future development and introduction of new urban land uses within the Plan Area. Each future park, if constructed, would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR.

It is noted, however, that future development of 118.8 acres of park space within the Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), and utilities (Impacts 3.15-1 through 3.15-3). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in this Draft EIR, impacts related to constructing new park facilities to serve the Plan Area are considered significant and unavoidable.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.13-3: As detailed plans for future parks and recreational facilities in the Plan Area are submitted to the City, environmental review of proposed facilities shall be completed to meet the requirements of CEQA. Typical impacts from park facilities include air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, and lighting.

Impact 3.13-5: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of other public facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. (Significant and Unavoidable)
Future buildout of the Plan Area in accordance with the proposed land use map would increase demand for other public facilities within the City of Fresno, such as libraries, and community/recreation buildings. The proposed land use map includes two land use designations that could be developed with other public facilities: Public Facilities – Public Facilities, and Public Facilities – Church. Future buildout of the Specific Plan may include construction and/or expansion of existing church sites on 55.8 acres, 129.59 acres of ponding basins, and 27.42 acres of other public facility uses in the Plan Area, which has the potential to cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. Potential environmental impacts associated with the future buildout of the proposed land use map, including the 55.8-acre church site and 27.42 acres of other public facility uses, are addressed throughout this EIR. This EIR analyzes the physical environmental effects that may occur as a result of development and introduction of new urban land uses within the Plan Area.

These future church site and public facility use, if constructed, would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 3.13
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.13-37

CONCLUSION
Project implementation may result in effects on other public facilities. The Specific Plan would result in new demand for other public facilities, including library facilities, ponding basins, and recreational facilities. Although a specific public facility use is not currently proposed by the Specific Plan, the future development of public facility uses are anticipated by the proposed Plan. Future development would be responsible for paying the applicable impact fees, and ongoing revenues from the Specific Plan would be generated from property taxes, sales taxes, and other appropriate fees/payments.

Future development of public facility uses within the Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), and utilities (Impacts 3.15-1 through 3.15- 3). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in this Draft EIR, impacts related to constructing other public facilities to serve the Plan Area are considered significant and unavoidable.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.13-4: As detailed plans for future libraries or other public facilities in the Plan Area are submitted to the City, environmental review of proposed facilities shall be completed to meet the requirements of CEQA. Typical impacts from park facilities include air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, and lighting.

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

3.13-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
27 13
1 6 28
29 14
2 7 15
30 16
17 18
31 8
19 9
10 20
3 21
22 26 12
23 11
25 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 42
40 41
43 N Dante Ave
N Brawley Ave
N Blythe Ave
W Shields Ave
W Sierra Ave
N Figarden Dr
W Clinton Ave
W Spruce Ave
N Polk Ave
W Figarden Dr
N
Valent ni e Ave
W Dakota Ave
N Golden State Blvd
N Emerson Ave
N Marks Ave
N Weber Ave
W Barstow Ave
N Gates Ave
W Shaw Ave
N Cornelia Ave
W Bullard Ave N Milburn Ave
N Bryan 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: Google Maps; 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

PUBLIC FACILITY
!( Fire Station
!( Park
!( Post Office
!( School
!( Shopping
!( Special Point of Interest
!( Church
Figure 3.13-1.

Public Facilities
q 0 ¼ ½
Miles
1 Station #18
2 Station #16
3 Station #14
4 Riverside Golf Course
5 San Joaquin Country Club
6 Community Park
7 Victoria Neighborhood Park
8 Inspiration Park
9 Highw ay City Community Center
10 Stallion Park
11 Fresno County Horse Park
12 US Post Office
Fire Stations
Post Office
Parks
Golf Courses
13 Herndon-Barstow Elementary School
14 Glacier Point Middle School
15 Hanh Phan Tilley Elementary School
16 John Steinbeck Elementary School
17 Central High School East Campus
18 Roosevelt Elementary School
19 Teague Elementary School
20 William Saroyan Elementary School
21 Rio Vista Middle School
22 River Bluff Elementary School
23 Law less Elementary School
24 El Capitan Middle School
25 James K Polk Elementary School
26 Costco
27 Marketplace at El Paso
28 Island Water Park
29 Deran Koligian Stadium
30 Gatew ay Ice Center
31 Central Unified Aquatics Complex
32 Grantland Ave Southern Baptist Church
33 World Harvest Pentecostal Church
34 God's Family Church
35 Central Community Church
36 Sikh Temple Association of Fresno
37 Northw est Church of Christ
38 Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints
39 St. Mary's Catholic Church
42 Resurrection Lutheran Church
40 Highw ay City Tabernacle
41 First Spanish Baptist Church
43 Fresno Cambodian Buddhist Society
Churches
Special Point of Interest
Shopping
Schools

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

3.13-40 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-1 This section of the EIR analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (Specific Plan) on the surrounding transportation system including roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit services. An evaluation of emergency access and design features is also provided. This section is based on the Technical Memorandum for the Specific Plan of the West Area – CEQA Impacts and Mitigations that was completed for the project (Kittelson & Associates, Inc., July 2020), which is included in Appendix G.

Comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the following: City of Fresno Department of Transportation (July 29, 2019), Forgotten Fresno (July 17, 2019), San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (July 15, 2019), Carl and Lydia Franklin (August 2, 2019), Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019), and Patricia and Clifford Upton (July 24, 2019). Each of the comments related to this topic are addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.

3.14.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

REGIONAL SETTING AND LOCATION
The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (also-known-as “Specific Plan”, “West 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. The footprint of the Specific Plan is referred to as the “Plan Area.” 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 (SR-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 SR-99.

ROADWAY NETWORK
The existing roadway network in the Plan Area is comprised of a street system made up of freeways, super arterials, arterial roads, and collector roads. Roadway classifications listed are from the City of Fresno General Plan.

Freeway
State Route 99 (SR-99) is a six-lane freeway with a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour (MPH).

The northwest-southeast freeway connects most major cities in Central California including Chico, Bakersfield, Selma, Sacramento, Modesto, and Fresno. It also provides access to the greater freeway network with direct connections to State Route 180 and State Route 41.

The Plan Area is generally bordered by SR-99 on the northeast. The average daily traffic on SR-99 near the Plan Area ranges between approximately 82,000 and 112,000 vehicles per day. Bicyclists and pedestrians are not allowed on this facility.

3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

3.14-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Super Arterial
Grantland Avenue is a two-lane to four-lane north-south roadway with a posted speed limit of 40 MPH near the Plan Area. The facility extents from SR-99 on the north to Kearny Boulevard on the south. The facility is a four-lane roadway with a median north of Shaw Avenue, and a two-lane roadway south of Shaw Avenue. Sidewalks are limited; additional sidewalks, Class I, and Class II bikeways are planned along the roadway.

Veterans Boulevard is currently a single lane in each direction between Riverside Drive and N. Hayes Avenue east of SR-99 and a six-lane stub roadway west of SR-99. However, the Veterans Boulevard Interchange and Corridor Improvement Project is currently underway which will connect these two facilities and create a six-lane super arterial in northwest Fresno connecting Herndon Avenue in the north to Shaw Avenue in the south including the construction of an interchange with SR-99.

Arterials
Polk Avenue is a two-lane north-south roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 or 40 MPH near the Plan Area. The facility extends from SR-99 on the north to Olive Avenue on the south. Sidewalks and Class II bike lanes exist intermittently and are proposed along the roadway.

Shaw Avenue is a two-lane east-west roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 to 45 MPH near the Plan Area. The facility extents from the San Joaquin River on the west to the Friant-Kern Canal on the east. Sidewalks and Class II bike lanes are proposed along the roadway.

Ashlan Avenue is a two-lane to four-lane east-west roadway with a posted speed limit of 40 to 50 MPH near the Plan Area. The facility extends from Grantland Ave on the west and becomes Watts Valley Road on the east. Sidewalks and Class II bike lanes exist intermittently and are proposed along the roadway.

Grantland Avenue north of Shaw Avenue is a two lane north-south roadway with a posted speed limit of 40 MPH in the Plan Area. North of Shaw Avenue, Grantland Avenue extends north to SR-99 near the Herndon Avenue interchange. There are no sidewalks of bicycle facilities on this roadway.

Blythe Avenue from Ashlan Avenue to Dakota Avenue is a two lane north-south roadway with a center median located along most of its length. The speed limit is posted as 40 MPH. Sidewalks are generally available along frontages that have been developed but no sidewalks are present along undeveloped parcels. Class II bicycle lane exist intermittently in both the northbound and southbound directions.

Collectors
Collectors in the Plan Area include the following:
• North-south collectors:
o Garfield Avenue
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-3 o Bryan Avenue
o Hayes Avenue
o Cornelia Avenue
o Blythe Avenue
o Brawley Avenue
o Valentine Avenue
o Marks Avenue
• East-west collectors:
o Bullard Avenue
o Barstow Avenue
o Gettysburg Avenue
o Dakota Avenue
o Shields Avenue
o Clinton Avenue
Collectors are generally two-lane roadways with posted speeds of 30 to 45 MPH. Sidewalks and bike lanes are generally not present but are proposed along most collectors.

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are important components of the transportation network in the Plan Area. These facilities not only offer non-vehicular opportunities for both commute and recreational trips, but also provide connections to the region’s transit network.

Existing Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities are defined by the following four classes1:
• Class I – Provides a completely separated facility designed for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians with crossing points minimized.
• Class II – Provides a restricted right-of-way designated lane for the exclusive or semiexclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted. • Class III – Provides a right-of-way designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists.
• Class IV – Provides a restricted right-of-way designated lane for the exclusive use of bicyclists that is separated by a vertical element to provide further separation from motor vehicle traffic.
1 As detailed in Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual (Caltrans, 2015).

3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

3.14-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan The City of Fresno adopted the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) in March 2017. This plan identifies existing and future planned bicycle facilities within the City’s jurisdiction.

As shown in Figure 3.14-1, the following bikeways are currently present within the Plan Area and vicinity at intermittent locations on major roads:
• East-west streets with Class II Bike Lanes:
o Bullard Avenue, east of Grantland Avenue
o Barstow Avenue, west of Grantland Avenue
o Gettysburg Avenue, east of Hayes Avenue
o Ashlan Avenue, east of Cornelia Avenue
o Dakota Avenue, east of Polk Avenue
o Clinton Avenue, east of Cornelia Avenue
• North-south streets with Class II Bike Lanes:
o Grantland Avenue, south of SR-99
o Bryan Avenue, south of Gettysburg Avenue
o Hayes Avenue, south of Shaw Avenue
o Polk Avenue, south of Shaw Avenue
o Cornelia Avenue, south of Gettysburg Avenue
o Brawley Avenue, south of Dakota Avenue
Planned and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
As shown in Figure 3.14-1, the ATP includes the following planned and proposed bikeway facilities in the Plan Area:
• Streets with Class I Bike Paths:
o Grantland Avenue, south of Gettysburg Avenue
o Veteran’s Boulevard, north of Gettysburg Avenue
o Gettysburg Avenue, east of Cornelia Avenue
Class II Bike Lanes are located along all arterials and collectors. Bike lanes on Veterans Boulevard, Gettysburg Avenue, and Cornelia Avenue are identified as priority bikeways in the ATP.

Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities are present in the Plan Area. Sidewalks are present intermittently along some major roadways. Sidewalks are proposed on most arterials and collectors. Crosswalks are present intermittently at signalized and unsignalized intersections in the Plan Area. Figure 3.14-2 shows existing and planned sidewalks in the Plan Area.

The City of Fresno adopted the 2016 Update to the ADA Transition Plan for the Right of Way (ROW) in February 2016. The ROW Transition Plan incorporates retrofitting Curb Ramps, Sidewalks, and Accessible Pedestrian Signals and replaced the 2003 Amended Curb Ramp Transition Plan.

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-5

TRANSIT FACILITIES
Fresno is primarily served by the Fresno Area Express (FAX) transit system which operates bus service and paratransit operations servicing the city. Regional connections are provided by the Fresno County Rural Transit Agency (FCRTA) and Amtrak for travel outside of the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area.

Fresno Area Express (FAX)
FAX provides the principal bus service in the City of Fresno. It operates eighteen fixed routes with a fleet of over 100 buses, and Handy Ride, its paratransit operation, with a fleet of over 50 vehicles.

The paratransit service, FAX Handy Ride, is a service designed to meet the transportation needs of eligible persons with disabilities who cannot functionally use the FAX fixed-route bus system. Handy Ride is a shared ride, curb-to-curb service, provided from any origin to any destination throughout the service area for any trip purpose. Handy Ride operates during the same hours and days as the FAX fixed-route bus system. The service area boundaries for the FAX Handy Ride service are generally Copper Avenue to the north, east to Willow Avenue, south to Ashlan Avenue, east to Temperance Avenue, south to Central Avenue, west to Polk Avenue, north to the Fresno County line, and east to Copper Avenue.

FAX operates two routes that directly serve the Plan Area through curbside bus stops, with additional service coming into the Plan Area in 2021. Bus service on these routes is detailed in Table

3.14-1 with the routes near the Plan Area shown in Figure 3.14-3.

TABLE 3.14-1: BUS ROUTES SERVING THE PLAN AREA

ROUTE SERVING DAY TIMES FREQUENCY
12-35
Starting at Shaw and Brawley and serving Forestiere
Underground Gardens, Teague Elementary School, Inspiration Park, Central High School East, Tower District, DMV, Roeding Park, Yosemite Middle School, and Social Security Office Weekday6:00
AM
10:00
PM
Every 30
minutes
Weekend7:00
AM
7:30
PM
Every 30
minutes
39 Starting at Brawley Avenue/Shields Ave. and serving Hamilton K-8, Fresno High, Fresno City College, VA Medical Center, McLane High, Alliant University, and Fresno Yosemite
International Air Terminal primarily along Clinton Ave.

Weekday5:30
AM
10:00
PM
Every 30
minutes
Weekend7:30
AM
7:00
PM
Every 30
minutes
45 Along Ashlan Avenue serving Central High School East, Cooper Middle School, Blackbeard’s Family Entertainment, Army Navy Reserve, and ARC Fresno Production Center
Weekday5:45
AM
9:30
PM
Every 45
minutes
Weekend6:30
AM
6:30
PM
Every 45
minutes
SOURCE: FAX WEBSITE, WWW.FRESNO.GOV/FAX, ACCESSED MARCH 11, 2021, KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., 2021.

Route 12 provides local commuter and weekend service with the route originating or terminating at Shields Avenue/Brawley Avenue and San Jose Avenue/Marty Avenue intersections. Between these two origin/destinations, the route has fixed stops as it runs mostly along Brawley Avenue and Cornelia in the Plan Area, from Clinton Avenue to Shaw Avenue. Key destinations served include Central High School, Inspiration Park, and Forestriere Underground Gardens.

3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

3.14-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Route 35 provides local commuter and weekend served with the route originating or terminating in the Plan Area at Shields Avenue/Brawley Avenue and on the east side of Fresno at the intersection of Belmont Avenue/Clovis Avenue. In the Plan Area, the route provides fixed stops along Brawley and Clinton Avenues. Key destinations served by the route include the DMV, Talking Book Library, Post Office, and the Social Security Office.

Route 39 provides local commuter and weekend service with the route originating or terminating at Brawley Avenue/Shields Avenue intersection and Fresno Yosemite International Air Terminal.

Between these two origin/destinations, Route 39 runs in a loop from Clinton Avenue/Marks Avenue to Brawley Avenue/Shields Avenue in the Plan Area where it has fixed stops. Key destinations served include Fresno High School, Fresno City College, Veteran’s Medical Center, and Alliant University.

TRUCK FACILITIES
According to the City of Fresno Public Works Department, there are designated truck routes in the Plan Area. Existing and future truck routes are shown in Figure 3.14-4.

3.14.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Existing transportation polices, laws, and regulations that would apply to the proposed project are summarized below. This information provides a context for the impact discussion related to the project’s consistency with applicable regulatory conditions and development of significance criteria for evaluating project impacts.

FEDERAL
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws pertaining to transportation have been determined to be applicable to this project.

STATE
Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill (SB) 743 (Steinberg, 2013) required changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines regarding the analysis of transportation impacts. Those proposed changes identify vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. Since the bill has gone into effect, automobile delay, as measured by “level of service” and other similar metrics, no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA. Auto-mobility (often expressed as “level of service”) may continue to be a measure for planning purposes.

In December 2018, the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the State Natural Resources Agency submitted updated CEQA Guidelines to the Office of Administrative Law for final approval to implement SB 743. The Office of Administrative Law approved the updated CEQA Guidelines, thus implementing SB 743 and making VMT the primary metric used to analyze TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-7 transportation impacts. Beginning July 1, 2020 local agencies are required to implement the updated guidelines.

LOCAL
Fresno Council of Governments
The Fresno Council of Governments (COG) is a voluntary association of local governments and a regional planning agency comprised of 16 member jurisdictions, including the City of Fresno. The members are represented by a Policy Board consisting of mayors of each incorporated city, and the Chairman of the County Board of Supervisors, or their designated elected official. The Fresno COG’s purpose is to establish a consensus on the needs of the Fresno County area and further action plans for issues related to the Fresno County region. The current regional transportation plan, known as the Fresno County Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (2042), was adopted in 2018. The RTP addresses GHG emissions reductions and other air emissions related to transportation, with the goal of preparing for future growth in a sustainable way. The plan specifies how funding will be sourced and financed for the region’s planned transportation investments, ongoing operations, and maintenance. The goals, objectives, and policies of the RTP are established to direct the courses of action that will provide efficient, integrated multimodal transportation systems to serve the mobility needs of people, including accessible pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and freight, while fostering economic prosperity and development, and minimizing mobile sources of air pollution.

These goals, objectives, and policies are organized into six categories:
• General Transportation;
• Highway, Streets, and Roads;
• Mass Transportation;
• Aviation;
• Active Transportation; and
• Rail
The RTP is updated every four years. The Fresno COG is currently updating their RTP. The 2020-2022 RTP is anticipated to be adopted in June 2022.

Fresno County Congestion Management Process
In June 1990, California voters approved legislation that required Congestion Management Plans (CMP) be developed in urbanized counties to address congestion on California’s highways and roads. The Fresno County Congestion Management Process (CMP) implements this requirement and its responsibilities include providing information on transportation system performance and assessing alternative strategies for alleviating congestion and improving mobility for people and goods to levels that meet State and local needs. The Fresno County CMP identifies four general objectives:

1. Optimize the transportation facilities through efficient system management;

3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

3.14-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

2. Invest in strategies that reduce travel demand, improve system performance, increase safety, and provide effective incident management;

3. Reduce VMT by encouraging alternative modes of transportation and promotion of sustainable land use development; and

4. Improve public transit, extend bicycle and pedestrian systems, and promote car‐sharing and bike‐sharing programs to facilitate the development of an integrated multimodal transportation system in the Fresno region.

Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno adopted the Fresno 2035 General Plan2in December 2014 as an update to the previous Fresno General Plan approved in 2002. It serves as the City’s guide for the continued development, enhancement, and revitalization of the Fresno metropolitan area.

It is noted that the approved General Plan text was updated in order to reflect changes in applicable statutes and regulations related to VMT, as well as updating the General Plan EIR to include a current baseline for the continued implementation of the approved General Plan, and reflect changes in City planning documents that have occurred since adoption of the approved General Plan in 2014. The City did not propose any land use changes as a part of the recent General Plan changes. The following objectives and policies reflect the most recent (2021) General Plan policies and objectives.

The Fresno General Plan contains the following objectives and policies that are relevant to transportation and circulation:

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-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.

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. 2 City of Fresno General Plan 2035, December 18, 2014.

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-9 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 maintaining this LOS would be infeasible and/or conflict with the achievement of other General Plan policies.
• 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
Objective MT-2: Make efficient use of the City's existing and proposed transportation system and strive to ensure the planning and provision of adequate resources to operate and maintain it.

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-d: Street Redesign where Excess Capacity Exists. Evaluate opportunities to reduce right of way and/or redesign streets to support non-automobile travel modes along

3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

3.14-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan streets with excess roadway capacity where adjacent land use is not expected to change over the planning period
Policy MT-2-e: Driveway and Access Consolidation. Take advantage of opportunities to consolidate driveways, access points, and curb cuts along designated major roadways when a change in development or a change in intensity occurs or when traffic operation or safety warrants
Policy MT-2-f: Optimization of Roadway Operations. Optimize roadway operations by continuing to expand the use of techniques such as the City’s intelligent transportation system (ITS) to manage traffic signal timing coordination in order to improve traffic operations and increase traffic-carrying capacity, while reducing unnecessary congestion and decreasing air pollution emissions. In order to facilitate roadway optimization and as a potential revenue source for the optimization, the following strategies need to be implemented:
• Dig Once Policy. Install conduit for telecommunications use when trenching or construction occurs.
• Telecommunications Strategy. Develop a costing mechanism for allowing the use of excess conduit within the City for use by communication carriers. The Policy shall follow regulations of the California Public Utilities Commission. • Grant Funding. Pursue grant funding to assist in construction and/or implementation of fiber-optic or other telecommunication infrastructure for additional public services such as education, economic development, reaching underserved populations, and public safety communications.

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.

Policy MT-2-i: Transportation Impact Studies. Require a Transportation Impact Study (currently named Traffic Impact Study) to assess the impacts of new development projects on existing and planned streets for projects meeting one or more of the following criteria, unless it is determined by the City Traffic Engineer that the project site and surrounding area already has appropriate multi-modal infrastructure improvements. • When a project includes a General Plan amendment that changes the General Plan Land Use Designation.
• When the project will substantially change the off-site transportation system (auto, transit, bike or pedestrian) or connection to the system, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer.

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-11 • Transportation impact criteria are tiered based on a project’s location within the City’s Sphere of Influence. This is to assist with areas being incentivized for development. The four zones, as defined on Figure MT-4, are listed below. The following criteria apply:
o Traffic Impact Zone I (TIZ-I): TIZ-I represents the Downtown Planning Area.

Maintain a peak hour LOS standard of F or better for all intersections and roadway segments. A TIS will be required for all development projected to generate 200 or more peak hour new vehicle trips.
o Traffic Impact Zone II (TIZ-II): TIZ-II generally represents areas of the City currently built up and wanting to encourage infill development. Maintain a peak hour LOS standard of E or better for all intersections and roadway segments. A TIS will be required for all development projected to generate 200 or more peak hour new vehicle trips.
o Traffic Impact Zone III (TIZ-III): TIZ-III generally represents areas near or outside the City Limits but within the SOI as of December 31, 2012.

Maintain a peak hour LOS standard of D or better for all intersections and roadway segments. A TIS will be required for all development projected to generate 100 or more peak hour new vehicle trips.
o Traffic Impact Zone IV (TIZ-IV): TIZ-IV represents the southern employment areas within and planned by the City. Maintain a peak hour LOS standard of E or better for all intersections and roadway segments. A TIZ will be required for all development projected to generate 200 or more peak hour new vehicle trips.

Policy MT-2-l: Region-Wide Transportation Impact Fees. Continue to support the implementation of metropolitan-wide and region-wide transportation impact fees sufficient to cover the proportional share of a development's impacts and need for a comprehensive multi-modal transportation system that is not funded by other sources.

Work with the Council of Fresno County Governments, transportation agencies (e.g., Caltrans, Federal Transportation Agency) and other jurisdictions in the region to develop a method for determining:
• Regional transportation impacts of new development;
• Regional highways, streets, rail, trails, public transportation, and goods movement system components, consistent with the General Plan, necessary to mitigate those impacts and serve projected demands;
• Projected full lifetime costs of the regional transportation system components, including construction, operation, and maintenance; and • Costs covered by established funding sources.

Policy MT-2-m: Use VMT analysis for CEQA. Use Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the criteria for evaluating transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act

3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

3.14-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (CEQA), pursuant to Senate Bill 743. Level of Service (LOS) may still be used for planning purposes and implementation of Capital Improvement Projects; however, VMT shall be used for determining mitigation under CEQA beginning in July of 2020.

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
Objective MT-5: Establish a well-integrated network of pedestrian facilities to accommodate safe, convenient, practical, and inviting travel by walking, including for those with physical mobility and vision impairments.

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-5-d: Pedestrian Safety. Minimize vehicular and pedestrian conflicts on both major and non-roadways through implementation of traffic access design and control standards addressing street intersections, median island openings and access driveways to facilitate accessibility while reducing congestion and increasing safety. Increase safety and accessibility for pedestrians with vision disabilities through the installation of Accessible Pedestrian Signals at signalized intersections
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-13 Policy MT-5-e: Traffic Management in Established Neighborhoods. Establish acceptable design and improvement standards and provide traffic planning assistance to established neighborhoods to identify practical traffic management and calming methods to enhance the pedestrian environment with costs equitably assigned to properties receiving the benefits or generating excessive vehicle traffic
Objective MT-6: Establish a network of multi-purpose pedestrian and bicycle paths, as well as limited access trails, to link residential areas to local and regional open spaces and recreation areas and urban Activity Centers in order to enhance Fresno's recreational amenities and alternative transportation options.

Policy MT-6-g: Path and Trail Development. Require all projects to incorporate planned multi-purpose path and trail development standards and corridor linkages consistent with the General Plan, applicable law and case-by-case determinations as a condition of project approval
Objective MT-8: Provide public transit options that serve existing and future concentrations of residences, employment, recreation and civic uses and are feasible, efficient, safe, and minimize environmental impacts.

Policy MT-8-a: Street Design Coordinated with Transit. Coordinate the planning, design, and construction of the major roadway network with transit operators to facilitate efficient direct transit routing throughout the Planning Area.

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 Objective MT-11: Achieve necessary capacity increasing and inter-modal connectivity enhancing improvements to the goods movement transportation system to support the growth in critical farm product and value added industries.

Policy MT-11-c: Truck Route Designations. Continue to plan and designate truck routes within the Metropolitan Area to facilitate access to and from goods production and processing areas while minimizing conflicts with other transportation priorities The General Plan also has policies related to maintaining acceptable Levels of Service (LOS).

However, LOS can no longer be used for CEQA evaluations and is, therefore, not relevant to this section which focuses on CEQA impacts. Additional analyses of the Specific Plan will be documented in another report that will detail LOS.

3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

3.14-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan City of Fresno VMT Guidelines
The City of Fresno adopted their VMT guidelines on June 25, 20203. This document serves as a detailed guideline for preparing VMT analysis consistent with SB 743 requirements for development projects, transportation projects, and plans. Key elements of these guidelines include:
• The County of Fresno was selected as the region for assessing VMT impacts. Therefore, all projects will compare their VMT metrics against the county averages. • The draft guidelines recommend the following significant thresholds for land development projects in the City of Fresno:
o 13 percent below existing regional average VMT per capita for residential projects o 13 percent below existing regional average VMT per employee for office projects o No net increase in VMT for retail projects.
• For land use plans such as specific plans and general plans, the guidelines recommend comparing the existing VMT per capita and/or VMT per employee for the region with the expected horizon year VMT per capita and/or VMT per employee for the land use plan. If there is a net increase in the applicable VMT metrics (VMT/capita and VMT/employee) under horizon year conditions, then the project will have a significant impact.

City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan
The City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan (ATP)4is a comprehensive guide that creates a vision for active transportation in the City of Fresno. It is an update to the City of Fresno Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Trails, Master Plan that was adopted in 2010. The ATP lays out specific goals to improve bicycle access and connectivity in Fresno. The goals include the following:
• Equitably improve the safety and perceived safety of walking and bicycling in Fresno; • Increase walking and bicycling trips in Fresno by creating user friendly facilities; • Improve the geographical equity of access to walking and bicycling facilities in Fresno; and • Fill key gaps in Fresno’s walking and bicycling networks.

City of Fresno ADA Transition Plan for the Right of Way (ROW) On February 25, 2016 the City Council adopted the 2016 Update to the ADA Transition Plan for the Right of Way (ROW). The ROW Transition Plan incorporates retrofitting Curb Ramps, Sidewalks, and Accessible Pedestrian Signals and replaces the 2003 Amended Curb Ramp Transition Plan. The goal of the ADA Transition Plan for the ROW is to ensure that the City maintains accessible paths of travel in the ROW for people with disabilities.
3 https://www.fresno.gov/darm/planning-development/plans-projects-under-review/#tab-02 4 City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan, December 2016.

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-15

3.14.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The transportation analysis assesses how the study area’s transportation system would operate with the implementation of the proposed project. The analysis includes effects that would result in significant impacts as set forth in the CEQA Guidelines.

The project’s impact is not considered to be significant unless it would:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guideline section 15064.3, subdivision (b). c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). d) Result in inadequate emergency access.

Significance criteria “b” is related to the implementation of VMT as the primary performance metric.

The following criteria are used to assess a significant impact related to VMT consistent with the City of Fresno “CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds” dated June 25, 2020:
• A proposed (residential) project exceeding a level of 13 percent below existing regional average5 VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact. • A similar threshold would apply to office projects (13 percent below existing regional average VMT per employee).
• VMT generated by retail projects would indicate a significant impact for any net increase in total VMT.
• Section 6 of the VMT guidelines includes Significance Criteria for Specific Plans: For land use plans such as the Specific Plan for the West Area, the recommended methodology for conducting VMT assessments is to compare the existing VMT per capita and/or VMT per employee for the region with the expected horizon year VMT per capita and/or VMT per employee for the land use plan. If there is a net increase in the VMT metric under horizon year conditions, then the project will have a significant impact. 5 The City of Fresno defines the region for applying these thresholds as Fresno County.

3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

3.14-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.14-1: Implementation of the Specific Plan would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. (Less than Significant)
Development associated with the proposed Plan would increase the amount of multimodal transportation activity which would require the improvement and expansion of the local transportation network in the Plan Area to serve the associated travel demand. The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes the following guiding principles related to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian travel:
• Accommodate and improve roadway access, connectivity and mobility among all modes of transportation, and prioritize roadway widening where bottlenecks exist. • Accommodate planned transit services in the West Area by locating routes near or adjacent to the community centers, schools, parks, and retail centers. • Provide a complete, safe, and well-maintained sidewalk network from residential neighborhoods to commercial centers, schools, parks, and community centers. • Provide a complete, safe, and well-maintained roadway network that allows for efficient and smooth access from the West Area to other sections of the City and region.

These guiding principles are consistent with General Plan policies which detail how the circulation system will be improved to meet the needs of all users. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would promote the use of alternative transportation modes by accelerating development in the Plan Area, which would in turn require development of a circulation system that addresses all users. Development of the Specific Plan would be required to be consistent with the following General Plan policies that address transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian travel:
• Policy MT-1-g: Complete Streets Concept Implementation. o Requires transportation facilities be 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. o Requires intersections and roadways along transit corridor and in activity centers maintain acceptable operations to facilitate transit movement. • Policy MT-2-d: Street Redesign where Excess Capacity Exists. o Requires roadways with extra capacity to be modified to “right size” the roadway. • Policy MT-4-b: Bikeway Improvements.
o Requires new development to set aside an adequate amount of right of way to construct bicycle facilities.
• Policy MT-4-d: Prioritization of Bikeway Improvements.

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-17 o Prioritizes connections between existing facilities to complete a comprehensive bicycle network.
• Policy MT-5-a: Sidewalk Development.
o Establishes a goal of developing sidewalks to improve connectivity to transit • Policy MT-5-b: Sidewalk Requirements.
o Requires sidewalks to be constricted to the latest standards • Policy MT-6-g: Path and Trail Development.
o Requires planned multi use paths be constructed along with new development • Policy MT-8-a: Street Design Coordinated with Transit. o Requires coordination with roadway design and transit to ensure an efficient public transportation system
• Policy MT-8-c: New Development Facilitating Transit.
o Requires new development to facilitate transit.

Additionally, the Specific Plan has a strong emphasis on Complete Neighborhoods, which is a tool to achieve environmental justice. The concept of Complete Neighborhoods is to enable residents of Fresno to live in communities with convenient access to services, employment, and recreation within walking distance. It provides residents with amenities that make their neighborhood mostly self-sufficient and interconnected. According to the Specific Plan, planning for Complete Neighborhoods will help support the provision of resources to neighborhoods where they are currently lacking or are under-resourced. Section 5.4 of the Specific Plan includes a series of maps which show a reasonable walkshed from existing and planned schools; bus stops; commercial uses; and existing and planned parks.

Since the guiding principles of the Specific Plan support the policies of the General Plan, no conflict with policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation would occur from future development and redevelopment under the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.

Impact 3.14-2: Implementation of the Specific Plan would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guideline section 15064.3, subdivision (b). (Less Than Significant with Mitigation)
The Fresno COG Activity Based travel demand model was used to estimate existing and horizon year average VMT per capita and VMT per employee for the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) that comprise the Specific Plan Area and Fresno County. The number of dwelling units and employment for the Specific Plan Area were calculated at buildout and provided to Fresno COG. Fresno COG used the buildout numbers to run a population synthesizer to generate land use input files for running the activity-based model. These land use input files were then run through the activity-based model to develop horizon year (2035) forecasts with the buildout of the Specific Plan Area.

Table 3.14-2 presents VMT per capita and VMT per employee findings for existing conditions in Fresno County and for the Plan Area at buildout in the horizon year. Based on the City of Fresno VMT Guidelines, a specific plan would have a significant impact if the VMT per capita and VMT per

3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

3.14-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan employee of the Specific Plan Area exceeded the same metrics for existing conditions in all of Fresno County.

TABLE 3.14-2: VMT PER CAPITA AND VMT PER EMPLOYEE - EXISTING AND HORIZON YEAR CONDITIONS

TRIP TYPES

FRESNO COUNTY
(2019)

SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
(2035)

DIFFERENCE
(%)
VMT Per Capita 16.1 8.7 -7.4 (46%)
VMT Per Employee 25.6 13.2 -12.4 (48%)
NOTE: THESE NUMBERS ARE BASED ON FRESNO COG’S ACTIVITY-BASED TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL, AND THE LAND USE INPUTS OBTAINED FOR HORIZON YEAR 2035 FROM FRESNO COG(ASSUMING FULL BUILDOUT OF THE FRESNO WEST AREA OUTLINED IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN).

SOURCE: FRESNO COG TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL, AND KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., 2020.

As Table 3.14-2 shows, the projected VMT per capita and VMT per employee in the Plan Area are lower than existing conditions. Under the Specific Plan, VMT per capita is 7.4 lower, or 46% lower, while VMT per employee is 12.4 lower, or 48% lower. The decrease in VMT is the result of the proposed land use mix within the Plan Area. The retail and employment opportunities keep the VMT per capita lower than the County average, while the large number of dwelling units near the jobs allows employees to live close to work resulting in a VMT per employee that is lower than the County average today.

CONCLUSION
The City of Fresno VMT Guidelines state specific plans would have an impact if the VMT per capita or VMT per employee in the specific plan area for the horizon year increases compared to the existing VMT per capita or VMT per employee in the region (Fresno County). The VMT per capita in the Specific Plan Area during the horizon year is 8.7, while VMT per employee is 13.2. Under existing conditions in Fresno County, the VMT per capita is 16.1, while the VMT per employee is 25.6.

Because the VMT per capita and VMT per employee in the Specific Plan Area during the horizon year is less than the VMT per capita and VMT per employee for existing conditions in Fresno County, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in a significant impact for residential and office projects.

Therefore, impacts related to CEQA Guideline section 15064.3, subdivision (b), would be less than significant.

Impact 3.14-3: Implementation of the Specific Plan would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). (Less than Significant)
The proposed Specific Plan would result in a relocation of density in the Plan Area to central corridors compared to what would develop under the City’s General Plan where density is more distributed throughout the Plan Area; however, the Specific Plan does not propose to change the types (i.e., residential, commercial, office, etc.) of land uses in the Plan Area. The West Area TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 3.14
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.14-19 Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes the following guiding principles related to transportation and hazards:
• Provide a complete, safe, and well-maintained sidewalk network from residential neighborhoods to commercial centers, schools, parks, and community centers. • Provide a complete, safe, and well-maintained roadway network that allows for efficient and smooth access from the West Area to other sections of the city and region.

Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would result in some changes to the City’s circulation network, but would not increase hazards or incompatible uses due to design features. All future roadway system improvements associated with development and redevelopment activities under the Specific Plan would be designed in accordance with the established roadway design standards, some of which have also been incorporated into the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan.

The City’s General Plan policies that would address design and safety issues are:
• Policy MT-2-e: Driveway and Access Consolidation.
• Policy MT-2-i: Transportation Impact Studies.
• Policy MT-5-d: Pedestrian Safety.
• Policy MT-5-e: Traffic Management in Established Neighborhoods.

The future roadway improvements that would result with implementation of the Specific Plan would be subject to review and future consideration by the City of Fresno. An evaluation of the roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features would be needed.

Roadway improvements would be made in accordance with the City’s Circulation Plan, roadway functional design guidelines, and would have to meet design guidelines such as the accessibility requirements of Title 24 (California Building Code), ADA standards, California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and the Caltrans Roadway Design Manual. Implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in hazardous conditions, or create conflicting uses. With implementation of General Plan Policy MT-2-e, Policy MT-2-I, and application of the conditions of approval at the time of review of land development projects, the Specific Plan would be designed to ensure that no hazardous circulation conditions are created as a result of implementation of the Plan. The Specific Plan would implement components of the roadway system consistent with the City’s General Plan. Therefore, impacts related to hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

Impact 3.14-4: Implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in inadequate emergency access. (Less than Significant)
Emergency response requires a balance of emergency response time and evacuation needs with other community concerns, such as urban design and traffic calming. Future roadway improvements associated with buildout of the Plan Area would be made in accordance with the City’s Circulation Plan and roadway functional design guidelines.

3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

3.14-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan With the application of the conditions of approval at the time of review of land development projects, the Specific Plan would be designed to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided. The Specific Plan would implement components of the roadway system consistent with the City’s General Plan. Therefore, impacts related to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. 99 N

BLYTHE AVE

W BLUFF AVE

N PARKWAY DR

N STATE ST

PRIVATE DR

W GRIFFITH WAY

W BROWNING AVE

W BARSTOW AVE N SALINAS AVE

N CRYSTAL AVE

N MARTY AVE

W HERNDON AVE

N FORKNER AVE

W DUDLEY AVE

W ALAMOS AVE

W PALO ALTO AVE

W BOY SCOUT RD

N THIELE AVE

N MONROE AVE

N CHATEAU FRESNO AVE

W SPRUCE AVE

N MARKS AVE W FLORADORA AVE

W ASHLAN AVE

N BRYAN AVE

W YALE AVE

W OLIVE AVE

W RIALTO AVE N GARFIELD AVE

N VISTA AVE
N

WEBER AVE

W ASHLAN AVE

N VAN NESS BLVD

N GATES AVE

W CLINTON AVE

N CORNELIA AVE

W SPRUCE AVE

W MCKINLEY AVE

W BARSTOW AVE

N DANTE A
VE

N EMERSON AVE

N MARKS AVE

W SIERRA AVE

N FIGARDEN DR

N HUGHES AVE

N WEBER AVE

N MILBURN AVE
N BRA
WLEY A
VE

W FIGARDEN DR

W RIVER VISTA DR

W ALLUVIAL AVE

W SHAW AVE

W BULLARD AVE

N BRYAN AVE

W DAKOTA AVE

N GOLDEN STATE BLVD N POLK AVE

W BELMONT AVE

N GRANTLAND AVE

N BLYTHE AVE

W SHIELDS AVE

N VALENTINE AVE

W SAN JOSE AVEN MARTY AVE

W HERNDON AVE

W OLIVE AVE

N SANTA FE AVE

N HAYES AVE
N
Figure 3.14-1
Existing and Proposed Bicycle
Routes in the Specific Plan Area
Project
Boundary
Existing Bicycle Facilities Planned Bicycle Facilities
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Lane
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Lane
RailstoTrails

3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

3.14-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page intentionally left blank.
99 N BLYTHE A
E

W BLUFF AVE

N PARKWAY DR N STATE ST
PRIV

ATE DR W GRIFFITH WAY

W BROWNING AVE

W BARSTOW AVE N SALINAS AVE

N CRYSTAL AVE
N M

ARTY AVE

W HERNDO AVE N FORKNER AVE W DUDLEY AVE

W ALAMOS AVE

W PALO ALTO AVE

W OY SCOUT RD

N TH EI LE A
VE
N M

ONROE AVE N CHATEAU FRESNO
AVE

W SPRUCE AVE

N MARKS AVE W FLORADORA AVE

W ASHLAN AVE
N
BRYAN
AVE

W YALE AVE

W OLIVE AVE

W RIALTO AVE N GARFIELD AVE N VISTA
AVE
N

WE ER AVE

W ASHLAN AVE
N
V
A
N

NESS BLV
D

N GATES AVE

W CLINTON AVE
N
C

ORNEL AI A

VE W SPRUCE AVE

W MCKINLEY AVE

W BARSTOW AVE

N DANTE A
VE

N EM RSON AVE
N
M
ARKS A
VE

W SIERRA AVE

N FIGARDEN
R

N HUGHES A
VE N W

BER AVE
N

MILBURN
A

VE N BRA
WLEY A

VE W FIGARDE DR

W RIVER VIS A DR

W ALLUVIAL AVE

W SHAW AVE

W BULLARD AVE
N BRYA
N
A

VE W DAKOTA AVE

N GOLDEN STATE BLVD

N POLK A

VE W BELMONT AVE
N
GRA
NTLA
N
D
A
VE

N BLYTHE A

VE W SHIELDS AVE
N
V

ALENT NI E A

VE W SAN JOSE AVE
N
M
ARTY
A

VE W HERNDON AVE

W OLIVE AVE

N SANTA FE AVE

N HAYES A
VE
Figure 3.14-2
Existing and Proposed Sidewalks in the Specific Plan Area Project
Boundary
Existing Sidewalk
Planned Sidewalk

3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

3.14-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page intentionally left blank.
99 N

BLYTHE AVE

W BLUFF AVE

N PARKWAY DR

N STATE ST

PRIVATE DR

W GRIFFITH WAY

W BROWNING AVE

W BARSTOW AVE N SALINAS AVE

N CRYSTAL AVE

N MARTY AVE

W HERNDON AVE

N FORKNER AVE

W DUDLEY AVE

W ALAMOS AVE

W PALO ALTO AVE

W BOY SCOUT RD

N THIELE AVE

N MONROE AVE

N CHATEAU FRESNO AVE

W SPRUCE AVE

N MARKS AVE W FLORADORA AVE

W ASHLAN AVE

N BRYAN AVE

W YALE AVE

W OLIVE AVE

W RIALTO AVE N GARFIELD AVE

N VISTA AVE
N

WEBER AVE

W ASHLAN AVE

N VAN NESS BLVD

N GATES AVE

W CLINTON AVE

N CORNELIA AVE

W SPRUCE AVE

W MCKINLEY AVE

W BARSTOW AVE

N DANTE A
VE

N EMERSON AVE

N MARKS AVE

W SIERRA AVE

N FIGARDEN DR

N HUGHES AVE

N WEBER AVE

N MILBURN AVE
N BRA
WLEY A
VE

W FIGARDEN DR

W RIVER VISTA DR

W ALLUVIAL AVE

W SHAW AVE

W BULLARD AVE

N BRYAN AVE

W DAKOTA AVE

N GOLDEN STATE BLVD N POLK AVE

W BELMONT AVE

N GRANTLAND AVE

N BLYTHE AVE

W SHIELDS AVE

N VALENTINE AVE

W SAN JOSE AVEN MARTY AVE

W HERNDON AVE

W OLIVE AVE

N SANTA FE AVE

N HAYES AVE
N
Figure 3.14-3
Existing and Proposed Transit Service
in the Specific Plan Area
Project
Boundary
Route 12
Route 39
Route 35
Route 45
Route 3
Route 12

3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

3.14-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page intentionally left blank.
99 N

BLYTHE AVE

W BLUFF AVE

N PARKWAY DR

N STATE ST

PRIVATE DR

W GRIFFITH WAY

W BROWNING AVE

W BARSTOW AVE N SALINAS AVE

N CRYSTAL AVE

N MARTY AVE

W HERNDON AVE

N FORKNER AVE

W DUDLEY AVE

W ALAMOS AVE

W PALO ALTO AVE

W BOY SCOUT RD

N THIELE AVE

N MONROE AVE

N CHATEAU FRESNO AVE

W SPRUCE AVE

N MARKS AVE W FLORADORA AVE

W ASHLAN AVE

N BRYAN AVE

W YALE AVE

W OLIVE AVE

W RIALTO AVE N GARFIELD AVE

N VISTA AVE
N

WEBER AVE

W ASHLAN AVE

N VAN NESS BLVD

N GATES AVE

W CLINTON AVE

N CORNELIA AVE

W SPRUCE AVE

W MCKINLEY AVE

W BARSTOW AVE

N DANTE A
VE

N EMERSON AVE

N MARKS AVE

W SIERRA AVE

N FIGARDEN DR

N HUGHES AVE

N WEBER AVE

N MILBURN AVE
N BRA
WLEY A
VE

W FIGARDEN DR

W RIVER VISTA DR

W ALLUVIAL AVE

W SHAW AVE

W BULLARD AVE

N BRYAN AVE

W DAKOTA AVE

N GOLDEN STATE BLVD N POLK AVE

W BELMONT AVE

N GRANTLAND AVE

N BLYTHE AVE

W SHIELDS AVE

N VALENTINE AVE

W SAN JOSE AVEN MARTY AVE

W HERNDON AVE

W OLIVE AVE

N SANTA FE AVE

N HAYES AVE
N
Project
Boundary
Existing Route
Future Planned Route
Figure 3.14-4
Existing and Planned Truck
Routes in the Specific Plan Area

3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

3.14-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page intentionally left blank.

UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-1 This section describes the regulatory setting, impacts associated with wastewater services, water services, storm drainage, and solid waste disposal that are likely to result from Specific Plan implementation, and measures to reduce potential impacts to wastewater, water supplies, storm drainage, and solid waste facilities.

This section is based in part on the following documents, reports and studies:
• CalRecycle Solid Waste Information System (CalRecycle, 2020); • CalRecycle Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary (CalRecycle, 2020); • City of Fresno Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update (City of Fresno, 2016);
• City of Fresno 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (City of Fresno, 2021); • Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• Fresno General Plan Public Review Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (City of Fresno, 2020);
• Response to Comments on the Draft Master Environmental Impact Report General Plan and Development Code Update - City of Fresno, Fresno County, California (City of Fresno, 2014); • City of Fresno Specific Plan for the West Area Utility Background Summary (West Yost Associates, 2022) (included in Appendix D of this EIR). • Specific Plan of the West Area Water Supply Assessment (West Yost Associates, 2022) (included in Appendix E of this EIR);
Comments were received during the public review period for the Notice of Preparation (NOP) regarding stormwater from Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019) and the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (August 1, 2019). These comments are included in Appendix A of this EIR.

3.15.1 WASTEWATER SERVICES

EXISTING SETTING
The City is the regional sewer agency for the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area (FCMA). The City of Fresno owns and operates two wastewater treatment facilities that serve the Fresno metropolitan area: the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (Regional Facility) and the North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility (NFWRF).

Wastewater is composed of sanitary flow and Infiltration and Inflow (I&I):
• The sanitary flow is the actual wastewater that is generated in the homes and businesses that are connected to the sewersystem. The sewer system (or collection system) is intended to collect and convey all the sanitary flow from the homes and businesses to the wastewater treatment plant. The sanitary flow is often called the Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) because it is the primary source of wastewater during dry weather. • I&I is stormwater that enters the wastewater collection system through flooded maintenance holes; defects in pipes, pipe joints, and sewer structures; or as inflow through illicitly connected downspouts, area drains, and catch basins. Sewer systems are intended

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan to prevent (or minimize) the I&I that enters the sewer system so that the stormwater does not cause the sewer capacities to be exceeded or result in treating stormwater at the wastewater treatment plant. The combined ADWF and I&I is called the peak wet weather flow (PWWF).

Collection systems are sized, designed, and constructed to the convey the PWWF to the City’s wastewater treatment plants. The City’s wastewater collection system has roughly 23,000 manholes, 15 lift stations, 1.7 force mains, and 1,500 miles of gravity sewer pipes (Carollo, 2015).

Generally, the collection system flows from northeast to southwest across the entire City. In the West Area, wastewater generally flows from the north to the south.

The City of Fresno owns and maintains the majority of the wastewater collection systems that convey wastewater to the Regional Facility, and all of the wastewater collection system that conveys wastewater to the NFWRF. The City's wastewater collection system consists of more than 1,500 miles of gravity flow pipelines, ranging in size from 4 inches to 84 inches in diameter, and ranging in age from new to more than 100 years old. The system also includes some pressure flow pipelines, by which pumped wastewater is conveyed to a point of discharge usually tributary to a gravity flow pipeline. Wastewater collection system pipelines consist of a number of different pipe materials, but the majority of the gravity flow pipelines consist of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, vitrified clay pipe (VCP) or concrete pipe, which includes both reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) and standard or non‐ reinforced concrete pipe (SCP). Together, these pipe materials account for approximately 98.4 percent of the wastewater collection system pipelines.

Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility
The Regional Facility is located southwest of the City in the area generally bounded by Jensen, Cornelia, Central and Chateau Fresno Avenues. Wastewater from the Plan Area is treated at the Regional Facility, which has an average annual flow of approximately 60 million gallons per day (MGD). The Regional Facility receives and treats wastewater from three additional service areas, including the: City of Clovis, Pinedale County Water District, and Pinedale Public Utility District. The Regional Facility has an ADWF capacity of 92 MGD; however, it can treat the PWWF that occurs during storm events, which is higher than the ADWF but lasts for short duration. The City of Clovis owns 12.86 MGD of ADWF capacity, while the remaining capacity belongs to the City.

The Regional Facility received and treated approximately 72,302 acre‐feet (AF) of wastewater during 2011, representing an annual average daily flow of approximately 64.5 MGD. The quantity of wastewater received and treated by the Regional Facility has been declining since 2006, when it peaked at a total of approximately 80,801 AF, representing an annual average daily flow of approximately 72.1 MGD.

Wastewater treatment plant capacities are typically rated based on the ADWF flow. The permitted wastewater treatment capacity of the Regional Facility is currently 80.0 MGD as an annual monthly average flow, and 88.0 MGD as a maximum monthly average flow. The City is currently evaluating upgrades and modifications to the existing Regional Facility that may result in a capacity rating increase of 15.0 MGD.

UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-3 The Regional Facility employs an activated sludge wastewater treatment process, which produces un‐disinfected secondary effluent. Most of the effluent is discharged to an array of percolation basins, where it percolates through the underlying soil strata and into the groundwater beneath the basin. However, some of the effluent is recycled by direct delivery to nearby farmland where it is used for restricted irrigation for feed/fodder and fiber crops. In addition, some of the percolated effluent is extracted from the groundwater beneath the basins by pumping and is recycled for irrigation by delivery to the Fresno Irrigation District (FID) canal system. The Regional Facility also has a 5 MGD tertiary treatment facility, which treats a portion of the overall plants rated capacity.

The facility includes the following major processes/facilities:
• Headworks and Grit Chambers – The screening facilities remove the larger trash and grit from the raw wastewater. From the headworks, the wastewater is pumped into pipes that flow to the primary clarifiers.
• Primary Clarifiers – These six tanks allow finer sediment to settle out of the effluent and skim fats, oils and grease from the top. Wastewater leaving the settling tanks is called primary effluent and either flows to the aeration basins or is diverted for additional screening prior to tertiary treatment.
• Aeration Basins – In the aeration basins air is pumped into the wastewater to increase the growth of bacteria and other micro-organisms that consume the organic waste. From the aeration basins the partially treated wastewater flows to the Secondary Clarifiers. • Secondary Clarifiers – The secondary clarifiers are basins where the bacteria and microorganisms settle out of the wastewater. There are 16 secondary clarifiers. Effluent leaving the secondary clarifiers is called secondary effluent, and it flows to storage ponds. There is currently no disinfection system for the secondary effluent. • Membrane Bioreactor Tanks – Primary effluent designated for tertiary treatment is passed through a fine screen and two pre-aeration basins before entering four membrane bioreactor (MBR) tanks. MBRs combine biological treatment with membrane filtration.

Effluent leaving the MBRs flows to ultraviolet (UV) disinfection vessels. • UV Disinfection – Effluent from the MBRs is exposed to UV light to inactivate pathogens.

There are four in-vessel UV disinfection trains. After disinfection, effluent is called tertiary effluent and is sent to recycled water storage.
• Storage Ponds – There are 1,720 acres of storage ponds where the effluent percolates into the groundwater, evaporates, or is pumped for irrigation of non-food crops. • Solids Treatment – The bacteria and micro-organisms that settle out of the wastewater in the clarifiers are called the solids. Flotation thickeners, digesters, and belt filter presses are used to extract liquid from the solids. The liquid is returned to the settling tanks. The remaining solids are then stored in silos to await disposal.

North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility
The NFWRF is a tertiary level wastewater treatment facility located in north Fresno, near the intersection of Copper Avenue and Cedar Avenue. The NFWRF treats wastewater from the northern portion of the City. It was constructed in late 2006 to provide wastewater treatment service for residential and commercial development in the surrounding area of north Fresno. The NFWRF

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan employs a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) treatment process for secondary treatment, cloth media filtration for tertiary treatment, and an ultraviolet system to produce disinfected tertiary treated effluent. The effluent is used for golf course irrigation at the nearby Copper River Country Club.

The permitted capacity of the plant is 0.71 MGD average monthly flow and 1.07 MGD maximum daily flow. Treatment processes include a sequencing batch reactor for secondary treatment, cloth media filtration for tertiary treatment and sodium hypochlorite for disinfection. The tertiary treated wastewater is currently used for landscaping irrigation. Although the NFWRF does not serve the Plan Area directly, it contributes to the City’s total wastewater treatment capacity.

The North Facility operates under a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR), Order No 5‐2006‐0090‐ 01, and a NPDES Permit (No. CA0085189). The WDR for the North Facility establishes limits for the average dry weather flow discharge. The current permitted average dry weather flow discharge is

0.71 MGD. The North Fresno Facility’s current average dry weather flow is less than 0.71 MGD.

Effluent Disposal and the Recycled Water System
The Regional Facility includes preliminary, primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment units with disinfection. Secondary treatment consists of three treatment trains with an annual average capacity of 87 mgd, consisting of 30 mgd for Train A and 57 mgd for Trains B and C combined. In 2017, a 5-mgd tertiary treatment system — the Tertiary Treatment and Disinfection Facility — was completed. The system can be expanded to 15 mgd and ultimately to 30 mgd (Water Systems Consulting Inc., 2021).

The City has three primary means of effluent disposal:

1. Undisinfected secondary effluent to on-site and off-site farmland for restricted irrigation;

2. Undisinfected secondary effluent to percolation ponds; and

3. Disinfected tertiary effluent to the recycled water distribution system.

The percolated effluent has been deemed equivalent to Title 22 tertiary treated water by the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW). The City has been extracting this water for reuse in areas within and surrounding the Regional Facility, as well as to FID’s canals, through an exchange agreement for delivery to FID agricultural customers.

The discharged effluent is disposed within the City boundaries and just southwest of the metropolitan area. The treated effluent percolation ponds are within the City’s SOI and hydrologic sphere that benefit the City’s overall regional water budget.

In addition to the Regional Facility, the NFWRF serves the residential and commercial development and golf course in a portion of northeast Fresno. Since the treatment includes filtration and disinfection producing water quality that meets Title 22 tertiary criteria, it is suitable for additional future uses such as landscape irrigation, freeway irrigation, and many industrial water reuse opportunities.

UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-5 Future Wastewater Flow and Effluent Disposal
The City has the capacity to produce more recycled water than it can currently use. The City will continue to expand the recycled water delivery system. The City’s most recent Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update (Carollo, 2015) was based on land uses from the City’s 2014 General Plan. At General Plan build-out, the City will encompass approximately 156.6 square miles of land and is projected to generate 202.4 MGD of future PWWF.

REGULATORY SETTING – WASTEWATER
The following is an overview of the federal, State and local regulations related to wastewater that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.

State and Federal

CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) / NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)

PERMITS
The CWA is the cornerstone of water quality protection in the United States. The statute employs a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to sharply reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters so that they can support “the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water.” The CWA regulates discharges from “non-point source” and traditional “point source” facilities, such as municipal sewage plants and industrial facilities. Section 402 of the Act creates the NPDES regulatory program which makes it illegal to discharge pollutants from a point source to the waters of the United States without a permit. Point sources must obtain a discharge permit from the proper authority, in this case the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. NPDES permits cover industrial and municipal discharges, discharges from storm sewer systems in larger cities, stormwater associated with numerous kinds of industrial activity, runoff from construction sites disturbing more than one acre, mining operations, and animal feedlots and aquaculture facilities above certain thresholds.

Permit requirements for treatment are expressed as end-of-pipe conditions. This set of numbers reflects levels of three key parameters: (1) biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), (2) total suspended solids (TSS), and (3) pH acid/base balance. These levels can be achieved by well-operated sewage plants employing "secondary" treatment. Primary treatment involves screening and settling, while secondary treatment uses biological treatment in the form of "activated sludge." All so-called "indirect" dischargers are not required to obtain NPDES permits. An indirect discharger is one that sends its wastewater into the sanitary sewer system for treatment. Although not regulated under NPDES, "indirect" discharges are covered by another CWA program called pretreatment. "Indirect" dischargers send their wastewater into a city sewer system, which carries it to the municipal sewage treatment plant, through which it passes before entering surface water.

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Local

FRESNO GENERAL PLAN
The Fresno General Plan contains the following objectives and policies that are relevant to wastewater for the proposed Specific Plan:

Objective PU-4: Ensure provision of adequate trunk sewer and collector main capacities to serve existing and planned urban development, consistent with the Wastewater Master Plan.

Policy PU-4-a: Plan for Regional Needs. Coordinate and consult with the City of Clovis, pursuant to the Fresno-Clovis Sewerage System Joint Powers Agreement, so that planning and construction of sewer collection facilities will continue to meet the regional needs of the Metropolitan Area.

Policy PU-4-b: New Trunk Facilities. Pursue construction of new or replacement sewer trunk facilities or other alternatives consistent with the Wastewater Master Plan to accommodate the uses as envisioned in this General Plan.

Policy 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.

Policy PU-4-d: Capacity Modeling. Continue development and utilization of citywide sewer flow monitoring and computerized flow modeling to determine availability of sewer collection system capacity to serve planned urban development.

Policy PU-4-e: Evaluate and Maintain Infrastructure. Promote the health and safety of the community, and preserve the longevity and sound condition of the sewer collection system through evaluation and maintenance of the sewer infrastructure. • Continue assessments of existing infrastructure and facilitate necessary repair to damaged and worn-out pipelines.
• Continue routine sewer line maintenance and cleaning programs to prevent line blockages caused by root intrusion, grease buildup, and pipe failure. • Continue a sewer line replacement program and funding to repair or replace sewer lines damaged or worn beyond useful life.

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, onsite 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.

UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-7 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.

Objective PU-7: Promote reduction in wastewater flows and develop facilities for beneficial reuse of reclaimed water and biosolids for management and distribution of treated wastewater.

Policy PU-7-a: Reduce Wastewater. Identify and consider implementing water conservation standards and other programs and policies, as determined appropriate, to reduce wastewater flows.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE –WASTEWATER
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Specific Plan will have a significant impact on Utilities if it would:
• Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects; and/or
• Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.15-1: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. (Significant and Unavoidable)
The Specific Plan does not trigger a need to expand the Regional Facility. There would be a network of sewer collection infrastructure installed throughout the Plan Area to serve the West Area Specific Plan. The Specific Plan wastewater collection system will include future construction of sewer improvements and replacements of existing lines, some of which are now over 75 years old.

Approximately 3.6 miles of public and privately-owned (i.e., homeowner’s responsibility) sewer system drainage lines are proposed to serve the Plan Area at buildout.

Physical impacts from future construction of the wastewater infrastructure within the Plan Area is addressed within this EIR. A discussion of relevant operational and construction impacts can be found in each respective section of this EIR. Impacts associated with development of the Plan Area, as proposed, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1- 3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), public services and recreation (Impacts 3.13-3 through 3.13-5).

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

CONCLUSION
The construction of the new wastewater facilities, which are associated with future buildout of the Plan Area, has the potential to cause environmental impacts. The potential for environmental impacts associated with the installation of the wastewater system, and all construction activities within the Plan Area, are addressed throughout this EIR. In some cases, the direct and indirect impacts are potentially significant and warrant mitigation measures, while in other cases there are significant and unavoidable impacts. The future wastewater infrastructure would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR.

It is noted, however, that future development of wastewater infrastructure within the proposed Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1- 3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), public services and recreation (Impacts 3.13-3 through 3.13-5). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in this Draft EIR, impacts related to construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities to serve the Plan Area are considered significant and unavoidable.

Impact 3.15-2: The proposed Specific Plan would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Plan Area that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the Specific Plan’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. (Less than Significant)

PROJECT WASTEWATER GENERATION
The projected future average dry weather base flow as a result of buildout of the City’s General Plan is 150 MGD. This flow includes 8.7 MGD from large dischargers and 15.86 MGD from Clovis. The 8.40 MGD designated by Clovis for treatment at a satellite wastewater treatment plant is not included.

This flow also includes all flow from the Southeast Growth Area and the flow from the anticipated treatment plant in the North Growth Area.

The wastewater generation resulting from buildout of the Specific Plan Area is shown in Table 3.15-

1. As shown, buildout of the Specific Plan Area would result in 11,490,429.94 gpd, or approximately

11.5 MGD. It is noted, however, the wastewater generation calculated and shown in Table 3.15-1 includes much of the wastewater that is currently generated by the existing developed uses in the Plan Area.

TABLE 3.15-1: WASTEWATER GENERATION

PROPOSED LAND USE CATEGORY

PROPOSED

GROSS ACREAGE

UNIT FACTOR
(EDU/ACRE)
1 GPD
Residential - Low 516.57 1 149,805.82
Residential - Medium Low 1,440.22 1 417,664.66
Residential - Medium 2,118.00 12 7,370,641.09
Residential - Medium High 280.27 12 975,343.84
Residential - Urban Neighborhood 154.21 15 670,830.55
UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-9

PROPOSED LAND USE CATEGORY

PROPOSED

GROSS ACREAGE

UNIT FACTOR
(EDU/ACRE)
1 GPD
Residential - High 46.61 15 202,746.79
Commercial - Community 57.74 4 66,983.50
Commercial - Recreation 41.34 3 35,963.04
Commercial - General 215.07 7 436,596.37
Commercial - Regional 4.24 4 4,913.79
Employment - Office 82.25 7 166,976.87
Employment - Business Park 74.97 4 86,964.60
Employment - Light Industrial 32.75 4 37,989.85
Mixed Use - Neighborhood 308.43 4 357,775.70
Mixed Use - Corridor/Center 96.00 7 194,885.67
Mixed Use - Regional 0.00 15 0.00
Open Space - Pocket Park 1.55 - -
Open Space - Neighborhood Park 86.26 - -
Open Space - Community Park 24.20 - -
Open Space - Regional Park 0.00 - -
Open Space - Open Space 6.79 - -
Open Space - Ponding Basin 129.59 - -
Public Facility - Public Facility 27.42 2 15,903.47
Public Facility - Church 55.80 2 32,361.46
Public Facility - Special School 18.38 3 15,988.15
Public Facility - Elem. School 91.82 3 79,882.00
Public Facility - Elem./Middle/High School 145.37 3 126,474.18 Public Facility - High School 46.95 3 40,847.21
Public Facility - Fire Station 3.32 3 2,891.32
TOTAL 6,106.14 -- 11,490,429.94
NOTE:
1 ACCORDING TO THE CITY’S WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN, 290 GALLONS PER DAY (GPD) OF WASTEWATER ARE GENERATED PER EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT (EDU).UNIT FACTORS ARE PROVIDED IN TABLE 4-4 OF THE CITY’S WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN.

SOURCE: DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP, 2020.

COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM
As noted previously, the Regional Facility is located southwest of the City in the area generally bounded by Jensen, Cornelia, Central and Chateau Fresno Avenues. Wastewater from the Plan Area is treated at the Regional Facility, which has an average annual flow of approximately 60 MGD. The Regional Facility receives and treats wastewater from three additional service areas, including: the City of Clovis, Pinedale County Water District, and Pinedale Public Utility District. The Regional Facility has an ADWF capacity of 92 MGD; however, it can treat the PWWF that occurs during storm events, which is higher than the ADWF but lasts for short duration. The City of Clovis owns 9.3 MGD of ADWF capacity, while the remaining capacity belongs to the City. Additionally, although the NFWRF does not serve the Plan Area directly, it contributes to the City’s total wastewater treatment capacity.

Wastewater treatment plant capacities are typically rated based on the ADWF flow. The permitted wastewater treatment capacity of the Regional Facility is currently 80.0 MGD as an annual monthly average flow, and 88.0 MGD as a maximum monthly average flow. The City is currently evaluating

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan upgrades and modifications to the existing Regional Facility that may result in a capacity rating increase of 15 MGD.

The Specific Plan would require wastewater collection and treatment services. The City owns and operates their own collection system. Sewer collection and treatment issues and opportunities that would result from buildout of the Plan Area (as noted in the City of Fresno Specific Plan for the West Area Utility Background Summary) are discussed below.

At build out, the City’s wastewater flows are expected to increase substantially. As such, there are some areas of the existing collection system that cannot convey the build out PWWF within the established maximum flow to full flow (q/Q) ratio of 1.15. There are several localized driven improvements needed in the Downtown area (C-1 through C-7), and an additional upsizing for the pipeline along the City’s southern border that feeds the Regional Facility (C-8, C-10).

Four development driven projects (D-26A, D-26B, D-27A, D-27B) are identified within or along the borders of the Plan Area. Approximately 3.6 miles of public and privately-owned (i.e., homeowner’s responsibility) sewer system drainage lines are proposed to serve the West Area at buildout. The City does not currently collect supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) data for their lift stations. Were feasible, Collection System Master Plan (Carollo, 2015) recommends that upgrades be performed to allow for proper flow monitoring data acquisition, which will help confirm lift station capacity and monitor lift station performance.

Additional agricultural or urban water reuse in the future is a possibility with additional distribution and/or treatment facilities. The Regional Facility currently delivers approximately 4,700 AFY (Water Systems Consulting Inc., 2021) of undisinfected secondary effluent to growers of non-food crops within the City. An additional 1,400 acres could be served with an expansion of the conveyance system or the establishment of an exchange agreement with FID. Within the Plan Area, approximately 6.3 miles of new recycled water distribution pipelines are planned to be constructed by buildout.

The 2010 Recycled Water Master Plan outlines three locations for potential regional recharge areas.

Also referenced as a "super recharge basin", one of the regional recharge areas is located partially within the Plan Area. If the basins are constructed, a portion of the recharge water could be made up of recycled water, provided there is at least six months travel time from the super recharge basin to the nearest drinking water well.

CONCLUSION
The proposed Specific Plan would increase the amount of wastewater requiring treatment. The wastewater would be treated at the Regional Facility. Given the capacity of 92 MGD, the average annual flow of approximately 56 MGD, and the 11.5 MGD generated by the buildout of the Plan Area (including existing demand and future demand), there is sufficient plant capacity. This is a less than significant impact.

UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-11

3.15.2 WATER SUPPLIES

EXISTING SETTING
Water Purveyor and System
The existing incorporated area of the City of Fresno encompasses approximately 115 square miles (2020 UWMP). The City’s General Plan includes the City’s the area outside of the City limits that the City expects to annex and urbanize in the future, also known as the SOI. With a few exceptions, the City’s water service area is coterminous with the City limits. As future developments within the SOI, but outside the City limits, are approved, they will be annexed into the City and served by the City water system.

The City’s water system consists of about 1,860 miles of distribution and transmission mains, 260 municipal groundwater wells, three surface water treatment facilities (SWTFs) with current rated capacities ranging from 4 to 54 MGD, five water storage facilities with pump stations, including one at each of the SWTFs plus two in the distribution system, and three booster pump facilities.

As of the close of the 2020 calendar year, the City has over 139,500 residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional water service connections and produced nearly 122,000 AF of water.

In addition to the City’s water system, there are four independent water systems located within the City limits, including Bakman Water Company, Pinedale County Water District, California State University Fresno, and Park Van Ness Mutual Water Company. These independent water systems have their own water supplies, and do not receive water from the City, with the exception of a portion of the Pinedale County Water District east of Highway 41 and south of Herndon Avenue.

The City has emergency interties with the City of Clovis and California State University, Fresno, that provides additional water supply flexibility.

The Plan Area is served by nearly 96 miles of distribution pipelines and just under a mile of recycled water service (in North Cornelia Avenue between West Clinton Avenue and West Shields Avenue).

Water Demand

HISTORICAL AND EXISTING WATER DEMAND
The following information is based on the Specific Plan of the West Area Water Supply Assessment (WSA) (West Yost, 2022).

The City’s water demand has decreased as a result of the economic downturn of 2008 through 2011, water use reductions in response to recent drought conditions, and metering of residential properties. Since 2013, all water services in the City’s water service area have been metered. Singlefamily residential water use has decreased since the Single-Family Metering Program was completed in 2013. Landscape irrigation demands did decrease in 2015 and 2016, likely due to the drought

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan restrictions, and continue to recover after the drought ended in 2017. Table 3.15-2 shows the City’s historical water demands for 2013 through 2020.

TABLE 3.15-2: HISTORICAL WATER DEMAND
2013(a) 2014(a) 2015(a) 2016(a) 2017(a) 2018(a) 2019(a) 2020(b) Total Potable and Raw
Water Demand, af/yr
133,69
2 122,19
1 102,30
8 103,04
5 110,52
5 110,72
5 106,50
0 121,99
3 NOTES:
(A) CITY OF FRESNO 2020 UWMP, FIGURE-4-1.
(B) CITY OF FRESNO 2020 UWMP, TABLE 4-2.

SOURCE: WEST YOST, 2022.

FUTURE WATER DEMAND
The City’s 2045 projected water demand at buildout (based on existing water demand, the projected demands for the Plan Area under the General Plan, the difference in demands for the Plan Area between the Specific Plan and the General Plan, and undefined future developments) is summarized in Table 3.15-3. The General Plan is expected to be built out by 2056, but for the purposes of the WSA that was completed for the proposed Specific Plan, the Plan Area was assumed to be annexed and built out by 2045. The City’s preliminary water demand projections for the Plan Area under the General Plan were higher than for the Specific Plan, resulting in a negative value if the proposed Specific Plan land use map is built out instead of the General Plan.

TABLE 3.15-3: PROJECTED FUTURE WATER DEMAND AT 2045

UNITS, AF/YR WATER DEMAND
Current (2020) Water Demand(a) 121,993
General Plan for West Area(b) 23,730
Subtotal (without Project) 145,723
Project (West Area Specific Plan)(b,c) -381
Subtotal (with Project) 145,723
Undefined Future Developments 95,724
Total Water Demand 241,447
NOTES:
(A) DATA FROM TABLE 5-1 OF THE WSA [TABLE 3.15-2 OF THIS SECTION]. (B) DATA FROM TABLE 2-2 OF THE WSA [TABLE 3.15-2 OF THIS SECTION]. (C) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PLAN AREA. (D) BALANCE BETWEEN SUBTOTAL (WITH PROJECT) AND TOTAL WATER DEMAND.

SOURCE: WEST YOST, 2022.

DRY YEAR WATER DEMAND
As shown in Table 3.15-2, the City’s 2015 water demand was significantly lower than the 2013 demand in response to the drought and the Governor’s April 2015 Executive Order B-29-15 mandating 25 percent water conservation statewide. To reduce water use by 25 percent statewide, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted a regulation which placed each urban water supplier into one of nine tiers which are assigned a conservation standard, ranging between four percent and 36 percent. Each month, the SWRCB compared every urban water suppliers’ water use with their use for the same month in 2013 to determine if they were on track for meeting their conservation standard. The City of Fresno was initially placed into Tier 7 with a water conservation UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-13 standard of 28 percent as compared to 2013 use (the City’s conservation standard was reduced to 25 percent in early 2016).

The City currently has a demand management program in place, as described in Section 9 of the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan, outlined in Section 8 and Appendix J of the City’s 2020 UWMP, includes a five-stage plan describing specific actions to reduce water demand by up to 50 percent in the event of a water supply shortage or emergency. Demand is expected to decrease as the City implements water conservation measures in response to multiple dry years or other supply changes.

Table 3.15-4 presents the projected future dry year potable water demand.

TABLE 3.15-4: PROJECTED FUTURE DRY YEAR TOTAL WATER DEMAND, AF/YR HYDROLOGIC CONDITION 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Single Dry Year(a) 164,092 176,132 184,174 192,228 200,287 Multiple Dry Years First Year(b) 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447 Multiple Dry Years Second Year(b) 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447 Multiple Dry Years Third Year(b) 190,267 193,637 197,736 201,753 205,708 Multiple Dry Years Fourth Year(b) 162,551 165,920 170,020 174,036 177,992 Multiple Dry Years Fifth Year(b) 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447 NOTES:
(A) DATA FROM THE CITY OF FRESNO 2020 UWMP, TABLE 7-2.
(B) DATA FROM THE CITY OF FRESNO 2020 UWMP, TABLE 7-3.

SOURCE: WEST YOST, 2022.

Water Supply
The City currently receives water supplies from four sources:
• Surface water contract water that is delivered to the City by two separate sources:
o FID Agreement for Kings River water.
o USBR Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division Contract for San Joaquin River water.
• Groundwater that is pumped from groundwater wells located within the City. • Recycled water that is treated at the Regional Facility and NFWRF. This water may only be used for non-potable uses.

Each of these existing supplies is described below.

SURFACE WATER CONTRACTS
The cumulative supply these contracts bring to the City provide the opportunity to construct surface water treatment facilities and optimize the use of these supplies. This conjunctive use approach continues the process of allowing the groundwater system to recover. Each of the surface water supplies is summarized in the following two sections.

Surface Water Supplies through FID Agreement: In May of 1976 the City of Fresno and FID executed an agreement that stipulated that as land is annexed to the City, the City will receive a pro rata share

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan of FID’s Kings River entitlement; this agreement was revised, amended and restated in December, 2016. The pro rata share is based on the area annexed to the City, and within FID’s boundaries, as compared to the total area of FID’s water service area. The agreement stipulates the allocation amount will be reviewed each year by the two agencies to address new annexations to the City. So, as the City annexes new areas, the allocation will increase up to the limits stipulated in the 2016 agreement. Utilizing GIS, there will be approximately 71,925 acres of land within the SOI and within FID’s water service boundaries at SOI buildout, excluding Bakman Water Company, CSU Fresno, and County islands.

As the City incorporates new land area into its service area, the percentage of FID supply increases.

However, the 2016 FID Agreement sets the maximum percentage as 29.0 percent, although the City’s service area is anticipated to expand and encompass more than 29.0 percent of FID’s service area between 2025 and 2030. In 2020, the City’s percentage of overall FID Kings deliveries was

25.79 percent. The supply projections in this plan limit the City’s FID supply with the 29.0 percent cap, but if the agreement were revised in the future the City’s FID allocation percentage could grow beyond 29.0 percent as the water service area expands. (City of Fresno 2020 UWMP) Surface Water Supplies through USBR Contract: The City, through an agreement originally executed in January of 1961, secured a surface water supply from USBR CVP - Friant Division. This agreement, for an annual water supply of 60,000 af of Class 1 water, was last renewed in 2010 as a Section 9(d) Contract that provides water from the San Joaquin River in perpetuity. The USBR CVP – Friant Division facilities generally include: Friant Dam (Millerton Reservoir); the Friant Kern Canal; and the Madera Canal. The Friant-Kern Canal is maintained and operated by the Friant Water Authority. The USBR water supply is a wholesale supply.

Class 1 water was intended to be a supply that would be dependable in practically every year, regardless of the type of hydrologic water year. Class 2 water is essentially excess water available as determined by USBR and less reliable than Class 1 water. Class 1 water has historically been very reliable until the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement and more recently by the restrictions on diversions from the Delta due to concerns over the declining health of Delta ecosystem.

GROUNDWATER
The City pumps groundwater from a portion of the Kings Subbasin underlying the City. The City’s 2020 UWMP states that the City has a network of over 270 municipal wells and currently operates approximately 202 municipal supply wells within the Kings Subbasin. Groundwater quality is a concern because the groundwater basin has several major contaminant plumes involving organic compounds, inorganic compounds, solvents, pesticides, and other contaminants. The total well capacity, when the City’s Water Master Plan was written, was approximately 460 MGD.

Groundwater Basin Description: The City’s wells are located within the northern part of the Kings Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. 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 2020 UWMP. Except where noted, the description of the sub-basin 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.

UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-15 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 feet below the ground surface.

Conditions of Overdraft: 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 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) and FID, the City has access to not only City-owned basins, but 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.

Groundwater Management: 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 (City of Fresno 2020 UWMP). The City of Fresno falls within the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NKGSA). The NKGSA prepared and submitted

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan its GSP on January 28, 2020 and is awaiting completion of DWR’s review (DWR SGMA Portal GSP Status Summary).

Historical Groundwater Use: As discussed previously, the City has a network of over 270 municipal wells and currently operates approximately 202 municipal supply wells within the Kings Subbasin, according to the 2020 UWMP. The City’s groundwater production over the last 18 years is provided in Table 3.15-5.

TABLE 3.15-5: CITY OF FRESNO HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION

YEAR TOTAL GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION (AFY)
2003 165,200
2004 160,000
2005 141,500
2006 136,000
2007 146,300
2008 148,700
2009 138,200
2010 128,600
2011 119,900
2012 119,500
2013 123,200
2014 106,800
2015 82,500
2016 99,100
2017 105,200
2018 76,800
2019 54,600
2020 55,000
NOTES:
(A) FROM CITY OF FRESNO 2020 UWMP, TABLE 6-7.

SOURCE: WEST YOST, 2022.

Projected Future Groundwater Use: The amount of groundwater pumped during dry years is not projected to differ from the amount pumped during normal years. The City’s projected future groundwater production through 2045 is provided in Table 3.15-6.

TABLE 3.15-6: CITY OF FRESNO PROJECTED FUTURE GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION IN NORMAL AND DRY YEARS 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Total Groundwater Production During
a Normal Year(a) 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820 Total Groundwater Production During
Dry Years(b) 138,090 143,630 149,100 154,490 159,820
NOTES:
(A) FROM CITY OF FRESNO 2020 UWMP, TABLE 7-1.(B) FROM CITY OF FRESNO 2020 UWMP, TABLE 7-2.

SOURCE: WEST YOST, 2022.

UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-17 REGULATORY SETTING – WATER SUPPLIES
The following is an overview of the State and local regulations related to water supplies that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.

State

URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING ACT
The Urban Water Management Planning Act (California Water Code Sections 10610-10610.4) requires urban water suppliers such as Cal Water that provide water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers, or more than 3,000 AFY of water, to prepare an UWMP. UWMPs assist water supply agencies in water resource planning given existing and anticipated future demands and must include a water supply and demand assessment comparing total water supply available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over a 20-year period. The Act requires that the plans be updated every five years and submitted to the California Department of Water Resources. The purpose of the plans is to support long-term resource planning and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. UWMPs must also report progress on a 20% reduction in per-capita urban water consumption by 2020.

SENATE BILL (SB) 610
Senate Bill (SB) 610 was adopted in 2001 and reflects the growing awareness of the need to incorporate water supply and demand analysis at the earliest possible stage in the land use planning process. SB 610 amended the statutes of the Urban Water Management Planning Act, as well as the California Water Code Section 10910 et seq. The foundation document for compliance with SB 610 is the UWMP, which provides an important source of information for cities and counties as they update their general plans. Likewise, planning documents such as general plans and specific plans form the basis for the demand information contained in an UWMP, as well as a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) required under SB 610.

Water Code Section 10910 (c)(4) states “If the city or county is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), the water assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.” Water supply planning under SB 610 requires reviewing and identifying adequate available water supplies necessary to meet the demand generated by a project, as well as the cumulative demand for the general region over the next 20 years, under a broad range of water conditions. This information is typically found in the current UWMP for the project area. SB 610 requires the identification of the public water supplier for a project. The City of Fresno has been identified in the WSA as the public water supplier to the West Area Specific Plan.

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan In addition, SB 610 requires the preparation of a WSA if a project meets the definition of a “Project” under Water Code Section 10912 (a). The code defines a “Project” as meeting any of the following criteria:
• A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; • A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space; • A commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space;
• A hotel or motel, or both, with more than 500 rooms;
• A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park, planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area;
• A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects identified in Section 10912(a); or
• A project creating the equivalent demand of 500 residential units or greater.

Alternately, if a public water system has less than 5,000 service connections, the definition of a “Project” includes any proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial development that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of service connections for the public water system. Thus, the City has prepared a WSA as required by these criteria under SB 610. The WSA is included in this EIR as Appendix E of this EIR.

A WSA must include analysis of the estimated water demands and proposed water sources for a new project. More specifically, the WSA must address whether existing supplies of domestic water available to the development are adequate to serve the project, and will continue to be adequate over the next 20 years during normal, dry, and multiple-dry years, taking into account the public water system’s existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses. (Wat. Code, § 10910, subds. (c)(3), (c)(4).)
If the public water system concludes that existing supplies will be sufficient for all such demands, including the demand created by a proposed project, the public water system must demonstrate the availability of such water by providing the following as part of a WSA:
(A) Written contracts or other proof of entitlement to an identified water supply. (B) Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a water supply that has been adopted by the public water system.
(C) Federal, State, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure associated with delivering the water supply.
(D) Any necessary regulatory approvals that are required in order to be able to convey or deliver the water supply.
(Id., subd. (d)(2).)
UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-19 If the WSA concludes that existing supplies will not be sufficient, the WSA must include a strategy for acquiring “additional supplies.” (Wat. Code, § 10911, subd. (a).) Under such a scenario, the WSA should include information concerning the following:
(1) The estimated total costs, and the proposed method of financing the costs, associated with acquiring the additional water supplies.
(2) All federal, State, and local permits, approvals, or entitlements that are anticipated to be required in order to acquire and develop the additional water supplies. (3) Based on the considerations set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2), the estimated timeframes within which the public water system, or the city and county. . . expects to be able to acquire additional water supplies.
(Ibid.)
A finding of insufficiency in a WSA does not require a city or county to deny or downsize a proposed development project. In preparing the environmental document for a project requiring a WSA, the city or county lead agency may include its own evaluation of the information contained in the WSA. (Wat. Code, § 10911, subd. (c).) At the time of project approval, the lead agency must then “determine, based on the entire record, whether projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses.” (Ibid.) Even if, after the lead agency’s own evaluation, it determines that there are not sufficient water supplies for the project, there is nothing to prevent the agency from approving the project, so long as the agency “include[s] that determination in its findings for the project.” (Ibid.; see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15155, subd. (e).)
In 2016, the Legislature amended SB 610 to require WSAs for projects anticipating groundwater usage to address whether any groundwater sustainability agency has adopted a groundwater sustainability plan pursuant to SGMA, and to include information from any such plan. (See Wat.

Code, § 10910, subd. (f)(2)(C)(ii).)
The Water Code also specifically references unadjudicated basins:
(f) If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the following additional information shall be included in the water supply assessment . . . (C) For a basin that has not been adjudicated that is a basin designated as high- or mediumpriority pursuant to Section 10722.4, information regarding the following. . . . (ii) If a groundwater sustainability agency has adopted a groundwater sustainability plan or has an approved alternative, a copy of that alternative or plan.

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan SENATE BILL (SB) 221
SB 221 (Business and Professional Code Section 11010 and Government Code Section 65867.5, Section 66455.3, and 66473.7) amended State law to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties.1 SB 221 establishes the relationship between a project WSA and the tentative and final subdivision map approvals under the Subdivision Map Act. Pursuant to California Government Code, the public water system must provide a written verification of sufficient water supply prior to the approval of a new subdivision.2 SB 221 prohibits a local planning agency from approving a final subdivision map for a residential subdivision of more than 500 units unless the water supplier has issued a written verification that a sufficient water supply is available for the project, or the local agency finds that alternate water supplies are, or will be, available prior to the completion of the project. This outcome can be accomplished by imposing a tentative subdivision map condition precluding the approval of final subdivision map absent the required showing of water availability. Nor may a local agency approve a development agreement for a project that will result in more than 500 residential units without the agreement expressly providing that required tentative maps will be subject to these water availability requirements.

A “sufficient water supply” under SB 221 is the total water supplies available to the water provider during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years within a 20-year projection that will meet the projected demand of the proposed subdivision, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agricultural and industrial uses.3 The water provider’s verification must be based on substantial evidence such as water supply contracts, capital outlay programs, and regulatory permits and approvals regarding the water provider’s right to and capability of delivering the project supply.

THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT
In California, there are two statutory schemes dealing with groundwater management. The first is the Groundwater Management Act, first introduced in 1992 as Assembly Bill (AB) 3030 and since modified by Senate Bill (SB) 1938 in 2002, and AB 359 in 2011. The second is the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SB 1168, SB 1319, and AB 1739) (SGMA), enacted in 2014.

The intent of the SGMA is to encourage local agencies to work cooperatively to manage groundwater resources within their jurisdictions and to provide a methodology for developing voluntary groundwater management plans. The Act enables, but does not require, water agencies to develop and implement groundwater management plans (GWMPs) to manage the groundwater resources in the jurisdiction of the participating parties.

The SGMA defines sustainable groundwater management as the “management and use of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained during the planning and implementation horizon 1 California Business and Professions Code, Section 11010 and California Government Code, Section 66473.4. 2 California Government Code, Section 66473.7(b).
3 California Government Code, Section 66473.7(a)(2).

UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-21 without causing undesirable results.” The legislation defines “undesirable results” to be any of the following effects caused by groundwater conditions occurring throughout the basin:
• Chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of supply;
• Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage; • Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion;
• Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality;
• Significant and unreasonable land subsidence; and
• Surface water depletions that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water.

The legislation provides for financial and enforcement tools to carry out effective local sustainable groundwater management through formation of groundwater sustainability agencies consisting of local public agencies, water companies regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission, and mutual water companies. The legislation requires that groundwater sustainability agencies within high- and medium priority basins under the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program subject to critical conditions of overdraft prepare and submit groundwater sustainability plans for the basin by January 31, 2020, and requires groundwater sustainability agencies in all other groundwater basins designated as high- or medium priority basins to prepare and submit a groundwater sustainability plan by January 31, 2022. Following State approval, the basin would thereafter be managed under the groundwater sustainability plan. The legislation does not require adjudicated basins to develop groundwater sustainability plans, but they are required to report their water use.

The key intended outcomes and benefits of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act are numerous, and include:
• Advancement in understanding and knowledge of the State’s groundwater basins and their issues and challenges;
• Establishment of effective local governance to protect and manage groundwater basins; • Management of regional water resources for regional self-sufficiency and drought resilience;
• Sustainable management of groundwater basins through the actions of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies, utilizing State assistance and intervention only when necessary; • All groundwater basins in California are operated to maintain adequate protection to support the beneficial uses for the resource;
• Surface water and groundwater are managed as “a Single Resource” to sustain their interconnectivity, provide dry season base flow to interconnected streams, and support and promote long-term aquatic ecosystem health and vitality; • A statewide framework for local groundwater management planning, including development of sustainable groundwater management best management practices and plans;
• Development of comprehensive and uniform water budgets, groundwater models, and engineering tools for effective management of groundwater basins;

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Improved coordination between land use and groundwater planning; and • Enforcement actions as needed by the SWRCB to achieve region-by-region sustainable groundwater management in accordance with the 2014 legislation.

As ultimately approved, groundwater sustainability plans must include, among other things, (i) a “general discussion of historical and projected water demands and supplies,” (ii) “[m]easurable objectives, as well as interim milestones in increments of five years, to achieve the sustainability goal in the basin within 20 years of the implementation of the plan, and (iii) a “description of how the plan helps meet each objective and how each objective is intended to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin for long-term beneficial uses of groundwater.” (Wat. Code, § 10727.2, subds. (a)(3), (b)(1), and (b)(2).)
To assist in attaining the above outcomes, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) will provide groundwater sustainability agencies with the technical and financial assistance necessary to sustainably manage their water resources. The benefits of these outcomes include:
• A reliable, safe and sustainable water supply to protect communities, farms, and the environment, and support a stable and growing economy; and • Elimination of long-term groundwater overdraft, an increase in groundwater storage, avoidance or minimization of subsidence, enhancement of water flows in stream systems, and prevention of future groundwater quality degradation.

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.

Local

FRESNO GENERAL PLAN
The Fresno General Plan contains the following objectives and policies that are relevant to water supply for the proposed Specific Plan:

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.

UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-23 Policy PU-8-a: Forecast Need. Use available and innovative tools, such as computerized flow modeling to determine system capacity, as necessary to forecast demand on water production and distribution systems by urban development, and to determine appropriate facility needs.

Policy PU-8-b: Potable Water Supply and Cost Recovery. Prepare for provision of increased potable water capacity (including surface water treatment capacity) in a timely manner to facilitate planned urban development consistent with the General Plan. Accommodate increase in water demand from the existing community with the capital costs and benefits allocated equitably and fairly between existing users and new users, as authorized by law, and recognizing the differences in terms of quantity, quality and reliability of the various types of water in the City’s portfolio.

Policy PU-8-c: Conditions of Approval. Set appropriate conditions of approval for each new development proposal to ensure that the necessary potable water production and supply facilities and water resources are in place prior to occupancy.

Policy PU-8-d: CIP Update. Continue to evaluate Capital Improvement Programs and update them, as appropriate, to meet the demands of both existing and planned development consistent with the General Plan.

Policy PU-8-e: Repairs. Continue to evaluate existing water production and distribution systems and plan for necessary repair or enhancement of damaged or antiquated facilities.

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.

Policy 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.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE – WATER SUPPLY
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Specific Plan will have a significant impact on Utilities if it would:
• Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects; and/or • Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.15-3: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. (Significant and Unavoidable)
The provision of public services and the construction of onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements will be required to accommodate future development consistent with the Specific Plan land use map. The Specific Plan would likely require extension of offsite water infrastructure to the undeveloped and underdeveloped portions of the Plan Area for water service. All offsite water piping improvements would be in or adjacent to existing roadways, thereby limiting new environmental impacts.

More than 15 percent (42 wells out of 270) of the City’s wells were constructed prior to 1960 (over 60 years ago) and almost 40 percent (98 of 270) were constructed prior to 1970 (over 50 years ago).

According to the Utility Background Summary completed for the Specific Plan, it has been recommended that the wells be replaced after 45 to 50 years; thus, about 40 percent of the City’s wells are overdue for replacement. Also, mechanical and electrical well component upgrades are required about every 20 to 25 years. Therefore, it is anticipated that significant well installations, replacements, and upgrades may be needed to these systems in the near future to maintain existing groundwater supply capacity and meet increased water demands.

One of the greatest challenges facing the City’s water distribution system is conveying water from areas of high-water production to areas of high-water demand. The water production and distribution system historically has been a distributed system whereby groundwater wells would be constructed on an as-needed basis in the area where the water was needed. This distributed water system does not require large diameter transmission mains to convey water from one portion of the City to another.

Physical impacts from future construction of the water infrastructure within the Plan Area is addressed within this EIR. A discussion of relevant operational and construction impacts can be found in each respective section of this EIR. Impacts associated with development of the Plan Area, as proposed, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1- 3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), public services and recreation (Impacts 3.13-3 through 3.13-5).

CONCLUSION
The construction of the new water facilities, which are associated with future buildout of the Plan Area, has the potential to cause environmental impacts. The potential for environmental impacts associated with the installation of the water system, and all construction activities within the Plan Area, are addressed throughout this EIR. In some cases, the direct and indirect impacts are potentially significant and warrant mitigation measures, while in other cases there are significant and unavoidable impacts. The future water infrastructure would fall within the range of UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-25 environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR.

It is noted, however, that future development of water infrastructure within the proposed Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), public services and recreation (Impacts 3.13-3 through 3.13-5). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in this Draft EIR, impacts related to construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities to serve the Plan Area are considered significant and unavoidable.

Impact 3.15-4: The proposed Specific Plan would not have insufficient water supplies available to serve the Plan Area and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. (Less than Significant)

PROJECTED WATER DEMAND
The projected water demand for future buildout of the proposed Specific Plan is based on the calculations described in the Water Supply Assessment (the “Water Supply Assessment” or “WSA”) developed by West Yost Associates for the proposed Specific Plan.

Table 3.15-7 summarizes the projected availability of the City’s existing and planned future potable water supplies and the City’s projected water demands in normal, single dry and multiple dry years through 2045. As shown in Table 3.15-7, demand within the City’s service area is not expected to exceed the City’s supplies in any normal, single dry, or multiple dry year between 2025 and 2045.

The WSA completed for the West Area Specific Plan demonstrates that the City’s existing and additional potable water supplies are sufficient to meet the City’s existing and projected future potable water demands, including those future water demands associated with the Specific Plan, to the year 2045, under all hydrologic conditions.

As described in the WSA, the City’s 2020 UWMP addressed the sufficiency of the City’s groundwater supplies, in conjunction with the City’s other existing and additional water supplies, to meet the City’s existing and planned future uses. Based on the information provided above and that included in the City’s 2020 UWMP, the City’s groundwater supply, together with the City’s other existing and additional planned future water supplies, is sufficient to meet the water demands of the proposed Specific Plan, in addition to the City’s existing and planned future uses.

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TABLE 3.15-7: FRESNO SUMMARY OF WATER DEMAND VERSUS SUPPLY DURING HYDROLOGIC

NORMAL, SINGLE DRY, AND MULTIPLE DRY YEARS, MGD
HYDROLOGIC CONDITION 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

NORMAL YEAR
Available Water Supply(a) 329,030 341,140 346,610 352,000 357,330 Total Water Demand(b) 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447 Potential Surplus (Deficit) 129,826 128,384 124,300 120,124 115,883 Percent Shortfall of Demand - - - - -

SINGLE DRY YEAR
Available Water Supply(c) 189,852 195,392 200,862 206,252 211,582 Total Water Demand(d) 164,092 176,132 184,174 192,228 200,287 Potential Surplus (Deficit) 25,760 19,260 16,688 14,024 11,295 Percent Shortfall of Demand - - - - -

MULTIPLE DRY YEARS
Multiple
Dry
Year 1
Available Water Supply(e) 273,725 279,265 284,735 290,125 295,455 Total Water Demand(d) 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447 Potential Surplus (Deficit) 74,521 66,509 62,425 58,249 54,008 % Shortfall of Demand - - - - -
Multiple
Dry
Year 2
Available Water Supply(e) 274,626 280,166 285,636 291,026 296,356 Total Water Demand(d) 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447 Potential Surplus (Deficit) 75,422 67,410 63,326 59,150 54,909 % Shortfall of Demand - - - - -
Multiple
Dry
Year 3
Available Water Supply(e) 217,568 223,108 228,578 233,968 239,298 Total Water Demand(d) 190,267 193,637 197,736 201,753 205,708 Potential Surplus (Deficit) 27,301 29,471 30,842 32,215 33,590 % Shortfall of Demand - - - - -
Multiple
Dry
Year 4
Available Water Supply(e) 189,852 195,392 200,862 206,252 211,582 Total Water Demand(d) 162,551 165,920 170,020 174,036 177,992 Potential Surplus (Deficit) 27,301 29,472 30,842 32,216 33,590 % Shortfall of Demand - - - - -
Multiple
Dry
Year 5
Available Water Supply 314,840 320,380 325,850 331,240 336,570 Total Water Demand 199,204 212,756 222,310 231,876 241,447 Potential Surplus (Deficit) 115,636 107,624 103,540 99,364 95,123 % Shortfall of Demand - - - - -
NOTES:
(A) FROM TABLE 6-3 OF THE WSA.
(B) DATA FOR 2040 FROM THE CITY OF FRESNO 2020 UWMP, TABLE 7-3. (C) FROM THE CITY OF FRESNO 2020 UWMP, TABLE 7-2.
(D) FROM TABLE 5-3 OF THE WSA [TABLE 3.15-4 OF THIS SECTION]. (E) DATA FROM THE CITY OF FRESNO 2020 UWMP, TABLE 7-2.

SOURCE: WEST YOST, 2022.

CONCLUSION
Water supplies are sufficient to meet the City’s existing and projected future potable water demands, including those future water demands associated with the Specific Plan, to the year 2045 under all hydrologic conditions. Therefore, overall, buildout of the Specific Plan would result in a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-27

3.15.3 STORMWATER

EXISTING SETTING
Storm Drain System
The 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 FID and then conveyed away from the municipal area.

Regionally, the City is protected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) 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 District’s 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, 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 District has planned for streets or other conveyance to move the excess runoff to the basins.

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.

Floodplain Mapping
Flood Hazards in the City are described in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)’s January 20, 2016 Flood Insurance Study but are largely based on hydraulic modeling performed in

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1981. 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 5 years.

Climate change is likely to increase the volume, frequency, and intensity of events in the future in the Central Valley.

REGULATORY SETTING – STORMWATER
The following is an overview of the federal, State and local regulations related to stormwater that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.

Federal

CLEAN WATER ACT
The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates the water quality of all discharges into waters of the United States including wetlands, perennial and intermittent stream channels. Section 401, Title 33, Section 1341 (also known as Section 401) of the CWA sets forth water quality certification requirements for “any applicant applying for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters.” Section 404, Title 33, Section 1344 (also known as Section 404) of the CWA in part authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to:
• Set requirements and standards pertaining to such discharges: subparagraph (e); • Issue permits “for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites”: subparagraph (a);
• Specify the disposal sites for such permits: subparagraph (b); • Deny or restrict the use of specified disposal sites if “the discharge of such materials into such area will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies and fishery areas”: subparagraph (c);
• Specify type of and conditions for non-prohibited discharges: subparagraph (f); • Provide for individual State or interstate compact administration of general permit programs: subparagraphs (g), (h), and (j);
• Withdraw approval of such State or interstate permit programs: subparagraph (i); • Ensure public availability of permits and permit applications: subparagraph (o); • Exempt certain Federal or State projects from regulation under this Section: subparagraph (r); and,
• Determine conditions and penalties for violation of permit conditions or limitations:
subparagraph (s).

UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-29 • Section 401 certification is required prior to final issuance of Section 404 permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The California State Water Resources Control Board and RWQCBs enforce State of California statutes that are equivalent to or more stringent than the Federal statutes. RWQCBs are responsible for establishing water quality standards and objectives that protect the beneficial uses of various waters. In the City of Fresno, the Central Valley RWQCB is responsible for protecting surface and groundwater from both point and non-point sources of pollution. Water quality objectives for all of the water bodies within the City were established by the Central Valley RWQCB and are listed in the Basin Plan.

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 Section 1342 and Sections 1341-1346).

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 or less, and are therefore to be updated regularly. To expedite the permit issuance process, 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 Coast Region can be covered under these general permits, which are administered jointly by the SWRCB and RWQCB. The SWRCB adopted general permits for Phase II Regulated Small MS4s and Small Construction Activity. On March 10, 2003, Operators of Phase II Regulated Small MS4s and Small Construction Activity were required to obtain permit coverage.

The Central Valley RWQCB issued a region-wide MS4 Permit (Order No. R5-2016-0040) covering the entire Central Valley RWQCB Region, and covering storm drainage systems in cities as small as 10,000 population, in June 2016. Permittees must develop and implement a Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) including the following elements:
• Illegal Connection and Illicit Discharge Elimination Program

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Construction Storm Water Runoff Control Program
• Industrial/Commercial Storm Water Runoff Control Program • Municipal Operations Storm Water Runoff Control Program (Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping)
• Public Involvement and Participation Program
• Planning and Land Development/Post Construction Storm Water Management Program • Priority development projects, identified below, are required to incorporate stormwater mitigation measures:
o Single-family hillside residences.
o Residential subdivisions of ten or more units.
o 100,000-square-foot industrial/commercial development. o Automotive repair shops.
o Restaurants.
o Parking lots with 5,000 square feet or more or with 25 or more parking spaces. o Redevelopment projects that are within one of above categories and that add or create at least 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface. • Stormwater management strategies include:
o Site Design Measures: Emphasize conservation and use of existing natural site features integrated with distributed, small-scale stormwater controls to mimic natural drainage.
o Source Control Measures: Intended to keep pollutants from mixing with runoff, and thus minimize the transport of urban runoff and pollutants off-site and into storm drains. Source control measures include standards for design and operation of outdoor areas where substances that could contaminate stormwater are used, such as fueling areas, loading areas, material storage areas, and work areas. o Treatment Control Measures: remove pollutants from site runoff; measures include bioretention planters, vegetated swales, and infiltration trenches and basins. o Low Impact Development (LID) Measures: emphasize conservation and use of existing natural site features integrated with distributed, small-scale stormwater controls to mimic natural drainage. LID measures include stream setbacks and buffers, soil amendments, tree planting and preservation, rooftop and impervious area disconnection, porous pavement, eco roofs, bioretention planters, and rain barrels or cisterns.
• Monitoring Program.

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)
Fresno County 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 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.

UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-31 Communities are occasionally audited by the Department of Water Resources to insure the proper implementation of FEMA floodplain management regulations.

State

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
The Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) major responsibilities include preparing and updating the California Water Plan to guide development and management of the State's water resources, planning, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the State Water Resources Development System, protecting and restoring the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, regulating dams, providing flood protection, assisting in emergency management to safeguard life and property, educating the public, and serving local water needs by providing technical assistance. In addition, the DWR cooperates with local agencies on water resources investigations; supports watershed and river restoration programs; encourages water conservation; explores conjunctive use of ground and surface water; facilitates voluntary water transfers; and, when needed, operates a State drought water bank.

CALIFORNIA WATER CODE
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 State Water Resource Control Board (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:

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (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.
(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.

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 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.

Local

FRESNO GENERAL PLAN
The Fresno General Plan contains the following objectives and policies that are relevant to stormwater and drainage for the proposed Specific Plan:

UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-33 Objective POSS-3: Ensure that park and recreational facilities make the most efficient use of land; that they are designed and managed to provide for the entire Fresno community; and that they represent positive examples of design and energy conservation.

Policy POSS-3-i: Joint Use with Drainage Facilities. Continue to seek joint use agreements for use of FMFCD stormwater drainage facilities.

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.
• Periodically monitor water quality and sediments near drainage outfalls to riparian areas. Institute remedial measures promptly if unacceptable levels of contaminant(s) occur.

Objective PU-7: Promote reduction in wastewater flows and develop facilities for beneficial reuse of reclaimed water and biosolids for management and distribution of treated wastewater.

Policy POSS-7-b: Reduce Stormwater Leakage. Reduce storm water infiltration into the sewer collection system, where feasible, through a program of replacing old and deteriorated sewer collection pipeline; eliminating existing stormwater sewer cut-ins to the sanitary sewer system; and avoiding any new sewer cut-ins except when required to protect health and safety.

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

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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.

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-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.

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 of the City’s Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance is to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of citizens and protect the water quality of watercourses and water bodies in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the CWA (33 U.S.C. Section 1251, et seq.) 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 11, Building Permits and Regulations, Article 6 Fresno Flood Plain Ordinance establish methods of reducing flood losses by: restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-35 safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards or flood heights or velocities; requiring that uses vulnerable to floods be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction; controlling filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage; preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood water or which may increase flood hazards in other areas; and controlling the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE – STORMWATER
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Specific Plan will have a significant impact on Utilities if it would:
• Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.15-5: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in the construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. (Significant and Unavoidable)
Stormwater represents a water supply opportunity that the City is currently leveraging with its extensive recharge basin system. Infiltration of captured stormwater allows groundwater to be recharged, improves overall water quality, and reduces the need for additional other water supplies.

Since the system is designed to handle approximately a two-year event within the underground drainage system, a significant amount of drainage is conveyed in the streets or through “major storm breakover” conveyances to detention/retention flood basins. This tends to result in shallow flooding over significant areas during larger events, but coupled with large regional flood control projects, the system can handle up to a 200-year, 30-day event.

Installation of storm drainage infrastructure would occur during the construction phases of individual future projects within the Plan Area. There is significant storm drainage infrastructure remaining to be constructed to serve the Plan Area. About 32 miles of additional drainage pipelines is anticipated to be constructed to meet buildout needs.

Physical impacts from future construction of the storm drainage infrastructure within the Plan Area is addressed within this EIR. A discussion of relevant operational and construction impacts can be found in each respective section of this EIR. Impacts associated with development of the Plan Area, as proposed, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1- 3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), public services and recreation (Impacts 3.13-3 through 3.13-5).

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

CONCLUSION
The construction of the new on-site stormwater drainage facilities, which are associated with future buildout of the Plan Area, has the potential to cause environmental impacts. The potential for environmental impacts associated with the installation of the stormwater system, and all construction activities within the Plan Area, are addressed throughout this EIR. In some cases, the direct and indirect impacts are potentially significant and warrant mitigation measures, while in other cases there are significant and unavoidable impacts. The future storm drainage infrastructure would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR.

It is noted, however, that future development of storm drainage infrastructure within the proposed Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1- 3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), public services and recreation (Impacts 3.13-3 through 3.13-5). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in this Draft EIR, impacts related to construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities to serve the Plan Area are considered significant and unavoidable.

UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-37

3.15.4 SOLID WASTE

EXISTING SETTING
Fresno diverts a majority of its solid waste away from landfills and into recycling and composting programs. Recycling of construction and demolition debris and materials is required for any Cityissued building, relocation or demolition permitted project that generates at least eight cubic yards of material by volume, and all waste must be hauled to a City-approved facility.

The Solid Waste Division of the City of Fresno provides curbside collection of residential bulky goods through operation cleanup. The solid waste division also collects through a three‐cart system solid waste, recycling, green waste, as well as waste oil and waste oil filters weekly.

Currently, the City of Fresno has granted franchises for non‐exclusive roll off services to 24 roll off companies for bins which were 10 cubic yards or greater. The City also granted exclusive franchise agreements for the collection of commercial solid waste, recyclables and green waste to two franchises. Allied Waste Services (formally Republic) is responsible for all commercial services north of Ashlan Avenue. Mid Valley has all commercial locations south of Ashlan. Both haulers are responsible for Commercial, Multifamily, and Industrial up to 8 cubic yards, which fall into City of Fresno jurisdiction. Both city and (non‐exclusive) / exclusive franchise haulers provide and maintain containers; respond to customer complaints/concerns and provide roll-off and compactor services to residential, multi-family and commercial customers respective to their agreements. Garbage disposed of in the City of Fresno is taken to Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station (CARTS).

Once trash has been off-loaded at the transfer station, it is sorted and non-recyclable solid waste is loaded onto large trucks and taken to the American Avenue Landfill (i.e. American Avenue Disposal Site, Site Solid Waste Information System [SWIS] Number 10-AA-0009) located approximately six miles southwest of Kerman. American Avenue Landfill is owned and operated by Fresno County and began operations in 1992 for both public and commercial solid waste haulers. The American Avenue Landfill is a sanitary landfill, meaning that it is a disposal site for non-hazardous solid waste spread in layers, compacted to the smallest practical volume, and covered by material applied at the end of each operating day.

The American Avenue Landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of August 31, 2031.

The maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day.

One other active disposal site is located in Fresno County. The City of Clovis Landfill (SWIS Number 10‐AA‐0004) has a maximum permitted capacity of 7,800,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 7,740,000 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of April 30, 2047. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,000 tons per day.

Green waste hauled by the residential solid waste operations is delivered to one of two locations.

Earthwise/Green Valley Recycling located at 2365 North Avenue and West Coast Waste at 30777 Golden State Frontage Road are within a quarter mile of one another in southwest Fresno.

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Commercial green waste and organics delivered to Elm Avenue Recycling by Mid Valley are then transferred to the Kerman facility and composted with organic compost, which is then used by organic farms in the region. Commercial green waste and organics being delivered by Allied Waste are taken to Rice Road Transfer Station, which are then trans‐loaded into trucks, which are delivered to Kochergen Farms for composting and land application.

Recycling collected by residential is delivered to both CARTS and Elm Ave. Both facilities have Material Recovery Facilities (MRF’s) which sort through the co‐mingled recycling stream to sort the materials. Commercial franchises deliver recycling to Elm Avenue only. The City’s diversion rate has declined over the last decade from 74 percent to 63 percent. It is anticipated that the County will complete the relocation of their Environmental Compliance Center (HHW) facility, which is currently housed at the American Avenue landfill to the new location at the corner of West Avenue and West Dan Ronquillo Drive in 2022. The new County location will alleviate the need for the twice a year drop off events, opting for a closer location open every weekend to the public.

REGULATORY SETTING – SOLID WASTE
The following is an overview of the State and local regulations related to solid waste that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.

State
AB 939: CALIFORNIA’S INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1989 California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) set a requirement for cities and counties to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling and composting. In order to achieve this goal, AB 939 requires that each City and County prepare and submit a Source Reduction and Recycling Element. AB 939 also established the goal for all California counties to provide at least 15 years of ongoing landfill capacity.

AB 939 also established requirements for cities and counties to develop and implement plans for the safe management of household hazardous wastes. In order to achieve this goal, AB 939 requires that each city and county prepare and submit a Household Hazardous Waste Element.

AB 341 (75 PERCENT SOLID WASTE DIVERSION)
In 2011, the Legislature implemented a new approach to the management of solid waste. AB 341 (Chesbro, Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) required that CalRecycle oversee mandatory commercial recycling and established a new statewide goal of 75 percent recycling through source reduction, recycling, and composting by 2020. This paradigm adds to the policies in AB 939 in several significant ways. First, AB 341 established a statewide policy goal, rather than a jurisdictional mandate. This places the onus for achieving the goal on the State rather than on the cities and counties that are directly responsible for waste disposal and recycling. Under the law, individual jurisdictions are not required to meet the new policy goal.

UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-39 AB 341 requires CalRecycle to issue a report to the Legislature that includes strategies and recommendations that would enable the State to divert 75 percent of the solid waste generated in the State from disposal by January 1, 2020, requires businesses that meet specified thresholds in the bill to arrange for recycling services by January 1, 2012, and also streamlines various regulatory processes.

SB 1374 (CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE MATERIALS DIVERSION) Senate Bill 1374 (SB 1374), Construction and Demolition Waste Materials Diversion Requirements, requires that jurisdictions summarize their progress realized in diverting construction and demolition waste from the waste stream in their annual AB 939 reports. SB 1374 required the CIWMB to adopt a model construction and demolition ordinance for voluntary implementation by local jurisdictions.

CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CALGREEN)
CALGreen requires the diversion of at least 50 percent of the construction waste generated during most new construction projects (CALGreen Sections 4.408 and 5.408) and some additions and alterations to nonresidential building projects.

Local

FRESNO GENERAL PLAN
The Fresno General Plan contains the following objectives and policies that are relevant to solid waste for the proposed Specific Plan:

Objective PU-9: Provide adequate solid waste facilities and services for the collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal of refuse.

Policy PU-9-a: New Techniques. Continue to collaborate with affected stakeholders and partners to identify and support programs and new techniques of solid waste disposal, such as recycling, composting, waste to energy technology, and waste separation, to reduce the volume and toxicity of solid wastes that must be sent to landfill facilities.

Policy PU-9-b: Compliance with State Law. Continue to pursue programs to maintain conformance with the Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 or as otherwise required by law and mandated diversion goals.

Objective RC-11: Strive to reduce the solid waste going to landfills to zero by 2035.

Policy RC-11-a: Waste Reduction Strategies. Maintain current targets for recycling and reuse of all types of waste material in the city and enhance waste and wastewater management practices to reduce natural resource consumption, including the following measures:

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-40 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Continue to require recyclable material collection and storage areas in all residential development.
• Establish recycling collection and storage area standards for commercial and industrial facilities to size the recycling areas according to the anticipated types and amounts of recyclable material generated.
• Provide educational materials to residents on how and what to recycle and how to dispose of hazardous waste.
• Provide recycling canisters and collection in public areas where trash cans are also provided.
• Institute a program to evaluate major waste generators and identify recycling opportunities for their facilities and operations.
• Continue to partner with the California Integrated Waste Management Board on waste diversion and recycling programs and the CalMax (California Materials Exchange) program.
• Evaluate the feasibility of a residential, restaurant, and institutional food waste segregation and recycling program, to reduce the amount of organic material sent to landfill and minimize the emissions generated by decomposing organic material. • Evaluate the feasibility of “carbon footprinting” for the City’s wastewater treatment facilities, biomass and composting operations, solid waste collection and recycling programs.
• Expand yard waste collection to divert compostable waste from landfills. • Study the feasibility and cost-benefit analysis of a municipal composting program to collect and compost food and yard waste, including institutional food and yard waste, using the resulting compost matter for City park and median maintenance.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE – SOLID WASTE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Specific Plan will have a significant impact on Utilities if it would:
• Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; and/or
• Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-41

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.15-6: The proposed Specific Plan would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Plan Area’s solid waste disposal needs, and would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (Less than Significant) As noted previously, the American Avenue Landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of August 31, 2031. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day. Additionally, the City of Clovis Landfill (SWIS Number 10‐AA‐0004) has a maximum permitted capacity of 7,800,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 7,740,000 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of April 30, 2047. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,000 tons per day.

New residential, commercial, mixed use, and industrial land uses in the Specific Plan Area would increase the amount of solid waste generated by residents and businesses. The increase in growth and development as a result of the implementation of the Specific Plan could result in an increase of solid waste to transfer stations and landfills, and could contribute to an increased demand for solid waste services throughout the Plan Area.

Table 3.15-8 shows the estimated solid waste generation for maximum buildout of the Plan Area using the solid waste generation rates in the City’s General Plan EIR (2020). As shown in the table, buildout of the Specific Plan could generate up to approximately 800,825.04 pounds of solid waste per day (or approximately 400 tons per day).

TABLE 3.15-8: ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE GENERATION

LAND USE

SOLID WASTE

GENERATION RATE

MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT

POTENTIAL

ESTIMATED SOLID

WASTE (LBS/DAY)
Single‐Family Residential1 10 lbs/unit/day 35,865 units 358,650.00 Multi-Family Residential2 7 lbs/unit/day 11,207 units 78,449.00 Commercial/Office3 6 lbs/1,000 sf/day 32,768,957.77 sf 196,613.75 Mixed Use4 6 lbs/1,000 sf/day 26,425,464.10 sf 158,552.78 Industrial5 6 lbs/1,000 sf/day 1,426,584.42 8,559.51
TOTAL 800,825.04
NOTES:
1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES WERE ASSUMED FOR THE LOW, MEDIUM LOW, AND MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS.
2MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES WERE ASSUMED FOR THE MEDIUM HIGH,URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, AND HIGH RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS.
3 COMMERCIAL/OFFICE USES WERE ASSUMED FOR THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, RECREATION COMMERCIAL, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, REGIONAL COMMERCIAL, OFFICE EMPLOYMENT, AND BUSINESS PARK EMPLOYMENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. 4 MIXED USE USES WERE ASSUMED FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, CORRIDOR/CENTER, AND REGIONAL MIXED-USE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS.
5 INDUSTRIAL USES WERE ASSUMED FOR THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT LAND USE DESIGNATION.

SOURCE: DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP, 2020.

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-42 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Based on the estimated closure dates of the American Avenue Landfill in 2031 and the Clovis Landfill in 2047, development under the Specific Plan would not result in a significant impact on landfill capacity.

It is noted that AB 939 mandates the reduction of solid waste disposal in landfills, and the City is currently achieving a 71 percent diversion rate (based on 2009 data) which is anticipated to increase due to a Fresno City Council resolution that commits the City to the goal of a Zero Waste goal by 2025. This analysis assumes a worst-case scenario and does not factor in the diversion rate which is already occurring.

CONCLUSION
The Specific Plan would be required to comply with applicable State and local requirements including those pertaining to solid waste, construction waste diversion, and recycling. The addition of the volume of solid waste associated with future buildout of the Specific Plan Area, approximately 400 tons per day at total buildout, would increase the total to the American Avenue Landfill and the Clovis Landfill; however, this increase would not cause an exceedance of the landfill’s remaining capacity. This is a less than significant impact.

OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-1 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluate a project's effect in relationship to broader changes occurring, or that are foreseeable to occur, in the surrounding environment. Accordingly, this chapter presents a discussion of CEQAmandated analysis for cumulative impacts, significant irreversible effects, and significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan.

4.1 CUMULATIVE SETTING AND IMPACT ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION
CEQA requires that an EIR contain an assessment of the cumulative impacts that could be associated with the Specific Plan. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a), “an EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.” “Cumulatively considerable,” as defined in section 15065(a)(3), means that “the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (as defined by Section 15130). As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, a cumulative impact consists of an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. A cumulative impact occurs from:
…the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.

In addition, Section 15130(b) identifies that the following three elements are necessary for an adequate cumulative analysis:
1) Either:
(A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or,
(B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A summary of projections may also be contained in an adopted or certified prior environmental document for such a plan. Such projections may be supplemented with additional information such as a regional modeling program.

Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2) A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available; and 3) A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR shall examine reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative effects.

Where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not “cumulatively considerable,” a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable.

CUMULATIVE SETTING
Under CEQA, the discussion of cumulative impacts should focus on the severity of the impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence. The geographic scope for the cumulative analysis covers the entire Fresno General Plan Planning Area, which includes the City limits and the Sphere of Influence.

The analysis of cumulative effects considered the cumulative projected General Plan buildout throughout the City, as described in the Fresno General Plan.

The Fresno General Plan was approved in December 2014 and assumes two levels of development, including the “General Plan Horizon” and “General Plan Buildout”. The General Plan Horizon will occur in the year 2035 and assumes that vacant and underutilized land available for development in the City’s Sphere of Influence will not be developed by the year 2035. Therefore, the General Plan Buildout is anticipated to occur past the horizon year of 2035 and analyzes the complete development under the General Plan, including the Sphere of Influence.

Table 4.0-1, below, shows the residential development potential under the General Plan Horizon and General Plan Buildout development scenarios, as described within the City of Fresno General Plan. As shown, approximately 191,000 dwelling units currently exist in the General Plan Planning Area. Under the General Plan Horizon scenario, the total residential capacity would be 267,000 dwelling units. Under the General Plan Buildout scenario, the total residential capacity would be 336,000 dwelling units.

TABLE 4.0-1: RESIDENTIAL GROWTH PROJECTIONS UNDER FRESNO GENERAL PLAN1

RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS GENERAL PLAN HORIZON GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT Existing2 191,000 191,000
Additional Capacity 76,000 145,000
Total Capacity 267,000 336,000
NOTES: 1. CALCULATIONS WERE BASED ON AUGUST 9, 2012 LAND USE DIAGRAM DRAFT FIGURE 2 OF THE INITIATION DRAFT

2. EXISTING DWELLING UNIT COUNT IS BASED ON THE 2010 CENSUS FOR DWELLING UNITS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS (APPROXIMATELY 171,000 DWELLING UNITS) ADDED TO THE FRESNO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS INFORMAL AERIAL PHOTO AND CENSUS TRACT STUDY ESTIMATE OF 2010 POPULATION OF DWELLING UNITS WITHIN THE AREA LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS AND INSIDE THE CITY’S SOI BOUNDARY (APPROXIMATELY 20,000 DWELLING UNITS).

SOURCE: FRESNO GENERAL PLAN TABLE 1-2, DECEMBER 2014.

OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-3 Table 4.0-2, below, presents the anticipated population under the General Plan Horizon and General Plan Buildout development scenarios. As shown, approximately 545,000 people currently reside in the General Plan Planning Area. The General Plan Horizon is anticipated to accommodate a population of 226,000 new residents by 2035, resulting in a total population of 771,000. The General Plan Buildout anticipates an additional 425,000 new residents over the existing population by an unspecified date within the Sphere of Influence, resulting in a total population of 970,000.

TABLE 4.0-2: POPULATION PROJECTIONS UNDER FRESNO GENERAL PLAN1

POPULATION GENERAL PLAN HORIZON GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
Existing2 545,000 545,000
Additional Estimated 226,000 425,000
Total 771,000 970,000
NOTES: 1. CALCULATIONS WERE BASED ON AUGUST 9, 2012 LAND USE DIAGRAM DRAFT FIGURE 2 OF THE INITIATION DRAFT

2. EXISTING POPULATION INCLUDES THE ENTIRE SOI AREA POPULATION FROM THE 2010 CENSUS DATA.

SOURCE: FRESNO GENERAL PLAN TABLE 1-5, DECEMBER 2014.

The amount of new non-residential development identified within the City of Fresno General Plan for the General Plan Horizon and General Plan Buildout are presented below in Table 4.0-3. Under the General Plan Horizon scenario, an estimated 55,019,275 square feet of non-residential uses could result by 2035, while nearly 104,000,000 square feet of non-residential capacity above current levels (approximately 49,000,000 square feet more than the 2035 horizon) is anticipated under General Plan Buildout.

TABLE 4.0-3: NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER FRESNO GENERAL PLAN1 TYPE

ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA ABOVE CURRENT LEVELS IN SQUARE FEET

GENERAL PLAN HORIZON GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
Retail2 10,925,293 20,613,762
Office3 18,334,371 34,593,153
Industrial and Business Parks4 25,759,611 48,603,040
Total 55,019,275 103,809,955
NOTES: 1. CALCULATIONS WERE BASED ON AUGUST 9, 2012 LAND USE DIAGRAM DRAFT FIGURE 2 OF THE INITIATION DRAFT

2. SUM OF COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA PLUS 50 PERCENT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL CMX FLOOR AREA, 80 PERCENT NON-RESIDENTIAL NMX FLOOR AREA,

87.5 PERCENT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL RMX FLOOR AREA, AND 10 PERCENT OF BP/RBP FLOOR AREA.

3. SUM OF OFFICE FLOOR AREA PLUS 50 PERCENT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL CMX FLOOR AREA, 20 PERCENT NON-RESIDENTIAL NMX FLOOR AREA, 12.5 PERCENT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL RMX FLOOR AREA, AND 60 PERCENT OF BP/RBP FLOOR AREA.

4. SUM OF LIGHT AND HEAVY INDUSTRY LAND USE FLOOR AREA PLUS 30 PERCENT OF BP/RBP FLOOR AREA.

SOURCE: FRESNO GENERAL PLAN TABLE 1-6, DECEMBER 2014.

According to the Fresno General Plan, the City estimates that there would be 0.48 jobs per new resident at the General Plan Horizon Year of 2035. Therefore, at the General Plan Horizon, the Planning Area could accommodate approximately 108,000 new jobs above current levels, consisting of 50,000 new retail jobs, 32,500 new office jobs, and 25,500 new other jobs. With respect to General Plan Buildout after 2035, the Fresno General Plan estimates that there would be 0.45 new jobs per resident. Therefore, at General Plan Buildout, the Planning Area could accommodate approximately 189,500 new jobs above current levels, consisting of 87,700 new retail jobs, 57,000 new office jobs, and 44,700 new other jobs.

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
Cumulative settings are identified under each cumulative impact analysis. Cumulative settings vary because the area that the impact may affect is different. For example, noise impacts generally only impact the local surrounding area because noise travels a relatively short distance while air quality impacts affect the whole air basin as wind currents control air flow and are not generally affected by natural or manmade barriers which would affect noise.

Method of Analysis
Although the environmental effects of an individual project may not be significant when that project is considered separately, the combined effects of several projects may be significant when considered collectively. State CEQA Guidelines 15130 requires a reasonable analysis of a project's cumulative impacts, which are defined as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." The cumulative impact that results from several closely related projects is: the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time (State CEQA Guidelines 15355[b]). Cumulative impact analysis may be less detailed than the analysis of the project's individual effects (State CEQA Guidelines 15130[b]).

There are two approaches to identifying cumulative projects and the associated impacts. The list approach identifies individual projects known to be occurring or proposed in the surrounding area in order to identify potential cumulative impacts. The projection approach identifies potential cumulative impacts through the use of a summary of projections found in adopted local, regional or statewide plans (e.g., General Plans) or related planning or environmental documents as sometimes supplemented by additional information such as a regional modeling program. This EIR uses the projection approach for the cumulative analysis and considers the development anticipated to occur upon General Plan buildout in the area in addition to the pending and proposed projects in the area.

Project Assumptions
The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan’s contribution to environmental impacts under cumulative conditions is based on full buildout of the Plan Area. See Chapter 2.0, Project Description, for a complete description of the Specific Plan.

Cumulative Impacts
Some cumulative impacts for issue areas are not quantifiable and are therefore discussed qualitatively as they pertain to development patterns in the surrounding region. Exceptions to this are topics like traffic and utilities, which may be quantified by estimating future traffic patterns, demand for specific utilities, etc. and determining the combined effects that may result. The potential cumulative impacts associated with the Specific Plan are summarized below.

OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-5

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
The cumulative setting for aesthetics is the Fresno Planning Area, as defined in the City of Fresno General Plan.

Impact 4.1: Specific Plan implementation will contribute to the cumulative degradation of the existing visual character of the region. (Considerable Contribution and Significant and Unavoidable)
Under cumulative conditions, buildout of the Fresno General Plan would result in changes to the visual character of the Fresno General Plan Planning Area and result in impacts to localized views as new development occurs within the City and the General Plan Planning Area.

As described in Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, no part of Plan Area is designated as a scenic vista by the City of Fresno General Plan, nor does the Plan Area contain any unique or distinguishing features that would qualify it for designation as a scenic vista. Furthermore, there are no designated or eligible State Scenic Highways within or in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area and no highways in Fresno County are listed as a Designated Scenic Highway by the Caltrans Scenic Highway Mapping System.

Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would change the visual character of the Specific Plan Area by facilitating the development of urban uses within an area largely comprised of undeveloped sites. Regional growth has and will continue to result in a cumulative aesthetic effect by converting undeveloped land into developed and occupied areas and increasing overall levels of nighttime lighting. Cumulative development entails grading/landform alteration, the development of structures, and the installation of roadways and other infrastructure that has altered and will continue to permanently alter the region's existing visual character. As described in Section 3.1, compliance with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, and implementation of the proposed Specific Plan’s development regulations would reduce visual impacts to the greatest extent feasible; however, the proposed Plan would permanently convert undeveloped rural, agricultural, and open space areas to urbanized uses.

According to the General Plan EIR, buildout of the General Plan would result in the permanent alteration of the visual character of the City of Fresno’s General Plan Planning Area from a more rural setting to a setting that is characterized by suburban or urban uses (i.e., streets, residences, and community commercial shopping centers). In addition, buildout of the General Plan would contribute to cumulatively considerable aesthetic impacts. Consequently, even with implementation of the policies and implementation programs identified in the City’s General Plan, as well as adopted City regulations to enhance the City’s current community character and preserve open space, development of the General Plan area was determined in the General Plan EIR to result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to aesthetics. Although the proposed project would comply with all applicable standards and regulations, impacts related to a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, degradation of the existing visual character and quality of the project site and surrounding area, and creation of new sources of light or glare would still occur. Therefore, consistent with the General Plan EIR conclusion, the proposed Specific Plan’s incremental

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan contribution towards cumulative aesthetic impacts would be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The cumulative setting for agricultural resources includes the Fresno General Plan Planning area, as defined in the City of Fresno General Plan, in combination with portions of the San Joaquin Valley area, including Fresno County.

Impact 4.2: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to the cumulative impact on agricultural land and uses. (Considerable Contribution and Significant and Unavoidable)
Cumulative development anticipated in the City and County of Fresno, including growth projected by adopted general plans and those being updated, will result in the permanent loss of agricultural land, including important farmlands, significant farmlands, land under Williamson Act contracts, and other farmlands.

As described in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, there are no forest lands or land designated or zoned as forest land within the Plan Area or surrounding area; therefore, cumulative development would not contribute to the conversion of some forest lands or timber lands. However, there are approximately 285.65 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, 509.39 acres of Unique Farmland, and 1,562.82 acres of Farmland of Local Importance within the proposed Specific Plan Area.

Additionally, under the proposed Specific Plan, the approximately 120 acres of Williamson Act Contract land are proposed for Low Density, Medium Low Density, and Medium Density Residential development where agricultural uses are no longer a permitted use. Consequently, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan would result in revisions to the zoning ordinance resulting in a significant impact on existing zoning for agricultural uses because non‐agricultural uses, such as low, medium low density, and medium density residential would be allowed on the existing Contract land.

Agricultural land is a limited resource and the cumulative loss of this land is considered significant.

Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would require the future annexation and development of land into the City. If future annexation and development would involve the loss of important farmlands to non-agricultural uses, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 would be required.

While implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 would reduce the above-identified impact through preservation of agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio, the impact would not be reduced to a lessthan-significant level due to the fact that active agricultural land would still be permanently converted to urban uses. Therefore, impacts on Williamson Act contracts, and important or significant farmlands and forest resources remain cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.

AIR QUALITY
The cumulative setting for this analysis is the San Joaquin Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB consists of eight counties: Fresno, Kern (western and central), Kings, Tulare, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus.

OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-7 Impact 4.3: Specific Plan implementation would contribute to cumulative impacts on the region's air quality. (Cumulatively Considerable and Significant and Unavoidable)
In accordance with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD’s) methodology, any project that produces a significant project-level regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment contributes to the cumulative impact. Cumulative projects within the local area include new development and general growth within the Plan Area. The greatest source of emissions within the SJVAB is mobile sources. Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted from cumulative project emissions (i.e., the SJVAB); SJVAPCD considers a project cumulatively significant when project-related emissions exceed the SJVAPCD’s regional emissions thresholds. No significant cumulative impacts were identified with regard to carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots.

Construction
The SJVAB is designated nonattainment for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) under the California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) and nonattainment for respirable particulate matter (PM10) under the California AAQS. Construction of cumulative projects will further degrade the regional and local air quality. Air quality will be temporarily impacted during construction activities. As shown in Table 3.3-6 in Section 3.3, construction emissions associated with the proposed Plan would exceed the SJVAPCD’s regional construction emissions thresholds for CO, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), reactive organic compounds (ROG), PM10, and PM2.5. Thus, the project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be cumulatively considerable and therefore significant.

Operation
For operational air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily regional threshold values is not considered by the SJVAPCD to be a substantial source of air pollution and does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. As discussed, SJVAPCD Rules 9510 and 9410 would contribute to reducing emissions of NOx and particulate matter associated with future individual projects accommodated under the proposed Specific Plan and may reduce impacts for these individual development projects to a less than significant level. In addition, the planned improvements, and goals and policies under the proposed project would generally support a more sustainable development pattern for the Plan Area. Creation of more complete neighborhoods in addition to improving the public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle networks and infrastructure would contribute to the overall reduction in vehicle trips and VMT, which would reduce mobile-source emissions. However, as shown in Table 3.3-7, due to the amount of growth for the proposed Plan Area, operation of the cumulative projects accommodated under the proposed Specific Plan would result in emissions in excess of the SJVAPCD regional emissions thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Thus, the proposed Specific Plan’s air pollutant emissions would be cumulatively considerable and therefore significant.

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Conclusion
The mitigation measures provided within the air quality discussion (refer to Section 3.3) have been designed to be consistent with the guidance as promulgated by the SJVAPCD, where applicable. As is currently proposed, the Specific Plan is expected to be built out under a staged approach, and all mitigation would be applicable to each stage. However, even with the application of mitigation measures, operational and constructions emissions levels for the aforementioned criteria pollutants would remain above the defined thresholds of significance. Exceedance of the threshold within an area designated as nonattainment would be a cumulatively considerable impact. As such, implementation of the Specific Plan would have a cumulatively considerable contribution and a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact on the region’s air quality.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The cumulative context for a cumulative analysis can be defined by region, by political subdivision, or by the geography.

Impact 4.4: Specific Plan implementation would not contribute to the cumulative loss of biological resources including habitats and special status species. (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
This cumulative analysis utilizes the “Bioregion” as its cumulative setting. The Plan Area is located in the San Joaquin Valley Bioregion, which has a wide variety of habitats and vegetation, including vernal pools, valley sink scrub and saltbush, freshwater marsh, grasslands, arid plains, orchards, and oak savannah, among many other habitats. The San Joaquin Valley Bioregion is the appropriate cumulative context because environmental impacts related to biological resources are best addressed in the context of geographic areas defined by natural features rather than by political or administrative boundaries.
1 Agricultural land is scattered throughout the Plan Area, but mainly in the southern, western, and southwestern portions of the Plan Area. Irrigation ditches are also located throughout the Plan Area near these active agricultural lands. Developed uses are mainly in the northern, eastern, southern, and southeastern portions of the Plan Area. Undeveloped vacant land previously used for agricultural uses is also scattered throughout the Plan Area.

There remains a potential that special status species could occupy the Plan Area from time to time.

Mitigation measures were developed to avoid, minimize, and compensate for direct and indirect effects to biological resources, including special status species and their habitats. It has been found in this EIR that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, the project would not, directly or indirectly, have a substantial adverse effect through habitat modifications or reductions, cause populations to drop below self-sustaining levels, substantially eliminate a community, or substantially reduce the number of, or restrict the range of, an endangered, rare or threatened 1 U.S.G.S. Bioregions of the Pacific U.S. Available at: <https://www.usgs.gov/centers/werc/science/bioregionspacific-us?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects>.

OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-9 species, including those considered candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.

The Plan Area does not contain any natural hydrologic features. The Plan Area contains an internal network of agricultural ditches along the margins of the farm fields. The ditches in proximity to active agricultural areas of the Plan Area are likely regularly maintained to control/collect irrigation runoff from the fields. These features are manmade and are fed only by local irrigation water during the irrigation season or rainfall during the winter/spring season. Because the proposed Specific Plan is a planning document and thus, no physical changes will occur to the environment, adoption of the Specific Plan would not directly impact the environment. There is a reasonable chance that water features could be impacted throughout the buildout of the individual projects. The implementation of an individual project would require a detailed and site-specific review of the site to determine the presence or absence of water features. If water features are present and disturbance is required, Federal and State laws require measures to reduce, avoid, or compensate for impacts to these resources. The requirements of these Federal and State laws are implemented through the permit process. It has been found in this EIR that the project would not have substantial adverse effects, directly or indirectly, on protected wetlands and jurisdictional waters.

Wildlife movement includes migration (i.e., usually movement one way per season), interpopulation movement (i.e., long-term dispersal and genetic flow), and small travel pathways (i.e., daily movement within an animal's territory). While small travel pathways usually facilitate movement for daily home range activities, such as foraging or escape from predators, they also provide connection between outlying populations and the main populations, permitting an increase in gene flow among populations. These habitat linkages can extend for miles and occur on a large scale throughout the greater region. Habitat linkages facilitate movement between populations located in discrete locales and populations located within larger habitat areas.

Impacts from development, such as habitat fragmentation and/or isolation, and the creation of impassable barriers can cause a significant impact to wildlife corridors. Depending on the organism and its needs, movement corridors can either be continuous or discontinuous patches of suitable habitat. Preserving expanses of open space that are connected may enable species utilizing these areas as foraging or breeding habitat to persist.

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.” Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact and less than cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to cumulative impacts on biological resources.

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
The cumulative context for a cumulative analysis can be defined by region, by political subdivision or by the geography, where sufficient inventory data is available to define it. The cumulative setting for cultural resources includes all of the Fresno County, which includes the entire City of Fresno General Plan Planning Area.

Impact 4.5: Specific Plan implementation would not contribute to the cumulative loss of cultural and tribal resources. (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Cumulative development anticipated in Fresno and the greater Fresno County area, including growth projected by adopted general plans, may result in the discovery and removal of cultural resources, including archaeological, paleontological, historical, and Native American resources and human remains. As discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural and Tribal Resources, 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. In addition, due to the size of the proposed Specific Plan Area, buildout of the proposed plan could contribute to cumulative impacts related to the regional loss of cultural resources if previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered during construction and proper techniques are not employed.

Future projects in Fresno would be required to comply with General Plan Objectives HCR-1, HCR-2, and HCR-3, as well as Policies HCR-1c, HCR-2a, HCR-2b, HCR-2f, and HCR-3c, which require the City to identify, designate and preserve sites and structures of historical, archaeological, and cultural significance. General Plan Policies HCR-2c and 2g would require future development to evaluate the project site and its Area of Potential Effects (APE), for the potential historic and/or cultural resources by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications. Furthermore, mitigation measures incorporated into this EIR would require project applicants for future projects with intact buildings more than 45 years to provide a historic resource technical study and evaluate cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated artifacts and features) discovered during construction activities. Any significant discoveries during construction would be required to be preserved in place or mitigated through relocation or documentation; thus, the project is not anticipated to considerably contribute to a significant reduction in cultural resources.

The proposed project, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impactsto cultural resources. The proposed project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts associated with cultural resources. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact and less than cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to cumulative impacts on cultural resources.

GEOLOGY,SOILS AND SEISMICITY
The cumulative setting area for geology, soils and seismicity includes the City of Fresno General Plan Planning Area.

OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-11 Impact 4.6: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts on geologic and soils characteristics. (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Construction of the individual development projects allowed under the land use designations of the proposed Specific Plan may result in risks associated with geology and soils. For example, there is an ongoing possibility that a fault located anywhere in the state (or region) could rupture and cause seismic ground shaking. Additionally, grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with construction activities could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Other geologic risks such as liquefaction, landsliding, lateral spreading, and soil expansion are also geologic risks that are present.

As discussed in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in any significant impacts related to this environmental topic. While some cumulative impacts will occur in the region as individual projects are constructed, the proposed General Plan policies and actions, as well as State and Federal regulations, will reduce the risk to people in the region. Furthermore, mitigation measures incorporated into this EIR would require project applicants for future projects to obtain a site-specific Geotechnical Evaluation to implement sitespecific recommendations and submit an approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 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.

Consequently, the proposed Specific Plan would generally not be affected by, nor would it affect, other development approved by the City of Fresno. As a result, the proposed General Plan’s incremental contribution to cumulative geologic and soil impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
As the California Supreme Court has emphasized, all CEQA analyses of the environmental effects of greenhouse gas (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 themselves, 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.

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Impact 4.7: Cumulative impact on climate change from increased project-related greenhouse gas emissions. (Less than Significant and Less than 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 California Air Resources Board (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 3.4-2 in Section 3.4, 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, 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 and walkable communities, which were incorporated into the design of the proposed project and 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 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 projectspecific mitigation, which has been done through this GHG analysis. For these reasons, implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact to GHGs.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The cumulative context for the analysis of cumulative hazards and human health impacts is all of Fresno County, which includes the entire Fresno General Plan Planning Area.

Impact 4.8: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
The Specific Plan, in conjunction with cumulative development in the region, would include areas designated for a variety of urban, agricultural, and open space uses as defined by the applicable OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-13 General Plan. Cumulative development would include continued operation of, or development of, new facilities as allowed under each land use designation.

Hazardous Materials Use, Generation, Transport, and Disposal New development could increase the use of hazardous materials within the region, resulting in potential health and safety effects related to hazardous materials use. Potential impacts related to hazards and/or hazardous materials associated with new and future development would primarily be confined to commercial and industrial areas and would not involve the use of hazardous substances in large quantities or be particularly hazardous. 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.

Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials
Incidents (such as accidental release of hazardous materials), if any, would typically be site specific and would involve accidental spills or inadvertent releases. Associated health and safety risks would generally be limited to those individuals using the materials or to persons in the immediate vicinity of the materials and would not combine with similar effects elsewhere (i.e., construction workers).

Hazard-related impacts tend to be site-specific and Project-specific. The Plan Area is not associated with any existing hazardous materials spills; however, there are numerous areas throughout Fresno County where hazardous conditions are present. In addition, Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8- 10 address potential risk of hazards due to existing hazards located on the project site.

School Sites
As provided under Impact 3.8-1, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 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. 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.

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Emergency Response
As provided under Impact 3.8-5, future construction activities within the Plan Area could affect access along nearby roadways during construction. However, access would 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 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. 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, where applicable, the proposed project would also be required to comply with the Fresno County’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Wildfire/Wildland Fires
As provided under Impact 3.8-6, the proposed project is not located in or near any SRAs or lands classified as VHFHSZs. 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.

Conclusion
Implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in significant increased risks of hazards in the cumulative setting, nor would it result in any significant off-site or indirect impacts. Mitigation measures have been included to reduce the risk of on-site hazards associated with future development activities. With implementation of these mitigation measures, implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant cumulative impact relative to this environmental topic. As such, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The cumulative context for the analysis of cumulative stormwater runoff impacts is best addressed on a regional/watershed basis (geography), as such an area captures flows occurring both upstream and downstream of the project site. Because water resources are highly interconnected, the OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-15 cumulative setting is based on Fresno County, which is located in the Tulare Lake Hydrological Region.

Impact 4.9: Cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality. (Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Construction of the individual development projects allowed under the land use designations of the proposed Specific Plan has the potential to result in construction-related water quality impacts, impacts to groundwater recharge, and cause flooding, erosion, or siltation from the alteration of drainage patterns.

Stormwater Runoff
Implementation of the Specific Plan would increase the amount of impervious surfaces in the Plan Area, which, without intervention, could increase peak stormwater runoff rates and volumes on and downstream of the Plan Area. The entire Plan Area is within the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s urban flood control system consisting of 158 drainage areas, each 1 to 2 square miles in area. Operation of projects developed under the proposed Specific Plan could generate the same categories of pollutants as construction activities. Additionally, due to future development and infrastructure projects, the overall volume of runoff in Fresno could be increased compared to existing conditions. If the 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 contributed to bank erosion.

In order to ensure that future development projects in the County do not increase downstream flood elevations due to increased peak stormwater runoff, 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 FMFCD requires future development projects to be designed in conformance to the FMFCD’s Urban Storm Drainage Master Plan to ensure storm drainage facilities are adequately designed and that the storm drain system has adequate storage capacity for additional stormwater runoff generated by the Specific Plan. 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. The FMFCD maintains an on-going update to the system hydraulic model for flood control and prepares a capital improvement plan update every five years. Surface runoff from the area will be managed via detention/retention basins and flow reducing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent local flooding within the various development sites within the overall Plan Area. These features will also reduce peak flows from the Plan Area to receiving storm drains and FMFCD facilities. Additionally, future development of the proposed Specific Plan would minimize or eliminate increases in runoff from these new impervious surfaces by runoff entering ditches and storm drains designed in conformance to FMFCD standards.

Design and construction of flood control improvements to the satisfaction of the FMFCD would ensure there is adequate storage capacity for the additional stormwater runoff generated from the buildout of the Specific Plan. Future development within the Plan Area, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts associated with stormwater runoff.

Water Quality
As discussed in Impacts 3.1 and 3.9-2, grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with construction activities could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Construction activities could also result in soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas. 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 these 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.

Future development of the Specific Plan Area would require development and approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP will include BMPs to regulate stormwater quality for the Specific Plan Area. In accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program, compliance with existing regulatory requirements require preparation of a SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Central Valley Region, has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, and 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 the use of 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 and the City of Fresno and are an existing regulatory requirement.

While there are no assurances that other projects in the County would incorporate the same degree or methods of treatment as the proposed Specific Plan, each project in the City that would discharge stormwater runoff would be required to comply with NPDES discharge permits from the RWQCB, which adjusts requirements on a case-by-case basis to avoid significant degradation of water quality.

Therefore, while a greater quantity of urban runoff may result from future development projects in the Plan Area because of an increase in impervious surfaces, the associated surface water quality impacts associated with the increased runoff in the Plan Area would be expected to be less-thansignificant because adherence to existing NPDES discharge permit requirements and other regulatory mechanisms which regulate stormwater runoff.

Compliance with City and FMFCD water quality protection regulations, approval from the RWQCB, and implementation of project-specific SWPPPs would ensure that the Specific Plan minimizes impacts to surface water quality. The proposed Specific Plan, when considered alongside all past, OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-17 present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts given that mitigation measures would control storm water quality. The proposed Specific Plan would not have cumulatively considerable impacts associated with water quality.

Groundwater Supplies/Recharge
The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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. Future development, including water quality BMPs, detention basins, and retention basins, would be designed to minimize or eliminate increases in runoff from these new impervious surfaces entering storm drains and other FMFCD facilities.

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 FMFCDs Storm Water Quality Management Plan, City General Plan policies, City Municipal Code requirements, 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.

The proposed Specific Plan, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts given that mitigation measures require maintaining water quality standards and preserving the infiltration of rainwater within the aquifer.

The proposed Specific Plan would not have cumulatively considerable impacts associated with groundwater supply/recharge.

Flooding
Future development projects in the area could result in additional discharges of stormwater during storm events. When combined, these future development projects could, in theory, lead to an incremental increase in peak stormwater runoff, and potential incremental increases in downstream flood elevations. However, in order to ensure that future development projects in the County do not increase downstream flood elevations, the FMFCD has primary responsibility for managing the local stormwater flows for the City, as well as a large area beyond the City’s boundaries.

Improvements to storm drainage facilities are accomplished either as a part of privately funded on-

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan site developments or as a part of the master plan, funded by drainage fees. FMFCD maintains an ongoing update to the system hydraulic model for flood control and prepares a capital improvement plan update every five years.

The Plan Area includes an extensive system of on-site stormwater collection, treatment and retention facilities to accommodate the increased stormwater flows that originate in the Plan Area.

Surface runoff from the area will be managed via detention/retention basins and flow reducing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent local flooding within the Plan Area. These features will also reduce peak flows from the Plan Area to receiving storm drains.

As discussed in Impact 3.9-6, the Plan Area is approximately 105 miles from the coast and is not adjacent to any lakes; thus, the Plan Area is not at risk for tsunami or seiche events. Additionally, as shown on Figure 3.9-3, 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.

No other parts of the Specific Plan Area are designated as flood prone, and there are no impacts to regulatory floodways or Special Flood Hazard Areas (Zone A or AE) as defined by FEMA. Provided future storm drain system and detention/retention facilities that would be installed as part of future development are adequately sized and properly installed and maintained, flooding will not be induced by the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, the Specific Plan is not at risk of the 1-percent annual chance flood.

The proposed Specific Plan, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts given that existing City and FMFCD regulations require designs that ensure structures are outside the base flood elevation and that storm water flows are maintained to prevent downstream flooding. The proposed Specific Plan would not have cumulatively considerable impacts associated with flooding.

Conclusion
Construction of the individual development projects allowed under the land use designations of the proposed General Plan has the potential to result in construction-related water quality impacts, impacts to groundwater recharge, and cause flooding, erosion, or siltation from the alteration of drainage patterns.

While some cumulative impacts will occur in the region as individual projects are constructed, the existing General Plan policies and actions, as well as State and Federal regulations, will substantially reduce the impacts. Additionally, future projects under the Specific Plan would be required to design storm drain facilities to the satisfaction of the FMFCD to ensure each project provides adequate storage capacity for the additional stormwater runoff generated. Considering the protection granted by local, State, and Federal agencies and their permit and monitoring requirements, as discussed in OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-19 Section 3.9 (Hydrology and Water Quality), and with implementation of the policies and actions included within the General Plan, the overall cumulative impact would not be significant. As a result, the General Plan's incremental contribution to cumulative hydrology impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

LAND USE
The cumulative setting for land use is the Fresno General Plan Planning Area, as defined in the City of Fresno General Plan.

Impact 4.10: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts on communities and local land uses. (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Cumulative land use impacts, such as the potential for conflicts with adjacent land uses and consistency with adopted plans and regulations, are typically site and project-specific. The land uses allowed under the proposed Specific Plan provide opportunities for cohesive new growth at in‐fill locations within existing urbanized areas as well as new growth within the Plan Area, but would not create physical division within existing communities. New development and redevelopment projects would be designed to complement the character of existing neighborhoods and provide connectivity between existing development and new development within the cumulative analysis area. The proposed Specific Plan does not include any new roadways, infrastructure, or other features that would divide existing communities. Instead, the Specific Plan would plan for extension of existing roadways and infrastructure, as well as new future roadways and infrastructure, in order to serve future development of the Plan Area. These new roadways would link existing unincorporated areas of the County with the City of Fresno.

Overall, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the objectives and policies of the Fresno General Plan. Other projects in the cumulative context would undergo a General Plan consistency review, similar to the proposed Specific Plan, on a project‐by‐project basis to demonstrate their consistency with the applicable land use document. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan's incremental contribution to cumulative land use and population impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

NOISE
The cumulative context for noise impacts associated with proposed Specific Plan consists of the existing and future noise sources that could affect the project or surrounding uses.

Impact 4.11: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to the cumulative exposure of existing and future noise-sensitive land uses or to increased noise resulting from cumulative development. (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Noise generated by construction would be temporary, and would not add to the permanent noise environment or be considered as part of the cumulative context. The total construction noise

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan impact of the proposed Specific Plan would not be a substantial increase to the existing future noise environment.

As discussed in Impact 3.11-1 in Section 3.11, Noise, some of the existing noise sensitive receptors located along the Specific Plan Area roadways are currently exposed to exterior traffic noise levels exceeding the City of Fresno 65 decibel (dB) day/night average level (LDN) exterior noise level standard for residential uses, as shown in Table 3.11-10. Based upon General Plan Policy NS-1j, 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 above the ambient noise limits established in the General Plan Update (or in this case the modeled increase in traffic noise levels due to the project). The contribution to traffic noise increases resulting from future development of the proposed Specific Plan is predicted to be between 0 dBA and 13.4 dBA LDN. The following roadway segments would exceed the substantial increase criteria described in Policy NS-1j and Table 3.11-10:
• Traffic noise levels along W. Shaw Avenue are expected to range between 68.1 and 73.3 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 6.9 and 8.3 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along W. Ashlan Avenue between N. Grantland Avenue and N. Blythe Avenue are expected to range between 67.5 and 70.4 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 5.6 and 13.4 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along W. Shields Avenue between N. Polk Avenue and N. Cornelia Avenue are expected to reach up to 66 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in an increase in ambient noise level of 7.6 dBA CNEL. • Traffic noise levels along W. Clinton Avenue between N. Polk Avenue and N. Blythe Avenue and between N. Valentine Avenue and N. Marks Avenue are expected to range between

66.9 and 69.7 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases in ambient noise levels ranging between 5.5 and 8.0 dBA CNEL • Traffic noise levels along N. Grantland Avenue between W. Gettysburg Avenue and W.

Dakota Avenue and between W. Shields Avenue and W. Clinton Avenue are expected to range between 67.7 and 71.0 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases in ambient noise levels between 10.5 and 11.5 dBA CNEL. • Traffic noise levels along N. Bryan Avenue between W. Gettysburg Avenue and W. Ashlan Avenue are expected to reach up to 65.3 dBA CNEL, resulting in an increase of 7.7 dBA CNEL in ambient noise levels.
• Traffic noise levels along N. Hayes Avenue between W. Shaw Avenue and W. Swift Avenue and between W. Dakota Avenue and W. Shields Avenue are expected to range between

65.9 and 66.8 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases in ambient noise levels ranging between 9.3 and 11.8 dBA CNEL. • Traffic noise levels along N. Polk Avenue between W. Shaw Avenue and W. Shields Avenue are expected to range between 65.3 and 68.7 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-21 centerline of the road, resulting in increases in ambient noise levels between 5.5 and 8.1 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along N. Cornelia Avenue between W. Gettysburg Avenue and W.

Ashlan Avenue are expected to reach up to 66.1 dBA CNEL, resulting in an increase of 5.9 dBA CNEL in ambient noise levels.

Of the 115 roadway segments analyzed, 30 segments would experience substantial noise increases greater than 3 dBA attributable to buildout of the proposed Specific Plan, with noise levels that exceed 65 dB CNEL.

For these reasons, future development projects within the Plan Area would be required to implement mitigation measures that are specifically intended to ensure compliance with the City of Fresno noise standards and minimize the impact associated with the substantial increase in ambient noise levels. 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 exposed to significant exterior community noise levels from transportation, which may include noise walls and/or berms, or setbacks.

With implementation of the mitigation measures included in Section 3.11, the proposed Specific Plan’s incremental contribution towards cumulative noise impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
The cumulative setting for population and housing includes Fresno County. This area was chosen because it represents the area that is reasonably expected to be affected by population and housing changes generated by the proposed project.

Impact 4.12: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts on population growth and displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing. (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable) As described in Section 3.12, the proposed Specific Plan accommodates future growth in the Plan Area, including new businesses and new residential uses. Infrastructure and services would need to be extended to accommodate future growth. At full buildout, the proposed Specific Plan would accommodate approximately to 54,953 dwelling units (including 47,072 dwelling units in the residential category, 7,814 dwelling units in the mixed use category, and 67 dwelling units in the commercial category) and approximately 60,621,006.31 square feet of non-residential uses. This new growth would increase the city’s population by approximately 163,211 residents. According to the General Plan, it is estimated that there would be 0.45 jobs per new resident; therefore, buildout of the proposed Specific Plan may increase the employment opportunities in Fresno by approximately 73,445 jobs.

Based on the growth projected to occur in the Plan Area, the proposed Specific Plan would not induce a substantial amount of growth that has not been adequately planned for or require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Although the number of new residents generated

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan under the proposed Plan could exceed the number analyzed under the City’s General Plan Master EIR (MEIR) under the Dual Designation Scenario, cumulative growth would be consistent with regional planning targets.

Future development of the Plan Area consistent with the proposed land use map could result in displacement of existing housing. Housing displacement associated with development of the Plan Area was accounted for in the City’s General Plan MEIR. Much of the future development would be located on areas that are vacant, contain agricultural land, or contain rural residential uses.

Redevelopment of currently developed parcels could also occur. However, the amount of housing displacement associated with buildout of the Plan Area would be vastly outweighed by the amount of housing created under the proposed Specific Plan land use map. Thus, when considered along with the proposed Plan, cumulative growth would not displace substantial numbers of people or housing or exceed planned levels of growth.

Additionally, all lands within the General Plan jurisdiction have been planned to accommodate growth within the City have been evaluated in the General Plan MEIR. The proposed project does not change the intent, intensities, or densities of land uses identified within the General Plan; instead, the Specific Plan land use map rearranges and relocates the City land use designations for the Plan Area. Therefore, development of the Specific Plan Area will not induce growth in the Specific Plan Area, adjacent undeveloped parcels, or within the City of Fresno that has not already been accounted for in the General Plan, and evaluated for environmental impacts by the City in the Final General Plan EIR.

The proposed project, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts. The proposed project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts associated with population and housing. As such, implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts to population and housing.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
The cumulative setting would include all areas covered in the service areas of the City of Fresno Police Department, Fresno Fire Department (FFD), City of Fresno Parks, After School, Recreation, and Community Services (PARCS) Department, the Central Unified School District (CUSD), and the Fresno County Public Library System.

Impact 4.13: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts on public services. (Cumulatively Considerable and Significant and Unavoidable) This geographic area was chosen because these service providers would be required to serve the Plan Area as well as the entire service area. Therefore, future development within the Plan Area along with past, present, and probably future projects within the service area, has the potential to result in a cumulative impact associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan.

OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-23 Under cumulative conditions future local and regional growth will result in increased demand for schools, police protection, fire protection, schools, parks/recreation, and library services. The City and its associated service providers must continue to evaluate the levels of service desired and the funding sources available to meet increases in demand.

The General Plan Final Master EIR analyzed cumulative impacts to public services (including police protection, fire and emergency services, schools, parks, and libraries) and found that General Plan implementation would result in less than cumulatively considerable impacts with implementation of Mitigation Measures PS-1 (regarding future fire facilities), PS-2 (regarding future police facilities), PS-3 (regarding future school facilities), and PS-4 (regarding future parks and recreational facilities).

The mitigation measures require evaluation of specific environmental effects of these future public service and recreational facilities, and list typical mitigations to reduce potential noise, traffic, and lighting impacts. The specific environmental impact of constructing new facilities could not be determined at the time, but the Final Master EIR found that construction and operation of such facilities could potentially cause significant impacts. These potential impacts, however, were addressed and mitigated to the greatest extent feasible by the General Plan mitigation measures included in Section 5.13 of the Fresno General Plan Final Master EIR.

Conclusion
Under cumulative conditions, future development of the Plan Area in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan land use map may result in the construction of public facilities, which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. The impact fees developed and reviewed by the City will recover future development’s proportionate share of City-related capital asset costs.

Fees, as applied only to new development, represent future development’s proportionate share of public services and facilities capital costs.

It is also important to note that, in addressing public service demand issues under CEQA, the appropriate focus is on the environmental effects of whatever steps might be necessary to achieve or maintain adequate service. For example, if proposed new development would create an increased demand for law enforcement or fire protection services, an EIR should inquire as to whether new or expanded physical facilities may be required in order to provide such service. The “impacts” addressed under CEQA are the physical effects of providing service, not any possible failure to provide adequate service under applicable standards. (See City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of the Cal. State University (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 843 [“[t]he need for additional fire protection services is not an environmental impact that CEQA requires a project proponent to mitigate”]; Goleta Union School Dist. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1031– 1034 [school overcrowding attributable to new development is not an environmental effect subject to CEQA, though the physical effects of new facility construction to serve new students would be]; and CEQA Guidelines, § 15131, subd. (a) [“[e]conomic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment”].)
Moreover, it is critical to understand that special legal principles apply to impacts to school facilities.

According to Government Code Section 65996, the development fees authorized by Senate Bill 50

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (1998) (described earlier) are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation” for impact caused by new development. The legislation also recognized the need for the fee to be adjusted periodically to keep pace with inflation. The legislation indicated that in January 2000, and every two years thereafter, the State Allocation Board would increase the maximum fees according to the adjustment for inflation in the statewide index for school construction.

Section 65996 also prohibits public agencies from using CEQA or “any other provision of state or local law” to deny approval of “a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property or any change in governmental organization or reorganization” on the basis of the project’s impacts on school facilities.

The construction and operation of future public facilities required to serve cumulative development (including the Plan Area) could potentially cause significant impacts. Cumulative development including additional parks and schools within the city and service area would contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts that have been identified within this EIR related to: aesthetics and visual resources (Section 3.1), agricultural resources (Section 3.2), air quality (Section 3.3), noise (Section 3.11), and public services and recreation (Section 3.13). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in this Draft EIR, cumulative impacts related to the construction of public facilities needed to meet future demand are considered significant and unavoidable and cumulatively considerable.

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
The cumulative setting for this analysis including the City of Fresno SOI and some nearby areas of unincorporated County.

Impact 4.14: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts to the regional transportation network. (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
The year 2035 is the horizon year for cumulative condition impact analyses. Based on observed volumes in the existing condition, Kittelson & Associates used travel behavior forecasting software to estimate and distribute future vehicle traffic onto the roadway network in order to test how the proposed project would impact the transportation network.

Consistency with General Plan
As described in Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation, development associated with the proposed Plan would increase the amount of multimodal transportation activity which would require the improvement and expansion of the local transportation network in the Plan Area to serve the associated travel demand. The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes a number of guiding principles related to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian travel consistent with the General Plan policies, which detail how the circulation system will be improved to meet the need of all users.

Since the guiding principles of the Specific Plan support the policies of the General Plan, no conflict with policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation would occur from future OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-25 development and redevelopment under the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s cumulative contribution would be considered less than significant.

Consistency with CEQA Guideline Section 15064.3
As shown in Table 3.14-2 (as contained within Section 3.14: Transportation and Circulation), the projected VMT per capita and VMT per employee in the Plan Area are lower than existing conditions.

Under the Specific Plan, VMT per capita is 7.4 lower, or 46% lower, while VMT per employee is 12.4 lower, or 48% lower. The decrease in VMT is the result of the proposed land use mix within the proposed Plan Area. The City of Fresno Draft VMT Guidelines state specific plans would have an impact if the VMT per capita or VMT per employee in the specific plan area for the horizon year increases compared to the existing VMT per capita or VMT per employee in the region (Fresno County). The VMT per capita in the Specific Plan Area during the horizon year is 8.7, while VMT per employee is 13.2. Under existing conditions in Fresno County, the VMT per capita is 16.1, while the VMT per employee is 25.6. Because the VMT per capita and VMT per employee in the Specific Plan Area during the horizon year is less than the VMT per capita and VMT per employee for existing conditions in Fresno County, the proposed Specific Plan’s cumulative contribution to VMT would be considered less than significant.

Hazardous Geometric Designs or Incompatible Uses
The proposed Specific Plan would result in a relocation of density in the Plan Area to central corridors compared to what would develop under the City’s General Plan where density is more distributed throughout the Plan Area; however, the Specific Plan does not propose to change the types (i.e., residential, commercial, office, etc.) of land uses in the Plan Area. Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would result in some changes to the City’s circulation network, but would not increase hazards or incompatible uses due to design features. All future roadway system improvements associated with development and redevelopment activities under the Specific Plan would be designed in accordance with the established roadway design standards, some of which have also been incorporated into the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan.

With implementation of General Plan Policy MT-2-e, Policy MT-2-I, and application of the conditions of approval at the time of review of land development projects, the Specific Plan would be designed to ensure that no hazardous circulation conditions are created as a result of implementation of the Plan. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s cumulative contribution would be considered less than significant.

Conclusion
As described in Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation, development associated with the proposed Plan would increase the amount of multimodal transportation activity which would require the improvement and expansion of the local transportation network in the Plan Area to serve the associated travel demand; however, as discussed in Impact 3.14-2, the VMT per capita and VMT per employee in the Specific Plan Area are lower than existing conditions due to the proposed land use mix within the Specific Plan Area. The retail and employment opportunities keep the VMT

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan per capita lower than the County average while the large number of dwelling units near the jobs allows employees to live close to work resulting in a VMT per employee that is lower than the County average today. The proposed Specific Plan, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts given the proposed Specific Plan would result in a lower contribution to overall transportation network than if the Plan Area was developed with the existing General Plan land use designations. As a result, this is considered less than cumulatively considerable impact.

UTILITIES
The cumulative setting for the various utilities (wastewater, water, stormwater and solid waste) are described below.

Impact 4.15: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts on utilities. (Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Under the proposed Specific Plan buildout conditions, the City of Fresno would see an increased demand for wastewater service, water service, solid waste disposal services, and stormwater infrastructure needs.

Wastewater
The study area for cumulative impacts regarding wastewater is the City of Fresno General Plan Planning Area and the City of Clovis because the City of Fresno acts as the Regional Sewering Agency and is responsible for operating the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility. The City of Fresno owns and operates two wastewater treatment facilities that serve the Fresno metropolitan area: the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (Regional Facility) and the North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility (NFWRF).

The City’s wastewater collection system comprises over 1,600 miles of gravity sewer pipes, 24,100 maintenance holes, and 15 sewer pump stations with 11.5 miles of force mains (force mains are pressurized pipelines associated with the pump stations). Generally, the collection system flows from northeast to southwest across the entire City. In the Plan Area, wastewater generally flows from the north to the south. Clovis has four connections to the City’s collection system. Each of these connections have flow meters that measure the flow from the Clovis sewer system into the City’s sewer system. The Plan Area is currently served by over 86 miles of sewer pipelines, and Pump Station Number 15.

As discussed in Section 15.1, Wastewater Service, buildout of the Specific Plan does not trigger a need to expand the Regional Facility. Given the capacity of 92 MGD, the average annual flow of approximately 56 MGD, and the 11.5 MGD generated by the buildout of the Specific Plan Area (including existing demand and future demand), there is sufficient plant capacity. Additionally, the Specific Plan wastewater collection system will include future construction of sewer improvements and replacements of existing lines, some of which are now over 75 years old. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s cumulative contribution to wastewater service is less than significant.

OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-27 Water
The study area for cumulative impacts regarding water supply is the City of Fresno General Plan Planning Area and the groundwater basins from which the Plan Area derives water. The existing incorporated area of the City of Fresno encompasses approximately 115 square miles (2020 UWMP).

The City’s General Plan includes the City’s the area outside of the City limits that the City expects to annex and urbanize in the future, also known as the SOI. With a few exceptions, the City’s water service area is coterminous with the City limits. As future developments within the SOI, but outside the City limits, are approved, they will be annexed into the City and served by the City water system.

The City’s water system consists of about 1,860 miles of distribution and transmission mains, 260 municipal groundwater wells, three surface water treatment facilities (SWTFs) with current rated capacities ranging from 4 to 54 MGD, five water storage facilities with pump stations, including one at each of the SWTFs plus two in the distribution system, and three booster pump facilities. As of the close of the 2020 calendar year, the City has over 139,500 residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional water service connections and produced nearly 122,000 AF of water.

The provision of public services and the construction of onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements will be required to accommodate future development consistent with the Specific Plan land use map. The Specific Plan would likely require extension of offsite water infrastructure to the undeveloped and underdeveloped portions of the Plan Area for water service. All offsite water piping improvements would be in or adjacent to existing roadways, thereby limiting new environmental impacts. Additionally, future development in the Plan Area would be required to pay the applicable water system connection fees and pay the applicable water usage rates. As discussed in Impact 3.15-3, the proposed Specific Plan would not require construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, resulting in a significant environmental impact. The water infrastructure would be sized to meet the demand of future projects within the Plan Area.

Table 3.15-7 summarizes the projected availability of the City’s existing and planned future potable water supplies and the City’s projected water demands in normal, single dry and multiple dry years through 2045. The WSA completed for the Specific Plan demonstrates that the City’s existing and additional potable water supplies are sufficient to meet the City’s existing and projected future potable water demands, including those future water demands associated with the Specific Plan, to the year 2045, under all hydrologic conditions. Additionally, the City’s preliminary water demand projections for the proposed Plan Area analyzed under the General Plan were higher than the water demand projections for the Specific Plan; thus, the General Plan assumed greater water demand than what would occur with implementation of the Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s cumulative contribution to water service is less than significant.

Stormwater
The study area for cumulative impacts regarding storm water drainage is the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area because the FMFCD includes an area of approximately 400 square miles and covers almost the entire portion of the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area. The specific impacts of

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan providing new and expanded stormwater drainage facilities cannot be determined at this time, as the Specific Plan does not propose development nor does it designate specific sites for new or expanded public facilities. Stormwater drainage and conveyance facilities would be evaluated at the project-level in association with subsequent development projects.

Installation of storm drainage infrastructure would occur during the construction phases of individual future projects within the Plan Area. There is significant storm drainage infrastructure remaining to be constructed to serve the Plan Area. About 32 miles of additional drainage pipelines is anticipated to be constructed to meet buildout needs. As future development and infrastructure projects within the Specific Plan Area are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the Specific Plan, General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations.

The proposed Specific Plan’s cumulative contribution to the stormwater and flood control system would be less than significant upon compliance with regulatory requirements and proposed policies for full implementation of the proposed Plan.

Solid Waste
Shortage of waste disposal capacity can have significant impacts on adjacent areas. If refuse is exported to adjacent areas with existing spare capacity, significant impacts due to increased travel distances can result in additional transportation related impacts.

As described under Impact 3.15-6, the addition of solid waste associated with future buildout of the Specific Plan Area, would result in greater solid waste needing to be disposed of at the American Avenue Landfill and the Clovis Landfill. However, this increase would not cause an exceedance of the landfill’s remaining capacity. In addition, AB 939 mandates the reduction of solid waste disposal in landfills. The City is currently achieving a 71 percent diversion rate based on 2009 data, which is anticipated to increase due to the Fresno City Council adopted resolution committing the City to a Zero Waste goal by 2025. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s cumulative contribution to solid waste is less than significant.

Conclusion
As described above, the proposed Specific Plan, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts. The City has adequate landfill capacity to accept the solid waste and wastewater service capacity to treat wastewater flows generated from buildout of the Specific Plan. Additionally, the Water Supply Assessment completed for the proposed Plan Area shows that adequate water supplies exist to serve Specific Plan buildout.

As a result, this is considered less than cumulatively considerable impact.

OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-29

4.2 GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS

INTRODUCTION
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate the growth-inducing impacts of a proposed action, directing:

Discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a waste water treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also, discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.

It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.

Based on the CEQA Guidelines, growth inducement is any growth that exceeds planned growth of an area and results in new development that would not have taken place without implementation of the project. A project can have direct and/or indirect growth inducement potential. Direct growth inducement would result if a project, for example, involved construction of new housing. A project would have indirect growth inducement potential if it established substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial, or governmental enterprises) or if it would involve a construction effort with substantial short-term employment opportunities that would indirectly stimulate the need for additional housing and services to support the new employment demand (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors). Similarly, a project would indirectly induce growth if it would remove an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public service. A project providing an increased water supply in an area where water service historically limited growth could be considered growth-inducing.

The CEQA Guidelines further explain that the environmental effects of induced growth are considered indirect impacts of the proposed action. These indirect impacts or secondary effects of growth may result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. Potential secondary effects of growth include increased demand on other community and public services and infrastructure, increased traffic and noise, and adverse environmental impacts such as degradation of air and water quality, degradation or loss of plant and animal habitat, and conversion of agricultural and open space land to developed uses.

Growth inducement may constitute an adverse impact if the growth is not consistent with or accommodated by the land use plans and growth management plans and policies for the area affected. Local land use plans provide for land use development patterns and growth policies that

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan allow for the orderly expansion of urban development supported by adequate urban public services, such as water supply, roadway infrastructure, sewer service, and solid waste service.

The Specific Plan would result in the construction of additional housing and employment opportunities within the City of Fresno. As discussed in Section 3.12, Population and Housing, at full buildout, the proposed Specific Plan would accommodate approximately 54,953 dwelling units (including 47,072 dwelling units in the residential category, 7,814 dwelling units in the mixed use category, and 67 dwelling units in the commercial category) and approximately 60,621,006.31 square feet of non-residential uses. This new growth would increase the city’s population by approximately 163,211 residents. According to the General Plan, it is estimated that there would be

0.45 jobs per new resident; therefore, buildout of the proposed Specific Plan may increase the employment opportunities in Fresno by approximately 73,445 jobs. The Specific Plan would foster economic and population growth through the construction of additional housing and employment opportunities for a variety of income levels.

The Specific Plan currently includes primarily farmland and rural residential uses in the western area of the Plan Area. As discussed in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, residential, mixed use commercial, commercial, employment, neighborhood park, community park, schools, and open space and public facility uses would be developed in the Specific Plan Area. Buildout of the Specific Plan would require the extension of off-site and on-site roadway, potable water, wastewater, and storm drainage infrastructure to the undeveloped and underdeveloped portions of the Plan Area, which would result in the elimination of growth obstacles to serve future developments. However, as noted in Section 3.15, Utilities, wastewater generated by the proposed Specific Plan could be accommodated by the existing wastewater treatment facilities. Additionally, the City has adequate water supply to meet the water demand from buildout of the Specific Plan and the landfill that would serve the Specific Plan has adequate capacity to manage the solid waste generated as a result of the Specific Plan. Furthermore, mitigation measures set forth in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, as well as conformance with the Specific Plan, General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations, would ensure that buildout of the Specific Plan would not generate or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the FMFCD’s stormwater drainage system.

Increases in population that would occur as a result of a proposed project may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts. As discussed in Section 3.13, Public Services and Recreation, of this EIR, increased demands for fire and police protection services attributable to the proposed project would not necessitate the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts.

The future buildout of the Specific Plan is expected to generate approximately 20,319 additional students for the CUSD. Even though the project applicant will pay applicable school fees mandated by SB 50, the proposed land use map includes an additional 10.0 acres of Elementary School land uses from what is shown in the existing Fresno General Plan land use map to support the additional students generated by development of the Specific Plan. Therefore, this future school, if constructed, would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR. In addition, the proposed land use OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-31 map includes two land use designations that could be developed with other public facilities: Public Facilities – Public Facilities, and Public Facilities – Church. Future buildout of the Specific Plan may include construction of a 55.8-acre church site and 27.42 acres of other public facility uses in the Plan Area, which has the potential to cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.

Therefore, impacts related to constructing a school facility and other public facilities to serve the Plan Area are considered significant.

Given the historical and current population, housing, and employment trends, growth in the City, as well as the entire state, is inevitable. The primary factors that account for population growth are natural increase and net migration. The average annual birth rate for California is expected to be 20 births per 1,000 population. Additionally, California is expected to attract more than one third of the country’s immigrants. Other factors that affect growth include the cost of housing, the location of jobs, the economy, the climate, and transportation. While these factors would likely result in growth in Fresno during the planning period of the General Plan, growth will continue to occur based primarily on the demand of the housing market and demand for new commercial, industrial, and other non-residential uses. As future development occurs under the proposed Specific Plan, new roads, utility infrastructure, and public services would be necessary to serve the development and this infrastructure would accommodate planned growth. Based on the growth projected to occur in the City’s General Plan Planning Area, the proposed Specific Plan would not induce a substantial amount of growth that has not been adequately planned. Although the number of new residents generated under the proposed Specific Plan would exceed the number analyzed under the General Plan MEIR under the Dual Designation Scenario, cumulative growth would be consistent with regional planning targets. Thus, when considered along with the proposed Plan, cumulative growth would not displace substantial numbers of people or housing or exceed planned levels of growth.

Further, growth within the Specific Plan Area has been anticipated by the City. The land within the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan has been planned for urban development within the Fresno General Plan, and the proposed Specific Plan would serve as a bridge between the Fresno General Plan and individual development applications in the Plan Area. The proposed Specific Plan seeks to provide for the orderly and consistent development that promotes and establishes complete neighborhoods within the West Area with enhanced transportation infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation of additional parkland, and encouraging the development of a diverse housing stock. The Specific Plan’s 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. This proposed land use mix within the Specific Plan assists in reducing a number of environmental impacts. For example, the VMT per capita and VMT per employee in the Specific Plan Area during the horizon year is less than the VMT per capita and VMT per employee for existing conditions in Fresno County. In addition, the City’s preliminary water demand projections for the proposed Plan Area under the General Plan were higher than for the Specific Plan, resulting in less water demand associated with the Specific Plan land use map when compared to build out of the General Plan. Further, the Plan Area includes future development of a portion of the City’s SOI; however, the Plan does not include extension of roadways or utility

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan infrastructure beyond the Plan Area boundary and would not induce growth beyond the limits of the SOI.

In short, while the proposed Specific Plan’s increase in population growth would be slightly larger than what was assumed under the General Plan MEIR, the overall growth would not exceed regional growth projections. Thus, while the project would foster population and economic growth, such growth would be similar to what has been previously anticipated for the project region, and a less than-significant impact related to growth inducement would occur.

4.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE EFFECTS

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA Section 15126.2(c) and Public Resources Code Sections 21100(b)(2) and 21100.1(a), requires that the EIR include a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. Irreversible environmental effects are described as:
• The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; • The primary and secondary impacts of a project would generally commit future generations to similar uses (e.g., a highway provides access to previously remote area); • The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; or • The phasing of the proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).

Determining whether the proposed project would result in significant irreversible effects requires a determination of whether key resources would be degraded or destroyed such that there would be little possibility of restoring them. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.

Analysis
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the conversion of approximately 7,077 acres of land currently used primarily for rural residential and open/space agricultural uses into residential, mixed use commercial, commercial, employment, neighborhood park, community park, schools, and open space and public facility uses. Development of the Specific Plan would constitute a longterm commitment to these uses. It is unlikely that circumstances would arise that would justify the return of the land to its original condition as agricultural land.

A variety of resources, including land, energy, water, construction materials, and human resources would be irretrievably committed for the initial construction, infrastructure installation and connection to existing utilities, and its continued maintenance. Construction of the Specific Plan would require the commitment of a variety of other non-renewable or slowly renewable natural OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-33 resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, petrochemicals, and metals.

Additionally, a variety of resources would be committed to the ongoing operation and life of the Specific Plan. The introduction of new residential, commercial, employment/light industrial, and other uses to the site will result in an increase in area traffic over existing conditions. Fossil fuels are the principal source of energy and the Specific Plan would increase consumption of available supplies, including natural gas, gasoline and diesel. These energy resource demands relate to initial project construction, project operation and site maintenance and the transport of people and goods to and from the Plan Area.

Additionally, the proposed project is in part a response to a market need for housing. California is in the midst of a housing crisis, and the proposed project is consistent with California’s legislative findings about the current housing crisis. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5[a][1][A] [“California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the State's environmental and climate objectives.”].) Future development of the proposed land use map could result in up to 54,953 DU at various densities and locations throughout the Plan Area. Buildout of the Plan Area would significantly increase and diversify the City’s available housing supply. Therefore, development of the Specific Plan would result in furtherance of the City’s Housing Element, and would assist the City in meeting the current and future housing need.

4.4 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires an EIR to discuss unavoidable significant environmental effects, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. The following significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project are discussed in Chapters 3.1 through 3.15 and previously in this chapter (cumulative-level). The following environmental topics were found to have one or more impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Public Services and Recreation, and Utilities. Those topics are summarized below:
• Impact 3.1-3: Specific Plan implementation would result in substantial adverse effects or degradation of visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. • Impact 3.2-1: Specific Plan implementation would convert Important Farmlands to nonagricultural land uses. • Impact 3.2-2: Specific Plan implementation would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract.
• Impact 3.3-1: Specific Plan implementation would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
• Impact 3.3-2: Specific Plan implementation during project construction would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in a cumulatively

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. • Impact 3.3-3: Specific Plan implementation during project operation would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. • Impact 3.13-3: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of school facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.13-4: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of park facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.13-5: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of other public facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.15-1: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 3.15-3: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 3.15-5: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in the construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 4.1: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to the cumulative degradation of the existing visual character of the region.
• Impact 4.2: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to the cumulative impact on agricultural land and uses.
• Impact 4.3: Specific Plan implementation would contribute to cumulative impacts on the region's air quality
• Impact 4.13: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts on public services.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-1

5.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyze a reasonable range of feasible alternatives that meet most or all project objectives while reducing or avoiding one or more significant environmental effects of the project. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires an EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f]). Where a potential alternative was examined but not chosen as one of the range of alternatives, the CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR briefly discuss the reasons the alternative was dismissed.

Alternatives that are evaluated in the EIR must be potentially feasible alternatives. However, not all possible alternatives need to be analyzed. An EIR must “set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(f).) The CEQA Guidelines provide a definition for a “range of reasonable alternatives” and, thus limit the number and type of alternatives that need to be evaluated in an EIR. An EIR need not include any action alternatives inconsistent with the lead agency’s fundamental underlying purpose in proposing a project. (In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1166.)
First and foremost, alternatives in an EIR must be potentially feasible. In the context of CEQA, “feasible” is defined as:
… capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors. (CEQA Guidelines 15364)
The inclusion of an alternative in an EIR is not evidence that it is feasible as a matter of law, but rather reflects the judgment of lead agency staff that the alternative is potentially feasible. The final determination of feasibility will be made by the lead agency decision-making body through the adoption of CEQA Findings at the time of action on the Project. (Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 489 see also CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15091(a)) (3) (findings requirement, where alternatives can be rejected as infeasible); 15126.6 ([an EIR] must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation”).) The following factors may be taken into consideration in the assessment of the feasibility of alternatives: site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plan or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and the ability of the proponent to attain site control (Section 15126.6 (f) (1)).

Equally important to attaining the project objectives is the reduction of some or all significant impacts, particularly those that could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The following significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project are discussed in Chapters

3.1 through 3.15 and in Chapter 4.0 (cumulative-level). The following environmental topics were found to have one or more impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable: Aesthetics,

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Public Services and Recreation, and Utilities. Those topics are summarized below:
• Impact 3.1-3: Specific Plan implementation would result in substantial adverse effects or degradation of visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. • Impact 3.2-1: Specific Plan implementation would convert Important Farmlands to nonagricultural land uses. • Impact 3.2-2: Specific Plan implementation would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract.
• Impact 3.3-1: Specific Plan implementation would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
• Impact 3.3-2: Specific Plan implementation during project construction would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. • Impact 3.3-3: Specific Plan implementation during project operation would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. • Impact 3.13-3: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of school facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.13-4: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of park facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.13-5: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of other public facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.15-1: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 3.15-3: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 3.15-5: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in the construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 4.1: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to the cumulative degradation of the existing visual character of the region.
• Impact 4.2: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to the cumulative impact on agricultural land and uses.
• Impact 4.3: Specific Plan implementation would contribute to cumulative impacts on the region's air quality
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-3 • Impact 4.13: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts on public services.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the proposed project include future development of land for 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.

Quantifiable Objective
The quantifiable objective of the proposed project includes the future development of up to 54,953 dwelling units (DU) (including 67 DU in the commercial category, 47,072 DU in the residential category and 7,814 DU in the mixed use category) and 60,621,006 square feet (SF) of non-residential uses.

Specific Plan Guiding Principles
The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan’s (“Specific Plan”) guiding principles are designed to form the direction of the Specific Plan, and how the Plan can best benefit the future of the Plan Area. The guiding principles incorporate input received from community members and formal recommendations of the Steering Committee. The guiding principles of the Specific Plan are summarized as follows:

TRANSPORTATION
• Accommodate and improve roadway access, connectivity and mobility among all modes of transportation, and prioritize roadway widening where bottlenecking exists. • Accommodate planned transit services in the Plan Area by locating routes near or adjacent to the community centers, schools, parks, and retail centers. • Provide a complete, safe, and well-maintained sidewalk network from residential neighborhoods to commercial centers, schools, parks, and community centers. • Provide a complete, safe, and well-maintained roadway network that allows for efficient and smooth access from the Plan Area to other sections of the City and region.

PARKS AND TRAILS
• Create parks that are within existing and planned neighborhoods that are easily accessed by community members using pedestrian and bicycle pathways, transit services, or motor vehicles, consistent with the City of Fresno’s Parks Master Plan.

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Provide for the location of a flagship Regional Park in the Plan Area that has components of the Plan Area’s agricultural history through the planting of drought-resistant vegetation or trees, and the creation of public art that exhibits the Plan Area’s contribution to the agricultural industry.

AGRICULTURE
• Incorporate elements of agriculture in future parks by planting a mixture of native drought tolerant vegetation, shrubs, and trees that can serve to provide shade and enhance the streetscape.
• Encourage and provide land use opportunities for agri-tourism ventures to occur in the Plan Area.
• Encourage the development of harvest – producing community gardens.

RETAIL
• Attract desired and needed local retail establishments to serve the needs of the Plan Area community. Such establishments include grocery stores, bakeries, restaurants other than fast food places, and boutiques.
• Discourage the expansion of undesirable retail establishments such as liquor stores, tobacco and vapor stores, short-term loan and pawn shops, and adult stores. • Encourage the development of retail establishments along commercial corridors. • Encourage the orderly and consistent development of civic, parkland, retail and commercial, mixed-use, and multi-family uses along West Shaw Avenue, West Ashlan Avenue, Veterans Boulevard, West Shields Avenue, West Clinton Avenue, and Blythe Avenue.

HOUSING
• Encourage a variety of housing types and styles.
• Encourage the development of housing to accommodate an aging population including, multi-generational houses and other elder housing options. • Reaffirm the City’s commitment and obligation to affirmatively furthering access to fair and affordable housing opportunities by strongly encouraging equitable and fair housing opportunities to be located in strategic proximity to employment, recreational facilities, schools, neighborhood commercial areas, and transportation routes.

EDUCATION
• Attract much needed educational opportunities for the residents of the Plan Area, especially for post-secondary education, and access to programs for life-long learners.

PUBLIC SAFETY
• Provide for safe routes to schools for children, with the City and County working together with residents, to provide sidewalks in neighborhoods that have sporadic access.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-5 • Work to promote Neighborhood Watch in all neighborhoods, and further assess the need for the location of emergency response facilities west of State Route 99.

These Specific Plan guiding principles functionally represent project objectives as required by CEQA Guidelines section 15124, subdivision (b).

5.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED
One alternative, the Additional Annexation Alternative, was considered as an alternative to the proposed Specific Plan. Under the Additional Annexation Alternative, the land uses within the Plan Area would be changed as described in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, but the area utilized for the development (i.e., the project footprint) would be increased to include the approximately 160-acre area adjacent to the southwestern corner of the Plan Area. The 160-acre area is bound by Shields Avenue on the north, Grantland Avenue on the east, Clinton Avenue on the south, and Garfield Avenue on the west. This area was recommended to be included in the Sphere of Influence expansion by the Steering Committee. Under this alternative, the approximately 160- acre area would be designated Elementary School (12 acres), Low Density (48 acres), Medium Low Density (90 acres) and Community (10 acres) by the proposed City land use map.1 This additional annexation area would allow for additional development within the Plan Area. The additional annexation area could accommodate an additional 708 residential units (including 168 Low Density units and 540 Medium Low Density units) and an additional 435,600 SF of commercial uses. When compared to the Specific Plan, this Alternative would have equal impact on Aesthetic and Visual Resources and Land Use, but would have greater impact or an increased potential for greater impact under all other environmental categories.

Figure 5.0-1 illustrates the Additional Annexation Alternative.

Expansion of the SOI is not permitted per General Plan Policy LU-1-g. The Additional Annexation Alternative would be inconsistent with this General Plan Policy. As such, the Additional Annexation Alternative would not be a feasible alternative to the Specific Plan.

5.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THIS EIR
Four alternatives to the proposed project were developed based on input from City staff, the public during the NOP review period, and technical analyses performed to identify the environmental effects of the proposed project. The alternatives analyzed in this EIR include the following four alternatives in addition to the proposed Specific Plan that is described in Chapter

2.0, Project Description.
• No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative;
• Regional Park Alternative;
• Lower Density Alternative.
1 Note: The land use designations for this additional annexation area total 150 acres. The additional approximately 10 acres includes existing and/or planned roadway right-of-way.

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

NO PROJECT (EXISTING GENERAL PLAN) ALTERNATIVE
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[e]) require consideration of a no project alternative that represents the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved. For purposes of this analysis, the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative assumes that future development of the Plan Area would occur as allowed under the existing General Plan. It is noted that the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would fail to meet the project objectives identified for the Specific Plan.

Figure 5.0-2 illustrates the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative.

REGIONAL PARK ALTERNATIVE
Under the Regional Park Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map. However, this alternative would provide a 74.2-acre Regional Park within the Plan Area. This flagship Regional Park would include components of the Plan Area’s agricultural history through the planting of drought-resistant vegetation and trees, and would include public art that exhibits the Plan Area’s contribution to the agricultural industry. The Regional Park would be provided generally south of W. Barstow Avenue, north of W. Shaw Avenue, and west of N. Grantland Avenue. The park area would be designated by the City for dual land uses. The underlying designation would be the same as the land use proposed by the Specific Plan (i.e., Neighborhood Mixed Use and Park [Community/Neighborhood]), and the overlying designation would be Park.

Figure 5.0-3 illustrates the Regional Park Alternative.

LOWER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. Additionally, this alternative would focus the medium and higher density residential uses and commercial uses at available sites on major street corridors. A mixed use town center would be provided along Shaw Avenue.

Figure 5.0-4 illustrates the Lower Density Alternative.

ALTERNATIVES NOT SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
A Notice of Preparation was circulated to the public to solicit recommendations to help the City formulate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project for inclusion in this Draft EIR. Additionally, a public scoping meeting was held during the public review period to solicit recommendations for a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. No specific ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-7 alternatives were recommended by commenting agencies or the general public during the NOP public review process.

CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(f)(2) describes conditions under which consideration of alternative project location is appropriate. The key question to be considered is whether or not any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location and whether the proposed project, placed at an alternative location, is environmentally superior to the proposed project. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in an EIR.

The City of Fresno considered alternative locations early in the Draft EIR preparation process. The City’s key considerations in identifying an alternative location were as follows:
• Is there an alternative location where significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened?
• Is there a site available within the City’s Sphere of Influence with the appropriate size and characteristics such that it would meet the basic project objectives? The City’s consideration of alternative locations for the project included a review of previous land use planning and environmental documents in Fresno, including the General Plan. The City found that there are no potential alternative locations that exist within the City’s Sphere of Influence with the appropriate size and characteristics that would meet the basic project objectives.

5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The alternatives analysis provides a summary of the relative impact level of significance associated with each alternative for each of the environmental issue areas analyzed in this EIR. Following the analysis of each alternative, Table 5.0-1 summarizes the comparative effects of each alternative.

NO PROJECT (EXISTING GENERAL PLAN) ALTERNATIVE
This alternative assumes that future development of the Plan Area would occur as allowed under the existing General Plan. It is noted that the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would fail to meet the project objectives identified for the Specific Plan.

Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, the Specific Plan Area would be designated with the same land use designations and circulation facilities as described in the Fresno General Plan. The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in the eventual conversion of the undeveloped land from agricultural uses, which would contribute to changes in the regional landscape and visual character of the area. Under this alternative, the existing uses would remain. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, future development within the Plan Area under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and the Fresno Municipal Code, which includes design standards

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan in order to ensure quality and cohesive design of the Specific Plan Area. Compliance with the City’s development review process and consistency with the General Plan and the Fresno Zoning Ordinance would ensure that impacts are reduced to the greatest extent possible. This alternative would equally impact the visual and aesthetic character of the site area compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Overall, this alternative would have equal impacts to aesthetics when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to degradation of visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding would still occur under this alternative.

Agricultural Resources
The City’s existing General Plan land use map would allow fewer housing units and less nonresidential SF than the proposed Specific Plan. Because the same site and site area as the proposed Specific Plan would be developed under this alternative, impacts related to Williamson Act contracts, land use conflicts, and conversion of farmland to urban uses would be identical to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, this alternative would have equal impacts to agricultural resources as the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to agricultural resources would still occur under this alternative.

Air Quality
As described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate emissions during both the construction phase and the operational phase. Construction related impacts would be similar under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, as the area of ground disturbance would be comparable, and the duration of construction would be comparable. However, under this alternative, mobile source emissions would slightly increase. Mobile source (largely from vehicles) emissions are directly related to the number of vehicle trips generated by a project. Buildout under this alternative would facilitate up to 67,205 new residential units. Based on the City’s General Plan Housing Element estimate of approximately 2.97 persons per dwelling unit, this alternative could result in up to approximately 199,598 new residents, while buildout under the proposed Specific Plan would allow for 54,953 new residential units, resulting in approximately 163,211 new residents. Therefore, under this alternative, more residential development would be allowed, resulting in a greater increase in the number of residents, which would generate greater daily vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, resulting in increased levels of pollutants from mobile sources. Therefore, this alternative would have increased impacts related to air quality when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to air quality would still occur under this alternative.

Biological Resources
Potential impacts to biological resources are primarily related to the area proposed for disturbance and less on the type of urban uses that would occur on the Plan Area. Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, the Specific Plan Area would be designated with the same land use designations and circulation facilities as described in the Fresno General Plan. The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in the eventual conversion of the undeveloped land from agricultural uses to urban uses, which would eliminate any movement ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-9 habitat through the Specific Plan Area and any upland habitat adjacent to the movement corridors. Because the same site and site area as the proposed Specific Plan would be developed under this alternative, impacts related to biological resources would remain unchanged when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Cultural and Tribal Resources
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. Additionally, as with most projects in the region that involve ground-disturbing activities, there is the potential for discovery of a previously unknown cultural and/or historical resource or human remains.

Implementation of the mitigation measures incorporated into this EIR would reduce impacts associated with unknown cultural resources where they to be found.

Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, the Specific Plan Area would be designated with the same land use designations and circulation facilities as described in the Fresno General Plan. The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in the eventual conversion of the undeveloped land from agricultural uses to urban uses. Because the same sites and site area as the proposed Specific Plan would be eventually disturbed by future development under this alternative, impacts related to cultural and tribal resources would remain unchanged when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Geology, Soils and Seismicity
The land use map for this alternative would allow more housing units and more population growth than the proposed Specific Plan. The future buildings and structures allowed under this alternative would be exposed to the same level of risk from geologic hazards as the proposed Specific Plan.

However, as discussed further below, the number of residents and employees resulting from this alternative may increase compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Because more people may be located in the Specific Plan Area under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, more people would be exposed to the risks from geologic hazards as compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, this impact would be slightly increased under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate GHG emissions during construction and operation. Short-term construction GHG emissions are a one-time release of GHGs and are not expected to significantly contribute to global climate change over the lifetime of a project. As described in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change and Energy, the proposed General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy. The proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the current version of the City’s GHG Reduction Plan, which is considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5,

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan thereby allowing for streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA.

Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, the Plan Area would be developed with the same land use designations and circulation facilities as described in the Fresno General Plan.

As described previously, buildout under this alternative would facilitate up to 67,205 new residential units. Based on the City’s General Plan Housing Element estimate of approximately

2.97 persons per dwelling unit, this alternative could result in up to approximately 199,598 new residents, while buildout under the proposed Specific Plan would allow for 54,953 new residential units, resulting in approximately 163,211 new residents.

As explained in Section 3.14 (Transportation and Circulation), implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in VMT per capita and VMT per employee during the horizon year that is less than the VMT per capita and VMT per employee of existing conditions in Fresno County.

The decreased VMT under the proposed Specific Plan is the result of the proposed land use mix within the Plan Area. The retail and employment opportunities keep the VMT per capita lower than the County average, while the large number of dwelling units near the jobs allows employees to live close to work resulting in a VMT per employee that is lower than the County average today.

Under this alternative, the amount of non-residential SF would decrease compared to the proposed Specific Plan, while the amount of residential dwelling units would increase. Residential densities would be reduced and the land use map under the existing General Plan would not provide the same opportunity for employees to live close to jobs; therefore, because there would be more residents with fewer employment-centered uses under this alternative, VMT would increase compared to the project. As such, the overall land use mix under this alternative would generally be seen to increase per capita GHG emission levels. Therefore, impacts would be increased under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
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.

Due to the long-term use of land for agricultural purposes, 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.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-11 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 such as Mecoprop (MCPP), Dinoseb, chlordane, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethylene (DDE). Other chemicals may also be present due to other built-up uses. As described in the Environmental Setting section of Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 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.

The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative is similar to the proposed Specific Plan in that both the Specific Plan and this alternative would result in future development of the entire Specific Plan Area with residential, commercial, mixed-use, and public uses. Because the land area to be developed would not change in comparison to the proposed Specific Plan, the potential for exposure to hazardous materials, or a release of hazardous materials would be similar with this Alternative. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, new development would introduce new sensitive receptors into an area that contains land that has historically utilized chemicals for agricultural production. Any negative health effects associated with the residuals of these chemicals would be alleviated through compliance with state and federal regulations that require remediation when above certain thresholds. There would be a long-term potential for hazards associated with use and generation of household and commercial hazardous wastes, although compliance with state and federal regulations would be required. The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in equal potential for such impacts.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of the Specific Plan has the potential to result in the violation of water quality standards and waste discharge of pollutants into surface waters during both construction and long-term operations. Construction operations could result in temporary increases in runoff, erosion, sedimentation, soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas. The long-term operation of the Specific Plan could result in long-term impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff and could enter groundwater or surface water systems. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would result in new impervious surfaces that could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. Mitigation measures incorporated into the project would reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level. The Specific Plan would not place persons or structures in a flood hazard zone.

Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, future development allowed under the City’s existing General Plan would result in a similar amount of land covered with impervious surfaces compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan,

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan stormwater would flow into the City’s stormwater system via a network of drains, pipes, and detention basins. Future development projects allowed under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would be required to develop permanent storm water control measures and incorporate these measures into the alternative in order to mitigate the impacts of pollutants in storm water runoff from the alternative. Because the alternative would be required to implement improvements in order to manage and treat stormwater flows from the site, impacts related to water quality would be similar.

As described in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, when the proposed Specific Plan is eventually developed, the on-site impervious area would increase, leading to faster runoff rates.

The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would provide a similar amount of impervious surface on-site as compared to the proposed Specific Plan, which would also result in similar impacts related to rainfall infiltration and runoff during storm events as compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

As described in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, Specific Plan implementation has the potential to result in the discharge of pollutants into detention basins and storm drains, and would change the existing drainage pattern on the site, although these impacts are less than significant as a result of compliance with local, state, and federal regulations, as well as compliance with Specific Plan policies. Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, these impacts would be similar and development of this Alternative would be required to comply with the regulatory requirements and General Plan policies to reduce potential impacts, similar to the Specific Plan. Therefore, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be similar under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Land Use
Unlike the proposed Specific Plan, the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would not require a change of the Specific Plan Area’s General Plan Land Use designations. This alternative would be consistent with the General Plan, including the goals, policies, and standards, and with the Zoning Code. The analysis in Section 3.10, Land Use, concluded that the proposed Specific Plan would not result in any significant land use impacts. The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would allow more housing units and more population growth than the proposed Specific Plan. It is noted that this this alternative would not be consistent with General Plan Policy UF-13-a, which requires future planning, such as Specific Plans, neighborhood plans or Concept Plans, for Development Areas and BRT Corridors by the General Plan. The proposed Specific Plan Area is located in the West Area; therefore, the proposed Specific Plan will serve as an implementation tool to support the General Plans 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. For these reasons, this alternative would have slightly greater impacts related to land use as compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-13 Noise
As discussed in Section 3.11, Noise, the primary sources of noise associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan are from increased vehicle trips on study area roadways in the project vicinity from on-site uses, and increased noise from future operation within the Specific Plan Area. Some existing noise-sensitive receptors located near the Plan Area are currently exposed to exterior traffic noise levels exceeding the 65 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard for residential uses. In some locations, the noise levels are predicted to increase to levels that would trigger a new exceedance of the 65 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard, or exceed the FICON allowable increase criteria.

Under this alternative, noise associated with vehicle trips is expected to slightly increase due to the increase in population, while other on-site noise sources would likely be comparable to those generated by the proposed Specific Plan. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan, this alternative would result in an increase in the number of housing units by approximately 12,252 units, resulting in approximately 36,388 more residents. Therefore, this alternative would generate more daily vehicle trips and peak hour trips, which would generate increased noise levels on area roadways when compared to the proposed project. Although this alternative would be subject to the mitigation measures identified for the project, due to the increase in anticipated vehicle trips and associated noise, noise impacts would be increased under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Population and Housing
The City anticipates growth within the community over time, and has responded to the anticipated growth by establishing Development Areas in the General Plan, including the West Development Area, Southwest Development Area, and Southeast Development Area. The proposed Specific Plan seeks to provide for the orderly and consistent development that promotes and establishes complete neighborhoods within the West Area with enhanced transportation infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation of additional parkland, and encouraging the development of a diverse housing stock. The proposed Specific Plan is a planning document that implements the City’s intent to focus new development, and the growth that goes along with the new development, into the West Area. The proposed Specific Plan would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing and/or substantial numbers of people, but would instead provide new housing consistent with the City’s General Plan. The Specific Plan does not divide the community, but rather, it is an extension of the existing community.

The City has undergone extensive planning efforts since 2017 to refine the General Plan’s land use vision for the West Area. The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in an increase in the number of housing units by approximately 12,252 units, resulting in approximately 36,388 more residents. Currently, the City, and the State as a whole, are having a housing crisis due to the lack of housing stock coupled with a significant increase in homelessness. The State of California has even gone as far as to pass legislation with incentives for municipalities and developers to build more housing. In response to an increase in housing stock under this

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan alternative, it would be anticipated that City would not need to look to other undeveloped areas of the region to supply housing stock to meet the regional demand and the State’s directive. This assumption is based entirely on the fact that California, and the City of Fresno, is having a housing shortage and an appropriate response to a shortage is to provide additional housing supply. The increase in residential uses under this alternative and overall land use mix would also meet the minimum number of residential units and layout required for New Urbanism principals that are established in the General Plan for the Plan Area. Overall, because the population growth under this alternative would increase compared to the proposed Specific Plan, this alternative would have a greater impact when compared to the proposed project.

Public Services and Recreation
New development would place increased demands on public services such as police, fire, schools, parks, libraries, and other governmental services. As discussed in Section 3.13, Public Services and Recreation, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in, or have the potential to require the construction of addition fire or police department facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. However, the proposed Specific Plan incorporates sites for new schools and parks.

Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project that require payment of impact fees to the City and other public agencies to ensure that the Specific Plan project does not have adverse financial impacts on these agencies. The Specific Plan includes land for schools and parks to ensure the increased demand for these services is met within the Plan Area.

The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in an increase in the number of housing units by approximately 12,252 units, resulting in approximately 36,388 more residents.

Therefore, under this alternative, there would be an increased demand for schools, parks, and other public facilities when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Future development of schools and parks within the proposed Specific Plan was determined to contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2- 1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), and utilities (Impacts 3.15-1 through

3.15-3). These unavoidable impacts associated with construction of schools and parks under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would still occur. Therefore, when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, this alternative would have an increased impact to public services and recreation.

Transportation and Circulation
As explained in Section 3.14 (Transportation and Circulation), implementation of the Specific Plan would result in VMT per capita and VMT per employee during the horizon year that is less than the VMT per capita and VMT per employee for existing conditions in Fresno County. Under the Specific Plan, VMT per capita is 7.4 lower, or 46% lower, while VMT per employee is 12.4 lower, or 48% lower. The decrease in VMT is the result of the proposed land use mix within the Plan Area. The retail and employment opportunities keep the VMT per capita lower than the County average, while the large number of dwelling units near the jobs allows employees to live close to work resulting in a VMT per employee that is lower than the County average today. Additionally, ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-15 the guiding principles of the Specific Plan support the policies of the General Plan; therefore, no conflict with policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation would occur from future development and redevelopment under the proposed Specific Plan.

Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, the Specific Plan Area would be designated with the same land use designations and circulation facilities as described in the Fresno General Plan. As noted previously, the amount of non-residential SF would decrease compared to the proposed Specific Plan, while the amount of residential dwelling units would increase. Residential densities would be reduced and the land use map under the existing General Plan would not provide the same opportunity for employees to live close to jobs; therefore, because there would be more residents with fewer employment-centered uses under this alternative, VMT would increase compared to the project. For these reasons, this alternative would have an increased impact to transportation and circulation when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Utilities
Future development within the Specific Plan would result in an increased demand for wastewater, potable water, storm drain, and solid waste services. Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, the Specific Plan Area would be designated with the same land use designations and circulation facilities as described in the Fresno General Plan. However, this Alternative anticipates an increase in the number of housing units by approximately 12,252 units, resulting in approximately 36,388 more residents when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, it is anticipated that the overall demand for water, wastewater, solid waste, and storm drainage would be increased under this alternative. As discussed in Section 3.15 (Utilities), the City’s preliminary water demand projections for the Plan Area under the General Plan were higher than for the Specific Plan.

In conclusion, the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in increased impacts to water demand. This alternative would also increase the amount of solid waste and wastewater generated at the site compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Overall, impacts under this alternative are expected to be slightly increased.

Conclusion
Table 5.0-1 summarizes the comparative effects of this alternative. As shown, the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in equal impacts in six areas and more or slightly more impacts in nine areas.

REGIONAL PARK ALTERNATIVE
Under the Regional Park Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map. However, this alternative would provide a 74.2-acre Regional Park within the Plan Area. This flagship Regional Park would include components of the Plan Area’s agricultural history through the planting of drought-resistant vegetation and trees, and would include public art that exhibits the Plan Area’s contribution to

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan the agricultural industry. The Regional Park would be provided generally south of W. Barstow Avenue, north of W. Shaw Avenue, and west of N. Grantland Avenue. The park area would be designated by the City for dual land uses. The underlying designation would be the same as the land use proposed by the Specific Plan (i.e., Neighborhood Mixed Use and Park [Community/Neighborhood]), and the overlying designation would be Park.

Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Under the Regional Park Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map. However, this alternative would provide a Regional Park within the Plan Area, which would be about 74.2 acres in size. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan, assuming a regional park is constructed, this alternative would result in a decrease in the amount of Neighborhood Mixed Use development. Nevertheless, developing the entire Specific Plan Area would likely result in buildings with equal stories as the proposed Specific Plan. Additionally, similar to the proposed Specific Plan, future development under the Regional Park Alternative would be subject to the Development Standards, Design Guidelines, and policies of the Specific Plan, as well as the City’s General Plan policies and actions.

This alternative would equally impact the visual and aesthetic appeal of the site compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Overall, this alternative would have equal impacts to aesthetics when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to degradation of visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding would still occur under this alternative.

Agricultural Resources
The land use map for this alternative would be the exact same as the proposed Specific Plan, except 74.2 acres would have an overlay designation for the 74.2-acre Regional Park. Under this Alternative, because the same site and site area as the proposed Specific Plan would be developed under this alternative, impacts related to Williamson Act contracts, land use conflicts, and conversion of farmland to urban uses would be similar to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, this alternative would have equal impacts to agricultural resources as the proposed Specific Plan.

The significant and unavoidable impact related to agricultural resources would still occur under this alternative.

Air Quality
As described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate emissions during both the construction phase and the operational phase. Construction related impacts would be similar under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, as the area of ground disturbance would be comparable, and the duration of construction would be comparable. However, under this alternative, mobile source emissions are anticipated to slightly decrease. Mobile source (i.e., vehicle) emissions are directly related to the number of vehicle trips generated by a project. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan on the West Area, assuming a regional park is constructed, this alternative would result in a decrease in the amount of Neighborhood Mixed Use development. As such, the Regional Park Alternative is anticipated to result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and non-residential SF, ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-17 which would result in a slightly reduced population growth when compared to the proposed Specific Plan buildout due to the inclusion of a 74-acre regional park. Therefore, under this alternative, it is anticipated that slightly less people would be located in the Specific Plan Area generating less daily vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, which would produce lower levels of pollutants from mobile sources. Therefore, this alternative would have slightly reduced impacts related to air quality when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to air quality would still occur under this alternative.

Biological Resources
Potential impacts to biological resources are primarily related to the area proposed for disturbance and less on the type of urban uses that would occur on the Plan Area. Under the Regional Park Alternative, the Specific Plan’s development footprint would be the exact same as the proposed Specific Plan; therefore, an equivalent amount of habitat would be removed as the proposed Specific Plan, and a similar level of ground disturbing activities would occur as compared with the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, potential impacts to biological resources would be equal under the Regional Park Alternative.

Cultural and Tribal Resources
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. Additionally, as with most projects in the region that involve ground-disturbing activities, there is the potential for discovery of a previously unknown cultural and/or historical resource or human remains.

Implementation of the mitigation measures incorporated into this EIR would reduce impacts associated with unknown cultural resources wee they to be found.

The Regional Park Alternative would result in a similar level of ground disturbing activities and would have a similar potential to disturb or destroy cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, as well as paleontological resources. While the Specific Plan is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to cultural resources with mitigation, the Regional Park Alternative would result in equal potential for impacts to cultural resources.

Geology, Soils and Seismicity
The land use map for this alternative would be the exact same as the proposed Specific Plan with the exception that 74.2 acres would have an overlay designation for the 74-acre Regional Park.

When compared to the proposed Specific Plan on the West Area, assuming a regional park is constructed, this alternative would result in a decrease in the amount of Neighborhood Mixed Use development. This would result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and nonresidential SF, which would result in a slightly reduced population growth when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The future buildings and structures allowed under this alternative would be exposed to the same level of risk from geologic hazards as the proposed Specific Plan.

However, as discussed above, it is anticipated that the number of residents and employees resulting from this alternative may slightly decrease compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Because fewer people may be located in the Specific Plan Area under the Regional Park Alternative, fewer people would be exposed to the risks from geologic hazards as compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, this impact would be slightly decreased under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate GHG emissions during construction and operation. Short-term construction GHG emissions are a one-time release of GHGs and are not expected to significantly contribute to global climate change over the lifetime of a project. As described in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy, the proposed General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy. The proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the current version of the City’s 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.

Under the Regional Park Alternative, the land use map would be the same as the proposed Specific Plan, except 74.2 acres would have an overlay designation for a 74.2-acre Regional Park. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan on the West Area, assuming a regional park is constructed, this alternative would result in a decrease in the amount of Neighborhood Mixed Use development. This would result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and nonresidential SF, resulting in a slight decrease in population growth. This would reduce Plan Area operational GHG emissions by an approximately equivalent amount when compared to the proposed project. Therefore, it is anticipated that under this alternative, impacts related to operational-GHG emissions would be slightly reduced when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. With respect to mobile-GHG emissions, because the overall land use mix is generally the same as the proposed Specific Plan, it is assumed that it would create generally the same opportunities for non-motorized transportation options (such as walking or cycling) assisting with reducing mobile-related GHG emissions. Overall, because fewer people would likely result in the Specific Plan Area under this alternative, the mobile greenhouse gas emissions would slightly decrease when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. As such, the greenhouse gas emissions impact would be slightly reduced when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
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.

Due to the long-term use of land for agricultural purposes, properties within the Plan Area may have residual soil (and potentially groundwater) contamination that may require remediation.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-19 Also, potentially hazardous building materials (e.g., asbestos containing materials, lead-based paint, etc.) could be encountered during demolition of historic, 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 such as MCPP, Dinoseb, chlordane, DDT, and DDE. Other chemicals may also be present due to other built-up uses. As described in the Environmental Setting section of Section

3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 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.

Under the Regional Park Alternative, the land use map would be the same as the proposed Specific Plan with the exception that 74.2 acres would have a Park overlay land use designation for the regional park. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan, assuming a regional park is constructed, this alternative would result in a decrease in the amount of Neighborhood Mixed Use development. This would result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and nonresidential SF, which would result in a slightly reduced population growth when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, new development would introduce new sensitive receptors into an area that contains land that has historically utilized chemicals for agricultural production. Any negative health effects associated with the residuals of these chemicals would be alleviated through compliance with state and federal regulations that require remediation when above certain thresholds. There would be a long-term potential for hazards associated with use and generation of household and commercial hazardous wastes, although compliance with state and federal regulations would be required. Given that this alternative would likely result in a slight reduction of residential and non-residential development and that all of the sites maintain their underlying land use designations, it is expected that the Regional Park Alternative would generally have an equal impact to this topic relative to the proposed Specific Plan.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of the Specific Plan has the potential to result in the violation of water quality standards and waste discharge of pollutants into surface waters during both construction and long-term operations. Construction operations could result in temporary increases in runoff, erosion, sedimentation, soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas. The long-term operation of the Specific Plan could result in long-term impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff and could enter groundwater or surface water systems. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would result in new impervious surfaces that could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. Mitigation measures incorporated into the project would reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level. The Specific Plan would not place persons or structures in a flood hazard zone.

Under the Regional Park Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map. However, this alternative would provide a Regional Park within the Plan Area, which would be 74.2 acres in size. Approximately the same area as the proposed Specific Plan would be developed with the aforementioned uses in the future. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan on the West Area, assuming a regional park is constructed, this alternative would result in a decrease in the amount of Neighborhood Mixed Use development. The amount of land covered with impervious surfaces would be slightly reduced under this alternative due to the inclusion of a regional park in lieu of urban development.

Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, stormwater from the future buildings would flow into the City’s stormwater system via a network of drains, pipes, and detention basins. Future development projects allowed under the Regional Park Alternative would be required to develop permanent storm water control measures and incorporate these measures into the alternative in order to mitigate the impacts of pollutants in storm water runoff from the alternative. Because the alternative would be required to implement improvements in order to manage and treat stormwater flows from the site, impacts related to water quality would be similar.

As described in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed Specific Plan implementation has the potential to result in the discharge of pollutants into detention basins and storm drains, and would change the existing drainage pattern on the site, although these impacts are less than significant as a result of compliance with local, state, and federal regulations.

Under this alternative, these impacts would be similar as the proposed Specific Plan. Overall, potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be similar under the Regional Park Alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Land Use
Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, the Regional Park Alternative would require a change of the Specific Plan Area’s General Plan Land Use designations. This alternative would be required to be consistent with the General Plan, including the goals, policies, and standards and with the Zoning Code. The analysis in Section 3.10, Land Use, concluded that the proposed Specific Plan would not result in any significant land use impacts. This alternative would provide generally the same housing and employment opportunities for the city. However, this alternative would include a 74- acre Park overlay designation to allow for the development of a regional park, which would slightly reduce the overall housing and employment opportunities. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, upon approval of the General Plan amendment, this alternative would be consistent ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-21 with the City’s General Plan and other land use regulations, and therefore, would have similar land use impacts as the proposed Specific Plan.

Noise
As discussed in Section 3.11, Noise, the primary sources of noise associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan are from increased vehicle trips on study area roadways in the project vicinity from on-site uses, and increased noise from future operation within the Specific Plan Area. Some existing noise-sensitive receptors located near the Plan Area are currently exposed to exterior traffic noise levels exceeding the 65 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard for residential uses. In some locations, the noise levels are predicted to increase to levels that would trigger a new exceedance of the 65 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard, or exceed the FICON allowable increase criteria.

Under the Regional Park Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map. However, this alternative would provide a Regional Park within the Plan Area, which would be a minimum of 74.2 acres in size.

The remainder of the Plan Area would be developed with the same land uses as the proposed Specific Plan. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan, this alternative would result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and non-residential SF. The slight decrease in residential and non-residential development would result in a slight decrease in noise levels associated with traffic, stationary sources, and construction under this alternative; however, the decrease is anticipated to be negligible since the land designated for the future regional park would generate trips and generate on-site noise associated with the regional park use. Overall, despite this slight reduction in urban development under this alternative, it is expected that some noise levels associated with traffic under this Alternative would still generate a potentially significant impact similar to the proposed Specific Plan. The same mitigation measures required for the proposed Specific Plan would be required for this alternative. As such, this alternative is expected to have an equal impact relative to the proposed Specific Plan.

Population and Housing
The City anticipates growth within the community over time, and has responded to the anticipated growth by establishing Development Areas in the General Plan, including the West Development Area, Southwest Development Area, and Southeast Development Area. The proposed Specific Plan seeks to provide for the orderly and consistent development that promotes and establishes complete neighborhoods within the West Area with enhanced transportation infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation of additional parkland, and encouraging the development of a diverse housing stock. The proposed Specific Plan is a planning document that implements the City’s intent to focus new development, and the growth that goes along with the new development, into the West Area. The proposed Specific Plan would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing and/or substantial numbers of people, but would instead provide new housing consistent with the City’s General Plan. The Specific Plan does not divide the community, but rather, it is an extension of the existing community.

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan The City has undergone extensive planning efforts since 2017 to refine the General Plan’s land use vision for the West Area. Under the Regional Park Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan’s land use map. However, this alternative would provide a Regional Park within the Plan Area, which would be 74.2 acres in size. This would result in a slight decrease in the overall number of housing units and non-residential SF, which would cause a slight decrease in the number of new residents and jobs generated under this alternative. Currently, the City, and the State as a whole, are having a housing crisis due to the lack of housing stock coupled with a significant increase in homelessness.

The State of California has even gone as far as to pass legislation with incentives for municipalities and developers to build more housing. While buildout under this alternative might result in a slight decrease of housing stock, it is anticipated that this decrease would be negligible and the overall buildout of the Specific Plan under this alternative would be generally comparable to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, it is anticipated that impacts to population and housing would be generally similar under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Public Services and Recreation
New development would place increased demands on public services such as police, fire, schools, parks, libraries, and other governmental services. As discussed in Section 3.13, Public Services and Recreation, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in, or have the potential to require the construction of additional fire or police department facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. However, the proposed Specific Plan incorporates sites for new schools and parks.

Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project that require payment of impact fees to the City and other public agencies to ensure that the Specific Plan project does not have adverse financial impacts on these agencies. The Specific Plan includes land for schools and parks to ensure the increased demand for these services is met within the Plan Area.

Under the Regional Park Alternative, the land use map would be the same as the proposed Specific Plan with the exception that 74.2 acres would have a Park overlay land use designation for the proposed regional park. This 74.2-acre overlay designation would result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and non-residential SF in the Specific Plan area, which would result in a slightly reduced population when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, under this alternative, it is expected that there would be a slight decrease in demand for fire, police, schools, parks, and other public facilities when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The park demand would also be less under this alternative because the amount of parkland provided would increase compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

It should be noted that the future development of a parks and open space within the proposed Specific Plan was determined to contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3) , and utilities (Impacts 3.15-1 through 3.15-3). The proposed land use map for this alternative includes 74.2 acres for the development of a regional park. While the development of an additional park facility would contribute to this significant and unavoidable ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-23 impact, it is anticipated that this alternative would result in generally similar impacts relative to park and open space facilities when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. However, the slight decrease in demand for fire, police, schools, and other public facilities due to the slight decrease in population and jobs under this alternative would have a slightly reduced impact to public services under this alternative.

Transportation and Circulation
As explained in Section 3.14 (Transportation and Circulation), implementation of the Specific Plan would result in VMT per capita and VMT per employee during the horizon year that is less than the VMT per capita and VMT per employee for existing conditions in Fresno County. Under the Specific Plan, VMT per capita is 7.4 lower, or 46% lower, while VMT per employee is 12.4 lower, or 48% lower. The decrease in VMT is the result of the proposed land use mix within the Plan Area. The retail and employment opportunities keep the VMT per capita lower than the County average, while the large number of dwelling units near the jobs allows employees to live close to work resulting in a VMT per employee that is lower than the County average today. Additionally, the guiding principles of the Specific Plan support the policies of the General Plan; therefore, no conflict with policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation would occur from future development and redevelopment under the proposed Specific Plan.

Under the Regional Park Alternative, the land use map would be the same as the proposed Specific Plan with the exception that 74.2 acres would have a Park overlay land use designation for the proposed regional park. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan, assuming a regional park is constructed, this alternative would result in a decrease in the amount of Neighborhood Mixed Use development. This would result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and nonresidential SF in the Specific Plan area, which would result in a slightly reduced population and number of jobs when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The slightly reduced population and jobs under this alternative may slightly decrease the average daily vehicle trips. However, since the overall land use mix is generally the same as the proposed Specific Plan, it is anticipated that impacts to transportation and circulation would generally be the same under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Utilities
Future development within the Specific Plan would result in an increased demand for wastewater, potable water, storm drain, and solid waste services. Under the Regional Park Alternative, the land use map would be the exact same as the proposed Specific Plan with the exception that 74.2 acres would have a Park overlay land use designation for the proposed regional park. The regional park would include the planting of drought-resistant vegetation and trees to assist in reducing overall water demand associated with landscaping. This 74.2-acre overlay designation would result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and non-residential SF in the Specific Plan Area, which would result in a slight reduction of population and jobs when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed regional park would generate less wastewater, potable water, and solid waste demand than the underlying land uses. For these reasons, it is anticipated that the overall demand for wastewater, potable water, solid waste, and storm

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan drainage under this alternative would be slightly less than the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, this alternative would have slightly reduced impacts to utilities when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Conclusion
Table 5.0-1 summarizes the comparative effects of this alternative. As shown, the Regional Park Alternative would result in reduced or slightly reduced impacts in five areas and equal impacts in 10 areas.

LOWER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. Additionally, this alternative would focus the medium and higher density residential uses and commercial uses at available sites on major street corridors. A mixed use town center would be provided along Shaw Avenue.

Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. This would result in reduced light and glare impacts due to less development introduced into the Plan Area.

Additionally, buildout of the Specific Plan under this alternative would result in less degradation of the visual character and quality of the site due to the preservation of land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, future development under this alternative would be subject to the Development Standards, Design Guidelines, and policies of the Specific Plan, as well as the City’s General Plan policies and actions.

Overall, despite this reduction in urban development under this alternative, it is expected that overall buildout of the Plan Area would still generate a significant and unavoidable impact related to visual quality and light and glare due to the conversion of farmland and open space into urban development; however, this alternative would result in less impacts to the visual and aesthetic appeal of the site when compared to the proposed Specific Plan due to the preservation of rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area.

Agricultural Resources
The land use map for this alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. Because fewer agricultural areas would be developed under this alternative, impacts related to Williamson Act contracts, land use conflicts, and conversion of farmland to urban uses would be reduced when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, this alternative would have less impacts to agricultural resources as the proposed Specific Plan. The ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-25 significant and unavoidable impact related to agricultural resources would still occur under this alternative, though to a lesser extent than the proposed Specific Plan.

Air Quality
As described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate emissions during both the construction phase and the operational phase. The land use map for the Lower Density Alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area, resulting in a reduced development footprint. Construction related impacts would be reduced under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, as the area of ground disturbance would be reduced, which would reduce the duration of construction. Additionally, under this alternative, mobile source emissions are anticipated to also decrease. Mobile source emissions are directly related to the number of vehicle trips generated by a project. The Lower Density Alternative would result in the development of lower densities throughout the Plan Area decreasing the number of housing units and non-residential SF, which would result in a reduced population growth when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Therefore, under this alternative, it is anticipated that less people would be located on the Specific Plan Area generating less daily vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, which would produce lower levels of pollutants from mobile sources. Therefore, this alternative would have reduced impacts related to air quality when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to air quality would still occur under this alternative, though to a lesser extent than the proposed Specific Plan.

Biological Resources
Potential impacts to biological resources are primarily related to the area proposed for disturbance and less on the type of urban uses that would occur on the Plan Area. The Lower Density Alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. Therefore, under this alternative, the Specific Plan’s development footprint would be less than the proposed Specific Plan, resulting in less habitat removal and reduced ground disturbing activities when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, there would be less potential for impacts to biological resources under this alternative as compared with the proposed Specific Plan.

The reduced development footprint would result in less ground disturbing activities and habitat removal, resulting in the preservation of more movement habitat and upland habitat adjacent to the movement corridors along the southern and western boundaries of the Specific Plan Area.

When compared to the proposed Specific Plan, the overall impacts to biological resources would be reduced under this alternative due to the preservation of the existing site conditions along the southern and western boundaries of the Specific Plan Area, resulting in less habitat loss and ground disturbing activities.

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Cultural and Tribal Resources
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. Additionally, as with most projects in the region that involve ground-disturbing activities, there is the potential for discovery of a previously unknown cultural and/or historical resource or human remains.

Implementation of the mitigation measures incorporated into this EIR would reduce impacts associated with unknown cultural resources where they to be found.

The Lower Density Alternative would result in a reduced level of ground disturbing activities and would have less potential to disturb or destroy cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, as well as paleontological resources. While the Specific Plan is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to cultural resources with mitigation, the Lower Density Alternative would result in less potential for impacts to cultural resources.

Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. This would result in a decreased number of housing units and non-residential SF introduced into the Plan Area, which would result in a reduced population and total jobs when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The future buildings and structures allowed under this alternative would be exposed to the same level of risk from geologic hazards as the proposed Specific Plan. However, as discussed above, it is anticipated that the number of residents and employees resulting from this alternative would be less when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Because fewer people may be located in the Specific Plan Area under the Lower Density Alternative, fewer people would be exposed to the risks from geologic hazards as compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Therefore, this impact would be slightly decreased under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate GHG emissions during construction and operation. Short-term construction GHG emissions are a one-time release of GHGs and are not expected to significantly contribute to global climate change over the lifetime of a project. As described in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy, the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts to Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy. The proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the current version of the City’s 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.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-27 Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area, resulting in a lower development footprint. This would reduce Plan Area operational GHG emissions by an approximately equivalent amount when compared to the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to greenhouse gases under this alternative are expected to be slightly reduced when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
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.

Due to the long-term use of land for agricultural purposes, 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 such as MCPP, Dinoseb, chlordane, DDT, and DDE. Other chemicals may also be present due to other built-up uses. As described in the Environmental Setting section of Section

3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 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.

Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. This would result in a decreased number of housing units and non-residential SF introduced into the Plan Area,

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan which would result in a reduced population and total jobs when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, new development would introduce new sensitive receptors into an area that contains land that has historically utilized chemicals for agricultural production. Any negative health effects associated with the residuals of these chemicals would be alleviated through compliance with state and federal regulations that require remediation when above certain thresholds. There would be a long-term potential for hazards associated with use and generation of household and commercial hazardous wastes, although compliance with state and federal regulations would be required. Given that this alternative would result in lower densities throughout the Plan Area and a lower development footprint resulting a reduction of total residential and non-residential development, it is expected that the Lower Density Alternative would have a reduced impact relative to this topic.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of the Specific Plan has the potential to result in the violation of water quality standards and waste discharge of pollutants into surface waters during both construction and long-term operations. Construction operations could result in temporary increases in runoff, erosion, sedimentation, soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas. The long-term operation of the Specific Plan could result in long-term impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff and could enter groundwater or surface water systems. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would result in new impervious surfaces that could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. Mitigation measures incorporated into the project would reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level. The Specific Plan would not place persons or structures in a flood hazard zone.

Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area, resulting in an overall lower development footprint. This would result in less impervious surfaces introduced into the Plan Area, which would allow for increased rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge, especially at the western and southern boundaries of the Plan Area that would be preserved under this alternative.

Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, stormwater from the future buildings would flow into the City’s stormwater system via a network of drains, pipes, and detention basins. Future development projects allowed under the Lower Density Alternative would be required to develop permanent storm water control measures and incorporate these measures into the alternative in order to mitigate the impacts of pollutants in storm water runoff from the alternative. Because the alternative would be required to implement improvements in order to manage and treat stormwater flows from the site, impacts related to water quality would be similar.

As described in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed Specific Plan implementation has the potential to result in the discharge of pollutants into detention basins ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-29 and storm drains, and would change the existing drainage pattern on the site, although these impacts are less than significant as a result of compliance with local, state, and federal regulations.

Under this alternative, these impacts would be similar as the proposed Specific Plan. Overall, potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be reduced under the Lower Density Alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan due to the lower densities developed throughout the Plan Area.

Land Use
Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, the Lower Density Alternative would require a change of the Specific Plan Area’s General Plan Land Use designations. This alternative would be required to be consistent with the General Plan, including the goals, policies, and standards and with the Zoning Code. The analysis in Section 3.10, Land Use, concluded that the proposed Specific Plan would not result in any significant land use impacts. This alternative would provide for decreased housing and employment opportunities for the city. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, upon approval of the General Plan amendment, this alternative would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and other land use regulations, and therefore, would have similar land use impacts as the proposed Specific Plan.

Noise
As discussed in Section 3.11, Noise, the primary sources of noise associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan are from increased vehicle trips on study area roadways in the project vicinity from on-site uses, and increased noise from future operation within the Specific Plan Area. Some existing noise-sensitive receptors located near the Plan Area are currently exposed to exterior traffic noise levels exceeding the 65 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard for residential uses. In some locations, the noise levels are predicted to increase to levels that would trigger a new exceedance of the 65 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard, or exceed the FICON allowable increase criteria.

Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. This would result in a decreased number of housing units and non-residential SF introduced into the Plan Area, which would result in a reduced population and total jobs when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The decrease in residential and non-residential development would result in a decrease in noise levels associated with traffic, stationary sources, and construction under this alternative. As such, this alternative is expected to have a reduced impact relative to the proposed Specific Plan.

Population and Housing
The City anticipates growth within the community over time, and has responded to the anticipated growth by establishing Development Areas in the General Plan, including the West Development Area, Southwest Development Area, and Southeast Development Area. The

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan proposed Specific Plan seeks to provide for the orderly and consistent development that promotes and establishes complete neighborhoods within the West Area with enhanced transportation infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation of additional parkland, and encouraging the development of a diverse housing stock. The proposed Specific Plan is a planning document that implements the City’s intent to focus new development, and the growth that goes along with the new development, into the West Area. The proposed Specific Plan would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing and/or substantial numbers of people, but would instead provide new housing consistent with the City’s General Plan. The Specific Plan does not divide the community, but rather, it is an extension of the existing community.

The City has undergone extensive planning efforts since 2017 to refine the General Plan’s land use vision for the West Area. Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. This would result in a decrease in the overall number of housing units and nonresidential SF, which would cause a decrease in the number of new residents and jobs generated under this alternative.

The Plan Area was planned for population and housing growth under the City’s General Plan. This alternative would not provide for the same population, housing and employment growth as anticipated by the General Plan or proposed by the Specific Plan. Neither the proposed Specific Plan nor the Lower Density Alternative would exceed the growth projections anticipated by the General Plan. Substantial unplanned growth under both this alternative and the proposed Specific Plan would not occur. Both the proposed Specific Plan and the Lower Density Alternative would not displace substantial amounts of housing. Overall, this alternative would have a similar impact when compared to the proposed project. It is noted that this alternative would not provide the amount of housing, or diversity of housing options, to the extent that the proposed Specific Plan would.

Public Services and Recreation
New development would place increased demands on public services such as police, fire, schools, parks, libraries, and other governmental services. As discussed in Section 3.13, Public Services and Recreation, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in, or have the potential to require the construction of addition fire or police department facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. However, the proposed Specific Plan incorporates sites for new schools and parks.

Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project that require payment of impact fees to the City and other public agencies to ensure that the Specific Plan project does not have adverse financial impacts on these agencies. The Specific Plan includes land for schools and parks to ensure the increased demand for these services is met within the Plan Area.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-31 Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. This would result in a decrease in the overall number of housing units and non-residential SF, which would cause a decrease in the number of new residents and jobs generated under this alternative. Therefore, the demand for police, fire and other public services would be reduced. This alternative would still result in development of public facilities (i.e. schools and parks) and would be required to pay the appropriate public safety impact fees. Overall, this alternative would have a reduced impact to public services when compared to the proposed project. The significant and unavoidable impact related to public services and recreation would still occur under this alternative.

Transportation and Circulation
As explained in Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation, implementation of the Specific Plan would result in VMT per capita and VMT per employee during the horizon year that is less than the VMT per capita and VMT per employee for existing conditions in Fresno County. Under the Specific Plan, VMT per capita is 7.4 lower, or 46% lower, while VMT per employee is 12.4 lower, or 48% lower. The decrease in VMT is the result of the proposed land use mix within the Plan Area. The retail and employment opportunities keep the VMT per capita lower than the County average, while the large number of dwelling units near the jobs allows employees to live close to work resulting in a VMT per employee that is lower than the County average today. Additionally, the guiding principles of the Specific Plan support the policies of the General Plan; therefore, no conflict with policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation would occur from future development and redevelopment under the proposed Specific Plan.

The Lower Density Alternative would result in lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. This would result in a decrease in the overall number of housing units and nonresidential SF, which would cause a decrease in the number of new residents and jobs generated under this alternative. The reduced population and jobs under this alternative are expected to decrease the average daily vehicle trips. Therefore, transportation and circulation impacts are expected to be slightly less under this alternative.

Utilities
Future development within the Specific Plan would result in an increased demand for wastewater, potable water, storm drain, and solid waste services. Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area, resulting in a smaller development footprint. This would also result in a decrease in the overall number of housing units and non-residential SF, which would cause a decrease in the number of new residents and jobs generated under this alternative.

It is anticipated that the overall demand for wastewater, potable water, solid waste, and storm

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan drainage would be less than the proposed Specific Plan due to the smaller development footprint, lower developed density throughout the Plan Area, and the reduced population under this alternative. Therefore, this alternative would have slightly reduced impacts to utilities when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Conclusion
Table 5.0-1 summarizes the comparative effects of this alternative. As shown, the Lower Density Alternative would result in reduced or slightly reduced impacts in 13 areas and equal impacts in two areas.

ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative be identified among the alternatives that are analyzed in the EIR. If the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, an EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The environmentally superior alternative is that alternative with the least adverse environmental impacts when compared to the proposed project.

Table 5.0-1 presents a comparison of the alternative project impacts with those of the Specific Plan. As shown in the table, the Lower Density Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because it results in the least adverse environmental impacts when compared to the proposed project. The Lower Density Alternative would decrease or slightly decrease impacts to 13 of the 15 environmental issues. This is mostly due to the preservation of the existing farmland and rural residential areas along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area, and the decrease in development associated with the reduced densities. It is noted that none of the project alternatives would fully eliminate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur under the proposed Specific Plan; however, the significant and unavoidable impacts that would result under the proposed Specific Plan would occur to a lesser extent under the Lower Density Alternative. The Regional Park Alternative is the next best alternative as it would decrease or slightly decrease impacts to five of the 15 environmental issues. It should be noted that none of alternatives meet all of the project objectives, as described in Section 5.5 below.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-33 TABLE 5.0-1: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS TO THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE

NO PROJECT (EXISTING

GENERAL PLAN)

ALTERNATIVE

REGIONAL PARK

ALTERNATIVE

LOWER DENSITY

ALTERNATIVE
Aesthetics and Visual Resources Equal Equal Less
Agricultural Resources Equal Equal Less
Air Quality More Slightly Less Less
Biological Resources Equal Equal Less
Cultural and Tribal Resources Equal Equal Less
Geology, Soils and Seismicity Slightly More Slightly Less Slightly Less Greenhouse Gas, Climate Change, and Energy More Slightly Less Slightly Less Hazards and Hazardous Materials Equal Equal Less
Hydrology and Water Quality Equal Equal Less
Land Use Slightly More Equal Equal
Noise More Equal Less
Population and Housing More Equal Equal
Public Services and Recreation More Slightly Less Less
Transportation and Circulation More Equal Slightly Less Utilities Slightly More Slightly Less Slightly Less

5.5 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT AND

ALTERNATIVES TO SATISFY PROJECT OBJECTIVES
This section examines how each of the alternatives selected for more detailed analysis meets the project objectives.

The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would not fully satisfy the project objectives because this alternative would not fully implement the community’s refined vision for the future growth, development, and conservation of open space and resources within the Specific Plan in a manner consistent with the quality of life desired by residents and businesses. An 11-member Steering Committee, established in March 2018 by the Fresno City Council, held regular public meetings to provide recommendations to the draft land use map and guiding principles based on input received from community members. The proposed Specific Plan seeks to provide for the orderly and consistent development that promotes and establishes complete neighborhoods within the West Area with enhanced transportation infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation of additional parkland, and encouraging the development of a diverse housing stock. The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would not be consistent with the revisions to the core goals provided in the General Plan for the West Area, which calls for the development of the West Shaw Avenue Town Center and Catalytic Corridors in the West Area. While the No Project Alternative would generally meet the project objectives and specific plan guiding principles, it would not be as effective as the proposed Specific Plan.

The Regional Park Alternative would meet the primary project objectives and would satisfy the policy guidance outlined in the City’s General Plan for West Area; however, it would not meet the quantifiable objective future development of up to 54,953 DU (including 67 DU in the commercial category, 47,072 DU in the residential category and 7,814 DU in the mixed use category) and 60,621,006 SF of non-residential uses in the Plan Area. Therefore, the Regional Park Alternative would satisfy the project objectives, but to a lesser extent than the proposed Specific Plan.

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. Additionally, this alternative would focus the medium and higher density residential uses and commercial uses at available sites on major street corridors. A mixed use town center would be provided along Shaw Avenue. The land use mix under the Lower Density Alternative would not encourage a variety of housing styles and types and would not encourage the development of housing to accommodate an aging population including, multi-generational houses and other elder housing options.

Instead, this alternative would encourage the development of lower density single-family homes and ranch style homes. As such, this alternative would cause an overall reduction in housing stock in the Plan Area. Therefore, this alternative would satisfy the project objectives related to housing to a lesser extent than the proposed Specific Plan. Additionally, although this alternative would encourage development of retail along commercial corridors, the amount of retail and jobgenerating uses would decrease compared to the proposed Specific Plan. As such, the proposed Specific Plan is more effective than the Lower Density Alternative in implementing the retailrelated project objectives.

The Lower Density Alternative would accommodate and improve roadways and transit in the area, and would provide a complete roadway network. This alternative would achieve all of the transportation related objectives. This alternative would also result in creation of parks and trails in the Plan Area, and would incorporate elements of agriculture and agri-tourism ventures.

Overall, the proposed Specific Plan is more effective than the Lower Density Alternative in implementing the project objectives.

E
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB

NP NP NP
NP
P
OS
CP
NP
NP
NP
NP NP
NP
NP NP
NP
NP
P
CH
E E
E
E
E
E/M/H
H
SS
SS
CH
CH
FS
NP
NP
PB
PB
CH
CH
FS
CH
P
PB
NP
PB
NP
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 Valentine Ave
N Gates Ave
W Shaw Ave
N Bryan 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

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
UV99
Sources: Fresno County; City of Fresno. Map date: July 25, 2019. Revised: May 31, 2020. q
0 ¼ ½
Miles

PROPOSED LAND USE
Residential - Low Density
Residential - Medium Low Density
Residential - Medium Density
Residential - Medium High Density
Urban Neighborhood
Residential - High Density
Open Space
Public Facility
Corridor - Center Mixed Use
Employment - Office
Employment - Business Park
Employment - Light Industrial
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
Commercial - Community
Commercial - Recreation
Commercial - General
Commercial - Regional
Potential Dual Use Basin FMFCD:

BOUNDARIES
Specific Plan of the West Area
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
Proposed Sphere of Influence Expansion
Figure 5.0-1.

Additional Annexation
Alternative
SS - Special School
E - Elementary School
E&M - Elem & Middle School
E/M/H - Elem, Middle & High
H - High School
CH - Church
FS - Fire Station
CP - Community Park
NP - Neighborhood Park
OS - Open Space
P - Park
PB - Ponding Basin
*Open Space Label Key **Public Facility Label Key
Residential Medium Low/Open Space PB
PB

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

CP
C
C C
C
C C
C
C
C C
C
G G
G
G
G
G
G
G
CMX
PB
PB
PB
PB
NP
NP
CP
NP
CP
NP
NP
NP NP
NP
NP NP
NP
NP
CH
E E
E
E
E
E/M/H
H
SS
SS
BP
RMX
NP
RMX
RMX
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
C
PB
RUN
G
G
G
C-R
RUN
PB

VALENTINE AVE

EMERSON AVE

DANTE AVE

BULLARD AVE

GATES AVE

CLINTON AVE

VAN NESS BLVD

MARK S AVE

POLK AVE

SIERRA AVE

DAKOTA AVE

HUGHES AVE

SPRUCE AVE

RIVER VISTA DR

ALLUVIAL AVE

ASHLAN AVE

SHAW AVE

EMERSON AVE

PALO ALTO AVE

FIGARDEN DR

HAYES AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

MILBURN AVE

VALENTINE AVE

SPRUCE AVE

SIERRA AVE

ESCALON AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

SHIELDS AVE

BULLARD AVE

CECELIA AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

M AR TY AVE

MCKINLEY AVE

HERNDON AVE

BARSTOW AVE

SANTA FE AVE

WEBER AVE

SAN JOSE AVE

RIVERSIDE DR

JEANNE AVE

BLYTHE AVE
99 99

S A N J O A Q U I N R I V E R

RESIDENTIAL
Low Density (1-3.5 D.U./acre)
Medium Low Density (3.5-6 D.U./acre)
Medium Density (5.0-12 D.U./acre)
Medium High Density (12-16 D.U./acre)
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 D.U./acre)
High Density (30-45 D.U./acre) ´ 0 0.25 0.5
Miles

COMMERCIAL
Community
Recreation
General

PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public/Quasi-public Facility
Special School
Elementary School
Elementary, Middle & High School
High School
Church
Fire Station
SS
E
E/M/H
H
CH
FS
City Limits
West Area Specific Plan Boundary
Sphere Of Influence

EMPLOYMENT
Office
BP Business Park
Light Industrial

MIXED USE
CMX Corridor/Center Mixed Use
NMX Regional Mixed Use

OPEN SPACE
CP Community Park
PB Open Space - Ponding Basin
NP Neighborhood Park
Open Space
P Park

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
Figure 5.0-2. No Project
(Existing General Plan) Alternative

BOUNDARIES

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

N Bryan Ave
W Shaw Ave
N Weber Ave
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
W Barstow Ave
N Brawley Ave
N Gates Ave
N Cornelia Ave
W Bullard Ave
N Valentine Ave
N Milburn Ave
N Hayes Ave
N Grantland Ave
W Ashlan Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N
Marty Ave
W San Jose Ave
W Herndon Ave

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
UV99
Sources: Fresno County; City of Fresno. Map date: May 26, 2020.

Figure 5.0-3.

Regional Park Alternative
q 0 ¼ ½
Miles

PROPOSED LAND USE
Residential
Low Density (1-3.5 D.U./acre)
Medium Low Density (3.5-6 D.U./acre)
Medium Density (5.0-12 D.U./acre)
Medium High Density (12-16 D.U./acre)
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 D.U./acre)
High Density (30-45 D.U./acre)
Commercial
Community
Recreation
General
Regional
Employment
Office
Business Park
Light Industrial
Mixed Use
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Corridor/Center Mixed Use
Open Space
Open Space
Park (Community/Neighborhood)
Ponding Basin
Public Facilities
Public/Quasi-public Facility
School (Elementary/Middle/High/Special)
Church
Fire Station
Dual Designation
Open Space and Medium Low Density