Exhibit I EIR - Draft Environmental Impact Report — Fresno City Council, October 13, 2022 (part 4 of 7)

BOUNDARIES
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
Specific Plan of the West Boundary
Preferred Regional Park Location
Residential

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-40 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

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 Valentine Ave
N Cornelia Ave
W Bullard Ave
N Bryan 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.

Figure 5.0-4.

Lower Density Alternative
q 0 ¼ ½
Miles

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN 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
Employment - Office
Employment - Business Park
Employment - Light Industrial
Corridor - Center Mixed Use
Regional Mixed-Use
Commercial - Community
Commercial - Recreation
Commercial - General

BOUNDARIES
Specific Plan of the West Area
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence

ALTERNATIVE DESIGNATIONS
Areas to be changed under Alternative
Agriculture/Rural Residential
Rural Residential
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Retail
Office
Mixed-Use

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-42 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

REPORT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 6.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 6.0-1

REPORT PREPARERS
City of Fresno
Sophia Pagoulatos.................................................................................................Planning Manager Casey Lauderdale...............................................................................................................Planner III De Novo Planning Group
Steve McMurtry ........................................................................ Principal Planner/Project Manager Elise Carroll ................................................................................................................Senior Planner Josh Smith ...................................................................................................................Senior Planner Zach Dahla..............................................................................................................Associate Planner Jeff Setterlund .......................................................................................................Associate Planner

REPORT CONTRIBUTORS
West Yost Associates
James Connell, P.E. ................................................................................................. Project Manager Elizabeth Drayer......................................................................................................... QA/QC Review Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Aaron Elias ................................................................................................................Senior Engineer MD Acoustics, LLC
Mike Dickerson, INCE........................................................................................................... Principal Roma Stromberg............................................................................................. Acoustical Consultant Cogstone
Holly Duke....................................................................................................................Archaeologist Sherri Gust ....................................................................................................... Principal Investigator Shannon Lopez................................................................................................. Principal Investigator Kim Scott.......................................................................................................... Principal Investigator

6.0 REPORT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

6.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

REFERENCES 7.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan 7.0-1 Association of Environmental Professionals. 2018. 2018 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. January 1, 2018.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. Spare the Air: Cool the Climate. April.

San Francisco, CA. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en C. Donald Ahrens. 2006. Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather, Climate, & the Environment.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. Available: http://www.capcoa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2016. Air Toxics Hotspot Program.

Available: http://www.capcoa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/08/CAPCOA%20Prioritization%20Guidelines%20- %20August%202016%20FINAL.pdf
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2017. Appendix A, Calculation Details for CalEEMod. November 8, 2017.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2014. Background Material: Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition - Chapter 4 Regional Trends and Forecasts. Page last reviewed on February 7, 2014. Available: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac13/chap413.htm California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. EMFAC2017 Web Database. Available:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2018b. Area Designations Maps/State and National. This page last reviewed December 28, 2018. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019a. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).

Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019b. ARB Databases: Aerometric Data Analysis and Management System (ADAM). Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/trends/trends1.php
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019c. Carbon Monoxide and Health. Available:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/co/co.htm
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019d. What is Carbon Monoxide? Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/carbon-monoxide-and-health.

7.0 REFERENCES

7.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019e. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).

Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020a. ARB Databases: Aerometric Data Analysis and Management System (ADAM). Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/databases.htm.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020b. Maps of State and Federal Area Designations.

Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-areadesignations California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020c. GHG Current California Emission Inventory Data.

Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data
California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act Status Report.

California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmlands Map.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 2014-2016. Table A-24: Fresno County 2014-2016 Land Use Conversion.

California Department of Finance. 2019 Population and Housing Estimates (E-5 Reports).

California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection. 2019. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-prevention-planning-engineering/wildlandhazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/ California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2019. Envirostor Data Management System.

Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=fresno%2C+ca California Department of Transportation. 2019. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways.

Available: <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm>.

California Energy Commission. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Abstract, pg. 5.

California Energy Commission. 2018. Energy Almanac. Available: https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac California Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. December 2010. Available:
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/ California Environmental Protection Agency. 2019. Cortese List Data Resources. Available at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/
REFERENCES 7.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan 7.0-3 California Geological Survey. 2002, December. Note 36: California Geomorphic Provinces. Available at:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/cgs_notes/Pages/index.aspx.

California Geological Survey, 2019. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo, accessed September 3, 2019.

California Public Utilities Commission. 2021. Natural Gas and California. Accessed on April 13, 2021.

Available at: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/natural_gas/
California State Water Resources Board. 2019. GeoTracker. Accessed on September 10, 2019.

Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
CalRecycle. Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary. Available at:
https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/datatools/reports/divdisprtsum CalRecycle. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS). Available at:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/Search.aspx and http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/DRS/Destination/JurDspFa.aspx City of Fresno. Adopted December 18, 2014. City of Fresno General Plan.

City of Fresno. Adopted July 22, 2014. Master Environmental Impact Report.

City of Fresno. Adopted September 2015. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update.

City of Fresno. Adopted April 13, 2017. Housing Element 2015-2023.

City of Fresno. Adopted May 2019. Municipal Code of Ordinances, Chapter 12 Impact fees, historic resources, and other miscellaneous topics, Article 4.5 Urban Growth Management Ordinance.

City of Fresno. Adopted May 2019. Municipal Code of Ordinances, Chapter 15 City Wide Development Code, Article 20 General Site regulations, Section 15-2015 Outdoor Illumination Ordinance.

City of Fresno. Adopted May 2019. Municipal Code of Ordinances, Chapter 15 City Wide Development Code, Article 3.5 Tree Preservation.

Cogstone. October 2019. Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Fresno West Area Specific Plan Project.

County of Fresno. 2000. 2000 Fresno County General Plan Background Report. Available at:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=8398
County of Fresno. 2018. Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=24743

7.0 REFERENCES

7.0-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan Federal Bureau of Investigation. FBI Uniform Crime Reporting, Table 8, Offenses Known to Law Enforcement (2016-2018).

Fresno Council of Governments. 2018. Fresno Council of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy 2018-2042. Available: https://www.fresnocog.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/02/2018-RTP-Cover-Intro-table-of-contents-etc.Final-Draft.pdf Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner. 2017 Fresno County Crop Report.

Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission. 2018. Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December 2018. Available at: https://www.fresnocog.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/01/fresno-draft-ALUCP-12-04-17c.pdf Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission. July 13, 2016. City of Fresno Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.” Available at:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf Kittelson & Associates. July 8, 2020. Technical Memorandum RE: CEQA Impacts and Mitigations.

Krazen and Associates, Inc. 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update.

Accessed on September 3, 2019.

LSA Associates. 2020. City of Fresno Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update. March 2020.

MD Acoustics. September 30, 2020. West Area Specific Plan Noise Impact Study.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 2015. NASA:

Background Ozone is a Major Issue in U.S. West. Available:
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4723
National Resource Conservation Council (NRCS). 2019. Web Soil Survey. Map date: August 2, 2019.

National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 2014. NRDC Fact Sheet: California Snowpack and the Drought. April 2014. Available at: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/ca-snowpack-anddrought-FS.pdf Personal communication with Cody Charette, Data Analyst for the Fresno Fire Department, April 23, 2020.

Personal communication with Mindy Casto, Police Captain for the Fresno Police Department, September 21, 2021.

San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impact. Available: http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/ceqa_idx.htm REFERENCES 7.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan 7.0-5 San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2016. 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard. Available: http://valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone-Plan-2016/AdoptedPlan.pdf San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards. Available: http://valleyair.org/pmplans/documents/2018/pm-plan-adopted/2018- Plan-for-the-1997-2006-and-2012-PM2.5-Standards.pdf
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2020. Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.valleyair.org/general_info/frequently_asked_questions.htm#What%20is%20bein g%20done%20to%20improve%20ai r%20quality%20in%20the%20San%20Joaquin%20Valley The Fresno Bee. Does Fresno’s new high school favor rich families on the north side? Here’s the map.

Published November 11, 2020.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2017. Web Soil Survey. Accessed: August 2, 2019. Available:
<http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm>.

United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2020a. Analysis and Projections. Shortterm Energy Outlook. Release date: September 9, 2020. Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2020b. California State Energy Profile.

Last updated January 16, 2020. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2020c. Independent Statistics and Analysis. Frequently Asked Questions. Last updated September 4, 2020. Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=33&t=6
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2016. Basic Information about Carbon Monoxide (CO) Outdoor Air Pollution. Available: https://www.epa.gov/co-pollution/basicinformation-about-carbon-monoxide-co-outdoor-air-pollution#Effects United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017. Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations – EPA.

Available: https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=91 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017. TRI Explorer. 2017 TRI Factsheet:

City – Fresno, CA. Data Source: 2017 Updated Dataset (released April 2019). Available at:
https://iaspub.epa.gov/triexplorer/tri_factsheet.factsheet?&pstate=CA&pcity=fresno&pyear= 2017&pParent=TRI&pDataSet=TRIQ1
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019. Registering Transformers Containing Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). Accessed on September 10, 2019. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/registering-transformers-containing-polychlorinated-biphenylspcbs

7.0 REFERENCES

7.0-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019. Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS). Accessed on September 10, 2019. Available at:
https://www3.epa.gov/enviro/facts/rcrainfo/search.html
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019. Superfund: National Priorities List (NPL). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-national-priorities-list-npl United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019a. Health Effects of Ozone Pollution.

Available: https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019b. Health Effects of Ozone In the General Population. Available: https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution-and-your-patientshealth/health-effects-ozone-general-population United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019c. Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM). Available: https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-andenvironmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019d. Basic Information About Lead Pollution. Available: https://www.epa.gov/lead-air-pollution/basic-information-about-leadair-pollution#how United States Geologic Survey. 2019. Known Faults. Accessed August 2, 2019.

West Yost Associates. January 2022. City of Fresno West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan Utility Background Summary.

West Yost Associates. January 2022. West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment.

APPENDIX A
Notice of Preparation and NOP Comments

NOTICE OF PREPARATION

FOR THE

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
JULY 2019
Prepared for:

Development and Resources Management Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 621-2485
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818
De Novo Planning Group
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm

NOTICE OF PREPARATION

FOR THE
SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
JULY 2019
Prepared for:

Development and Resources Management Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 621-8003
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818

1 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND

SCOPING MEETING
DATE: July 2, 2019
TO: State Clearinghouse
State Responsible Agencies
State Trustee Agencies
Other Public Agencies
Organizations and Interested Persons
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and Scoping Meeting for the Specific Plan of the West Area
LEAD AGENCY: City of Fresno, Development and Resources Management Department 2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 621-2485
PROJECT PLANNER: Rodney Horton
[email protected]
(559) 621-8181

PURPOSE OF NOTICE
This is to notify public agencies and the general public that the City of Fresno, as the Lead Agency, will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Specific Plan of the West Area. The City of Fresno is interested in the input and/or comments of public agencies and the public as to the scope and content of the environmental information that is germane to the agencies’ statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project, and public input.

Responsible/trustee agencies will need to use the EIR prepared by the City of Fresno when considering applicable permits, or other approvals for the proposed project.

COMMENT PERIOD
Consistent with the time limits mandated by State law, your input, comments or responses must be received in writing and sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 5:00 PM, August 2, 2019.

Please send your comments/input (including the name for a contact person in your agency) to:

Attn: Rodney Horton at the City of Fresno, 2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065, Fresno, CA 93721; or by e-mail to [email protected].
2 SCOPING MEETING
On July 24, 2019, the City of Fresno will conduct a public scoping meeting to solicit input and comments from public agencies and the general public on the proposed project and scope of the EIR. This meeting will be held at the Glacier Point Middle School, Cafeteria, located at 4055 N. Bryan Avenue, Fresno, CA 93722, from 6:00 PM to 7:30 PM.

This meeting will be an open house format and interested parties may drop in to review the proposed project exhibits and submit written comments at any time between 6:00 PM and 7:30 PM. Representatives from the City of Fresno and the EIR consultant will be available to address questions regarding the EIR process and scope. Members of the public may provide written comments throughout the meeting.

If you have any questions regarding the scoping meeting, contact Rodney Horton, Project Planner, at (559) 621-8181 or [email protected].

PROJECT LOCATION
The Specific Plan of the West Area (also-known-as “Specific Plan” or “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. It is bounded on the south by West Clinton Avenue, and to the west by Grantland and Garfield Avenues. The Plan Area includes the southwest portion of Highway City adjacent to State Route 99. See Figure 1 for the regional location map and Figure 2 for the Plan Area vicinity map.

PROJECT SETTING

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The Plan Area is relatively flat with natural gentle slope near State Route 99. The Plan Area topography ranges in elevation from approximately 283 to 315 feet above mean sea level. A significant amount of land in the Plan Area is farmland or rural residential lots with large, uneven, and underutilized parcels. The West Area has approximately 3,070.95 acres of land that is classified as Urban and Built-Up, according to the State Department of Conservation. Prime farmland is principally located outside of the Plan Area. The West Area has 285.65 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance which is located primarily in the western edge of the Plan Area. Approximately 509.39 acres of Unique Farmland is located within the Plan Area, most of which is within the southwest portion of the Plan Area. Farmland of Local Importance is located throughout the entire Plan Area, and totals approximately 1,562.82 acres. Vacant or Disturbed Land and Rural Residential Land account for approximately 1,650.17 acres within the growth area. See Figure 3 for an aerial view of the Plan Area. 3 SURROUNDING LAND USES
Surrounding land uses include State Route 99, the unincorporated communities of Herndon, Highway City, and Muscatel, and incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the north (including mostly industrial uses), incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the east (also including mostly industrial uses), unincorporated Fresno County and incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the south (including farmland uses, rural residential uses, low density residential uses, and underutilized parcels) and unincorporated Fresno County to the west (including farmland and rural residential uses).

EXISTING LAND USES AND ZONING
A portion of the Plan Area is located within the City of Fresno city limits, and a portion is within unincorporated Fresno County (but within the City’s SOI). The City of Fresno General Plan designates the Plan Area as: Low Density Residential, Medium Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Urban Neighborhood Residential, High Density Residential, Community Commercial, General Commercial, Recreation Commercial, Office, Business Park, Light Industrial, Corridor/Center Mixed Use, Regional Mixed Use, Community Park, Open Space – Ponding Basin, Neighborhood Park, Open Space, Public/Quasi-Public Facility, Special School, Elementary School, Elementary, Middle & High School, and High School. See Figure 4 for the existing City General Plan land use designations.

The City of Fresno Zoning Map provides zoning for those portions of the Plan Area located within the city limits, but not for areas within the unincorporated County. Zoning designations are generally consistent with the existing General Plan land uses. The City zoning designations for the Plan Area include: Residential Estate (RE), Residential Single-Family, Extremely Low Density (RS-1), Residential Single-Family, Very Low Density (RS-2), Residential Single-Family, Low Density (RS-3), Residential Single-Family, Medium Low Density (RS-4), Residential Single-Family, Medium Density (RS-5), Residential Multi-Family, Medium High Density (RM-1), Residential Multi-Family, Urban Neighborhood (RM-2), Residential Multi-Family, High Density (RM-3), Mobile Home Park (RM-MH), Commercial Community (CC), Commercial General (CG), Commercial Regional (CR), Commercial Recreation (CRC), Light Industrial (IL), Corridor/Center Mixed Use (CMX), Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMX), Regional Mixed Use (RMX), Business Park (BP), Office (O), Open Space (OS), and Park and Recreation (PR). See Figure 5 for the existing zoning designations.

The Fresno County Zoning Map designates the portions of the Plan Area outside the city limits as: Rural Commercial Center (RCC), Central Trading (C4), General Commercial (C6), Light Industrial (M1), Exclusive Agricultural (AE20), Limited Agricultural (AL20), Rural Residential (RR), Single Family Residential Agricultural (RA), Single Family Residential (12,500) (R1B), and Trailer Park Residential (TP). Upon a proposal to annex unincorporated land into the city limits, the City of Fresno would prezone the land to a zone that is consistent with the General Plan land use.

Once annexation occurs, the County zoning would not apply to the parcel. 4 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Guidelines Section 15124(b), a clear statement of objectives and the underlying purpose of the proposed project shall be discussed. 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.

Other objectives and purposes of the Specific Plan are summarized as follows:
 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 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.  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.  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.
 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 West Area.
 Encourage the development of harvest – producing community gardens.  Attract desired and needed local retail establishments to serve the needs of the West 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. 5  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.
 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.  Attract much needed educational opportunities for the residents of the West Area, especially for post-secondary education, and access to programs for life-long learners.  Provide for safe routes to schools for children, with the City and County working together with residents, to provide sidewalks in neighborhood that have sporadic access.
 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.

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS AND DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND
The proposed Specific Plan process officially started in September 2017 with the drafting of the existing conditions report. That document provides a detailed overview of the existing land uses within the Plan Area. Outreach to the West Area community started in early 2018 with individual meetings between City staff and community stakeholders, including residents, local agencies, institutional partners, elected officials, land owners, and developers. Public outreach included community stakeholder interviews, Steering Committee orientation sessions and meetings, community meetings and workshops, and an on-line survey.

The 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. Additionally, approximately 25 community stakeholders were interviewed from January 2018 to April 2018. Next, a kick-off survey regarding the Plan Area was released in April 2018. The survey covered topics such as quality of life, needed improvements, needed housing and commercial development, agritourism, and the overall future vision for the Plan Area. Two community conversations (i.e., workshops) were also held in order to receive feedback: Community Conversation No. 1 was held in May 2018, and Community Conversation No. 2 was held in June 2018. The Steering Committee then held meetings in June, July, August, November, and January 2018 in order to review and select the conceptual land use options. The draft land use map and guiding principles were released to the public on November 28, 2018. The draft land use map was then amended by the Steering Committee in January 2019. Lastly, an agri-tourism workshop was held in the spring of 2019.
6 INTRODUCTION
The proposed Specific Plan will establish the land use planning and regulatory guidance, including the land use and zoning designations and policies, for the approximately 7,077-acre Plan Area. The Specific Plan will serve as a bridge between the Fresno General Plan and individual development applications in the Plan Area.

The Specific Plan of the West Area seeks to provide for the orderly and consistent development that promotes and establishes the West Area as a complete neighborhood with enhanced transportation infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation of additional parkland, and encouraging the development of a diverse housing stock. The Plan Area does not currently have needed 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.

LAND USE MAP AND MAXIMUM BUILDOUT POTENTIAL
The proposed Specific Plan refines the General Plan’s land use vision for the West Area. The draft land use map proposes the relocation of higher density land uses away from the most western and southwestern portions of the Plan Area where they are distant from public transit and community amenities and transfers those higher density land use designations to major corridors. The Specific Plan of the West Area land use plan utilizes the City’s existing General Plan land use designations to maintain or re-designate some parcels in the West 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 (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 to30 UD/AC and 1.5 maximum FAR), Regional Mixed Use (30 to 45 UD/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. See Table 1 for a summary of the existing and proposed land uses within the city limits, growth area, and Plan Area. See Figure 6 for the proposed General Plan land use designations.

As previously indicated, 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. 7 TABLE 1: PARCEL ACREAGES BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR GENERAL PLAN AND PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE

DESIGNATIONS

CITY LIMITS GROWTH AREA PLAN AREA TOTAL

GENERAL PLAN
ACRES

SPECIFIC PLAN
ACRES

DIFFERENCE IN
CITY

GENERAL PLAN
ACRES

SPECIFIC PLAN
ACRES

DIFFERENCE IN

GROWTH AREA

GENERAL PLAN
ACRES

SPECIFIC PLAN
ACRES

OVERALL
CHANGE
Low 146.20 95.82
- 163.47
671.59 420.76
- 143.64
817.79 516.57
- 307.11
Medium Low 582.37 821.03 243.59 635.94 825.97 1,456.98
Medium 1,460.88 1,240.70 896.13 824.67 2,357.00 2,065.37 Medium High 261.09 224.31 88.33 51.24 349.42 275.55
Urban Neighborhood 214.65 96.53 213.96 75.11 428.61 171.64 High 28.00 51.33 37.76 0.00 65.76 51.33
Subtotal - Residential 2,693.19 2,529.72 2,151.36 2,007.72 4,844.55 4,537.44 Community 81.87 27.40
- 40.68

56.79 25.34
+ 36.56
138.66 52.74
- 4.11
Recreation 41.34 41.34 0.00 0.00 41.34 41.34
General 141.59 155.38 1.63 65.40 143.21 220.78
Regional 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.24 0.00 4.24
Subtotal - Commercial 264.80 224.12 58.42 94.98 323.21 319.10 Office 7.51 42.94
+ 32.91

0.00 45.87
+ 26.92

7.51 88.81
+ 59.84
Business Park 22.71 20.57 54.40 35.45 77.11 56.02
Light Industrial 33.13 32.75 0.00 0.00 33.13 32.75
Subtotal - Employment 63.35 96.26 54.40 81.32 117.75 177.59 Neighborhood 0.00 211.12
+ 114.60

0.00 44.83
+ 69.06

0.00 255.95
+ 183.66
Corridor/Center 106.19 71.78 0.00 24.23 106.19 96.00
Regional 144.72 82.61 0.00 0.00 144.72 82.61
Subtotal - Mixed Use 250.90 365.50 0.00 69.06 250.90 434.56 Pocket Park 2.45 1.55
+ 24.58

0.00 0.00
+ 14.49

2.45 1.55
+ 10.09
Neighborhood Park 36.67 39.22 47.04 47.04 83.71 86.26
Community Park 24.20 24.20 13.98 0.00 38.18 24.20
Regional Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Open Space 5.03 5.03 1.76 1.76 6.79 6.79
Ponding Basin 67.06 89.99 40.12 39.60 107.18 129.59
Subtotal - Open Space 135.41 159.99 102.90 88.41 238.31 248.40 Public Facility 4.98 12.64
+ 32.05

16.81 14.78
+ 25.59

21.78 27.42
+ 57.65
Church 9.93 21.20 1.66 34.60 11.59 55.80
Special School 4.50 4.50 13.88 13.88 18.38 18.38
Elem. School 56.18 66.17 25.65 25.65 81.82 91.82
Elem./Middle/High School 145.37 145.37 0.00 0.00 145.37 145.37 High School 46.95 46.95 0.00 0.00 46.95 46.95
Fire Station 0.20 3.32 5.32 0.00 5.52 3.32
Subtotal - Public Facilities 268.10 300.15 63.32 88.91 331.41 389.06 Grand Total 3,675.75 3,675.75 -- 2,430.39 2,430.39 -- 6,106.14 6,106.14 -- 8 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.

Table 2 summarizes the acreages of each land use, the maximum number of units, and the maximum non-residential square footage that would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan.

TABLE 2: MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
(AND DENSITY/INTENSITY)

SPECIFIC PLAN
ACRES

MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

DWELLING UNITS NON-RESIDENTIAL SF
Low (1-3.5 DU/AC) 516.57 1,807 --
Medium Low (3.5-6 DU/AC) 1,456.98 8,741 --
Medium (5-12 DU/AC) 2,065.37 24,784 --
Medium High (12-16 DU/AC) 275.55 4,408 --
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 DU/AC) 171.64 5,149 --
High (30-45 DU/AC) 51.33 2,309 --
Subtotal - Residential 4,537.44 47,199 --
Community (1.0 Max. FAR) 52.74 -- 2,297,354.40
Recreation (0.5 Max. FAR) 41.34 -- 900,385.20
General (2.0 Max. FAR) 220.78 -- 19,234,353.60
Regional (1.0 Max. FAR) 4.24 -- 184,694.40
Subtotal - Commercial 319.10 -- 22,616,787.60
Office (2.0 Max. FAR) 88.81 -- --
Business Park (1.0 Max. FAR) 56.02 -- --
Light Industrial (1.0 Max. FAR) 32.75 -- --
Subtotal - Employment 177.59 -- --
Neighborhood (12-16 DU/AC; 1.5 Max. FAR) 255.95 4,095 16,723,773.00 Corridor/Center (16-30 UD/AC; 1.5 Max. FAR) 96.00 2,880 6,272,640.00 Regional (30-45 UD/AC; 2.0 Max. FAR) 82.61 3,717 7,196,983.20 Subtotal - Mixed Use 434.56 10,692 30,193,396.20
Pocket Park 1.55 -- --
Neighborhood Park 86.26 -- --
Community Park 24.20 -- --
Regional Park 0.00 -- --
Open Space 6.79 -- --
Ponding Basin 129.59 -- --
Subtotal - Open Space 248.40 -- --
Public Facility 27.42 -- --
Church 55.80 -- --
Special School 18.38 -- --
Elem. School 91.82 -- --
Elem./Middle/High School 145.37 -- --
High School 46.95 -- --
Fire Station 3.32 -- --
Subtotal - Public Facilities 389.06 -- --
Grand Total 6,106.14 57,891 DU 52,810,183.80 SF
As shown in the table, the Specific Plan would allow for the future development of up to 57,891 DU (including 47,199 DU in the residential category and 10,692 DU in the mixed use category) and 52,810,183.80 SF of non-residential uses. The proposed land use plan also designates public facility uses that are currently existing within the Plan Area, including schools and churches. In the northern portion of the Plan Area, Fire Station No. 18 is located off of West Bullard Avenue at 5938 North La Ventana Avenue. Fire Station 18 will be relocated to a permanent location on 9 the south side of the 6000 block of West Shaw Avenue to maximize the department’s “4 Minutes to Excellence” response time goal. Additionally, the proposed land use plan would 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.

The Specific Plan is designed to provide flexibility, so there is an extensive number of hypothetical variations/combinations for residential and non-residential development.

However, the data within the above table represents the maximum density allowed without an amendment approved by the City. In effect, this is very likely an overestimate of what will actually be developed, but for purposes of environmental analysis in the EIR it represents the worst-case scenario.

It is noted that the proposed Specific Plan would amend the land uses for approximately half of the land within the Plan Area. The remaining parcels would maintain their existing land use and zoning designations. The parcels that are proposed for change by the proposed land use map are shown in Figure 7.

REVISIONS TO CORE GOALS
In addition to the proposed land use plan, the following are revisions to the core goals provided in the General Plan for the West Area:

1. West Shaw Avenue Town Center: The West Shaw Avenue Town Center (the Town Center) will extend from State Route 99 to the east side of Grantland Avenue and is envisioned to be comprised of mixed-use development supported by enhanced transit service. Land on the south side of West Shaw Avenue will provide additional neighborhood and commercial mixed-use opportunities.

2. Catalytic Corridors: The proposed Specific Plan designates higher density land uses along corridors for the purpose of providing easy access to major arterials and streets, retail centers, and community amenities. Catalytic corridors will include transit services. The corridors are designed to include neighborhood and pocket parks, commercial and retail uses, educational facilities, multi-family dwelling units, and professional offices. The corridors are located on the following streets:
a) West Shaw Avenue, from State Route 99 to the east side of Grantland Avenue; b) West Ashlan Avenue, from State Route 99 to the commercial nodes located on the west side of Grantland Avenue;
c) North Blythe Avenue, from West Shields to West Ashlan Avenue; d) West Clinton Avenue from State Route 99 to North Brawley Avenue; and e) Veterans Boulevard, from West Gettysburg Avenue to West Barstow Avenue.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that an 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 10 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)).

ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
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 exact alternatives that will be evaluated in the Draft EIR will be determined through the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Scoping Process. Through preliminary discussions, there are three alternatives to the proposed Specific Plan that are being contemplated for evaluation in the Draft EIR. The alternatives being considered include the following:
11  No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative: Under this alternative, the Plan Area would remain in its current General Plan land use and zoning designations. Future development allowed under the existing General Plan land use map would be permitted in the Plan Area.
 Regional Park Alternative: Under this 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 40 acres in size.
 Lower Density Alternative: Under this 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.

It is noted that the final alternatives selected for analysis in the Draft EIR will be based on the public scoping process, including input received through public comment.

PLAN ADOPTION AND REGULATION
The Specific Plan may include certain development regulations and standards that are intended to be specific to the Specific Plan Area. Where there is a matter or issue not specifically covered by the Specific Plan development regulations and design standards, the Fresno Zoning Code would apply. Where there is a conflict between the Specific Plan and the Zoning Code, the Specific Plan would prevail.

The Specific Plan is intended to be adopted by the City Council and to serve as a tool for the City of Fresno to implement. The Specific Plan is to be used by designers, developers, builders, and planners, to guide development of the Plan Area. The land use, development standards, and design guidelines are provided to ensure that all proposed developments remain consistent with the vision established by the Specific Plan as the Project is built over time. The Specific Plan development concepts, design guidelines, and standards are in accordance with the City’s General Plan, Municipal Ordinances, and City Specifications. The Specific Plan shall be used to review, process, and approve development proposals for the Project site including but not limited to site specific development applications and site improvement plans.

TYPE OF EIR
The CEQA Guidelines identify several types of EIRs, each applicable to different project circumstances. This EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. The program-level analysis considers the broad environmental effects of the proposed project as a whole.

It is noted that the Specific Plan provides a very broad level of planning detail. To the extent that sufficient detail is available in the Specific Plan, a more detailed level of analysis is provided in this EIR. Examples of a more detailed level of analysis would include topics that are related to the physical acreage affected (i.e. the project footprint), maximum number of units (or FAR), land uses/zoning, or other design parameters. In many cases, there will be site specific uses that 12 will have design details developed at a later date. These details are unknown at this time and cannot reasonably be analyzed at a project-level at this time.

This EIR examines the planning, construction and operation of the project. The program-level approach, with limited project-level analysis, is appropriate for the proposed project because it allows comprehensive consideration of the reasonably anticipated scope of the development plan; however, as discussed above, not all design aspects of the future development phases are known at this stage in the planning process. Subsequent individual development that requires further discretionary approvals will be examined in light of this EIR to determine whether additional environmental documentation must be prepared.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 states that a program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either:

1. Geographically,

2. As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions,

3. In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or

4. As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.

According to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, subdivision (c)(5), “[a] program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible.” Later environmental documents (EIRs, mitigated negative declarations, or negative declarations) can incorporate by reference materials from the program EIR regarding regional influences, secondary impacts, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[d][2]). These later documents need only focus on new impacts that have not been considered before (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[d][3]).

Section 15168(c), entitled “Use with Later Activities,” provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared:

1. If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration.

2. If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.

3. An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into subsequent actions in the program. 13 4. Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the program EIR.

Here, the City anticipates preparing an initial study whenever landowners within the Plan Area submit applications for site-specific approvals (i.e. tentative maps, conditional use permits, or other discretionary entitlements). The initial study would serve in part as a consistency checklist to determine if the application for site specific approval is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan, Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures, and it would also include a review of the project details relative to what was anticipated and analyzed in the program EIR (i.e. are there new environmental effects that were not covered by the program EIR). The City’s expectation, at least at present, is that the initial study will conclude that most components of the Specific Plan can be developed with no new analysis of environmental effects given that there has been analysis in this program EIR. In some cases, however, a site-specific application (i.e. commercial use) may have specific issues associated with the project, or business, that this program EIR could not anticipate given the information that was available at this time. In those situations, the detailed site-specific information from that application could have site-specific effects not wholly anticipated in this EIR and would require some additional environmental review. (See also CEQA Guidelines section 15063, subd. (b)(1)(C).) Future site-specific approvals may also be narrowed pursuant to the rules for tiering set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152. “‘[T]iering is a process by which agencies can adopt programs, plans, policies, or ordinances with EIRs focusing on ‘the big picture,’ and can then use streamlined CEQA review for individual projects that are consistent with such…[first tier decisions] and are…consistent with local agencies’ governing general plans and zoning.’” (Koster v. County of San Joaquin (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 29, 36.) Section 15152 provides that, where a first-tier EIR has “adequately addressed” the subject of cumulative impacts, such impacts need not be revisited in second- and third-tier documents. Furthermore, second- and third-tier documents may limit the examination of impacts to those that “were not examined as significant effects” in the prior EIR or “[a]re susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means.” In general, significant environmental effects have been “adequately addressed” if the lead agency determines that:

1. they have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior environmental impact report and findings adopted in connection with that prior environmental impact report; or

2. they have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior environmental impact report to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project.

Here, as noted above, the City anticipates preparing Initial Study whenever landowners within the Plan Area submit applications for site-specific approvals (i.e. tentative maps, conditional use 14 permits, or other discretionary entitlements). The checklist would serve in part as a consistency checklist to determine if the application for site specific approval is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan, Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures, and it would also include a review of the project details relative to what was anticipated and analyzed in the program EIR (i.e. have all significant environmental impacts identified been “adequately addressed” in the program EIR). Thus, if a new analysis is required for these site-specific actions, it would focus on impacts that cannot be “avoided or mitigated” by mitigation measures that either (i) were adopted in connection with the Specific Plan or (ii) were formulated based on information in this EIR.

In addition, because the EIR addresses the effects of rezoning the land within the proposed Plan Area, future environmental review can also be streamlined pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. These provisions, which are similar but not identical to the tiering provisions, generally limit the scope of necessary environmental review for site-specific approvals following the preparation of an EIR for a “zoning action.” For such sitespecific approvals, CEQA generally applies only to impacts that are “peculiar to the parcel or to the project” and have not been previously disclosed, except where “substantial new information” shows that previously identified impacts would be more significant than previously assumed. Notably, impacts are considered not to be “peculiar to the parcel or to the project” if they can be substantially mitigated pursuant to previously adopted, uniformly applied development policies or standards. As noted above, the City anticipates that, in assessing the extent to which the Specific Plan EIR has previously addressed significant impacts that might occur with individual projects, the City may conclude that in some instances (e.g., with respect to agricultural resources, cultural resources, geology, soils, and paleontological resources), no further analysis beyond that found in the program EIR will be necessary.

Finally, for purely residential projects consistent with the Specific Plan, the City intends to preserve its ability to treat such projects as exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code section 65457. Subdivision (a) of that statute provides that “[a]ny residential development project, including any subdivision, or any zoning change that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an [EIR] has been certified after January 1, 1980, is exempt from the requirements of [CEQA].” The statutes go on to say, moreover, that “if after adoption of the specific plan, an event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code occurs, the exemption provided by this subdivision does not apply unless and until a supplemental [EIR] for the specific plan is prepared and certified in accordance with the provisions of [CEQA]. After a supplemental [EIR] is certified, the exemption … applies to projects undertaken pursuant to the specific plan.” (See also CEQA Guidelines section 15182.) When purely residential projects are proposed, the City will consider whether they qualify for this exemption or whether the Specific Plan EIR must be updated through a supplement to this EIR or a subsequent EIR as required by Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163.
15 PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
The City of Fresno will be the Lead Agency for the proposed project, pursuant to the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, Section 15050. Actions that would be required from the City include, but are not limited to the following:
 Certification of the EIR and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP);
 Approval of the Specific Plan of the West Area;
 Approval of the General Plan amendment modifying land uses.  Approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendment modifying zoning.

The EIR analyzes the impacts of the Specific Plan and the anticipated subsequent filing of maps and other development applications in the future. Therefore, the EIR analyzes the maximum impacts of the Specific Plan, including these applications yet unfiled, so that future filings will not require separate environmental analysis, as long as development proposed does not substantially deviate from the approved Specific Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The review and certification process for the EIR will involve the following general procedural steps:

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The City must circulate a NOP of an EIR for the proposed project to responsible and trustee agencies, the State Clearinghouse, and the public. A public scoping meeting must be held during the public review period to present the project description to the public and interested agencies, and to receive comments from the public and interested agencies regarding the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the Draft EIR. Concerns raised in response to the NOP will be considered during preparation of the Draft EIR. The NOP and responses to the NOP by interested parties will be presented in an appendix to the EIR.

DRAFT EIR
The Draft EIR will contain a description of the project, description of the environmental setting, identification of project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. The Draft EIR will identify issues determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact, and provides detailed analysis of potentially significant and significant impacts. Comments received in response to the NOP will be considered in preparing the analysis in the EIR. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City will file the Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Clearinghouse of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to begin the 45-day public review period. 16 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR
Following the public review period, a Final EIR will be prepared. The Final EIR will respond to significant environmental issues raised either in written comments received during the public review period or in oral comments received at a public hearing during such review period.

CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR/PROJECT CONSIDERATION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 requires lead agencies to certify the final EIR prior to approving a project. The lead agency decision making body shall certify that (i) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (ii) that the Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body, which reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project; and (iii) that the Final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.

For the proposed project, the City Council City shall be the City’s ultimate decision-making body.

The Council will therefore review and consider the Final EIR and make a determination regarding whether the document is "adequate and complete." In general, a Final EIR meets this standard if:

1. The EIR shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information; and

2. The EIR provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the proposed project in contemplation of environmental considerations.

The level of detail contained throughout the EIR is intended to be consistent with Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines and recent court decisions, which provide the standard of adequacy on which the document is based. The Guidelines state as follows:
“An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of the environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.” Following review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City may take action to approve, modify, or reject the project. As part of project approval, the City also is also required to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as described below, prepared in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program must include all of the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into or imposed upon the project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment, and would be designed to ensure that these measures are actually carried out during project implementation.
17 USES OF THE EIR AND REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS
The City of Fresno will be the Lead Agency for the proposed project, pursuant to the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, Section 15050. Other agencies may be required to issue permits or approve certain aspects of the proposed project.

Actions that would be required from the City include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Certification of the EIR;
 Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;  Approval of City of Fresno General Plan Amendments;
 Approval of City of Fresno rezoning;
 Approval of Specific Plan;
 Approval of Development Agreement;
 Approval of future tentative and final maps;
 Approval of future improvement plans;
 Approval of future grading plans;
 Approval of future building permits;
 Approval of future site plan and design review;
 City review and approval of future project utility plans.

The other governmental agencies that may require approvals in connection with the project include, but are not limited to, the following:
 California Department of Fish and Wildlife;
 California Department of Transportation;
 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board - Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan approval prior to construction activities pursuant to the Clean Water Act;  San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District - Approval of construction-related air quality permits;
 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District - Authority to Construct, Permit to Operate for stationary sources of air pollution;
 State Water Resources Control Board.

AREAS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
An Initial Study has not been prepared for this project. All environmental topics identified in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines will be analyzed in the EIR, including: Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forest Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities, Wildfire, Cumulative Impacts, and Growth Inducing Impacts.
18 Date: June 28, 2019
Signature:

Name/Title: Rodney L. Horton, MPA, Project Planner
Phone/Email: 559-621-8181/[email protected]

F R E S N O C O U N T Y F R E S N O C O U N T Y

K I N G S C O U N T Y K I N G S C O U N T Y

M A D E R A C O U N T Y M A D E R A C O U N T Y

T U L A R E T U L A R E

C O U N T Y C O U N T Y
Chowchilla
Chowchilla
Madera
San
Joaquin
Sanger
Reedley
Selma
Kerman
Kingsburg
Fowler
Parlier
Fresno
Fresno
Clovis
Clovis
UV180
UV145
UV41
UV41
UV269
UV168
UV233
UV152
UV41
UV168
UV99
UV180
UV43
UV99
UV145
UV145
UV180

WILLO W CR

CHOWCHILLA R

S AN J O AQUINR

KINGS R

SAN JOAQUIN R

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
Figure 1. Regional Location Map
Legend
Specific Plan of the West Area
City Area
County Boundary
Sources: CalAtlas; Madera County; Fresno County. Map date: May 8, 2019. 0 2½ 5
Miles
q
Barstow
Biola
Junction
Borden
Bowles
Calwa
Cameo
Cecile
Cincotta
Easton
Figarden
Glorietta
Goldleaf
Gordon
Gregg
Hammond
Herndon
Highway
City
Irrigosa
Las Palmas
Malaga
Mattei
Melvin
Muscatel
Oleander
Pinedale
Pratton
Raco
Raisin City
Ripperdan
Rolinda
Sierra
Sky Park
Biola
Sunnyside
Tarpey
Trigo
West Park
Banadelle Ranchos Bonadelle
Ranchos
Nine
Madera
Ranchos
Rolling
Hills
San Joaquin
River Estates
Sumner
Hill
Parksdale
Floyd
Parkwood
Kerman
Fowler
Fresno
Fresno
Clovis
UV41
UV99
UV99
UV168
UV180
UV41
UV99
UV180
E North Ave
E American Ave
Fowler Ave
W Shaw Ave
N West Ave
S Cornelia Ave
N Palm Ave
Madera Ave
S West Ave
N Cedar Ave
E Bullard Ave
S Fowler Ave
S Cedar Ave
W Belmont Ave
W Bullard Ave
E Central Ave
W Mckinley Ave
N Blackstone Ave
W Shields Ave
S Chestnut Ave
S Peach Ave
N Marks Ave
N FirstSt
W North Ave
E Shields Ave
E Jensen Ave
W Ashlan Ave
S Clovis Ave
E Shepherd Ave
S Elm Ave
S Goldenrod Ave
E Nees Ave
W Jensen Ave
W California Ave
N Grantland Ave
Auberry
Rd
S Jameson Ave
W American Ave
Madera

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
Figure 2. Vicinity Map q 0 1 2
Miles
Legend
Specific Plan of the West Area Boundary
County Boundary
City Areas
Clovis
Fowler
Fresno
Kerman
Madera
San Joa q uin River

M A D E R A C O U N T Y M A D E R A C O U N T Y

F R E S N O C O U N T Y F R E S N O C O U N T Y
Sources: Fresno County; Madera County, Cal Atlas. Map date: May 7, 2019. !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
27 13
1 6 28
29 14
2 7 15
30 16
17 18
31 8
19 9
20 3
21 22
26 12
23 4 5
11 24
25 10
W Shaw Ave
N Blythe Ave
W Bullard Ave
W Mckinley Ave
W Shields Ave
N Figarden Dr
N Marks Ave
N Polk Ave
N Weber Ave
W Figarden Dr
W Ashlan Ave
N Bryan Ave
N Brawley Ave
N Golden State Blvd
N Milburn Ave
N Grantland Ave
N Hayes Ave
N Santa Fe Ave

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
Figure 3. Aerial View of Project Site
Legend
Specific Plan of the West Area Boundary
Area Features
!( Fire Station
!( Golf Course
!( Park
!( Post Office
!( School
!( Shopping
!( Special Point of Interest
Sources: Fresno County; Madera County, Cal Atlas. Map date: May 8, 2019. 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
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
Fire Stations
Special Point of Interest
Shopping
Schools
Post Office
Parks
Golf Courses
q 0 ¼ ½
Miles
UV99
San Joaquin River
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

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 4. Existing General
Plan Land Use Designations

BOUNDARIES
W Shaw Ave
N Blythe Ave
W Ashlan Ave
W Bullard Ave
W Shields Ave
N Figarden Dr
N Marks Ave
N Polk Ave
N Weber Ave
W
F
i
g
a
r
d
e
n
Dr
N Bryan Ave
N Brawley Ave
N Golden State Blvd
N Milburn Ave
N Grantland Ave
N Hayes Ave
N Santa Fe Ave

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
Figure 5. Existing Zoning Designations
UV99
San
Joa
quin
River

CITY OF FRESNO ZONING DESIGNATIONS
CC:Commercial Community
CG:Commercial General
CH:Commercial Highway and Auto
CR:Commercial Regional
CRC:Commercial Recreation
IL:Light Industrial
CMX:Corridor/Center Mixed Use
NMX:Neighborhood Mixed Use
RMX:Regional Mixed Use
BP:Business Park
O:Office
PI:Public and Institutional
OS:Open Space
PR:Park and Recreation
RE:Residential Estate
RS-1:Residential Single-Family, Extremely Low Density
RS-2:Residential Single-Family, Very Low Density
RS-3:Residential Single-Family, Low Density
RS-4:Residential Single-Family, Medium Low Density
RS-5:Residential Single-Family, Medium Density
RM-1:Residential Multi-Family, Medium High Density
RM-2:Residential Multi-Family, Urban Neighborhood
RM-3:Residential Multi-Family, High Density
RM-MH:Mobile Home Park

FRESNO COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATIONS
County Overlay
RCC - Rural Commercial Center
C4 - Central Trading
C6 - General Commercial
M1 - Light Manufacturing
CP - Administrative/Professional Office
AE20 - Exclusive Agriculture
AL20 - Limited Agriculture
RA - Single Family Residential Agricultural
RR - Rural Residential
R1E/R1EH - Single Family Residential Estates (37,500)
R1A/R1AH - Single Family Residential (20,000)
R1B - Single Family Residential (12,500)
R1C - Single Family Residential (9,000)
R1 - Single Family Residential (6,000)
TP - Trailer Park Residential

BOUNDARIES
Specific Plan of the West Area Boundary
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
q
0¼½
Miles
Sources: Fresno County; City of Fresno. Map date: May 8, 2019.

UV99
·|}þ
Brawley
·|}þ
Shields
Grantland
Hayes
Marks
Cornelia
Ashlan
Shaw
Bullard
Herndon
Dakota
Clinton
Gettysburg
Barstow
Sierra
Bryan
Hughes
Polk
Valentine
Blythe
Clinton
Garfield
99 BP
C E
C
G
C
C
G
C
G
G
NMX
G
G
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
NP
P
OS
CP
NP
NP NP
NP
NP
NP
P
CH
E E
E
E
E
E/M/H
H
SS
SS
CH
G
FS
NMX NP

NMX NMX
CMX
NP
CH
C
BP
C
G
C-R
CMX
PB
CH
FS
G
G
G
R
CH
P
PB
PB

VALENTINE AVE

EMERSON AVE

DANTE AVE

BULLARD AVE

GATES AVE

VAN NESS BLVD

M ARKS A
VE

POLK AVE

DAKOTA AVE

HUGHES AVE

RIVER VISTA DR

ALLUVIAL AVE

ASHLAN AVE

SHAW AVE

E MERSON AVE

FIGARDEN
DR
HA

YE S AVE
BRA
WLEY
A
VE

MILBURN AVE

SPRUCE AVE

SIERRA AVE BRA
WLEY
A
VE

MCKINLEY AVE

SHIELDS AVE

BULLARD AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD
M

ART Y AVE
99 HWY

HERNDON AVE

BARSTOW AVE

SANTA FE AVE

WEBER AVE

SAN JOSE AVE

R I VERSIDE DR
99 Source: City of Fresno

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)
Figure 6. Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations
´ Date: 6/28/2019
This map is believed to be an accurate representation
of the City of Fresno GIS data. However, we make
no warranties either expressed or implied for the
correctness of this data.
0 0.25 0.5
Miles

COMMERCIAL
Community
Recreation
General
Regional

BOUNDARIES
Fresno City Limts
Specific Plan of the West Area
Sphere Of Influence

EMPLOYMENT
Office
Business Park
Light Industrial
BP

MIXED USE
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Corridor/Center Mixed Use
Regional Mixed Use
NMX
CMX
RMX

OPEN SPACE
Community Park
Pocket Park
Neighborhood Park
Open Space
Park
Ponding Basin
CP
NP
P
PB

PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public/Quasi-public Facility
Special School
Elementary School
Elementary & Middle School
Elementary, Middle & High School
High School
Church
Fire Station
SS
E
E&M
E/M/H
H
CH
FS
Steering
Committee
Recommended
SOI Expansion
·|}þ
Brawley
·|}þ
Shields
Grantland
Hayes
Marks
Cornelia
Ashlan
Shaw
Bullard
Herndon
Dakota
Clinton
Gettysburg
Barstow
Sierra
Bryan
Hughes
Polk
Valentine
Blythe
Clinton
Garfield
99 VALENTINE AVE

EMERSON AVE

DANTE AVE

BULLARD AVE

GATES AVE

VAN NESS BLVD

M ARKS A
VE

POLK AVE

DAKOTA AVE

HUGHES AVE

RIVER VISTA DR

ALLUVIAL AVE

ASHLAN AVE

SHAW AVE

E MERSON AVE

FIGARDEN
DR
HA

YE S AVE
BRA
WLEY
A
VE

MILBURN AVE

SPRUCE AVE

SIERRA AVE BRA
WLEY
A
VE

MCKINLEY AVE

SHIELDS AVE

BULLARD AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD
M

ART Y AVE
99 HWY

HERNDON AVE

BARSTOW AVE

SANTA FE AVE

WEBER AVE

SAN JOSE AVE

R I VERSIDE DR
G
NMX
G
CH
FS
CMX
G
NMX
P
CH
NMX
CMX
CH
G
G
NMX
NMX
NMX
NMX
NMX
G
E
PB
NP
CH
CH
NMX
CH
NMX
CMX
NMX
CMX
FS
G
C
NMX
G
G
G
R
NMX
G
PB
PB
G
C
CMX
CP
NMX
NMX
99 Source: City of Fresno Figure 7. Parcels Proposed for Change in Proposed Land Use Map ´ Date: 6/28/2019
This map is believed to be an accurate representation
of the City of Fresno GIS data. However, we make
no warranties either expressed or implied for the
correctness of this data.
0 0.225 0.45
Miles

COMMERCIAL
Community
General
Regional

BOUNDARIES
Specific Plan of the West Area
Fresno City Limts
Sphere Of Influence

OPEN SPACE
Community Park
Neighborhood Park
Park
Ponding Basin
CP
NP
P
PB

MIXED USE
Neighborhood Mixed Use
CMX Corridor/Center Mixed Use
CMX

EMPLOYMENT
Office
BP Business Park

PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public/Quasi-public Facility
Elementary School
Church
Fire Station
E
CH
FS
Steering
Committee
Recommended
SOI Expansion
1 Elise Carroll
From: Steve McMurtry <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 4:22 PM
To: 'Elise Carroll'; 'Josh Smith'
Subject: FW: Notice of Preparation for the Specific Plan of the West Area Attachments: image001.png
NOP comments
Steve McMurtry | Principal
De Novo Planning Group | www.denovoplanning.com
[email protected] | 916.580.9818
Northern California | 1020 Suncast Lane #106 | El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 Southern California | 180 East Main Street # 108 | Tustin, CA 92780 From: Rodney Horton <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 11:48 AM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Notice of Preparation for the Specific Plan of the West Area Please see the comments below.

Rodney
From: April Henry [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2019 9:57 AM
To: Rodney Horton
Subject: Re: Notice of Preparation for the Specific Plan of the West Area Rodney,
As I am becoming intimately involved with DRIVE for a 10 year plan, and am sitting specifically on the core team of "Civic Infrastructure for Low Opportunity Neighborhoods", as a community leader and community member, I am really concerned that this plan is riddled with a lack of true community input.

It became so academically wordy that only those on the committee who seem to have personal agendas for what they wanted to see done, it lost what really needs to be done in forgotten Fresno, and makes huge assumptions based on land use (that plan also was not the voice of the community) and assumes large chunks of land owners will want to change their zoning/use
I don't know how to change that but it can cause initiative changes that really dont accomplish the overall wish of the neighborhoods and then work against this 20 year plan.

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 4:50 PM Rodney Horton <[email protected]> wrote:

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. 2 Dear Friends of the West Area and Interested Parties, I am pleased to provide you with an electronic copy of the Notice of Preparation for the Specific Plan of the West Area. This is to notify public agencies and the general public that the City of Fresno, as the Lead Agency, will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Specific Plan of the West Area. The City of Fresno is interested in the input and/or comments of public agencies and the general public as to the scope and content of the environmental information that is germane to the agencies’ statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project, and public input.

Responsible/trustee agencies will need to use the EIR prepared by the City of Fresno when considering applicable permits, or other approvals for the proposed project. Consistent with the time limits prescribed by California State law, your input, comments or responses must be received in writing and sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 5:00 p.m., August 2, 2019. Please send your comments/input (including the name for a contact person in your agency) to me. You may use the following methods:

Mail:

City of Fresno – DARM
Attn: Rodney Horton
2600 Fresno Street, Suite 3065
Fresno, CA 93721-3604
Electronic mail:
[email protected]
Also, on July 24, 2019, the City of Fresno will conduct a public scoping meeting to solicit input and comments from public agencies and the general public on the proposed project and scope of the EIR.

This meeting will be held at the Glacier Point Middle School, Cafeteria, located at 4055 N. Bryan Avenue, Fresno, CA 93722, from 6:00 PM to 7:30 PM. This meeting will be an open house format and interested parties may drop in to review the proposed project exhibits and submit written comments at any time between 6:00 PM and 7:30 PM. Representatives from the City of Fresno and the EIR consultant will be available to address questions regarding the EIR process and scope. Members of the public may provide written comments throughout the meeting. 3 If you have any questions regarding the scoping meeting, contact me at (559) 621-8181 or [email protected].

Thank you,
Rodney L. Horton, MPA
Planner III
Development and Resource Management Department
[email protected]
559.621.8181
Disclaimer:

This email is for informational purposes, and is not intended to spark a dialogue between Steering Committee members with or without the public, which may infringe on the Brown Act. These matters may be discussed at future public Steering Committee meetings or with City staff.

Please be advised, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Brown Act, all forms of community feedback and public input that is provided to the City of Fresno will be made available to the general public.

1 Elise Carroll
From: Steve McMurtry <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 3:15 PM
To: 'Elise Carroll'
Subject: FW: Concerned citizen of Herndon Acres
Steve McMurtry | Principal
De Novo Planning Group | www.denovoplanning.com [email protected] | 916.580.9818 Northern California | 1020 Suncast Lane #106 | El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 Southern California | 180 East Main Street # 108 | Tustin, CA 92780
-----Original Message-----
From: Rodney Horton <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2019 9:02 AM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Concerned citizen of Herndon Acres
-----Original Message-----
From: Lydia [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2019 9:01 AM
To: Rodney Horton
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Concerned citizen of Herndon Acres
Good morning Mr. Horton,
I hope your having a great day. My husband and I moved to this quiet neighborhood we call “Herndon Acres” 18 years ago because it was so peaceful here. We were hoping we would continue to be the Forgotten neighborhood as said by the Fresno Sheriffs Department called us but when things started to change and houses were being built we were in fact “The Forgotten neighborhood” now named “Forgotten FRESNO”. No fault of ours, just left out of the loop of everything being built around us. It’s truly disgusting the traffic issues are out here. I cringed every school day just waiting for something horrific to happen. Praying it doesn’t.

I would especially talk about all the traffic at the 76 station and the 18 wheelers that take Grantland as an alternate route. It’s getting worse by the day. This traffic and blocking the streets is a constant each and every day. I’m sickened by it. We are. Asking as a safety measure that you and your constituents an remedy this problem. Please help us instead of allowing people to disregard us. We are all very proud tax paying citizens and would love to see our stress flow like they are supposed to. Thank you.

Carl & Lydia Franklin
7061 W. Tenaya Avenue
Fresno, CA 93723
559-907-1136
August 1, 2019
TO: Rodney Horton
City of Fresno
FROM: Cathy Caples
7232 W Dovewood Lane
Fresno CA 93723
(559) 304 2687
[email protected]
RE: West Area Specific Plan EIR Scope
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment during this phase of the West Area Specific Planning Process. It has been an interesting and eye-opening experience to serve on the West Area Steering Committee representing Council District 2 which is the area north of Shaw and West of 99 and so as you read my comments think more specifically about this area within the planning area as it is the area I am most familiar with.

Aesthetics:
• One of the concerns of this area is the view of travelers coming through Fresno on Hwy 99. We get a bad rap as a city because people view the entire community from this perspective and it’s really ugly. This area also has the first exits off of Hwy 99 into Fresno County. There has been discussion about creation of a Welcome Center in this area that could welcome travelers highlighting local business & agricultural economy to increase tourism including visitor’s information for wineries, agricultural products like raisins, stone fruit, nuts, restaurants and attractions. Although Herndon is the first exit and someday may have an Aquarium at the River, with the right type of Urban Corridor at Shaw or Bullard exits, the Welcome Center may offer more benefits to Fresno County with a better traffic flow from Hwy 99 to the West. • Because this area was agricultural and Rural Residential (RR) and many of the orchards have been eliminated, this area has no aesthetics and is in great need of landscape and trees. Tree Fresno has been working on a plan for south of Shaw but the area to the north is not included in that planning process. The RR properties along Shaw are real eyesores with collections of junk, or in one case the property has become a truck stop with sometimes 18 semi trucks parked on the property which could become hazardous if there is every a fuel leak. • We value our agricultural roots, there has been discussion of art and planting to reflect that history. Italian farmers mostly settled in this area and to the west of 99 we have Forestiere Underground Gardens, a significant historical feature and tourist attraction for Fresno. The Highway City village just west of 99 exit is in need of beautification and/or redevelopment to enhance the entrance to Fresno for tourists.

Agricultural Resources:
• Within the area most of the agricultural that remains is new orchards that were planted during the Recession to give a developer a tax break until it was time to tear them out and build. There is a treasured farm stand with strawberries and garden vegetables on the NE corner of Grantland and Shaw. It is hoped that we can improve the aesthetics of the Farm Stand and it will remain under the NMX land use designation as a feature of the transition from urban corridor along Shaw to transition to agriculture
Air Quality:
• We have air pollution from Highway 99, trains to the east and agriculture to the west. And lots of dust from construction.

Biological Resources:
• We are on the edge of the country and still have animals living in our midst. One of our neighbors who is a bird watcher has sighted 28 different kinds of birds with a large flock Canadian Geese that live year round in the ponding basin on Herndon. That basin also has a multi-generational troop of fox. Lots of lizards, an occasional snake, bobcat and coyote. • Not sure if there is something to consider environmentally in the torn down orchard (North of Shaw, Parkway to Grantland) that has left the trees to rot since at least 2008. • The San Joaquin River is on the northern point of this area with a planned Aquarium by a nonprofit in the fundraising stage. There is not much of the land in the City of Fresno but it would be nice if the land surrounding the Aquarium could be preserved as trail or park. One landowner owns much of the Bluff property and has a horse stable and event area at the Western part of his land.

Cultural and Tribal Resources:
• There is a large Sikh population in the WASP area as it is also home to the Sikh Institute of Fresno. Our Sikh neighbors, especially the gentleman, spend a lot of time in the pocket parks and walking in the neighborhood. It would be great if there were enough benches or gathering spots with chairs for them to sit upon.

Geology, soils and seismicity:
• Hardpan often taking at least 3-5 feet to break through for proper planting and drainage. • There is an existing canal that runs along Barstow and cuts down to almost Shaw between Grantland. It is currently used as a dusty dirt trail by residents. We are hopeful that this will become a permanent landscaped trail along the canal that will connect with the planned trail system for Veterans Blvd and the proposed park.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy: Many of the new homes have solar. As development happens, it is hoped that future technology would be taken into consideration with charging stations for cars.

Including underground parking in the urban corridors to eliminate the need for so much hot tar to pave parking lots.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• There is a property on northside of Shaw near Bryan that has become a truck stop with sometimes 18 semi-trucks parked on the property which could become hazardous if there is every a fuel leak.

Hydrology and Water Quality
• Much concern has been expressed by the longtime RR residents about the amount of water being used for new construction and how that will impact their wells.

Land Use and Planning
• City of Fresno has a huge deficit in the inventory of affordable housing. A concern of residents has been that the first time home buyer homes are causing a more transient population in the schools in the area as people move away to areas with larger homes as families grow. • There is also concern that affordable housing not be concentrated in any one particular area of the planning area but spread equitably throughout.
• As the Urban Corridor is developed along Shaw Avenue it is hoped that we will consider this more an urban center like Santana Row in San Jose or Whittier Blvd near the college without Big Box Stores like WalMart, Costco, Ikea with big tar parking lots. It is desired that it be a more eco friendly shopping environment with underground parking, local businesses, restaurants, maybe a local theater, museum or art galleries featuring local artists with a architectural feel of the tribute to agriculture we desire. In the NW area we already have El Paseo with a growing variety of chain stores and larger retailers. We would like to be able to walk to and through this village with patios facing the trail and green space.

Noise
• In addition to trains and cars, for some atmospheric reason we hear the gunfire from the Sheriff’s Gun Range on the E side of 99 and the first day of dove season each year it’s like a war zone.

Population and Housing
• There is a large Sikh population in the WASP area as it is also home to the Sikh Institute of Fresno. Our Sikh neighbors, especially the gentleman, spend a lot of time in the pocket parks and walking in the neighborhood. It would be great if there were enough benches or gathering spots with chairs for them to sit upon.
• There is an aging population in our area with no senior services, extremely limited public transportation and medical care
• This area also has a very young population with limited day care and enrichment services. • Although our income is higher than the rest of Fresno, our education levels are lower with less people with post high school education than the rest of Fresno and we are the further from any higher education opportunities. For the seniors, it would be great to connect the Mosher Learning at CSUF to our area along the Urban Corridor which will have public transportation. We discussed having an educational center along Grantland south of Shaw close the new High School to allow students an opportunity for enrichment as well, perhaps a satellite Community College Campus.

Public Services and Recreation
• The park choices: there are 3 sites to be studied as a regional park for this area. I would recommend that the scoping consultants study the Park Master Plan adopted by the City of Fresno and take into consideration that information in studying the area and these sites. I would like to call attention to the large aging population in addition to the younger population needs to be considered.
o Park by the River – which will cause traffic congestion in the area with not enough space for parking etc and close to regional park on the general plan on the east side of 99 at the River. It is remote and has no planned access to public transportation. o Park in the SW corner of the area, which is close to the largest park already in the study area and close to Roeding and Kearny regional parks as well as the Sports complex in the Southwest Area Specific Plan. It is also away from the majority of the population and not easily accessible by most.
o Park currently show adjacent to Parkway on the map. This park discussion was first raised by my neighborhood as part of the discussion of where we could dream to live.

We envisioned a park as a feature of the urban corridor being planned along Shaw Avenue.
▪ The vision was to create a feature for the City of Fresno that would highlight agriculture, spur economic development, raise the opinion of the drive through visitors AND include a canopied walking, fitness and play space for residents at the same time.
▪ The only green space north of Shaw currently are pocket parks in neighborhoods that have no room for family parties and the most of the yards are too small as well.
▪ When we first raised the idea – the park was closer to the center of the vacant land north of Shaw with a Shaw entrance and was moved to Parkway when we were told that it needed to serve a lower social economic population (a misconception of the elected officials).
▪ One advantage to this location, is that it is adjacent to a seasonal water park that might have potential for public private partnership over parking and event space for Holiday Ice Rink or Harvest and Blossom Festivals. ▪ We would love to see an old fashioned bandstand type amphitheater for Friday night concerts in a non-alcoholic venue (currently only wineries offer this option) and basketball courts so we stop getting cited by code enforcement for having street basketball hoops.
▪ If you have any questions about this vision, please contact me. I was disheartened to hear at the scoping meeting that already this site has air quality issues etc – we would happily consider other locations in the urban corridor. It could just as easily be in the current general plan location with a connector to the trails along veteran’s and the canal.

Transportation and Circulation:
• My biggest transportation concern is the zipper streets throughout the planned area where new development meets old with routes to schools that do not allow for safe routes to schools for our children.
• Congestion on Grantland north of Shaw is horrible and I know you have heard from many residents on this issue so I am not going to dwell on it. It is of particular concern when county land use change is under consideration. The County planning commission makes a decision that effects the City of Fresno. Such an instance is in the courts right now when the county approved an animal shelter on zoned RR land changing the land use to a specific purpose.

Utilities and Service Systems
• Police Department – we are covered by NW and there are too few officers to cover our area and the rest of the NW with substation at Marks and W Shaw. • Fire Station is currently in planned construction stage.

Wildfire
• There was a grass fire last year in the torn down orchard (North of Shaw, Parkway to Grantland) • There is currently no fire station in the NW section of the planned area (one is in the works on the South side of Shaw at Bryan)
Central Grizzlies Youth Football & Cheer
P:559-864-4022/ 559-250-1112 4186 W. Swift Ave Suite #108, Fresno, Ca 93722 [email protected] My name is Ashleigh Garrett, I am the President of a non-profit youth organization called the Central Grizzlies Youth Football and Cheer. Parents and children for the CGYF program are families of the Northwest community. Our biggest issue as an organization is trying to find a location for our program to not only have a practice field but also somewhere to have home games. This past 8 months alone we have not been able to find somewhere to accommodate not just my program but other outside organizations as well. We have attempted to request the use school facility fields in the Central Unified School District with resistance. One being there is high demand in facility field request from outside organizations making it almost impossible to accommodate school related activities and outside organizations. Although we may have several parks in the Northwest Area, we only have one park with proper lightening for sports during nighttime use. That park alone cannot accommodate multiple sport organizations at one time during its season. As the Northwest community continues to grow at rapid pace, we are in desperate need of a lightened park space in our community. I am in hopes that approved developers that are coming into our community be required to assist in offsetting a park for our children to have a safe, productive place to engage in activities and promote a healthy lifestyle for our children.

Thank you,
Ashleigh Garrett

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE: July 29, 2019
TO: Jennifer Clark, Director, Department of Planning and Development FROM: GREGORY A. BARFIELD, Director
Department of Transportation
SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Report for West Area Specific Plan The City of Fresno Transportation Department, Fresno Area Express (FAX) received the copy of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the West Area Specific Plan.

The West Area Specific Plan includes a wide variety of proposed land uses, ranging from low density residential to high density residential, regional mixed use, recreation commercial, schools, fire stations and other land uses, as well as the required transportation and utility improvements. An accessible and well-connected transportation network is a critical component of the area’s quality of life.

Given that FAX currently provides only one transit route west of State Route 99 and that this area is projected for growth, FAX requests that the EIR include a coordinated analysis of transportation alternatives, as well as consideration of potential mitigation measures to help fund transit operations should the EIR determine that transit is a feasible component of the long-term transportation network.

In providing transit service, FAX must continually balance the competing needs of productivity and coverage, meaning the performance of its existing transit routes versus service expansions to new and developing areas that are not within proximity of existing services. Ongoing financial constraints must be taken into consideration when evaluating the financial sustainability of operating new transit services. In short, if FAX adds new transit service to any given area, it must remove or reduce service to other areas to keep the operational costs of the system in check. FAX is looking forward to better understanding the environmental impacts of the planned land uses on transportation, traffic congestion, and air quality, as well as the proposed mitigation measures that will support the operation of the most effective transportation network.

INTER OFFICE MEMO
Fresno County Public Library
Date: July 8, 2019
To: Rodney Horton, MPA, Project Manager
From: Karen Coletti, Executive Secretary
Subject: Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and Scoping West Area Reviewed and had no comments.