Exhibit I EIR - Draft Environmental Impact Report — Fresno City Council, October 13, 2022 (part 1 of 7)

Exhibit I
West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
Draft Environmental Impact Report

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
(SCH # 2019069117)
FEBRUARY 2022
Prepared for:

City of Fresno
Planning and Development 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
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A L a n d U s e P l a n n i n g , D e s i g n , a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l F i r m

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
(SCH # 2019069117)
FEBRUARY 2022
Prepared for:

City of Fresno
Planning and Development 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

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TOC-1 Chapters Page Numbers
Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... ES-1

1.0 Introduction .........................................................................................................................1.0-1

1.1 Purpose and Intended Uses of the EIR ...................................................................1.0-1

1.2 Type of EIR ..............................................................................................................1.0-2

1.3 Responsible and Trustee Agencies .........................................................................1.0-5

1.4 Environmental Review Process...............................................................................1.0-5

1.5 Organization and Scope..........................................................................................1.0-7

1.6 Significance Criteria (“Thresholds”)........................................................................1.0-9

1.7 Comments Received on the Notice of Preparation ..............................................1.0-10

1.8 Areas of Controversy ............................................................................................1.0-11

2.0 Project Description ..............................................................................................................2.0-1

2.1 Project Location and Setting...................................................................................2.0-1

2.2 Project Description .................................................................................................2.0-3

2.3 Project Goals and Objectives................................................................................2.0-12

2.4 Uses of the EIR and Required Agency Approvals..................................................2.0-14

3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources..........................................................................................3.1-1

3.1.1 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................3.1-1

3.1.2 Regulatory Setting ...............................................................................................3.1-4

3.1.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.......................................................................3.1-9

3.2 Agricultural Resources.........................................................................................................3.2-1

3.2.1 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................3.2-1

3.2.2 Regulatory Setting ...............................................................................................3.2-7

3.2.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................3.2-10

3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................3.3-1

3.3.1 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................3.3-1

3.3.2 Regulatory Setting .............................................................................................3.3-12

3.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................3.3-30

3.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................3.4-1

3.4.1 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................3.4-1

3.4.2 Regulatory Setting .............................................................................................3.4-19

3.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................3.4-27

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOC-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

3.5 Cultural and Tribal Resources..............................................................................................3.5-1

3.5.1 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................3.5-1

3.5.2 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................3.5-9

3.5.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................3.5-16

3.6 Geology, Soils and Seismicity ...............................................................................................3.6-1

3.6.1 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................3.6-1

3.6.2 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................3.6-9

3.6.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................3.6-14

3.7 Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy ................................................................3.7-1

3.7.1 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................3.7-1

3.7.2 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................3.7-6

3.7.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................3.7-31

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................3.8-1

3.8.1 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................3.8-1

3.8.2 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................3.8-8

3.8.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................3.8-20

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ..............................................................................................3.9-1

3.9.1 Environmental Setting .........................................................................................3.9-1

3.9.2 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................3.9-9

3.9.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................................................3.9-16

3.10 Land Use...........................................................................................................................3.10-1

3.10.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................3.10-1

3.10.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................................3.10-3

3.10.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.................................................................3.10-13

3.11 Noise...... ..........................................................................................................................3.11-1

3.11.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................3.11-1

3.11.2 Regulatory Setting..........................................................................................3.11-13

3.11.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.................................................................3.11-20

3.12 Population and Housing...................................................................................................3.12-1

3.12.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................3.12-1

3.12.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................................3.12-3

3.12.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................3.12-9

3.13 Public Services and Recreation ........................................................................................3.13-1

3.13.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................3.13-1

3.13.2 Regulatory Setting..........................................................................................3.13-14

3.13.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.................................................................3.13-28

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TOC-3

3.14 Transportation and Circulation........................................................................................3.14-1

3.14.1 Environmental Setting .....................................................................................3.14-1

3.14.2 Regulatory Setting ...........................................................................................3.14-6

3.14.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.................................................................3.14-15

3.15 Utilities……. ......................................................................................................................3.15-1

3.15.1 Wastewater Services .......................................................................................3.15-1

3.15.2 Water Supplies...............................................................................................3.15-11

3.15.3 Stormwater....................................................................................................3.15-27

3.15.4 Solid Waste ....................................................................................................3.15-37

4.0 Other CEQA-Required Topics...............................................................................................4.0-1

4.1 Cumulative Setting and Impact Analysis.................................................................4.0-1

4.2 Growth-Inducing Effects.......................................................................................4.0-29

4.3 Significant Irreversible Effects ..............................................................................4.0-32

4.4 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts....................................................................4.0-33

5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ..................................................................................5.0-1

5.1 CEQA Requirements................................................................................................5.0-1

5.2 Alternatives Considered But Dismissed..................................................................5.0-5

5.3 Alternatives Considered in this EIR.........................................................................5.0-5

5.4 Environmental Analysis...........................................................................................5.0-7

5.5 Comparative Evaluation of the Project and Alternatives to Satisfy Project Objectives ............................................................................................................5.0-33

6.0 Report Preparers and Contributors.....................................................................................6.0-1

7.0 References ...........................................................................................................................7.0-1 Tables Page Numbers
5BTable ES-1: Comparison of Alternative Impacts to the Proposed Specific Plan ......................... ES-6 6BTable ES-2: West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. ES-7 Table 2.0-1: Parcel Acreages by Land Use Classification for General Plan and Proposed Specific Plan ............................................................................................................2.0-7 Table 2.0-2: Maximum Development Potential within West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan - Existing General Plan ...............................................................................................2.0-9 Table 2.0-3: Maximum Development Potential within West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan – Proposed West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ...............................................2.0-10 Table 3.2-1: Soil Capability Classification...................................................................................3.2-2 Table 3.2-2: Storie Index Rating System ....................................................................................3.2-2

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOC-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Table 3.2-3: On-Site Soil Capability Classifications and Storie Index Rating..............................3.2-6 Table 3.3-1: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards.................................................3.3-9 Table 3.3-2: State and National Attainment Status.................................................................3.3-10 Table 3.3-3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary (Fresno-Sierra Skypark #2) - Ozone...................................................................................................................3.3-11 Table 3.3-4 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary (Fresno County) - PM10.............3.3-11 Table 3.3-5: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary (Fresno County) - PM2.5 ...........3.3-11 Table 3.3-6: Construction Project Generated Emissions (Maximum tons per year) ...............3.3-38 Table 3.3-7: Operational Project Generated Emissions (tons per year)..................................3.3-41 Table 3.4-1: CWHR Land Cover Types.......................................................................................3.4-4 Table 3.4-2: USDA Soil Series Information................................................................................3.4-7 Table 3.4-3: Special-Status Plant Species Which May Occur in Specific Plan Area..................3.4-11 Table 3.4-4: Special-Status Wildlife and Fish Species Which May Occur in Specific Plan Area .......................................................................................................................3.4-13 Table 3.5-1: Previous Studies within the Plan Area ..................................................................3.5-7 Table 3.6-1: Plan Area Soils.......................................................................................................3.6-2 Table 3.6-2: Fault Activity Rating ..............................................................................................3.6-4 Table 3.6-3: Richter Magnitude Scale for Earthquakes ............................................................3.6-5 Table 3.6-4: Minera Resource Classification System ................................................................3.6-8 Table 3.7-1: City of Fresno Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for 2016 and Business-As-Usual (BAU) Projections...................................................................................................3.7-30 Table 3.7-2: City of Fresno Adjusted Business-As-Usual ABAU Greenhouse Gas Emissions...3.7-30 Table 3.7-3: City of Fresno State-Aligned GHG Emission Reduction Targets by Year..............3.7-30 Table 3.7-4: Construction GHG Emissions (Unmitigated Average MT CO2e/year) .................3.7-33 Table 3.7-5: Operational GHG Emissions (Unmitigated Metric Tons/Year)............................3.7-33 Table 3.7-6: On-road Mobile Fuel Generated by Project Construction Activities – By Phase 3.7-37 Table 3.8-1: Plan Area Soils.......................................................................................................3.8-2 Table 3.8-2: GeoTracker Known Hazardous Material Release Sites within the Plan Area .......3.8-7 Table 3.9-1: State of California Watershed Hierarchy Naming Convention .............................3.9-2 Table 3.9-2: USGS Watershed Hierarchy Naming Convention .................................................3.9-3 Table 3.9-3: Plan Area Well Capacity ........................................................................................3.9-6 Table 3.10-1: General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis .......................................................3.10-16 Table 3.11-1: Typical Noise Levels ..........................................................................................3.11-3 Table 3.11-2: Short-Term Noise Measurement Summary......................................................3.11-5 Table 3.11-3: Long-Term Noise Measurement Summary.......................................................3.11-6 Table 3.11-4: Existing Exterior Noise Levels Along Roadways (dBA, CNEL)............................3.11-6 Table 3.11-5: Transportation (Non-Aircraft) Noise Sources .................................................3.11-15 Table 3.11-6: Stationary Noise Source Standards.................................................................3.11-15 Table 3.11-7: Ambient Noise.................................................................................................3.11-18 Table 3.11-8: Significance of Changes in Noise Exposure.....................................................3.11-21

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TOC-5 Table 3.11-9: Groundborne Vibration Criteria......................................................................3.11-21 Table 3.11-10: Change in Noise Along Roadways Due to the Proposed Specific Plan (dBA, CNEL)....................................................................................................................3.11-22 Table 3.11-11: Typical Construction Noise Levels.................................................................3.11-32 Table 3.11-12: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment...................................3.11-35 Table 3.11-13: Typical Stationary Noise Levels.....................................................................3.11-36 Table 3.12-1: Population Growth – Fresno.............................................................................3.12-1 Table 3.12-2: Housing Unit Growth – Fresno..........................................................................3.12-2 Table 3.13-1: City of Fresno Crime Statistics (2016-2018)......................................................3.13-2 Table 3.13-2: FFD Response Times Within City Boundaries...................................................3.13-3 Table 3.13-3: Central Unified School District: School Inventory and 2017/2018 Enrollment and Capacity..................................................................................................................3.13-5 Table 3.13-4: City of Fresno Parks and Recreation Facilities..................................................3.13-7 Table 3.14-1: Bus Routes Serving Plan Area ............................................................................3.14-5 Table 3.14-2: VMT Per Capita and VMT Per Employee – Existing and Horizon Year Conditions ...........................................................................................................3.14-18 Table 3.15-1: Wastewater Generation ....................................................................................3.15-8 Table 3.15-2: Historical Water Demand ................................................................................3.15-12 Table 3.15-3: Projected Future Water Demand at 2045 .......................................................3.15-12 Table 3.15-4: Projected Future Dry Year Total Water Demand, af/yr...................................3.15-13 Table 3.15-5: City of Fresno Historical Groundwater Production .........................................3.15-16 Table 3.15-6: City of Fresno Projected Future Groundwater Production in Normal and Dry Years.....................................................................................................................3.15-16 Table 3.15-7: Fresno Summary of Water Demand Versus Supply During Hydrologic Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years, MGD ............................................................3.15-26 Table 3.15-8: Estimated Solid Waste Generation..................................................................3.15-41 Table 4.0-1: Residential Growth Projections Under Fresno General Plan.................................4.0-2 Table 4.0-2: Population Projections Under Fresno General Plan ..............................................4.0-3 Table 4.0-3: Non-Residential Development Under Fresno General Plan ..................................4.0-3 Table 5.0-1: Comparison of the Alternative Impacts to the Proposed Specific Plan of the West Area........................................................................................................................5.0-33 Figures Page Numbers
Figure 2.0-1: Regional Location Map .......................................................................................2.0-17 Figure 2.0-2: Vicinity Map........................................................................................................2.0-19 Figure 2.0-3: Aerial View of Project Site ..................................................................................2.0-21 Figure 2.0-4: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations.....................................................2.0-23 Figure 2.0-5: Existing Zoning Designations..............................................................................2.0-25 Figure 2.0-6: Proposed Land Uses ...........................................................................................2.0-27 Figure 2.0-7: Areas of Proposed Change .................................................................................2.0-29

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOC-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Figure 3.2-1: Farmland Classifications.....................................................................................3.2-15 Figure 3.4-1: Cover Types.........................................................................................................3.2-47 Figure 3.4-2: California Natural Diversity Database 12-Quad Search......................................3.2-49 Figure 3.6-1: Soil Types............................................................................................................3.6-21 Figure 3.6-2: Known Faults ......................................................................................................3.6-23 Figure 3.9-1: Watersheds.........................................................................................................3.9-31 Figure 3.9-2: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District Facilities and Basins ......................3.9-33 Figure 3.9-3: FEMA Flood Map ................................................................................................3.9-35 Figure 3.9-4: Dam Inundation Areas........................................................................................3.9-37 Figure 3.11-1: Noise Measurement Location Map ................................................................3.11-39 Figure 3.11-2: Existing Roadway Noise Level Contours (CNEL) .............................................3.11-41 Figure 3.11-3: Union Pacific Railroad Noise Level Contours (CNEL) ......................................3.11-43 Figure 3.11-4: Existing Plus Project Plus Cumulative Roadway Noise Level Contours (CNEL)3.11-45 Figure 3.13-1: Public Facilities................................................................................................3.13-39 Figure 3.14-1: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Routes in the Specific Plan Area ....................3.14-21 Figure 3.14-2: Existing and Proposed Sidewalks in the Specific Plan Area............................3.14-25 Figure 3.14-3: Existing Transit Service in the Specific Plan Area ...........................................3.14-27 Figure 3.14-4: Existing and Planned Truck Routes in the Specific Plan Area .........................3.14-29 Figure 5.0-1: Additional Annexation Alternative .....................................................................5.0-35 Figure 5.0-2: No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative ...................................................5.0-37 Figure 5.0-3: Regional Park Alternative ...................................................................................5.0-39 Figure 5.0-4: Lower Density Alternative ..................................................................................5.0-41 Appendices
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and NOP Comments
Appendix B: Criteria Air Pollutant, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Modeling Results Appendix B.1: CalEEMod Outputs
Appendix B.2: Energy Outputs
Appendix B.3: Analysis of Models and Tools to Correlate Project-Generated Pollutants to Health End Points
Appendix C: Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment Appendix D: Utility Background Summary
Appendix E: Water Supply Assessment
Appendix F: Noise Impact Study
Appendix G: Technical Memorandum – CEQA Impacts and Mitigations (VMT)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ES-1 0BINTRODUCTION
The City of Fresno (City) has determined that a program-level environmental impact report (EIR) is required for the proposed West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (herein the “Specific Plan”) Project (proposed project) pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

This EIR examines the planning, construction and operation of the project. The program-level approach is appropriate for the proposed project because it allows comprehensive consideration of the reasonably anticipated scope of the Specific Plan and associated full buildout scenario.

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.

This EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. A programlevel analysis considers the broad environmental effects of the Specific Plan. This EIR will also function as a “first tier” EIR, as explained below.

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.

The program-level analysis considers the broad environmental effects of the proposed Specific Plan.

The EIR examines all phases of the project including planning, construction and operation. The program-level approach is appropriate for the Specific Plan because it allows comprehensive consideration of the reasonably anticipated scope of development plan; however, not all aspects of the future development are known at this stage in the planning process. Individual development projects within the Plan Area that require further discretionary approvals will be examined in light of this EIR to determine whether additional environmental documentation must be prepared.

According to CEQA Guidelinessection 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]).

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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. (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 a written checklist or similar device whenever landowners within the Plan Area submit applications for site-specific approvals (i.e. small-lot tentative maps, conditional use 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. 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). In some cases, 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 the 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:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ES-3 (A) 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 (B) 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 a written checklist(s) or similar device whenever landowners within the Specific Plan area submit applications for site-specific approvals (i.e. tentative maps, conditional use 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, 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 “[any 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 [SEIR] for the specific plan is prepared and certified in accordance with the provisions of [CEQA]. After a supplemental [SEIR] 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 West Area Neighborhoods 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.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following provides a brief summary and overview of the proposed project. Chapter 2.0 of this EIR includes a detailed description of the proposed project, including maps and graphics. The reader is referred to Chapter 2.0 for a more complete and thorough description of the components of the proposed project.

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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 proposed Specific Plan refines the General Plan’s land use vision for the Plan Area. The draft land use map proposes the relocation of higher density land uses away from the most western and southwestern portions of the Plan Area where they are distant from public transit and community amenities and transfers those higher density land use designations to major corridors. The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan land use plan utilizes the City’s existing General Plan land use designations to maintain or re-designate some parcels in the Plan Area. See Table 2.0-1 for a summary of the existing and proposed land uses within the city limits, growth area, and Plan Area.

See Figure 2.0-6 for the proposed General Plan land use designations.

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 pre-zone the land to a zone that is consistent with the General Plan land use. Once annexation occurs, the County zoning would no longer apply to the parcel.

The Specific Plan land use plan that was recommended by the Steering Committee would allow for the future development of up to 54,953 dwelling units (DU) (including 67 DU in the commercial category, 47,072 DU in the residential category and 7,814 DU in the mixed use category), and 60,621,006 square feet (SF) of non-residential uses. The proposed land use plan also designates public facility uses that are currently existing within the Plan Area, including schools and churches.

In the northern portion of the Plan Area, Fire Station No. 18 is temporarily located off of West Bullard Avenue at 5938 North La Ventana Avenue. Fire Station 18 will be relocated to a permanent location on the south side of the 6000 block of West Shaw Avenue to maximize the department’s response time goal. Additionally, the proposed land use plan would 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.

Refer to Chapter 2.0, Project Description, for a more complete description of the project details. 2BAREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
This Draft EIR addresses environmental impacts associated with the proposed West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan that are known to the City of Fresno, were raised during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process, or raised during preparation of the Draft EIR. This Draft EIR discusses potentially significant impacts associated with aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology, soils and seismicity (including mineral resources), greenhouse gases, climate change, and energy, hazards and hazardous materials (including wildfire), hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation and circulation, and utilities.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ES-5 The City received thirteen written comments on the NOP for the proposed West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Draft EIR. Two comments were also received during the Scoping Meeting. A copy of each letter is provided in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. The comments covered the following aspects of the proposed Specific Plan, each of which is considered a public concern:
• Conversion of undeveloped land to urban use
• Light, glare, and skyglow
• Traffic congestion from automobiles and large trucks, ensuring safe routes to schools, and provision of alternative transportation infrastructure
• Annexation of county properties into the city
• Parkland, trail, and ball field impacts
• Need for aesthetics improvements, including tree planting • Air quality and pollution concerns, including dust from construction and agricultural uses, and air pollution along Highway 99
• Project impact on regional stormwater, drainage, and flood control 3BALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or to the location of the project which would reduce or avoid any of the significant impacts of the project, and which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed project. The alternatives analyzed in this EIR include the following four alternatives in addition to the proposed Specific Plan:
• No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative;
• Additional Annexation Alternative;
• Regional Park Alternative;
• Lower Density Alternative.

Alternatives are described in detail in Section 5.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project. A comparative analysis of the proposed project and each of the project alternatives is provided in Table ES-1. As shown in the Table, the Lower Density Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because it results in the least adverse environmental impacts when compared to the proposed project. The Lower Density Alternative would decrease or slightly decrease impacts to 13 of the 15 environmental issues. This is mostly due to the preservation of the existing farmland and rural residential areas along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area, and the decrease in development associated with the reduced densities. It is noted that none of the project alternatives would fully eliminate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur under the proposed Specific Plan; however, the significant and unavoidable impacts that would result under the proposed Specific Plan would occur to a lesser extent under the Lower Density Alternative. The Regional Park Alternative is the next best alternative as it would decrease or slightly decrease impacts to five of the 15 environmental issues.

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TABLE ES-1: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS TO THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE

NO PROJECT
(EXISTING

GENERAL PLAN)

ALTERNATIVE

ADDITIONAL

ANNEXATION

ALTERNATIVE

REGIONAL PARK

ALTERNATIVE

LOWER DENSITY

ALTERNATIVE
Aesthetics and Visual Resources Equal Equal Equal Less
Agricultural Resources Equal More Equal Less
Air Quality More Slightly More Slightly Less Less
Biological Resources Equal Slightly More Equal Less
Cultural and Tribal Resources Equal Slightly More Equal Less Geology, Soils and Seismicity Slightly More Slightly More Slightly Less Slightly Less Greenhouse Gas, Climate Change, and Energy More Slightly More Slightly Less Slightly Less Hazards and Hazardous Materials Equal Slightly More Equal Less Hydrology and Water Quality Equal Slightly More Equal Less Land Use Slightly More Equal Equal Equal
Noise More More Equal Less
Population and Housing More Slightly More Equal Equal
Public Services and Recreation More Slightly More Slightly Less Less Transportation and Circulation More Slightly More Equal Slightly Less Utilities Slightly More Slightly More Slightly Less Slightly Less

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The environmental impacts of the proposed project, the impact level of significance prior to mitigation, the proposed mitigation measures and/or adopted policies and standard measures that are already in place to mitigate an impact, and the impact level of significance after mitigation are summarized in Table ES-2.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ES-7 TABLE ES-2: WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AESTHETICS
Impact 3.1-1: Specific Plan implementation
would not result in substantial adverse
effects on scenic vistas.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.1-2: Project implementation
would not substantially damage scenic
resources within a State Scenic Highway.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.1-3: Specific Plan implementation
would result in substantial adverse effects
or degradation of visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings.

PS None feasible. SU
Impact 3.1-4: Specific Plan implementation
has the potential to result in light and glare
impacts.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: In order to reduce the potential for glare from buildings and structures within the project area, the Preliminary and Final Design Review plan(s) for all future projects in the Plan Area shall show that the use of reflective building materials that have the potential to result in glare that would be visible from sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the project sites shall be prohibited. The City of Fresno Planning and Development Department shall ensure that the approved project uses appropriate building materials with low reflectivity to minimize potential glare nuisance to off-site receptors. These requirements shall be included in future project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Fresno.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: A lighting plan for all future projects in the Plan Area subject to section 15- 2508 and section 15-2015 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code shall be prepared prior to the approval of the design review for each project site. The lighting plan shall demonstrate that the lighting systems and other exterior lighting throughout the project area have been designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties to the greatest extent feasible, consistent with section 15-2508. – Lighting and Glare and section 15-2015 – Outdoor Lighting and Illumination of the City of Fresno Municipal Code.

Use of LED lighting or other proven energy efficient lighting shall be required for facilities to be dedicated LS

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
to the City of Fresno for maintenance. These requirements shall be included in future project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Fresno.

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.2-1: Specific Plan implementation
would convert Important Farmlands to nonagricultural land uses.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: Prior to initiation of grading activities, the project proponent shall implement the following measure to mitigate impacts on Important Farmland located on the site: The project proponent shall mitigate the loss of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance within the Plan Area at a 1:1 ratio. The acreage of lost farmland shall be determined using the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model. The LESA Model evaluates measures of soil resource quality, a given project’s size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. Once the acreage of farmland converted is determined, one of the following mitigation options shall be utilized to mitigate the loss: Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, or Land Use Regulation. Should the City develop a Farmland Preservation Program before future construction within the Plan Area begins, the project proponent shall mitigate for Farmland pursuant to the Program.

The mitigation shall be verified by the City of Fresno for each phase of the project during improvement plan review.

SU
Impact 3.2-2: Specific Plan implementation
would conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
Contract.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Prior to initiation of grading activities, the project proponent shall implement the following measure to mitigate impacts related to agriculturally-zoned land located on the site: The project proponent shall mitigate the loss of land zoned for agricultural use within the Plan Area at a 1:1 ratio. Once the acreage of land zoned for agricultural use which would be converted by the project is determined, one of the following mitigation options shall be utilized to mitigate the loss:

Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, or Land Use Regulation.

The mitigation shall be verified by the City of Fresno for each phase of the project during improvement plan review.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Impact 3.2-3: Specific Plan implementation
would not conflict with existing zoning, or
cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland or
timberland zoned Timberland Production or
result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.2-4: Future development of the
Plan Area would not result in other changes
in the existing environment that would lead
to the abandonment of agricultural
operations and conversion of farmland or
forest land to non-agricultural or forest land
use.

LS None required. --

AIR QUALITY
Impact 3.3-1: Specific Plan implementation
would conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality
plan.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits for new development projects within the Plan Area, the project applicant(s) shall show on the building plans that all major appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) to be provided/installed are Energy Starcertified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star-certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

SU
Impact 3.3-2: Specific Plan implementation
during project construction would expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations or result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is in
nonattainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: In order to contribute in minimizing exhaust emission from construction equipment, prior to issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first, the property owner(s)/developer(s) shall provide a list of all construction equipment proposed to be used in the Plan Area for projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt projects).

This list may be provided on the building plans. The construction equipment list shall state the make, model, and equipment identification number of all the equipment. The property owner(s)/developer(s) shall consult with the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department on the feasibility of utilizing cleaner (e.g. higher engine tier) construction equipment than proposed. The property owner(s)/developer(s) shall implement recommendations for the use of cleaner construction SU

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
equipment, as determined by the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department. Compliance will be verified by the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: During construction activities, the construction contractors shall ensure that the equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations; and, that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article

4.8, Chapter 9.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: In order to reduce ROG emissions from construction activities, prior to issuance of a building permit for projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt projects), the property owner/developer shall require the construction contractor provide a note on the construction plans indicating that:
• All coatings and solvents will have a volatile organic compound (ROG) content lower than required under Rule 4601 (i.e., super compliant paints). • All architectural coatings shall be applied either by (1) using a high-volume, low-pressure spray method operated at an air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge to achieve a 65 percent application efficiency; or (2) manual application using a paintbrush, hand-roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge, to achieve a 100 percent applicant efficiency.

The construction contractor may also use precoated/natural colored building materials.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
d. When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, or at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
e. All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at least once every 24 hours when operations are occurring. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.
f. Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. g. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 5 mph; and
h. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-6: Asphalt paving shall be applied in accordance with SJVAPCD Rule 4641. This rule applies to the manufacture and use of cutback asphalt, slow cure asphalt and emulsified asphalt for paving and maintenance operations.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.3-7. The property owner(s)/developer(s) shall incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the Project Conditions of Approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions include but are not limited to:
• For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plugging in the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
• Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage (i.e., battery) and combined heat and power (CHP, also known as cogeneration) in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use. • Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with CARB Rule 2845 (13 California Code of Regulations SU

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
[CCR] Chapter 10, Section 2485).
• Require that 240-volt electrical outlets or Level 3 chargers be installed in parking lots that would enable charging of neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) and/or battery powered vehicles.
• Maximize use of solar energy including solar panels; installing the maximum possible number of solar energy arrays on building roofs throughout the city to generate solar energy. • Maximize the planting of trees in landscaping and parking lots. • Use light-colored paving and roofing materials.
• Require use of electric or alternatively fueled street-sweepers with HEPA filters. • Require use of electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers. • Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances. • Use of water-based or low volatile organic compound (VOC) cleaning products.

Impact 3.3-4: Specific Plan implementation
has the potential to result in other
emissions (such as those leading to odors)
affecting a substantial number of people.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.3-8: The project applicant(s) shall require developers of projects within the Specific Plan Area with the potential to generate significant odor impacts as determined through review of SJVAPCD odor complaint history for similar facilities and consultation with the SJVAPCD, to prepare an odor impact assessment and to implement odor control measures recommended by the SJVAPCD or the City as needed to reduce the impact to a level deemed acceptable by the SJVAPCD. The City’s Planning and Development Department shall verify that all odor control measures have been incorporated into the project design specifications prior to issuing a permit to operate.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
enforcement mechanisms to reduce risks to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to:
• Restricting idling on site or electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter; • Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles;
• Provide charging infrastructure for: electric forklifts, electric yard trucks, local drayage trucks, last mile delivery trucks, electric and fuel-cell heavy duty trucks; and/or • Install solar panels, zero-emission backup electricity generators, and energy storage to minimize emissions associated with electricity generation at the project site.

T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-10: Locate sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, and daycare centers) to avoid incompatibilities with recommended buffer distances identified in the most current version of the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB Handbook).

Sensitive land uses that are within the recommended buffer distances listed in the CARB Handbook shall provide enhanced filtration units or submit a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to the City. If the HRA shows that the project would exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds, mitigation measures capable of reducing potential impacts to an acceptable level must be identified and approved by the City.

Impact 3.3-5: Specific Plan implementation
has the potential to cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly.

PS Implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 through Mitigation Measure 3.3-10 LS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.4-1: Specific Plan implementation
could directly or indirectly have a
substantial adverse effect through habitat
modifications or reductions, cause
populations to drop below self-sustaining
levels, substantially eliminate a community,
PS Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts on special-status invertebrate species:
• Preconstruction surveys/habitat assessments for valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis), LS

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
or substantially reduce the number of, or
restrict the range of, an endangered, rare or
threatened species, including those
considered candidate, sensitive, or special
status in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.
midvalley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within the project disturbance area.
• If valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis), midvalley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis), or vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), or their suitable habitat, is found during preconstruction surveys/habitat assessments within the disturbance area, activities within 200 feet of the find shall cease until appropriate measures have been completed, which may include an application for incidental take, or it is determined by the qualified biologist and City staff, in coordination with USFWS and CDFW, that the species will not be harmed by the activities. Any sightings or incidental take shall be reported to USFWS and CDFW immediately. • Construction personnel performing activities within aquatic habitats and other suitable habitats (i.e., elderberry shrubs) to be disturbed by project activities shall receive worker environmental awareness training from a qualified biologist to instruct workers to recognize the species, their habitats, and measures being implemented for its protection.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
not be harmed by the activities. Any sightings or incidental take shall be reported to USFWS and CDFW immediately.
• If western pond turtles are found during preconstruction surveys, a qualified biologist, with approval from CDFW, shall move the turtles to the nearest suitable habitat outside the area subject to project disturbance. The construction area shall be reinspected whenever a lapse in construction activity of 2 weeks or more has occurred.
• Construction personnel performing activities within aquatic habitats and adjacent suitable uplands to be disturbed by project activities shall receive worker environmental awareness training from a qualified biologist to instruct workers to recognize western pond turtle, their habitats, and measures being implemented for its protection. • Construction personnel shall observe a 15-miles-per-hour speed limit on unpaved roads.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-3: Prior to any ground disturbance in areas which may support suitable breeding or nesting habitat for burrowing owl, a preconstruction survey of the parcel(s) to be developed shall be completed for burrowing owl in accordance with CDFW survey guidelines (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 500-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify burrows and owls. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership need not be surveyed. Surveys shall take place near sunrise or sunset in accordance with CDFW guidelines. All burrows or burrowing owls shall be identified and mapped. Surveys shall take place no earlier than 30 days prior to construction. During the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are nesting in or directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any disturbance area. Survey results shall be valid only for the season (breeding or nonbreeding) during which the survey is conducted. If burrowing owls and/or suitable burrows are not discovered, then further mitigation is not necessary.

During the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), the project proponent(s) shall avoid the

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance shall include the establishment of a buffer zone (described below). During the breeding season, buffer zones of at least 250 feet in which no construction activities can occur shall be established around each occupied burrow (nest site). Buffer zones of 160 feet shall be established around each burrow being used during the nonbreeding season.

The buffers shall be delineated by highly visible, temporary construction fencing.

If occupied burrows for burrowing owls cannot be avoided, passive relocation shall be implemented.

Owls may be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone under an authorization from the CDFW. Such exclusion would be anticipated to include the installation of one-way doors in burrow entrances. These doors would be in place for 48 hours prior to excavation and monitored daily for 1 week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the burrow. Whenever possible, burrows must be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). Plastic tubing or a similar structure should be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow. CDFW has the authority to authorize a variation to the above described exclusion method.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-4: Prior to any ground disturbance conducted during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 15 to September 15) in areas which may support suitable habitat for Swainson Hawk, a USFWS/CDFW-approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for Swainson’s hawk no earlier than 30 days prior to construction in order to determine whether occupied Swainson’s hawk nests are located within 1,000 feet of the parcel(s) to be developed. If any potentially-occupied nests within 1,000 feet are off the project site, then their occupancy shall be determined by observation from public roads or by observations of Swainson’s hawk activity (e.g. foraging) near the project site. A written summary of the survey results shall be submitted to the City of Fresno.

During the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 15 to September 15), construction activities within 1,000 feet of occupied nests or nests under construction shall be prohibited to prevent nest abandonment. If site-specific conditions, or the nature of the covered activity (e.g., steep topography, dense vegetation, and limited activities) indicate that a smaller buffer could be used, the City of Fresno may coordinate with CDFW/USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer size. If young fledge prior to September 15, construction activities could proceed normally. If the active nest site is shielded from view and noise from the project site by other development, topography, or other features, the project proponent(s) can apply to the City of Fresno for a waiver of this avoidance measure. Any waiver must

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
also be approved by USFWS and CDFW. While nest is occupied, activities outside the buffer can take place.

All active nest trees shall be preserved on site, if feasible.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-5: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts to the black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auratus), great egret (Ardea alba), Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) that may occur on the site:
• Preconstruction surveys for active nests of black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auratus), great egret (Ardea alba), Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within 500 feet of project disturbance. Surveys shall be conducted within 14 days before commencement of any construction activities that occur during the nesting season (February 15 to August 31) in a given area.
• If any active nests, or behaviors indicating that active nests are present, are observed, appropriate buffers around the nest sites shall be determined by a qualified biologist to avoid nest failure resulting from project activities. The size of the buffer shall depend on the species, nest location, nest stage, and specific construction activities to be performed while the nest is active. The buffers may be adjusted if a qualified biologist determines it would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. If buffers are adjusted, monitoring will be conducted to confirm that project activity is not resulting in detectable adverse effects on nesting birds or their young.

No project activity shall commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged or the nest site is otherwise no longer in use.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-6: Prior to any ground disturbance related to construction activities, a biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas which may support suitable breeding or denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. The survey shall establish the presence or absence of San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens and evaluate use by kit foxes in accordance with USFWS survey guidelines (USFWS, 1999).

Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted not earlier than 30 days from commencing ground

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
disturbance. On the parcel where activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 250-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership need not be surveyed. The status of all dens shall be determined and mapped. Written result of preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the USFWS within 5 working days after survey completion and before start of ground disturbance. Concurrence by the USFWS is not required prior to initiation of construction activities. If San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens are not discovered, then further mitigation is not necessary. If San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens are identified in the survey area, the following measure shall be implemented.

If a San Joaquin kit fox den is discovered in the proposed development footprint, the den shall be monitored for 3 days by a CDFW/USFWS-approved biologist using a tracking medium or an infrared beam camera to determine if the den is currently being used. Unoccupied dens shall be destroyed immediately to prevent subsequent use. If a natal or pupping den is found, the USFWS and CDFW shall be notified immediately. The den shall not be destroyed until the pups and adults have vacated and then only after further consultation with USFWS and CDFW. If kit fox activity is observed at the den during the initial monitoring period, the den shall be monitored for an additional 5 consecutive days from the time of the first observation to allow any resident animals to move to another den while den use is actively discouraged. For dens other than natal or pupping dens, use of the den can be discouraged by partially plugging the entrance with soil such that any resident animal can easily escape. Once the den is determined to be unoccupied, it may be excavated under the direction of the biologist. Alternatively, if the animal is still present after 5 or more consecutive days of plugging and monitoring, the den may have to be excavated when, in the judgement of a biologist, it is temporarily vacant (i.e., during the animal’s normal foraging activities).

Mitigation Measure 3.4-7: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measures to avoid or minimize impacts on bats:
• If removal of suitable roosting areas (i.e. buildings, trees, shrubs, bridges, etc.) must occur during the bat pupping season (April 1 through July 31), surveys for active maternity roosts shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The surveys shall be conducted from dusk until dark.
• If a special-status bat maternity roost is located, appropriate buffers around the roost sites shall be determined by a qualified biologist and implemented to avoid destruction or abandonment of the roost resulting from habitat removal or other project activities. The size

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
of the buffer shall depend on the species, roost location, and specific construction activities to be performed in the vicinity. No project activity shall commence within the buffer areas until the end of the pupping season (August 1) or until a qualified biologist confirms the maternity roost is no longer active.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-8: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts to the American badger (Taxidea taxus), Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis), and San Joaquin pocket mouse (Perognathus inornatus) that may occur on the site:
• Preconstruction surveys for indications of American badger (Taxidea taxus), Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis), and San Joaquin pocket mouse (Perognathus inornatus) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within 500 feet of project disturbance. Surveys shall be conducted within 14 days before commencement of any construction activities that occur in a given area.
• If any active habitat areas, or behaviors indicating that active habitat is present, are observed, appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures, including but not limited to buffer areas, shall be required. The avoidance and mitigation measures shall be determined by the qualified biologist and implemented by the project proponent(s).

Mitigation Measure 3.4-9: Prior to construction in undisturbed areas, future project proponent(s) shall retain a biologist to perform plant surveys. The surveys shall be performed during the floristic season. If any of these plants are found during the surveys, the project proponent(s) shall contact the CNPS to obtain the appropriate avoidance and minimization measures. The project proponent(s) shall also implement the avoidance and minimization measures.

Impact 3.4-2: Specific Plan implementation
has the potential to have substantial
adverse effect on federally- or stateprotected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.4-10: If a proposed project will result in the significant alteration or fill of a federally protected wetland, a formal wetland delineation conducted according to USACE accepted methodology would be required for each project to determine the extent of wetlands on a project site.

The delineation shall be used to determine if federal permitting and mitigation strategy are required to reduce project impacts. Acquisition of permits from USACE for the fill of wetlands and USACE approval of a wetland mitigation plan would ensure a “no net loss” of wetland habitat within the Planning Area.

Appropriate wetland mitigation/creation shall be implemented in a ratio according to the size of the impacted wetland.

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Mitigation Measure 3.4-11: In addition to regulatory agency permitting, Best Management Practices identified from a list provided by the USACE shall be incorporated into the design and construction phase of the project to ensure that no pollutants or siltation drain into a federally protected wetland. Project design features such as fencing, appropriate drainage and incorporating detention basins shall assist in ensuring project-related impacts to wetland habitat are minimized to the greatest extent feasible.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.4-12: A pre‐construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if a proposed project will result in the removal or impact to any riparian habitat and/or a special‐status natural community with potential to occur in the Specific Plan Area, compensatory habitat‐based mitigation shall be required to reduce project impacts. Compensatory mitigation must involve the preservation or restoration or the purchase of off‐site mitigation credits for impacts to riparian habitat and/or a special‐status natural community. Mitigation must be conducted in‐kind or within an approved mitigation bank in the region. The specific mitigation ratio for habitat‐ based mitigation shall be determined through consultation with the appropriate agency (i.e., CDFW or USFWS) on a case‐by‐case basis. The project applicant/developer for a proposed project shall develop and implement appropriate mitigation regarding impacts on their respective jurisdictions.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-13: A pre‐construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if a proposed project will result in significant impacts to streambeds or waterways protected under Section 1600 of Fish and Wildlife Code and Section 404 of the CWA. The project applicant/developer for a proposed project shall consult with partner agencies such as CDFW and/or USACE to develop and implement appropriate mitigation regarding impacts on their respective jurisdictions, determination of mitigation strategy, and regulatory permitting to reduce impacts, as required for projects that remove riparian habitat and/or alter a streambed or waterway. The project applicant/developer shall implement mitigation as directed by the agency with jurisdiction over the particular impact identified.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
special‐status species associated with riparian habitat through agency consultation, development of a mitigation strategy, and/or issuing incidental take permits for the specific special‐status species, as determined by the CDFW and/or USFWS.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.4-5: Specific Plan implementation
would not conflict with an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan or Natural Community
Conservation Plan.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.4-6: Specific Plan implementation
would not conflict with local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources.

LS None required. --

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.5-1: Specific Plan implementation
may cause a substantial adverse change to
a significant historical or archaeological
resource, as defined in CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5, or a significant tribal cultural
resource, as defined in Public Resources
Code §21074.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: The City shall require project applicants for future projects with intact extant building(s) more than 45 years old to provide a historic resource technical study evaluating the significance and data potential of the resource. If significance criteria are met, detailed mitigation recommendations shall be included as part of the technical study. All work shall be performed by a qualified architectural historian meeting Secretary of the Interior Standards. The historic resource technical study shall be submitted to the City for review prior to any site disturbance within the vicinity of the building(s).

Mitigation Measure 3.5-2: If cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated artifacts and features) are discovered during the course of construction within the Specific Plan Area, work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the discovery, the City of Fresno shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications LS

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery.

The City of Fresno shall consider mitigation recommendations presented by the qualified archaeologist for any unanticipated discoveries and future project proponents shall carry out the measures deemed feasible and appropriate. Such measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures. The project proponent shall be required to implement any mitigation necessary for the protection of cultural resources.

Impact 3.5-2: Specific Plan implementation
may disturb human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.5-3: If human remains are found during ground disturbance activities associated with implementation of the Specific Plan, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 50 feet of the discovery and a qualified archeological monitor and the coroner of Fresno County shall be contacted as stated in Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If it is determined that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.

The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if:
a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Impact 3.6-1: Specific Plan implementation
would not directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects
LS None required. --

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
involving strong seismic ground shaking or
seismic related ground failure.

Impact 3.6-2: Specific Plan construction and
implementation has the potential to result
in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Prior to clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation for each phase of the Project, the Project proponent shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the RWQCB to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006- DWQ). The SWPPP shall be designed with Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the RWQCB has deemed as effective at reducing erosion, controlling sediment, and managing runoff. These include:
covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. Sediment control BMPs, installing silt fences or placing straw wattles below slopes, installing berms and other temporary run-on and runoff diversions. These BMPs are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. Final selection of BMPs will be subject to approval by City of Fresno and the RWQCB. The SWPPP will be kept on site during construction activity and will be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB.

LS
Impact 3.6-3: Specific Plan implementation
has the potential to be located on a geologic
unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of Specific Plan
implementation, and potentially result in
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Prior to earthmoving activities associated with future development activities within the Plan Area, a certified geotechnical engineer, or equivalent, shall be retained to perform a final geotechnical evaluation of the soils at a design-level as required by the requirements of the California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 18, Section 1803.1.1.2 related to expansive soils and other soil conditions. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements outlined in California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16, Chapter 17, and Chapter 18, which addresses structural design, tests and inspections, and soils and foundation standards. The final geotechnical evaluation shall include design recommendations to ensure that soil conditions do not pose a threat to the health and safety of people or structures, including threats from liquefaction or lateral spreading. The grading and improvement plans, as well as the storm drainage and building plans shall be designed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the final geotechnical evaluation.

LS
Impact 3.6-4: The Specific Plan would not be
located on expansive soil creating
substantial risks to life or property.

PS Implement Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 LS

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Impact 3.6-5: Project implementation has
the potential to directly or indirectly destroy
a unique paleontological resource.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.6-3: If any paleontological resources are found during grading and construction activities, all work shall be halted immediately within a 200-foot radius of the discovery until a qualified paleontologist has evaluated the find.

Work shall not continue at the discovery site until the paleontologist evaluates the find and makes a determination regarding the significance of the resource and identifies recommendations for conservation of the resource, including preserving in place or relocating within the Plan Area, if feasible, or collecting the resource to the extent feasible and documenting the find with the University of California Museum of Paleontology.

LS
Impact 3.6-6: Specific Plan implementation
would not have the potential to result in the
loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the State, or in
the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan.

LS None required. --

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY
Impact 3.7-1: Specific Plan implementation
would not generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on the
environment or conflict with an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases.

LS Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: Prior to the City’s approval of the project (i.e. the Specific Plan) as well as individual development projects within the Specific Plan Area, the Director of the City Planning and Development Department, or designee, shall confirm that the Specific Plan and each individual development project is consistent with the final version of the GHG Reduction Plan Update, and shall implement all measures deemed applicable to the Specific Plan and each individual development project through the GHG Reduction Plan Update-Project Consistency Checklist (Appendix B of the GHG Reduction Plan Update).
--
Impact 3.7-2: Specific Plan implementation
would not result in the inefficient, wasteful,
or unnecessary use of energy resources.

LS None required. --

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Impact 3.7-3: Specific Plan implementation
would not generate a cumulative impact on
climate change from increased projectrelated greenhouse gas emissions.

LS/LCC Implement Mitigation Measure 3.7-1. --

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 3.8-1: Specific Plan implementation
has the potential to create a significant
hazard through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials or
through the reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Prior to bringing hazardous materials onsite, the applicant shall submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to Fresno County Environmental Health Division (CUPA) for review and approval. If during the construction process the applicant or their subcontractors generates hazardous waste, the applicant must register with the CUPA as a generator of hazardous waste, obtain an EPA ID# and accumulate, ship and dispose of the hazardous waste per Health and Safety Code Ch.

6.5. (California Hazardous Waste Control Law).

Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well, the applicant shall hire a licensed well contractor to obtain a well abandonment permit from Fresno County Environmental Health Department, and properly abandon the on-site wells, pursuant to review and approval of the City Engineer and the Fresno County Environmental Health Department.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-3: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that a Phase I ESA (performed in accordance with the current ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process [E 1527]) shall be conducted for each individual property prior to development or redevelopment to ascertain the presence or absence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HRECs), and Potential Environmental Concerns (PECs) relevant to the property under consideration. The findings and conclusions of the Phase I ESA shall become the basis for potential recommendations for follow-up investigation, if found to be warranted.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-4: In the event that the findings and conclusions of the Phase I ESA for a property result in evidence of RECs, HRECs and/or PECs warranting further investigation, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that a Phase II ESA shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of a significant impact to the subject site from hazardous materials.

The Phase II ESA may include but may not be limited to the following: (1) Collection and laboratory analysis of soils and/or groundwater samples to ascertain the presence or absence of significant LS

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
concentrations of constituents of concern; (2) Collection and laboratory analysis of soil vapors and/or indoor air to ascertain the presence or absence of significant concentrations of volatile constituents of concern; and/or (3) Geophysical surveys to ascertain the presence or absence of subsurface features of concern such as USTs, drywells, drains, plumbing, and septic systems. The findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA shall become the basis for potential recommendations for follow-up investigation, site characterization, and/or remedial activities, if found to be warranted.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-5: In the event the findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA reveal the presence of significant concentrations of hazardous materials warranting further investigation, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that site characterization shall be conducted in the form of additional Phase II ESAs in order to characterize the source and maximum extent of impacts from constituents of concern. The findings and conclusions of the site characterization shall become the basis for formation of a remedial action plan and/or risk assessment.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-6: If the findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA(s), site characterization and/or risk assessment demonstrate the presence of concentrations of hazardous materials exceeding regulatory threshold levels, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, property owners and/or developers of properties shall complete site remediation and potential risk assessment with oversight from the applicable regulatory agency including, but not limited to, the CalEPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD). Potential remediation could include the removal or treatment of water and/or soil. If removal occurs, hazardous materials shall be transported and disposed at a hazardous materials permitted facility.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-7: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an individual property within the Plan Area with residual environmental contamination, the agency with primary regulatory oversight of environmental conditions at such property ("Oversight Agency") shall have determined that the proposed land use for that property, including proposed development features and design, does not present an unacceptable risk to human health, if applicable, through the use of an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) that could include institutional controls, site-specific mitigation measures, a risk management plan, and deed restrictions based upon applicable risk-based cleanup standards.

Remedial action plans, risk management plans and health and safety plans shall be required as determined by the Oversight Agency for a given property under applicable environmental laws, if not already completed, to prevent an unacceptable risk to human health, including workers during and after

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
construction, from exposure to residual contamination in soil and groundwater in connection with remediation and site development activities and the proposed land use.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-8: For those sites with potential residual volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil, soil gas, or groundwater that are planned for redevelopment with an overlying occupied building, a vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed by a licensed environmental professional. If the results of the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the potential for significant vapor intrusion into the proposed building, the project design shall include vapor controls or source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or the Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) requirements. Soil vapor mitigations or controls could include passive venting and/or active venting. The vapor intrusion assessment as associated vapor controls or source removal can be incorporated into the ESMP.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-9: In the event of planned renovation or demolition of residential and/or commercial structures on the subject site, prior to the issuance of demolition permits, asbestos and lead based paint (LBP) surveys shall be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of asbestoscontaining materials (ACM) and/or LBP. Removal of friable ACM, and non-friable ACMs that have the potential to become friable, during demolition and/or renovation shall conform to the standards set forth by the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is the responsible agency on the local level to enforce the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) and shall be notified by the property owners and/or developers of properties (or their designee(s)) prior to any demolition and/or renovation activities. If asbestos-containing materials are left in place, an Operations and Maintenance Program (O&M Program) shall be developed for the management of asbestos containing materials.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-10: Prior to the import of a soil to a particular property within the Plan Area as part of that property’s site development, such soils shall be sampled for toxic or hazardous materials to determine if concentrations exceed applicable Environmental Screening Levels for the proposed land use at such a property, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or the Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) requirements.

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Impact 3.8-2: Specific Plan implementation
has the potential to emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.8-3: Specific Plan implementation
would not result in impacts from being
included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.8-4: Specific Plan implementation
would not result in safety hazards for
people residing or working in the Plan Area
as a result of public airport or public use
airport.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.8-5: Specific Plan implementation
would not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.8-6: Specific Plan implementation
would not have the potential to expose
people or structures to a risk of loss, injury
or death from wildland fires, or result in any
other wildfire impact.

LS None required. --

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 3.9-1: The Specific Plan would not
violate water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements during
construction.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.9-2: The Specific Plan would not
violate water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements during operation.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.9-3: The Specific Plan would not
decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of
the basin.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.9-4: The Specific Plan would not
alter the existing drainage pattern in a
manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site,
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite, or create or
contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff.

LS None required. --

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Impact 3.9-5: The Specific Plan would not
release pollutants due to Plan Area
inundation by flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.9-6: The Specific Plan would not
conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan.

LS None required. --

LAND USE
Impact 3.10-1: The proposed Specific Plan
would not physically divide an established
community.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.10-2: The proposed Specific Plan
would not cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.

LS None required. --
NOISE
Impact 3.11-1: Specific Plan implementation
could potentially substantially increase
mobile noise levels at existing and proposed
receptors.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
If future exterior noise levels are expected to exceed the applicable standards presented in Table 9-2 of the Fresno General Plan Noise Element (Table 3.11-5 of this EIR), the mitigation measure presented below shall be implemented, as applicable. A qualified Acoustical Consultant shall provide information demonstrating that site specific mitigation will be effective at reaching the applicable noise standard. • Install noise walls, berms and/or a combination of a landscaped berm with wall, and reduced barrier height in combination with increased distance or elevation differences between noise source and noise receptor. The City of Fresno has established a maximum allowable height for noise walls of 15 feet. As such, the noise walls, berms and/or a combination of a landscaped berm with wall shall not exceed 15 feet.

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

Impact 3.11-2: Specific Plan implementation
would not substantially increase noise
levels associated with construction and
demolition activities.

PS Mitigation Measure 3.11-2: Construction within the Plan Area must follow the City’s Municipal Noise Code Section 10‐109 which exempts construction, repair or remodeling work accomplished pursuant to a building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or other construction permit issued by the City or other governmental agency, or to site preparation and grading, provided such work takes place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday.

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

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
• Equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging.

Impact 3.11-3: Specific Plan implementation
would not substantially increase noise
vibration association with construction
activities.

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

LS
Impact 3.11-4: Specific Plan implementation
would not substantially increase stationary
noise at sensitive receptors.

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

LS
Impact 3.11-5: Specific Plan implementation
would not substantially increase ambient
interior noise at future sensitive receptors.

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

A qualified Acoustical Consultant shall provide information demonstrating that site specific mitigation will be effective at reaching the applicable noise standard, which includes:
• Install noise walls, berms and/or a combination of a landscaped berm with wall, and reduced barrier height in combination with increased distance or elevation differences between noise source and noise receptor. The City of Fresno has established a maximum allowable height of 15 feet. As such, the noise walls, berms and/or a combination of a landscaped berm with wall shall not exceed 15 feet.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
• Utilize façades with substantial weight and insulation. • Install sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas. • Install sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary sleeping and activity areas. • Install acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic and gable ends. • Install mechanical ventilation systems that provide fresh air under closed window conditions.

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

Impact 3.11-6: Specific Plan implementation
would not expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
airport or aircraft noise.

LS None required. --

POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impact 3.12-1: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would not induce unplanned
substantial population growth.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.12-2: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would not displace substantial
numbers of people or existing housing.

LS None required. --

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Impact 3.13-1: The proposed Specific Plan
may require the construction of fire
department facilities which may cause
substantial adverse physical environmental
impacts.

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

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Impact 3.13-2: The proposed Specific Plan
may result in, or have the potential to
require the construction of police
department facilities which may cause
substantial adverse physical environmental
impacts.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.13-3: The proposed Specific Plan
may result in, or have the potential to
require the construction of school facilities
which may cause substantial adverse
physical environmental impacts.

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

SU
Impact 3.13-4: The proposed Specific Plan
may result in, or have the potential to
require the construction of park facilities
which may cause substantial adverse
physical environmental impacts.

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

SU
Impact 3.13-5: The proposed Specific Plan
may result in, or have the potential to
require the construction of other public
facilities which may cause substantial
adverse physical environmental impacts.

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

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 3.14-1: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would not conflict with a
program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities.

LS None required. --

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Impact 3.14-2: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would not conflict with or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guideline section
15064.3, subdivision (b).

LS None required. --
Impact 3.14-3: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would not substantially
increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment).

LS None required. --
Impact 3.14-4: Implementation of the
Specific Plan would not result in inadequate
emergency access.

LS None required. --

UTILITIES
Impact 3.15-1: The proposed Specific Plan
would not require or result in the relocation
or construction of new or expanded
wastewater facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental effects.

PS None feasible. SU
Impact 3.15-2: The proposed Specific Plan
would not result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the Plan Area that it
does not have adequate capacity to serve
the Specific Plan’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments.

LS None required. --

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Impact 3.15-3: The proposed Specific Plan
would not require or result in construction
of new or expanded water facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects.

PS None feasible. SU
Impact 3.15-4: The proposed Specific Plan
would not have insufficient water supplies
available to serve the Plan Area and
reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years.

LS None required. --
Impact 3.15-5: The proposed Specific Plan
would not require or result in the
construction of new or expanded
stormwater drainage facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects.

PS None feasible. SU
Impact 3.15-6: The proposed Specific Plan
would be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
Plan Area’s solid waste disposal needs, and
would comply with federal, State, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste.

LS None required. --

OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
Impact 4.1: Specific Plan implementation
will contribute to the cumulative
degradation of the existing visual character
of the region.

LS/LCC None required. --

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Impact 4.2: Specific Plan implementation
may contribute to the cumulative impact on
agricultural land and uses.

CC/SU None feasible. --
Impact 4.3: Specific Plan implementation
would contribute to cumulative impacts on
the region's air quality.

CC/SU None feasible. --
Impact 4.4: Specific Plan implementation
would not contribute to the cumulative loss
of biological resources including habitats
and special status species.

LS/LCC None required. --
Impact 4.5: Specific Plan implementation
would not contribute to the cumulative loss
of cultural and tribal resources.

LS/LCC None required. --
Impact 4.6: Specific Plan implementation
may contribute to cumulative impacts on
geologic and soils characteristics.

LS/LCC None required. --
Impact 4.7: Cumulative impact on climate
change from increased project-related
greenhouse gas emissions.

LS/LCC None required. --
Impact 4.8: Specific Plan implementation
may contribute to cumulative impacts
related to hazards and hazardous materials.

LS/LCC None required. --
Impact 4.9: Cumulative impacts related to
hydrology and water quality.

LS/LCC None required. --

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CC – cumulatively considerable LCC – less than cumulatively considerable LS – less than significant PS – potentially significant B – beneficial impact SU – significant and unavoidable ES-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Impact 4.10: Specific Plan implementation
may contribute to cumulative impacts on
communities and local land uses.

LS/LCC None required. --
Impact 4.11: Specific Plan implementation
may contribute to the cumulative exposure
of existing and future noise-sensitive land
uses or to increased noise resulting from
cumulative development.

LS/LCC None required. --
Impact 4.12: Specific Plan implementation
may contribute to cumulative impacts on
population growth and displace substantial
numbers of people or existing housing.

LS/LCC None required. --
Impact 4.13: Specific Plan implementation
may contribute to cumulative impacts on
public services.

CC/SU None required. --
Impact 4.14: Specific Plan implementation
may contribute to cumulative impacts to
the regional transportation network.

LS/LCC None required. --
Impact 4.15: Specific Plan implementation
may contribute to cumulative impacts on
utilities.

LS/LCC None required. --
INTRODUCTION 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-1 This section summarizes the purpose of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan “project” or “proposed project.” The following discussion addresses the environmental procedures that are to be followed according to State law, the intended uses of the EIR, the project’s relationship to the City’s General Plan, the EIR scope and organization, and a summary of the agency and public comments received during the public review period for the Notice of Preparation (NOP).

1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THE EIR
The City of Fresno, as lead agency, determined that the proposed Specific Plan is a "project" within the definition of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires the preparation of an environmental impact report prior to approving any project, which may have a significant impact on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, the term "project" refers to the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378[a]).

An EIR must disclose the expected environmental impacts, including impacts that cannot be avoided, growth-inducing effects, impacts found not to be significant, and significant cumulative impacts, as well as identify mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or avoid its adverse environmental impacts. CEQA requires government agencies to consider and, where feasible, minimize environmental impacts of proposed development. CEQA further requires public agencies to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors in making a decision to approve a development project with significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.

The City of Fresno, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Draft EIR to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies with an objective analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of the Specific Plan Project. The environmental review process enables interested parties to evaluate the proposed project in terms of its environmental consequences, to examine and recommend methods to eliminate or reduce potential adverse impacts, and to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding adverse environmental effects, the lead agency must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including the economic and social benefits of a project, in determining whether a project should be approved.

This EIR will be used by the City to determine whether to approve, modify, or deny the proposed project and associated approvals in light of the project’s environmental effects. The EIR will be used as the primary environmental document to evaluate full project development, along with all associated infrastructure improvements, and permitting actions associated with the Project. All of the actions and components of the proposed project are described in detail in Chapter 2.0 of this Draft EIR.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

1.2 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 high level of design detail for certain components of the project. To the extent that sufficient detail is available in the Specific Plan, a full project-level analysis is provided in this EIR. Examples of a full project level analysis would include topics that are related to the physical acreage affected (i.e. the project footprint), as opposed to the number of units, land uses/zoning, or other design parameters. Topics such as Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Hydrology/Water Quality are analyzed at a project-level analysis in this EIR given that these are physical environmental resources, and the area of impact is fully defined. Additionally, the Specific Plan includes a substantial level of detailed information that allows for a project-level analysis of topics such as Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change, Noise, Population and Housing, Transportation and Circulation, and Utilities. The analysis for these topics is driven by the number of units and square footage of development, which is detailed in the land use design and development projections. In some cases, there may be specific commercial uses that have design details developed at a later date that cannot reasonably be analyzed at a project-level at this time.

Additionally, the design of the school facilities and other public facilities are not known at this time, so they are not able to be analyzed at a project-level.

This EIR examines the planning, construction and operation of the project. The program-level approach, with some 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 INTRODUCTION 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-3 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:

Here, the City anticipates preparing a written checklist or similar device whenever landowners within the Specific Plan area submit applications for site-specific approvals (i.e. tentative maps, conditional use 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. are there new environmental effects that were not covered by the program EIR). The City’s expectation, at least at present, is that the checklist will conclude that most, or all, components of the Specific Plan can be developed with no new analysis of environmental effects given that there is a high level of resolution with regard to the project details that have been analyzed 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

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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:
a) 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 b) 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 a written checklist or similar device whenever landowners within the Specific Plan area submit applications for site-specific approvals (i.e. tentative maps, conditional use 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, 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 West Area Neighborhoods 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.

INTRODUCTION 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-5

1.3 RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES
As required by CEQA, this EIR defines lead, responsible, and trustee agencies. The City of Fresno is the “Lead Agency” for the project because it holds principal responsibility for approving the project.

The term “Responsible Agency” includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency that have discretionary approval power over the project or an aspect of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381). For the purpose of CEQA, a “Trustee” agency has jurisdiction by law over natural resources that are held in trust for the people of the State of California. CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 recognizes four particular trustee agencies: (a) the California Department of Fish and Wildlife with regard to the fish and wildlife of the State, to designated rare or endangered native plants, and to game refuges, ecological reserves, and other areas administered by the department; (b) the State Lands Commission with regard to State owned “sovereign” lands such as the beds of navigable waters and State school lands; (c) the State Department of Parks and Recreation with regard to units of the State Park System; and (d) The University of California with regard to sites within the Natural Land and Water Reserves System.

The following agencies are considered Responsible Agencies for this project, and may be required to issue permits or approve certain aspects of the proposed project:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW);
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans);
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board – Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general construction permit;
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – Approval of construction-related air quality permits, authority to Construct, Permit to Operate for stationary sources of air pollution;
• Central Unified School District – Approval of school sites.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife will also function as a trustee agency with respect to the proposed project. The City is unaware of any other trustee agency, as the proposed project would not affect any state owned “sovereign” lands, any units of the State Park System, or any sites within the University of California’s Natural Land and Water Reserves System.

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The review and certification process for the EIR has involved, or will involve, the following general procedural steps:

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed project on June 28, 2019 to responsible and trustee agencies, the State Clearinghouse, and the public. A public scoping meeting was held on July 24, 2019 at 6:00 p.m., at the Glacier Point Middle School Cafeteria in Fresno to present the project description to the public and interested agencies, and to receive comments

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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 were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR. The NOP and responses to the NOP by interested parties are presented in Appendix A of this EIR.

DRAFT EIR
This document constitutes the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR contains 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.

This Draft EIR identifies 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 were considered in preparing the analysis in this EIR. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City has filed the Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Clearinghouse of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period.

PUBLIC NOTICE/PUBLIC REVIEW
The City has provided a public notice of availability for the Draft EIR, and invites comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. Consistent with CEQA, the review period for this Draft EIR is forty-five (45) days. Public comment on the Draft EIR or questions regarding the Draft EIR should be addressed to:

Casey Lauderdale
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065, Fresno, CA 93721
[email protected]

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.

INTRODUCTION 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-7 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 this EIR is consistent with Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines and recent court decisions, which provide the standard of adequacy on which this 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.

1.5 ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE
Sections 15122 through 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines identify the content requirements for Draft and Final EIRs. An EIR must include or address a description of the environmental setting, an environmental impact analysis, mitigation measures, alternatives, significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. Discussion of the environmental issues addressed in the Draft EIR was established through review of environmental and planning documentation developed for the project, environmental and planning documentation prepared for recent projects located within the City of Fresno, applicable local and regional planning documents, and responses to the NOP.

This Draft EIR is organized in the following manner:

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Executive Summary summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project, known areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, and provides a concise summary matrix of the project’s environmental impacts and possible mitigation measures. This chapter identifies alternatives that reduce or avoid at least one significant environmental effect of the proposed project.

CHAPTER 1.0 – INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1.0 briefly describes the purpose of the environmental evaluation, identifies the lead, trustee, and responsible agencies, summarizes the process associated with preparation and certification of an EIR, and identifies the scope and organization of the Draft EIR.

CHAPTER 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Chapter 2.0 provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including the location, intended objectives, background information, the physical and technical characteristics, including the decisions subject to CEQA, related infrastructure improvements, and a list of related agency action requirements.

CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND

MITIGATION MEASURES
Chapter 3.0 contains an analysis of each environmental topic area as identified below. Each subchapter addressing a topical area is organized as follows:

Environmental Setting. A description of the existing environment as it pertains to the topical area.

Regulatory Setting. A description of the regulatory environment that may be applicable to the project.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Identification of the significance criteria (also referred to as “thresholds of significance” throughout this EIR) by which the significance of impacts are determined, a description of project-related impacts associated with the environmental topic, identification of appropriate mitigation measures, and a conclusion as to the significance of each impact after the incorporation of proposed mitigation measures.

The following environmental topics are addressed in this chapter:
• Aesthetics
• Agricultural Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural and Tribal Resources
• Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
• Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
INTRODUCTION 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-9 • Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services and Recreation
• Transportation and Circulation
• Utilities
CHAPTER 4.0 – OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
Chapter 4.0 evaluates and describes the CEQA required topics as follows: cumulative and significant and unavoidable environmental effects under cumulative conditions. Chapter 4.0 also evaluates and describes the CEQA required topics as follows: impacts considered less-than-significant, significant and irreversible impacts, growth-inducing effects, and significant and unavoidable environmental effects.

CHAPTER 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and avoid and/or lessen any significant environmental effects of the project. Chapter 5.0 provides a comparative analysis between the environmental impacts of the project and the selected alternatives.

CHAPTER 6.0 – REPORT PREPARERS
This chapter lists all authors and agencies that assisted in the preparation of the EIR, by name, title, and company or agency affiliation.

CHAPTER 7.0 – REFERENCES
This chapter lists all references used in the preparation of the EIR.

APPENDICES
This section includes all notices and other procedural documents pertinent to the EIR, as well as technical material prepared to support the analysis. The EIR appendices are available in electronic format. The appendices can be viewed online at: https://www.fresno.gov/westareaplan.

1.6 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA (“THRESHOLDS”)
In general, CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial” adverse change in the physical environment. A potential impact is considered significant if a project would substantially degrade the environmental quality of land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines §§15360, 15382).

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Definitions of significance vary with the physical condition affected and the setting in which the change occurs. The CEQA Guidelines set forth physical impacts that trigger the requirement to make “mandatory findings of significance” (CEQA Guidelines §15065).

This CEQA document relies on three levels of impact significance:

1. Less-than-significant impact, for which no mitigation measures are warranted;

2. Significant impact that can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant; and,

3. Significant impact that cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. Such impacts are referred to as significant and unavoidable.

Each resource area uses a distinct set of significance criteria (also referred to as “thresholds of significance” throughout the EIR). The significance criteria are identified at the beginning of the impact discussion for each resource area. These significance criteria promote consistent evaluation of impacts for all alternatives considered, even though significance criteria are necessarily different for each resource considered. When criteria for significance determinations relative to a specific environmental resource are not identified in the CEQA Guidelines, specific criteria have been developed for this Draft EIR consistent with the past pattern and practice of the City of Fresno.

1.7 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The City received thirteen written comment letters on the NOP for the proposed project Draft EIR.

A copy of each letter is provided in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. A public scoping meeting was held on July 24, 2019 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.

1. April Henry (August 1, 2019)

2. California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (July 19, 2019)

3. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit (June 28, 2019)

4. Carl & Lydia Franklin (August 2, 2019)

5. Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019)

6. Central Grizzlies Youth Football & Cheer (August 2, 2019)

7. City of Fresno Transportation Department, Fresno Area Express (July 29, 2019)

8. Forgotten Fresno (July 17, 2019)

9. Fresno Metropolitan Floor Control District (August 1, 2019)

10. Fresno County Public Library (July 8, 2019)

11. Jeff Roberts (July 24, 2019)

12. Patricia and Clifford Upton (July 24, 2019)

13. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (July 15, 2019)

1.8 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
The following are topics of public concern or potential controversy that have become known to the City staff based on public input, known regional issues, and staff observations:

INTRODUCTION 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-11 • Conversion of undeveloped land to urban use
• Light, glare, and skyglow
• Traffic congestion from automobiles and large trucks, ensuring safe routes to schools, and provision of alternative transportation infrastructure
• Annexation of county properties into the city
• Parkland, trail, and ball field impacts
• Need for aesthetics improvements, including tree planting • Air quality and pollution concerns, including dust from construction and agricultural uses, and air pollution along Highway 99
• Project impact on regional stormwater, drainage, and flood control

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-1

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING

REGIONAL LOCATION AND SETTING
The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (also-known-as “Specific Plan”, “Plan Area”) encompasses approximately 7,077 acres (or a little more than 11 square miles) in the City of Fresno city limits and unincorporated Fresno County. 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 2.0-1 for the regional location map and Figure 2.0-2 for the Plan Area vicinity map.

SPECIFIC PLAN AREA PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The Plan Area is relatively flat with natural gentle slope near State Route 99. The Plan Area topography ranges in elevation from approximately 283 to 315 feet above mean sea level. A large amount of land in the Plan Area is farmland or rural residential lots with large, uneven, and underutilized parcels.

The Plan Area has approximately eight different existing land uses which include the following:
• Rural/Estate Residential: Approximately 27 percent, or 1,911 acres, of the existing land uses within the Plan Area are currently used as rural/estate residential. Of the 6,109 acres of developable lands within the Plan Area, 1,640.68 acres are low-density single-family homes that are occupied lots with a size of two to nine acres per dwelling units. • Multiple Family Residential: Approximately two percent, or 141 acres, of the Plan Area account for multi-family residential development. These uses are primarily located adjacent to arterial roads with easy access to State Route 99, and Fresno Area Express (FAX) service lines.
• Single-Family Residential: Approximately 21 percent of the existing uses within the Plan Area are currently developed with single-family residential uses. These uses are located primarily within the city limits.
• Vacant Land: Approximately 15 percent of the land in the Plan Area, or 911.34 acres, account for vacant lands. Vacant areas are located throughout the Plan Area, in both the city limits and SOI. Vacant areas represent infill opportunities within the Plan Area’s densest neighborhoods.
• Public/Government Facilities: Approximately six percent, or 337.83 acres, of land within the Plan Area contain public or government facilities. These land uses include Central Unified School District facilities, churches, the Dante Club, and the Hacienda facility.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Open Space/Agricultural Land: Approximately 25 percent or 1,554.06 acres, in the Plan Area contain open space or agricultural land. While there are some open space land uses within the City, most of these uses are primarily located in the SOI. These uses include parks and ponding basins.
• Industrial Uses: Approximately one percent, or 57.33 acres, of the Plan Area account for industrial uses. The largest industrial land use in the Plan Area contains an agricultural business located at the intersection of West Dakota Avenue and North Grantland Avenue. • Commercial Uses: Approximately three percent, or 219.76 acres, of the Plan Area account for commercial uses. Commercial uses are spread throughout the eastern and southeastern portions of the Plan Area, closer to State Route 99.

The Plan Area has approximately 3,070.95 acres of land that is classified as Urban and Built-Up, according to the State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

Prime Farmland is principally located outside of the Plan Area. The Plan 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 2.0-3 for an aerial view of the Plan Area.

SURROUNDING LAND USES
Surrounding land uses include State Route 99; the historic communities of Herndon and Highway City; incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the north; incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the east (including mostly industrial uses); unincorporated Fresno County and incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the south (including farmland uses, rural residential uses, low density residential uses, and underutilized parcels); and unincorporated Fresno County to the west (including farmland and rural residential uses).

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN 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 (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 2.0-4 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 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-3 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 2.0-5 for the existing zoning designations.

In the unincorporated areas of the Plan Area, the Fresno County Zoning Map designates the portions of the Plan Area outside the city limits but within the SOI as: Rural Commercial Center (RCC), Central Trading (C4), General Commercial (C6), Light Industrial (M1), Exclusive Agricultural (AE20), Limited Agricultural (AL20), Rural Residential (RR), Single Family Residential Agricultural (RA), Single Family Residential (12,500) (R1B), and Trailer Park Residential (TP). Upon a proposal to annex unincorporated land into the city limits, the City of Fresno would prezone the land to a zone that is consistent with the General Plan land use. Once annexation occurs, the County zoning would no longer apply to the parcel.

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

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 West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan seeks to provide for the orderly and consistent development that promotes and establishes the Plan Area as a complete neighborhood with enhanced transportation infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation of additional parkland, and development of a diverse housing stock. The Plan Area does not currently have needed commercial amenities, causing residents to travel east of State Route 99 for retail services. The Plan Area also lacks a complete roadway network and parkland.

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 Plan 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.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan The 11-member Steering Committee, established in March 2018 by the Fresno City Council, held regular public meetings to provide recommendations on 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 agritourism workshop was held in the spring of 2019.

RELATED PLANNING EFFORTS
The Specific Plan serves as the first major specific planning effort, environmental evaluation, and infrastructure analysis for the Plan Area. However, other past and in-progress planning efforts impacting the Plan Area have occurred and are described below.

The Highway City Neighborhood Specific Plan (1998)
The Highway City Neighborhood Specific Plan, which applies to about five percent of the Plan Area, was adopted on January 6, 1998 and was prepared to address problems, issues, and opportunities of the Highway City neighborhood. One of the guiding principles for the Highway City Neighborhood Specific Plan encouraged development of neighborhoods characterized by a diverse but compatible arrangement of residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses to be supported by existing single-family residential areas. The proposed Specific Plan will replace a portion of the Highway City Neighborhood Specific Plan, but will carry forward applicable area-specific policies.

The West Area Community Plan (2002)
The West Area Community Plan was adopted on February 1, 2002 as “Appendix W” of the 2025 General Plan and applies to the area encompassing the Plan Area and additional land to the east (to the railroad tracks east of Golden State Boulevard) and south (to Belmont Avenue and the railroad tracks south of Belmont Avenue). The core goals of the Community Plan were to develop the West Area as a planned community with a complete range of services, facilities, and public infrastructure development, and to minimize land use conflicts between agriculture and urban uses. The proposed Specific Plan would replace the Community Plan, updating and incorporating still-relevant policies.

The General Plan (2014)
The General Plan was adopted on December 18, 2014 and set a forward-looking course for the city focusing on infill development, Complete Neighborhoods, and multimodal transportation to achieve fiscally sustainable and environmentally responsible growth. It establishes the foundation for this Specific Plan, anticipating that this Plan will further refine the General Plan’s vision for the Plan Area.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-5 One of the primary goals of the General Plan is to support established neighborhoods in Fresno with safe, well maintained, and accessible streets; public utilities, education and job training; proximity to jobs, retail services, health care, affordable housing, youth development opportunities, open space and parks, transportation options; and opportunities for home grown businesses. Another key goal of the General Plan that is reiterated in the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan is to resolve existing public infrastructure and service deficiencies, make full use of existing infrastructure, and invest in improvements to increase connectivity, competitiveness, and to promote economic growth.

To achieve its goals while maintaining orderly development, the General Plan designates a sequencing of development that calls for roughly half to occur in infill areas (defined as within the city limits on December 31, 2012) and permits half to occur in greenfield areas. For greenfield areas, development must first occur in parts of the Sphere of Influence defined as Growth Area 1, which is deemed to be infrastructure-ready. Growth Area 2, on the other hand, is in need of significant infrastructure investment that the City has not planned for nor funded. Development within the city and Growth Area 1 is supported by and based on planned infrastructure expansion, public service capacity, and financial considerations undertaken during the General Plan process. The Plan Area is within Growth Area 1 and therefore has capacity to support growth.

The General Plan’s vision for the Plan Area is to create opportunities for the development of Complete Neighborhoods. The concept of Complete Neighborhoods is to enable Fresnans to live in communities with convenient access to services, employment, and recreation within walking distance. It provides residents with amenities that make their neighborhood mostly self-sufficient and interconnected. Characteristics of a Complete Neighborhood, which can create an enhanced quality of life and increased property values, include:
a) A range of housing choices;
b) Neighborhood-serving retail;
c) Employment opportunities;
d) Public services, such as health clinics;
e) Entertainment and cultural assets;
f) Parks and public schools;
g) Community services, such as a library, recreation center, senior center, and/or community garden;
h) Sidewalks, bikeways, trails and other active transportation infrastructure; i) Public plaza/civic space; and
j) Access to public transit.

Fresno Municipal Code Chapter 15: Citywide Development Code (2015) The main purpose of the Development Code, which was adopted in 2015, is to implement the General Plan and other adopted plans. The Development Code is the City’s zoning code, and it seeks to protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the city of Fresno. It classifies the city into districts, or “zones” that allow various land uses, including:

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan residential single-family, residential multi-family, mixed-use, commercial, public and semi-public, downtown, and employment districts.

ADA Transition Plan for the Right of Way (2016)
The 2016 Update to the ADA Transition Plan for the Right of Way (ROW Transition Plan) was adopted by Council on February 25, 2016. The goal of the ROW Transition Plan is to ensure that the City maintains accessible paths of travel in the ROW for people with disabilities. The ROW Transition Plan incorporates retrofitting Curb Ramps, Sidewalks, and Accessible Pedestrian Signals and replaces the 2003 Amended Curb Ramp Transition Plan.

The Active Transportation Plan (2017)
The Active Transportation Plan (ATP) was adopted on March 2, 2017 and serves as the City’s comprehensive guide for active transportation. The ATP envisions a complete, safe, and comfortable network of trails, sidewalks, and bikeways that serve as a means for people to safely get to their destinations while reducing roadway congestion and improving the air quality. This also results in replacing vehicle miles traveled with walking or biking. Additional Class II bike lanes are planned for the Plan Area and Class I bicycle and pedestrian trails are to be constructed with four connection points over State Route 99 at Herndon Avenue, Veterans Boulevard, Gettysburg Avenue, and the Herndon Canal which is located near West Shaw Avenue.

The Parks Master Plan (2017)
The Parks Master Plan was adopted on December 14, 2017 and serves as a community-based vision and road map for achieving a complete park system in the city of Fresno. Through a public outreach process, examination of existing conditions, and analysis of the General Plan’s goals, the Parks Master Plan determined the amount of parkland needed for the city’s existing and future population.

LAND USE MAP AND MAXIMUM BUILDOUT POTENTIAL
The proposed Specific Plan refines the General Plan’s land use vision for the Plan Area. The draft land use map proposes the relocation of higher density land uses away from the most western and southwestern portions of the Plan Area where they are distant from public transit and community amenities and transfers those higher density land use designations to major corridors. The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan land use plan utilizes the City’s existing General Plan land use designations to maintain or re-designate some parcels in the Plan Area. See Table 2.0-1 for a summary of the existing and proposed land uses within the city limits, growth area, and Plan Area.

See Figure 2.0-6 for the proposed General Plan land use designations.

As indicated in Table 2.0-1, the Specific Plan would result in an increase in land designated for employment, mixed use, open space and public facilities uses and a decrease in land designated for residential and commercial uses compared to the existing General Plan.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-7 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TABLE 2.0-1: 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
- 104.93
671.59 420.76
- 183.73
817.79 516.57
- 288.66
Medium Low 582.37 821.03 243.59 619.19 825.97 1,440.22
Medium 1,460.88 1,316.66 896.13 801.34 2,357.00 2,118.00 Medium High 261.09 229.03 88.33 51.24 349.42 280.27
Urban Neighborhood 214.65 79.11 213.96 75.11 428.61 154.21 High 28.00 46.61 37.76 0.00 65.76 46.61
Subtotal - Residential 2,693.19 2,588.26 2,151.36 1,967.63 4,844.55 4,555.89 Community 81.87 51.14
- 16.94

56.79 6.60
+ 12.10
138.66 57.74
- 4.82
Recreation 41.34 41.34 0.00 0.00 41.34 41.34
General 141.59 155.38 1.63 59.69 143.21 215.07
Regional 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.24 0.00 4.24
Subtotal - Commercial 264.80 247.86 58.42 70.52 323.21 318.39 Office 7.51 36.38
+ 26.35

0.00 45.87
+ 45.87

7.51 82.25
+ 72.22 Business Park 22.71 20.57 54.40 54.40 77.11 74.97 Light Industrial 33.13 32.75 0.00 0.00 33.13 32.75
Subtotal - Employment 63.35 89.70 54.40 100.27 117.75 189.97 Neighborhood 0.00 263.59
+ 84.47

0.00 44.83
+ 69.06

0.00 308.43
+ 153.53 Corridor/Center 106.19 71.78 0.00 24.23 106.19 96.00 Regional 144.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 144.72 0.00
Subtotal - Mixed Use 250.90 335.37 0.00 69.06 250.90 404.43 Pocket Park 2.45 1.55
+ 44.64

0.00 0.00
+ 34.55

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 67.06 110.04 40.12 19.55 107.18 129.59
Subtotal - Open Space 135.41 180.05 102.90 68.35 238.31 248.40 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 3,741.39 -- 2,430.39 2,364.74 -- 6,106.14 6,106.14 -- PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-8 As previously indicated, the City of Fresno Zoning Map designates the Plan Area as: RE, RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4, RS-5, RM-1, RM-2, RM-3, RM-MH, CC, CG, CR, CRC, IL, CMX, NMX, RMX, BP, O, OS, and PR. The Fresno County Zoning Map designates the portions of the Plan Area outside the city limits as: RCC, C4, C6, M1, AE20, AL20, RR, RA, R1B, and TP. In conjunction with the approval of the Specific Plan, the parcels in the City which would have a changed land use designation as a result of the Specific Plan would be rezoned to the corresponding City zoning designation.

The parcels that are currently within the County will not be rezoned. Instead, upon a proposal to annex unincorporated land into the city limits, the City of Fresno would prezone the land to a zone that is consistent with the General Plan land use. Once annexation occurs, the County zoning would no longer apply to the parcel and the zoning established in the prezoning would take effect.

Table 2.0-2 summarizes the existing General Plan land uses, the maximum number of units, and the maximum non-residential square footage that would be allowed under the existing General Plan. As shown, the existing General Plan land use designations for the Plan Area could result in up to 67,205 dwelling units (DU) and up to 44,419,656.60 square feet (SF) of non-residential uses within the Plan Area.

Table 2.0-3 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.

As shown in the table, the Specific Plan land use plan that was recommended by the Steering Committee would allow for the future development of up to 54,953 DU (including 67 DU in the commercial category, 47,072 DU in the residential category and 7,814 DU in the mixed use category), and 60,621,006.31 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 the south side of the 6000 block of West Shaw Avenue to maximize the department’s response time goal.

Additionally, the proposed land use plan would 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.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-9 TABLE 2.0-2: MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WITHIN WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA– EXISTING GENERAL PLAN

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) 817.79 2,862 --
Medium Low (3.5-6 DU/AC) 825.97 4,955 --
Medium (5-12 DU/AC) 2,357.00 28,284 --
Medium High (12-16 DU/AC) 349.42 5,590 --
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 DU/AC) 428.61 12,858 --
High (30-45 DU/AC) 65.76 2,959 --
Subtotal - Residential 4,844.55 57,508 --
Community (1.0 Max. FAR) 138.66 -- 6,040,029.60
Recreation (0.5 Max. FAR) 41.34 -- 900,385.20
General (2.0 Max. FAR) 143.21 -- 12,476,455.20
Regional (1.0 Max. FAR) 0.00 0 0.00
Subtotal - Commercial 323.21 0 19,416,870.00
Office (2.0 Max. FAR) 7.51 -- 654,271.20
Business Park (1.0 Max. FAR) 77.11 -- 3,358,911.60
Light Industrial (1.0 Max. FAR) 33.13 -- 1,443,142.80
Subtotal - Employment 117.75 -- 5,456,325.60
Neighborhood (12-16 DU/AC; 1.5 Max. FAR) 0.00 0 0.00
Corridor/Center (16-30 UD/AC; 1.5 Max. FAR) 106.19 3,185 6,938,454.60 Regional (30-45 UD/AC; 2.0 Max. FAR) 144.72 6,512 12,608,006.40 Subtotal - Mixed Use 250.90 9,697 19,546,461.00
Pocket Park 2.45 -- --
Neighborhood Park 83.71 -- --
Community Park 38.18 -- --
Regional Park 0.00 -- --
Open Space 6.79 -- --
Ponding Basin 107.18 -- --
Subtotal - Open Space 238.31 -- --
Public Facility 21.78 -- --
Church 11.59 -- --
Special School 18.38 -- --
Elem. School 81.82 -- --
Elem./Middle/High School 145.37 -- --
High School 46.95 -- --
Fire Station 5.52 -- --
Subtotal - Public Facilities 331.41 -- --
Grand Total 6,106.14 67,205 44,419,656.60

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TABLE 2.0-3: MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WITHIN WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN – PROPOSED WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN

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 1,808 --
Medium Low (3.5-6 DU/AC) 1,440.22 8,641 --
Medium (5-12 DU/AC) 2,118.00 25,416 --
Medium High (12-16 DU/AC) 280.27 4,484 --
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 DU/AC) 154.21 4,626 --
High (30-45 DU/AC) 46.61 2,097 --
Subtotal - Residential 4,555.89 47,072 --
Community (1.0 Max. FAR) 57.74 -- 2,515,345.93
Recreation (0.5 Max. FAR) 41.34 -- 900,316.07
General (2.0 Max. FAR) 215.07 -- 18,737,081.61
Regional (1.0 Max. FAR) 4.24 67 184,521.12
Subtotal - Commercial 318.39 67 22,337,264.74
Office (2.0 Max. FAR) 82.25 -- 7,166,022.23
Business Park (1.0 Max. FAR) 74.97 -- 3,265,670.81
Light Industrial (1.0 Max. FAR) 32.75 -- 1,426,584.42
Subtotal - Employment 189.97 -- 11,858,277.47
Neighborhood (12-16 DU/AC; 1.5 Max. FAR) 308.43 4,934 20,152,641.61 Corridor/Center (16-30 UD/AC; 1.5 Max. FAR) 96.00 2,880 6,272,822.49 Regional (30-45 UD/AC; 2.0 Max. FAR) 0.00 0 0.00
Subtotal - Mixed Use 404.43 7,814 26,425,464.11
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 54,953 DU 60,621,006.31 SF
The proposed Specific Plan land uses could result in a decrease in the number of residential units in the Plan Area and an increase in the amount of non-residential square footage. Specifically, the proposed Specific Plan could decrease the number of housing units by 12,252 DU (including a 10,436 DU reduction in the residential category, a 67 DU increase in the commercial category, and an 1,883 DU reduction in the mixed use category). The proposed Specific Plan could increase the amount of non-residential SF by 16,201,349.72 SF (including a 2,920,394.74 SF increase in the commercial category, a 6,401,951.87 SF increase in the employment category, and a 6,879,003.11 SF increase in the mixed use category).

The Specific Plan is designed to provide flexibility, so there are a number of variations/combinations for residential and non-residential development. However, the development potential identified within the table represents the maximum development that would be allowed based upon the PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-11 existing and proposed land uses and their associated densities and intensities without requiring a future amendment to the Specific Plan. In effect, this is very likely an overestimate of what will actually be developed, but for purposes of environmental analysis in the Environmental Impact Report (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 2.0-7.

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 Plan 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 Grantland Avenue; b) West Ashlan Avenue, from State Route 99 to 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.

PLAN ADOPTION AND REGULATION
The Specific Plan will 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 (as set forth in Section 15-204-B of the City Code). Where there is a conflict between the Specific Plan and the Zoning Code, the Zoning Code would prevail.

The Specific Plan is intended to be adopted by the City Council and to serve as a tool for the City of Fresno to implement the General Plan. The Specific Plan is to be used by designers, developers, builders, and planners, to guide development of the Plan Area. The land use standards and development standards are provided to ensure that all proposed developments remain consistent with the vision established by the Specific Plan as the Plan Area is built over time. The Specific Plan development concepts and standards are in accordance with the City’s General Plan, Municipal

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Ordinances, and City Specifications. The Specific Plan shall be used to review, process, and approve development proposals for the Plan Area including but not limited to site specific development applications and site improvement plans.

PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
The City of Fresno will be the Lead Agency for the proposed Specific Plan, pursuant to the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15050.

Actions that would be required from the City include, but are not limited to the following:
• Repeal of a portion of the Highway City Specific Plan that overlaps with the plan area boundaries;
• Repeal of the West Area Community Plan;
• Certification of the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan EIR and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP);
• Approval of the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan; • Amendment of the General Plan land use map to incorporate the planned land uses of the Specific Plan; and
• Rezone of all parcels proposed for land use changes within city limits of the Specific Plan area to a zone district consistent with the planned land use.

2.3 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the proposed Specific Plan include future development of land for a wide variety of land uses including: Low Density Residential; Medium Low Density Residential; Medium Density Residential; Medium High Density Residential; Urban Neighborhood Residential; High Density Residential; Community Commercial; Recreation Commercial; General Commercial; Regional Commercial; Office; Business Park; Light Industrial; Corridor/Center Mixed Use; Regional Mixed Use; Pocket Park; Neighborhood Park; Community Park; Open Space; Ponding Basin; Public Facility; Church; Special School; Elementary School; Elementary, Middle & High School; High School; and Fire Station uses, as well as the required transportation and utility improvements.

QUANTIFIABLE OBJECTIVES
The quantifiable objective of the proposed Specific Plan includes the future development of up to 54,953 DU (including 67 DU in the commercial category, 47,072 DU in the residential category and 7,814 DU in the mixed use category) and 60,621,006 SF of non-residential uses.

SPECIFIC PLAN GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The Specific Plan’s guiding principles are designed to form the direction of the Specific Plan, and how the Plan can best benefit the future of the Plan Area. The guiding principles incorporate input received from community members and formal recommendations of the Steering Committee. The guiding principles of the Specific Plan are summarized as follows:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-13 Transportation
• Accommodate and improve roadway access, connectivity and mobility among all modes of transportation, and prioritize roadway widening where bottlenecking exists. • Accommodate planned transit services in the Plan Area by locating routes near or adjacent to the community centers, schools, parks, and retail centers. • Provide a complete, safe, and well-maintained sidewalk network from residential neighborhoods to commercial centers, schools, parks, and community centers. • Provide a complete, safe, and well-maintained roadway network that allows for efficient and smooth access from the Plan Area to other sections of the City and region.

Parks and Trails
• Create parks that are within existing and planned neighborhoods that are easily accessed by community members using pedestrian and bicycle pathways, transit services, or motor vehicles, consistent with the City of Fresno’s Parks Master Plan. • Provide for the location of a flagship Regional Park in the Plan Area that has components of the Plan Area’s agricultural history through the planting of drought-resistant vegetation or trees, and the creation of public art that exhibits the Plan Area’s contribution to the agricultural industry.

Agriculture
• Incorporate elements of agriculture in future parks by planting a mixture of native drought tolerant vegetation, shrubs, and trees that can serve to provide shade and enhance the streetscape.
• Encourage and provide land use opportunities for agritourism ventures to occur in the Plan Area.
• Encourage the development of harvest – producing community gardens.

Retail
• Attract desired and needed local retail establishments to serve the needs of the Plan Area community. Such establishments include grocery stores, bakeries, restaurants other than fast food places, and boutiques.
• Discourage the expansion of undesirable retail establishments such as liquor stores, tobacco and vapor stores, short-term loan and pawn shops, and adult stores. • Encourage the development of retail establishments along commercial corridors. • Encourage the orderly and consistent development of civic, parkland, retail and commercial, mixed-use, and multi-family uses along West Shaw Avenue, West Ashlan Avenue, Veterans Boulevard, West Shields Avenue, West Clinton Avenue, and Blythe Avenue.

Housing
• Encourage a variety of housing types and styles.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Encourage the development of housing to accommodate an aging population including, multi-generational houses and other elder housing options. • Reaffirm the City’s commitment and obligation to affirmatively furthering access to fair and affordable housing opportunities by strongly encouraging equitable and fair housing opportunities to be located in strategic proximity to employment, recreational facilities, schools, neighborhood commercial areas, and transportation routes.

Education
• Attract much needed educational opportunities for the residents of the Plan Area, especially for post-secondary education, and access to programs for life-long learners.

Public Safety
• Provide for safe routes to schools for children, with the City and County working together with residents, to provide sidewalks in neighborhoods that have sporadic access. • Work to promote Neighborhood Watch in all neighborhoods, and further assess the need for the location of emergency response facilities west of State Route 99.

These Specific Plan guiding principles functionally represent project objectives as required by CEQA Guidelines section 15124, subdivision (b).

2.4 USES OF THE EIR AND REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS
The City of Fresno will be the Lead Agency for the proposed Specific Plan, pursuant to the State Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA, Section 15050. Actions that would be required from the City include, but are not limited to the following:
• Repeal of a portion of the Highway City Specific Plan that overlaps with the plan area boundaries;
• Repeal of the West Area Community Plan;
• Certification of the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan EIR and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP);
• Approval of the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan; • Amendment of the General Plan land use map to incorporate the planned land uses of the Specific Plan; and
• Rezone of all parcels proposed for land use changes within city limits of the Specific Plan area to a zone district consistent with the planned land use. • Approval of the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan.

The following agencies are considered Responsible Agencies for this Specific Plan, and may be required to issue permits or approve certain aspects of the proposed Specific Plan:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW);
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans);
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-15 • Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board – Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general construction permit;
• Fresno Irrigation District (FID);
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – Approval of construction-related air quality permits, authority to Construct, Permit to Operate for stationary sources of air pollution;
• Central Unified School District – Approval of school sites.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife will also function as a trustee agency with respect to the proposed Specific Plan. The City is unaware of any other trustee agency, as the proposed Specific Plan would not affect any state owned “sovereign” lands, any units of the State Park System, or any sites within the University of California’s Natural Land and Water Reserves System.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

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 2.0-1. 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

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

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 2.0-2. Vicinity Map q 0 1 2
Miles
Legend
Specific Plan of the West Area
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. Revised: May 29, 2020.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
27 13
1 6 28
29 14
2 7 15
30 16
17 18
31 8
19 9
20 3
21 22
26 12
23 4 5
11 24
25 10
N Blythe Ave
N Polk Ave
N Marks Ave
N Golden State Blvd
W Ashlan Ave
W
Figarden Dr
W Shaw Ave
N Grantland Ave
W Mckinley Ave
N Weber Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
W Shields Ave
N Vista Ave

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
Figure 2.0-3. Aerial View of Project Site
Legend
Specific Plan of the West Area
Area Features
!( Fire Station
!( Golf Course
!( Park
!( Post Office
!( School
!( Shopping
!( Special Point of Interest
Sources: Fresno County; Google Maps; ArcGIS Online World Imagery Map Service. Map date: May 8, 2019. Revised: May 29, 2020. 1 Station #18
2 Station #16
3 Station #14
4 Riverside Golf Course
5 San Joaquin Country Club
6 Community Park
7 Jaswant Singh Khalra 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

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

CP
C
C C
C
C C
C
C
C C
C
G G
G
G
G
G
G
G
CMX
PB
PB
PB
PB
NP
NP
CP
NP
CP
NP
NP
NP NP
NP
NP NP
NP
NP
CH
E E
E
E
E
E/M/H
H
SS
SS
BP
RMX
NP
RMX
RMX
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
C
PB
RUN
G
G
G
C-R
RUN
PB

VALENTINE AVE

EMERSON AVE

DANTE AVE

BULLARD AVE

GATES AVE

CLINTON AVE

VAN NESS BLVD

MARK S AVE

POLK AVE

SIERRA AVE

DAKOTA AVE

HUGHES AVE

SPRUCE AVE

RIVER VISTA DR

ALLUVIAL AVE

ASHLAN AVE

SHAW AVE

EMERSON AVE

PALO ALTO AVE

FIGARDEN DR

HAYES AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

MILBURN AVE

VALENTINE AVE

SPRUCE AVE

SIERRA AVE

ESCALON AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

SHIELDS AVE

BULLARD AVE

CECELIA AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

M AR TY AVE

MCKINLEY AVE

HERNDON AVE

BARSTOW AVE

SANTA FE AVE

WEBER AVE

SAN JOSE AVE

RIVERSIDE DR

JEANNE AVE

BLYTHE AVE
99 99

S A N J O A Q U I N R I V E R

RESIDENTIAL
Low Density (1-3.5 D.U./acre)
Medium Low Density (3.5-6 D.U./acre)
Medium Density (5.0-12 D.U./acre)
Medium High Density (12-16 D.U./acre)
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 D.U./acre)
High Density (30-45 D.U./acre) ´ 0 0.25 0.5
Miles

COMMERCIAL
Community
Recreation
General

PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public/Quasi-public Facility
Special School
Elementary School
Elementary, Middle & High School
High School
Church
Fire Station
SS
E
E/M/H
H
CH
FS
City Limits
West Area Specific Plan Boundary
Sphere Of Influence

EMPLOYMENT
Office
BP Business Park
Light Industrial

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

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

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
Figure 2.0-4. Existing General Plan
Land Use Designations

BOUNDARIES

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

N Blythe Ave
N Marks Ave
W Bullard Ave
W Ashlan Ave
W
Figarden Dr
W Shaw Ave
N Golden State Blvd
N Grantland Ave
N Weber Ave
W Shields Ave
W Shaw Ave
N
Valentine Av
W Gettysburg Ave e
W Clinton Ave
W Herndon Ave
W San Jose Ave
W Sierra Ave
W Spruce Ave
N Polk Ave
N Hayes Ave
W Dakota Ave
N Bryan Ave
N Emerson Ave
W Palo Alto Ave
N
MarksAve
N Weber Ave
N Dante Ave
W Escalon Ave
N Gates Ave
W Bullard Ave N Cornelia Ave N Milburn Ave
N Grantland Ave
N Cecelia Ave
W Shields Ave
W Barstow Ave
N
Ma rty Ave
N Figarden Dr
W Figarden Dr
N Golden State Blvd
N Santa Fe Ave
W Ashlan Ave
N Blythe Ave
N
Brawley Ave

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
Figure 2-0-5. Existing Zoning Designations
UV99
San Joaquin River
Sources: Fresno County; City of Fresno.

Map date: May 8, 2019. Revised: May 29, 2020.

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 Desnity
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
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
O - Open Conservation Land Use

BOUNDARIES
Specific Plan of the West Area
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
q 0 ¼ ½
Miles
UV99

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

N Dante Ave
W Sierra Ave
W Gettysburg Ave
W Shields Ave
N Blythe Ave
N Figarden Dr
W Dakota Ave
W Spruce Ave
N Polk Ave
W Clinton Ave
W Figarden Dr
N Golden State Blvd
N Emerson Ave
N
Mar ks Ave
N Weber Ave
W Barstow Ave
N Brawley Ave
N Gates Ave
N Cornelia Ave
W Bullard Ave
W Shaw Ave
N Valentine Ave
N
Milburn Ave
N Bryan Ave
N Hayes Ave
N Grantland Ave
W Ashlan Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N
Ma rty Ave
W San Jose Ave
W Herndon Ave

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
UV99
Sources: Fresno County; City of Fresno. Map date: May 11, 2020. Revised: May 28, 2020.

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

PROPOSED LAND USE
Residential
Low Density (1-3.5 D.U./acre)
Medium Low Density (3.5-6 D.U./acre)
Medium Density (5.0-12 D.U./acre)
Medium High Density (12-16 D.U./acre)
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 D.U./acre)
High Density (30-45 D.U./acre)
Commercial
Community
Recreation
General
Regional
Employment
Office
Business Park
Light Industrial
Mixed Use
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Corridor/Center Mixed Use
Open Space
Open Space
Park (Community/Neighborhood)
Ponding Basin
Public Facilities
Public/Quasi-public Facility
School (Elementary/Middle/High/Special)
Church
Fire Station
Figure 2.0-6.

Proposed Land Uses
q 0 ¼ ½
Miles

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

N Bryan Ave
N Dante Ave
W Gettysburg Ave
W Sierra Ave
W Shields Ave
N Blythe Ave
N Figarden Dr
W Dakota Ave
W Spruce Ave
N Polk Ave
W Figarden Dr
W Clinton Ave
N Golden State Blvd
N Emerson Ave
N
Mar ks Ave
N Weber Ave
W Barstow Ave
N Brawley Ave
N Gates Ave
W Shaw Ave
N Cornelia Ave
W Bullard Ave
N
Mi bl urn Ave
N Valentine Ave
N Hayes Ave
N Grantland Ave
W Ashlan Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N
Marty Ave
W San Jose Ave
W Herndon Ave

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
UV99
Sources: Fresno County; City of Fresno. Map date: May 11, 2020. Revised: May 28, 2020.

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

PROPOSED LAND USE
Residential
Low Density (1-3.5 D.U./acre)
Medium Low Density (3.5-6 D.U./acre)
Medium Density (5.0-12 D.U./acre)
Medium High Density (12-16 D.U./acre)
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 D.U./acre)
High Density (30-45 D.U./acre)
Commercial
Community
General
Regional
Employment
Office
Mixed Use
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Corridor/Center Mixed Use
Open Space
Park (Community/Neighborhood)
Ponding Basin
Public Facilities
Public/Quasi-public Facility
School (Elementary/Middle/High/Special)
Church
Fire Station
Figure 2.0-7.

Areas of Proposed Change
q
0 ¼ ½
Miles

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.1-1 This section provides an overview of the visual character, scenic resources, views, scenic highways, and sources of light and glare that are encountered in the Plan Area and the surrounding area. This section provides an evaluation of the potential impacts to aesthetic resources associated with implementation of the Specific Plan and recommendations for mitigating those impacts. Information in this section is derived primarily from the following:
• California Scenic Highway Mapping System (Caltrans, 2019); • City of Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• City of Fresno Master Environmental Impact Report EIR (City of Fresno, 2014); • Fresno General Plan Public Review Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (City of Fresno, 2020);
• City of Fresno Municipal Code, Chapter 13 Sidewalks, Streets, Parkways, and Underground Utility Districts Section 13-305 Tree Preservation (City of Fresno, 2019).

Comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the following: Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019). The portion of this comment letter which relates to this topic is addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.

3.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
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. The Plan Area encompasses approximately 7,077 acres (approximately 11 square miles) in the City of Fresno city limits and unincorporated Fresno County. Of the eleven square miles within the Plan Area, 6.9 square miles are in the city limits and 4.1 square miles are in the growth area. The growth area is land outside the city limits but within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary, which is the adopted limit for future growth.

The Plan Area is relatively flat with natural gentle slope near State Route 99. The Plan Area topography ranges in elevation from approximately 283 to 315 feet above mean sea level. A large amount of land in the Plan Area is farmland or rural residential lots with large, uneven, and underutilized parcels.

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan to arterial roads with easy access to State Route 99, and Fresno Area Express (FAX) service lines.
• Single-Family Residential: Approximately 21 percent of the existing uses within the Plan Area are currently developed with single-family residential uses. These uses are located primarily within the city limits.
• Vacant Land: Approximately 15 percent of the land in the Plan Area, or 911.34 acres, account for vacant lands. Vacant areas are located throughout the Plan Area, in both the city limits and SOI. Vacant areas represent infill opportunities within the Plan Area’s densest neighborhoods.
• Public/Government Facilities: Approximately six percent, or 337.83 acres, of land within the Plan Area contain public or government facilities. These land uses include Central Unified School District facilities, churches, the Dante Club, and the Hacienda facility. • Open Space/Agricultural Land: Approximately 25 percent or 1,554.06 acres, in the Plan Area contain open space or agricultural land. While there are some open space land uses within the City, most of these uses are primarily located in the SOI. These uses include parks and ponding basins.
• Industrial Uses: Approximately one percent, or 57.33 acres, of the Plan Area account for industrial uses. The largest industrial land use in the Plan Area contains an agricultural business located at the intersection of West Dakota Avenue and North Grantland Avenue. • Commercial Uses: Approximately three percent, or 219.76 acres, of the Plan Area account for commercial uses. Commercial uses are spread throughout the eastern and southeastern portions of the Plan Area, closer to State Route 99.

Surrounding land uses include State Route 99; the historic communities of Herndon and Highway City; incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the north; incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the east (including mostly industrial uses); unincorporated Fresno County and incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the south (including farmland uses, rural residential uses, low density residential uses, and underutilized parcels); and unincorporated Fresno County to the west (including farmland and rural residential uses).

REGIONAL SCENIC RESOURCES
Visual resources are generally classified into two categories: scenic views and scenic resources.

Scenic views are elements of the broader viewshed such as mountain ranges, valleys, and ridgelines.

They are usually mid-ground or background elements of a viewshed that can be seen from a range of viewpoints, often along a roadway or other corridor. Scenic resources are specific features of a viewing area (or viewshed) such as trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. They are specific features that act as the focal point of a viewshed and are usually foreground elements.

Features of the built environment that may also have visual significance include individual or groups of structures that are distinctive due to their aesthetic, historical, social, or cultural significance or characteristics. Examples of the visually significant built environment may include bridges or overpasses, architecturally appealing buildings or groups of buildings, landscaped freeways, and a location where a historic event occurred. Aesthetically significant features occur in a diverse array AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.1-3 of environments within the region, ranging in character from urban centers to rural agricultural lands to natural water bodies.

SCENIC HIGHWAYS AND CORRIDORS
Scenic highways and corridors make major contributions to the quality of life enjoyed by the residents of a region. The development of community pride, the enhancement of property values, and the protection of aesthetically-pleasing open spaces reflecting a preference for the local lifestyle are all ways in which scenic corridors are valuable to residents.

Scenic highways and corridors can also strengthen the tourist industry. For many visitors, highway corridors will provide their only experience of the region. Enhancement and protection of these corridors ensures that the tourist experience continues to be a positive one and, consequently, provides support for the tourist-related activities of the region's economy.

Scenic Highways
A scenic highway is generally defined by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as a public highway that traverses an area of outstanding scenic quality, containing striking views, flora, geology, or other unique natural attributes. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler's enjoyment of the view.

There are no officially Designated Scenic Highways in Fresno County. Fresno County has four eligible State Scenic Highways, and the nearest eligible highways are east of the Plan Area along State Route 33 (approximately 27 miles west of the Plan Area), along State Route 168 east of the City of Clovis (approximately 19 miles east of the Plan Area), along State Route 180 (approximately 67 miles east of the Plan Area), and along State Route 198 (approximately 37 miles south of the Plan Area). The Plan Area is not visible from any of these eligible State Scenic Highways.

Scenic Corridors
A scenic corridor is the view from the road that may include a distant panorama and/or the immediate roadside area. A scenic corridor encompasses the outstanding natural features and landscapes that are considered scenic. It is the visual quality of the man-made or natural environments within a scenic corridor that are responsible for its scenic value. Commonly, the physical limits of a scenic corridor are broken down into foreground views (zero to one quarter mile) and distant views (over one quarter mile). In addition to distinct foreground and distant views, the visual quality of a scenic corridor is defined by special features, which include:
• Focal points - prominent natural or man-made features which immediately catch the eye. • Transition areas - locations where the visual environment changes dramatically. • Gateways - locations which mark the entrance to a community or geographic area.

The Fresno General Plan designates the following roadway segments as scenic corridors:
• Van Ness Boulevard – Weldon to Shaw Avenues

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Van Ness Extension - Shaw Avenue to the San Joaquin River Bluff • Kearney Boulevard - Fresno Street to Polk Avenue
• Van Ness/Fulton couplet - Weldon Avenue to Divisadero • Butler Avenue - Peach to Fowler Avenues
• Minnewawa Avenue - Belmont Avenue to Central Canal
• Huntington Boulevard - First Street to Cedar Avenue
The nearest scenic corridor to the Plan Area is Van Ness Boulevard, located approximately 5.34 miles east of the Plan Area. However, the Plan Area is not visible from Van Ness Boulevard or any of the above designated scenic corridors.

LIGHT AND GLARE
There are two typical types of light intrusion. First, light emanates from the interior of structures and passes out through windows. Secondly, light projects from exterior sources such as street lighting, security lighting, balcony lighting, and landscape lighting. “Light spill” is typically defined as the presence of unwanted and/or misdirected light on properties adjacent to the property being illuminated.

Glare is the sensation produced by luminance within the visual field that is significantly greater than the luminance to which the eyes are adapted, which causes annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility.

The majority of the Plan Area is urbanized, with significant sources of light and glare, such as streetlights, parking lots, interior lights from buildings, lighted recreational facilities, and light emitted from residential and non-residential buildings throughout the Plan Area. Substantial lighting currently exists in the more developed portions of the Plan Area along SR 99 and the eastern portion of the Plan Area. Limited lighting currently exists in rural residential and agricultural areas that are located within the western and southwestern portions of the Plan Area. Buildings and structures made with glass, metal, and polished exterior or roofing materials exist throughout the Plan Area.

These surfaces, as well as the natural and manmade light sources, could result in localized glare.

3.1.2 REGULATORY SETTING
There are a number of regulatory agencies whose responsibility includes the oversight of the aesthetic resources of the state including the California Department of Transportation, Scenic Highway Program, and the California Energy Commission. These agencies are often responsible for preserving the economic, social and scenic values of aesthetic resources such as the California Highway System and combating light pollution of the night sky. The following is an overview of the State and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.1-5 STATE
California Scenic Highway Program
The intent of the California Scenic Highway Program is “to protect and enhance California’s natural scenic beauty and to protect the social and economic values provided by the State’s scenic resources.” Caltrans administers the program, which was established in 1963 and is governed by the California Streets and Highways Code (§260 et seq.). The goal of the program is to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would diminish the aesthetic value of the adjacent land. Caltrans has compiled a list of state highways that are designated as scenic and county highways that are eligible for designation as scenic.

Scenic highway designation can provide several types of benefits to the region. Scenic areas are protected from encroachment of inappropriate land uses, free of billboards, and are generally required to maintain existing contours and preserve important vegetative features. Only low-density development is allowed on steep slopes and along ridgelines on scenic highways, and noise setbacks are required for residential development.

Nighttime Sky – Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Standards
The California legislature passed a bill in 2001 requiring the California Energy Commission (CEC) to adopt energy efficiency standards for outdoor lighting for both the public and private sectors. In addition to improved energy efficiency standards, Title 24 standards regulate lighting characteristics such as maximum power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls to turn lighting on and off.

Different lighting standards are set by classifying areas by lighting zone. The classification is based on population figures of the 2010 Census. Areas can be designated as LZ1 (dark), LZ2 (rural), or LZ3 (urban). Lighting requirements for dark and rural areas are stricter in order to protect the areas from new sources of light pollution and light trespass.

LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno General Plan contains the following objectives and policies that are relevant to aesthetics and visual resources:

URBAN FORM, LAND USE, AND DESIGN ELEMENT
Objective D-1: Provide and maintain an urban image that creates a “sense of place” throughout Fresno.

Policy D‐1‐a: Direct Access to Units. Require all new multi-family residential development along BRT and other transit or pedestrian-oriented streets (Collector and Local), including high-rise, townhomes or other units, to provide direct pedestrian street access and to promote walkable connectivity, individualization, family-friendly development, identity, and street safety to the maximum extent reasonably feasible.

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy D‐1‐b: Active Ground Floor Frontage. Encourage all new development located within Activity Centers and/or along BRT corridors to incorporate active ground floor frontages that engage pedestrians to the maximum extent feasible. Establish pedestrian-oriented design standards in the Development Code for building frontages, transparency, fenestration, and entries to create active streetscapes.

Policy D‐1‐c: Privately Owned Public Spaces. Consider creating and adopting design standards and incentives for providing privately owned public open spaces and plazas for gathering to enhance the pedestrian realm and provide opportunities for social interaction.

Policy D‐1‐d: Public Art. Continue to promote a citywide public art program that contributes to an awareness of the City’s history and culture.

Policy D‐1‐e: Graphic Identity. Continue the preservation, promotion, procurement and strategic location of landmarks, monuments and artwork that provide orientation and represent Fresno's cultural heritage and artistic values.

Policy D‐1‐f: Update Street Signs. Consider updating street sign regulations to create a wayfinding system and graphic identity without dominating city and district appearance.

Policy D‐1‐g: Reducing Surface Parking. Consider adopting and implementing incentives to replace existing large surface parking lots in centers with parking structures, and to incorporate them into high-density mixed use developments.

Policy D‐1‐h: Screening of Parking. Consider requiring all new development with parking in Activity Centers and along corridors to be screened or concealed. Locate principal pedestrian entrances to new nonresidential buildings on the sidewalk; any entrances from parking areas should be incidental or emergency use only.

Policy D‐1‐i: Wrapping Parking Structures. Consider requiring new development of abovegrade parking structures to be wrapped with and provide direct access to active uses, such as dwelling units, offices, and shopping spaces.

Policy D‐1‐j: Lighting Standards. Update lighting standards to reflect best practices and protect adjoining uses from glare and spillover light.

Objective D-2: Enhance the visual image of all “gateway” routes entering the Fresno Planning Area.

Policy D‐2‐a: Design Requirements for Gateways. Create unified design requirements for gateways to welcome travelers to the City’s Activity Centers.

Policy D‐2‐b: Funding for Gateway Enhancements. Pursue funding to implement gateway enhancement plans and programs.

Policy D‐2‐c: Highway Beautification. Work with Caltrans, the Fresno Council of Governments, Tree Fresno, neighboring jurisdictions, and other organizations to obtain funding for highway beautification programs.

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.1-7 Objective D-3: Create unified plans for Green Streets, using distinctive features reflecting Fresno’s landscape heritage.

Policy D-3-a: Green Street Tree Planting. Create a Green Street Tree Planting Program, with a well-balanced variety and spacing of trees to establish continuous shading and visual continuity for each streetscape. Strive to achieve coherent linkages between public and private spaces, prioritizing tree planting along tree-deficient Arterial Roadways in neighborhoods characterized by lower per capita rates of vehicle ownership.

Policy D-3-b: Funding for Green Street Tree Planting Program. Pursue funding for the Green Street Tree Planting Program, including landscaping of median islands.

Policy D-3-c: Local Streets as Urban Parkways. Develop local streets as “urban parkways,” where appropriate, with landscaping and pedestrian space.

Policy D-3-d: Undergrounding Utilities. Partner with utility companies to continue to pursue the undergrounding of overhead utilities as feasible.

Objective D‐4: Preserve and strengthen Fresno’s overall image through design review and create a safe, walkable and attractive urban environment for the current and future generations of residents.

Policy D-4-a: Design Review for Large Buildings. Consider adopting and implementing a streamlined design review process for new construction and visible exterior alterations of large and significant multi-family, mixed-use and non-residential development.

Policy D-4-b: Incentives for Pedestrian-Oriented Anchor Retail. Consider adopting and implementing incentives for new pedestrian-friendly anchor retail at intersections within Activity Centers and along corridors to attract retail clientele and maximize foot traffic.

Policy D-4-c: Appropriate Day and Night Activity. Promote new residential, commercial and related forms of development that foster both day and appropriate night time activity; visual presence on the street level; appropriate lighting; and minimally obstructed view areas.

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

Policy D‐4‐e: Flexibility through Overlay Districts. Allow innovative lot designs and patterns to enhance community livability in residential neighborhoods through new zoning provisions, with flexible development standards.

Policy D-4-f: Design Compatibility with Residential Uses. Strive to ensure that all new nonresidential land uses are developed and maintained in a manner complementary to and compatible with adjacent residential land uses, to minimize interface problems with the surrounding environment and to be compatible with public facilities and service.

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy D-4-g: Development Code Update for Design Concepts. Ensure that standards in the Development Code implement General Plan design concepts for each land use type.

Policy D‐4‐h: Metal Buildings. Promote the establishment of standards and guidelines for metal buildings to be acceptable and economical forms of structures. • New buildings with metal walls or metal roofs shall be painted or have other appropriate finishes, as approved by the City; and
• Mechanical equipment shall be screened with parapet walls, mechanical wells, or other means. Roof vent color must match that of the roof. The distinctive pattern of ribs and joints in standing seam and other metal roofing materials should coordinate dimensionally with similar elements in exterior walls.

Objective D‐6: Encourage design that celebrates and supports the cultural and ethnic diversity of Fresno.

Policy D‐6‐a: Consult with neighboring populations, including non-English speaking groups, to inform the architecture, landscape, programming, and interior design of City-owned facilities such as parks, offices, street lighting, and other visible features.

Policy D‐6‐b: Consider adopting and implementing incentives for, and support efforts by, private development to incorporate culturally-specific architectural elements in areas with a predominant ethnic population.

Objective D-7: Continue applying local urban form, land use, and design policies to specific neighborhoods and locations.

Policy D-7-b: Consider preparing new community, neighborhood, and/or Specific Plans for neighborhoods and locations that were covered by repealed plans.

MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Objective MT-3: Identify, promote and preserve scenic or aesthetically unique corridors by application of appropriate policies and regulations
Policy MT-3‐b: Preserve street trees lining designated scenic corridors or boulevards.

Replace trees of the predominant type and in a comparable pattern to existing plantings if there is no detriment to public safety..

Fresno Outdoor Lighting and Illumination Ordinance
The City’s Zoning Ordinance contains Article 20, General Site Regulations, which provides standards for outdoor lighting in an effort to minimize light pollution, glare, and light trespass caused by inappropriate or misaligned light fixtures, while improving nighttime public safety, utility, security, and preserving the night sky as a natural resource and thus facilitating people’s enjoyment of stargazing.

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.1-9 Fresno Tree Preservation Ordinance
The City’s Zoning Ordinance contains Article 3.5, Street Trees and Parkways, which contains policies regarding the preservation of trees within city limits. The Ordinance requires the City to plant, maintain, protect, preserve, and to regulate the planting, maintaining, protecting and preserving of public trees and landscaping; to eliminate dangerous conditions caused by trees and shrubs that may result in injuries to persons or property; to protect all trees within the City against the spread of disease or pests, and to provide for the special protection of heritage and landmark trees within the city limits. This portion of Fresno’s Municipal Code implements a comprehensive permitting process for new and existing development and property owners and provides feasible alternatives and options to tree removal where practicable.

3.1.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Specific Plan will have significant impact on aesthetics if it would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
• Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; • In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; • Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.1-1: Specific Plan implementation would not result in substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas. (No Impact)
No part of Plan Area is designated as a scenic vista by the City of Fresno General Plan, nor does the Plan Area contain any unique or distinguishing features that would qualify it for designation as a scenic vista.

The Plan Area is partially visible from State Route 99. Because the topography of the Plan Area is relatively flat and SR 99 is at a similar elevation as the surrounding area, views from SR 99 are primarily limited to the more developed and urbanized portions of the Plan Area. More specifically, views from SR 99 primarily consist of uses located immediately adjacent to the freeway. As the Plan Area is not identified as having scenic vistas and expansive views across the Plan Area are limited due to intervening structures and the relatively flat and consistent topography of the area, no impact would occur to scenic vistas.

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Impact 3.1-2: Project implementation would not substantially damage scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. (No Impact) There are no designated State Scenic Highways within or in the vicinity of the Project area. There are no highways in Fresno County listed as a Designated Scenic Highway by the Caltrans Scenic Highway Mapping System. Fresno County has three eligible State Scenic Highways; the nearest eligible highways are located east of the Planning Area along State Route 180 (approximately 7 miles east of the Planning Area) and along State Route 168 east of the City of Clovis(approximately 5 miles east of the Planning Area). The nearest designated State Scenic Highway is located within the County of Madera, more than 30 miles northeast of the Planning Area. Thus, no impact to scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway would occur with implementation of the Project.

Impact 3.1-3: Specific Plan implementation would result in substantial adverse effects or degradation of visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. (Significant and Unavoidable)
Future development of the Plan Area with new and/or more intense development of residential, commercial, employment, mixed use, open space, and public facility uses would substantially change the visual character of individual sites and the Plan Area.

Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would change the existing visual character of the Plan Area from a relatively undeveloped area to a primarily urbanized area. Impacts related to a change in visual character are largely subjective and very difficult to quantify. People have different reactions to the visual quality of a project or a project feature, and what is considered “attractive” to one viewer may be considered “unattractive” to other viewers.

The western half of the Plan Area is generally more rural and less developed while more developed portions of the Plan Area are along SR 99 and the southeastern portion of the Plan Area. The proposed Plan would result in the conversion of undeveloped land to urban uses, which may contribute to changes in the regional landscape and visual character of the area. In order to reduce visual impacts, development within the Plan Area is required to be consistent with the General Plan, Fresno Zoning Ordinance, and the proposed Specific Plan, which includes development standards in order to ensure quality and cohesive design. These standards include specifications for building height, massing, and orientation; exterior lighting standards and specifications; and landscaping standards. Implementation of the design standards would ensure quality design throughout the Plan Area, and result in development that would be internally cohesive while maintaining an aesthetic quality similar to surrounding uses. Thus, development of an existing developed or urbanized site would not conflict with zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. In addition, a majority of the parcels identified for change are already planned for development in the exising General Plan or contain existing urbanized land uses.

In addition to future development anticipated within the existing City Limits, the Specific Plan anticipates future development in areas outside the existing City limits, but within the City’s SOI.

These areas are primarily rural and agricultural lands. Thus, development of these areas with more urbanized uses would alter the visual character of the area from its current conditions. However, as AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.1-11 noted above, development within these areas would be in compliance with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, along with the development standards and guidelines established by the Specific Plan to ensure compatible development and cohesive development that considers the visual character of the specific site and surrounding uses. Further, the Specific Plan anticipates less urbanized development within the outer portions of the Plan Area and approximately 250 acres of park, recreational, and open space uses which will provide visual relief within the Plan Area. The proposed Specific Plan would also include visual components that would assist in enhancing the appearance of the Plan Area following site development. These improvements may include landscaping improvements such as new street trees, open lawn area and other vegetation landscaping associated with residential and non-residential development. Although compliance with development regulations and guidelines would improve the aesthetic character of the area associated with more urbanized development, existing views provided to the public of vast open space lands would be replaced with more urbanized development. Additionally, public views of expansive rural and agricultural lands that occur to the west of the Plan Area would be limited within the Plan Area due to intervening development conditions. Thus, impacts to visual character are considered significant and unavoidable.

Various temporary visual impacts could occur as a result of construction activities as the Plan Area develops, including grading, equipment and material storage, and staging. Some of these impacts could last for several weeks or months during any single construction phase. The loss of existing landscaping and trees would also be a temporary impact until new landscaping matures. However, these construction-related impacts would be temporary and viewer sensitivity in the majority of cases would be slight to moderate. Thus, construction impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed Specific Plan includes goals policies that would reduce impacts to visual and aesthetic resources. Specifically, Infrastructure & Public Realm (IPR) Goal 2 includes policies that are intended to improve streetscapes within the Specific Plan Area and contribute to the community's safety and quality of life. Land Use & Housing (LUH) Goal 1 includes policies that promote the orderly development of the Specific Plan Area and LUH Goal 2 includes policies that promote retention of agricultural uses and agritourism within the West Area.

Overall, the loss of the visual appearance of the existing vacant and open space land in the Plan Area will change the visual character of the area in perpetuity. Compliance with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, and implementation of the proposed Specific Plan’s development regulations would reduce visual impacts to the greatest extent feasible; however, the proposed Plan would permanently convert undeveloped rural, agricultural, and open space areas to urbanized uses. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. There is no feasible mitigation available that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Impact 3.1-4: Specific Plan implementation has the potential to result in light and glare impacts. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would introduce new sources of light and glare into the Plan Area. However, there are no specific features within the proposed Plan that would create

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan unusual light and glare. Implementation of existing Outdoor Lighting and Illumination Ordinance and the General Plan policies, such as Policies D-4-c, D-1-j, addressing light and glare may also ensure that no unusual daytime glare or nighttime lighting is produced.

LIGHT IMPACTS
Many areas within the Plan Area are currently exposed to a nominal amount of light due to the rural and agricultural setting. The western half of the Plan Area is generally more rural and less developed, and therefore uses within those areas are exposed to less artificial light from urbanized uses. Other areas within the Plan Area are exposed to substantial lighting, such as the more developed portions of the Plan Area along SR 99 and the southeastern portion of the Plan Area.

Increases in lighting and the introduction of new light sources would occur with new development in the Plan Area. Development within the Plan Area will include new roads, some of which will include lighting systems along the rights-of-way. Residential development will include interior and exterior light sources. Non-residential development will include lighting systems for parking areas, building, and signs, including security lighting. Some park and recreation facilities may include sports lighting to illuminate play areas for evening activities. Other public facility uses, such as schools and fire stations, will also involve lighting for parking, buildings, and security. Additionally, with the increase in development in the Plan Area, there will be increases in nighttime traffic that will increase lighting from car headlights. Although lighting would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis, for the purposes of this analysis, it has been conservatively assumed that exterior lighting would be located throughout most of the outdoor areas of the Plan Area. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, street lighting in the residential areas; exterior lighting on the buildings; courtyard lighting; and parking lot lighting.

The introduction of new light sources and intensification of lighting within the Plan Area would be most notable in areas that are not currently developed or have minimal development within the western and southern portions of the Plan Area. Development in the westernmost portion of the Plan Area could result in lighting within the Plan Area being visible from uses adjacent to and outside of the Plan Area. The City’s Outdoor Lighting and Illumination Ordinance would reduce the impact of lighting impacts onto adjacent properties. However, although direct impacts associated with new lighting would be reduced with compliance with General Plan policies and adherance to the City’s Outdoor Lighting and Illumination Ordinance, the overall increase in lighting that would occur within the area would create a new source of substantial light which could adversely affect nighttime views in the area, specifically the nightime sky.

GLARE IMPACTS
Development in accordance with the Specific Plan will increase the amount of structures that could create new sources of glare within the Planning Area and directly adjacent to the Planning Area.

These new sources of glare could be from materials used on building facades, parking lots, signs, and motor vehicles. Within the City limits, there are currently many sources of glare, and future development will add to the existing sources. Within the rural and agricultural areas, there are AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.1-13 limited sources of glare. The primary sources of glare that will be added within the Planning Area will occur from vertical structures such as building facades. Parking lots, roadway surfaces and motor vehicles do not create substantial amount of glare. Due to the substantial amount of new building square footage planned for the Plan Area, new buildings may have the potential, to result in a substantial increase in glare. This increase could result in a potentially significant glare impact.

However, glare impacts would be reduced with compliance of General Plan policies, design review, municipal code requirements, and implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 that will require reflective building materials, visible from sensitive receptors, be prohibited from future project sites within the Plan Area.

CONCLUSION
There is the potential for reflective building materials and windows to result in increases in daytime glare within the Plan Area. The use of reflective building materials, including polished steel and reflective glass, could increase daytime glare for sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project area. However, Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 would ensure that the potential for glare from proposed project buildings and structures would be minimized. With implementation of this mitigation measure, this is considered less than significant impact.

Light sources from the proposed development may have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding areas, by introducing nuisance light into the area and decreasing the visibility of nighttime skies. Additionally, on-site light sources may create light spillover impacts on surrounding land uses in the absence of mitigation. However, the proposed project will be required to comply with the City of Fresno outdoor lighting and illumination standards and specifications, and would be required to incorporate design features to minimize the effects of light and glare. However, without a detailed lighting plan, increase of nighttime lighting is a potentially significant impact.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-2 would reduce potential impacts associated with nighttime lighting and light spillage onto adjacent properties to a less than significant level.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: In order to reduce the potential for glare from buildings and structures within the project area, the Preliminary and Final Design Review plan(s) for all future projects in the Plan Area shall show that the use of reflective building materials that have the potential to result in glare that would be visible from sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the project sites shall be prohibited. The City of Fresno Planning and Development Department shall ensure that the approved project uses appropriate building materials with low reflectivity to minimize potential glare nuisance to off-site receptors. These requirements shall be included in future project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Fresno.

Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: A lighting plan for all future projects in the Plan Area subject to section 15-2508 and section 15-2015 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code shall be prepared prior to the approval of the design review for each project site. The lighting plan shall demonstrate that the lighting systems and other exterior lighting throughout the project area have been designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties to the greatest extent feasible, consistent with

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan section 15-2508. – Lighting and Glare and section 15-2015 – Outdoor Lighting and Illumination of the City of Fresno Municipal Code. Use of LED lighting or other proven energy efficient lighting shall be required for facilities to be dedicated to the City of Fresno for maintenance. These requirements shall be included in future project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Fresno.

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan 3.2-1 The purpose of this section is to disclose and analyze the potential impacts to agricultural resources associated with the development of the proposed Specific Plan. This section also discusses the potential conflicts between the proposed uses within the Plan Area and ongoing agricultural activities in the vicinity of the Plan Area. This section is primarily based on information from the following resources:
• City of Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• City of Fresno Master Environmental Impact Report EIR (City of Fresno, 2014); • Fresno General Plan Public Review Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (City of Fresno, 2020);
• Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (California Department of Conservation, 2016); • Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (United States Department of Agriculture, 2017);
• Fresno County Crop Report (County of Fresno, Agricultural Commissioner, 2017).

Comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation (NOP) regarding this topic from the following: Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019). The portion of the comment letter related to this topic is addressed within this section. Full comments received on the NOP are included in Appendix A.

3.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE
The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies lands that have agriculture value and maintains a statewide map of these lands called the Important Farmlands Inventory (IFI). IFI classifies land based upon the productive capabilities of the land, rather than the mere presence of ideal soil conditions.

The suitability of soils for agricultural use is just one factor for determining the productive capabilities of land. Suitability is determined based on many characteristics, including fertility, slope, texture, drainage, depth, and salt content. A variety of classification systems have been devised by the State to categorize soil capabilities. The two most widely used systems are the Capability Classification System and the Storie Index. The Capability Classification System classifies soils from Class I to Class VIII based on their ability to support agriculture with Class I being the highest quality soil. The Storie Index considers other factors such as slope and texture to arrive at a rating. The IFI is in part based upon both of these two classification systems.

Soil Capability Classification System
The Soil Capability Classification System takes into consideration soil limitations, the risk of damage when soils are used, and the way in which soils respond to treatment. Capability classes range from Class I soils, which have few limitations for agriculture, to Class VIII soils that are unsuitable for agriculture. Generally, as the rating of the capability classification increases, yields and profits are

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

3.2-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan more difficult to obtain. A general description of soil classifications, as defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is provided in Table 3.2-1 below.

TABLE 3.2-1: SOIL CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION

CLASS DEFINITION
I Soils have slight limitations that restrict their use.

II Soils have moderate limitations that restrict choice plants or that require moderate conservation practices.

III Soils have severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices, or both.

IV Soils have very severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both.

V
Soils are not likely to erode but have other limitations; impractical to remove that limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat.

VI Soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuited to cultivation and limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat.

VII Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuited to cultivation and that restrict their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat.

VIII Soils and landforms have limitations that preclude their use for commercial plans and restrict their use to recreation, wildlife habitat, water supply, or aesthetic purposes.

SOURCE: NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY, 2019
Storie Index Rating System
The Storie Index Rating system ranks soil characteristics according to their suitability for agriculture from Grade 1 soils (80 to 100 rating) which have few or no limitations for agricultural production, to Grade 6 soils (less than 10) which are not suitable for agriculture. Under this system, soils deemed less than prime can function as prime soils when limitations such as poor drainage, slopes, or soil nutrient deficiencies are partially or entirely removed. The six grades, ranges in index rating, and definition of the grades, as defined by the NRCS, are provided below in Table 3.2-2.

TABLE 3.2-2: STORIE INDEX RATING SYSTEM

GRADE INDEX RATING DEFINITION
1 80 - 100 Few limitations that restrict their use for crops 2 60 – 80 Suitable for most crops, but have minor limitations that narrow the choice of crops and have a few special management needs
3 40 – 60 Suited to a few crops or to special crops and require special management 4 20 – 40 If used for crops, severely limited and require special management 5 10 – 20 Not suited for cultivated crops, but can be used for pasture and range 6 Less than 10 Soil and land types generally not suited to farming SOURCE: NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY, 2019
In addition to soil suitability, other factors for determining the agricultural value of land include whether soils are irrigated, the depth of soil, water-holding capacity, and physical and chemical characteristics. Areas considered to have the greatest agricultural potential are designated as Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance; refer to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program discussion below.

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) was established in 1982 to continue the Important Farmland mapping efforts begun in 1975 by the United States Department of Agriculture AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.2-3 Soil Conservation Service (USDA-SCS). The intent of the USDA-SCS was to produce agriculture maps based on soil quality and land use across the nation. As part of the nationwide agricultural land use mapping effort, the USDA-SCS developed a series of definitions known as Land Inventory and Monitoring (LIM) criteria. The LIM criteria classified the land’s suitability for agricultural production; suitability included both the physical and chemical characteristics of soils and the actual land use.

Important Farmland Maps are derived from the USDA-SCS soil survey maps using the LIM criteria.

Since 1980, the State of California has assisted the USDA-SCS with completing its mapping in the state. The FMMP was created within the California Department of Conservation (CDC) to carry on the mapping activity on a continuing basis, and with a greater level of detail. The CDC applied a greater level of detail by modifying the LIM criteria for use in California. The LIM criteria in California utilize the Soil Capability Classification and Storie Index Rating systems, but also consider physical conditions such as dependable water supply for agricultural production, soil temperature range, depth of the ground water table, flooding potential, rock fragment content, and rooting depth.

The CDC classifies lands into seven agriculture-related categories: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Statewide Farmland), Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance (Local Farmland), Grazing Land, Urban and Built-up Land (Urban Land), and Other Land. The first four types listed above are collectively designated by the State as Important Farmlands. Important Farmland maps for California are compiled using the modified LIM criteria (as described above) and current land use information. The minimum mapping unit is 10 acres unless otherwise specified. Units of land smaller than 10 acres are incorporated into surrounding classifications. Each of the seven land types is summarized below.

PRIME FARMLAND
Prime farmland is farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE
Farmland of statewide importance is farmland with characteristics similar to those of prime farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture.

Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

UNIQUE FARMLAND
Unique farmland is farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state's leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

3.2-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

FARMLAND OF LOCAL IMPORTANCE
Farmland of local importance is land of importance to the local agricultural economy, as determined by each county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee.

GRAZING LAND
Grazing land is land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen's Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities.

URBAN AND BUILT-UP LAND
Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.

OTHER LAND
Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than forty acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.

FRESNO COUNTY AGRICULTURE
Although the Plan Area is located within the Fresno Sphere of Influence (SOI), it is immediately adjacent to active agricultural operations in Fresno County. Agriculture is a major activity within the undeveloped portions of Fresno County. According to the 2017 Fresno County Crop Report, published by the Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, the gross value of Fresno County’s agricultural production for 2017 was $7,028,024,100. Almonds were the top agricultural commodity grown in the County, with production values near $1.2 billion.

In 2017, Fresno County was estimated to have 1,359,540 acres of Important Farmland: 675,722 acres of Prime Farmland, 397,134 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, 94,902 acres of Unique Farmland, and 191,782 acres of Farmland of Local Importance [California Department of Conservation (CDC), 2016]. Over the past decade, the availability of Important Farmland has been consistently declining from year to year primarily because of conversions to urban and other developed land uses.

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The Plan Area encompasses approximately 7,077 acres (approximately 11 square miles) in the City of Fresno city limits and unincorporated Fresno County. Of the eleven square miles within the Plan AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.2-5 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 SOI boundary, which is the adopted limit for future growth. A large amount of land within the Plan Area is farmland or rural residential lots with large, uneven, and underutilized parcels. 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.

As shown on Figure 3.2-1, the Plan Area has approximately 3,099.9 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, with the exception of approximately 1.5 acres located near the western boundary, west of North Grantland Avenue. The Plan Area has 285.65 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance which are located primarily in the western portion of the Plan Area. Approximately 505.39 acres of Unique Farmland are 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.

ADJACENT AGRICULTURAL USES
Surrounding land uses include State Route 99; the historic communities of Herndon and Highway City; and incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the north; incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the east (including mostly industrial uses); unincorporated Fresno County and incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the south (including farmland uses, rural residential uses, low density residential uses, and underutilized parcels); and unincorporated Fresno County to the west (including farmland and rural residential uses).

Lands to the north, and east of the Plan Area are classified as urban and built up and are currently zoned for Light Industrial, Commercial and Mixed Use. Lands to the south of the Plan Area are classified as urban and built up with large portions classified as farmland of local importance. These lands are currently zoned for Low and Medium Density Residential, Community and General Commercial, Parks and Recreation, and Public and Institutional by the City of Fresno zoning map and zoned Rural Residential by the County Zoning map. The lands west of the Plan Area are classified as Farmland of Local Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance and Prime Farmland as shown on Figure 3.2-1 and are currently zoned Exclusive Agricultural by the County of Fresno zoning map.

PROJECT AREA SOILS AND FARMLAND CHARACTERISTICS
The Soil Capability Classifications and Storie Index ratings are presented in Table 3.2-3. As shown in Table 3.2-3, the Soil Survey of Fresno County, shows that the Plan Area contains Capability Class II, Class III and Class IV (non-irrigated and irrigated soils). Soils present within the project area are shown in Figure 3.6-1 and described below.

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

3.2-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TABLE 3.2-3: ON-SITE SOIL CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATIONS AND STORIE INDEX RATING

SOIL NAME
SOIL CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION1 STORIE
INDEX

ACRES IN

IRRIGATED NON-IRRIGATED PLAN AREA
Exeter loam IIIs IVs 35 215.7
Exeter sandy loam IIIs IVs 34 1,227.6
Exeter sandy loam, shallow IVs IVs 23 150.2
Hanford gravelly sandy loam IVs IIs 72 15.0
Hanford sandy loam, benches IVe IIe 86 17.3
Hesperia fine sandy loam moderately deep IVs IIs 90 1.7 Pollasky fine sandy loam 2-9% IVe IVe 85 2.6
Pollasky sandy loam, 9-15% IVe IVe 78 5.3
San Joaquin loam, 0-3% IIIs IVs 31 213.4
San Joaquin loam, shallow, 0-3% IVs IVs 25 757.6
San Joaquin sandy loam, 0-3% IVs IVs 16 1,523.4
San Joaquin sandy loam, shallow, 0-3% IVs IVs 21 2,872.8 TOTAL 7,002.6
NOTES:

1. CAPABILITY SUBCLASSES ARE SOIL GROUPS WITHIN ONE CLASS. THEY ARE DESIGNATED BY ADDING A SMALL LETTER, E, W, S, OR C, TO THE CLASS NUMERAL, FOR EXAMPLE, IIE. THE LETTER ‘E’ SHOWS THAT THE MAIN HAZARD IS THE RISK OF EROSION UNLESS CLOSEGROWING PLANT COVER IS MAINTAINED; ‘W’ SHOWS THAT WATER IN OR ON THE SOIL INTERFERES WITH PLANT GROWTH OR CULTIVATION (IN SOME SOILS THE WETNESS CAN BE PARTLY CORRECTED BY ARTIFICIAL DRAINAGE); ‘S’ SHOWS THAT THE SOIL IS LIMITED MAINLY BECAUSE IT IS SHALLOW, DROUGHTY, OR STONY; AND ‘C’, USED IN ONLY SOME PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES, SHOWS THAT THE CHIEF LIMITATION IS CLIMATE THAT IS VERY COLD OR VERY DRY.

SOURCE: NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY, 2019.

Exeter Loam. This soil is located throughout the Plan Area, particularly in the eastern half, covering approximately 1,593.5 acres (see Figure 3.6-1). The Exeter series consists of moderately deep to a duripan, moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvium mainly from granitic sources. Exeter soils are on alluvial fans and stream terraces and have slopes of 0 to 9 percent. This soil is used for irrigated cropland growing oranges, olives and deciduous orchards, vineyards and row crops. It is also used for dairy and cattle production and building site development. Vegetation in uncultivated areas is mainly annual grasses and forbs. Moderately well drained; very slow to medium runoff; moderately slow permeability above the duripan. Permeability of the duripan is very slow.

Hanford Sandy Loam. This soil is located on approximately 32.3 acres in the northern corner of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6-1). Hanford soils consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in moderately coarse textured alluvium dominantly from granite. Hanford soils are on stream bottoms, floodplains and alluvial fans at elevations of 150 to 3,500 feet. Slopes range from 0 to 15 percent.

The climate is dry subhumid mesothermal with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters.

Hesperia Sandy Loam. This soil is located on approximately 1.7 acres on the northern corner of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6-1). The Hesperia series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in alluvium derived primarily from granite and related rocks. Hesperia soils are on alluvial fans, valley plains and stream terraces and have slopes of 0 to 9 percent. Used for desert range, and for production of irrigated orchards, row crops, field crops, grain, hay, pasture and grapes. Native AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.2-7 vegetation consists of creosotebush in the high desert and sparse annuals in the valley. Well drained; negligible to low runoff, moderately rapid permeability.

Pollasky Sandy Loam. This soil is located on approximately 7.9 acres on the northern portion of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6-1). The Pollasky series consists of moderately deep, well drained, moderately coarse textured Regosols formed in the residuum from softly to moderately consolidated arkosic sediments. They occur on undulating to steep dissected terraces under annual grasses and forbs. They have brown, slightly acid sandy loam A horizons and pale brown to yellowish brown, slightly acid to neutral, sandy loam C horizons abruptly overlying consolidated granitic sediments. Pollasky soils occur at elevations below 500 feet to semiarid mesothermal climate having a mean annual precipitation ranging from about 9 to 16 inches with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. The Pollasky series is mapped along the eastern edge of the San Joaquin Valley of California where it is moderately extensive. Used as annual range and dry farmed small grain, usually barley, with limited sprinkler irrigated pasture.

San Joaquin Loam. This soil is located throughout the entirety of the Plan Area on approximately 5,367.2 acres (see Figure 3.6-1). The San Joaquin series consists of moderately deep to a duripan, well and moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvium derived from mixed but dominantly granitic rock sources. They are on undulating low terraces with slopes of 0 to 9 percent. Well and moderately well drained; medium to very high runoff; very slow permeability. Some areas are subject to rare or occasional flooding. Typically used as cropland and livestock grazing; crops are small grains, irrigated pasture and rice; vineyards, fruit and nut crops.

3.2.2 REGULATORY SETTING
There are a number of regulatory agencies whose responsibility includes the oversight of the agricultural resources of the state including the California Department of Conservation. The following is an overview of the federal, State and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.

FEDERAL
Farmland Protection Program
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) administers the Farmland Protection Program (FPP). This is a program that is designed to conserve productive farmland. The NRCS provides funds to agencies for the purchase of conservation easements that meet the specific requirements of the program. Landowners that are interested in the program must agree to conserve their farmland for a minimum period of thirty years.

STATE
Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act, was established based on numerous State legislative findings regarding the importance of agricultural

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

3.2-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan lands in an urbanizing society. Policies emanating from those findings include those that discourage premature and unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban uses and discourage discontinuous urban development patterns, which unnecessarily increase the costs of community services to community residents.

The Williamson Act authorizes each county to establish an agricultural preserve. Land that is within the agricultural preserve is eligible to be placed under a contract between the property owner and County that would restrict the use of the land to agriculture in exchange for a tax assessment that is based on the yearly production yield. The contracts have a ten-year term that is automatically renewed each year, unless the property owner requests a non-renewal or the contract is cancelled.

If the contract is cancelled the property owner is assessed a fee of up to 12.5 percent of the property value. As of 2016, approximately 120 acres within the Plan Area are under a Williamson Act contract.

Approximately 56 acres are under Williamson Act-Non-renewal, meaning enrolled lands for which non-renewal has been filed. Upon the filing of non-renewal, the existing contract remains in effect for the balance of the period remaining on the contract. During the non-renewal process, the annual tax assessment gradually increases. At the end of the nine-year non-renewal period, the contract expires and the land is no longer enforceably restricted. Within the Plan Area, approximately 64 acres are under Williamson Act-Mixed Enrollment Agricultural Land, meaning enrolled lands containing a combination of Prime, Non-Prime, Open Space Easement, or other contracted or enrolled lands not yet delineated by the County. Approximately 38 acres immediately adjacent to the Plan Area is under Williamson Act contract-Non-renewal.

Farmland Security Zones
In 1998 the state legislature established the Farmland Security Zone (FSZ) program. FSZs are similar to Williamson Act contracts, in that the intention is to protect farmland from conversion. The main difference however, is that the FSZ must be designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance. The term of the contract is a minimum of 20 years. The property owners are offered an incentive of greater property tax reductions when compared to the Williamson Act contract tax incentives; the incentives were developed to encourage conservation of prime farmland through FSZs. The non-renewal and cancellation procedures are similar to those for Williamson Act contracts. The Plan Area and the immediately adjacent parcels are not within the FSZ program.

Agricultural Conservation and Mitigation Program
While the Plan Area is primarily designated as Urban and Built-Up Land by the California Department of Conservation, the Plan Area does contain prime soils as defined by the California Department of Conservation, Agricultural Conservation and Mitigation Program. According to the Agricultural Conservation and Mitigation Program, farmland shall be considered prime farmland if it meets the definition of "prime agricultural land" in Government Code Section 51201. Government Code Section 51201 states that prime agricultural land means any of the following:
(1) All land that qualifies for rating as class I or class II in the Natural Resource Conservation Service land use capability classifications.

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.2-9 (2) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the Storie Index Rating. (3) Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture.
(4) Land planted with fruit- or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops which have a nonbearing period of less than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre. (5) Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years.

LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The City’s General Plan includes goals, policies, standards, and actions that strive to preserve agricultural resources and minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban uses. The following General Plan goals, policies, standards, and actions are relevant to the proposed Specific Plan.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RESILIENCE
Objective RC-9: Preserve agricultural land outside of the area planned for urbanization under this General Plan.

Policy RC-9-a: Work to establish a cooperative research and planning program with the Counties of Fresno and Madera, City of Clovis, and other public agencies to conserve agricultural land.

Policy RC-9-b: Express opposition to residential and commercial development proposals in unincorporated areas within or adjacent to the Planning Area when these proposals would do any of the following:
• Make it difficult or infeasible to implement the General Plan; • Contribute to the premature conversion of agricultural, open space, or grazing lands; or
• Constitute a detriment to the management of resources and/or facilities important to the region (such as air quality, water quantity and quality, traffic circulation, and riparian habitat).

Policy RC-9-c: In coordination with regional partners or independently, establish a Farmland Preservation Program. When Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance is converted to urban uses outside City limits, this program would require that the developer of such a project mitigate the loss of such farmland consistent with the

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

3.2-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan requirements of CEQA. The Farmland Preservation Program shall provide several mitigation options that may include, but are not limited to the following: Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, Land Use Regulations, or any other mitigation method that is in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. The Farmland Preservation Program may be modeled after some of all of the programs described by the California Council of Land Trusts.

3.2.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project will have a significant impact on agricultural or forest resources if it will:
• Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use; • Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; • Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g));
• Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; • Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.2-1: Specific Plan implementation would convert Important Farmlands to non-agricultural land uses. (Significant and Unavoidable) Within the city limits, the Plan Area is currently zoned for urban land uses (i.e., residential single family, multi-family, public and institutional, mixed use and commercial) and proposes zoning changes similar to the existing land uses. Land uses surrounding the Plan Area consist of light industrial, commercial general, commercial highway and auto, open space, single family residential, rural residential, single family residential agricultural, limited agriculture, exclusive agriculture and other similar land uses. The Plan Area is located adjacent to productive agricultural land or lands zoned for agricultural uses, primarily within the County of Fresno limits. Although the Specific Plan anticipates and plans for future annexation and development of this land into the City, annexation is not currently proposed. The timing of future annexation proposals is not currently known. At the time of annexation proposals, the land proposed for annexation and development would be reviewed to determine if important farmlands would be converted to non-agricultural land uses or result in a conflict with lands zoned for agricultural uses. If future annexation and development would involve the loss of important farmlands to non-agricultural uses, implementation of AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.2-11 Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 would be required. While implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 would reduce the above-identified impact through preservation of agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio, the impact would not be reduced to a less-than-significant level due to the fact that active agricultural land would still be permanently converted to urban uses. Consistent with the Fresno General Plan EIR, feasible mitigation measures do not exist to reduce the above impact to a lessthan-significant level. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: Prior to initiation of grading activities, the project proponent shall implement the following measure to mitigate impacts on Important Farmland located on the site:

The project proponent shall mitigate the loss of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance within the Plan Area at a 1:1 ratio. The acreage of lost farmland shall be determined using the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model.

The LESA Model evaluates measures of soil resource quality, a given project’s size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. Once the acreage of farmland converted is determined, one of the following mitigation options shall be utilized to mitigate the loss: Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, or Land Use Regulation. Should the City develop a Farmland Preservation Program before future construction within the Plan Area begins, the project proponent shall mitigate for Farmland pursuant to the Program.

The mitigation shall be verified by the City of Fresno for each phase of the project during improvement plan review.

Impact 3.2-2: Specific Plan implementation would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract. (Significant and Unavoidable)
The Planning Area includes approximately 120 acres of lands that are under a Williamson Act Contract. Of the 120 acres of Williamson Act Contract land, approximately 56 acres are under Williamson Act Contract-Non-Renewal; thus, at the end of the non-renewal period, the lands would no longer be restricted to agricultural use. The approximately 120 acres are currently designated for medium density residential, urban neighborhood, and open space uses under the Fresno General Plan and those acres within the Fresno city limits are currently designated residential medium density and those acres within the County of Fresno are currently zoned Rural Residential.

Agricultural uses are currently permitted in areas designated as rural residential. Under the proposed Specific Plan, the approximately 120 acres of Williamson Act Contract land are proposed for Low Density, Medium Low Density, and Medium Density Residential where agricultural uses are intended to be transitioned to urban residential uses. The existing agricultural uses can continue to operate, but potentially as legal non‐conforming land uses. However, future revisions to the zoning map related to agricultural uses would result in a significant impact on existing zoning for agricultural uses because non‐agricultural uses, such as low, medium low density, and medium density residential would be allowed on the existing Contract land.

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

3.2-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.2-1. However, even after implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1, this would be considered a potentially significant impact. As such, Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 would be required, which requires that land zoned for agricultural uses shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. Additionally, future development resulting in the transition of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses would be required to comply with General Plan policies related to the conversion of agricultural land. While implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 would reduce the above-identified impact through preservation of agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio, the impact would not be reduced to a less-than-significant level due to the fact that land zoned for agricultural uses would still be permanently converted to urban uses. Therefore, this would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Prior to initiation of grading activities, the project proponent shall implement the following measure to mitigate impacts related to agriculturally-zoned land located on the site: The project proponent shall mitigate the loss of land zoned for agricultural use within the Plan Area at a 1:1 ratio. Once the acreage of land zoned for agricultural use which would be converted by the project is determined, one of the following mitigation options shall be utilized to mitigate the loss: Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, or Land Use Regulation.

The mitigation shall be verified by the City of Fresno for each phase of the project during improvement plan review.

Impact 3.2-3: Specific Plan implementation would not conflict with existing zoning, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production or result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (No Impact)
The Plan Area and surrounding area does not include any land designated or zoned as forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned for Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). Additionally, there are no forest lands within the Plan Area or surrounding area.

Therefore, because the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning of forest land or timberland, or result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use, implementation of the proposed project would result in no impact to forest resources or timberland.

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.2-13 Impact 3.2-4: Future development of the Plan Area would not result in other changes in the existing environment that would lead to the abandonment of agricultural operations and conversion of farmland or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest land use. (Less than Significant)
As discussed in Impact 3.2-1, future development in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan would result in the conversion of farmland to a non‐agricultural use. Except for direct conversion, implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in other changes in the existing environment that would impact agricultural land outside of the Plan Area. Although the Specific Plan may convert land to more urbanized uses, it will not contribute to the same occurring outside of the Plan Area because the land outside of the Plan Area is within the County and outside the City’s SOI and growth Boundary.

In addition, Fresno County’s Right to Farm Ordinance is intended to reduce the occurrence of such conflicts between nonagricultural and agricultural land uses between the County of Fresno and the City of Fresno through requiring the transferor of any property in the County to provide a disclosure statement describing that the County permits agricultural operations. Projects outside of the Plan Area that are compliant with the County’s Right to Farm Ordinance would include adequate measures to buffer project uses from adjacent agricultural uses and would reduce adverse effects on neighboring agricultural uses. Since the proposed Specific Plan would not result in other changes that would lead to the abandonment of agricultural operations or the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural land uses, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Separately, the development in accordance with the proposed project would not impact forest land because no parcel within or and adjacent to the Plan Area are designated as forest land or forest land use. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impact on farmland or forest land involving other changes in the existing environment.

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

3.2-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

NDante Ave
W Mckinley Ave
W Bullard Ave
N Blythe Ave
W Shields Ave
N
Figarden Dr
N Emerson Ave
N
West Ave
W Dakota Ave
W Spruce Ave
W Olive Ave
N Polk Ave
W Figarden Dr
W Alluvial Ave
N Golden State Blvd
W Sierra Ave
W Barstow Ave
N
Hughes Ave
N Marks Ave
N Valentine Ave
W Shaw Ave
N Brawley Ave
W Clinton Ave
N Cornelia Ave
W Ashlan Ave
N Bryan Ave
N Hayes Ave
N Grantland Ave
N Weber Ave
N
Marty A ve
W San Jose Ave
W Herndon Ave

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
UV99
Sources: California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Fresno County 2018 and Madera County 2016; Fresno County; City of Fresno. Map date: March 1, 2021.

BOUNDARIES
Specific Plan of the West
Fresno City Limits
County Boundary
Fresno Sphere of Influence

FARMLAND TYPE
Prime Farmland
Farmland of Statewide
Importance
Unique Farmland
Farmland of Local Importance
Nonagricultural or Natural
Vegetation
Vacant or Disturbed Land
Rural Residential Land
Semi-agricultural and Rural
Commercial Land
Urban and Built-Up Land
Water
Figure 3.2-1.

Farmland Classifications

MADERA C OUNTY

FRESNO COUNTY
UV99
q 0 ½ 1
Miles

FARMLAND CLASSIFICATION

ACRES WITHIN THE

SPECIFIC PLAN OF

THE WEST AREA
Pri me Fa rml a nd 1.5
Fa rml a nd of Sta tewi de Importa nce 186.0
Fa rml a nd of Loca l Importa nce 1248.2
Uni que Fa rml a nd 859.0
Semi -Agri cul tura l a nd Rura l Commerci a l La nd 25.0 Rura l Res i denti a l 1515.0
Urba n a nd Bui l t Up La nd 3129.7
Nona gri cul tura l or Na tura l Vegeta ti on 2.1
Va ca nt or Di s turbed La nd 110.7

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

3.2-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-1 This section describes regional air quality, the current attainment status of the air basin, local sensitive receptors, emission sources, and the impacts that are likely to result from Specific Plan implementation. Following this discussion is an assessment of consistency of the Specific Plan with applicable policies and local plans. The Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy analysis is located in Section 3.7. This section is based in part on the following documents, reports, and studies:
• Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (California Air Resources Board [CARB], 2005);
• Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impact (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District [SJVAPCD], 2015);
• 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard (SJVAPCD, 2016); • 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards (SJVAPCD, 2018); • CalEEMod (v.2016.3.3) (CAPCOA, 2020); and
• Technical Memorandum for the Specific Plan of the West Area – CEQA Impacts and Mitigations (Kittelson & Associates, 2020).

Comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVPACD) (July 15, 2019), and Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019). Each of the comments related to this topic are addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.

3.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
The City of Fresno (City) is in the central portion of the San Joaquin Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB consists of eight counties: Fresno, Kern (western and central), Kings, Tulare, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus. Air pollution from significant activities in the SJVAB includes a variety of industrial-based sources as well as on- and off-road mobile sources. These sources, coupled with geographical and meteorological conditions unique to the area, stimulate the formation of unhealthy air.

The SJVAB is approximately 250 miles long and an average of 35 miles wide. It is bordered by the Sierra Nevada in the east, the Coast Ranges in the west, and the Tehachapi mountains in the south.

There is a slight downward elevation gradient from Bakersfield in the southeast end (elevation 408 feet) to sea level at the northwest end where the valley opens to the San Francisco Bay at the Carquinez Straits. At its northern end is the Sacramento Valley, which comprises the northern half of California’s Central Valley. The bowl-shaped topography inhibits movement of pollutants out of the valley (SJVAPCD, 2015).

Climate
The SJVAB is in a Mediterranean climate zone and is influenced by a subtropical high-pressure cell most of the year. Mediterranean climates are characterized by sparse rainfall, which occurs mainly

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan in winter. Summers are hot and dry. Summertime maximum temperatures often exceed 100°F in the valley.

The subtropical high-pressure cell is strongest during spring, summer, and fall and produces subsiding air, which can result in temperature inversions in the valley. A temperature inversion can act like a lid, inhibiting vertical mixing of the air mass at the surface. Any emissions of pollutants can be trapped below the inversion. Most of the surrounding mountains are above the normal height of summer inversions (1,500 to 3,000 feet).

Winter-time high pressure events can often last many weeks, with surface temperatures often lowering into the 30°F. During these events, fog can be present and inversions are extremely strong.

These wintertime inversions can inhibit vertical mixing of pollutants to a few hundred feet (SJVAPCD, 2015).

Wind Patterns
Wind speed and direction play an important role in dispersion and transport of air pollutants. Wind at the surface and aloft can disperse pollution by mixing and transporting it to other locations.

Especially in summer, winds in the San Joaquin Valley most frequently blow from the northwest. The region’s topographic features restrict air movement and channel the air mass towards the southeastern end of the valley. Marine air can flow into the basin from the San Joaquin River Delta and over Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass, where it can flow along the axis of the valley, over the Tehachapi pass, into the Southeast Desert Air Basin. This wind pattern contributes to transporting pollutants from the Sacramento Valley and the Bay Area into the SJVAB. Approximately 27 percent of the total emissions in the northern portion, 11 percent of total emissions in the central region, and 7 percent of total emission in the south valley of the SJVAB are attributed to air pollution transported from these two areas.1The Coastal Range is a barrier to air movement to the west and the high Sierra Nevada range is a significant barrier to the east (the highest peaks in the southern Sierra Nevada reach almost halfway through the Earth’s atmosphere). Many days in the winter are marked by stagnation events where winds are very weak. Transport of pollutants during winter can be very limited. A secondary but significant summer wind pattern is from the southeast and can be associated with nighttime drainage winds, prefrontal conditions, and summer monsoons.

Two significant diurnal wind cycles that occur frequently in the valley are the sea breeze and mountain-valley upslope and drainage flows. The sea breeze can accentuate the northwest wind flow, especially on summer afternoons. Nighttime drainage flows can accentuate the southeast movement of air down the valley. In the mountains during periods of weak synoptic scale winds, winds tend to be upslope during the day and downslope at night. Nighttime and drainage flows are especially pronounced during the winter when flow from the easterly direction is enhanced by nighttime cooling in the Sierra Nevada. Eddies can form in the valley wind flow and can recirculate 1 SJVAPCD. Frequently Asked Questions,
http://www.valleyair.org/general_info/frequently_asked_questions.htm#What%20is%20being%20done%20 to%20improve%20ai r%20quality%20in%20the%20San%20Joaquin%20Valley, accessed March 3, 2020.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-3 a polluted air mass for an extended period. Such an eddy occurs in the Fresno area during both winter and summer (SJVAPCD, 2015).

Temperature
Solar radiation and temperature are particularly important in the chemistry of ozone formation. The SJVAB averages over 260 sunny days per year. Photochemical air pollution (primarily ozone) is produced by the atmospheric reaction of organic substances (such as volatile organic compounds) and nitrogen dioxide under the influence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are very dependent on the amount of solar radiation, especially during late spring, summer, and early fall. Ozone levels typically peak in the afternoon. After the sun goes down, the chemical reaction between nitrous oxide and ozone begins to dominate. This reaction tends to scavenge and remove the ozone in the metropolitan areas through the early morning hours, resulting in the lowest ozone levels, possibly reaching zero at sunrise in areas with high nitrogen oxides emissions. At sunrise, nitrogen oxides tend to peak, partly due to low levels of ozone at this time and also due to the morning commuter vehicle emissions of nitrogen oxides.

Generally, the higher the temperature, the more ozone formed, since reaction rates increase with temperature. However, extremely hot temperatures can “lift” or “break” the inversion layer.

Typically, if the inversion layer does not lift to allow the buildup of contaminants to be dispersed, the ozone levels will peak in the late afternoon. If the inversion layer breaks and the resultant afternoon winds occur, the ozone will peak in the early afternoon and decrease in the late afternoon as the contaminants are dispersed or transported out of the SJVAB.

Ozone levels are low during winter periods when there is much less sunlight to drive the photochemical reaction (SJVAPCD, 2015).

Precipitation, Humidity, and Fog
Precipitation and fog may reduce or limit some pollutant concentrations. Ozone needs sunlight for its formation, and clouds and fog can block the required solar radiation. Wet fogs can cleanse the air during winter as moisture collects on particles and deposits them on the ground. Atmospheric moisture can also increase pollution levels. In fogs with less water content, the moisture acts to form secondary ammonium nitrate particulate matter. This ammonium nitrate is part of the valley’s PM2.5 and PM10 problem. The winds and unstable air conditions experienced during the passage of winter storms result in periods of low pollutant concentrations and excellent visibility. Between winter storms, high pressure and light winds allow cold moist air to pool on the SJVAB floor. This creates strong low-level temperature inversions and very stable air conditions, which can lead to tule fog.

Wintertime conditions favorable to fog formation are also conditions favorable to high concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10 (SJVAPCD, 2015).

Inversions
The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the San Joaquin Valley can be limited by persistent temperature inversions. Air temperature in the lowest layer of the atmosphere typically decreases with altitude. A reversal of this atmospheric state, where the air temperature increases with height,

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan is termed an inversion. The height of the base of the inversion is known as the “mixing height.” This is the level to which pollutants can mix vertically. Mixing of air is minimized above and below the inversion base. The inversion base represents an abrupt density change where little air movement occurs.

Inversion layers are significant in determining pollutant concentrations. Concentration levels can be related to the amount of mixing space below the inversion. Temperature inversions that occur on the summer days are usually 2,000 to 2,500 feet above the valley floor. In winter months, overnight inversions occur 500 to 1,500 feet above the valley floor (SJVAPCD, 2015).

CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
All criteria pollutants can have human health and environmental effects at certain concentrations.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) uses six "criteria pollutants" as indicators of air quality, and has established for each of them a maximum concentration above which adverse effects on human health may occur. These threshold concentrations are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In addition, California establishes ambient air quality standards, called California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). California law does not require that the CAAQS be met by a specified date as is the case with NAAQS.

The ambient air quality standards for the six criteria pollutants (as shown in Table 3.3-1) are set to public health and the environment within an adequate margin of safety (as provided under Section 109 of the Federal Clean Air Act). Epidemiological, controlled human exposure, and toxicology studies evaluate potential health and environmental effects of criteria pollutants, and form the scientific basis for new and revised ambient air quality standards. Principal characteristics and possible health and environmental effects from exposure to the six primary criteria pollutants generated by the project are discussed below.

Ozone (O3) is a photochemical oxidant and the major component of smog. While O3 in the upper atmosphere is beneficial to life by shielding the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun, high concentrations of O3 at ground level are a major health and environmental concern. O3 is not emitted directly into the air but is formed through complex chemical reactions between precursor emissions of volatile organic compounds (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. These reactions are stimulated by sunlight and temperature so that peak O3 levels occur typically during the warmer times of the year. Both ROGs and NOx are emitted by transportation and industrial sources. ROGs are emitted from sources as diverse as autos, chemical manufacturing, dry cleaners, paint shops and other sources using solvents. Relatedly, reactive organic compounds (ROG) are defined as the subset of ROGs that are reactive enough to contribute substantially to atmospheric photochemistry.

The reactivity of O3 causes health problems because it damages lung tissue, reduces lung function and sensitizes the lungs to other irritants. Scientific evidence indicates that ambient levels of O3 not only affect people with impaired respiratory systems, such as asthmatics, but healthy adults and children as well. Exposure to O3 for several hours at relatively low concentrations has been found to significantly reduce lung function and induce respiratory inflammation in normal, healthy people AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-5 during exercise. This decrease in lung function generally is accompanied by symptoms including chest pain, coughing, sneezing and pulmonary congestion.

Studies show associations between short-term ozone exposure and non-accidental mortality, including deaths from respiratory issues. Studies also suggest long-term exposure to ozone may increase the risk of respiratory-related deaths (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2019a). The concentration of ozone at which health effects are observed depends on an individual’s sensitivity, level of exertion (i.e., breathing rate), and duration of exposure. Studies show large individual differences in the intensity of symptomatic responses, with one study finding no symptoms to the least responsive individual after a 2-hour exposure to 400 parts per billion of ozone and a 50 percent decrement in forced airway volume in the most responsive individual. Although the results vary, evidence suggest that sensitive populations (e.g., asthmatics) may be affected on days when the 8- hour maximum ozone concentration reaches 80 parts per billion (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2019b). The average background level of ozone in the California and Nevada is approximately 48.3 parts per billion, which represents approximately 77 percent of the total ozone in the western region of the U.S. (NASA, 2015).

In addition to human health effect, ozone has been tied to crop damage, typically in the form of stunted growth, leaf discoloration, cell damage, and premature death. O3 can also act as a corrosive and oxidant, resulting in property damage such as the degradation of rubber products and other materials.

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless and poisonous gas produced by incomplete burning of carbon in fuels. Carbon monoxide is harmful because it binds to hemoglobin in the blood, reducing the ability of blood to carry oxygen. This interferes with oxygen delivery to the body’s organs. The most common effects of CO exposure are fatigue, headaches, confusion, and dizziness due to inadequate oxygen delivery to the brain. For people with cardiovascular disease, short-term CO exposure can further reduce their body’s already compromised ability to respond to the increased oxygen demands of exercise, exertion, or stress. Inadequate oxygen delivery to the heart muscle leads to chest pain and decreased exercise tolerance. Unborn babies whose mothers experience high levels of CO exposure during pregnancy are at risk of adverse developmental effects. Exposure to CO at high concentrations can also cause fatigue, headaches, confusion, dizziness, and chest pain.

There are no ecological or environmental effects to ambient CO (California Air Resources Board, 2019a).

Very high levels of CO are not likely to occur outdoors. However, when CO levels are elevated outdoors, they can be of particular concern for people with some types of heart disease. These people already have a reduced ability for getting oxygenated blood to their hearts in situations where the heart needs more oxygen than usual. They are especially vulnerable to the effects of CO when exercising or under increased stress. In these situations, short-term exposure to elevated CO may result in reduced oxygen to the heart accompanied by chest pain also known as angina (U.S.

EPA, 2016). Such acute effects may occur under current ambient conditions for some sensitive individuals, while increases in ambient CO levels increases the risk of such incidences.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Nitrogen oxides (NOx) is a brownish, highly reactive gas that is present in all urban atmospheres.

The main effect of increased NO2 is the increased likelihood of respiratory problems. Under ambient conditions, NO2 can irritate the lungs, cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and lower resistance to respiratory infections. Nitrogen oxides are an important precursor both to ozone (O3) and acid rain, and may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Longer exposures to elevated concentrations of NO2 may contribute to the development of asthma and potentially increase susceptibility to respiratory infections. People with asthma, as well as children and the elderly are generally at greater risk for the health effects of NO2.

The major mechanism for the formation of NO2 in the atmosphere is the oxidation of the primary air pollutant nitric oxide (NOx). NOx plays a major role, together with ROGs, in the atmospheric reactions that produce O3. NOx forms when fuel is burned at high temperatures. The two major emission sources are transportation and stationary fuel combustion sources such as electric utility and industrial boilers.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is one of the multiple gaseous oxidized sulfur species and is formed during the combustion of fuels containing sulfur, primarily coal and oil. The largest anthropogenic source of SO2 emissions in the U.S. is fossil fuel combustion at electric utilities and other industrial facilities.

SO2 is also emitted from certain manufacturing processes and mobile sources, including locomotives, large ships, and construction equipment.

SO2 affects breathing and may aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease in high doses. Sensitive populations include asthmatics, individuals with bronchitis or emphysema, children and the elderly. SO2 is also a primary contributor to acid deposition, or acid rain, which causes acidification of lakes and streams and can damage trees, crops, historic buildings and statues. In addition, sulfur compounds in the air contribute to visibility impairment in large parts of the country.

This is especially noticeable in national parks. Ambient SO2 results largely from stationary sources such as coal and oil combustion, steel mills, refineries, pulp and paper mills and from nonferrous smelters.

Short-term exposure to ambient SO2 has been associated with various adverse health effects.

Multiple human clinical studies, epidemiological studies, and toxicological studies support a causal relationship between short-term exposure to ambient SO2 and respiratory morbidity. The observed health effects include decreased lung function, respiratory symptoms, and increased emergency department visits and hospitalizations for all respiratory causes. These studies further suggest that people with asthma are potentially susceptible or vulnerable to these health effects. In addition, SO2 reacts with other air pollutants to form sulfate particles, which are constituents of fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Inhalation exposure to PM2.5 has been associated with various cardiovascular and respiratory health effects (U.S. EPA, 2017). Increased ambient SO2 levelswould lead to increased risk of such effects.

SO2 emissions that lead to high concentrations of SO2 in the air generally also lead to the formation of other sulfur oxides (SOx). SOx can react with other compounds in the atmosphere to form small particles. These particles contribute to particulate matter (PM) pollution. Small particles may penetrate deeply into the lungs and in sufficient quantity can contribute to health problems.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-7 Particulate matter (PM) includes dust, dirt, soot, smoke and liquid droplets directly emitted into the air by sources such as factories, power plants, cars, construction activity, fires and natural windblown dust. Particles formed in the atmosphere by condensation or the transformation of emitted gases such as SO2 and ROGs are also considered particulate matter. PM is generally categorized based on the diameter of the particulate matter: PM10 is particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (known as respirable particulate matter), and PM2.5 is particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (known as fine particulate matter).

Based on studies of human populations exposed to high concentrations of particles (sometimes in the presence of SO2) and laboratory studies of animals and humans, there are major effects of concern for human health. These include effects on breathing and respiratory symptoms, aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, alterations in the body's defense systems against foreign materials, damage to lung tissue, carcinogenesis and premature death.

Small particulate pollution causes health impacts even at very low concentrations – indeed no threshold has been identified below which no damage to health is observed.

Respirable particulate matter (PM10) consists of small particles, less than 10 microns in diameter, of dust, smoke, or droplets of liquid which penetrate the human respiratory system and cause irritation by themselves, or in combination with other gases. Particulate matter is caused primarily by dust from grading and excavation activities, from agricultural activities (as created by soil preparation activities, fertilizer and pesticide spraying, weed burning and animal husbandry), and from motor vehicles, particularly diesel-powered vehicles. PM10 causes a greater health risk than larger particles, since these fine particles can more easily penetrate the defenses of the human respiratory system.

PM2.5 consists of fine particles, which are less than 2.5 microns in size. Similar to PM10, these particles are primarily the result of combustion in motor vehicles, particularly diesel engines, as well as from industrial sources and residential/agricultural activities such as burning. It is also formed through the reaction of other pollutants. As with PM10, these particulates can increase the chance of respiratory disease, and cause lung damage and cancer. In 1997, the U.S. EPA created new Federal air quality standards for PM2.5.

The major subgroups of the population that appear to be most sensitive to the effects of particulate matter include individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary or cardiovascular disease or influenza, asthmatics, the elderly and children. Particulate matter also impacts soils and damages materials, and is a major cause of visibility impairment.

Numerous studies have linked PM exposure to premature death in people with preexisting heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms. Studies show that every 1 microgram per cubic meter reduction in PM2.5 results in a one percent reduction in mortality rate for individuals over 30 years old (Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017). Long-term exposures, such as those experienced by people living for many years in areas with high particle levels, have been associated with problems such as reduced lung function and the development of chronic bronchitis – and even premature death. Additionally, depending on its composition, both PM10 and PM2.5 can also affect

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan water quality and acidity, deplete soil nutrients, damage sensitive forests and crops, affect ecosystem diversity, and contribute to acid rain (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2019c).

Lead (Pb) exposure can occur through multiple pathways, including inhalation of air and ingestion of Pb in food, water, soil or dust. Once taken into the body, lead distributes throughout the body in the blood and is accumulated in the bones. Depending on the level of exposure, lead can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems and the cardiovascular system. Lead exposure also affects the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. Excessive Pb exposure can cause seizures, intellectual disabilities, and/or behavioral disorders. Low doses of Pb can lead to central nervous system damage. Recent studies have also shown that Pb may be a factor in high blood pressure and subsequent heart disease.

Lead is persistent in the environment and can be added to soils and sediments through deposition from sources of lead air pollution. Other sources of lead to ecosystems include direct discharge of waste streams to water bodies from mining. Elevated lead in the environment can result in decreased growth and reproductive rates in plants and animals, and neurological effects in vertebrates.

Lead exposure is typically associated with industrial sources; major sources of lead in the air are ore and metals processing and piston-engine aircraft operating on leaded aviation fuel. Other sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers. The highest air concentrations of lead are usually found near lead smelters. As a result of the U.S. EPA’s regulatory efforts, including the removal of lead from motor vehicle gasoline, levels of lead in the air decreased by 98 percent between 1980 and 2014 (U.S. EPA, 2019d). Based on this reduction of lead in the air over this period, and since most new developments to not generate an increase in lead exposure, the health impacts of ambient lead levels are not typically monitored by the California Air Resources Board.

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the CARB have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards represent safe levels of contaminants that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant.

The federal and State ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 3.3-1 for important pollutants. The federal and State ambient standards were developed independently, although both processes attempted to avoid health-related effects. As a result, the federal and State standards differ in some cases. In general, the California standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. The U.S. EPA signed a final rule for the federal ozone eight-hour standard of 0.070 ppm on October 1, 2015, and was effective as of December 28, 2015 (equivalent to the California state ambient air quality eight-hour standard for ozone).

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-9 TABLE 3.3-1: FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

POLLUTANT AVERAGING TIME FEDERAL PRIMARY STANDARD STATE STANDARD Ozone 1-Hour
8-Hour
--

0.070 ppm

0.09 ppm

0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour
1-Hour

9.0 ppm

35.0 ppm

9.0 ppm

20.0 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual
1-Hour

0.053 ppm

0.100 ppm

0.03 ppm

0.18 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual
24-Hour
1-Hour

0.03 ppm

0.14 ppm

0.075 ppm
--

0.04 ppm

0.25 ppm
PM10
Annual
24-Hour
--
150 ug/m3
20 ug/m3
50 ug/m3
PM2.5
Annual
24-Hour
12 ug/m3
35 ug/m3
12 ug/m3
--
Lead 30-Day Avg.
3-Month Avg.
--

0.15 ug/m3

1.5 ug/m3
--
NOTES: PPM = PARTS PER MILLION, UG/M3 = MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD, 2019A.

In 1997, new national standards for fine particulate matter diameter 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) were adopted for 24-hour and annual averaging periods. The existing PM10 standards were retained, but the method and form for determining compliance with the standards were revised.

In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. TACs are injurious in small quantities and are regulated despite the absence of criteria documents. The identification, regulation and monitoring of TACs is relatively recent compared to that for criteria pollutants. Unlike criteria pollutants, TACs are regulated on the basis of risk rather than specification of safe levels of contamination.

Existing air quality concerns within Fresno County and the entire air basin are related to increases of regional criteria air pollutants (e.g., ozone and particulate matter), exposure to toxic air contaminants, odors, and increases in greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change. The primary source of ozone (smog) pollution is motor vehicles which account for 70 percent of the ozone in the region. Particulate matter is caused by dust, primarily dust generated from construction and grading activities, and smoke which is emitted from fireplaces, wood-burning stoves, and agricultural burning.

Attainment Status
In accordance with the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), the CARB is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data do not support either an attainment or nonattainment status. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.

The U.S. EPA designates areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For sulfur dioxide, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, the CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used.

Fresno County has a State designation Attainment or Unclassified for all criteria pollutants except for PM10 and PM2.5. Fresno County has a national designation of either Unclassified or Attainment for all criteria pollutants except for Ozone and PM2.5. Table 3.3-2 presents the state and nation attainment status for Fresno County.

TABLE 3.3-2: STATE AND NATIONAL ATTAINMENT STATUS IN FRESNO COUNTY

CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATE DESIGNATIONS NATIONAL DESIGNATIONS Ozone (O3) (1-hour) Severe/Nonattainment Not Applicable Ozone (O3) (8-hour) Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment PM10 Nonattainment Attainment (Maintenance)
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Unclassified
Sulfates Attainment No Federal Regulation
Lead Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified No Federal Regulation
Visibility Reducing Particles Unclassified No Federal Regulation SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD, 2020.

Fresno County Air Quality Monitoring
The SJVAPCD and the CARB maintain air quality monitoring sites throughout Fresno County that collect data for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. Data for Fresno County overall was is provided for ozone, PM2.5 and PM10. It is important to note that while the State retains the one-hour standard, the federal ozone 1-hour standard was revoked by the U.S. EPA and is no longer applicable for federal standards. Data obtained from the monitoring sites between 2016 and 2018 (latest year of data available) is shown in Table 3.3-3, Table 3.3-4, and Table 3.3-5.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-11 TABLE 3.3-3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA SUMMARY (FRESNO COUNTY) - OZONE YEAR
DAYS > STANDARD 1-HOUR OBSERVATIONS 8-HOUR AVERAGES YEAR

COVERAGE STATE NATIONAL STATE NAT'L STATE NATIONAL
1-HR 8-HR 1-HR 8-HR MAX. D.V.¹ D.V.² MAX. D.V.¹ MAX. D.V.² MIN MAX 2018 20 65 0.7 62 0.129 0.12 0.129 0.099 0.103 0.099 0.090 96 99 2017 28 88 0.7 84 0.143 0.12 0.143 0.113 0.104 0.112 0.092 90 100 2016 37 86 0.4 82 0.131 0.12 0.131 0.101 0.105 0.101 0.094 96 98 NOTES: ALL CONCENTRATIONS EXPRESSED IN PARTS PER MILLION. THE NATIONAL 1-HOUR OZONE STANDARD WAS REVOKED IN JUNE 2005 AND IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT. STATISTICS RELATED TO THE REVOKED STANDARD ARE SHOWN IN ITALICS.D.V. ¹ = STATE DESIGNATION VALUE .D.V.²=NATIONAL DESIGN VALUE.

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (AEROMETRIC DATA ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OR IADAM) AIR POLLUTION SUMMARIES.

TABLE 3.3-4: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA SUMMARY (FRESNO COUNTY) – PM10 YEAR
EST. DAYS > STD. ANNUAL AVERAGE HIGH 24-HR AVERAGE YEAR

NAT'L STATE NAT'L STATE NAT'L STATE COVERAGE
2018 36.0 ND* 17.1 16.6 95.7 96.9 96 – 100
2017 31.1 ND* 15.0 15.0 88.3 88.3 94 – 100
2016 16.0 ND* 13.0 13.6 52.7 53.8 88 – 100
NOTES: THE NATIONAL ANNUAL AVERAGE PM10 STANDARD WAS REVOKED IN DECEMBER 2006 AND IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT. AN EXCEEDANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY A VIOLATION. STATISTICS MAY INCLUDE DATA THAT ARE RELATED TO AN EXCEPTIONAL EVENT. STATE AND NATIONAL STATISTICS MAY DIFFER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: STATE STATISTICS ARE BASED ON CALIFORNIA APPROVED SAMPLERS, WHEREAS NATIONAL STATISTICS ARE BASED ON SAMPLERS USING FEDERAL REFERENCE OR EQUIVALENT METHODS. STATE AND NATIONAL STATISTICS MAY THEREFORE BE BASED ON DIFFERENT SAMPLERS. NATIONAL STATISTICS ARE BASED ON STANDARD CONDITIONS. STATE CRITERIA FOR ENSURING THAT DATA ARE SUFFICIENTLY COMPLETE FOR CALCULATING VALID ANNUAL AVERAGES ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN THE NATIONAL CRITERIA.ND=THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT (OR NO) DATA AVAILABLE TO DETERMINE THE VALUE.

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (AEROMETRIC DATA ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OR IADAM) AIR POLLUTION SUMMARIES.

TABLE 3.3-5 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA SUMMARY (FRESNO COUNTY) - PM2.5 YEAR
EST. DAYS >
NAT'L '06
STD.

ANNUAL AVERAGE NAT'L
ANN. STD.

D.V.¹
STATE
ANNUAL
D.V.²
NAT'L '06
STD. 98TH

PERCENTILE
NAT'L
'06 24-
HR STD.

D.V.¹
HIGH 24-HOUR

AVERAGE
YEAR

COVERAGE

NAT'L STATE NAT'L STATE MIN MAX
2018 36.0 17.1 16.6 15.0 17 65.5 60 95.7 96.9 96 100
2017 31.1 15.0 15.0 14.0 15 73.3 54 88.3 47.3 94 100
2016 16.0 13.0 13.6 14.7 16 42.7 54 52.7 53.8 88 99
NOTES: ALL CONCENTRATIONS EXPRESSED IN PARTS PER MILLION. STATE AND NATIONAL STATISTICS MAY DIFFER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: STATE

STATISTICS ARE BASED ON CALIFORNIA APPROVED SAMPLERS, WHEREAS NATIONAL STATISTICS ARE BASED ON SAMPLERS USING FEDERAL REFERENCE OR EQUIVALENT METHODS. STATE AND NATIONAL STATISTICS MAY THEREFORE BE BASED ON DIFFERENT SAMPLERS. STATE CRITERIA FOR ENSURING THAT DATA ARE SUFFICIENTLY COMPLETE FOR CALCULATING VALID ANNUAL AVERAGES ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN THE NATIONAL CRITERIA. D.V. ¹ = STATE DESIGNATION VALUE. D.V. ²= NATIONAL DESIGN VALUE
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (AEROMETRIC DATA ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OR IADAM) AIR POLLUTION SUMMARIES.

ODORS
Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan With respect to odors, the human nose is the sole sensing device. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals have the ability to smell minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; in fact, an odor that is offensive to one person (e.g., from a fast-food restaurant) may be perfectly acceptable to another.

It is also important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity.

Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the odor. Intensity refers to the strength of the odor. For example, a person may use the word “strong” to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air.

When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human.

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. A sensitive receptor is a location where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons, are present and where there is a reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure to pollutants.

Examples of sensitive receptors include residences, hospitals and schools. The closest sensitive receptors to the Plan Area include existing residences located within the Plan Area itself.

3.3.2REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL
Clean Air Act
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) was first signed into law in 1970. In 1977, and again in 1990, the law was substantially amended. The FCAA is the foundation for a national air pollution control effort, and it is composed of the following basic elements: NAAQS for criteria air pollutants, hazardous air pollutant standards, state attainment plans, motor vehicle emissions standards, stationary source emissions standards and permits, acid rain control measures, stratospheric ozone protection, and enforcement provisions.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-13 The U.S. EPA is responsible for administering the FCAA. The FCAA requires the U.S. EPA to set NAAQS for several problem air pollutants based on human health and welfare criteria. Two types of NAAQS were established: primary standards, which protect public health (with an adequate margin of safety, including for sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals suffering from respiratory diseases), and secondary standards, which protect the public welfare from nonhealth-related adverse effects such as visibility reduction.

NAAQS standards define clean air and represent the maximum amount of pollution that can be present in outdoor air without any harmful effects on people and the environment. Existing violations of the ozone and PM2.5 ambient air quality standards indicate that certain individuals exposed to these pollutants may experience certain health effects, including increased incidence of cardiovascular and respiratory ailments.

NAAQS standards have been designed to accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge and are reviewed every five years by a Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), consisting of seven members appointed by the U.S. EPA administrator. Reviewing NAAQS is a lengthy undertaking and includes the following major phases: Planning, Integrated Science Assessment (ISA), Risk/Exposure Assessment (REA), Policy Assessment (PA), and Rulemaking. The process starts with a comprehensive review of the relevant scientific literature. The literature is summarized and conclusions are presented in the ISA. Based on the ISA, U.S. EPA staff perform a risk and exposure assessment, which is summarized in the REA document. The third document, the PA, integrates the findings and conclusions of the ISA and REA into a policy context, and provides lines of reasoning that could be used to support retention or revision of the existing NAAQS, as well as several alternative standards that could be supported by the review findings. Each of these three documents is released for public comment and public peer review by the CASAC. Members of CASAC are appointed by the U.S. EPA Administrator for their expertise in one or more of the subject areas covered in the ISA. The committee’s role is to peer review the NAAQS documents, ensure that they reflect the thinking of the scientific community, and advise the Administrator on the technical and scientific aspects of standard setting. Each document goes through two to three drafts before CASAC deems it to be final.

Although there is some variability among the health effects of the NAAQS pollutants, each has been linked to multiple adverse health effects including, among others, premature death, hospitalizations and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic disease, and increased symptoms such as coughing and wheezing. NAAQS standards were last revised for each of the six criteria pollutant as listed below, with detail on what aspects of NAAQS changed during the most recent update:
• Ozone: On October 1, 2015, the U.S. EPA lowered the national eight-hour standard from

0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm, providing for a more stringent standards consistent with the current California state standard.
• CO: In 2011, the primary standards were retained from the original 1971 level, without revision. The secondary standards were revoked in 1985.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • NO2: The national NO2 standard was most recently revised in 2010 following an exhaustive review of new literature pointed to evidence for adverse effects in asthmatics at lower NO2 concentrations than the existing national standard. • SO2: On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24- hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb.
• PM: the national annual average PM2.5 standard was most recently revised in 2012 following an exhaustive review of new literature pointed to evidence for increased risk of premature mortality at lower PM2.5 concentrations than the existing standard. • Lead: The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3- month average. In 2016, the primary and secondary standards were retained.

The law recognizes the importance for each state to locally carry out the requirements of the FCAA, as special consideration of local industries, geography, housing patterns, etc. are needed to have full comprehension of the local pollution control problems. As a result, the U.S. EPA requires each state to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that explains how each state will implement the FCAA within their jurisdiction. A SIP is a collection of rules and regulations that a particular state will implement to control air quality within their jurisdiction. The CARB is the state agency that is responsible for preparing the California SIP.

Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity requirements were added to the FCAA in the 1990 amendments, and the U.S. EPA adopted implementing regulations in 1997. See §176 of the FCAA (42 U.S.C. §7506) and 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A. Transportation conformity serves much the same purpose as general conformity: it ensures that transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects that are developed, funded, or approved by the United States Department of Transportation or that are recipients of funds under the Federal Transit Act or from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), conform to the SIP as approved or promulgated by U.S. EPA.

Currently, transportation conformity applies in nonattainment areas and maintenance areas. Under transportation conformity, a determination of conformity with the applicable SIP must be made by the agency responsible for the project, such as the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Council of Governments, or a federal agency. The agency making the determination is also responsible for all the requirements relating to public participation. Generally, a project will be considered in conformance if it is in the transportation improvement plan and the transportation improvement plan is incorporated in the SIP. If an action is covered under transportation conformity, it does not need to be separately evaluated under general conformity.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-15 Transportation Control Measures
One particular aspect of the SIP development process is the consideration of potential control measures as a part of making progress towards clean air goals. While most SIP control measures are aimed at reducing emissions from stationary sources, some are typically also created to address mobile or transportation sources. These are known as transportation control measures (TCMs). TCM strategies are designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled and trips, or vehicle idling and associated air pollution. These goals are achieved by developing attractive and convenient alternatives to single-occupant vehicle use. Examples of TCMs include ridesharing programs, transportation infrastructure improvements such as adding bicycle and carpool lanes, and expansion of public transit.

STATE
CARB Mobile-Source Regulation
The State of California is responsible for controlling emissions from the operation of motor vehicles in the State. Rather than mandating the use of specific technology or the reliance on a specific fuel, the CARB motor vehicle standards specify the allowable grams of pollution per mile driven. In other words, the regulations focus on the reductions needed rather than on the manner in which they are achieved. Towards this end, the CARB has adopted regulations which require auto manufacturers to phase in less polluting vehicles.

California Clean Air Act
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) was first signed into law in 1988. The CCAA provides a comprehensive framework for air quality planning and regulation, and spells out, in statute, the state’s air quality goals, planning and regulatory strategies, and performance. The CARB is the agency responsible for administering the CCAA. The CARB established ambient air quality standards pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) [§39606(b)], which are similar to the federal standards.

California Air Quality Standards
Although NAAQS are determined by the U.S. EPA, states have the ability to set standards that are more stringent than the federal standards. As such, California established more stringent ambient air quality standards. Federal and state ambient air quality standards have been established for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulates and lead. In addition, California has created standards for pollutants that are not covered by federal standards.

Although there is some variability among the health effects of the CAAQS pollutants, each has been linked to multiple adverse health effects including, among others, premature death, hospitalizations and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic disease, and increased symptoms such as coughing and wheezing. The existing state and federal primary standards for major pollutants are shown in Table 3.3-1.

Air quality standard setting in California commences with a critical review of all relevant peer reviewed scientific literature. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) uses

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan the review of health literature to develop a recommendation for the standard. The recommendation can be for no change, or can recommend a new standard. The review, including the OEHHA recommendation, is summarized in a document called the draft Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR), which is released for comment by the public, and also for public peer review by the Air Quality Advisory Committee (AQAC). AQAC members are appointed by the President of the University of California for their expertise in the range of subjects covered in the ISOR, including health, exposure, air quality monitoring, atmospheric chemistry and physics, and effects on plants, trees, materials, and ecosystems. The Committee provides written comments on the draft ISOR. The ARB staff next revises the ISOR based on comments from AQAC and the public. The revised ISOR is then released for a 45-day public comment period prior to consideration by the Board at a regularly scheduled Board hearing.

In June of 2002, the CARB adopted revisions to the PM10 standard and established a new PM2.5 annual standard. The new standards became effective in June 2003. Subsequently, staff reviewed the published scientific literature on ground-level ozone and nitrogen dioxide and the CARB adopted revisions to the standards for these two pollutants. Revised standards for ozone and nitrogen dioxide went into effect on May 17, 2006 and March 20, 2008, respectively. These revisions reflect the most recent changes to the CAAQS.

Tanner Air Toxics Act (TACs)
California regulates TACs primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588). The Tanner Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before CARB can designate a substance as a TAC. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs and has adopted U.S. EPA’s list of HAPs as TACs. Most recently, diesel PM was added to the CARB list of TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB then adopts an Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for sources that emit that particular TAC. If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate Best Available Control Technologies (BACT) to minimize emissions.

AB 2588 requires that existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a specified level prepare a toxic-emission inventory, prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant, notify the public of significant risk levels, and prepare and implement risk reduction measures. CARB has adopted diesel exhaust control measures and more stringent emission standards for various on-road mobile sources of emissions, including transit buses and off-road diesel equipment (e.g., tractors, generators). In February 2000, CARB adopted a new public-transit bus-fleet rule and emission standards for new urban buses. These rules and standards provide for (1) more stringent emission standards for some new urban bus engines, beginning with 2002 model year engines; (2) zeroemission bus demonstration and purchase requirements applicable to transit agencies; and (3) reporting requirements under which transit agencies must demonstrate compliance with the urban transit bus fleet rule.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-17 LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan includes objectives and policies within its Resource Conservation and Resilience Element that pertain directly to air quality. However, various objectives and policies included in the other General Plan Elements related to land use development patterns (e.g., infill and mixed-use development), transportation and transit, and urban form would also contribute in improving air quality within the proposed Plan Area and SJVAB. The Fresno General Plan establishes the following objectives and policies directly related to air quality:

URBAN FORM, LAND USE AND DESIGN ELEMENT
Objective UF-1. Emphasize the opportunity for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, and housing types.

Policy UF-1-c: Identifiable City Structure. Focus integrated and ongoing planning efforts to achieve an identifiable city structure, comprised of a concentration of buildings, people, and pedestrian-oriented activity in Downtown; along a small number of prominent east-west and north-south transit-oriented, mixed-use corridors with distinctive and strategically located Activity Centers; and in existing and new neighborhoods augmented with parks and connected by multi-purpose trails and tree lined bike lanes and streets.

Policy UF-1-e: Unique Neighborhoods. Promote and protect unique neighborhoods and mixed use areas throughout Fresno that respect and support various ethnic, cultural and historic enclaves; provide a range of housing options, including furthering affordable housing opportunities; and convey a unique character and lifestyle attractive to Fresnans.

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

Objective UF-12: Locate roughly one-half of future residential development in infill areas – defined as being within the City on December 31, 2012 – including the Downtown core area and surrounding neighborhoods, mixed-use centers and transit-oriented development along major BRT corridors, and other non-corridor infill areas, and vacant land.

Policy UF-12-a: BRT Corridors. Design land uses and integrate development site plans along BRT corridors, with transit-oriented development that supports transit ridership and convenient pedestrian access to bus stops and BRT station stops.

Policy UF-12-b: Activity Centers. Mixed-use designated areas along BRT and/or transit corridors are appropriate for more intensive concentrations of urban uses. Typical uses could include commercial areas; employment centers; schools; compact residential development; religious institutions; parks; and other gathering points where residents may interact, work, and obtain goods and services in the same place.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy UF-12-d: Appropriate Mixed-Use. Facilitate the development of vertical and horizontal mixed-uses to blend residential, commercial, and public land uses on one site or adjacent sites. Ensure land use compatibility between mixed-use districts in Activity Centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods.

Policy UF-12-e: Access to Activity Centers. Promote adoptions and implementation of standards supporting pedestrian activities and bicycle linkages from surrounding land uses and neighborhoods into Activity Centers and to transit stops. Provide for priority transit routes and facilities to serve the Activity Centers.

Policy UF-12-f: Mixed-Use in Activity Centers. Update the Development Code to include use regulations and standards to allow for mixed-uses and shared parking facilities, including multi-story and underground parking facilities, within Activity Centers.

Objective UF-14: Create an urban form that facilitates multi-modal connectivity.

Policy UF-14-a: Design Guidelines for Walkability. Develop and use design guidelines and standards for a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment with a network of streets and connections for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as transit and autos.

Policy UF-14-b: Local Street Connectivity. Design local roadways to connect throughout neighborhoods and large private developments with adjacent major streets and pathways of existing adjacent development. Create access for pedestrians and bicycles where a local street must dead end or be designed as a cul-de-sac to adjoining uses that provide services, shopping, and connecting pathways for access to the greater community area.

Objective LU-2: Plan for infill development that includes a range of housing types, building forms, and land uses to meet the needs of both current and future residents.

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

Policy LU-2-b: Infill Development for Affordable Housing. Consider a priority infill incentive program for residential infill development of existing vacant lots and underutilized sites within the City as a strategy to help to meet the affordable housing needs of the community.

Policy LU-3-c: Zoning for High Density on Major BRT Corridors. Consider the adoption of supportive zoning regulations for compact development along BRT corridors leading to the Downtown Core that will not diminish the long-term growth and development potential for Downtown.

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

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-19 Policy LU-6-d: Neighborhood and Community Commercial Center Design. Plan for neighborhood mixed use and community commercial uses to implement the Urban Form concepts of the General Plan, promote the stability and identity of neighborhood and community shopping areas, and allow efficient access without compromising the operational effectiveness of the street system.
• Neighborhoods will be anchored by community commercial centers with a mix of uses that meet the area’s needs and create a sense of place. • Community commercial centers will be located within Activity Centers.

Policy LU-6-f: Auto-Oriented Commercial Uses. Direct highway-oriented and auto-serving commercial uses to locations that are compatible with the Urban Form policies of the General Plan. Ensure adequate buffering measures for adjacent residential uses noise, glare, odors, and dust.

Policy LU-8-b: Access to Public Facilities. Ensure that major public facilities and institutions have adequate multi-modal access and can be easily reached by public transit.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RESILIENCY ELEMENT
Objective RC-4: In cooperation with other jurisdictions and agencies in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, take necessary actions to achieve and maintain compliance with State and federal air quality standards for criteria pollutants.

Policy RC-4-a: Support Regional Efforts. Support and lead, where appropriate, regional, State and federal programs and actions for the improvement of air quality, especially the SJVAPCD’s efforts to monitor and control air pollutants from both stationary and mobile sources and implement Reasonably Available Control Measures in the Ozone Attainment Plan.

Policy RC-4-b: Conditions of Approval. Develop and incorporate air quality maintenance requirements, compatible with Air Quality Attainment and Maintenance Plans, as conditions of approval for General Plan amendments, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and development proposals.

Policy RC-4-c: Evaluate Impacts with Models. Continue to require the use of computer models used by SJVAPCD to evaluate the air quality impacts of plans and projects that require such environmental review by the City.

Policy RC-4-d: Forward Information. Forward information regarding proposed General Plan amendments, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and development proposals that require air quality evaluation, and amendments to development regulations to the SJVAPCD for their review of potential air quality and health impacts.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy RC-4-e: Support Employer-Based Efforts. Support and promote employer implementation of staggered work hours and employee incentives to use carpools, public transit and other measures to reduce vehicular use and traffic congestion.

Policy RC-4-f: Municipal Operations and Fleet Actions. Continue to control and reduce air pollution emissions from vehicles owned by the City operations and municipal operations and facilities by undertaking the following:
• Expand the use of alternative fuel, electric, and hybrid vehicles in City fleets. • Create preventive maintenance schedules that will ensure efficient engine operation.
• Include air conditioning recycling and charging stations in the City vehicle maintenance facilities, to reduce freon gases being released into the atmosphere and electrostatic filtering systems in City maintenance shops, when feasible or when required by health regulations.
• Use satellite corporation yards for decentralized storage and vehicle maintenance. • Convert City-owned emergency backup generators to natural gas fuels whenever possible, and
• Create an advanced energy storage system.

Policy RC-4-g: FAX Actions. Continue efforts to improve Fresno Area Express (FAX) bus transit system technical performance, reduce emission levels, streamline system operations, and implement BRT where supportive land uses are proposed by Figure LU-1:

Land Use Diagram.

Policy RC-4-h: Airport Actions. Support Airport efforts to develop and maintain programs and policies to support City, State and Federal efforts to achieve and maintain air quality standards.

Policy RC-4-j: All Departments. Continue to develop and implement in all City departments, operational policies to reduce air pollution.

Policy RC-4-k: Electric Charging. Develop standards to facilitate electric charging infrastructure in both new and existing public and private buildings, in order to accommodate these vehicles as the technology becomes widespread.

Policy RC-8-j: Alternative Fuel Network. Support the development of a network of integrated charging and alternate fuel station for both public and private vehicles, and if feasible, open up municipal stations to the public as part of network development.

HEALTHY COMMUNITIES ELEMENT
Policy HC-3-d: Green Standards for Affordable Housing. Provide appropriate incentives for affordable housing providers, agencies, non-profit and market rate developers to use LEED and CalGreen Tier 1 or Tier 2 standards or third party equivalents.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-21 Policy HC-3-f: New Drive-Through Facilities. Include in the Development Code design review to reduce vehicle emissions resulting from queued idling vehicles at drive-through facilities in proximity to residential neighborhoods.

MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Objective MT-1: Create and maintain a transportation system that is safe, efficient, provides access in an equitable manner, and optimizes travel by all modes.

Policy MT-1-f: Match Travel Demand with Transportation Facilities. Designate the types and intensities of land uses at locations such that related travel demands can be accommodated by a variety of viable transportation modes and support Complete Neighborhoods while avoiding the rerouting of excessive or incompatible traffic through local residential streets.

Policy MT-1-g: Complete Streets Concept Implementation. Provide transportation facilities based upon a Complete Streets concept that facilitates the balanced use of all viable travel modes (pedestrians, bicyclists, motor vehicle and transit users), meeting the transportation needs of all ages, income groups, and abilities and providing mobility for a variety of trip purposes, while also supporting other City goals.

Policy MT-1-m: Standards for Planned Bus Rapid Transit Corridors and Activity Centers.

Independent of the Traffic Impact Zones identified in MT-2-I and Figure MT-4, strive to maintain the following vehicle LOS standards on major roadway segments and intersections along Bus Rapid Transit Corridors and in Activity Centers:
• LOS E or better at all times, including peak travel times, unless the City Traffic Engineer determines that mitigation to maintain this LOS would be infeasible and/or conflict with the achievement of other General Plan policies.
• Accept LOS F conditions in Activity Centers and Bus Rapid Transit Corridors only if provisions are made to improve the overall system and/or promote non-vehicular transportation and transit as part of a development project or a City-initiated project.

In accepting LOS F conditions, the City Traffic Engineer may request limited analyses of operational issues at locations near Activity Centers and along Bus Rapid Transit Corridors, such as queuing or left-turn movements.
• Give priority to maintaining pedestrian service first, followed by transit service and then by vehicle LOS, where conflicts between objectives for service capacity between different transportation modes occur.
• Identify pedestrian-priority and transit-priority streets where these modes would have priority in order to apply a multi-modal priority system, as part of the General Plan implementation.

Objective MT-4: Establish and maintain a continuous, safe, and easily accessible bikeways system throughout the metropolitan area to reduce vehicle use, improve air quality and the quality of life, and provide public health benefits.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy MT-4-a: Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plan. To the extent consistent with this General Plan, continue to implement and periodically update the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plan to meet State standards and requirements for recommended improvements and funding proposals as determined appropriate and feasible.

Policy MT-4-b: Bikeway Improvements. Establish and implement property development standards to assure that projects adjacent to designated bikeways provide adequate rightof-way and that necessary improvements are constructed to implement the planned bikeway system shown on Figure MT-2 to provide for bikeways, to the extent feasible, when existing roadways are reconstructed; and alternative bikeway alignments or routes where inadequate right-of-way is available.

Policy MT-4-d: Prioritization of Bikeway Improvements. Prioritize bikeway components that link existing separated sections of the system, or that are likely to serve the highest concentration of existing or potential cyclists, particularly in those neighborhoods with low vehicle ownership rates, or that are likely to serve destination areas with the highest demand such as schools, shopping areas, recreational and park areas, and employment centers.

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

Policy MT-5-a: Sidewalk Development. Pursue funding and implement standards for development of sidewalks on public streets, with priority given to meeting the needs of persons with physical and vision limitations; providing safe routes to school; completing pedestrian improvements in established neighborhoods with lower vehicle ownership rates; or providing pedestrian access to public transportation routes.

Policy MT-5-b: Sidewalk Requirements. Assure adequate access for pedestrians and people with disabilities in new residential developments per adopted City policies, consistent with the California Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Objective MT-6: Establish a network of multi-purpose pedestrian and bicycle paths, as well as limited access trails, to link residential areas to local and regional open spaces and recreation areas and urban Activity Centers in order to enhance Fresno's recreational amenities and alternative transportation options.

Policy MT-6-a: Link Residences to Destinations. Design a pedestrian and bicycle path network that links residential areas with Activity Centers, such as parks and recreational facilities, educational institutions, employment centers, cultural sites, and other focal points of the city environment.

Policy MT-6-c: Link Paths and Trails and Recreational Facilities. Continue to participate in multi-agency planning and implementation partnerships for the coordinated development AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-23 of the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area planned path and trail system and with Madera County for the San Joaquin River Parkway trail system.

Policy MT-6-g: Path and Trail Development. Require all projects to incorporate planned multi-purpose path and trail development standards and corridor linkages consistent with the General Plan, applicable law and case-by-case determinations as a condition of project approval.

Policy MT-6-i: Path and Trail Design Standards. Designate and design paths and trails in accordance with design standards established by the City that give consideration to all path and trail users (consistent with design, terrain and habitat limitations) and provide for appropriate widths, surfacing, drainage, design speed, barriers, fences, signage, visibility, intersections, bridges, and street cleaning.

Policy MT-6-j: Variety in Path and Trail Design. rovide for different levels and types of usable pedestrian and bicycle corridors, including broad, shaded sidewalks; jogging paths; paved and all terrain bicycle paths; through-block passageways; and hiking trails. Where a designated multi-purpose path route is adjacent to a public right-of-way which accommodates bike lane, allow for flexibility in path design, so that bike lanes may be substituted for the bicycle component of the multi-purpose path where it is safe and appropriate to do so.

Objective MT-8: Provide public transit options that serve existing and future concentrations of residences, employment, recreation and civic uses and are feasible, efficient, safe, and minimize environmental impacts.

Policy MT-8-c: New Development Facilitating Transit. Continue to review development proposals in transportation corridors to ensure they are designed to facilitate transit.

Coordinate all projects that have residential or employment densities suitable for transit services, so they are located along existing or planned transit corridors or that otherwise have the potential for transit orientation to FAX, and consider FAX’s comments in decisionmaking.

Objective MT-9: Provide public transit opportunities to the maximum number and diversity of people practicable in balance with providing service that is high in quality, convenient, frequent, reliable, cost- effective, and financially feasible.

Policy MT-9-a: Equitable Transit Provision. Provide transit that can serve all residents, including older residents and persons with disabilities.

Policy MT-9-c: Addressing Unmet Transit Needs. Continue to participate in the Council of Fresno County Governments’ annual unmet transit needs evaluation process, particularly with respect to identifying need for access to medical and educational services; perform market analysis to identify potential transit choice riders; and pursue public education and information programs to identify changes in demand characteristics and opportunities to increase ridership.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy MT-9-d: Long-Range Transit Options. Advocate and participate in regional transportation analyses and identify appropriate long-range measures to support incorporation of light rail transit and other advanced transit service within major transportation corridors, freeway and railroad alignments.

Policy MT-9-e: Area Specific Transit Improvements. Continue to evaluate and pursue the planning and implementation of area specific transit improvements, such as street car facilities.

Policy MT-9-f: Encourage Telecommuting. Support measures that will facilitate expanded use of telecommunications technologies to reduce congestion, expansion of regional transportation facilities consistent with this General Plan, energy use, and air emissions (i.e., work at home, dispersed telecommute work centers, teleconferencing).

Fresno Municipal Code
Chapter 10, Article 13 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code addresses healthy air and smog prevention. For example, Section 10-1305 of this chapter provides an assessment and recommendations for natural gas fueling and electric vehicle charging stations. Section 10-1306 of this chapter identifies that the Director of General Services of the city, in consultation with the Advisory Committee, the California Air Resources Board, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and interested city departments, shall develop and adopt fuel-efficiency specifications governing the purchase of motor vehicles. Section 10-1308 of this chapter describes the implementation of a pilot program to evaluate the efficacy of using Alternative Fuel and/or Hybrid Electric Buses, and the phase-out of older diesel buses. Additionally, strategies to reduce air emissions from the regional public sector and private sector fleets is addressed in Section 10-1309 of the Municipal Code. In addition, Section 15-2510 of the Municipal Code identifies limitations on odors during a project’s operational phase (i.e. “No use, process, or activity shall produce objectionable odors that are perceptible without instruments by a reasonable person at the lot lines of a site”), although odors from temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the subject parcel (e.g., construction equipment, trains, vehicle emissions, trucks, etc.) are exempt from this standard.

Fresno Council of Governments
Fresno Council of Governments’ (Fresno COG’s) primary functions are transportation planning and programming. As a state-designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) and federallydesignated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Fresno County, Fresno COG must comply with both designation requirements. Fresno COG prepares a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that looks 25 years into the future, and sets policies for a wide variety of transportation options and projects. It guides how and where people and goods will travel by identifying both existing and needed transportation facilities. Fresno COG prepares the region’s Federal Transportation Improvement Program, a four-year program of financially constrained transportation projects consisting of highway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects that are selected through an approved project selection process.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-25 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The primary role of SJVAPCD is to develop plans and implement control measures in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin to control air pollution. These controls primarily affect stationary sources such as industry and power plants. Rules and regulations have been developed by SJVAPCD to control air pollution from a wide range of air pollution sources. SJVAPCD also provides uniform procedures for assessing potential air quality impacts of proposed projects and for preparing the air quality section of environmental documents.

AIR QUALITY PLANNING
The U.S. EPA requires states that have areas that do not meet the National AAQS to prepare and submit air quality plans showing how the National AAQS will be met. If the states cannot show how the National AAQS will be met, then the states must show progress toward meeting the National AAQS. These plans are referred to as the State Implementation Plans (SIP). California’s adopted 2007 State Strategy was submitted to the U.S. EPA as a revision to its SIP in November 2007.2 More recently, in October 2018, the CARB adopted the 2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan.

In addition, the CARB requires regions that do not meet California AAQS for ozone to submit clean air plans (CAPs) that describe measures to attain the standard or show progress toward attainment.

To ensure federal CAA compliance, SJVAPCD is currently developing plans for meeting new National AAQS for ozone and PM2.5 and the California AAQS for PM10 in the SJVAB (for California CAA compliance)3The following describes the air plans prepared by the SJVAPCD, which are incorporated by reference per CEQA Guidelines Section 15150.
1-HOUR OZONE PLAN
Although U.S. EPA revoked its 1979 1-hour ozone standard in June 2005, many planning requirements remain in place, and SJVAPCD must still attain this standard before it can rescind CAA Section 185 fees. The SJVAPCD’s most recent 1-hour ozone plan, the 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1- hour Ozone Standard, demonstrated attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by 2017. However, on July 18, 2016, the U.S. EPA published in the Federal Register a final action determining that SJVAB has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based on the 2012 to 2014 three-year period allowing nonattainment penalties to be lifted under federal Clean Air Act section 179b (SJVAPCD, 2015). 8-HOUR OZONE PLAN
The SJVAPCD’s Governing Board adopted the 2007 Ozone Plan on April 30, 2007. This far-reaching plan, with innovative measures and a “dual path” strategy, assures expeditious attainment of the federal 8-hour ozone standard as set by U.S. EPA in 1997. The plan projects that the valley will achieve the 8-hour ozone standard for all areas of the SJVAB no later than 2023. The CARB approved 2 Note that the plan was adopted by CARB on September 27, 2007; California Air Resources Board. 2007.

California Air Resources Board’s Proposed State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan. 3 SJVAPCD, 2012. 2012 PM2.5 Plan, December 20.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan the plan on June 14, 2007. The U.S. EPA approved the 2007 Ozone Plan effective April 30, 2012.

SJVAPCD adopted the 2016 Ozone Plan to address the federal 2008 8-hour ozone standard, which must be attained by end of 2031.4,5
PM10 PLAN
Based on PM10 measurements from 2003 to 2006, the U.S. EPA found that the SJVAB has reached federal PM10 standards. On September 21, 2007, the SJVAPCD’s Governing Board adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation. This plan demonstrates that the valley will continue to meet the PM10 standard. U.S. EPA approved the document and on September 25, 2008, the SJVAB was redesignated to attainment/maintenance (SJVAPCD, 2015).

PM2.5 PLAN
The SJVAPCD adopted the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards on November 15, 2018.6This plan addresses the U.S. EPA federal 1997 annual PM2.5 standard of 15 μg/m³ and 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 65 μg/m³; the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 μg/m³; and the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard of 12 μg/m³. This plan demonstrates attainment of the federal PM2.5 standards as expeditiously as practicable (SJVAPCD, 2020).

All of the above-referenced plans include measures (i.e., federal, state, and local) that would be implemented through rule making or program funding to reduce air pollutant emissions in the SJVAB. Transportation control measures are part of these plans.

SJVAPCD RULES AND REGULATIONS
Assembly Bill 170
Assembly Bill 170, Reyes (AB 170), was adopted by state lawmakers in 2003, creating Government Code Section 65302.1, which requires cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley to amend their general plans to include data and analysis, comprehensive goals, policies, and feasible implementation strategies designed to improve air quality. The elements to be amended include, but are not limited to, those elements dealing with land use, circulation, housing, conservation, and open space. Section 65302.1.c identifies four areas of air quality discussion required in these amendments:
• A report describing local air quality conditions, attainment status, and state and federal air quality and transportation plans;
• A summary of local, district, state, and federal policies, programs, and regulations to improve air quality;
4 SJVAPCD. Ozone Plans. http://www.valleyair.org/ Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone_Plans.htm, accessed March 3, 2020.
5 SJVAPCD. 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard, http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone-Plan-2016.htm, accessed March 3, 2020. 6 SJVAPCD. Particulate Matter Plans. http://valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/PM_Plans.htm, accessed March 9, 2020.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-27 • A comprehensive set of goals, policies, and objectives to improve air quality; • Feasible implementation measures designed to achieve these goals.

SJVAPCD Indirect Source Review
On December 15, 2005, SJVAPCD adopted the Indirect Source Review Rule (ISR or Rule 9510) to reduce ozone precursors (i.e., ROG and NOx) and PM10 emissions from new land use development projects. Specifically, Rule 9510 targets the indirect emissions from vehicles and construction equipment associated with these projects and applies to both construction and operational-related impacts. The rule applies to any applicant that seeks to gain a final discretionary approval for a development project, or any portion thereof, which upon full buildout would include any one of the following:
• 50 residential units.
• 2,000 square feet of commercial space.
• 25,000 square feet of light industrial space.
• 100,000 square feet of heavy industrial space.
• 20,000 square feet of medical office space.
• 39,000 square feet of general office space.
• 9,000 square feet of educational space.
• 10,000 square feet of government space.
• 20,000 square feet of recreational space.
• 9,000 square feet of space not identified above.
• Transportation/transit projects with construction exhaust emissions of two or more tons of NOx or two or more tons of PM10.
• Residential projects on contiguous or adjacent property under common ownership of a single entity in whole or in part, that is designated and zoned for the same development density and land use, regardless of the number of tract maps, and has the capability of accommodating more than 50 residential units.
• Nonresidential projects on contiguous or adjacent property under common ownership of a single entity in whole or in part, that is designated and zoned for the same development density and land use, and has the capability of accommodating development projects that emit two or more tons per year of NOx or PM10 during project operations.

The rule requires all subject, nonexempt projects to mitigate both construction and operational period emissions by (1) applying feasible SJVAPCD-approved mitigation measures, or (2) paying any applicable fees to support programs that reduce emissions. Off-site emissions reduction fees (offsite fee) are required for projects that do not achieve the required emissions reductions through onsite emission reduction measures. Phased projects can defer payment of fees in accordance with an Off-site Emissions Reduction Fee Deferral Schedule (FDS) approved by the SJVAPCD.

To determine how an individual project would satisfy Rule 9510, each project would submit an air quality impact assessment (AIA) to the SJVAPCD as early as possible, but no later than prior to the project’s final discretionary approval, to identify the project’s baseline unmitigated emissions inventory for indirect sources: on-site exhaust emissions from construction activities and

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan operational activities from mobile and area sources of emissions (excludes fugitive dust and permitted sources).28 Rule 9510 requires the following reductions, which are levels that the SJVAPCD has identified as necessary, based on their air quality management plans, to reach attainment for ozone and particulate matter:

Construction Equipment Emissions
The exhaust emissions for construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) used or associated with the development project shall be reduced by the following amounts from the statewide average as estimated by CARB:
• 20 percent of the total NOx emissions
• 45 percent of the total PM10 exhaust emissions
Mitigation measures may include those that reduce construction emissions on-site by using less polluting construction equipment, which can be achieved by utilizing add-on controls, cleaner fuels, or newer, lower emitting equipment.

Operational Emissions
• NOx Emissions. Applicants shall reduce 33.3 percent of the project’s operational baseline NOx emissions over a period of 10 years as quantified in the approved AIA. • PM10 Emissions. Applicants shall reduce of 50 percent of the project’s operational baseline PM10 emissions over a period of 10 years as quantified in the approved AIA.

These requirements listed above can be met through any combination of on-site emission reduction measures. In the event that a project cannot achieve the above standards through imposition of mitigation measures, then the project would be required to pay the applicable off-site fees. These fees are used to fund various incentive programs that cover the purchase of new equipment, engine retrofit, and education and outreach.

Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions
SJVAPCD controls fugitive PM10 through Regulation VIII, Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. The purpose of this regulation is to reduce ambient concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate anthropogenic (human caused) fugitive dust emissions. • Regulation VIII, Rule 8021 applies to any construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities, including, but not limited to, land clearing, grubbing, scraping, travel on-site, and travel on access roads to and from the site. • Regulation VIII, Rule 8031 applies to the outdoor handling, storage, and transport of any bulk material.
• Regulation VIII, Rule 8041 applies to sites where carryout or trackout has occurred or may occur on paved roads or the paved shoulders of public roads. • Regulation VIII, Rule 8051 applies to any open area having 0.5 acre or more within urban areas or 3.0 acres or more within rural areas, and contains at least 1,000 square feet of disturbed surface area.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-29 • Regulation VIII, Rule 8061 applies to any new or existing public or private paved or unpaved road, road construction project, or road modification project. • Regulation VIII, Rule 8071 applies to any unpaved vehicle/equipment traffic area. • Regulation VIII, Rule 8081 applies to off-field agricultural sources.

Sources regulated are required to provide Dust Control Plans that meet the regulation requirements.

Under Rule 8021, a Dust Control Plan is required for any residential project that will include 10 or more acres of disturbed surface area, a nonresidential project with 5 or more acres of disturbed surface area, or a project that relocates 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials for at least three days. The Dust Control Plan is required to be submitted to SJVAPCD prior to the start of any construction activity. The Dust Control Plan must also describe fugitive dust control measure to be implemented before, during, and after any dust-generating activity. For sites smaller than those listed above, the project is still required to notify SJVAPCD a minimum of 48 hours prior to commencing earthmoving activities.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Rule 4002 applies in the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or removed (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants); this rule applies to all sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants.

Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations If asphalt paving will be used, then paving operations of the proposed project will be subject to Rule 4641. This rule applies to the manufacture and use of cutback asphalt, slow cure asphalt and emulsified asphalt for paving and maintenance operations.

Nuisance Odors
SJVAPCD controls nuisance odors through implementation of Rule 4102, Nuisance. Pursuant to this rule, “a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such person or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.”
Employer Based Trip Reduction Program
SJVAPCD has implemented Rule 9410, Employer Based Trip Reduction. The purpose of this rule is to reduce VMT from private vehicles used by employees to commute to and from their worksites to reduce emissions of NOx, ROG, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The rule applies to employers with at least 100 employees. Employers are required to implement an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (ETRIP) for each worksite with 100 or more eligible employees to meet applicable targets specified in the rule. Employers are required to facilitate the participation of the development of ETRIPs by providing information to its employees explaining the requirements and applicability of this rule. Employers are required to prepare and submit an ETRIP for each worksite to the District. The ETRIP must be updated annually. Under this rule, employers shall collect information on the modes of transportation used for each eligible employee’s commutes both to and from work for every day of the commute verification period, as defined in using either the

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan mandatory commute verification method or a representative survey method. Annual reporting includes the results of the commute verification for the previous calendar year along with the measures implemented as outlined in the ETRIP and, if necessary, any updates to the ETRIP.

Assembly Bill 617
In 2017, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 617 (C. Garcia, Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017) to develop a new community focused program to more effectively reduce exposure to air pollution and preserve public health. This bill directs the CARB and all local air districts to take measures to protect communities disproportionally impacted by air pollution. With input from communities and air districts throughout California, CARB developed a Community Air Protection Blueprint to implement AB 617.

There are five central components to the new AB 617 mandate:
• Community-level air monitoring;
• A state strategy and community specific emission reduction plans; • Accelerated review of retrofit pollution control technologies on industrial facilities subject to Cap-and-Trade;
• Enhanced emission reporting requirements; and
• Increased penalty provisions for polluters.

In response to AB 617 the CARB established the Community Air Protection Program. The Community Air Protection Program's mission is to reduce pollution exposure in communities based on environmental, health and socioeconomic information. This first-of-its-kind statewide effort requires community air monitoring, community emission reduction plans, and incentive funding to deploy the cleanest technologies in the most impacted areas.

3.3.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Specific Plan will have a significant impact on the environment associated with air quality if it will:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard;
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and/or • Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS MODELING
California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)TM (v.2016.3.3), developed for the California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with California air districts, was used to estimate net emissions for the Specific Plan. Given the size and complexity of the proposed Specific AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-31 Plan, it was assumed that full Specific Plan buildout would not occur until at least 2035, consistent with the assumption made in the Technical Memorandum for the Specific Plan of the West Area – CEQA Impacts and Mitigations prepared by Kittelson & Associates.

The land use assumptions for the modeling to estimate net emissions from the Specific Plan include (consistent with the land uses assumed in the Technical Memorandum for the Specific Plan of the West Area – CEQA Impacts and Mitigations): Single Family Housing – 34,474 units; Apartments Low Rise – 4,448 units; Apartments Mid Rise – 4,661 units; Apartments High Rise – 2,097 units; Regional Shopping Center – 48,890,010 square feet; General Office Building – 7,165,620 square feet; Office Park – 3,266,119; General Light Industry – 1,427,461 square feet; City Park – 243.63 acres; Place of Worship – 785,910 square feet; Elementary School – 15,631 students; Junior High School – 7,815 students; High School – 9,815 students. In addition, approximately 1,110 acres of asphalt surfaces were assumed (e.g. for roadways and related infrastructure), based on the difference between the total Plan Area and the land uses assumed by Kittelson & Associates for the Technical Memorandum for the Specific Plan of the West Area – CEQA Impacts and Mitigation. See Appendix B for further detail.

OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Operational activities are those activities that would occur during the operational (i.e. postconstruction) phase of the project. Operational activities include activities such as mobile sources (i.e. vehicles generated by development of the project), as well as area sources (such as consumer projects, landscape maintenances), and energy (such as electricity and natural gas). Mobile-source based criteria pollutant emissions were estimated using the emission factors provided within CalEEMod; an estimate of proposed Specific Plan-generated VMT developed as part of this analysis was provided by the traffic consultant, Kittelson & Associates, as provided in Appendix G of this EIR.

Criteria pollutant emissions from consumer products, landscape maintenance activities, and other sources of operational energy usage (e.g. electricity and natural gas) were estimated using the default emission factors provided in CalEEMod.

Operation emissions from all sources were estimated for both buildout of the Specific Plan, which is anticipated to occur by 2035. Maximum daily emissions were estimated for both peak summer day and peak winter day. The highest value for each criteria pollutant was used for the purposes of this analysis. The potential for Specific Plan-generated traffic to result in concentrations of CO that exceed NAAQS and State AAQS for this pollutant were evaluated based on traffic volumes generated by future buildout allowed under the proposed Specific Plan. Health risks from Specific Plangenerated, construction- and operation-related emissions of TACs were assessed qualitatively. This assessment is based on the location from which construction- or operation-related TAC emissions would be generated by land uses developed under the Specific Plan relative to off-site sensitive receptors, as well as the duration during which TAC exposure would occur. Similarly, the assessment of odor-related impacts is based on the types of odor sources associated with the land uses that would be developed under the Specific Plan and their location relative to off-site receptors.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Construction activities were assumed take place over the course of approximately 15 years, from 2020 to 2035. These construction activities can be described as demolition, site improvements (grading, underground infrastructure, and topside improvements) and vertical construction (building construction and architectural coatings).

Demolition: Demolition activities may be performed as one task, but may be broken into two or more separate phases. The exact demolition schedule is largely dependent on the economic conditions of the region and the pace of development of that would occur within the Plan Area.

Site Improvements: The construction of site improvements may be performed as one task, but may be broken into two or more separate phases. The exact construction schedule is largely dependent on the economic conditions of the region and the ability for the market to absorb the proposed residential and commercial buildings.

The site improvement phase of construction will begin with site preparation. This step will include the use of dozers, backhoes, and loaders to strip (clear and grub) all organic materials and the upper half-inch to inch of soil from the Plan Area. This task will include vehicle trips from construction workers.

After the site is stripped of organic materials, grading would begin. This activity will involve the use of excavators, graders, dozers, scrappers, loaders, and backhoes to move soil around the Plan Area to create specific engineered grade elevations and soil compaction levels.

The next step involves the installation of underground infrastructure. This step will involve the use of excavators to dig trenches, place pipe and conduit, bury pipe and conduit, and compact trench soil. Grading the Plan Area and underground installation of infrastructure would include vehicle trips from construction workers.

The last task is to install the topside improvements, which includes pouring concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and access aprons and then paving of all streets and parking lots. This task will involve the use of pavers, paving equipment, and rollers and will take approximately three months and will include vehicle trips from construction workers.

Building Construction/Architectural Coatings: Building construction involves the vertical construction of structures and landscaping around the structures. This task will involve the use of forklifts, generator sets, welders and small tractors/loaders/backhoes. The exact construction schedule is largely dependent on the economic conditions of the region and the ability of the market to absorb the residential and commercial buildings. Architectural coatings involve the interior and exterior painting associated with the structures. This task generally begin after construction begins on the structure and will generally be completed for each building around the time of the completion of each building. Building construction and the application of architectural coatings will include vehicle trips from construction workers, and building construction will also include vehicle trips from vendors.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-33

MITIGATION
Air quality-related mitigation measures developed for the proposed Specific Plan were developed using CalEEMod, with default emission factors generally as provided by CalEEMod. CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures guidance, and guidance provided by the SJVAPCD were utilized, as necessary. See Appendix B to this EIR for further detail. The results from CalEEMod for operational and construction emissions are described under Impacts and Mitigation Measures, below.

IMPACTS RELATED TO PROJECT-GENERATED POLLUTANTS OF HUMAN

HEALTH CONCERN
In December 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (226 Cal.App.4th 704) (hereafter referred to as the Friant Ranch Decision). The case reviewed the long-term, regional air quality analysis contained in the EIR for the proposed Friant Ranch development. The Friant Ranch project is a 942-acre master-plan development in unincorporated Fresno County within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The Court found that the air quality analysis was inadequate because it failed to provide enough detail “for the public to translate the bare [criteria pollutant emissions] numbers provided into adverse health impacts or to understand why such a translation is not possible at this time.” The Court’s decision clarifies that the agencies authoring environmental documents must make reasonable efforts to connect a project’s air quality impacts to specific health effects or explain why it is not technically feasible to perform such an analysis.

All criteria pollutants that would be generated by the project are associated with some form of health risk (e.g., asthma). Criteria pollutants can be classified as either regional or localized pollutants. Regional pollutants can be transported over long distances and affect ambient air quality far from the emissions source. Localized pollutants affect ambient air quality near the emissions source. Ozone is considered a regional criteria pollutant, whereas CO, NO2, SO2, and lead (Pb) are localized pollutants. PM can be both a local and a regional pollutant, depending on its composition.

As discussed above, the primary criteria pollutants of concern generated by the project are ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and PM (including Diesel PM). The SJVAPCD does not currently have a methodology that would correlate the expected air quality emissions of projects to the likely health consequences of the increased emissions.

REGIONAL PROJECT-GENERATED CRITERIA POLLUTANTS (OZONE PRECURSORS AND REGIONAL PM) Adverse health effects induced by regional criteria pollutant emissions generated by future development allowed under the Specific Plan (ozone precursors and PM) are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, the number and character of exposed individuals [e.g., age, gender]). For these reasons, ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) contribute to the formation of ground-borne ozone on a regional scale, where emissions of ROG and NOx generated in one area may not equate to a specific ozone concentration in that same area. Similarly, some types of particulate pollutants may be transported over long-distances or formed through atmospheric reactions. As such, the

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan magnitude and locations of specific health effects from exposure to increased ozone or regional PM concentrations are the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region, as opposed to a single individual project.

Models and tools have been developed to correlate regional criteria pollutant emissions to potential community health impacts. Appendix B contains a table that summarizes many of these tools, identifies the analyzed pollutants, describes their intended application and resolution, and analyzes whether they could be used to reasonably correlate project-level emissions to specific health consequences. As provided in Appendix B, while there are models capable of quantifying ozone and secondary PM formation and associated health effects, these tools were developed to support regional planning and policy analysis and have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations induced by individual projects. Therefore, translating project generated criteria pollutants to the locations where specific health effects could occur or the resultant number of additional days of nonattainment cannot be estimated with a high degree of accuracy.

Technical limitations of existing models to correlate project-level regional emissions to specific health consequences are recognized by air quality management districts throughout the state, including the SJVAPCD and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), who provided amici curiae briefs for the Friant Ranch legal proceedings. In its brief, SJVAPCD (2015) acknowledges that while health risk assessments for localized air toxics, such as diesel particulate matter (DPM), are commonly prepared, “it is not feasible to conduct a similar analysis for criteria air pollutants because currently available computer modeling tools are not equipped for this task.” The air district further notes that emissions solely from the Friant Ranch project (which equate to less than onetenth of one percent of the total NOx and ROG in the Valley) is not likely to yield valid information,” and that any such information should not be “accurate when applied at the local level.” SCAQMD presents similar information in their brief, stating that “it takes a large amount of additional precursor emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozone levels”7.

As discussed above, air districts develop region-specific CEQA thresholds of significance in consideration of existing air quality concentrations and attainment or nonattainment designations under the NAAQS and CAAQS. The NAAQS and CAAQS are informed by a wide range of scientific evidence that demonstrates there are known safe concentrations of criteria pollutants. While recognizing that air quality is cumulative problem, air districts typically consider projects that generate criteria pollutant and ozone precursor emissions below these thresholds to be minor in nature and would not adversely affect air quality such that the NAAQS or CAAQS would be exceeded.

Emissions generated by the project could increase photochemical reactions and the formation of tropospheric ozone and secondary PM, which at certain concentrations, could lead to increased incidence of specific health consequences. Although these health effects are associated with ozone and particulate pollution, the effects are a result of cumulative and regional emissions. As such, a 7 For example, SCAQMD’s analysis of their 2012 Air Quality Attainment Plan showed that modeled NOx and ROG reductions of 432 and 187 tons per day, respectively, only reduced ozone levels by 9 parts per billion. Analysis of SCAQMD’s Rule 1315 showed that emissions of NOx and ROG of 6,620 and 89,180 pounds per day, respectively, contributed to 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absence (South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2015).

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-35 project’s incremental contribution cannot be traced to specific health outcomes on a regional scale, and a quantitative correlation of project-generated regional criteria pollutant emissions to specific human health impacts is not included in this analysis.

MODELS AND TOOLS TO CORRELATE PROJECT-GENERATED CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS TO

HEALTH IMPACTS
Several models and tools capable of translating mass emissions of criteria pollutants to various health endpoints have been developed. The table provided in Appendix B summarizes key tools, identifies the analyzed pollutants, describes their intended application and resolution, and analyzes whether they could be used to reasonably correlate project-level emissions to specific health consequences. As shown in the table provided in Appendix B, each tool listed was designed for a specific scale, and each tool has problems with applicability beyond that scale. When evaluating each tool for the Specific Plan it was determined that none of these tools are well suited to analyze the scale of changes in pollutant concentrations and the health implications of those changes.

Accordingly, the analysis of health effects from criteria pollutants is based on a qualitative analysis.

This qualitative analysis is consistent with the SJVAPCD’s guidance.

The impact analysis does not directly evaluate airborne lead. Neither construction nor future operations would generate quantifiable lead emissions because of regulations that require unleaded fuel and that prohibit lead in new building materials.

TAC emissions associated with future construction associated with buildout of the Plan Area that could affect surrounding areas are evaluated qualitatively. The potential for the project operations to expose residents to TAC emissions that would exceed applicable health standards is also discussed qualitatively.

Lastly, the SJVPACD recommends that odor impacts be addressed in a qualitative manner. Such an analysis must determine if the Specific Plan would result in excessive nuisance odors, as defined under the SJVAPCD’s Rule 4102 and California Code of Regulations, Health and Safety Code Section 41700, Air Quality Public Nuisance.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.3-1: Specific Plan implementation would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (Significant and Unavoidable)
CEQA requires that projects be evaluated for consistency with the Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). A consistency determination plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the AQMPs. It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental effects of a project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to the clean air goals of the AQMPs. The regional emissions inventory for the SJVAB is compiled by SJVAPCD and Fresno Council of Governments (COG). Regional population, housing, and employment projections developed by

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Fresno COG are based, in part, on the local jurisdictions’ general plan land use designations. These projections form the foundation for the emissions inventory of the AQMP. These demographic trends are incorporated into the 2018–2042 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, compiled by Fresno COG to determine priority transportation projects within the Fresno COG region. Projects that are consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the air quality–related regional plan. Typically, only new or amended general plan elements, specific plans, and major projects that have the potential to affect the regional population and employment forecasts need to undergo a consistency review.

SJVAPCD is tasked with implementing programs and regulations required by the Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. SJVAPCD has prepared several plans to attain the National AAQS and California AAQS. Emission reductions achieved through implementation of SJVAPCD’s NSR offset requirements are a major component of SJVAPCD’s air quality plans. The established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions are based on SJVAPCD offset requirements for stationary sources. Therefore, projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be determined to “not conflict or obstruct implementation of the District’s air quality plan.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15206(b) states that a project is of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance if it is a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units or a commercial office building of 250,000 square feet or more or that employs 1,000 or more employees. Specifically, the proposed Specific Plan would introduce up to 54,953 dwelling units (DU) (including 67 DU in the commercial category, 47,072 DU in the residential category and 7,814 DU in the mixed use category), and 60,621,006.31 square feet of non-residential uses in the Plan Area, and is therefore a project of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance. Thus, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would have the potential to substantially affect Fresno COG’s demographic projections beyond what is already anticipated for the Plan Area.

In addition, the SJVAPCD is tasked with implementing programs and regulations required by the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. In that capacity, the SJVAPCD has prepared plans to attain Federal and State ambient air quality standards. To achieve attainment with the standards, the SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions in their SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (2015). Projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be determined to “Not conflict or obstruct implementation of the District’s air quality plan”.

The analyses under Impact 3.3-2 demonstrates that the proposed Specific Plan would generate construction emissions of criteria air pollutants that would exceed SJVAPCD’s regional constructionphase significance thresholds, which were established to determine whether a project has the potential to cumulatively contribute to the SJVAB’s nonattainment designations. In addition, the analyses under Impact 3.3-3 demonstrates that the proposed Specific Plan would generate longterm emissions of criteria air pollutants that would exceed SJVAPCD’s regional operation-phase significance thresholds, which were established to determine whether a project has the potential to cumulatively contribute to the SJVAB’s nonattainment designations. Thus, implementation of the AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-37 proposed Specific Plan would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations; or delay timely attainment of the AAQS.

Summary
As discussed above, while the proposed Specific Plan would result in a substantial increase in longterm criteria pollutant emissions compared to existing conditions, it would support a more sustainable development pattern for the Plan Area. As the improvements, objectives, and policies under the proposed Plan would support a more sustainable development pattern in accommodating future growth for the Plan Area, they would contribute to minimizing long-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. Various policies of the proposed Plan would promote complete streets, mixed-use and transit-oriented neighborhoods, and increased capacity for alternative transportation modes, which would help reduce air pollutant emissions. For example, Specific Plan IPR Goal 1 promotes improved access, movement, and safety for all transportation modes in the Specific Plan, and Policy IPR 1.1 promotes implementation of the Active Transportation Plan and the General Plan to provide for complete, safe, and well-maintained sidewalk, bicycle, and trail networks that are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The goals and polices in the Specific Plan would promote active transit and support the reduction in average vehicle trip distances, which would contribute to reducing overall vehicle trips and VMT.

However, despite furthering the regional transportation and planning objectives, as stated, buildout of the proposed Plan would represent a substantial increase in emissions compared to existing conditions and would exceed SJVAPCD’s regional operational and construction-related significance thresholds (see Impact 3.3-2 and Impact 3.3-3). As a result, the proposed Specific Plan could potentially exceed the assumptions in the AQMPs and would not be considered consistent with the AQMPs. Therefore, impacts are considered significant.

CONCLUSION
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in the generation of substantial longterm criteria air pollutant emissions that would exceed the SJVAPCD regional significance thresholds and would therefore not be considered consistent with the existing AQMPs. Future development projects within the Plan Area would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 (below).

No further measures to reduce criteria air pollutant emissions are available beyond the applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, the proposed Specific Plan goals and policies, and the additional mitigation measures provided under Impact 3.3-2 and Impact 3.3-3 (see below). The various goals and policies of the proposed Specific Plan, such as those outlined above, would contribute to reducing long-term criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, due to the magnitude and intensity of development accommodated by the proposed Plan, this impact would have a significant and unavoidable impact relative to this topic.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits for new development projects within the Plan Area, the project applicant(s) shall show on the building plans that all major appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) to be provided/installed are

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Energy Star-certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star-certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

Impact 3.3-2: Specific Plan implementation during project construction would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. (Significant and Unavoidable)
Emissions from construction activities represent temporary impacts that are typically short in duration, depending on the size, phasing, and type of project. Air quality impacts can nevertheless be acute during construction periods, resulting in significant localized impacts to air quality.

Construction activities would temporarily increase PM10, PM2.5, ROG, NOx, SOx, and CO regional emissions within the SJVAB. The primary source of NOx, CO, and SOx emissions is the operation of construction equipment. The primary sources of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions are activities that disturb the soil, such as grading and excavation, road construction, and building demolition and construction. The primary source of ROG emissions is the application of architectural coating and off-gas emissions associated with asphalt paving.

Construction activities associated with buildout of the proposed Specific Plan are anticipated to occur sporadically over an approximately 25-year period. Buildout would be comprised of multiple smaller projects, each having its own construction timeline and activities. Development of multiple properties could occur at the same time. However, there is no defined development schedule for these future projects at this time. The amount of construction assumed is consistent with the 25- year anticipated buildout of the proposed Specific Plan. An estimate of maximum daily construction emissions is provided in Table 3.3-6, below. The table shows the maximum annual emissions that would be generated over a single year during the anticipated development period (i.e. during year 2022). See Appendix B for further detail.

TABLE 3.3-6: CONSTRUCTION PROJECT GENERATED EMISSIONS (MAXIMUM TONS PER YEAR) POLLUTANT CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5
THRESHOLD 100 10 10 27 15 15
EMISSIONS 288 366 131 2 104 29

EXCEEDS
THRESHOLD?
Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
SOURCES: CALEEMOD (V.2016.3.3)
As shown in the above table (Table 3.3-6), construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan could potentially exceed the SJVAPCD regional thresholds for CO, NOx, ROG, PM10, and PM2.5. NOx is a precursor to the formation of both ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). ROG is a precursor to the formation of ozone. Project-related emission of NOx would contribute to the ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 nonattainment designations of the SJVAB. As part of the development process, individual, site-specific projects accommodated under the proposed AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-39 Specific Plan that meet the criteria of Rule 9510 would be required to prepare a detailed air quality impact assessment (AIA). To the extent applicable under Rule 9510 for each such individual development, SJVAPCD would require calculation of the construction emissions from the development. The purpose of the AIA is to confirm a development’s construction exhaust emissions, and therefore be able to identify appropriate mitigation, either through implementation of specific mitigation measures (e.g., use of construction equipment with Tier 4-rated engines) or payment of applicable off-site fees. As stated, under Rule 9510, each project that is subject to this Rule would be required to reduce construction exhaust emissions by 20 percent for NOx or pay offset mitigation fees for emissions that do not achieve the mitigation requirements. While adherence to Rule 9510 would contribute to reducing exhaust NOx emissions, it would not be applicable to reducing ROG emissions generated operation of equipment and from off-gassing from asphalt and paints, or other criteria pollutant emissions. Therefore, project-related construction activities would result in significant regional air quality impacts.

CONCLUSION
Future development projects in the Plan Area would be required to comply with pre-existing requisite federal, State, SJVAPCD, and other local regulations and requirements. For example, application of SJVAPCD Rules 9510 and Regulation VIII would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions from construction-related activities to the extent feasible and may result in reducing constructionrelated regional air quality impacts of individual projects. However, due to the programmatic nature of the proposed Specific Plan, construction time frames and equipment for individual site specific projects are not available and there is a potential for multiple developments to be constructed at any one time, resulting in significant construction-related emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would exceed the construction-related criteria pollutant thresholds as promulgated by the SJVAPCD. Future development projects in the Plan Area would be required to implement all of the mitigation measures provided below for construction-related emissions.

However, even with implementation of the following mitigation measures, the proposed Specific Plan would cause a violation of an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, with respect to the construction of the proposed project. Therefore, construction of the Specific Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact relative to this topic.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: In order to contribute in minimizing exhaust emission from construction equipment, prior to issuance of grading or building permits whichever occurs first, the property owner(s)/developer(s) shall provide a list of all construction equipment proposed to be used in the Plan Area for projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt projects). This list may be provided on the building plans. The construction equipment list shall state the make, model, and equipment identification number of all the equipment. The property owner(s)/developer(s) shall consult with the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department on the feasibility of utilizing cleaner (e.g. higher engine tier) construction equipment than proposed.

The property owner(s)/developer(s) shall implement recommendations for the use of cleaner

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-40 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan construction equipment, as determined by the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department.

Compliance will be verified by the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department.

4.8, Chapter 9.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: In order to reduce ROG emissions from construction activities, prior to issuance of a building permit for projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt projects), the property owner/developer shall require the construction contractor and provide a note on construction plans indicating that:
• All coatings and solvents will have a volatile organic compound (ROG) content lower than required under Rule 4601 (i.e., super compliant paints). • All architectural coatings shall be applied either by (1) using a high-volume, low-pressure spray method operated at an air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge to achieve a 65 percent application efficiency; or (2) manual application using a paintbrush, hand-roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge, to achieve a 100 percent applicant efficiency.

The construction contractor may also use precoated/natural colored building materials.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-5: During all construction activities, the project proponent shall implement the following dust control practices identified in Tables 6-2 and 6-3 of the GAMAQI (2002). a. All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, or vegetative ground cover.
b. All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. c. All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall control fugitive dust emissions by application of water or by presoaking.
d. When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, or at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
e. All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at least once every 24 hours when operations are occurring. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-41 f. Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. g. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 5 mph; and
h. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-6: Asphalt paving shall be applied in accordance with SJVAPCD Rule 4641.

This rule applies to the manufacture and use of cutback asphalt, slow cure asphalt and emulsified asphalt for paving and maintenance operations.

Impact 3.3-3: Specific Plan implementation during project operation would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. (Significant and Unavoidable) Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would result in direct and indirect criteria air pollutant emissions from transportation, energy (e.g., natural gas use), and area sources (e.g., aerosols and landscaping equipment). Mobile-source criteria air pollutant emissions are based on the traffic analysis conducted by Kittelson and Associates (see Appendix G). Per the traffic analysis, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate a net increase of 991,667 ADT. The net change of operational emissions from buildout of the proposed Specific Plan is shown in Table

3.3-7, below. The net change in emissions is based on the new emissions associated with the new land uses.

TABLE 3.3-7: OPERATIONAL PROJECT GENERATED EMISSIONS (TONS PER YEAR) POLLUTANT CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5
THRESHOLD 100 10 10 27 15 15
EMISSIONS 2,300 3,185 885 17 1,199 336

EXCEEDS
THRESHOLD?
Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
SOURCES: CALEEMOD (V.2016.3.3)
As shown in Table 3.3-7, operation of future projects at buildout would generate air pollutant emissions that exceed SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 at buildout. Emissions of ROG and NOx that exceed the SJVAPCD regional threshold would cumulatively contribute to the ozone nonattainment designation of the SJVAB. Emissions of NOx that exceed SJVAB’s regional significance thresholds would cumulatively contribute to the ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) nonattainment designations of the SJVAB. Emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 would contribute to the PM10 and PM2.5 nonattainment designations.

Similar to construction-related emissions, application of SJVAPCD Rule 9510 to future individual projects would contribute to reducing NOx and particulate matter emissions. In addition, application of SJVACPD Rule 9410 would contribute to reducing mobile-source emissions. Furthermore, as

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-42 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan stated, the planned improvements, guidelines, objectives, and policies under the proposed Specific Plan would generally support a more sustainable development pattern to accommodate growth within the area by creating complete neighborhoods and providing more transit options through improvements to the pedestrian, bicycle, public transportation, and alternative fueled vehicle networks and infrastructure, which would contribute in minimizing long-term criteria air pollutant emissions. However, while SJVAPCD rules and policies of the proposed Specific Plan may contribute in reducing operation-related regional air quality impacts of individual projects accommodated under the proposed Specific Plan to less than significant, the projected cumulative emissions associated with future development projects would be in exceedance. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in a significant impact because it would significantly contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SJVAB.

CONCLUSION
As shown in Table 3.3-7, buildout of the Specific Plan Area is expected to exceed some of the SJVAPCD operational criteria pollutant emissions thresholds, as modelled. Application of State and SJVAPCD rules and regulations, such as Rules 9510 and 9410, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan’s roadway, bicycle, and trail improvements, policies, and complete streets design guidelines, and implementation of applicable General Plan policies would reduce operation-related criteria air pollutants generated from energy, stationary, and mobile sources to the extent feasible.

In addition, Mitigation 3.3-7 (below) requires the individual project applicants to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce operational activities.

As stated, the aforementioned improvements, goals, and policies could contribute to reducing operation-phase regional air quality impacts of future individual projects. Individual projects would also be required to undergo CEQA review. However, despite implementation of the Specific Plan goals and policies, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable due to the magnitude of the overall land use development associated with the proposed Specific Plan. As such, operation of the Specific Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact relative to this topic.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.3-7: The property owner(s)/developer(s) shall incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the Project Conditions of Approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions include but are not limited to:
• For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plugging in the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
• Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage (i.e., battery) and combined heat and power (CHP, also known as cogeneration) in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-43 • Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with CARB Rule 2845 (13 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Chapter 10, Section 2485).
• Require that 240-volt electrical outlets or Level 3 chargers be installed in parking lots that would enable charging of neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) and/or battery powered vehicles.
• Maximize use of solar energy including solar panels; installing the maximum possible number of solar energy arrays on building roofs throughout the city to generate solar energy.
• Maximize the planting of trees in landscaping and parking lots. • Use light-colored paving and roofing materials.
• Require use of electric or alternatively fueled street-sweepers with HEPA filters. • Require use of electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers. • Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances. • Use of water-based or low volatile organic compound (VOC) cleaning products.

Impact 3.3-4: Specific Plan implementation has the potential to result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) ODORS
While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and the SJVAPCD. The general nuisance rule (California Health and Safety Code §41700) and Air District Rule 402 is the basis for the threshold.

Examples of facilities that are known producers of odors include: wastewater treatment facilities, chemical manufacturing, sanitary landfill, fiberglass manufacturing, transfer station, painting/coating operations (e.g. auto body shops), composting facility, food processing facility, petroleum refinery, feed lot/dairy, asphalt batch plant, and rendering plant.

Odors from the types of land uses that could generate objectional odors are regulated under Regulation IV, Prohibitions, Rule 4102, Nuisance, which states:
“A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such person or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.”
Additionally, the California Health and Safety Code §41700 prohibits emissions of air contaminants from any source that cause nuisance or annoyance to a considerable number of people or that

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-44 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan present a threat to public health or cause property damage. Compliance with these rules would preclude land uses proposed under the proposed Specific Plan from emitting objectionable odors.

Heavy industrial land uses are the primary types of land uses that have the potential to generate objectionable odors. Heavy industrial-type land uses would generally be prohibited within the proposed Specific Plan Area. Residential and other non-residential (excluding industrial) land uses could result in generation of odors such as exhaust from landscaping equipment. However, unlike heavy industrial land uses, these are not considered potential generators of odor that could affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, impacts from potential odors generated from the planned land uses associated with the proposed Specific Plan are considered less than significant.

Separately, during construction activities, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and architectural coatings would temporarily generate odors. Any construction-related odor emissions would be temporary and intermittent in nature. Additionally, noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern.

Furthermore, short-term construction-related odors are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor-producing materials. Nevertheless, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-8, as applicable. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-8, impacts associated with construction-generated odors are considered less than significant.

CARBON MONOXIDE HOTSPOTS
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the State 1-hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. The GAMAQI previously required CO hotspot monitoring. However, emissions from motor vehicles, the largest source of CO emissions, have been declining since 1985 despite increases in VMT due to the introduction of new automotive emission controls and fleet turnover.

Consequently, no CO hotspots have been reported in the SJVAB even at the most congested intersections. Furthermore, under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact.8
Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would result in approximately 991,667 ADT over existing conditions. However, distributing the total daily vehicle trips within the proposed Specific Plan Area and region and by peak hour would result in smaller traffic volumes at the various intersections.

Thus, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan is not anticipated to produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan 8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2017. California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines, May.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-45 would not have the potential to substantially increase CO hotspots at intersections in the vicinity of the planning area, and impacts would be less than significant relative to this issue.

TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air. However, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at very low concentrations. In general, for those TACs that may cause cancer, there is no concentration that does not present some risk. This contrasts with the criteria pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which the State and federal governments have set ambient air quality standards.

Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The U.S. EPA has assessed this expansive list in its latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007) and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources. In addition, EPA identified seven compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers from their 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment. These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3- butidiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter.

The 2007 EPA rule requires controls that will dramatically decrease Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. According to an FHWA analysis using EPA MOBILE6.2 model, even if vehicle activity (VMT) increases by 145 percent, a combined reduction of 72 percent in the total annual emission rate for the priority MSAT is projected from 1999 to 2050.

California maintains stricter standards for clean fuels and emissions compared to the national standards; therefore, it is expected that MSAT trends in California will decrease consistent with or more than the U.S. EPA's national projections.

In general, land uses that would require a permit from SJVAPCD for emissions of TACs include chemical processing facilities, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities. As the proposed Specific Plan is a program-level document, it is currently unknown which types of stationary sources may be installed, if any. However, the proposed Specific Plan would generally prohibit the development of heavy industrial-type land uses. While development of land uses may result in stationary source emissions such as dry cleaners and restaurants with charbroilers or buildings with emergency generators, these types of land uses would not be large emitters.

Additionally, they would be controlled by SJVAPCD through permitting and would be subject to further study and health risk assessment prior to the issuance of any necessary air quality permits under Regulation II. According to SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, Regulation II ensures that stationary source emissions (permitted sources) would be reduced or mitigated below SJVAPCD significance thresholds of ten in one million cancer risk and one for acute risk at the maximally exposed individual. Though these sources would incrementally contribute to the project’s inventory

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-46 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan individually, they would be mitigated to the standards identified above. Moreover, future development projects in the Plan Area would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-9, which requires project applicants for individual projects to conduct health risk assessments (where warranted by land use and proposal). In addition, Mitigation Measure 3.3-10 requires sensitive land uses to avoid incompatibilities with recommended buffer distances identified in the most current version of the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB Handbook). Sensitive land uses that are within the recommended buffer distances listed in the CARB Handbook are required to provide enhanced filtration units or submit a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to the City. If the HRA shows that the project would exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds, mitigation measures capable of reducing potential impacts to an acceptable level must be identified and approved by the City.

Therefore, overall, impacts would be less than significant relative to this environmental issue.

CONCLUSION
The Specific Plan does not propose sensitive receptors that could be exposed to odors in the vicinity; nor does it propose uses that would create odors that could expose receptors in the area. Moreover, Mitigation Measure 3.3-8 would ensure that the project would not generate an odors impact.

Therefore, operation of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in significant objectionable odors. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-8, impacts associated with exposure to odors would be less than significant.

The Plan Area is located in an area that is designated attainment-unclassified for carbon monoxide.

Therefore, no project-level conformity analysis is necessary for CO. Substantial concentrations of carbon monoxide are not expected at or along any streets or intersections affected by the development of the Plan Area. Impacts associated with carbon monoxide hotspots would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation is required.

Overall, while implementation of the Specific Plan, in and of itself, would not result in an increased exposure of sensitive receptors to localized concentrations of TACs, there is a potential for future commercial business activity, as permitted under the Specific Plan, to result in increased exposure of sensitive receptors to localized concentrations of TACs. The emission sources could be stationary sources and/or mobile source (i.e. diesel truck traffic). Because, at the Specific Plan level of land use planning, the City does not yet know the precise locations, configurations, and sizes of any future land uses within the Specific Plan that uses may generate sufficient levels of TACs to create the possibility of adverse health effects, it is premature, at the Specific Plan stage, to undertake an overall health risk assessment for the Specific Plan. Future health risk assessments will be performed where warranted, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.3-9, below. In addition, Mitigation Measure

3.3-10 requires sensitive land uses to avoid incompatibilities with recommended buffer distances, and to prepare an HRA if required.

The following mitigation measure would ensure that each future business is assessed for TACs in accordance with the requirements of the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program, Facility Prioritization AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-47 Guidelines (July 1990). Implementation of this measure would ensure that impacts related to public exposure to TACs would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.3-8: The project applicant(s) shall require developers of projects within the Specific Plan Area with the potential to generate significant odor impacts as determined through review of SJVAPCD odor complaint history for similar facilities and consultation with the SJVAPCD, to prepare an odor impact assessment and to implement odor control measures recommended by the SJVAPCD or the City as needed to reduce the impact to a level deemed acceptable by the SJVAPCD.

The City’s Planning and Development Department shall verify that all odor control measures have been incorporated into the project design specifications prior to issuing a permit to operate.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-9: Prior to future discretionary approval for individual projects within the Specific Plan Area that require environmental evaluation under CEQA, the City of Fresno shall evaluate new development proposals for new industrial or warehousing land uses that: (1) have the potential to generate 100 or more truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating dieselpowered transport refrigeration units, and (2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use. Such projects shall submit a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to the City Planning and Development Department. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the most current State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the SJVAPCD. If the HRA shows that the incremental health risks exceed their respective thresholds, as established by the SJVAPCD at the time a project is considered, the Applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms to reduce risks to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to:
• Restricting idling on site or electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter;
• Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles;
• Provide charging infrastructure for: electric forklifts, electric yard trucks, local drayage trucks, last mile delivery trucks, electric and fuel-cell heavy duty trucks; and/or • Install solar panels, zero-emission backup electricity generators, and energy storage to minimize emissions associated with electricity generation at the project site.

T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-48 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Handbook shall provide enhanced filtration units or submit a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to the City. If the HRA shows that the project would exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds, mitigation measures capable of reducing potential impacts to an acceptable level must be identified and approved by the City.

Impact 3.3-5: Specific Plan implementation has the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Development that would be accommodated by the proposed Specific Plan could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations during operational and construction activities if it would cause or contribute significantly to elevating those levels. As stated, the planned improvements, objectives and policies under the proposed Specific Plan would generally support a sustainable development pattern in accommodating future growth within the Plan Area, which would generally contribute to reducing long-term criteria air pollutant emissions. In addition, application of SJVAPCD Rule 9510 and Regulation VIII would contribute to reducing operation- and construction-related NOx and particulate matter emissions. Furthermore, Rule 9410 would also contribute to reducing operation-related mobile-source emissions. However, the projected cumulative emissions associated with future development projects accommodated under the proposed Specific Plan would be in exceedance and could result in causing an exceedance of the AAQS. Therefore, as construction and operation of future individual development projects accommodated under the proposed Specific Plan could result in causing or contribute to a violation of the ambient air quality standards, impacts to air quality would be significant.

As shown in the table provided in Appendix B, each tool listed was designed for a specific scale, and each tool has problems with applicability beyond that scale. When evaluating each tool for the Specific Plan it was determined that none of these tools are well suited to analyze the scale of changes in pollutant concentrations and the health implications of those changes. Accordingly, the analysis of health effects from criteria pollutants is based on a qualitative analysis. This qualitative analysis is consistent with the SJVAPCD’s guidance.

OZONE
O3 is not emitted directly into the air but is formed through complex chemical reactions between precursor emissions of (also known as ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of sunlight.

The reactivity of O3 causes health problems because it damages lung tissue, reduces lung function and sensitizes the lungs to other irritants. Scientific evidence indicates that ambient levels of O3 not only affect people with impaired respiratory systems, such as asthmatics, but healthy adults and children as well. Exposure to O3 for several hours at relatively low concentrations has been found to significantly reduce lung function and induce respiratory inflammation in normal, healthy people during exercise. This decrease in lung function generally is accompanied by symptoms including chest pain, coughing, sneezing and pulmonary congestion.

Studies show associations between short-term ozone exposure and non-accidental mortality, including deaths from respiratory issues. Studies also suggest long-term exposure to ozone may AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-49 increase the risk of respiratory-related deaths (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2019a). The concentration of ozone at which health effects are observed depends on an individual’s sensitivity, level of exertion (i.e., breathing rate), and duration of exposure. Studies show large individual differences in the intensity of symptomatic responses, with one study finding no symptoms to the least responsive individual after a 2-hour exposure to 400 parts per billion of ozone and a 50 percent decrement in forced airway volume in the most responsive individual. Although the results vary, evidence suggests that sensitive populations (e.g., asthmatics) may be affected on days when the 8- hour maximum ozone concentration reaches 80 parts per billion (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2019b).

Operational Emissions
Future development projects in the Plan Area would generate emissions of ROG and NOx during project operational activities, as shown in Table 3.3-7. The CAA regulates these pollutants mainly because they contribute to ozone formation, but they can each cause adverse reactions in people on their own, as explained earlier in this chapter. Although the exact effects of project-level emissions on local health are not precisely known, it is likely that the increases in ROG and NOx generated by the proposed Specific Plan would especially affect people with impaired respiratory systems, but also healthy adults and children located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. However, the increases of these pollutants generated by the proposed project are not on their own likely to generate an increase in the number of days exceeding the NAAQS or CAAQS standards, based on the size of the proposed Plan Area in comparison to Fresno County as a whole. Instead, the increases in ROG and NOx generated by the proposed project when combined with the existing ROG and NOx emitted regionally, would affect people, especially those with impaired respiratory systems located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area.

Construction Emissions
Although the exact effects of ROG and NOx emissions on local health are not known, it is likely that the increases in ROG and NOx generated by future development projects during construction would especially affect people with impaired respiratory systems, but also healthy adults and children located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. However, the increases of these pollutants generated by buildout of the proposed Specific Plan are not on their own likely to generate an increase in the number of days exceeding the NAAQS or CAAQS standards, based on the size of the proposed project in comparison to Fresno County as a whole. Instead, the increases in ROG and NOx generated by the proposed project, including during construction activities, when combined with the existing ROG and NOx emitted regionally, would affect people, especially those with impaired respiratory systems located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area.

However, it should be noted that, since construction emissions are temporary in nature, the potential for substantial health impacts due to project construction activities is typically much less than for project operational activities.

PARTICULATE MATTER
Based on studies of human populations exposed to high concentrations of particles (sometimes in the presence of SO2) and laboratory studies of animals and humans, PM can cause major effects of concern for human health. These include effects on breathing and respiratory symptoms,

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-50 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, alterations in the body's defense systems against foreign materials, damage to lung tissue, carcinogenesis and premature death.

Small particulate pollution has health impacts even at very low concentrations – indeed no threshold has been identified below which no damage to health is observed. The major subgroups of the population that appear to be most sensitive to the effects of particulate matter include individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary or cardiovascular disease or influenza, asthmatics, the elderly and children.

Operational Emissions
Future development projects in the Plan Area would generate emissions of PM during project operational activities, as shown in Table 3.3-7. Although the exact effects of such emissions on local health are not known, it is likely that the increases in PM generated by the proposed project would especially affect people with impaired respiratory systems, but also healthy adults and children located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. However, the increases of these pollutants generated by the proposed project are not on their own likely to generate an increase in the number of days exceeding the NAAQS or CAAQS standards, based on the size of the project in comparison the Fresno County and the wider region as a whole. Instead, the increases in PM generated by the proposed project when combined with the existing PM emitted regionally, would affect people, especially those with impaired respiratory systems located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. Nevertheless, if a health risk assessment is warranted for a specific facility within the Specific Plan Area, it would be prepared in accordance with Mitigation Measure 3.3-7.

Construction Emissions
Ambient levels of construction particulate matter emissions are likely to decrease in the future, based on current and future implementation of federal and/or state regulatory requirements, such as improvements to the statewide vehicle fleet over time (including the long-term replacement of internal combustion engine vehicles with electric vehicles in coming decades). Furthermore, based on the short-term nature of construction activities in comparison to operational activities, the potential for substantial health impacts due to particulate matters emissions during project construction is limited.

AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-51

DISCUSSION
As previously discussed, the magnitude and locations of any potential changes in ambient air quality, and thus health consequences, from these additional emissions cannot be quantified with a high level of certainty due to the dynamic and complex nature of pollutant formation and distribution (e.g., meteorology, emissions sources, sunlight exposure), as well as the variabilities in the receptors that reside in a particular area. Additionally, the SJVAPCD has not established any methodology or thresholds (quantitative or qualitative) for assessing the health effects from criteria pollutants. The City of Fresno is not aware of any air district in California that has an established methodology for correlating project-generated criteria pollutant emissions to health end points. From a qualitative perspective, it is well documented from scientific studies that criteria pollutants can have adverse health effects. The federal and state governments have established the NAAQS or CAAQS as an attempt to regionally, and cumulatively, assess and control the health effects that criteria pollutants have within Air Basins. It is anticipated that public health will continue to be affected by the emission of criteria pollutants, especially by those with impaired respiratory systems in the City of Fresno and the surrounding region so long as the region does not attain the CAAQS or NAAQS. However, the increases of these pollutants generated by future development under the Specific Plan are not on their own likely to generate an increase in the number of days exceeding the NAAQS or CAAQS standards, based on the size of the project in comparison to Fresno County and the wider region as a whole. Instead, the increases in criteria pollutants generated by the proposed project when combined with the existing criteria pollutants emitted regionally, would affect people, especially those with impaired respiratory systems located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area.

Separately, localized construction activities are temporary in nature, and therefore, do not pose a threat to human health in the same manner as ongoing, chronic, lifetime exposure from projects during their operational phase.

CONCLUSION
The increases in criteria pollutants generated by the proposed Specific Plan when combined with the existing criteria pollutants emitted regionally, would affect people, especially those with impaired respiratory systems located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area.

Construction emissions would be temporary in nature, while the operational activities of a project would be most likely to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, since ongoing, chronic, and lifetime exposure to criteria pollutants are key in the level of health impact. However, the increases of these pollutants generated by the proposed project are not on their own likely to generate an increase in the number of days exceeding the health-based NAAQS or CAAQS standards, based on the size of the Plan Area in comparison the Fresno County and the wider region as a whole.

For these reasons, with implementation of the mitigation measures contained under the previous impacts (i.e. Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-7, the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact related to this topic.

See Impact 3.3-4 (previous) for a more detailed discussion of the potential risks from toxic air contaminants and carbon monoxide hotspots by the proposed Specific Plan.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3-52 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-10.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-1 This section describes the geomorphic provinces/bioregions, vegetation, wildlife, soils, hydrogeomorphic features, wetlands, special-status species, regulatory setting, and impacts that are expected related to biological resources. This section is based in part on the following documents, reports, and studies:
• Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• Draft Master Environmental Impact Report General Plan and Development Code Update, City of Fresno, Fresno County, California (City of Fresno, 2014); • Fresno General Plan Public Review Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (City of Fresno, 2020);
• Fresno Municipal Code (City of Fresno, 2007); and
• Web Soil Survey (NRCS, 2019).

One comment was received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the following: Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019). The portion of this comment letter which relates to this topic is addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.

3.4.1ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

GEOMORPHIC PROVINCE AND BIOREGION
The City of Fresno is located in the southern portion of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province of California. The Great Valley Province is a broad structural trough bounded by the tilted block of the Sierra Nevada on the east and the complexly folded and faulted Coast Ranges on the west. The Stanislaus River is located just north of the City. This is a tributary of the San Joaquin River, which drains the Great Valley Province into the San Joaquin Delta to the north, ultimately discharging into the San Francisco Bay to the northwest.

The City of Fresno is located within the San Joaquin Valley Bioregion, which is comprised of Kings County, most of Fresno, Kern, Merced, and Stanislaus counties, and portions of Madera, San Luis Obispo, and Tulare counties. The San Joaquin Valley Bioregion is the third most populous out of ten bioregions in the state, with an estimated 2 million people. The largest cities are Fresno, Bakersfield, Modesto, and Stockton. Interstate 5 and State Route (SR) 99 are the major north-south roads that run the entire length of the bioregion.

The bioregion is bordered on the west by the coastal mountain ranges. Its eastern boundary joins the southern two-thirds of the Sierra bioregion, which features Yosemite, Kings Canyon, and Sequoia National Parks. At its northern end, the San Joaquin Valley bioregion borders the southern end of the Sacramento Valley bioregion. To the west, south, and east, the bioregion extends to the edges of the valley floor.

Habitat in the bioregion includes vernal pools, valley sink scrub and saltbush, freshwater marsh, grasslands, arid plains, orchards, and oak savannah. Historically, millions of acres of wetlands flourished in the bioregion, but stream diversions for irrigation dried all but about five percent.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Remnants of the wetland habitats are protected in this bioregion in publicly owned parks, reserves, and wildlife areas. The bioregion is considered the state's top agricultural producing region with the abundance of fertile soil.

LOCAL SETTING
Location
The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (also-known-as “Specific Plan” or “West Area” or “Plan Area”) encompasses approximately 7,077 acres (or a little more than 11 square miles) in the City of Fresno city limits and unincorporated Fresno County. Of the 11 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 Plan Area is triangular in shape and located west of SR 99. It is bounded on the south by W. Clinton Avenue, and to the west by Grantland and Garfield Avenues. The Plan Area includes the southwest portion of Highway City adjacent to SR 99.

Topography
The Plan Area is relatively flat with natural gentle slope near SR 99. The Plan Area topography ranges in elevation from approximately 283 to 315 feet above mean sea level.

Climate
The City of Fresno is located in the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley, which has a Mediterranean climate that is subject to cool, wet winters (often blanketed with fog) and hot, dry summers. The average annual precipitation is approximately 13.81 inches. Precipitation occurs as rain most of which falls between the months of November through April, peaking in January at 2.85 inches. The average temperatures range from December lows of 37.5 F to July highs of 94.3 F.

Existing Uses
A significant amount of land in the Plan Area is farmland or rural residential lots with large, uneven, and underutilized/underdeveloped parcels. According to the State Department of Conservation, the Plan Area has approximately 3,070 acres of land that is classified as Urban and Built-Up, 2,357 acres of agricultural, and 1,650 acres of vacant, disturbed, or rural residential land.

Agricultural land is scattered throughout the Plan Area, but mainly in the southern, western, and southwestern portions of the Plan Area. Irrigation ditches are also located throughout the Plan Area near these active agricultural lands. Developed uses are mainly in the northern, eastern, southern, and southeastern portions of the Plan Area. Undeveloped vacant land previously used for agricultural uses is also scattered throughout the Plan Area.

Surrounding Uses
Surrounding land uses include SR 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 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-3 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).

Vegetation
Most agricultural activity on-site and in the immediate vicinity has consisted of cultivation of various types of row crops. Non-cultivated portions of the Specific Plan Area are vegetated with various common non-native annual grassland species, such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), wild oat (Avena fatua), soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), black mustard (Brassica nigra), and filaree (Erodium cicutarium). Trees are also scattered throughout the developed and undeveloped portions of the Specific Plan Area, most of which are ornamental landscaping trees or residual trees from agricultural land.

Wildlife
The developed areas in the Plan Area typically provide habitat for common species that are accustomed to human disturbance, such as California scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), American robin (Turdus migratorius), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), squirrel (Sciurus spp.), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), and house mouse (Mus musculus).

Opportunistic species that may occur in agricultural lands in the Plan Area include side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), California scrub-jay, yellowbilled magpie (Pica nuttalli), house finch, small mammals, and raptors that prey on them. The edges of fields and orchards where stands of weeds, blackberry brambles, and brush are left undisturbed may provide protective cover for wildlife and food for birds. Burrowing animals such as California ground squirrels and gophers may be actively discouraged because of damage these animals can cause to irrigation systems, although their presence may be more likely in fallow fields.

The vacant lots and areas previously used for agricultural uses in the Plan Area are typically comprised of disturbed annual grassland species such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), wild oat (Avena fatua), soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), black mustard (Brassica nigra), and filaree (Erodium cicutarium). Wildlife that may occur and forage in disturbed annual grasslands as described include desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), deermouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis), sideblotched lizard, western fence lizard (Sceloperus occidentalis), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), and southern pacific rattlesnake (Crotalis oreganus helleri). California horned larks (Eremophila alpestris actia) and burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) may use disturbed grassland habitat for foraging and nesting, and red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and common raven (Corvus corax) may soar over and forage in the grasslands, depending on the size and location of the habitat patch relative to other habitat types.

The irrigation ditches in the Plan Area associated with the agricultural uses appear to be largely devoid of riparian vegetation and are generally isolated, surrounded by agricultural fields, disturbed annual grasslands, parklands, or developed areas. The aquatic habitats may provide some limited

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan habitat for wildlife such as waterfowl, red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata). These habitats likely lack persistent emergent vegetation, but surrounding vegetation may include hydrophytic plants and grasses.

CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE HABITAT RELATIONSHIPS SYSTEM
The California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) habitat classification scheme has been developed to support the CWHR System, a wildlife information system and predictive model for California's regularly-occurring birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. When first published in 1988, the classification scheme had 53 habitats. At present, there are 59 wildlife habitats in the CWHR System: 27 tree, 12 shrub, 6 herbaceous, 4 aquatic, 8 agricultural, 1 developed, and 1 nonvegetated.

Figure 3.4-1 shows the CWHR designations in the Plan Area. Table 3.4-1 summarizes the designations in the Plan Area.

TABLE 3.4-1: CWHR LAND COVER TYPES

LAND COVER TYPE ACRES WITHIN THE PLAN AREA
Annual Grassland 132.17
Barren 34.41
Deciduous Orchard 2,083.69
Dryland Grain Crops 22.68
Evergreen Orchard 12.68
Irrigated Grain Crops 1.33
Irrigated Hayfield 382.62
Irrigated Row and Field Crops 872.82
Lacustrine 3.78
Pasture 11.79
Riverine 7.76
Urban 3,100.36
Vineyard 348.66
SOURCES: CALFIRE FVEG15_1, 2015; FRESNO COUNTY; CITY OF FRESNO. MAP DATE: JULY 25, 2019.

Below is a brief description of these CWHR habitats.

DEVELOPED COVER TYPES
Deciduous Orchards are typically open single species tree dominated habitats. Depending on the tree type and pruning methods they are usually low, bushy trees with an open understory to facilitate harvest. Trees range in height at maturity for many species from 15 to 30 feet, but may be 10 feet or less depending on the species. Crowns usually touch, and are usually in a linear pattern.

Spacing between trees is uniform depending on desired spread of mature trees. The understory is usually composed of low-growing grasses, legumes, and other herbaceous plants, but may be managed to prevent understory growth totally or partially, such as along tree rows. Deciduous BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-5 orchards can be found on flat alluvial soils in the valley floors, in rolling foothill areas, or on relatively steep slopes. Though some deciduous orchards are nonirrigated, most are irrigated. Some flat soils are flood irrigated, but many deciduous orchards are sprinkler irrigated. Large numbers of orchards are irrigated by drip or trickle irrigation systems. Most deciduous orchards are in valley or foothill areas, with a few, such as, apples and pears, up to 3,000 feet elevation. Within the West Area, there are 2,083.69 acres of Deciduous Orchard habitat.

Evergreen Orchards are typically open single species tree dominated habitats. Depending on the tree type and pruning methods they are usually low, bushy trees with an open understory to facilitate harvest. Trees range in height at maturity for many species from 15 to 30 feet, but may be 10 feet or less depending on the species. Crowns often do not touch, and are usually in a linear pattern. Spacing between trees is uniform depending on desired spread of mature trees. The understory is usually composed of low-growing grasses, legumes, and other herbaceous plants, but may be managed to prevent understory growth totally or partially, such as along tree rows.

Evergreen orchards can be found on flat alluvial soils in the valley floors, in rolling foothill areas, or on relatively steep slopes. All are irrigated. Some flat soils are flood irrigated, but most evergreen orchards are sprinkler irrigated. Large numbers of orchards are irrigated by drip or trickle irrigation systems. Most evergreen orchards are in valley or foothill areas. Except for olive, most evergreen orchard trees are not very frost tolerant. Within the West Area, there are 12.68 acres of Evergreen Orchard habitat.

Vineyards are composed of single species planted in rows, usually supported on wood and wire trellises. Vines are normally intertwined in the rows but open between rows. Rows under the vines are usually sprayed with herbicides to prevent growth of herbaceous plants. Between rows of vines, grasses and other herbaceous plants may be planted or allowed to grow as a cover crop to control erosion. Vineyards can be found on flat alluvial soils in the valley floors, in rolling foothill areas, or on relatively steep slopes. All are irrigated. Most vineyards are sprinkler irrigated. Large numbers of vineyards are irrigated by drip or trickle irrigation systems. Most vineyards are in valley or foothill areas. Within the West Area, there are 348.66 acres of Vineyard habitat.

Dryland Grain Crops are composed of vegetation in the dryland (nonirrigated) grain and seed crops habitat includes seed producing grasses, primarily barley, cereal rye, oats, and wheat. These seed and grain crops are annuals. They are usually planted by drilling in rows which produce solid stands, forming 100 percent canopy at maturity in good stands. They are normally planted in fall and harvested in spring. However, they may be planted in rotation with other irrigated crops and winter wheat or barley may be planted after harvest of a previous crop in the fall, dry farmed (during the wet winter and early spring months), and then harvested in late spring. Within the West Area, there are 22.68 acres of Dryland Grain Crop habitat.

Irrigated Grain Crops include a variety of sizes, shapes and growing patterns. Field corn can reach ten feet tall while dry beans are only several inches tall. Most irrigated grain and seed crops are grown in rows. Some may form 100 percent canopy while others may have significant bare areas between rows. All seed and grain crops are annuals. They are usually planted in spring and harvested in summer or fall. However, they may be planted in rotation with other irrigated crops and sometimes winter wheat or barley may be planted after harvest of a previous crop in the fall, dry

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan farmed (during the wet winter and early spring months) or they may be irrigated, and then harvested in the late spring. Within the West Area, there are 1.33 acres of Irrigated Grain Crop habitat.

Irrigated Hayfield normally has a 2 to 6 months initial growing period, depending on climate, and soil, this habitat is dense, with nearly 100 percent cover. Average height is about 0.46 m. (1.5 feet) tall. Planted fields generally are monocultures (the same species or mixtures or a few species with similar structural properties). Structure changes to a lower stature following each harvest, grows up again and reverts to bare ground following plowing or discing. Plowing may occur annually, but is usually less often. Layering generally does not occur in this habitat. Unplanted "native" hay fields may contain short and tall patches. If not harvested for a year, they may develop a dense thatch of dead leaves between the canopy and the ground. Within the West Area, there are 382.62 acres of Irrigated Hayfield habitat.

Irrigated Row and Field Crops include a variety of sizes, shapes and growing patterns. Cotton and asparagus can be three or four feet tall while others may be a foot or less high. Most irrigated row and field crops are grown in rows. Some may form 100 percent canopy while others may have significant bare areas between rows. Most are annuals, while others, such as asparagus and strawberries are perennial. The annuals are usually planted in spring and harvested in summer or fall. However, they may be planted in rotation with other irrigated crops and sometimes winter wheat or barley may be planted after harvest of a previous crop in the fall, dry farmed (during the wet winter and early spring months), and then harvested in the late spring. In some areas of southern California three crops may be grown in a year. Within the West Area, there are 872.82 acres of Irrigated Row and Field Crop habitat.

Urban habitats are not limited to any particular physical setting. Three urban categories relevant to wildlife are distinguished: downtown, urban residential, and suburbia. The heavily-developed downtown is usually at the center, followed by concentric zones of urban residential and suburbs.

There is a progression outward of decreasing development and increasing vegetative cover. Species richness and diversity is extremely low in the inner cover. The structure of urban vegetation varies, with five types of vegetative structure defined: tree grove, street strip, shade tree/lawn, lawn, and shrub cover. A distinguishing feature of the urban wildlife habitat is the mixture of native and exotic species. Within the West Area, there are 3,100.36 acres of Urban habitat.

HERBACEOUS COVER TYPES
Annual Grassland habitat occurs mostly on flat plains to gently rolling foothills. Climatic conditions are typically Mediterranean, with cool, wet winters and dry, hot summers. The length of the frostfree season averages 250 to 300 days. Annual precipitation is highest in northern California. Within the West Area, there are 132.17 acres of Annual Grassland habitat.

Pastures are planted on flat and gently rolling terrain. Flat terrain is irrigated by the border and check method of irrigation, except on sandy soils or where water supplies are limited. Pastures established on sandy soils or hills are sprinklered. Hilly lands also use wild flooding; that is, ditches that follow the grade along ridges and hillsides, where water is released at selected points along the ditch. Climate influences the length of the growing season. For example, pastures at higher BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-7 elevations or in the north have a shorter growing season. Within the West Area, there are 11.79 acres of Pasture habitat.

AQUATIC COVER TYPES
Riverine habitats can occur in association with many terrestrial habitats. Riverine habitats are found adjacent to many rivers and streams. Riverine habitats are also found contiguous to lacustrine and fresh emergent wetland habitats. This habitat requires intermittent or continually running water generally originating at some elevated source, such as a spring or lake, and flows downward at a rate relative to slope or gradient and the volume of surface runoff or discharge. Velocity generally declines at progressively lower altitudes, and the volume of water increases until the enlarged stream finally becomes sluggish. Over this transition from a rapid, surging stream to a slow, sluggish river, water temperature and turbidity will tend to increase, dissolved oxygen will decrease, and the bottom will change from rocky to muddy. Within the West Area, there are 7.76 acres of Riverine habitat.

Lacustrine habitats are inland depressions or dammed riverine channels containing standing water.

Riverine habitats are found in association with any terrestrial habitats, riverine, and fresh emergent wetlands. Most permanent lacustrine systems support fish life; intermittent types usually do not.

Within the West Area, there are 3.78 acres of Lacustrine habitat.

OTHER COVER TYPES
Barren habitat is defined by the absence of vegetation. Any habitat with <2% total vegetation cover by herbaceous, desert, or non-wildland species and <10% cover by tree or shrub species is defined this way. The physical settings for permanently barren habitat represent extreme environments for vegetation. An extremely hot or cold climate, a near-vertical slope, an impermeable substrate, constant disturbance by either human or natural forces, or a soil either lacking in organic matter or excessively saline can each contribute to a habitat being inhospitable to plants. Within the West Area, there are 34.41 acres of Barren habitat.

Soils
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)/Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey indicates the presence of 12 soil types occurring within the Specific Plan Area. Table 3.4-2 identifies the soils found in the Specific Plan Area.

TABLE 3.4-2: USDA SOIL SERIES INFORMATION

NAME ACRES IN PLAN AREA PERCENT OF PLAN AREA
Exeter loam 215.7 3.1%
Exeter sandy loam 1,227.6 17.5%
Exeter sandy loam, shallow 150.2 2.1%
Hanford gravelly sandy loam 15.0 0.2%
Hanford sandy loam, benches 17.3 0.2%
Hesperia fine sandy loam, moderately deep 1.7 0.0%

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

NAME ACRES IN PLAN AREA PERCENT OF PLAN AREA
Pollasky fine sandy loam, 2-9% slopes 2.6 0.0%
Pollasky sandy loam, 9-15% slopes 5.3 0.1%
San Joaquin loam, 0-3% slopes 213.4 3.0%
San Joaquin loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes 757.6 10.8%
San Joaquin sandy loam, 0-3% slopes, MLRA 17 1,523.4 21.7% San Joaquin sandy loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes 2,872.8 41.0% SOURCE: NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY, 2019.

Exeter series. The Exeter series consists of moderately deep to a duripan, moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvium mainly from granitic sources. Exeter soils are on alluvial fans and stream terraces and have slopes of 0 to 9 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 11 inches and the mean annual air temperature is about 64 degrees F. The Exeter series includes but is not limited to the ‘Exeter loam’, ‘Exeter sandy loam’, and the ‘Exeter sandy loam, shallow’ soils, each of which is present within the Plan Area.

Hanford series. The Hanford series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in moderately coarse textured alluvium dominantly from granite. Hanford soils are on stream bottoms, floodplains and alluvial fans and have slopes of 0 to 15 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 12 inches and the mean annual air temperature is about 63 degrees F. The Hanford series includes but is not limited to the ‘Hanford gravelly sandy loam’, and the ‘Hanford sandy loam, benches’ soils, each of which is present within the Plan Area.

Hesperia series. The Hesperia series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in alluvium derived primarily from granite and related rocks. Hesperia soils are on alluvial fans, valley plains and stream terraces and have slopes of 0 to 9 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 8 inches and the mean annual air temperature is about 64 degrees F. The Hesperia series includes but is not limited to the ‘Hesperia fine sandy loam, moderately deep’ soil, which is present within the Plan Area.

Pollasky series. The Pollasky series consists of moderately deep, well drained, moderately coarse textured Regosols formed in the residuum from softly to moderately consolidated arkosic sediments. They occur on undulating to steep dissected terraces under annual grasses and forbs.

They have brown, slightly acid sandy loam A horizons and pale brown to yellowish brown, slightly acid to neutral, sandy loam C horizons abruptly overlying consolidated granitic sediments. Pollasky soils occur at elevations below 500 feet to semiarid mesothermal climate having a mean annual precipitation ranging from about 9 to 16 inches with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. The Pollasky series is mapped along the eastern edge of the San Joaquin Valley of California where it is moderately extensive. Used as annual range and dry farmed small grain, usually barley, with limited sprinkler irrigated pasture.

San Joaquin series. The San Joaquin series consists of moderately deep to a duripan, well and moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvium derived from mixed but dominantly granitic rock sources. They are on undulating low terraces with slopes of 0 to 9 percent. The mean annual BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-9 precipitation is about 15 inches and the mean annual temperature is about 61 degrees F. The San Joaquin series includes but is not limited to the ‘San Joaquin loam, 0-3% slopes’, San Joaquin loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes’, ‘San Joaquin sandy loam, 0-3% slopes, MRLA 17’, and ‘San Joaquin sandy loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes’ soils, each of which is present within the Plan Area.

Hydrogeomorphic Features
Fresno County is located in the San Joaquin River watershed. The San Joaquin River is about 300 miles long. It begins in the Sierra Nevada mountain range on California’s eastern border. The river runs down the western slope of the Sierra and flows roughly northwest through the Central Valley, to where it meets the Sacramento River at the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, a 1,000-square-mile maze of channels and islands that drains more than 40 percent of the state’s lands (SJRGA 2013).

The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) has primary responsibility for managing the local stormwater flows for the City, as well as a large area beyond the City’s boundaries. The City’s stormwater drains to urban stormwater basins, where it is retained for groundwater recharge or pumped to local irrigation canals owned by Fresno Irrigation District (FID) and then conveyed away from the municipal area.

The City of Fresno is located in the alluvial fans of numerous foothill streams and creeks that drain the western slope of the Sierra Nevada foothills. These streams include Big Dry Creek, Alluvial Drain, Pup Creek, Dog Creek, Redbank Creek, Mud Creek, and Fancher Creek. The City has hot dry summers and cool mild winters, with temperatures of mid-90°F in the summer and 60°F in the winter. The precipitation averages 11 inches per year and occurs almost entirely in the fall, winter, and spring.

Regionally, the City is protected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Redbank-Fancher Creeks Flood Control Project. This project includes dams, detention basins, and levees designed to control upstream flood flows to approximately the 200-year storm event. Major facilities of this project include levee systems, the Big Dry Creek, Fancher Creek, and Redbank Creek dams and reservoirs, and the Alluvial Drain, Redbank Creek, Pup Creek, Fancher Creek, Big Dry Creek, Pup Creek Enterprise, and Dry Creek Extension detention basins.

Locally, the FMFCD drainage system consists of approximately 680 miles of pipeline and more than 150 stormwater retention basins. The storm drainage pipeline system is designed to accept the peak flow rate of runoff from a two-year intensity storm event (a storm that has a 50 percent probability of occurring in any given year). When storm events occur that exceed the two-year intensity, ponding begins to occur in the streets until the pipeline system can remove the water. In the event of larger storms, “major storm breakover”, the FMFCD has planned for streets or other conveyance to move the excess runoff to the basins. The FMFCD facilities in the Plan Area are shown in Figure

3.9-2 in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

The drainage system discharges to a system of irrigation canals, creeks, and the San Joaquin River, but is designed to retain and infiltrate as much runoff as possible into the underlying groundwater aquifer. The local drainage service area is subdivided into over 160 drainage areas, most of which drain to a retention basin. Drainage channels within the Plan Area include:

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • East Branch Victoria Canal • Teague School Canal
• Epstein Canal • Tracy Ditch
• Herndon Canal • West Branch Victoria Canal
• Minor Thornton Ditch • Wheaton Ditch
• Silvia Ditch • Austin Ditch
The Plan Area is drained by 15 drainage watersheds, six of which are fully within the Plan Area, and nine of which drain to areas immediately south or west of the Plan Area. There are seven existing retention basins within the Plan Area and an additional five that serve the Plan Area. An additional basin is planned to serve the drainage shed in the far southwestern corner of the Plan Area.

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
The following discussion is based on a background search of special-status species that are documented in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) endangered and threatened species lists. The background search was regional in scope and focused on the documented occurrences within a 12-quadrangle area (including the following U.S.

Geological Survey [USGS] 7.5-minute quadrangle maps: Madera, Gregg, Lanes Bridge, Friant, Biola, Herndon, Fresno North, Clovis, Kerman, Kearney Park, Fresno South, and Malaga). Table 3.4-3 provides a list of special-status plants and Table 3.4-4 provides a list of special-status animals that are found in the regional vicinity. Figure 3.4-2 shows all occurrences within the 12-quadrangle area.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-11 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TABLE 3.4-3: SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES WHICH MAY OCCUR IN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED./CA/
CNPS)

HABITAT AND BLOOMING PERIOD
California alkali grass
Puccinellia simplex
--/--/1B.2 Meadows and seeps, chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, vernal pools. Alkaline, vernally mesic.

Sinks, flats, and lake margins. 1-915 m. March-May.

California jewelflower
Caulanthus californicus
E/E/1B.1 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland, pinyon and juniper woodland. Sandy soils. 65-1860 m.

February-May.

California satintail
Imperata brevifolia
--/--/2B.1 Coastal scrub, chaparral, riparian scrub, mojavean desert scrub, meadows and seeps (alkali), riparian scrub. Mesic sites, alkali seeps, riparian areas. 3-1495 m. September- May. caper-fruited tropidocarpum
Tropidocarpum capparideum
--/--/1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland. Alkaline clay. 0-360 m. March-April. dwarf downingia
Downingia pusilla
--/--/2B.2 Valley and foothill grassland (mesic sites), vernal pools. Vernal lake and pool margins with a variety of associates. In several types of vernal pools. 1-490 m. March-May.

Greene’s tuctoria
Tuctoria greenei
E/R/1B.1 Vernal pool. Vernal pools in open grasslands. 25-1325 m.May-July. hairy Orcutt grass
Orcuttia pilosa
E/E/1B.1 Vernal pools. 25-125 m. May-September.

Hartweg's golden sunburst
Pseudobahia bahiifolia
E/E/1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland, cismontane woodland. Clay soils, often acidic. Predominantly on the northern slopes of knolls, but also along shady creeks or near vernal pools. 60-170 m. March-April. heartscale
Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata
--/--/1B.2 Saline or alkaline soils, chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland (sandy). AprilOctober.

Hoover's calycadenia
Calycadenia hooveri
--/--/1B.3 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. On exposed, rocky, barren soil. 60-260 m. JulySeptember. lesser saltscale
Atriplex minuscula
--/--/1B.1 Chenopod scrub, playas, valley and foothill grassland. In alkali sink and grassland in sandy, alkaline soils. 0- 225 m. May-October.

Madera leptosiphon
Leptosiphon serrulatus
--/--/1B.2 Cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest. Dry slopes; often on decomposed granite in woodland. 80-1645 m. April-May.
palmate-bracted bird's-beak
Chloropyron palmatum
E/E/1B.1 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Usually on Pescadero silty clay which is alkaline, with Distichlis, Frankenia, etc. 5-155 m. May-October.
recurved larkspur
Delphinium recurvatum
--/--/1B.2 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland, cismontane woodland. On alkaline soils; often in valley saltbush or valley chenopod scrub. 3-790 m. March-June.

San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
Orcuttia inaequalis
T/E/1B.1 Vernal pool. 10-755 m. April-September.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED./CA/
CNPS)

HABITAT AND BLOOMING PERIOD
Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
--/--/1B.2 Marshes and swamps. In standing or slow-moving freshwater ponds, marshes, and ditches. 0-605 m. MayOctober (November). spiny-sepaled button-celery
Eryngium spinosepalum
--/--/1B.2 Vernal pools, valley and foothill grassland. Some sites on clay soil of granitic origin; vernal pools, within grassland. 15-1270 m. April-June.
succulent owl's-clover
Castilleja campestris var.
succulenta
T/E/1B.2 Vernal pools. Moist places, often in acidic soils. 20-705 m. (March) April-May.

NOTES:

FEDERAL
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

T = THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

STATE
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

T = THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

R = RARE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
1B = RARE, THREATENED, OR ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA AND ELSEWHERE. 2 = RARE, THREATENED, OR ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA, BUT MORE COMMON ELSEWHERE. 3 = A REVIEW LIST – PLANTS ABOUT WHICH MORE INFORMATION IS NEEDED. 4 = PLANTS OF LIMITED DISTRIBUTION – A WATCH LIST
.1 = SERIOUSLY ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA (OVER 80% OF OCCURRENCES THREATENED-HIGH DEGREE AND IMMEDIACY OF THREAT).
.2 = FAIRLY ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA (20-80% OCCURRENCES THREATENED). .3 = NOT VERY ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA (<20% OF OCCURRENCES THREATENED).

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-13 TABLE 3.4-4: SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE AND FISH SPECIES WHICH MAY OCCUR IN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA) GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

INVERTEBRATES
valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
Desmocerus
californicus dimorphus
FT/-- Stream side habitats below 3,000 feet throughout the Central Valley
Riparian and oak savanna habitats with elderberry shrubs; elderberries are the host plant.

California linderiella
Linderiella occidentalis
--/-- It has been documented on most land forms,
geologic formations and soil types supporting vernal
pools in California, at altitudes as high as 1,150
meters (3,770 ft) above sea level. Most common in
the Central Valley.

Seasonal pools in unplowed grasslands with old alluvial soils underlain by hardpan or in sandstone depressions. Water in the pools has very low alkalinity, conductivity, and total dissolved solids.
midvalley fairy shrimp
Branchinecta
mesovallensis
--/-- Extending from Stillwater Plain in Shasta County
through most of the length of the Central Valley to
Pixley in Tulare County and along the central Coast
Range from northern Solano County to Pinnacles
National Monument in San Benito County.

Vernal pools with tea-colored water, most commonly in grass or mud bottomed swales, or basalt flow depression pools in unplowed grasslands.
vernal pool fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
FT/-- Central Valley, central and south Coast Ranges from Tehama County to Santa Barbara County. Isolated
populations also in Riverside County
Common in vernal pools; they are also found in sandstone rock outcrop pools.

AMPHIBIANS
California tiger
salamander
Ambystoma
californiense
FT/CT Central Valley, including Sierra Nevada foothills, up to approximately 1,000 feet, and coastal region from
Butte County south to northeastern San Luis Obispo
County.

Central Valley DPS federally listed as threatened. Santa Barbara and Sonoma counties DPS federally listed as endangered. Need underground refuges, especially ground squirrel burrows, and vernal pools or other seasonal water sources for breeding. western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
--/SSC Found along the coast and coastal mountain ranges of California from Marin County to San Diego County
and in the Sierra Nevada from Tehama County to
Fresno County
Permanent and semi-permanent aquatic habitats, such as
creeks and cold-water ponds, with emergent and submergent vegetation. May estivate in rodent burrows or cracks during dry periods.

BIRDS
black-crowned night
heron
Nycticorax nycticorax
--/-- Throughout California Colonial nester, usually in trees, occasionally in tule patches.

Rookery sites located adjacent to foraging areas: lake margins, mud-bordered bays, marshy spots.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA) GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
--/SSC Lowlands throughout California, including the Central Valley, northeastern plateau, southeastern deserts,
and coastal areas. Rare along south coast.

Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and
scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation.

Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals,
most notably, the California ground squirrel.

California horned lark
Eremophila alpestris
actia
--/SSC Coastal regions, chiefly from Sonoma County to San Diego County. Also main part of San Joaquin Valley
and east to foothills.

Short-grass prairie, "bald" hills, mountain meadows, open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, alkali flats.
double-crested
cormorant
Phalacrocorax auritus
--/WL Nonbreeding California habitat located along coastal California and the Central Valley. Migrates
throughout California.

Colonial nester on coastal cliffs, offshore islands, and along lake margins in the interior of the state. Nests along coast on sequestered islets, usually on ground with sloping surface, or in tall trees along lake margins.
great egret
Ardea alba
--/-- Throughout California Colonial nester in large trees. Rookery sites located near marshes, tide-flats, irrigated pastures, and margins of rivers and lakes.

Least Bell's vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus
FE/CE Summer resident of southern California in low
riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms.

Found below 2000 ft. Nests placed along margins of bushes or on twigs projecting into pathways, usually willow, Baccharis, mesquite.
snowy egret
Egretta thula
--/-- Found mostly throughout North, Central, and South America. Breeds in coastal and inland wetlands. Their
range has been limited over time due to habitat
destruction and hunting. A migratory species that
relocates from the United States and Canada to
Mexico, Central America, South America, and the
West Indies.

Prefer shallow water inlets for feeding such as salt-marsh pools, tidal channels, and bays. Mostly along coastal areas and islands.

During winter time they migrate and roost in the mangroves of the Caribbean.

Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
--/CT Lower Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, the
Klamath Basin, and Butte Valley. Highest nesting
densities occur near Davis and Woodland, Yolo
County.

Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs, & agricultural or ranch lands with groves or lines of trees. Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands, or alfalfa or grain fields supporting rodent populations.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-15

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA) GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
--/C (SSC) Permanent resident in the Central Valley from Butte County to Kern County. Breeds at scattered coastal
locations from Marin County south to San Diego
County; and at scattered locations in Lake, Sonoma,
and Solano Counties. Rare nester in Siskiyou, Modoc,
and Lassen Counties.

Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central Valley & vicinity. Largely endemic to California. Requires open water, protected nesting substrate, and foraging area with insect prey within a few kilometers of the colony.
western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
FT/CE Nests along the upper Sacramento, lower Feather,
south fork of the Kern, Amargosa, Santa Ana, and
Colorado Rivers
Wide, dense riparian forests with a thick understory of willows for nesting; sites with a dominant cottonwood overstory are preferred for foraging; may avoid valley oak riparian habitats where scrub jays are abundant
FISH
hardhead
Mylopharodon
conocephalus
--/SSC Tributary streams in the San Joaquin drainage; large tributary streams in the Sacramento River and the
main stem
Resides in low to mid-elevation streams and prefer clear, deep pools and runs with slow velocities. They also occur in reservoirs.

MAMMALS
American badger
Taxidea taxus
--/SSC Badgers are found primarily in the Great Plains region of North America. Badgers occur north through the
central western Canadian provinces, in appropriate
habitat throughout the western United States, and
south throughout the mountainous areas of Mexico.

They have expanded their range since the turn of the
20th century and are now found as far east as
Ontario, Canada.

Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, with friable soils. Needs sufficient food, friable soils and open, uncultivated ground. Preys on burrowing rodents. Digs burrows.

Fresno kangaroo rat
Dipodomys nitratoides
exilis
FE/CE Western Fresno County. Alkali sink-open grassland habitats. Bare alkaline clay-based soils subject to seasonal inundation, with more friable soil mounds around shrubs and grasses.

Hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
--/-- Occur in all 50 states. Rare in the eastern United States and northern Rockies. Found mainly in the
Pacific Northwest and California, Arizona, and New
Mexico.

Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics, with access to trees for cover and open areas or habitat edges for feeding. Roosts in dense foliage of medium to large trees. Feeds primarily on moths. Requires water.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA) GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
Pallid Bat
Antrozous pallidus
--/SSC Associated with oak woodlands in coastal California. Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting.

Roosts must protect bats from high temperatures. Very
sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites.

San Joaquin kit fox
Vulpes macrotis
mutica
FE/CT Western Kern County, San Luis Obispo County, and
Contra Costa County
Annual grasslands or grassy open stages with scattered shrubby vegetation. Need loose-textured sandy soils for burrowing, and suitable prey base.

San Joaquin Pocket
Mouse
Perognathus inornatus
--/-- Found in the southern Sacramento Valley, Salinas
Valley, San Joaquin Valley and adjacent foothills,
south to the Mojave Desert.

Grassland, oak savanna and arid scrubland. Associated with fine-textured, sandy, friable soils.
spotted bat
Euderma maculatum
--/SSC Distributed across large areas of western North
America from southern British Columbia to the
central Mexican state of Queretaro.

Occupies a wide variety of habitats from arid deserts and grasslands through mixed conifer forests. Feeds over water and along washes. Feeds almost entirely on moths. Needs rock crevices in cliffs or caves for roosting.
western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis
californicus
--/SSC Widespread in the southern United States and the northern part of Mexico. Occur at elevations to 2,600
meters.

Day roosts occur in crevices of cliffs and rocky canyons as well as trees. Roost areas need to be elevated and have a 2 meter drop off for take off area. Can live in chaparral, coastal and desert shrubs, and forests and wetland habitats.

REPTILES
blunt-nosed leopard
lizard
Gambelia sila
FE/CE Distributed across eastern California Resident of sparsely vegetated alkali and desert scrub habitats, in areas of low topographic relief. Seeks cover in mammal burrows, under shrubs or structures such as fence posts; they do not excavate their own burrows.

California glossy snake
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
--/SSC Patchily distributed from the eastern portion of San Francisco Bay, southern San Joaquin Valley, and the
Coast, Transverse, and Peninsular ranges, south to
Baja California.

Generally reported from a range of scrub and grassland
habitats, often with loose or sandy soils.
coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
--/SSC Found at elevations from sea level to 8,000 ft. (2,438 m).

Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most common in lowlands along sandy washes with scattered low bushes. Open areas for sunning, bushes for cover, patches of loose soil for burial, and abundant supply of ants and other insects.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-17

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA) GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
northern California
legless lizard
Anniella pulchra
--/-- California legless lizards are found in California and Mexico. They are found from western central
California (San Joaquin and the coastal regions),
through northwestern Baja California, and as far
south as Colonia Guerrero, Mexico.

Sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse vegetation. Soil moisture is essential. They prefer soils with a high moisture content.
western pond turtle
Emys marmorata
--/SSC Occurs from the Oregon border of Del Norte and
Siskiyou Counties south along the coast to San
Francisco Bay, inland through the Sacramento Valley,
and on the western slope of Sierra Nevada.

A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation, below 6000 ft elevation. Needs basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.31 miles from water for egg-laying.

NOTES:

FEDERAL
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

T = THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

PE = PROPOSED FOR ENDANGERED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

PT = PROPOSED FOR THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

C = CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR LISTING UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

D = DELISTED FROM FEDERAL LISTING STATUS.

STATE
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

T = THREATENED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

C = CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR LISTING UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

FP = FULLY PROTECTED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE.

SSC = SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN IN CALIFORNIA.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-19

3.4.2 REGULATORY SETTING
There are a number of regulatory agencies whose responsibility includes the oversight of the natural resources of the state and nation including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), USFWS, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). These agencies often respond to declines in the quantity of a particular habitat or plant or animal species by developing protective measures for those species or habitat type. The following is an overview of the federal, State and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.

FEDERAL
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), provides protection to plant and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. In general, USFWS has jurisdiction over terrestrial and fresh-water species, while NMFS has jurisdiction over ocean-going species.

Section 9 of FESA generally prohibits all persons from causing the "take" of any member of a listed species. (16 U.S.C. § 1538.) This prohibition applies mainly to animals; it only extends to plants in areas “under federal jurisdiction” and plants already protected under state law. (Id., subd. (a)(2)(B); see also Northern Cal. River Watch v. Wilcox (9th Cir. 2010) 620 F.3d 1075.) “Take” is defined in statute as, "... to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." (16 U.S.C. § 1532(19).) Harass is defined in regulation as "...an intentional or negligent act or omission that creates the likelihood of injury to a listed species by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns that include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering." (See 50 CFR § 17.3.) Harm is defined in regulation as "...significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” (Id.) Despite the general prohibition against take, FESA in some circumstances permits “incidental take,” which means take that is incidental to, but not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. (16 U.S.C. § 1539(a).) Under section 10 of FESA, persons seeking permission to engage in actions that could result in such incidental take can obtain such permission through the approval of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) by either USFWS or NMFS. (16 U.S.C., § 1539(a).)
Proposed federal actions that would result in take of a federal-listed or proposed species require consultation with USFWS or NMFS under section 7 of FESA. (Id., § 1536.) The objective of consultation is to determine whether the proposed federal action would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Where such an outcome would not occur, USFWS or NMFS must still impose reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the effects of the incidental taking. Where such an outcome could occur, USFWS or NMFS must

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan propose reasonable and prudent alternatives that, if implemented, would avoid such an outcome. (Id.)
Compliance with ESA can be achieved under Section 7 or 10 of FESA depending on the involvement of the federal government. Section 7 requires federal agencies to make a finding on all federal actions, including the approval by an agency of a public or private action, such as the issuance of a “404 permit” for filling wetlands by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), on the potential of the action to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species impacted by the action or to result in the destruction or adverse modification of such species’ critical habitat. Provisions of Section 10 are implemented when there is no federal involvement in a project except compliance with FESA. A take not specifically allowed by federal permit under Section 7 or Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the FESA is subject to enforcement through civil or criminal proceedings under Section II of the FESA.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
To kill, posses, or trade a migratory bird, bird part, nest, or egg is a violation of the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 U.S.C., §703, Supp. I, 1989), unless it is in accordance with the regulations that have been set forth by the Secretary of the Interior.

Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provide regulations to protect bald and golden eagles as well as their nests and eggs from willful damage or injury.

Clean Water Act – Section 404
Section 404 of the CWA regulates all discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S.

Discharges of fill material includes the placement of fill that is necessary for the construction of any structure, or impoundment requiring rock, sand, dirt, or other material for its construction; sitedevelopment fills for recreational, industrial, commercial, residential, and other uses; causeways or road fills; and fill for intake and outfall pipes and subaqueous utility lines [33 C.F.R. §328.2(f)].

Waters of the U.S. include lakes, rivers, streams, intermittent drainages, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, and wet meadows. Wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” [33 C.F.R. §328.3(b)]. Waters of the U.S. exhibit a defined bed and bank and ordinary high-water mark (OHWM). The OHWM is defined by the USACE as “that line on shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” [33 C.F.R. §328.3(e)].

Clean Water Act – Section 401
Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires an applicant who is seeking a 404 permit to first obtain a water quality certification from the RWQCB. To obtain the water quality certification, the RWQCB must indicate that the proposed fill would be consistent with the standards set forth by the state.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-21 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
The Rivers and Harbors Act prohibits the obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the United States. The Act requires authorization from the USACE for any excavation or deposition of materials into these waters or for any work that could affect the course, location, condition, or capacity of rivers or harbors.

STATE
Fish and Game Code §2050-2097 - California Endangered Species Act The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) administers a number of laws and programs designed to protect fish and wildlife resources. Principal of these is the California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (CESA Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq.), which regulates the listing and take of state endangered and threatened species, as well as candidate species. Under Section 2081 of CESA, CDFW may authorize take of an endangered and/or threatened species, or candidate species, by an incidental take permit or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for scientific, educational, or management purposes. In approving an incidental permit, CDFW must ensure, among other things, that “[t]he impacts of the authorized take shall be minimized and fully mitigated.” Further, “[t]he measures required to meet this obligation shall be roughly proportional in extent to the impact of the authorized taking on the species. Where various measures are available to meet this obligation, the measures required shall maintain the applicant's objectives to the greatest extent possible. All required measures shall be capable of successful implementation.” To be consistent with Federal regulations, CESA created the categories of "threatened" and "endangered" species. It converted all "rare" animals into the Act as threatened species, but did not do so for rare plants, as previously designated under the California Native Plant Protection Act (discussed below). Thus, there are three listing categories for plants in California: rare, threatened, and endangered. Under State law, plant and animal species may be formally designated by official listing by the California Fish and Game Commission.

Fish and Game Code §2800-2835 – Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act
The Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act is set forth in Fish and Game Code Sections 2800–2835. The intent of the legislation is to provide for conservation planning as an officially recognized policy that can be used as a tool to eliminate conflicts between the protection of natural resources and the need for growth and development. In addition, the legislation promotes conservation planning as a means of coordination and cooperation among private interests, agencies, and landowners, and as a mechanism for multispecies and multi-habitat management and conservation. The development of Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs) is an alternative to obtaining take authorization under Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code.

Fish and Game Code §1900-1913 – California Native Plant Protection Act In 1977 the State Legislature passed the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) in recognition of rare and endangered plants of the state. The intent of the law was to preserve, protect, and enhance

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan endangered plants. The NPPA gave the California Fish and Game Commission the power to designate native plants as endangered or rare, and to require permits for collecting, transporting, or selling such plants. The NPPA includes provisions that prohibit the taking of plants designated as "rare" from the wild, and a salvage mandate for landowners, which requires notification of the CDFW 10 days in advance of approving a building site.

Fish and Game Code §3503, 3503.5, 3800 – Predatory Birds Under the California Fish and Game Code, all predatory birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes in California, generally called “raptors,” are protected. The law indicates that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird unless it is in accordance with the code. Any activity that would cause a nest to be abandoned or cause a reduction or loss in a reproductive effort is considered a take. This generally includes construction activities.

Fish and Game Code §1601-1603 – Streambed Alteration
Under the California Fish and Game Code, CDFW has jurisdiction over any proposed activities that would divert or obstruct the natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any lake or stream.

Private landowners or project proponents must obtain a “Streambed Alteration Agreement” from CDFW prior to any alteration of a lake bed, stream channel, or their banks. Through this agreement, the CDFW may impose conditions to limit and fully mitigate impacts on fish and wildlife resources.

These agreements are usually initiated through the local CDFW warden and will specify timing and construction conditions, including any mitigation necessary to protect fish and wildlife from impacts of the work.

Fish and Game Code §3511, 3513, 4700, and 5050 – Fully Protected Species
Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 3513, 4700, and 5050 pertain to fully protected wildlife species (birds in Sections 3511 and 3513, mammals in Section 4700, and reptiles and amphibians in Section 5050) and strictly prohibit the take of these species. CDFW cannot issue a take permit for fully protected species, except under narrow conditions for scientific research or the protection of livestock, or if an NCCP has been adopted.

California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines § 15380 – Unlisted Species Worthy of Protection
The CEQA Guidelines provide that a species that is not listed on the federal or State endangered species list may nevertheless be considered rare or endangered if the species meets certain criteria. (CEQA Guidelines § 15380) Species that are not listed under FESA or CESA, but are otherwise eligible for listing (i.e. candidate, or proposed) may be protected by the local government until the opportunity to list the species arises for the responsible agency.

Species that may be considered for review are included on a list of “Species of Special Concern,” developed by the CDFW. Additionally, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), a nongovernmental organization, maintains a list of plant species native to California that have low populations, limited distribution, or are otherwise threatened with extinction. This information is published in the BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-23 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. List 1A contains plants that are believed to be extinct. List 1B contains plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. List 2 contains plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere.

California Wetlands Conservation Policy
In August 1993, the Governor announced the "California Wetlands Conservation Policy.” The goals of the policy are to establish a framework and strategy that will:
• Ensure no overall net loss and to achieve a long-term net gain in the quantity, quality, and permanence of wetland acreage and values in California in a manner that fosters creativity, stewardship, and respect for private property.
• Reduce procedural complexity in the administration of State and federal wetland conservation programs.
• Encourage partnerships to make landowner incentive programs and cooperative planning efforts the primary focus of wetland conservation and restoration.

The Governor also signed Executive Order W-59-93, which incorporates the goals and objectives contained in the new policy and directs the Resources Agency to establish an Interagency Task Force to direct and coordinate administration and implementation of the policy.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Wat. Code, § 13000 et seq.) is California’s primary water quality control statute. But its protections extend to wetlands, and in some instances wetlands that are not subject to federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Under the Porter-Cologne Act definition, waters of the state are “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” (Wat. Code, § 13050[e].) Although all waters of the United States that are within the borders of California are also waters of the state, the reverse is not necessarily true.

Therefore, California retains authority to regulate discharges of waste into any waters of the state, discharges to receiving waters more broadly than the CWA does.

Waters of the state fall under the jurisdiction of the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). Under Porter-Cologne, each RWQCB must prepare and periodically update water quality control basin plans. Each basin plan sets forth water quality standards for surface water and groundwater, as well as actions to control nonpoint and point sources of pollution. California Water Code Section 13260 requires any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, in any region that could affect the waters of the state to file a report of discharge (an application for waste discharge requirements [WDRs]) with the applicable RWQCB. Construction activities that may discharge wastes into the waters of the state must meet the discharge control requirements of the Porter-Cologne Act.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan), adopted by the Central Valley RWQCB in 1998, identifies the beneficial uses of water bodies and provides water quality objectives and standards for waters of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins, including the Delta.

State and federal laws mandate the protection of designated “beneficial uses” of water bodies. State law defines beneficial uses as “domestic; municipal; agricultural and industrial supply; power generation; recreation; aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; and preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and other aquatic resources or preserves” (Water Code Section 13050[f]). Additional protected beneficial uses of the San Joaquin River include groundwater recharge and fresh water replenishment. Major issues and the general conditions of existing beneficial uses in the San Joaquin River are as follows:
• Water Supply: The San Joaquin River is not currently a source of municipal water supply for the City of Fresno and is not identified as a source for the proposed Project, although some farms in the region use the river as a source of water for irrigation. The City uses groundwater, water from the Kings River through an agreement with FID, and Class 1 water from the Central Valley Project through a water supply contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation.
• Agricultural Supply: Extensive use is made of San Joaquin River and Delta waters for agricultural purposes. Annual water diversions from the Delta by the State Water Project (SWP) and the Central Valley Project (CVP) for agriculture are estimated to reach 4.3 million acre-feet (MAF) per year by 2030. In addition, about 2,000 privately owned agricultural water supply diversions are scattered throughout the Delta, generally consisting of riverside pumping stations.
• Recreation: Water-dependent recreation uses of the San Joaquin River and the Delta include swimming, wading, waterskiing, sport fishing, and a variety of other activities that involve contact with the water. Noncontact (water-enhanced) recreation uses include picnicking, camping, pleasure boating, hunting, bird watching, education, and aesthetic enjoyment. • Groundwater Recharge: Water from the San Joaquin River and the Delta recharges the San Joaquin Valley groundwater basin. Recharge serves to maintain salt balance in the soil column, prevent saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers, and provide for water supplies. Groundwater is replenished through deep percolation of streamflow, precipitation, and applied irrigation water. Groundwater quality is generally adequate throughout the San Joaquin Valley and the Delta, although at shallow depths within the Delta the water is often saline and contains high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) and dissolved minerals. Enforceable TDS standards do not exist for drinking water. The need for treatment generally depends on consumer acceptance.
• Fish and Wildlife: The San Joaquin River and the waterways of the Delta provide important habitat for a diverse variety of aquatic life and terrestrial wildlife. This includes temporary habitat and migration routes for anadromous and other migratory species, as well as permanent habitat for resident species. Fish dependent on the Delta as a migration corridor, nursery, or permanent residence include Chinook salmon, steelhead, delta smelt, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-25 Sacramento splittail, striped bass, American shad, sturgeon, catfish, largemouth bass, and numerous other estuary and freshwater species. The amount and quality of water flowing through the Delta greatly influences the overall productivity of the area on an annual basis.

A large assemblage of wildlife uses the Delta either seasonally or year round, including waterfowl; migratory and resident songbirds; mice, rabbits, and other small mammals; water dependent mammals, such as beaver and muskrat; and predators such as skunk, raccoon, northern harrier, and coyote.

LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan establishes the following objective and policies directly related to biological resources:

PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND SCHOOLS ELEMENT
Objective POSS-5: Provide for long-term preservation, enhancement, and enjoyment of plant, wildlife, and aquatic habitat.

Policy POSS-5-a: Habitat Area Acquisition. Support federal, State, and local programs to acquire significant habitat areas for permanent protection and/or conjunctive educational and recreational use.

Policy POSS-5-b: Habitat Conservation Plans. Participate in cooperative, multijurisdictional approaches for area-wide habitat conservation plans to preserve and protect rare, threatened, and endangered species.

Policy POSS-5-c: Buffers for Natural Areas. Require development projects, where appropriate and warranted, to incorporate natural features (such as ponds, hedgerows, and wooded strips) to serve as buffers for adjacent natural areas with high ecological value.

Policy POSS-5-d: Guidelines for Habitat Conservation. Establish guidelines for habitat conservation and mitigation programs, including:
• Protocols for the evaluation of a site's environmental setting and proposed design and operating parameters of proposed mitigation measures.
• Methodology for the analysis depiction of land to be acquired or set aside for mitigation activities.
• Parameters for specification of the types and sources of plant material used for any revegetation, irrigation requirements, and post-planting maintenance and other operational measures to ensure successful mitigation.
• Monitoring at an appropriate frequency by qualified personnel and reporting of data collected to permitting agencies.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy POSS-5-e: Pursue development of conjunctive habitat and recreational trail uses in flood control and drainage projects.

Policy POSS-5-f: Regional Mitigation and Habitat Restoration. Coordinate habitat restoration programs with responsible agencies to take advantage of opportunities for a coordinated regional mitigation program.

Fresno Municipal Code
Article 3, Street Trees and Parkways, of Chapter 13 of the Fresno Municipal Code contains the public tree policy, tree beautification and preservation regulations, and Special Tree List authorization.

Section 13-302, Public Tree Policy, declares that the public interest and welfare require that the City maintain a program for the planting and preservation of trees on all public property in the city as a municipal affair in order to beautify the city, purify its air, and provide shade for its inhabitants. Section 13-304, Tree Beautification, establishes and defines the Master Tree Plan requirements, Parkway Tree requirements, and other requirements related to new and existing development and the provision of parkway trees. Section 13-305, Tree Preservation, outlines tree removal and maintenance requirements, tree permit conditions, and payment of fees in-lieu of replacing a removed tree. Lastly, Section 13-306, Special Tree List, outlines the Special Tree List requirements and tree removal requests for Special Trees:

The Director is authorized to develop and maintain a Special Tree List. Such list is intended to include those trees of special interest to the city, including, but not limited to, landmark trees or trees of outstanding size or beauty. The City Council may also designate trees on the Special Tree List by resolution. The Director shall give and encourage others to give such trees special treatment and care to retain and protect them.

The Public Works Director shall review all tree removal requests for special trees filed independent of a development application. The Director shall render his/her decision within thirty (30) days after the filing of the request. Any denial shall state the reasons for denial. The decision of the Director shall be mailed to the applicant and to all owners of record of the subject property on the same day the decision is made. In addition, the site or tree shall be posted with a sign by the Department for at least ten calendar days indicating the decision of the Director.

Decisions of the Public Works Director may be appealed to the City Council by the Councilmember of the district in which the project is located or by the Mayor, either on their own initiative or upon receiving a petition from any person.

Appeals must be initiated by filing a letter with the Public Works Director. Such action shall require a statement of reasons for the appeal. Unless otherwise specified in a governing State or federal law, all appeals shall be filed with the Public Works Director in writing within 15 days of the date of the decision.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-27

3.4.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G is a sample Initial Study checklist that includes number of factual inquiries related to the subject of biological resources, as it does on a whole series of additional environmental topics. Notably, lead agencies are under no obligation to use these inquiries in fashioning thresholds of significance on the subject of air quality impacts, or indeed on any subject addressed in the checklist. (Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068.) Rather, with few exceptions, “CEQA grants agencies discretion to develop their own thresholds of significance.” (Ibid.) Even so, it is a common practice for lead agencies to take the language from the inquiries set forth in Appendix G and to use that language in fashioning thresholds. The City has done so here, though it has exercised its discretion to modify the language of the Appendix G threshold addressing impacts to wetlands so that it applies not only to federallyprotected wetlands, but also to wetlands that are protected under State law (the reach of which is sometimes broader than federal law).

Although CEQA generally gives agencies considerable discretion in fashioning significance thresholds, there are some thresholds that must, as a matter of law, be used by public agencies.

Many of these relate to biological resources, and are found in CEQA Guidelines section 15065 (“Mandatory Findings of Significance”).

Finally, the City is aware that neither Appendix G nor section 15065 sets forth language directly addressing potential effects on birds of prey or nesting birds due to violation of laws (described earlier) intended to protect them. The City has therefore exercised its discretion to formulate a threshold to address this particular category of impact.

In light of the foregoing, for purposes of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if implementation of the Specific Plan would:
• Substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; • Cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; • Threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community;
• Substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species;
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • Have a substantial adverse effect on federally - or state- protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance;
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan; • Result in the take or destruction of any nesting birds or birds of prey or the nest or eggs of such birds.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 3.4-1: Specific Plan implementation could directly or indirectly have a substantial adverse effect through habitat modifications or reductions, cause populations to drop below self-sustaining levels, substantially eliminate a community, or substantially reduce the number of, or restrict the range of, an endangered, rare or threatened species, including those considered candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Approval of the proposed Specific Plan would not directly approve or entitle any development or infrastructure projects. However, implementation of the Specific Plan and Land Use Map would allow and facilitate future development in the Plan Area, which could result in adverse impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species, as well as sensitive natural habitat or wildlife movement corridors. Each are discussed below.

INVERTEBRATES
Special-status invertebrates that occur within the 12-quad for the Plan Area include: valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis), midvalley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi). The Plan Area may contain suitable habitat, or more specifically, microhabitats, for these special-status invertebrate species. For example, elderberry shrubs, which are the host plant for valley elderberry longhorn beetle, are known to occur in various areas throughout the region, and may be located in the Plan Area on certain properties. It is noted that elderberry can establish itself in various areas, so the absence of this species at one point in time does not mean that it is absent in future years. Additionally, seasonally aquatic, or other aquatic areas (i.e. irrigation ditches or drainage swales) within the Plan Area could provide suitable habitat for some special status aquatic invertebrate species.

Subsequent development under the proposed Specific Plan could result in the direct loss of habitat areas associated with these special-status invertebrate species, since suitable habitat for these species does occur in the region, and can be found as a microhabitat. Additionally, indirect impacts BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-29 to special-status invertebrate species could occur with implementation of the Specific Plan. Indirect impacts could include habitat degradation as a result of impacts to water quality, increased human presence, and the loss of aquatic habitat. This is a potentially significant impact.

AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES
There are two special-status amphibian species and five special-status reptile species that are documented within the 12-quadrangle region for the Specific Plan Area, including: California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata). There are two documented occurrences of CTS in the Specific Plan Area.

The more recent occurrence was documented in February 2017. This occurrence was documented in the vicinity of N. Blythe Avenue approximately 0.2 miles northwest of the W. Austin Way junction, and 0. Mile southeast of the W. Ashland Avenue junction. There are two polygons showing approximate locations – the northern polygon is the approximate location of the detection site for the CTS, and the southern polygon is the approximate location of the relocation site for CTS. For this occurrence, one CTS adult was found on the grounds of an apartment complex by a landscape maintenance crew. The animal was delivered to a local biologist who relocated the CTS to a nearby open space area. The open space area has alfalfa and grass, standing water in the springs, and many burrows present. According to the CNDDB, the individual may have represented a remnant population that has lost too much habitat to be viable.

The second occurrence was documented in 1879. The occurrence was from the U.S. National Museum (#11794), and the Cornell University Museum of Vertebrates (#3017). The site is considered to be extirpated.

The developed and agricultural areas within the Specific Plan Area provide very limited to no potential for special status species reptile and amphibians listed above. The portions of the Plan Area with the highest potential for presence of any special status reptile or amphibian species are areas where aquatic habitat is present, such as irrigation ditches or retention basins. Additionally, there are numerous locations for refugia (debris, burrows, crevices, barns, sheds, etc.) within the Plan Area that could be used by migrating CTS.

Subsequent development under the proposed Specific Plan could result in the direct loss of habitat areas associated with these special-status reptile and amphibian species, since suitable habitat for these species does occur in the region. Additionally, indirect impacts to special-status reptile and amphibian species could occur with implementation of the Specific Plan. Indirect impacts could include habitat degradation as a result of impacts to water quality, increased human presence, and the loss of foraging habitat. This is a potentially significant impact.

FISH
There is one special-status fish species that is documented within the 12-quadrangle region for the Specific Plan Area: hardhead (Mylopharodon conocephalus). This species is not documented within

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan the Specific Plan Area or vicinity. Based on habitat conditions and records searches, this fish species does not have the potential to be present within the Specific Plan Area. The proposed Specific Plan would not, directly or indirectly, have a substantial adverse effect on fish species through habitat modifications or reductions, cause populations to drop below self-sustaining levels, substantially eliminate a community, or substantially reduce the number of, or restrict the range of, an endangered, rare or threatened species, including those considered candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. Therefore, impacts associated with special-status fish species would be less than significant.

BIRDS
There are ten special-status bird species that are documented within the 12-quadrangle region for the Specific Plan Area, including: black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auratus), great egret (Ardea alba), Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis). While none of these bird species have been documented in the Plan Area, it is highly likely that some of the aforementioned special-status bird species could regularly use or pass through the Specific Plan Area given their high mobility.

It is anticipated that the raptor species would frequent the site for foraging. There is limited to no potential for nesting in the agricultural and developed areas. The portions of the Plan Area with the highest potential for presence of any nesting birds are the more rural and vacant portions of the Plan Area. Most bird nesting would occur in trees located in these areas, with the exception of ground nesting species such as the burrowing owl.

Subsequent development under the proposed Specific Plan could result in the direct loss of habitat areas associated with these special-status bird species, since suitable habitat for these species does occur in the region. Additionally, indirect impacts to special-status bird species could occur with implementation of the Specific Plan. Indirect impacts could include habitat degradation, increased human presence, and the loss of foraging habitat. This is a potentially significant impact.

MAMMALS
There are eight special-status mammal species that are documented within the 12-quadrangle region for the Specific Plan Area, including: American badger (Taxidea taxus), Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis), Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), San Joaquin Pocket Mouse (Perognathus inornatus), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), and western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus). Fresno kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, and western mastiff bat have all been documented in the Specific Plan Area.

The agricultural areas within the Specific Plan Area provide very limited to no potential for special status species mammals, except for movement and foraging. The portion of the Plan Area with the highest potential for presence of special-status mammal species is along the vacant, undeveloped BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-31 land not used for active agriculture. These areas provide the most intact habitat available within the entirety of the Specific Plan Area, although the species could move and forage throughout much of the Plan Area.

Subsequent development under the proposed Specific Plan could result in the direct loss of habitat areas associated with these special-status mammal species, since suitable habitat for these species does occur in the region. Additionally, indirect impacts to special-status mammal species could occur with implementation of the Specific Plan. Indirect impacts could include habitat degradation, increased human presence, and the loss of foraging habitat. This is a potentially significant impact.

PLANTS
The search revealed documented occurrences of 18 special status plant species within the 12- quadrangle region for the Plan Area, as shown in Table 3.4-3.

The developed and agricultural areas within the Plan Area provide very limited to no potential for special status plant species. The tilled farmland is regularly disturbed and is planted for agricultural production and does not have any potential for these plants. The farmland fringe and irrigation ditches are the only areas within the agricultural land that have some potential for presence of native plants, although the potential for presence is very low. There exists the potential for future development or infrastructure improvements to encroach upon sensitive plant habitat within the Plan Area. Therefore, impacts associated with special-status plant species would be potentially significant.

CONCLUSION
Construction and maintenance activities associated with future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan could result in the direct and indirect loss or indirect disturbance of specialstatus plant or wildlife (i.e. mammal, bird, amphibian, or reptile) species or their habitats that are known to occur, or have potential to occur, in the region. Impacts to special-status species or their habitat could result in a substantial reduction in local population size, lowered reproductive success, or habitat fragmentation. Significant impacts on special-status species associated with individual subsequent projects could include:
• increased mortality caused by higher numbers of automobiles in new areas of development; • direct mortality from the collapse of underground burrows, resulting from soil compaction; • direct mortality resulting from the movement of equipment and vehicles through construction areas;
• direct mortality resulting from removal of trees with active nests; • direct mortality or loss of suitable habitat resulting from the trimming or removal of obligate host plants;
• direct mortality resulting from fill of wetlands features; • loss of breeding and foraging habitat resulting from the filling of seasonal or perennial wetlands;

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • loss of breeding, foraging, and refuge habitat resulting from the permanent removal of riparian vegetation;
• loss of suitable habitat for vernal pool invertebrates resulting from the destruction or degradation of vernal pools or seasonal wetlands;
• abandoned eggs or young and subsequent nest failure for special-status nesting birds, including raptors, and other non-special-status migratory birds resulting from constructionrelated noises; • loss or disturbance of rookeries and other colonial nests; • loss of suitable foraging habitat for special-status raptor species; • loss of migration corridors resulting from the construction of permanent structures or features; and
• impacts to fisheries/species associated with waterways.

Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the City’s General Plan and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of special-status plants and animals, including habitat. The Specific Plan includes numerous policies intended to protect special-status plants and animals, including habitat, from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. While future development of the Plan Area has the potential to result in significant impacts to protected special-status plants and animals, including habitat, the implementation of the policies listed below, as well as Federal and State regulations, would reduce impacts to these resources. Additionally, the mitigation measures included below would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts on special-status invertebrate species:
• Preconstruction surveys/habitat assessments for valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis), midvalley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within the project disturbance area.
• If valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis), midvalley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis), or vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), or their suitable habitat, is found during preconstruction surveys/habitat assessments within the disturbance area, activities within 200 feet of the find shall cease until appropriate measures have been completed, which may include an application for incidental take, or it is determined by the qualified biologist and City staff, in coordination with USFWS and CDFW, that the species will not be harmed by the activities. Any sightings or incidental take shall be reported to USFWS and CDFW immediately.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-33 • Construction personnel performing activities within aquatic habitats and other suitable habitats (i.e., elderberry shrubs) to be disturbed by project activities shall receive worker environmental awareness training from a qualified biologist to instruct workers to recognize the species, their habitats, and measures being implemented for its protection.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-2: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts on special-status amphibian and reptile species:
• Preconstruction surveys/habitat assessments for California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within the project disturbance area. • If California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), or western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), or their suitable habitat, is found during preconstruction surveys/habitat assessments within the disturbance area, activities within 200 feet of the find shall cease until appropriate measures have been completed, which may include an application for incidental take, or it is determined by the qualified biologist and City staff, in coordination with USFWS and CDFW, that the species will not be harmed by the activities. Any sightings or incidental take shall be reported to USFWS and CDFW immediately.
• If western pond turtles are found during preconstruction surveys, a qualified biologist, with approval from CDFW, shall move the turtles to the nearest suitable habitat outside the area subject to project disturbance. The construction area shall be reinspected whenever a lapse in construction activity of 2 weeks or more has occurred. • Construction personnel performing activities within aquatic habitats and adjacent suitable uplands to be disturbed by project activities shall receive worker environmental awareness training from a qualified biologist to instruct workers to recognize western pond turtle, their habitats, and measures being implemented for its protection. • Construction personnel shall observe a 15-miles-per-hour speed limit on unpaved roads.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ownership need not be surveyed. Surveys shall take place near sunrise or sunset in accordance with CDFW guidelines. All burrows or burrowing owls shall be identified and mapped. Surveys shall take place no earlier than 30 days prior to construction. During the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are nesting in or directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any disturbance area.

Survey results shall be valid only for the season (breeding or nonbreeding) during which the survey is conducted. If burrowing owls and/or suitable burrows are not discovered, then further mitigation is not necessary.

If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), the project proponent(s) shall avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance shall include establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone (described below). Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), the project proponent(s) shall avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance shall include the establishment of a buffer zone (described below). During the breeding season, buffer zones of at least 250 feet in which no construction activities can occur shall be established around each occupied burrow (nest site). Buffer zones of 160 feet shall be established around each burrow being used during the nonbreeding season. The buffers shall be delineated by highly visible, temporary construction fencing.

If occupied burrows for burrowing owls cannot be avoided, passive relocation shall be implemented.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-35 During the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 15 to September 15), construction activities within 1,000 feet of occupied nests or nests under construction shall be prohibited to prevent nest abandonment. If site-specific conditions, or the nature of the covered activity (e.g., steep topography, dense vegetation, and limited activities) indicate that a smaller buffer could be used, the City of Fresno may coordinate with CDFW/USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer size. If young fledge prior to September 15, construction activities could proceed normally. If the active nest site is shielded from view and noise from the project site by other development, topography, or other features, the project proponent(s) can apply to the City of Fresno for a waiver of this avoidance measure. Any waiver must also be approved by USFWS and CDFW. While nest is occupied, activities outside the buffer can take place.

All active nest trees shall be preserved on site, if feasible.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-5: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts to the black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), doublecrested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auratus), great egret (Ardea alba), Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and western yellowbilled cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) that may occur on the site:
• Preconstruction surveys for active nests of black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auratus), great egret (Ardea alba), Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and western yellowbilled cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within 500 feet of project disturbance. Surveys shall be conducted within 14 days before commencement of any construction activities that occur during the nesting season (February 15 to August 31) in a given area. • If any active nests, or behaviors indicating that active nests are present, are observed, appropriate buffers around the nest sites shall be determined by a qualified biologist to avoid nest failure resulting from project activities. The size of the buffer shall depend on the species, nest location, nest stage, and specific construction activities to be performed while the nest is active. The buffers may be adjusted if a qualified biologist determines it would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. If buffers are adjusted, monitoring will be conducted to confirm that project activity is not resulting in detectable adverse effects on nesting birds or their young. No project activity shall commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged or the nest site is otherwise no longer in use.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan commencing ground disturbance. On the parcel where activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 250-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership need not be surveyed. The status of all dens shall be determined and mapped. Written result of preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the USFWS within 5 working days after survey completion and before start of ground disturbance. Concurrence by the USFWS is not required prior to initiation of construction activities. If San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens are not discovered, then further mitigation is not necessary. If San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens are identified in the survey area, the following measure shall be implemented.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-37 • Preconstruction surveys for indications of American badger (Taxidea taxus), Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis), and San Joaquin pocket mouse (Perognathus inornatus) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within 500 feet of project disturbance. Surveys shall be conducted within 14 days before commencement of any construction activities that occur in a given area.
• If any active habitat areas, or behaviors indicating that active habitat is present, are observed, appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures, including but not limited to buffer areas, shall be required. The avoidance and mitigation measures shall be determined by the qualified biologist and implemented by the project proponent(s).

SPECIFIC PLAN POLICIES THAT MITIGATE POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Policy IPR 3.5: Utilize existing regulations and procedures, including but not limited to, the Development Code and the environmental review process, in order to conserve any existing or discovered wetland, riparian, or other sensitive habitats within the Plan Area.

Policy IPR 3.6: Where sensitive biological habitats have been identified or are discovered on or immediately adjacent to a project site, the project shall include appropriate mitigation measures determined by a qualified biologist.

Policy IPR 3.7: Coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fresno County, and local watershed protection groups to identify potentially impacted aquatic habitat within the Plan Area and to develop management guidelines to be implemented by development, recreation, and other projects adjacent to ponds, ditches, canals, and other waterways.

Impact 3.4-2: Specific Plan implementation has the potential to have substantial adverse effect on federally- or state-protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The Plan Area does not contain any natural hydrologic features. The Plan Area contains an internal network of agricultural ditches along the margins of the farm fields. The ditches in proximity to active agricultural areas of the Plan Area are regularly maintained to control/collect irrigation runoff from the fields. These features are manmade and are fed only by local irrigation water during the irrigation season or rainfall during the winter/spring season.

The USACE has regulatory responsibility for navigable waters as well as "all other waters such as...streams ...wetlands...and natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan affect interstate or foreign commerce" (33 CFR 323.4) under Section 404 of the CWA. A formal jurisdictional determination must be made by the USACE relative to protected wetlands and jurisdictional waters. The agricultural irrigation ditches are manmade and believed to solely function to drain upland agricultural runoff. As such, they are expected to be exempted from the USACE jurisdiction under the Irrigation Ditch Exemption pursuant to Federal Regulations (33 CFR 323.4(a)(3)). However, a final determination must be made by the USACE prior to any filling of these ditches for urban use.

CONCLUSION
Because the proposed Specific Plan is a planning document and thus, no physical changes will occur to the environment, adoption of the Specific Plan would not directly impact the environment. There is a reasonable chance that water features could be impacted throughout the buildout of the individual projects. The implementation of an individual project would require a detailed and sitespecific review of the site to determine the presence or absence of water features. If water features are present and disturbance is required, Federal and State laws require measures to reduce, avoid, or compensate for impacts to these resources. The requirements of these Federal and State laws are implemented through the permit process. These requirements are also included in Mitigation Measures 3.4-10 and 3.4-11.

Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the City’s General Plan and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of sensitive natural communities, including protected wetlands. The Specific Plan includes numerous policies and actions intended to protect wetlands and waters of the U.S. from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. While future development has the potential to result in significant impacts to protected water features, compliance with existing Federal and State regulations would reduce impacts to these resources. Mitigation measures included below ensure these regulations are followed. Additionally, implementation of Specific Plan Policies IPR 3.5 through IPR 3.7, as detailed below, would ensure that this impact is less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.4-10: If a proposed project will result in the significant alteration or fill of a federally protected wetland, a formal wetland delineation conducted according to USACE accepted methodology would be required for each project to determine the extent of wetlands on a project site. The delineation shall be used to determine if federal permitting and mitigation strategy are required to reduce project impacts. Acquisition of permits from USACE for the fill of wetlands and USACE approval of a wetland mitigation plan would ensure a “no net loss” of wetland habitat within the Planning Area. Appropriate wetland mitigation/creation shall be implemented in a ratio according to the size of the impacted wetland.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-11: In addition to regulatory agency permitting, Best Management Practices identified from a list provided by the USACE shall be incorporated into the design and construction phase of the project to ensure that no pollutants or siltation drain into a federally protected wetland. Project design features such as fencing, appropriate drainage and incorporating BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-39 detention basins shall assist in ensuring project-related impacts to wetland habitat are minimized to the greatest extent feasible.

SPECIFIC PLAN POLICIES
Policy IPR 3.5: Utilize existing regulations and procedures, including but not limited to, the Development Code and the environmental review process, in order to conserve any existing or discovered wetland, riparian, or other sensitive habitats within the Plan Area.

Impact 3.4-3: Specific Plan implementation would not have substantial adverse effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The records search revealed the presence of the following sensitive natural communities within the 12-quadrangle region for the Specific Plan Area: Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest, Northern Claypan Vernal Pool, Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool, Sycamore Alluvial Woodland. None of these community types are found in the Plan Area. Riparian habitat is located northwest of the northwestern corner of the Plan Area along the San Joaquin River; however, this riparian habitat is not found within the Plan Area. The rectangular parcel located closest to the River and associated riparian habitat is the site of the future Fresno Aquarium.

Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the City’s General Plan and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of sensitive natural communities, including riparian habitat. The Specific Plan includes policies intended to protect sensitive natural communities, including riparian habitat, from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. While future development has the potential to result in significant impacts to protected habitats, implementation of Specific Plan Policies IPR 3.5 and IPR 3.6 and Mitigation Measures 3.4-12 through 3.4-14, detailed below, would ensure that this impact is less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.4-12: A pre‐construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if a proposed project will result in the removal or impact to any riparian habitat and/or a special‐status natural community with potential to occur in the Specific Plan Area,

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4-40 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan compensatory habitat‐based mitigation shall be required to reduce project impacts. Compensatory mitigation must involve the preservation or restoration or the purchase of off‐site mitigation credits for impacts to riparian habitat and/or a special‐status natural community. Mitigation must be conducted in‐kind or within an approved mitigation bank in the region. The specific mitigation ratio for habitat‐based mitigation shall be determined through consultation with the appropriate agency (i.e., CDFW or USFWS) on a case‐by‐case basis. The project applicant/developer for a proposed project shall develop and implement appropriate mitigation regarding impacts on their respective jurisdictions.

The project applicant/developer shall implement mitigation as directed by the agency with jurisdiction over the particular impact identified.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-14: Prior to project approval, a pre‐construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if a proposed project will result in project‐related impacts to riparian habitat or a special‐status natural community or if it may result in direct or incidental impacts to special‐status species associated with riparian or wetland habitats. The project applicant/developer for a proposed project shall be obligated to address project‐specific impacts to special‐status species associated with riparian habitat through agency consultation, development of a mitigation strategy, and/or issuing incidental take permits for the specific special‐status species, as determined by the CDFW and/or USFWS.

Impact 3.4-4: Specific Plan implementation would not interfere substantially with the movement of native fish or wildlife species or with established wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (Less than Significant)
Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation resulting from land use changes or habitat conversion can alter the use and viability of wildlife movement corridors (i.e., linear habitats that naturally connect and provide passage between two or more otherwise disjunct larger habitats or habitat BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-41 fragments). Wildlife habitat corridors maintain connectivity for daily movement, travel, mateseeking, and migration; plant propagation; genetic interchange; population movement in response to environmental change or natural disaster; and recolonization of habitats subject to local extirpation or removal. The suitability of a habitat as a wildlife movement corridor is related to, among other factors, the habitat corridor’s dimensions (length and width), topography, vegetation, exposure to human influence, and the species in question.

Fresno City CouncilOctober 13, 2022

Fresno City Council
October 13, 2022