Exhibit J EIR - Final Environmental Impact Report — Fresno City Council, October 13, 2022

Exhibit J
West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
(SCH # 2019069117)
JUNE 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
De Novo Planning Group
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
(SCH # 2019069117)
JUNE 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
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TOC-1

FINAL EIR
Chapter Page Number
Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... ES-1

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

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

1.2 Environmental Review Process............................................................................... 1.0-2

1.3 Organization of the Final EIR .................................................................................. 1.0-3

2.0 Comments on Draft EIR and Responses .............................................................................. 2.0-1

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 2.0-1

2.2 List of Commenters................................................................................................. 2.0-1

2.3 Comments and Responses...................................................................................... 2.0-1

3.0 Revisions.............................................................................................................................. 3.0-1

3.1 Revisions to the Draft EIR ....................................................................................... 3.0-1

4.0 Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .......................................................... 4.0-1

4.1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program...................................................... 4.0-1 Tables Page Number
Table 2.0-1: List of Commenters on Draft EIR ........................................................................... 2.0-1 Table 4.0-1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program..................................................... 4.0-2

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOC-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ES-1

INTRODUCTION
The City of Fresno (City) determined that a program-level environmental impact report (EIR) was required for the proposed West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (Specific Plan) pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The program-level analysis considers the broad environmental effects of the proposed Project as a whole.

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.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following provides a brief summary and overview of the Project. Chapter 2.0 of this EIR includes a detailed description of the 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 Project.

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 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.

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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 details of the proposed Specific Plan.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE 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 significant impacts, and which could feasibly accomplish the basic objectives of the Specific Plan. The alternatives analyzed in this EIR include the following four alternatives in addition to the Specific Plan:
• No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative;
• Additional Annexation Alternative;
• Regional Park Alternative;
• Lower Density Alternative.

A comparative analysis of the Project and each of the Project alternatives is provided in Table ES-1.

As shown in Table ES-1, 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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
ES-3 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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.

COMMENTS RECEIVED
The Draft EIR addressed environmental impacts associated with the Project that are known to the City, were raised during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process, or raised during preparation of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR discussed potentially significant impacts associated with aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gases and climate change, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation and circulation, and utilities.

During the NOP process, several comments were received related to the analysis that should be included in the Draft EIR. These comments are included as Appendix A of the Draft EIR, and were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR.

The City received nine comment letters regarding the Draft EIR from public agencies and other parties. These comment letters on the Draft EIR are identified in Table 2.0-1 of this Final EIR. The comments received during the Draft EIR review processes are addressed within this Final EIR.

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

INTRODUCTION 1.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-1 This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15132). The City of Fresno (City) is the lead agency for the environmental review of the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and has the principal responsibility for approving the Project. This Final EIR assesses the expected environmental impacts resulting from approval of the Project and associated impacts from subsequent development and operation of the Project, as well as responds to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR).

1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THE EIR

CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR A FINAL EIR
This Final EIR for the Project has been prepared in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 requires that a Final EIR consist of the following:
• the Draft EIR or a revision of the draft;
• comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary;
• a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; • the responses of the lead agency to significant environmental concerns raised in the review and consultation process; and
• any other information added by the lead agency.

In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132(a), the Draft EIR is incorporated by reference into this Final EIR.

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 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, and an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors.

PURPOSE AND USE
The City, as the lead agency, has prepared this Final EIR to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies with an objective analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from approval, construction, and operation of the Project. Responsible and trustee agencies that may use the EIR are identified in Chapters 1.0 and 2.0 of the Draft EIR.

The environmental review process enables interested parties to evaluate the 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

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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 as the primary environmental document to evaluate all aspects of construction and operation of the Project. The details and operational characteristics of the Project are identified in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR (February 2022).

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

NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY
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 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 the Draft EIR.

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND DRAFT EIR
The City published a public Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR on February 10, 2022 inviting comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties.

The NOA was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2019069117) and the County Clerk, and was published in a local newspaper pursuant to the public noticing requirements of CEQA. The Draft EIR was available for public review and comment from February 10, 2022 through March 28, 2022.

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. The 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 the Draft EIR.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR
The City received nine comment letters regarding the Draft EIR from public agencies. These comment letters on the Draft EIR are identified in Table 2.0-1, and are found in Chapter 2.0 of this Final EIR.

INTRODUCTION 1.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-3 In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, this Final EIR responds to the written comments received on the Draft EIR, as required by CEQA. This Final EIR also contains minor edits to the Draft EIR, which are included in Chapter 3.0, Revisions. This document, as well as the Draft EIR as amended herein, constitute the Final EIR.

CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR/PROJECT CONSIDERATION
The Fresno Planning Commission and City Council will review and consider the Final EIR. If the City Council finds that the Final EIR is "adequate and complete," the Council may certify the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA and City environmental review procedures and codes. The rule of adequacy generally holds that an EIR can be certified 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 which intelligently take account of environmental consequences.

Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City Council may take action to approve, revise, or reject the Project. A decision to approve the Project, for which this EIR identifies significant environmental effects, must be accompanied by written findings in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as described below, would also be adopted in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 for mitigation measures that have been incorporated into or imposed upon the project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been designed to ensure that these measures are carried out during Project implementation, in a manner that is consistent with the EIR.

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR
This Final EIR has been prepared consistent with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which identifies the content requirements for Final EIRs. This Final EIR is organized in the following manner:

CHAPTER 1.0 – INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1.0 briefly describes the purpose of the environmental evaluation, identifies the lead, agency, summarizes the process associated with preparation and certification of an EIR, and identifies the content requirements and organization of the Final EIR.

CHAPTER 2.0 – COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES
Chapter 2.0 provides a list of commenters, copies of written and electronic comments made on the Draft EIR (coded for reference), and responses to those written comments.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan CHAPTER 3.0 – REVISIONS
Chapter 3.0 consists of minor revisions to the Draft EIR in response to comments received on the Draft EIR.

CHAPTER 4.0 – FINAL MMRP
Chapter 4.0 consists of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP is presented in a tabular format that presents the impacts, mitigation measure, and responsibility, timing, and verification of monitoring.

COMMENT ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-1

2.1 INTRODUCTION
No new significant environmental impacts or issues, beyond those already covered in the Draft EIR for the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (Specific Plan), were raised during the comment period.

Responses to comments received during the comment period do not involve any new significant impacts or add “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 states that: New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.

Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of this Final EIR include information that has been added to the EIR since the close of the public review period in the form of responses to comments and revisions.

2.2 LIST OF COMMENTERS
Table 2.0-1 lists the comments on the Draft EIR that were submitted to the City of Fresno (City) during the 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR. The assigned comment letter or number, letter date, letter author, and affiliation, if presented in the comment letter or if representing a public agency, are also listed.

Letters received are coded with letters (A, B, etc.).

TABLE 2.0-1 LIST OF COMMENTERS ON DRAFT EIR

RESPONSE
LETTER

INDIVIDUAL OR

SIGNATORY

AFFILIATION DATE
A Gavin McCreary California Department of Toxic Substances Control 3-28-22 B David Padilla California Department of Transportation 3-18-22 C Carolina Ilic City of Fresno, Fresno Area Express 3-28-22 D Mario Reeves County of Fresno, Department of Agriculture & Weights and Measures 2-23-22 E Dave Randall County of Fresno, Department of Public Works and Planning 3-21-22 F Daniel Brannick Resident of Fresno 3-28-22
G Laurence Kimura Fresno Irrigation District 3-28-22
H Denise Wade Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District 3-30-22 I Brian Clements San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 3-24-22

2.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONDING TO COMMENTS ON A DRAFT EIR
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires that lead agencies evaluate and respond to all comments on the Draft EIR that regard an environmental issue. The written response must address the significant environmental issue raised and provide a detailed response, especially when specific comments or suggestions (e.g., additional mitigation measures) are not accepted. In addition, the written response

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan must be a good faith and reasoned analysis. However, lead agencies need only to respond to significant environmental issues associated with the project and do not need to provide all the information requested by the commenter, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15204).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 recommends that commenters provide detailed comments that focus on the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the possible environmental impacts of the project and ways to avoid or mitigate the significant effects of the project, and that commenters provide evidence supporting their comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 also recommends that revisions to the Draft EIR be noted as a revision in the Draft EIR or as a separate section of the Final EIR. Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR identifies all revisions to the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Draft EIR.

RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
Written comments on the Draft EIR are reproduced on the following pages, along with responses to those comments. To assist in referencing comments and responses, the following coding system is used:
• Each letter is lettered or numbered (i.e., Letter A) and each comment within each letter is numbered (i.e., comment A-1, comment A-2).

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-3 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-5

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Response to Letter A: California Department of Toxic Substances Control Response A-1: This comment summarizes why the California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) was notified about the proposed West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan by the Lead Agency. This comment serves as an introduction to the comment letter. No further response is necessary.

Response A-2: This commenter summarizes the three DTSC sites discussed in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR. The commenter also states the following: “After performing a review, DTSC believes that the Parc West Development is not a DTSC site, but a Project for which DTSC provided comments on the associated EIR in a letter dated August 12, 2020. DTSC believes that the Parc West Development was erroneously listed in place of the Westlake Proposed 430 Acre Development (Westlake), which is discussed further into the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the Project’s EIR.” As discussed on page 3.8-5 of Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Parc West Development site is located at the intersection of Shields, Grantland, Garfield, and Gettysburg avenues. The cleanup status is currently inactive. Past uses that caused contamination included agricultural – orchard and agricultural – row crop uses. Potential contaminants of concern are under investigation, and the potential materials affected are soils. The Parc West Development site was previously known as the Westlake Proposed 430 Acre Development (Westlake). A Draft EIR was completed for the Parc West Development Project in June 2020.1

For consistency and as a result of this comment, references to this site that appear Section

3.8 the Draft EIR have been revised to reference the current name (Parc West Development site) and the original name shown in Envirostor (Westlake Proposed 430 Acre Development). See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revisions, which are reproduced below:

The following changes were made to pages 3.8-4 and 3.8-5 of Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR:

There are four three sites listed in the database within the Plan Area:
• West Shields Elementary School: This site is located at 4108 Shields Avenue, and is a part of the DTSC – Site Cleanup Program. The cleanup status is active as of 1/4/2017.

A Phase 1 assessment was completed on this site on January 4, 2017. Past uses that caused contamination are not specified. The Potential materials (e.g. soil, water, etc.) affected were also not specified.
1 See: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wpcontent/uploads/sites/10/2020/06/ParcWestPublicReviewDraftEIR63020.pdf COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-7 • Golden State Ranch Property: This site is located at Ashlan Avenue and Grantland Avenue, and the DTSC is the oversight agency for this site. The cleanup status is active as of 2/27/2002. Past uses that caused contamination include agricultural – row crops. No contaminants were found at this site.
• Parc West Development (previously known as the Westlake Proposed 430 Acre Development): This site is located at the intersection of Shields, Grantland, Garfield, and Gettysburg avenues. The cleanup status is currently inactive. Past uses that caused contamination included agricultural – orchard and agricultural – row crop uses. Potential contaminants of concern are under investigation, and the potential materials affected are soils.

The following changes was were made to pages 3.8-7 of Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR:

TABLE 3.8-2: GEOTRACKER KNOWN HAZARDOUS MATERIAL RELEASE SITES WITHIN THE PLAN AREA

SITE NAME TYPE STATUS ADDRESS
7-Eleven #24180 LUST Cleanup Site Completed 4246 West Ashlan Avenue AT&T California – SBR29 Permitted UST -- 4309 North Polk Avenue Chevron #9-9093 LUST Cleanup Site Completed 3996 Parkway Drive North Di Redo Dry Yard LUST Cleanup Site Completed 6150 Shaw Avenue West EZ Trip LUST Cleanup Site Completed 6639 Parkway Drive North Former Sieberts’ Oil Company LUST Cleanup Site Completed 2837 North Parkway Drive Fresno Gas & Liquor Permitted UST -- 3110 West Shields Avenue Golden State Ranch Property School Investigation No Action Required
Ashlan Avenue/Grantland
Avenue
Johnny Quik #175 Permitted UST -- 4395 West Ashlan Avenue Jura Farms, Inc. LUST Cleanup Site Completed 5545 Dakota West Moore Truck Lines LUST Cleanup Site Completed 3693 Parkway North Parkway Mini-Mart Permitted UST --
Proposed Constance-Sierra
Elementary School School Investigation No Further Action Northeast Corner of Constance
and Sierra Avenues
Quick ‘N’ E-Z #19 Permitted UST --
Siebert’s Oil Company LUST Cleanup Site Completed 2837 Parkway Drive North Shop N Go, #607 Permitted UST -- 4245 West Ashlan
Sugahara Farm LUST Cleanup Site Completed 4108 Shields Avenue West Vallee Food Store LUST Cleanup Site Completed 2414 Marks North Parc West Development
(previously known as the
Westlake Proposed 430 Acre
Development)
Voluntary Cleanup Inactive Bounded by Shields, Grantland, Garfield, and Gettysburg
West Shields Elementary School School Investigation Active 4108 Shields Avenue SOURCE: STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD GEOTRACKER (2019).

NOTE: -- = NOT SPECIFIED WITHIN THE GEOTRACKER DATABASE.

The following change was made to pages 3.8-8 of Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR:

The Inactive Parc West Development (previously known as the Westlake Proposed 430 Acre Development) site is a voluntary (inactive) cleanup site. The DTSC is the lead agency for the site. A Preliminary Endangerment Assessment was planned for this former agricultural property. The site is proposed as a Planned Residential Community. The DTSC

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-8 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan had a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with the applicant for the Planned Residential Community. Potential media affected includes soils. Potential contaminants of concern are under investigation. Should the site be developed in the future, future cleanup activities would be required prior to development on this site, as applicable.

The following change was made to pages 3.8-22 of Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR:

Like most agricultural and farming operations in the Central Valley, agricultural practices in the area have used agricultural chemicals including pesticides and herbicides as a standard practice. Residual concentrations of pesticides may be present in soil as a result of historic agricultural application and storage. Continuous spraying of crops over many years can potentially result in a residual buildup of pesticides in farm soils. Of highest concern relative to agrichemicals are chemicals such as chlorinated herbicides, organophosphate pesticides, and organochlorine pesticides, such as Mecoprop (MCPP), Dinoseb, chlordane, dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and dichloro-diphenyldichloroethylene (DDE). Other chemicals may also be present due to other built-up uses.

As described in the Environmental Setting, there is a historical record of soil contamination at the Proposed Constance-Sierra Elementary School site, the Parc West Development (previously known as the Westlake Proposed 430 Acre Development), and the West Shields Elementary School site, each of which are at differing levels of cleanup status. Therefore, there is the potential for other sites to have experienced contamination or have a history of hazardous materials being used as part of previous or current operations. Implementation of the Specific Plan could involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with future construction and/or remediation activities. The transport of hazardous materials and any potential remediation activities would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations. Additionally, the proposed project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-10, which provide requirements for any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well; require Phase I and Phase II site assessments, and other remediation activities including surveys and assessments, cleanup plans, programs, and activities, as applicable; and requires actions to ensure that developing a property within the Plan Area does not present an unacceptable risk to human health, if applicable, through the use of an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP). Therefore, the potential for existing or new hazards within the Plan Area or generated by the proposed project is limited.

Additional requirements include those related to evaluation of potential asbestos and lead prior to planned renovation or demolition of residential and/or commercial structures in the Plan Area, and soil sampling for hazardous materials. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-10 would reduce potential impacts that could occur due to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment associated with construction activities within the Plan area to a less than significant level.

Response A-3: This commenter summarizes the Westlake Proposed 430 Acre Development site location and notes that a Phase 1 prepared for the site listed site development issues that included an approximately 10,000-gallon diesel fuel aboveground storage tank (AST), a liquid fertilizer AST, and two empty fertilizer ASTs. Additionally, the commenter recommends COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-9 that any parties interested in developing the Westlake property enter a VCA with DTSC in order to assure that any contaminants of potential concern are addressed.

As noted in Response A-2, the Parc West Development site was previously known as the Westlake Proposed 430 Acre Development (Westlake). A Draft EIR was completed for the Parc West Development Project in June 2020. The Draft EIR for the Parc West Development Project includes Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 which address potential hazardous materials impacts. Additionally, Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR for the proposed West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-10 which address potential hazardous materials impacts. Any parties interested in developing the Westlake property will enter a VCA with DTSC in order to assure that any contaminants of potential concern are addressed.

Response A-4: This commenter states that the EIR should acknowledge the potential for historic or future activities on or near the project site to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances on the project site. The commenter also states that, in instances in which releases have occurred or may occur, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. The commenter concludes by stating that the EIR should also identify the mechanism(s) to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation and the government agency who will be responsible for providing appropriate regulatory oversight.

Impacts associated with 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 are discussed on pages 3.8-21 through 3.8-26. As discussed, construction activities would occur in phases through the implementation of the Specific Plan.

Construction equipment and materials would likely require the use of petroleum-based products (oil, gasoline, diesel fuel), and a variety of chemicals including paints, cleaners, and solvents. The use of these materials at a construction site will pose a reasonable risk of release into the environment if not properly handled, stored, and transported.

Additionally, properties within the Plan Area may have residual soil (and potentially groundwater) contamination that may require remediation. Also, potentially hazardous building materials (e.g., asbestos containing materials, lead-based paint, etc.) could be encountered during demolition of existing structures to accommodate new development.

Further, there is the potential for other sites to have experienced contamination or have a history of hazardous materials being used as part of previous or current operations.

Lastly, with respect to operations, facilities that store, use or handle hazardous materials above reportable amounts are required to prepare and file a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (Business Plan) for the safe storage and use of chemicals.

The Draft EIR includes Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 thorough 3.8-10 to address these potential impacts:

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-10 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Prior to bringing hazardous materials onsite, the applicant shall submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to Fresno County Environmental Health Division (CUPA) for review and approval. If during the construction process the applicant or their subcontractors generates hazardous waste, the applicant must register with the CUPA as a generator of hazardous waste, obtain an EPA ID# and accumulate, ship and dispose of the hazardous waste per Health and Safety Code Ch. 6.5. (California Hazardous Waste Control Law).

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

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

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

The Phase II ESA may include but may not be limited to the following: (1) Collection and laboratory analysis of soils and/or groundwater samples to ascertain the presence or absence of significant concentrations of constituents of concern; (2) Collection and laboratory analysis of soil vapors and/or indoor air to ascertain the presence or absence of significant concentrations of volatile constituents of concern; and/or (3) Geophysical surveys to ascertain the presence or absence of subsurface features of concern such as USTs, drywells, drains, plumbing, and septic systems. The findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA shall become the basis for potential recommendations for follow-up investigation, site characterization, and/or remedial activities, if found to be warranted.

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

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-11 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 construction, from exposure to residual contamination in soil and groundwater in connection with remediation and site development activities and the proposed land use.

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

Soil vapor mitigations or controls could include passive venting and/or active venting. The vapor intrusion assessment as associated vapor controls or source removal can be incorporated into the ESMP.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-9: In the event of planned renovation or demolition of residential and/or commercial structures on the subject site, prior to the issuance of demolition permits, asbestos and lead based paint (LBP) surveys shall be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and/or LBP.

Removal of friable ACM, and non-friable ACMs that have the potential to become friable, during demolition and/or renovation shall conform to the standards set forth by the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is the responsible agency on the local level to enforce the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) and shall be notified by the property owners and/or developers of properties

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-12 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (or their designee(s)) prior to any demolition and/or renovation activities. If asbestoscontaining 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.

Response A-5: This commenter states that aerially deposited lead (ADL)-contaminated soils still exist along roadsides and medians and can also be found underneath some existing road surfaces due to past construction activities. Due to the potential for ADL-contaminated soil DTSC, recommends collecting soil samples for lead analysis prior to performing any intrusive activities for the project described in the EIR.

As discussed in Response A-4, impacts associated with 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 are discussed on pages 3.8-21 through 3.8-26.

As discussed, the proposed project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-10, which provide requirements for any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well; require Phase I and Phase II site assessments, and other remediation activities including surveys and assessments, cleanup plans, programs, and activities, as applicable; and requires actions to ensure that developing a property within the Plan Area does not present an unacceptable risk to human health, if applicable, through the use of an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP).

Soil sampling will occur, if warranted by the Phase I ESA. The two most pertinent Draft EIR mitigation measures regarding this comment are included below:

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-13 The Phase II ESA may include but may not be limited to the following: (1) Collection and laboratory analysis of soils and/or groundwater samples to ascertain the presence or absence of significant concentrations of constituents of concern; (2) Collection and laboratory analysis of soil vapors and/or indoor air to ascertain the presence or absence of significant concentrations of volatile constituents of concern; and/or (3) Geophysical surveys to ascertain the presence or absence of subsurface features of concern such as USTs, drywells, drains, plumbing, and septic systems. The findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA shall become the basis for potential recommendations for follow-up investigation, site characterization, and/or remedial activities, if found to be warranted.

Response A-6: This commenter states that if buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Mitigation Measure 3.8-9 on pages 3.8-25 and 3.8-26 requires surveys for lead-based paints and/or asbestos containing materials. This measure has been revised to address this comment by adding lead-based products, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revisions, which are reproduced below:

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), lead based products, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk surveys shall be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of asbestos-containing materials (ACM), and/or LBP, mercury, and/or polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. 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).

Response A-7: This commenter states that if any projects initiated as part of the proposed project require the importation of soil to backfill any excavated areas, proper sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination.

Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR includes the following mitigation measure, which requires that imported soil 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 DTSC or the Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) requirements.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-14 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Response A-8: This commenter states any sites included as part of the proposed project that have been used for agricultural, weed abatement or related activities, proper investigation for organochlorinated pesticides should be discussed in the EIR.

As discussed on page 3.8-22 of Section 3.8, “Like most agricultural and farming operations in the Central Valley, agricultural practices in the area have used agricultural chemicals including pesticides and herbicides as a standard practice. Residual concentrations of pesticides may be present in soil as a result of historic agricultural application and storage.

Continuous spraying of crops over many years can potentially result in a residual buildup of pesticides in farm soils. Of highest concern relative to agrichemicals are chemicals such as chlorinated herbicides, organophosphate pesticides, and organochlorine pesticides, such as Mecoprop (MCPP), Dinoseb, chlordane, dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethylene (DDE). Other chemicals may also be present due to other built-up uses. […]
The transport of hazardous materials and any potential remediation activities would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations. Additionally, the proposed project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-10, which provide requirements for any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well; require Phase I and Phase II site assessments, and other remediation activities including surveys and assessments, cleanup plans, programs, and activities, as applicable; and requires actions to ensure that developing a property within the Plan Area does not present an unacceptable risk to human health, if applicable, through the use of an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP). Therefore, the potential for existing or new hazards within the Plan Area or generated by the proposed project is limited. Additional requirements include those related to evaluation of potential asbestos and lead prior to planned renovation or demolition of residential and/or commercial structures in the Plan Area, and soil sampling for hazardous materials. Implementation of Mitigation Measures

3.8-1 through 3.8-10 would reduce potential impacts that could occur due to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment associated with construction activities within the Plan area to a less than significant level.”
The relevant Mitigation Measures which pertain to proper investigation for organochlorinated pesticides are included below:

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 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-15 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 3.8-6: 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.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-16 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan to human health, including workers during and after construction, from exposure to residual contamination in soil and groundwater in connection with remediation and site development activities and the proposed land use.

Response A-9: This comment is noted. This comment serves as a conclusion to the letter and does not warrant a response. No further response is necessary.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-17

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-18 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-19 Response to Letter B: California Department of Transportation Response B-1: The commenter correctly summarizes the location of the Plan Area, and the development potential that could result from buildout of the Plan.

This comment serves as an introduction to the comment letter. See Responses B-2 through B-11.

Response B-2: The commenter states the following: “Caltrans anticipates the implementation of this Specific Plan in itself may not substantially increase transportation impacts to the State Highway System. However, subsequent individual developments may be found to have this type of impact.”
This comment is acknowledged by the City. Impacts related to transportation are included in Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR. All impacts were determined to be less-than-significant or less-than-significant with mitigation. It is also noted that 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, including documentation regarding potential transportation impacts to the State Highway System.

Response B-3: The commenter states the following: “Individual developments should address the potential traffic safety impacts to the State Highway System. If project generated trips cause substantial speed differentials between off‐ramp queues and the (SR) 99 freeway mainline, mitigation may be needed to address the safety impact. If project generated trips cause queuing to exceed intersection turn lane storage lengths, mitigation may be needed to address the safety impact.”
This comment is acknowledged by the City. As noted in Response B-2, impacts were determined to be less-than-significant or less-than-significant with mitigation. It is also noted that 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, including documentation regarding potential transportation impacts to the State Highway System, including safety.

Response B-4: The commenter states the following: “Traffic safety mitigation may include the addition of turn lanes, lengthening the turn lane lengths, adding additional turning lanes for storage capacity, and intersection control modifications to accommodate turning movements.”
This comment is acknowledged by the City. See Response B-3.

Response B-5: The commenter states the following: “Future development(s) should also consider traffic safety impacts on the State Highway System due to new pedestrian and bicyclist needs based on new origins or destinations that intersect a State Route. Additionally, multimodal conflict points and change in traffic composition (such as an increase in

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-20 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan bicyclists or pedestrians, where features such as shoulders or sidewalks may not exist or are inconsistent with facility design) should also be considered.” This comment is acknowledged by the City. See Response B-3. As noted in Impact 3.14-1 in Section 3.14, development associated with the proposed Plan would increase the amount of multimodal transportation activity which would require the improvement and expansion of the local transportation network in the Plan Area to serve the associated travel demand. The Specific Plan has a strong emphasis on Complete Neighborhoods, which is a tool to achieve environmental justice. Section 5.4 of the Specific Plan includes a series of maps which show a reasonable walkshed from existing and planned schools; bus stops; commercial uses; and existing and planned parks. Further, the Specific Plan includes Policy IPR 1.12, which states: “IPR 1.12 Improve multimodal transportation access across Highway 99 by a) completing the Veterans Boulevard interchange project and the underpass at West Gettysburg Avenue, b) consider updating the ATP and General Plan to include potential future multimodal crossings (such as an extension of Cornelia Avenue either across Highway 99 or from Shaw to the future undercrossing at Gettysburg Avenue), and c) update Golden State Avenue in the ATP and General Plan to have enhanced bike facilities.”
Overall, 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
Response B-6: The commenter states the following: “Future development(s) should conduct a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) study for projects that may substantially induce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the project site should be considered in this study. The project proponents should also consider coordinating with nearby planned bike networks for a larger active transportation network. The City should consider creating a VMT Mitigation Impact Fee to help reduce potential impacts on the State Highway System.”
This comment is acknowledged by the City. 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 future examination would include, as determined necessary by the City, a VMT analysis. It is also noted that the City of Fresno is working on a VMT Mitigation Program.

Response B-7: The commenter states the following: “For future residential development, Caltrans recommends project proponents consider working with the City to convert a portion of the planned residential units to affordable housing units.” While this comment does not specifically pertain to CEQA or the EIR for the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan, this comment is acknowledged by the City.

Response B-8: The commenter states the following: “The City should establish policies for the installation of Level 2 Electric Vehicle (EV) charging for single- and multi-family residential COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-21 units as well as DC Fast Charging EV charging stations for retail, commercial, park and public facilities.”
While this comment does not specifically pertain to CEQA or the EIR for the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan, this comment is acknowledged by the City.

As noted on page 3.7-27 of Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy, the City’s General Plan includes the following policies pertaining to EVs:

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.

It is also noted that the City’s GHG Plan Update provides a description of General Plan policies that support a reduction in GHGs from all sources within the City’s ability to control or influence. These strategies enhance the effectiveness of State strategies by ensuring that the city is developed in ways that minimize emissions. In order to reach the long-term reduction targets, the City would also need to implement local reduction measures. These measures encourage VMT reductions through mixed use and infill development, transportation demand management, development and penetration of EVs, energy efficiency enhancement and conservation, water conservation, and increased waste diversion and recycling strategies. Public education and outreach would play a crucial role in educating stakeholders about the importance of implementing these measures.

Analysis of GHG emissions and potential climate change impacts for new development is required under CEQA. The GHG Plan Update provides strategies and guidelines for the reduction of GHG emissions in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. A GHG Reduction Plan Consistency Checklist (Checklist) is presented in the Plan to provide a streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Individual development that requires further discretionary approvals will be examined in light of this EIR to determine whether additional environmental documentation must be prepared, including documentation regarding VMT reductions.

Response B-9: The commenter states the following: “Caltrans recommends the Project implement multimodal strategies, such as those that originate from Transit-oriented development (TOD), in an effort to further reduce future projects’ traffic related impacts.” A multimodal transportation system would be provided in conjunction with future development of the Plan Area. The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan seeks to

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-22 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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.

Response B-10: The commenter states the following: “Active Transportation Plans and Smart Growth efforts support the state’s 2050 Climate goals. Caltrans supports reducing VMT and GHG emissions in ways that increase the likelihood people will use and benefit from a multimodal transportation network.”
While this comment does not specifically pertain to CEQA or the EIR for the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan, this comment is acknowledged by the City.

Response B-11: The commenter states the following: “Early engagement with Caltrans is highly requested for future projects that would impact state right-of-way.” This comment is acknowledged by the City. Future development projects in the Plan Area would be reviewed by the City of Fresno, particularly those which have the potential to impact State right-of-way. As noted on page 3.14-19 of Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR, the future roadway improvements that would result with implementation of the Specific Plan would be subject to review and future consideration by the City of Fresno. An evaluation of the roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features would be needed. Roadway improvements would be made in accordance with the City’s Circulation Plan, roadway functional design guidelines, and would have to meet design guidelines such as the accessibility requirements of Title 24 (California Building Code), ADA standards, California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and the Caltrans Roadway Design Manual.

Response B-12: This comment is noted. This comment serves as a conclusion to the letter and does not warrant a response. No further response is necessary.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-23

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-24 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-25

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-26 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-27 Response to Letter C: City of Fresno, Fresno Area Express Response C-1: The commenter states the following: “We’ve read through the draft EIR for the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan and have only a few minor, non‐substantive comments/corrections, as shown below. Thanks for the opportunity to review.” This comment serves as an introduction to the comment letter. See Responses C-2 through C-4.

Response C-2: The commenter lists three minor, non‐substantive comments/corrections to page 3.14-

5. These revisions have been made to Section 3.14 of the Draft EIR. See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revisions, which are reproduced below:

FAX operates two three routes that directly serve the Plan Area through curbside bus stops, with additional service coming into the Plan Area in 2021. Bus service on these routes is detailed in Table 3.14-1 with the routes near the Plan Area shown in Figure

3.14-3.

TABLE 3.14-1: BUS ROUTES SERVING THE PLAN AREA

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

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

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

Response C-3: The commenter lists three minor, non‐substantive comments/corrections to page 3.14-

6. These revisions have been made to Section 3.14 of the Draft EIR. See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revisions, which are reproduced below:

Route 35 provides local commuter and weekend served service with the route originating or terminating in the Plan Area at Shields Avenue/Brawley Avenue and on the east side of Fresno at the intersection of Belmont Avenue/Clovis Avenue. In the Plan Area, the route provides fixed stops along Brawley and Clinton Avenues, as well as Marks and Olive Avenues. Key destinations served by the route include the DMV, Talking Book Library, Post Office, and the Social Security Office.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-28 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Route 39 provides local commuter and weekend service with the route originating or terminating at Brawley Avenue/Shields Avenue intersection and Fresno Yosemite International Air Terminal. Between these two origin/destinations, Route 39 runs in a loop from Clinton Avenue/Marks Avenue to Brawley Avenue/Shields Avenue in the Plan Area where it has fixed stops. Key destinations served include Fresno High School, Fresno City College, Veteran’s Medical Center, and Alliant University, and the Fresno Yosemite International Airport.

Response C-4: The commenter provides one minor, non‐substantive comment/correction to Figure

3.14-3. This revision has been made to Section 3.14 of the Draft EIR. See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revision; the final version of this revised figure is reproduced below:

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-29

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-30 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Response to Letter D: County of Fresno, Department of Agriculture & Weights and Measures
Response D-1: The commenter states the following: “Along the boundary of Garfield Ave, Shields Ave, Grantland Ave, and Clinton Ave, and within the boundaries of the plan, there are properties which are existing agricultural operations. There is always the concern that normal agricultural practices may affect residents, schools, commercial sites or business employees. Tractor activity will create noise and dust, while crops will have scheduled pesticide treatments. Both must be taken in to account by the City of Fresno. There should be no medium to high density housing along the stated border or adjacent to agricultural operations within the boundaries.” The commenter also states that the City should acknowledge the County Right to Farm ordinance (Sections 17.04.100 and 17.72.075).

The commenter summarizes the Right to Farm ordinance, and further states the following: “The Fresno County “Right to Farm” ordinance 17.04.100 and 17.72.075 shall be presented to the applicant so that any necessary mitigation measures can be considered by any developer, resident, commercial site, or facility to minimize any potential discomfort or risk.

Fresno County Right-to-Farm Notice: ‘It is the declared policy of Fresno County to preserve, protect, and encourage development of its agricultural land and industries for the production of food and other agricultural products. Residents of property in or near agricultural districts should be prepared to accept the inconveniencies and discomfort associated with normal farm activities. Consistent with this policy, California Civil Code 3482.5 (right-to-farm law) provides that an agricultural pursuit, as defined, maintained for commercial uses shall not become a nuisance due to a changed condition in a locality after such agricultural pursuit has been in operation for three years.’” This comment is noted. The County’s Right to Farm Ordinance is discussed on page 3.2- 13 of Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. As discussed, 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.

In order to further address this comment, revisions were made to Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR. See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revisions, which are reproduced below:

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-31 LOCAL
Fresno County Right to Farm Ordinance
The Fresno County “Right to Farm” Ordinance is discussed in Section 17.04.100 of the County Code. This ordinance helps protect farming operations from interruptions due to land use conflicts with adjacent properties. The intent of the ordinance is to allow farmers to conduct normal farming operations (harvest crops, till soil, or spray crops) without interference from nearby land owners. In essence, it allows farmers to conduct their operations as needed.

Fresno County Right-to-Farm Notice states the following: ‘It is the declared policy of Fresno County to preserve, protect, and encourage development of its agricultural land and industries for the production of food and other agricultural products. Residents of property in or near agricultural districts should be prepared to accept the inconveniencies and discomfort associated with normal farm activities. Consistent with this policy, California Civil Code 3482.5 (right-to-farm law) provides that an agricultural pursuit, as defined, maintained for commercial uses shall not become a nuisance due to a changed condition in a locality after such agricultural pursuit has been in operation for three years.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-32 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan E-1
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-33 Response to Letter E: County of Fresno, Department of Public Works and Planning
Response E-1: The commenter provides introductory statements regarding the Project understanding and location. The commenter also states that, “The Fresno County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division has reviewed the Draft EIR for the proposed project and concurs with the information contained herein. This Department would appreciate the opportunity to review the final EIR and requests inclusion in its routing. (Electronic preferred).”
This comment is noted. The City of Fresno has added the Fresno County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division to the notification list for this Project; as such, the Final EIR will be routed to the Fresno County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-34 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-35 Response to Letter F: Daniel Brannick
Response F-1: The commenter states that, “After reviewing the Draft EIR, I wanted to propose are few revisions to the mitigation measures that have been included to address impacts related to Agricultural Resources and Public Services and Recreation.” See Responses F-2 and F-3.

Response F-2: The commenter states that the proposed Specific Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact due to the conversion of Farmland and conflicts with agricultural zoning. The commenter states that there is no language in Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 or

3.2-2 specifying the location of where such mitigation would take place. The commenter further states the following: “While protection of agricultural resources is considered important at the statewide level, it is of heightened importance in Fresno County (and specifically the West Area) due to the substantial role that agriculture plays in our local culture, economy, and physical landscapes. In order to ensure that the mitigating effects of the proposed mitigation measures are realized locally, Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 and

3.2-2 should be amended to stipulate that such mitigation occurs locally. In this context, “locally” could mean that the mitigation take place within Fresno County, within a certain distance of the Plan Area, and/or on land located west of CA-99.” Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, of the Draft EIR have been revised. See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revisions, which are reproduced below:

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. For mitigation options which would preserve off-site agricultural lands, the lands shall occur locally, and the definition of “locally” shall be determined in consultation with the City of Fresno. 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.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-36 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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. For mitigation options which would preserve off-site agricultural lands, the lands shall occur locally, and the definition of “locally” shall be determined in consultation with the City of Fresno.

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

Response F-2: The commenter states the following: “In Mitigation Measures 3.13-3 and 3.13-4, which address impacts related to parks and other public facilities, there is language stating that “environmental review of proposed facilities shall be completed to meet the requirements of CEQA.” Because compliance with CEQA is already a requirement under state law (rather than a discretionary measure to avoid or reduce a significant environmental impact), I believe it would be appropriate to 1) eliminate the quoted text from the list of mitigation measures, and 2) revise the text of the Draft EIR as necessary to indicate that future projects will be subject to compliance with CEQA along with other regulations, standards, and policies addressing potential environmental effects associated with those projects.”
Pages 3.13-36 and 3.13-37 of Section 3.13, Public Services and Recreation, of the Draft EIR have been revised. See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revisions, which are reproduced below:

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

Further, as detailed plans for future parks and recreational facilities in the Plan Area are submitted to the City, environmental review of proposed facilities would be completed to meet the requirements of CEQA. Typical impacts from park facilities include air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, and lighting It is noted, however, that future development of 118.8 acres of park space within the Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts

3.3-1 through 3.3-3), and utilities (Impacts 3.15-1 through 3.15-3). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in this Draft EIR, impacts related to constructing new park facilities to serve the Plan Area are considered significant and unavoidable.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-37

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

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-38 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

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

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-39

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-40 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-41

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-42 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-43

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-44 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-45

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-46 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-47

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-48 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-49

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-50 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-51

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-52 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-53

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-54 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-55

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-56 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-57

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-58 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-59

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-60 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-61

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-62 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-63

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-64 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-65

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-66 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-67

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-68 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-69

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-70 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-71

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-72 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-73

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-74 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-75

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-76 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Response to Letter G: Fresno Irrigation District
Response G-1: The commenter provides an introduction to the Draft EIR comment letter and states the following: “FID previously reviewed and commented on the subject documents on July 26, 2019, as City of Fresno West Area Specific Plan Notice of Preparation. Those comments and conditions still apply and a copy has been attached for your review.” This comment is noted. The Fresno Irrigation District (FID) provided a Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letter on July 26, 2019. However, the comment letter was erroneously not included in the Draft EIR. As a result, Appendix A of the Draft EIR, which includes the NOP and NOP comments, has been revised to include the FID NOP comment letter. The FID NOP comment letter is also responded to in Responses G-6 through G-11 below.

Response G-2: The commenter states that FID will continue to access its canal(s) from public roads, which requires a drive approach wide enough to accommodate the equipment. The commenter describes the major factors that affect accessing the canals from public roads. The commenter further states the following: “If guard railings extend beyond attachment points at each wing-wall, they will obstruct FID’s access to the canal and additional rightof-way will need to be acquired. FID will require the developer demonstrate FlD’s longest vehicle will be able to make the turns onto the drive banks. FID’s right-of-way is a minimum 20-feet from the canal hinge on both sides of the canal, and FID will require the developer acquire and dedicate to FID exclusive easements for this purpose.” The proposed Specific Plan refines the General Plan’s land use vision for the Plan Area.

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 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. As such, future development in accordance with the Specific Plan would not preclude the FID from accessing its canals from public roads.

While the comment does not raise questions about adequacy of the Draft EIR, or a CEQA topic, this comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration of topics beyond environmental impacts.

Response G-3: The commenter states that if there will be work on canal banks, three listed conditions pertaining to concrete lining for in-channel disturbed soil, slopes for drive banks, and removal of trees, bushes, debris, old canal structures, pumps, canal gates, and other nonor in-active FID and private structures.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-77 As noted in Response G-2, future development in accordance with the Specific Plan would not preclude the FID from accessing its canals (or working on any canal banks).

Response G-4: The commenter states the following: “It is FID’s understanding that many trails are master-planned within the Southeast Development Area. As with other developments with trails along the canals, FID will not allow the trail to encroach/overlap FID’s canal easement unless an agreement is in place for this purpose. The following requirements are intended for trail projects adjacent to FID-owned properties and rights-of-ways for open canals:
a. FID will not allow the trail easement to be in common use with FID-owned property or easements.
b. FID requires all trail improvements be placed outside of FID-owned properties and easements.
c. FID will not allow any portion of a tree canopy to encroach within its properties or easements.
d. FID’s canals will not accept any drainage from the trail or the canal bank. e. FID may require some improvements be made to the canal depending on the existing canal condition, the proposed trail, and the adjacent development. f. City parks that are adjacent to open canals are treated the same as trails, therefore the same requirements shall apply.”
The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan is not within the Southeast Development Area, as noted in the comment. However, we have assumed the FID erroneously mentioned the Southeast Development Area instead of the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Area. Future development in accordance with the Specific Plan would comply with these conditions pertaining to trails along FID canals. While the comment does not raise questions about adequacy of the Draft EIR, or a CEQA topic, this comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration of topics beyond environmental impacts.

Response G-5: This comment is noted. This comment serves as a conclusion to the Draft EIR comment letter and does not warrant a response. No further response is necessary.

Response G-6: This comment is noted. This comment serves as an introduction to the NOP comment letter and summarizes the location of the proposed Plan Area. The commenter also states that the proposed Project is a significant development and requires thorough and careful consideration of potential impacts. Please see Responses G-7 through G-11 for detailed responses to the FID’s comments.

Response G-7: The commenter states the following: “FID has many canals within the Project Area as shown on the attached FID exhibit map. The facilities include: Herndon No. 39, Epstein

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-78 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan No. 48, Silvia No. 47, Minor-Thornton No. 459, Teague School No. 46, Tracy No.44, and Victoria Colony No. 43. FID’s canals range from smaller diameter pipelines to large open canals. In most cases, the existing facilities will need to be upgraded to meet current urban standards or relocated by the developer to accommodate new urban developments and provide for public safety which will require new pipelines and new exclusive easements. FID will impose the same conditions on future projects as it would with any other project located within the common boundary of the City of Fresno and FID including, but not limited to requirements from FID specified exclusive easements, access points, and drive approaches at all road crossings. Additionally, FID will also require all impacted open channel drive banks, to be built out to FID specified widths, heights, and overlaid with all-weather road. FID will require that it review and approve all maps and plans which impact FID canals and easements.”
This comment is noted. The FID facilities listed in the comment are discussed throughout the Draft EIR, as applicable, and are shown in Figure 3.9-2, Fresno Irrigation District Pipelines and Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District Basins, of Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. Stormwater drainage facilities in the Plan Area, including drainage irrigation canals owned by FID, are also discussed in Section 3.15, Utilities and Service Systems.

Impacts associated with stormwater drainage facilities are discussed in Impact 3.15-5 of Section 3.15 of the Draft EIR. As discussed on page 3.15-35, “Installation of storm drainage infrastructure would occur during the construction phases of individual future projects within the Plan Area. There is significant storm drainage infrastructure remaining to be constructed to serve the Plan Area. About 32 miles of additional drainage pipelines is anticipated to be constructed to meet buildout needs.” Additionally, as noted on page

3.9-23 of Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR, “The current drainage system in the Plan Area discharges to a system of ponding basins, irrigation canals, and the San Joaquin River, but is operated and maintained to retain and infiltrate as much runoff as possible into the underlying groundwater aquifer. Future development would include water quality BMPs, detention basins, and retention basins designed to minimize or eliminate increases in runoff from these new impervious surfaces entering existing surface water courses and existing storm drains. Peak runoff and total volume of runoff will be minimized by future development of storm drainage design which retains water to the maximum extent possible. Consequently, infiltration into the groundwater aquifers will be maximized to the extent possible through the storm drainage design.” As such, upgrades to the irrigation canals and stormwater drainage system will occur, as needed, associated with future buildout of the Plan Area.

Response G-8: The commenter states that FID will require all open channels and existing pipelines impacted by future development of the Specific Plan be upgraded to meet FID’s current standards, including for road or highway crossings. The commenter also states that the majority of the FID facilities in the Plan Area were designed for a rural environment and must be replaced as development occurs. Further, the commenter states that COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-79 development impacts to the Herndorn Canal No. 39 facility shall require designs that protect the canal’s integrity for an urban setting including the need for access and full right-of-way widths for FID’s operations and maintenance needs.

This comment is noted. Please see Response G-7. As noted, upgrades to the irrigation canals and stormwater drainage system will occur, as needed, associated with future buildout of the Plan Area.

Response G-9: The commenter states the following: “FID’s facilities that are within the Planning Area carry irrigation water for FID users, recharge water for the City of Fresno, and flood waters during the winter months. In addition to FlD’s facilities, private facilities also traverse the Planned Area.”
The FID facilities are discussed throughout the Draft EIR, as applicable, and are shown in Figure 3.9-2, Fresno Irrigation District Pipelines and Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District Basins, of Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. Stormwater drainage facilities in the Plan Area, including drainage irrigation canals owned by FID, are also discussed in Section 3.15, Utilities and Service Systems.

While this comment does not specifically pertain to CEQA or the EIR for the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan, this comment is acknowledged by the City.

Response G-10:The commenter states background information regarding Growth Area 1 of the Cooperative Water Utilization and Conveyance Agreement, and states that “Areas that are outside of the said Conveyance Agreement or within Growth Area 2 are not entitled to waters from FID.” The commenter also provides background information regarding the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), and concludes that “the City of Fresno should consider the potential impacts of the development on the City's ability to comply with requirements of SGMA.” The commenter concludes by stating that, “Should the proposed developments result in a greater consumption of groundwater, this deficit will increase. FID suggests the City of Fresno require balancing anticipated groundwater use with sufficient recharge of imported surface water to preclude increasing the area's existing groundwater overdraft and require the use of reclaimed water or other conservation methods.”
This comment is noted. Impacts associated with groundwater recharge are discussed in Impact 3.9-3 of Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR. The SGMA is also discussed in the Regulatory Setting section of Section 3.9. As part of the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program, DWR is required to prioritize California groundwater basins to help identify, evaluate, and determine the need for additional groundwater level monitoring. Per the current CASGEM draft prioritization, completed in April 2019, the Kings Subbasin is a high priority subbasin.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-80 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan to not only City-owned basins, but also to specific facilities owned and operated by these two agencies. The City has averaged over 60,000 AFY the previous five years and plans to gradually increase recharge by about 540 AFY each year. However, during wet years the City will recharge more water when it is available to allow to the City to draw on additional groundwater during dry years when surface water is not available.

Additionally, impacts associated with water supply availability are discussed in Impact

3.15-4 of Section 3.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR. A Water Supply Assessment was completed for the proposed Project, which accounts for the City’s existing and future water supply portfolio. As discussed, the proposed Specific Plan would be served from the City’s existing and future water supplies. The City currently receives water from four water supply sources: surface water from the FID Agreement for Kings River water, surface water from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division Contract for San Joaquin River water, groundwater that is pumped from wells in the City, and recycled water (planned to be used for non-potable uses).

The City of Fresno forecasts that it will have sufficient water supplies for demands in its service area over the 2020 to 2040 period in normal, single-dry-year, and multiple-dryyear conditions. Additionally, the Specific Plan water demand is not expected to exceed the City’s supplies in any normal, single dry, or multiple dry year between 2020 and 2040.

Response G-11:This comment is noted. This comment serves as a conclusion to the NOP comment letter.

No further response is necessary.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-81

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-82 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-83

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-84 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-85

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-86 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-87

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-88 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-89

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-90 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-91

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-92 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-93

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-94 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-95

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-96 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-97

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-98 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-99

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-100 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-101

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-102 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-103

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-104 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-105

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-106 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-107

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-108 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-109

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-110 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-111

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-112 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-113 Response to Letter H: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District Response H-1: The commenter states that the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) has adopted storm drainage Master Plan systems for the areas located within the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan, which are based on the previously adopted General Plan and Specific Plan land uses. The commenter also states the following: “As noted in FMFCD’s prior letter dated August 1, 2019, in Master Plan areas where no drainage facilities have been constructed, the Master Plan can be revised to accommodate new land uses and pipe alignments within the Plan Area. For areas that have existing drainage facilities and propose changes to land uses that generate more runoff than originally planned, some type of mitigation to accommodate the increased flow such as parallel pipes and/or on-site retention may be required. FMFCD also previously identified properties within the Plan Area that may require some form of mitigation. Additional properties have been identified due to revisions of the Plan Area land uses shown on Figure 2.0-7 and all properties requiring mitigation are shown on the attached Exhibit No.

1. Please see Response H-2 regarding increased flows resulting from future development of the Plan Area.

Response H-2: The commenter states the following: “Page ES-29, Impact Number 3.9-4: Include mitigation may be required in areas with existing drainage facilities where land use changes increase runoff.”
Impacts associated with operational runoff are discussed in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. See pages 3.9-19 through 3.9-22. As discussed, “The majority of development allowed under the Specific Plan would be within areas currently developed with urban uses, and the amount and type of runoff generated by various future development and infrastructure projects would be similar to existing conditions.

However, new development and infrastructure projects on lands that are used for agricultural operations, or are vacant and undeveloped, have the potential to result in increases in the amount of impervious surfaces throughout the Plan Area. The undeveloped and underdeveloped lands which do not contain impervious surfaces are scattered throughout the Plan Area, but are mainly located along the western and southern fringes. Future increases in impervious surfaces would result in increased urban runoff, pollutants, and first flush roadway contaminants, as well as an increase in nutrients and other chemicals from landscaped areas. These constituents could result in water quality impacts to onsite and offsite drainage flows to area waterways.” Additionally, as discussed on page 3.9-20, “Due to future development and implementation of new infrastructure anticipated by the Specific Plan, the overall volume of runoff in Fresno could be increased compared to existing conditions. If the FMFCD drainage system is not adequately designed, Specific Plan buildout could result in localized higher peak flow rates. Localized increases in flow would be significant if increases exceeded system capacity or contribute to bank erosion. Each future

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-114 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan development and infrastructure project is required to prepare a detailed project specific drainage plan and a SWPPP that will control storm water runoff and erosion, both during and after construction. If the project involves the discharge into surface waters, the project proponent will need to acquire a Dewatering permit, NPDES permit, and Waste Discharge permit from the CVRWQCB.”
In order to address runoff resulting from future development of the Plan Area, the City is required to implement a range of measures and procedures when reviewing new development and infrastructure projects. For example, Chapter 6, Municipal Services and Utilities, Article 7, Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control, of the Fresno Municipal Code establishes provisions regarding stormwater discharges. The purpose and intent of Article 7 is to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of residents, and to protect the water quality of surface water and groundwater resources in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Federal CWA by reducing pollutants in urban stormwater, discharges to the maximum extent practicable, and by effectively prohibiting non‐stormwater discharges to the storm drain system. Further, the grading plan check process is a review process that requires anyone who develops property:

1. Properly grade their property in accordance with the CBC.

2. Submit a grading plan showing the proposed grading of the development.

3. Obtain approval of the FMFCD indicating conformance of the grading plan with the Storm Drainage Master Plan.

4. Obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit and comply with the requirements of the permit, including developing an erosion control site plan.

In order to ensure that future development projects in the County do not increase downstream flood elevations due to increased peak stormwater runoff, the FMFCD requires future development projects to be designed in conformance to the FMFCD’s Urban Storm Drainage Master Plan to ensure storm drainage facilities are adequately designed and that the storm drain system has adequate storage capacity for additional stormwater runoff generated by the Specific Plan. Improvements to storm drainage facilities are accomplished either as a part of privately funded on-site developments or as a part of the master plan, funded by drainage fees. The FMFCD maintains an on-going update to the system hydraulic model for flood control and prepares a capital improvement plan update every year with projected funding for five years five years.

Surface runoff from the area will be managed via detention/retention basins and flow reducing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent local flooding within the various development sites within the overall Plan Area. These features will also reduce peak flows from the Plan Area to receiving storm drains and FMFCD facilities. Additionally, future development of the proposed Specific Plan would minimize or eliminate increases in runoff from these new impervious surfaces by runoff entering ditches and storm drains designed in conformance to FMFCD standards.

It is also noted that the proposed Specific Plan includes policies which would further ensure that water quality standards or waste discharge requirements are not violated COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-115 during operation of future projects in the Plan Area. For example, adequate stormwater and flooding infrastructure would be required for new development. Through compliance with the FMFCD’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan, City General Plan policies, City Municipal Code requirements, and proposed Specific Plan policies, the proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to operational runoff. As such, mitigation is not required.

Response H-3: The commenter states the following: “Figure 2.0-4: While we understand basin designations may not be able to change, we wish to point out existing Basin ‘CD’ needs to be added and Basin ‘AI’ should be designed as a ponding basin not neighborhood park.” This comment is noted. The comment pertains to the existing General Plan land use map.

The proposed Specific Plan land use map alleviates the concerns noted in this comment.

As such, the proposed Specific Plan land use map correctly reflects Basin CD and Basin AI.

Response H-4: The commenter states the following: “Page TOC-6 and 3.9-33 (Figure 3.9-2): The title should read ‘Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District Basin Facilities’. No additional FMFCD facilities such as pipelines are shown other than basins. Remove FMFCD from ‘FMFCD Features’. FID facilities are not part of FMFCD facilities.” This figure was revised to differentiate between FID pipelines and FMFCD facilities. See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revision; the final version of this revised figure is reproduced below:

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-116 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Response H-5: The commenter states the following: “Page 1.0-5: Include FMFCD as Responsible and Trustee Agency.”
This revision has been made to Chapter 1.0, Introduction, of the Draft EIR. See Chapter

3.0 of this Final EIR for the revision, which is reproduced below:

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);
• Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD);
• 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;
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-117 • Central Unified School District – Approval of school sites.

Response H-6: The commenter states the following: “Page 1.0-10; Paragraph 1.7-Item 9: Floor should be corrected to say Flood.”
This revision has been made to Chapter 1.0, Introduction, of the Draft EIR. See Chapter

3.0 of this Final EIR for the revision, which is reproduced below:

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 Flood 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) Response H-7: The commenter states the following: “Page 2.0-15: Include FMFCD as Responsible and Trustee Agency.”
This revision has been made to Chapter 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revision, which is reproduced below:

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);
• Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD);
•
• 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;

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-118 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Central Unified School District – Approval of school sites.

Response H-8: The commenter states the following: “Page 3.4-9; Paragraph 6: Update ‘680’ to ‘750’ miles. Revise last two sentences to include additional language such as ‘features’ and ‘basins’. I.e. ‘the FMFCD has planned for streets or other conveyance to move the excess runoff to the basins’ should read ‘the FMFCD has planned streets or other conveyance features to move excess runoff to the basins’ and ‘The FMFCD facilities in the Plan Area’ should read ‘The FMFCD basin facilities in the Plan Area’.” These revisions have been made to Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revisions, which are reproduced below:

Locally, the FMFCD drainage system consists of approximately 680 750 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 featuresto move the excess runoff to the basins. The FMFCD basin facilities in the Plan Area are shown in Figure

3.9-2 in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Response H-9: The commenter states the following: “Page 3.4-9; Paragraph 7: ‘Drainage channels within the Plan Area include’ should remove the word channels and be corrected to say ‘Drainage irrigation canals owned by FID within the Plan Area include’.” This revision has been made to Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revision, which is reproduced below: ‘ 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 irrigation canals owned by FID within the Plan Area include:

Response H-10: The commenter states the following: “Page 3.4-44: Remove the sentence ‘or permanent flood control/drainage facilities’. On-site ‘flood control’ facilities, i.e. ‘permanent basins’ will not be substituted for purpose of FMFCD basins or eliminate the need for payment of a drainage fee.”
This revision has been made to Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revision, which is reproduced below:

Policy POSS-5-e: Pursue development of conjunctive habitat and recreational trail uses in flood control and drainage projects.

The Specific Plan includes two policies which address flood protection and design. Policy IPR 2.9 states, “Plant locally appropriate, drought-tolerant landscaping and, where COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-119 possible, incorporate designs that can contribute to groundwater recharge, flood protection, and reduced urban heat island effects.” Policy LUH 5.1 states, “Update the Development Code so that when land proposed for urban development abuts active farmland, planned farmland, or rural residential, the development project shall include and provide for the maintenance of one of the following design features to provide a rural/urban buffer:
• Provide landscaping and setbacks to fully obscure the new development’s buildings and fences.
• Do not include fencing, or provide only see-through fencing no greater than four feet in height between the new development and the existing property. • Provide open space such as edible gardens, landscaped walkways, or permanent on-site flood control/drainage facilitiesrain gardens.
• Locate boundary streets between the new and existing developments.” It is noted that the City has opted to add “rain gardens” to this Specific Plan policy in place of the suggested deletion.

Response H-11:The commenter states the following: “Page 3.9-6 and 3.9-7: Correct content to reflect same comments in Item 7 and 8 above.”
These revisions have been made to Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revisions, which are reproduced below:

Locally, the FMFCD drainage system consists of approximately 680 750 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 features to move the excess runoff to the basins. The FMFCD basin facilities in the Plan Area are shown in Figure

3.9-2. Locally, the FMFCD drainage system consists of approximately 680 750 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 features to move the excess runoff to the basins. The FMFCD basin facilities in the Plan Area are shown in Figure 3.9-2.

Response H-12:The commenter states the following: “Page 3.9-7: Correct last sentence ‘capital improvement plan update every five years.’ to say ‘capital improvement plan update every year with projected funding for five years’.”
This revision has been made to Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR.

See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revision, which is reproduced below:

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-120 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Although the Plan Area’s northern boundary is very near the San Joaquin River, the area is not within a Special Flood Hazard Area. Local flooding can occur for events larger than a two-year event, but runoff is generally contained in the streets or other breakover easements. Such flooding is not reflected on FEMA’s maps. Improvements to storm drainage facilities are accomplished either as a part of privately funded on-site developments or as a part of the master plan, funded by drainage fees. FMFCD maintains an on-going update to the system hydraulic model for flood control and prepares a capital improvement plan update every year with projected funding for five years.

Response H-13: The commenter states the following: “Page 3.9-9; Paragraph 1: Revise first sentence ‘The current drainage system in the Plan Area discharges to a system of irrigation canals, creeks, and the San Joaquin River, but is designed to retain and infiltrate as much runoff as possible into the underlying ground water aquifer.’ to read ‘the current drainage system in the Plan Area discharges to a system of ponding basins, irrigation canals, and the San Joaquin River, but is operated and maintained to retain and infiltrate as much runoff as possible into the underlying groundwater aquifer’.” This revision has been made to Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR.

See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revision, which is reproduced below:

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 irrigation canals owned by FID within the Plan Area include:
• East Branch Victoria Canal • Teague School Canal
• Epstein Canal • Tracy Ditch
• Herndon Canal • West Branch Victoria Canal
• Minor Thornton Ditch • Wheaton Ditch
• Silvia Ditch • Austin Ditch
Response H-14: The commenter states the following: “Page 3.9-12: Revise Policy NS-3-b: ‘(FMFCD) to install curbing, gutters, and other drainage facilities….’ to read ‘(FMFCD) to install drainage facilities in conjunction with City installation of curb and gutter…..’.” This suggested revision to Policy NS-3-b on page 3.9-12 of Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, was not made because the text in question is a City General Plan Policy.

The Policy in question, which is quoted in the Draft EIR on page 3.9-12, is accurately cited.

As such, no revision is warranted.

Response H-15: The commenter states the following: “Page 3.9-22 and 3.9-23: Correct content to reflect same comments as Numbers 7 and 12 above.”
These revisions have been made to Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revisions, which are reproduced below:

The following changes were made to pages 3.9-6 and 3.9-7 of Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR:

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-121 Locally, the FMFCD drainage system consists of approximately 680 750 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 features to move the excess runoff to the basins. The FMFCD basin facilities in the Plan Area are shown in Figure

3.9-2.

The following changes were made to page 3.9-9 of Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR:

The current drainage system in the Plan Area discharges to a system of ponding basins, irrigation canals, creeks, and the San Joaquin River, but is designed to retain and infiltrate as much runoff as possible into the underlying groundwater aquifer. 303(D)IMPAIRED WATER BODIES
Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires States to identify waters that do not meet water quality standards or objectives and thus, are considered "impaired." Once listed, Section 303(d) mandates prioritization and development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The TMDL is a tool that establishes the allowable loadings or other quantifiable parameters for a waterbody and thereby the basis for the States to establish water quality-based controls. The purpose of TMDLs is to ensure that beneficial uses are restored and that water quality objectives are achieved.

Response H-16: The commenter states the following: “Pages 3.9-25, 3.15-15, 23-6.1.2.3 of West Yost document: Revise sentence ‘but also those of these two agencies’ to read ‘but also to specific facilities owned and operated by these two agencies’.” These revisions have been made to Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section

3.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR. See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revisions, which are reproduced below:

The following change was made to pages 3.9-24 and 3.9-25 of Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR:

The City has long made efforts toward offsetting the decline of groundwater levels and minimizing overdraft conditions through an active intentional recharge program that started in 1971. Through cooperative agreements with FMFCD and FID, the City has access to not only City-owned basins, but also those ofto specific facilities owned and operated by these two agencies. The City has averaged over 60,000 AFY the previous five years and plans to gradually increase recharge by about 540 AFY each year. However, during wet years the City will recharge more water when it is available to allow to the City to draw on additional groundwater during dry years when surface water is not available.

The following change was made to page 3.15-15 of Section 3.15 the Draft EIR:

The City has long made efforts toward offsetting the decline of groundwater levels and minimizing overdraft conditions through an active intentional recharge program that

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-122 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan started in 1971. Through cooperative agreements with Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) and FID, the City has access to not only City-owned basins, but also those ofto specific facilities owned and operated by these two agencies. The City has averaged over 60,000 AFY the previous five years and plans to gradually increase recharge by about 540 AFY each year. However, during wet years the City will recharge more water when it is available to allow to the City to draw on additional groundwater during dry years when surface water is not available.

The Water Supply Assessment was also revised, as shown:

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-123 Response H-17:The commenter states the following: “Page 3.15-27: Correct context to reflect same comments as Numbers 7 and 8 above.”

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-124 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan These revisions have been made to Section 3.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR. See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revisions, which are reproduced below:

Locally, the District’s drainage system consists of approximately 680 750 miles of pipeline and more than 150 stormwater retention basins. The storm drainage pipeline system is designed to accept the peak flow rate of runoff from a two-year intensity storm event (a storm that has a 50 percent probability of occurring in any given year). When storm events occur that exceed the two-year intensity, ponding begins to occur in the streets until the pipeline system can remove the water. In the event of larger storms, “major storm breakover”, the District has planned for streets or other conveyance facilities to move the excess runoff to the basins.

Response H-18: The commenter states the following: “Page 3.15-28: Correct second paragraph context to reflect same comments as Number 11 above.”
This revision has been made to Section 3.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR. See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revision, which is reproduced below:

Floodplain Mapping
Flood Hazards in the City are described in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)’s January 20, 2016 Flood Insurance Study but are largely based on hydraulic modeling performed in 1981. Although the Plan Area’s northern boundary is very near the San Joaquin River, the area is not within a Special Flood Hazard Area. Local flooding can occur for events larger than a two-year event, but runoff is generally contained in the streets or other breakover easements. Such flooding is not reflected on FEMA’s maps.

Improvements to storm drainage facilities are accomplished either as a part of privately funded
on-site developments or as a part of the master plan, funded by drainage fees. FMFCD maintains an on-going update to the system hydraulic model for flood control and prepares a capital improvement plan update every year with projected funding for five 5 years.

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

Response H-19: The commenter states the following: “Page 3.15-33-34: Revise Policy NS-3-b: correct context to reflect same comments as Number 13 above.”
Please see Response H-14.

Response H-20: The commenter states the following: “Page 4.0-15; First paragraph: 158 should be corrected to say 165.”
This revision has been made to Chapter 4.0, Other CEQA-Required Topics, of the Draft EIR. See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revision, which is reproduced below:

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-125 Stormwater Runoff
Implementation of the Specific Plan would increase the amount of impervious surfaces in the Plan Area, which, without intervention, could increase peak stormwater runoff rates and volumes on and downstream of the Plan Area. The entire Plan Area is within the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s urban flood control system consisting of 158 165 drainage areas, each 1 to 2 square miles in area. Operation of projects developed under the proposed Specific Plan could generate the same categories of pollutants as construction activities. Additionally, due to future development and infrastructure projects, the overall volume of runoff in Fresno could be increased compared to existing conditions. If the drainage system is not adequately designed, Specific Plan buildout could result in localized higher peak flow rates. Localized increases in flow would be significant if increases exceeded system capacity or contributed to bank erosion.

Response H-21:The commenter states the following: “Page 4.0-18: Correct second paragraph context to reflect same as Number 11 above.”
This revision has been made to Chapter 4.0, Other CEQA-Required Topics, of the Draft EIR. See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revision, which is reproduced below:

Stormwater Runoff
Implementation of the Specific Plan would increase the amount of impervious surfaces in the Plan Area, which, without intervention, could increase peak stormwater runoff rates and volumes on and downstream of the Plan Area. The entire Plan Area is within the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s urban flood control system consisting of 158 165 drainage areas, each 1 to 2 square miles in area. Operation of projects developed under the proposed Specific Plan could generate the same categories of pollutants as construction activities. Additionally, due to future development and infrastructure projects, the overall volume of runoff in Fresno could be increased compared to existing conditions. If the drainage system is not adequately designed, Specific Plan buildout could result in localized higher peak flow rates. Localized increases in flow would be significant if increases exceeded system capacity or contributed to bank erosion.

The FMFCD requires future development projects to be designed in conformance to the FMFCD’s Urban Storm Drainage Master Plan to ensure storm drainage facilities are adequately designed and that the storm drain system has adequate storage capacity for additional stormwater runoff generated by the Specific Plan. Improvements to storm drainage facilities are accomplished either as a part of privately funded on-site developments or as a part of the master plan, funded by drainage fees. The FMFCD maintains an on-going update to the system hydraulic model for flood control and prepares a capital improvement plan update every year with projected funding for five years five years. Surface runoff from the area will be managed via detention/retention basins and flow reducing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent local flooding within the various development sites within the overall Plan Area. These features will also

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-126 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan reduce peak flows from the Plan Area to receiving storm drains and FMFCD facilities.

Additionally, future development of the proposed Specific Plan would minimize or eliminate increases in runoff from these new impervious surfaces by runoff entering ditches and storm drains designed in conformance to FMFCD standards.

Response H-22:The commenter states the following: “Proposed land uses vary substantially in density between plan alternates which can effect system size. FMFCD shall be notified when an alternate is chosen and/or changes are made to the proposed land uses.” This comment is noted. The City will consult with the FMFCD as future development projects in the Plan Area are brought forward, as applicable.

Response H-23:The commenter states the following: “The City of Fresno, FMFCD, the County of Fresno, the City of Clovis, and the California State University, Fresno are currently covered as CoPermittees for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) discharges through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Order No. R5-2016- 0040 and NPDES Permit No. CAS0085324 (Storm Water Permit) effective May 17, 2018.

The previous Storm Water Permit adopted on May 31, 2013 required the adoption of Stormwater Quality Management Program (SWQMP) that describes the Storm Water Permit implementation actions and Co-Permittee responsibilities. That SWQMP was approved by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board on April 17, 2015 and is effective until adoption of a new SWQMP, which is anticipated within the next two years.

It is FMFCD’s understanding that the City will adopt a Program EIR for the proposed West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan and that the Program EIR may be used when considering approval of future discretionary actions. The Storm Water Permit requires that Co-Permittees update their CEQA process to incorporate procedures for considering potential stormwater quality impacts when preparing and reviewing CEQA documents.

This requirement is found on Provision D.14 of the 2013 Storm Water Permit and in Section 7: Planning and Land Development Program – PLD 3 – Update CEQA Process. The District has created a guidance document that will meet this Storm Water Permit requirement entitled Guidance for Addressing Stormwater Quality for CEQA Review, which has been attached. In an effort to streamline future CEQA processing and maintain compliance with the Storm Water Permit, FMFCD recommends that all future CEQA review within the City of Fresno utilize the attached guidance document Exhibit “A”.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

If you have any questions or require furtherinformation, please do not hesitate to contact me at (559) 456-3292.”
This comment serves as a conclusion to the letter. This comment is acknowledged by the City. The NPDES General Order No. R5-2016-0040 and NPDES Permit No. CAS0085324 (Storm Water Permit) are discussed on pages 3.15-29 and 3.15-30 of the Draft EIR. Future development projects in the Plan Area would be reviewed by the City of Fresno for consistency with this EIR. Should future regulatory settings change or otherwise be COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-127 updated, and should future Master Plans would be adopted, these future regulations and Plans would guide the City’s review.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-128 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-129

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-130 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-131

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-132 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-133

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-134 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-135 Response to Letter I: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Response I-1: The commentor provides an introduction to the comment letter, and summarizes the project description of the proposed project. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response I-2: The commenter states the following regarding “Feasibility of implementing a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement”:

The DEIR, specifically Table 3.3-6: Construction Project Generated Emissions and Table 3.3-7: Operational Project Generated Emissions demonstrates Project criteria pollutant emissions will exceed the District thresholds of significance.

Since the Project will result in a significant impact on regional air quality, the District recommends the DEIR include a discussion on the feasibility of implementing a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA).

A VERA is a mitigation measure by which the project proponent provides poundfor-pound mitigation of emissions increases through a process that develops, funds, and implements emission reduction projects, with the District serving a role of administrator of the emissions reduction projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort. To implement a VERA, the project proponent and the District enter into a contractual agreement in which the project proponent agrees to mitigate Project specific emissions by providing funds for the District’s incentives programs. The funds are disbursed by the District in the form of grants for projects that achieve emission reductions. Thus, project-related impacts on air quality can be mitigated. Types of emission reduction projects that have been funded in the past include electrification of stationary internal combustion engines (such as agricultural irrigation pumps), replacing old heavy-duty trucks with new, cleaner, more efficient heavy-duty trucks, and replacement of old farm tractors.

In implementing a VERA, the District verifies the actual emission reductions that have been achieved as a result of completed grant contracts, monitors the emission reduction projects, and ensures the enforceability of achieved reductions. After the project is mitigated, the District certifies to the Lead Agency that the mitigation is completed, providing the Lead Agency with an enforceable mitigation measure demonstrating that project-specific regional emissions have been mitigated to less than significant. To assist the Lead Agency and project proponent in ensuring that the environmental document is compliant with CEQA, the District recommends the DEIR includes an assessment of the feasibility of implementing a VERA.

Additional information on implementing a VERA can be obtained by contacting District CEQA staff at by email at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230- 6000.”

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-136 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Given that a VERA is a “Voluntary Agreement,” the feasibility of entering into such an agreement cannot be measured because the terms of the agreement and the party’s willingness to “agree” to such terms is not known. A “voluntary agreement” cannot be mandated through CEQA because it can not be guaranteed that the terms of the agreement would be agreeable to both parties. Nevertheless, the City recognizes that a VERA is one method that can be used to try to reduce emissions to a net zero level through implementing a variety of programs for onsite and offsite mitigation, or to levels below the SJVAPCD’s regulatory requirements/thresholds. The City can educate applicants on the benefits of a VERA, and recommend consulting with the Air District to see if such “voluntary agreement” can be reached, but the City has not adopted a policy that mandates projects reduce air emissions to net zero or to levels below the SJVAPCD’s regulatory requirements/thresholds. The SJVAPCD has established “thresholds” that are not net zero.

It is noted that Rule 9510 is a regulation that is imposed by the SJVAPCD to collect fees for emissions that exceed the threshold of significance established by the SJVAPCD after all calculated onsite and offsite mitigation, from construction and operation of the building/end user, can be calculated and is applied. The proposed Project is subject to the SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review [ISR] rule), which could result in substantial mitigation of emissions beyond what is reflected in the modeling outputs provided in the EIR. The reductions are accomplished by the incorporation of measures into individual projects and/or by the payment of an Indirect Source Rule fee for any required reductions that have not been accomplished through Project mitigation commitments. The actual calculations will be accomplished by the SJVAPCD and project applicants through the regulatory permitting process as the Project (i.e. or portions of the Project) are brought forward for approval under Rule 9510. The Project applicant would be required to pay the ISR fee to the SJVAPCD at that time. Ultimately, the SJVAPCD utilizes the fees to fund offsite projects that reduce emissions to at, or below, the thresholds of significance established by the SJVAPCD. The performance-based metric for each individual case, is actual emissions compared to the threshold.

Response I-3: The commentor states that, consistent with Mitigation Measure 3.3-9 contained on page

3.3-46 of the DEIR, each future individual development projects that undergoes CEQA review, should be evaluated for potential health impacts to surrounding receptors (onsite and off-site) resulting from operational and multi-year construction Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) emissions. This is noted. Mitigation Measure 3.3-9 would ensure that individual development projects that undergo CEQA review would be evaluated for potential health impacts to surrounding receptors, as applicable.

The commentor also provides additional information on what a Health Risk Screening/Assessment is designed to do, what it is for, and lists potential common sources of TACs such as diesel exhaust. The commentor also describes the Air District’s recommended process for Health Risk Screening/Assessment, which includes first conducting a screening analysis, and second, conducted a refined HRA if the results of the COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-137 screening analysis result in a prioritization score of 10 or higher. The commentor also provides a brief list of the files to submit to the Air District for HRA submittals.

This comment is noted. As previously stated, for individual development projects within the Plan Area that undergo CEQA review, projects will be evaluated for potential health impacts to surrounding receptors, as applicable. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response I-4: The commentor provides a list of Air District rules and regulations that may be applicable to individual projects within the overall proposed project. The following non-exhaustive and non-exclusive list of Air District rules and regulations identified by the Air District in this comment letter is as follows: District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources; District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review); District Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters); District Rule 4002 – National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; District Regulation VII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions; Other District Rules and Regulations; Rule 4102 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction), and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).

This comment is noted. Individual projects within the overall proposed project would be required to follow all applicable Air District rules and regulations, which may include those listed within this comment. For example, consistent with the recommendation included within this comment, for individual projects subject to permitting by the District, demonstration of compliance with District Rule 2201 would be provided to the City before issuance of the first building permit. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response I-5: The commentor states that individual developments within the Specific Plan Area that will undergo CEQA review should include a project summary detailing, at a minimum, the land use designation, project size, and proximity to sensitive receptors and existing emission sources, within referral documents. This comment is noted. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response I-6: The commentor states that they request that a copy of the Air District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent. This response is noted. The Project proponent has been provided a copy of the Air District’s comments. No further response to this comment is warranted.

Response I-7: The commentor provides contact information. No further response to this comment is warranted.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-138 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-1 This section includes minor edits and changes to the Draft EIR. These modifications resulted from responses to comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR, as well as City staff-initiated edits to clarify the details of the project.

Revisions herein do not result in new significant environmental impacts, do not constitute significant new information, nor do they alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis that would warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

Other minor changes to various sections of the Draft EIR are also shown below. These changes are provided in revision marks with underline for new text and strike out for deleted text.

3.1 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR

0.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following changes were made to pages ES-8 and ES-9 of the Draft EIR:

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

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. For mitigation options which would preserve off-site agricultural lands, the lands shall occur locally, and the definition of “locally” shall be determined in consultation with the City of Fresno.

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

The following changes were made to page ES-27 of the Draft EIR:

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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), lead based products, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk surveys shall be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of asbestos-containing materials (ACM), and/or LBP, mercury, and/or polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. 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.

The following changes were made to page ES-34 of the Draft EIR:

None feasible.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.

None feasible.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.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following change was made to page 1.0-5 of Chapter 1.0 of the Draft EIR:

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);
• Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD);
• 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 following change was made to page 1.0-10 of Chapter 1.0 of the Draft EIR:

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 REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-3 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 Flood 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)

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following change was made to pages 2.0-14 and 2.0-15 of the Draft EIR:

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
No changes were made to Section 3.1 of the Draft EIR.

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The following change was made to page 3.2-9 of Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR:

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan LOCAL
Fresno County Right to Farm Ordinance
The Fresno County “Right to Farm” Ordinance is discussed in Section 17.04.100 of the County Code.

This ordinance helps protect farming operations from interruptions due to land use conflicts with adjacent properties. The intent of the ordinance is to allow farmers to conduct normal farming operations (harvest crops, till soil, or spray crops) without interference from nearby land owners. In essence, it allows farmers to conduct their operations as needed.

The following change was made to page 3.2-11 of Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR:

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. For mitigation options which would preserve off-site agricultural lands, the lands shall occur locally, and the definition of “locally” shall be determined in consultation with the City of Fresno. 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.

The following change was made to page 3.2-12 of Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR:

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. For mitigation options which would REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-5 preserve off-site agricultural lands, the lands shall occur locally, and the definition of “locally” shall be determined in consultation with the City of Fresno.

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

3.3 AIR QUALITY
No changes were made to Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following changes were made to page 3.4-9 of Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR:

Locally, the FMFCD drainage system consists of approximately 680 750 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 features to move the excess runoff to the basins. The FMFCD basin facilities in the Plan Area are shown in Figure 3.9-2 in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

The following change was made to pages 3.4-43 and 4.3-44 of Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR:

Policy POSS-5-e: Pursue development of conjunctive habitat and recreational trail uses in flood control and drainage projects.

The Specific Plan includes two policies which address flood protection and design. Policy IPR

2.9 states, “Plant locally appropriate, drought-tolerant landscaping and, where possible, incorporate designs that can contribute to groundwater recharge, flood protection, and reduced urban heat island effects.” Policy LUH 5.1 states, “Update the Development Code so that when land proposed for urban development abuts active farmland, planned farmland, or rural residential, the development project shall include and provide for the maintenance of one of the following design features to provide a rural/urban buffer:
• Provide landscaping and setbacks to fully obscure the new development’s buildings and fences.
• Do not include fencing, or provide only see-through fencing no greater than four feet in height between the new development and the existing property. • Provide open space such as edible gardens, landscaped walkways, or permanent onsite flood control/drainage facilitiesrain gardens. • Locate boundary streets between the new and existing developments.”

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
No changes were made to Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR.

3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
No changes were made to Section 3.6 of the Draft EIR.

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY
No changes were made to Section 3.7 of the Draft EIR.

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The following changes were made to pages 3.8-2of Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR:

A Web Soil Survey was completed for the Plan Area using the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey program. The NRCS Soils Map is provided in Figure 3.86-1 in Section

3.6, Geology and Soils. Table 3.8-1 identifies the type and range of soils found in the Plan Area.

The following changes were made to pages 3.8-4 and 3.8-5 of Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR:

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains the Envirostor Data Management System, which provides information on hazardous waste facilities (both permitted and corrective action) as well as any available site cleanup information. There are four three sites listed in the database within the Plan Area:
• West Shields Elementary School: This site is located at 4108 Shields Avenue, and is a part of the DTSC – Site Cleanup Program. The cleanup status is active as of 1/4/2017. A Phase 1 assessment was completed on this site on January 4, 2017. Past uses that caused contamination are not specified. The Potential materials (e.g. soil, water, etc.) affected were also not specified.
• Golden State Ranch Property: This site is located at Ashlan Avenue and Grantland Avenue, and the DTSC is the oversight agency for this site. The cleanup status is active as of 2/27/2002. Past uses that caused contamination include agricultural – row crops. No contaminants were found at this site.
• Parc West Development (previously known as the Westlake Proposed 430 Acre Development): This site is located at the intersection of Shields, Grantland, Garfield, and Gettysburg avenues. The cleanup status is currently inactive. Past uses that caused contamination included agricultural – orchard and agricultural – row crop uses. Potential contaminants of concern are under investigation, and the potential materials affected are soils.

The following changes were made to pages 3.8-7 of Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR:

REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-7 TABLE 3.8-2: GEOTRACKER KNOWN HAZARDOUS MATERIAL RELEASE SITES WITHIN THE PLAN AREA

SITE NAME TYPE STATUS ADDRESS
7-Eleven #24180 LUST Cleanup Site Completed 4246 West Ashlan Avenue AT&T California – SBR29 Permitted UST -- 4309 North Polk Avenue Chevron #9-9093 LUST Cleanup Site Completed 3996 Parkway Drive North Di Redo Dry Yard LUST Cleanup Site Completed 6150 Shaw Avenue West EZ Trip LUST Cleanup Site Completed 6639 Parkway Drive North Former Sieberts’ Oil Company LUST Cleanup Site Completed 2837 North Parkway Drive Fresno Gas & Liquor Permitted UST -- 3110 West Shields Avenue Golden State Ranch Property School Investigation No Action Required Ashlan Avenue/Grantland Avenue Johnny Quik #175 Permitted UST -- 4395 West Ashlan Avenue Jura Farms, Inc. LUST Cleanup Site Completed 5545 Dakota West Moore Truck Lines LUST Cleanup Site Completed 3693 Parkway North Parkway Mini-Mart Permitted UST --
Proposed Constance-Sierra
Elementary School School Investigation No Further Action Northeast Corner of Constance and Sierra Avenues Quick ‘N’ E-Z #19 Permitted UST --
Siebert’s Oil Company LUST Cleanup Site Completed 2837 Parkway Drive North Shop N Go, #607 Permitted UST -- 4245 West Ashlan
Sugahara Farm LUST Cleanup Site Completed 4108 Shields Avenue West Vallee Food Store LUST Cleanup Site Completed 2414 Marks North Parc West Development (previously
known as the Westlake Proposed
430 Acre Development)
Voluntary Cleanup Inactive Bounded by Shields, Grantland, Garfield, and Gettysburg
West Shields Elementary School School Investigation Active 4108 Shields Avenue SOURCE: STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD GEOTRACKER (2019).

NOTE: -- = NOT SPECIFIED WITHIN THE GEOTRACKER DATABASE.

The following change was made to pages 3.8-8 of Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR:

Potential contaminants of concern are under investigation. Should the site be developed in the future, future cleanup activities would be required prior to development on this site, as applicable.

The following change was made to pages 3.8-22 of Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR:

Like most agricultural and farming operations in the Central Valley, agricultural practices in the area have used agricultural chemicals including pesticides and herbicides as a standard practice. Residual concentrations of pesticides may be present in soil as a result of historic agricultural application and storage. Continuous spraying of crops over many years can potentially result in a residual buildup of pesticides in farm soils. Of highest concern relative to agrichemicals are chemicals such as chlorinated herbicides, organophosphate pesticides, and organochlorine pesticides, such as Mecoprop (MCPP), Dinoseb, chlordane, dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and dichlorodiphenyl-dichloroethylene (DDE). Other chemicals may also be present due to other built-up uses.

As described in the Environmental Setting, there is a historical record of soil contamination at the

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-8 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Proposed Constance-Sierra Elementary School site, the Parc West Development (previously known as the Westlake Proposed 430 Acre Development), and the West Shields Elementary School site, each of which are at differing levels of cleanup status. Therefore, there is the potential for other sites to have experienced contamination or have a history of hazardous materials being used as part of previous or current operations. Implementation of the Specific Plan could involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with future construction and/or remediation activities. The transport of hazardous materials and any potential remediation activities would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations. Additionally, the proposed project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-10, which provide requirements for any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well; require Phase I and Phase II site assessments, and other remediation activities including surveys and assessments, cleanup plans, programs, and activities, as applicable; and requires actions to ensure that developing a property within the Plan Area does not present an unacceptable risk to human health, if applicable, through the use of an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP). Therefore, the potential for existing or new hazards within the Plan Area or generated by the proposed project is limited. Additional requirements include those related to evaluation of potential asbestos and lead prior to planned renovation or demolition of residential and/or commercial structures in the Plan Area, and soil sampling for hazardous materials. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-10 would reduce potential impacts that could occur due to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment associated with construction activities within the Plan area to a less than significant level.

The following changes were made to pages 3.8-25 and 3.8-26 of Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR:

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), lead based products, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk surveys shall be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of asbestos-containing materials (ACM), and/or LBP, mercury, and/or polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal of friable ACM, and non-friable ACMs that have the potential to become friable, during demolition and/or renovation shall conform to the standards set forth by the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The following changes were made to pages 3.9-6 and 3.9-7 of Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR:

Locally, the FMFCD drainage system consists of approximately 680 750 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 features to move the excess runoff to the basins. The FMFCD basin facilities in the Plan Area are shown in Figure 3.9-2.

REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-9 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 irrigation canals owned by FID within the Plan Area include:
• East Branch Victoria Canal • Teague School Canal
• Epstein Canal • Tracy Ditch
• Herndon Canal • West Branch Victoria Canal
• Minor Thornton Ditch • Wheaton Ditch
• Silvia Ditch • Austin Ditch
The following change was made to page 3.9-7 of Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR:

Although the Plan Area’s northern boundary is very near the San Joaquin River, the area is not within a Special Flood Hazard Area. Local flooding can occur for events larger than a two-year event, but runoff is generally contained in the streets or other breakover easements. Such flooding is not reflected on FEMA’s maps. Improvements to storm drainage facilities are accomplished either as a part of privately funded on-site developments or as a part of the master plan, funded by drainage fees. FMFCD maintains an on-going update to the system hydraulic model for flood control and prepares a capital improvement plan update every five year with projected funding for five yearss.

The following changes were made to page 3.9-9 of Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR:

The current drainage system in the Plan Area discharges to a system of ponding basins, irrigation canals, creeks, and the San Joaquin River, but is designed to retain and infiltrate as much runoff as possible into the underlying groundwater aquifer.
303(D)IMPAIRED WATER BODIES
Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires States to identify waters that do not meet water quality standards or objectives and thus, are considered "impaired." Once listed, Section 303(d) mandates prioritization and development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The TMDL is a tool that establishes the allowable loadings or other quantifiable parameters for a waterbody and thereby the basis for the States to establish water quality-based controls. The purpose of TMDLs is to ensure that beneficial uses are restored and that water quality objectives are achieved.

The following changes were made to pages 3.9-22 sand 3.9-23 of Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR:

As noted previously, the FMFCD drainage system consists of approximately 680 750 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). The FMFCD storm drain and flood control system is designed to retain and infiltrate as much stormwater and urban runoff as possible.

The current drainage system in the Plan Area discharges to a system of ponding basins, irrigation canals, creeks, and the San Joaquin River, but is designed operated and maintained to retain and infiltrate as much runoff as possible into the underlying groundwater aquifer. Future development

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-10 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan would include water quality BMPs, detention basins, and retention basins designed to minimize or eliminate increases in runoff from these new impervious surfaces entering existing surface water courses and existing storm drains. Peak runoff and total volume of runoff will be minimized by future development of storm drainage design which retains water to the maximum extent possible.

Consequently, infiltration into the groundwater aquifers will be maximized to the extent possible through the storm drainage design.

The following change was made to pages 3.9-24 and 3.9-25 of Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR:

The following change was made to page 3.9-27 of Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR:

Figure 3.9-2 on page 3.9-32 of Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR was revised to correct the legend labels for the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) basins and Fresno Irrigation District (FID) pipelines. The revised figure is shown below:

REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-11

3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
No changes were made to Section 3.10 of the Draft EIR.

3.11 NOISE
No changes were made to Section 3.11 of the Draft EIR.

3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
No changes were made to Section 3.12 of the Draft EIR.

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
The following changes were made to pages 3.13-36 and 3.13-37 of Section 3.13 of the Draft EIR:

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-12 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan completed to meet the requirements of CEQA. Typical impacts from park facilities include air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, and lighting It is noted, however, that future development of 118.8 acres of park space within the Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), and utilities (Impacts 3.15-1 through 3.15-3). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in this Draft EIR, impacts related to constructing new park facilities to serve the Plan Area are considered significant and unavoidable.

CONCLUSION
Project implementation may result in effects on other public facilities. The Specific Plan would result in new demand for other public facilities, including library facilities, ponding basins, and recreational facilities. Although a specific public facility use is not currently proposed by the Specific Plan, the future development of public facility uses are anticipated by the proposed Plan. Future development would be responsible for paying the applicable impact fees, and ongoing revenues REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-13 from the Specific Plan would be generated from property taxes, sales taxes, and other appropriate fees/payments.

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

3.14 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
The following changes were made to page 3.14-5 of Section 3.14 of the Draft EIR:

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

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

TABLE 3.14-1: BUS ROUTES SERVING THE PLAN AREA

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

The following changes were made to page 3.14-6 of Section 3.14 of the Draft EIR:

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-14 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan along Brawley and Clinton Avenues, as well as Marks and Olive Avenues. Key destinations served by the route include the DMV, Talking Book Library, Post Office, and the Social Security Office.

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

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

Figure 3.14-3 on page 3.14-25 of Section 3.14 of the Draft EIR was revised to correct the legend label for Route 20. The revised figure is shown below:

REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-15

3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The following change was made to page 3.15-15 of Section 3.15 the Draft EIR:

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-16 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan The City has long made efforts toward offsetting the decline of groundwater levels and minimizing overdraft conditions through an active intentional recharge program that started in 1971. Through cooperative agreements with Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) and FID, the City has access to not only City-owned basins, but also those ofto specific facilities owned and operated by these two agencies. The City has averaged over 60,000 AFY the previous five years and plans to gradually increase recharge by about 540 AFY each year. However, during wet years the City will recharge more water when it is available to allow to the City to draw on additional groundwater during dry years when surface water is not available.

The following changes were made to page 3.15-27 of Section 3.15 the Draft EIR:

Improvements to storm drainage facilities are accomplished either as a part of privately funded on-site developments or as a part of the master plan, funded by drainage fees. FMFCD maintains an on-going update to the system hydraulic model for flood control and prepares a capital improvement plan update every year with projected funding for five 5 years.

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

REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-17

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
The following changes were made to page 4.0-15 of Chapter 4.0 the Draft EIR:

In order to ensure that future development projects in the County do not increase downstream flood elevations due to increased peak stormwater runoff, the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) has primary responsibility for managing the local stormwater flows for the City, as well as a large area beyond the City’s boundaries. The FMFCD requires future development projects to be designed in conformance to the FMFCD’s Urban Storm Drainage Master Plan to ensure storm drainage facilities are adequately designed and that the storm drain system has adequate storage capacity for additional stormwater runoff generated by the Specific Plan. Improvements to storm drainage facilities are accomplished either as a part of privately funded on-site developments or as a part of the master plan, funded by drainage fees. The FMFCD maintains an on-going update to the system hydraulic model for flood control and prepares a capital improvement plan update every year with projected funding for five years five years. Surface runoff from the area will be managed via detention/retention basins and flow reducing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent local flooding within the various development sites within the overall Plan Area. These features will also reduce peak flows from the Plan Area to receiving storm drains and FMFCD facilities.

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
No changes were made to Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIR.

6.0 REPORT PREPARERS
No changes were made to Chapter 6.0 of the Draft EIR.

7.0 REFERENCES
No changes were made to Chapter 7.0 of the Draft EIR.

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-18 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

APPENDIX A
The following NOP comment letter from FID has been inserted into Appendix A of the Draft EIR:

REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-19

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-20 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-21

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-22 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-1 This document is the Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (FMMRP) for the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (Project). This FMMRP has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, which requires public agencies to “adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” A FMMRP is required for the proposed Specific Plan because the EIR has identified significant adverse impacts, and measures have been identified to mitigate those impacts.

The numbering of the individual mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence as found in the Draft EIR.

4.1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The FMMRP, as outlined in the following table, describes mitigation timing, monitoring responsibilities, and compliance verification responsibility for all mitigation measures identified in this Final EIR.

The City of Fresno will be the primary agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures and will continue to monitor mitigation measures that are required to be implemented during the operation of the Specific Plan.

The FMMRP is presented in tabular form on the following pages. The components of the FMMRP are described briefly below:
• Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures are taken from the Draft EIR in the same order that they appear in that document.
• Mitigation Timing: Identifies at which stage of the project mitigation must be completed. • Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the agency that is responsible for mitigation monitoring.
• Compliance Verification: This is a space that is available for the monitor to date and initial when the monitoring or mitigation implementation took place.

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TABLE 4.0-1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.1-4: Specific Plan
implementation has the potential
to result in light and glare
impacts.

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 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.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
approval of
future project
improvement
plans
Prior to
approval of
future project
improvement
plans

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

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 City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
initiation of
grading
activities
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-3

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
mitigate the loss: Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, or Land Use Regulation. For mitigation options which would preserve off-site agricultural lands, the lands shall occur locally, and the definition of “locally” shall be determined in consultation with the City of Fresno. 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.

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

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
initiation of
grading
activities

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

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 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.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
building
permits for
new
development
projects within
the Plan Area
Impact 3.3-2: Specific Plan
implementation during project
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: In order to contribute in minimizing exhaust emission from construction equipment, prior to issuance of grading or City of Fresno
Planning and
During
construction

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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.
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 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 Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
activities
During
construction
activities
During
construction
activities
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-5

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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.
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.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
During
construction
activities
During
construction
activities

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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.

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 longterm 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 [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.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
approval of
future project
improvement
plans
Impact 3.3-4: Specific Plan
implementation has the potential
to result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
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 City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Prior to
approval of
future project
improvement
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-7

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
affecting a substantial number of
people.
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 diesel-powered 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.

Department
San Joaquin
Valley Air
Pollution
Control District
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
San Joaquin
Valley Air
Pollution
Control District
plans
Prior to future
discretionary
approval for
individual
projects within
the Specific
Plan Area that
require
environmental
evaluation
under CEQA

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-8 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to future
discretionary
approval for
individual
projects within
the Specific
Plan Area that
require
environmental
evaluation
under CEQA
Impact 3.3-5: Specific Plan
implementation has the potential
to cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly.

Implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 through Mitigation Measure 3.3-10 See Mitigation Measure 3.3-1
through
Mitigation
Measure 3.3-10
See Mitigation
Measure 3.3-1
through
Mitigation
Measure 3.3-10

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, 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.

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 City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to and
during
construction
activities
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-9

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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.

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 City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to and
during
construction
activities

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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.

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.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to and
during
construction
activities
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-11

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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 City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to and
during
construction
activities

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-12 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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 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 City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Prior to and
during
construction
activities
Prior to and
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-13

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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 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 Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
during
construction
activities
Prior to and
during

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-14 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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 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 Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
construction
activities
Prior to and
during
construction
activities
Prior to and
during
construction
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-15

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
the CNPS to obtain the appropriate avoidance and minimization measures.

The project proponent(s) shall also implement the avoidance and minimization measures.

Department activities
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.

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 detention basins shall assist in ensuring project-related impacts to wetland habitat are minimized to the greatest extent feasible.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
If a proposed
project will
result in the
significant
alteration or fill
of a federally
protected
wetland
If a proposed
project will
result in the
significant
alteration or fill
of a federally
protected
wetland
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.

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 City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Prior to and
during
construction
activities
Prior to and
during
construction

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-16 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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.

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.

Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
activities
Prior to and
during
construction
activities

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.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: The City shall require project applicants for future projects with intact extant building(s) more than 45 years old to provide a historic resource technical study evaluating the significance and data potential of the resource. If significance criteria are met, detailed mitigation recommendations shall be included as part of the technical study.

All work shall be performed by a qualified architectural historian meeting Secretary of the Interior Standards. The historic resource technical study shall be submitted to the City for review prior to any site disturbance within the vicinity of the building(s).

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

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to any
ground
disturbance
activity
If cultural
resources (i.e.,
prehistoric
sites, historic
sites, and
isolated
artifacts and
features) are
discovered
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-17

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)

1. 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. during the
course of
construction
within the
Specific Plan
Area
Impact 3.5-2: Specific Plan
implementation may disturb
human remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries.

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 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.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Fresno County
Coroner
If human
remains are
found during
ground
disturbance
activities
associated with
implementatio
n of the Specific
Plan

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact 3.6-2: Specific Plan
construction and
implementation has the potential
to result in substantial soil
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 City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
clearing,
grading, and
disturbances to
the ground

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-18 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
erosion or the loss of topsoil. 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.

Regional Water
Quality Control
Board
such as
stockpiling, or
excavation for
each phase of
the Project
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.

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.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
earthmoving
activities
associated with
future
development
activities
within the Plan
Area
Impact 3.6-4: The Specific Plan
would not be located on
expansive soil creating
substantial risks to life or
property.

Implement Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 See Mitigation
Measure 3.6-2
See Mitigation
Measure 3.6-2
Impact 3.6-5: Project
implementation has the potential
to directly or indirectly destroy a
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 City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
If any
paleontological
resources are
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-19

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
unique paleontological resource. 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.

Department found during
grading and
construction
activities

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.

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).

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
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
Impact 3.7-3: Specific Plan
implementation would not
generate a cumulative impact on
climate change from increased
project-related greenhouse gas
emissions.

Implement Mitigation Measure 3.7-1. See Mitigation
Measure 3.7-1
See 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
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).

Fresno County
Environmental
Health Division
Prior to
bringing
hazardous
materials
onsite

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-20 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
hazardous materials into the
environment.

Fresno County
Environmental
Health
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
initiation of any
ground
disturbance
activities
within 50 feet
of a well
Prior to the
issuance of a
grading permit
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
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-21

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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.

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 City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
In the event the
findings and
conclusions of
the Phase II
ESA reveal the
presence of
significant
concentrations
of hazardous
materials
warranting
further
investigation
If the findings
and
conclusions of
the Phase II
ESA(s), site
characterizatio
n and/or risk
assessment
demonstrate
the presence of
concentrations
of hazardous
materials
exceeding
regulatory
threshold
levels
Prior to the
issuance of a
building permit
for an
individual
property within
the Plan Area

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-22 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
human health, if applicable, through the use of an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) that could include institutional controls, sitespecific 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 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 3.8-9: 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, lead based paint (LBP), lead based products, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk surveys shall be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of asbestoscontaining materials (ACM), LBP, mercury, and/or polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. 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 City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
with residual
environmental
contamination
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
In the event of
planned
renovation or
demolition of
residential
and/or
commercial
structures on
the subject site
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-23

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to the
import of a soil
to a particular
property within
the Plan Area
as part of that
property’s site
development
NOISE
Impact 3.11-1: Specific Plan
implementation could potentially
substantially increase mobile
noise levels at existing and
proposed receptors.

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

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

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-24 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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.

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

Mitigation Measure 3.11-3: The project proponent(s) and/or construction contractor(s) shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department, that buildout of the Specific Plan complies with the following:
• Truck traffic associated with project construction shall be limited to within the permitted construction hours, as listed in the City’s Municipal Code above.
• Stationary construction noise sources such as generators or pumps shall be located at least 300 feet from sensitive land uses, as feasible.
• Construction staging areas shall be located as far from noise sensitive land uses as feasible.
• During construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise attenuating devices.

The use of manufacturer certified mufflers would generally reduce the construction equipment noise by 8 to 10 dBA.
• Idling equipment shall be turned off when not in use. • Equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
During
construction
activities
During
construction
activities
Impact 3.11-3: Specific Plan
implementation would not
substantially increase noise
vibration association with
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 ground-borne vibration impacts to existing structures and sensitive receptors, and shall City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
For future
projects which
would require
the use of
highly
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-25

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
construction activities. 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.
vibratory
equipment in
the Plan Area
Impact 3.11-4: Specific Plan
implementation would not
substantially increase stationary
noise at sensitive receptors.

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).

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
approval of
improvement
plans
Impact 3.11-5: Specific Plan
implementation would not
substantially increase ambient
interior noise at future sensitive
receptors.

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

A qualified Acoustical Consultant shall provide information demonstrating that site specific mitigation will be effective at reaching the applicable noise standard, which includes:
• 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.
• 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 City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
approval of
improvement
plans

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.0-26 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
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.

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.

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.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
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)
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.

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.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
future building
permits for
each dwelling
unit to be
constructed in
the West Area
Neighborhoods
Specific Plan

Fresno City CouncilOctober 13, 2022

Fresno City Council
October 13, 2022