SOURCE: NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY, 2019.
Exeter Loam. This soil is located throughout the Plan Area, particularly in the eastern half, covering approximately 1,593.5 acres (see Figure 3.6-1). The Exeter series consists of moderately deep to a duripan, moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvium mainly from granitic sources. Exeter soils are on alluvial fans and stream terraces and have slopes of 0 to 9 percent. This soil is used for irrigated cropland growing oranges, olives and deciduous orchards, vineyards and row crops. It is also used for dairy and cattle production and building site development. Vegetation in uncultivated areas is mainly annual grasses and forbs. Moderately well drained; very slow to medium runoff; moderately slow permeability above the duripan. Permeability of the duripan is very slow.
Hanford Sandy Loam. This soil is located on approximately 32.3 acres in the northern corner of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6-1). Hanford soils consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in moderately coarse textured alluvium dominantly from granite. Hanford soils are on stream bottoms, floodplains and alluvial fans at elevations of 150 to 3,500 feet. Slopes range from 0 to 15 percent.
The climate is dry subhumid mesothermal with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters.
Hesperia Sandy Loam. This soil is located on approximately 1.7 acres on the northern corner of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6-1). The Hesperia series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in alluvium derived primarily from granite and related rocks. Hesperia soils are on alluvial fans, valley plains and stream terraces and have slopes of 0 to 9 percent. Used for desert range, and for production of irrigated orchards, row crops, field crops, grain, hay, pasture and grapes. Native AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.2-7 vegetation consists of creosotebush in the high desert and sparse annuals in the valley. Well drained; negligible to low runoff, moderately rapid permeability.
Pollasky Sandy Loam. This soil is located on approximately 7.9 acres on the northern portion of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6-1). The Pollasky series consists of moderately deep, well drained, moderately coarse textured Regosols formed in the residuum from softly to moderately consolidated arkosic sediments. They occur on undulating to steep dissected terraces under annual grasses and forbs. They have brown, slightly acid sandy loam A horizons and pale brown to yellowish brown, slightly acid to neutral, sandy loam C horizons abruptly overlying consolidated granitic sediments. Pollasky soils occur at elevations below 500 feet to semiarid mesothermal climate having a mean annual precipitation ranging from about 9 to 16 inches with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. The Pollasky series is mapped along the eastern edge of the San Joaquin Valley of California where it is moderately extensive. Used as annual range and dry farmed small grain, usually barley, with limited sprinkler irrigated pasture.
San Joaquin Loam. This soil is located throughout the entirety of the Plan Area on approximately 5,367.2 acres (see Figure 3.6-1). The San Joaquin series consists of moderately deep to a duripan, well and moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvium derived from mixed but dominantly granitic rock sources. They are on undulating low terraces with slopes of 0 to 9 percent. Well and moderately well drained; medium to very high runoff; very slow permeability. Some areas are subject to rare or occasional flooding. Typically used as cropland and livestock grazing; crops are small grains, irrigated pasture and rice; vineyards, fruit and nut crops.
3.2.2 REGULATORY SETTING
There are a number of regulatory agencies whose responsibility includes the oversight of the agricultural resources of the state including the California Department of Conservation. The following is an overview of the federal, State and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.
FEDERAL
Farmland Protection Program
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) administers the Farmland Protection Program (FPP). This is a program that is designed to conserve productive farmland. The NRCS provides funds to agencies for the purchase of conservation easements that meet the specific requirements of the program. Landowners that are interested in the program must agree to conserve their farmland for a minimum period of thirty years.
STATE
Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act, was established based on numerous State legislative findings regarding the importance of agricultural
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
3.2-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan lands in an urbanizing society. Policies emanating from those findings include those that discourage premature and unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban uses and discourage discontinuous urban development patterns, which unnecessarily increase the costs of community services to community residents.
The Williamson Act authorizes each county to establish an agricultural preserve. Land that is within the agricultural preserve is eligible to be placed under a contract between the property owner and County that would restrict the use of the land to agriculture in exchange for a tax assessment that is based on the yearly production yield. The contracts have a ten-year term that is automatically renewed each year, unless the property owner requests a non-renewal or the contract is cancelled.
If the contract is cancelled the property owner is assessed a fee of up to 12.5 percent of the property value. As of 2016, approximately 120 acres within the Plan Area are under a Williamson Act contract.
Approximately 56 acres are under Williamson Act-Non-renewal, meaning enrolled lands for which non-renewal has been filed. Upon the filing of non-renewal, the existing contract remains in effect for the balance of the period remaining on the contract. During the non-renewal process, the annual tax assessment gradually increases. At the end of the nine-year non-renewal period, the contract expires and the land is no longer enforceably restricted. Within the Plan Area, approximately 64 acres are under Williamson Act-Mixed Enrollment Agricultural Land, meaning enrolled lands containing a combination of Prime, Non-Prime, Open Space Easement, or other contracted or enrolled lands not yet delineated by the County. Approximately 38 acres immediately adjacent to the Plan Area is under Williamson Act contract-Non-renewal.
Farmland Security Zones
In 1998 the state legislature established the Farmland Security Zone (FSZ) program. FSZs are similar to Williamson Act contracts, in that the intention is to protect farmland from conversion. The main difference however, is that the FSZ must be designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance. The term of the contract is a minimum of 20 years. The property owners are offered an incentive of greater property tax reductions when compared to the Williamson Act contract tax incentives; the incentives were developed to encourage conservation of prime farmland through FSZs. The non-renewal and cancellation procedures are similar to those for Williamson Act contracts. The Plan Area and the immediately adjacent parcels are not within the FSZ program.
Agricultural Conservation and Mitigation Program
While the Plan Area is primarily designated as Urban and Built-Up Land by the California Department of Conservation, the Plan Area does contain prime soils as defined by the California Department of Conservation, Agricultural Conservation and Mitigation Program. According to the Agricultural Conservation and Mitigation Program, farmland shall be considered prime farmland if it meets the definition of "prime agricultural land" in Government Code Section 51201. Government Code Section 51201 states that prime agricultural land means any of the following:
(1) All land that qualifies for rating as class I or class II in the Natural Resource Conservation Service land use capability classifications.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.2-9 (2) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the Storie Index Rating. (3) Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture.
(4) Land planted with fruit- or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops which have a nonbearing period of less than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre. (5) Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years.
LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The City’s General Plan includes goals, policies, standards, and actions that strive to preserve agricultural resources and minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban uses. The following General Plan goals, policies, standards, and actions are relevant to the proposed Specific Plan.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RESILIENCE
Objective RC-9: Preserve agricultural land outside of the area planned for urbanization under this General Plan.
Policy RC-9-a: Work to establish a cooperative research and planning program with the Counties of Fresno and Madera, City of Clovis, and other public agencies to conserve agricultural land.
Policy RC-9-b: Express opposition to residential and commercial development proposals in unincorporated areas within or adjacent to the Planning Area when these proposals would do any of the following:
• Make it difficult or infeasible to implement the General Plan; • Contribute to the premature conversion of agricultural, open space, or grazing lands; or
• Constitute a detriment to the management of resources and/or facilities important to the region (such as air quality, water quantity and quality, traffic circulation, and riparian habitat).
Policy RC-9-c: In coordination with regional partners or independently, establish a Farmland Preservation Program. When Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance is converted to urban uses outside City limits, this program would require that the developer of such a project mitigate the loss of such farmland consistent with the
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
3.2-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan requirements of CEQA. The Farmland Preservation Program shall provide several mitigation options that may include, but are not limited to the following: Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, Land Use Regulations, or any other mitigation method that is in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. The Farmland Preservation Program may be modeled after some of all of the programs described by the California Council of Land Trusts.
3.2.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project will have a significant impact on agricultural or forest resources if it will:
• Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use; • Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; • Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g));
• Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; • Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.2-1: Specific Plan implementation would convert Important Farmlands to non-agricultural land uses. (Significant and Unavoidable) Within the city limits, the Plan Area is currently zoned for urban land uses (i.e., residential single family, multi-family, public and institutional, mixed use and commercial) and proposes zoning changes similar to the existing land uses. Land uses surrounding the Plan Area consist of light industrial, commercial general, commercial highway and auto, open space, single family residential, rural residential, single family residential agricultural, limited agriculture, exclusive agriculture and other similar land uses. The Plan Area is located adjacent to productive agricultural land or lands zoned for agricultural uses, primarily within the County of Fresno limits. Although the Specific Plan anticipates and plans for future annexation and development of this land into the City, annexation is not currently proposed. The timing of future annexation proposals is not currently known. At the time of annexation proposals, the land proposed for annexation and development would be reviewed to determine if important farmlands would be converted to non-agricultural land uses or result in a conflict with lands zoned for agricultural uses. If future annexation and development would involve the loss of important farmlands to non-agricultural uses, implementation of AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.2-11 Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 would be required. While implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 would reduce the above-identified impact through preservation of agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio, the impact would not be reduced to a less-than-significant level due to the fact that active agricultural land would still be permanently converted to urban uses. Consistent with the Fresno General Plan EIR, feasible mitigation measures do not exist to reduce the above impact to a lessthan-significant level. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: Prior to initiation of grading activities, the project proponent shall implement the following measure to mitigate impacts on Important Farmland located on the site:
The project proponent shall mitigate the loss of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance within the Plan Area at a 1:1 ratio. The acreage of lost farmland shall be determined using the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model.
The LESA Model evaluates measures of soil resource quality, a given project’s size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. Once the acreage of farmland converted is determined, one of the following mitigation options shall be utilized to mitigate the loss: Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, or Land Use Regulation. Should the City develop a Farmland Preservation Program before future construction within the Plan Area begins, the project proponent shall mitigate for Farmland pursuant to the Program.
The mitigation shall be verified by the City of Fresno for each phase of the project during improvement plan review.
Impact 3.2-2: Specific Plan implementation would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract. (Significant and Unavoidable)
The Planning Area includes approximately 120 acres of lands that are under a Williamson Act Contract. Of the 120 acres of Williamson Act Contract land, approximately 56 acres are under Williamson Act Contract-Non-Renewal; thus, at the end of the non-renewal period, the lands would no longer be restricted to agricultural use. The approximately 120 acres are currently designated for medium density residential, urban neighborhood, and open space uses under the Fresno General Plan and those acres within the Fresno city limits are currently designated residential medium density and those acres within the County of Fresno are currently zoned Rural Residential.
Agricultural uses are currently permitted in areas designated as rural residential. Under the proposed Specific Plan, the approximately 120 acres of Williamson Act Contract land are proposed for Low Density, Medium Low Density, and Medium Density Residential where agricultural uses are intended to be transitioned to urban residential uses. The existing agricultural uses can continue to operate, but potentially as legal non‐conforming land uses. However, future revisions to the zoning map related to agricultural uses would result in a significant impact on existing zoning for agricultural uses because non‐agricultural uses, such as low, medium low density, and medium density residential would be allowed on the existing Contract land.
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
3.2-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.2-1. However, even after implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1, this would be considered a potentially significant impact. As such, Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 would be required, which requires that land zoned for agricultural uses shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. Additionally, future development resulting in the transition of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses would be required to comply with General Plan policies related to the conversion of agricultural land. While implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 would reduce the above-identified impact through preservation of agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio, the impact would not be reduced to a less-than-significant level due to the fact that land zoned for agricultural uses would still be permanently converted to urban uses. Therefore, this would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Prior to initiation of grading activities, the project proponent shall implement the following measure to mitigate impacts related to agriculturally-zoned land located on the site: The project proponent shall mitigate the loss of land zoned for agricultural use within the Plan Area at a 1:1 ratio. Once the acreage of land zoned for agricultural use which would be converted by the project is determined, one of the following mitigation options shall be utilized to mitigate the loss: Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, or Land Use Regulation.
The mitigation shall be verified by the City of Fresno for each phase of the project during improvement plan review.
Impact 3.2-3: Specific Plan implementation would not conflict with existing zoning, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production or result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (No Impact)
The Plan Area and surrounding area does not include any land designated or zoned as forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned for Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). Additionally, there are no forest lands within the Plan Area or surrounding area.
Therefore, because the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning of forest land or timberland, or result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use, implementation of the proposed project would result in no impact to forest resources or timberland.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.2-13 Impact 3.2-4: Future development of the Plan Area would not result in other changes in the existing environment that would lead to the abandonment of agricultural operations and conversion of farmland or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest land use. (Less than Significant)
As discussed in Impact 3.2-1, future development in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan would result in the conversion of farmland to a non‐agricultural use. Except for direct conversion, implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in other changes in the existing environment that would impact agricultural land outside of the Plan Area. Although the Specific Plan may convert land to more urbanized uses, it will not contribute to the same occurring outside of the Plan Area because the land outside of the Plan Area is within the County and outside the City’s SOI and growth Boundary.
In addition, Fresno County’s Right to Farm Ordinance is intended to reduce the occurrence of such conflicts between nonagricultural and agricultural land uses between the County of Fresno and the City of Fresno through requiring the transferor of any property in the County to provide a disclosure statement describing that the County permits agricultural operations. Projects outside of the Plan Area that are compliant with the County’s Right to Farm Ordinance would include adequate measures to buffer project uses from adjacent agricultural uses and would reduce adverse effects on neighboring agricultural uses. Since the proposed Specific Plan would not result in other changes that would lead to the abandonment of agricultural operations or the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural land uses, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Separately, the development in accordance with the proposed project would not impact forest land because no parcel within or and adjacent to the Plan Area are designated as forest land or forest land use. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impact on farmland or forest land involving other changes in the existing environment.
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
3.2-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
NDante Ave
W Mckinley Ave
W Bullard Ave
N Blythe Ave
W Shields Ave
N
Figarden Dr
N Emerson Ave
N
West Ave
W Dakota Ave
W Spruce Ave
W Olive Ave
N Polk Ave
W Figarden Dr
W Alluvial Ave
N Golden State Blvd
W Sierra Ave
W Barstow Ave
N
Hughes Ave
N Marks Ave
N Valentine Ave
W Shaw Ave
N Brawley Ave
W Clinton Ave
N Cornelia Ave
W Ashlan Ave
N Bryan Ave
N Hayes Ave
N Grantland Ave
N Weber Ave
N
Marty A ve
W San Jose Ave
W Herndon Ave
CITY OF FRESNO
SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
UV99
Sources: California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Fresno County 2018 and Madera County 2016; Fresno County; City of Fresno. Map date: March 1, 2021.
BOUNDARIES
Specific Plan of the West
Fresno City Limits
County Boundary
Fresno Sphere of Influence
FARMLAND TYPE
Prime Farmland
Farmland of Statewide
Importance
Unique Farmland
Farmland of Local Importance
Nonagricultural or Natural
Vegetation
Vacant or Disturbed Land
Rural Residential Land
Semi-agricultural and Rural
Commercial Land
Urban and Built-Up Land
Water
Figure 3.2-1.
Farmland Classifications
MADERA C OUNTY
FRESNO COUNTY
UV99
q 0 ½ 1
Miles
FARMLAND CLASSIFICATION
ACRES WITHIN THE
SPECIFIC PLAN OF
THE WEST AREA
Pri me Fa rml a nd 1.5
Fa rml a nd of Sta tewi de Importa nce 186.0
Fa rml a nd of Loca l Importa nce 1248.2
Uni que Fa rml a nd 859.0
Semi -Agri cul tura l a nd Rura l Commerci a l La nd 25.0 Rura l Res i denti a l 1515.0
Urba n a nd Bui l t Up La nd 3129.7
Nona gri cul tura l or Na tura l Vegeta ti on 2.1
Va ca nt or Di s turbed La nd 110.7
3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
3.2-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-1 This section describes regional air quality, the current attainment status of the air basin, local sensitive receptors, emission sources, and the impacts that are likely to result from Specific Plan implementation. Following this discussion is an assessment of consistency of the Specific Plan with applicable policies and local plans. The Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy analysis is located in Section 3.7. This section is based in part on the following documents, reports, and studies:
• Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (California Air Resources Board [CARB], 2005);
• Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impact (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District [SJVAPCD], 2015);
• 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard (SJVAPCD, 2016); • 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards (SJVAPCD, 2018); • CalEEMod (v.2016.3.3) (CAPCOA, 2020); and
• Technical Memorandum for the Specific Plan of the West Area – CEQA Impacts and Mitigations (Kittelson & Associates, 2020).
Comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVPACD) (July 15, 2019), and Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019). Each of the comments related to this topic are addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.
3.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN
The City of Fresno (City) is in the central portion of the San Joaquin Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB consists of eight counties: Fresno, Kern (western and central), Kings, Tulare, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus. Air pollution from significant activities in the SJVAB includes a variety of industrial-based sources as well as on- and off-road mobile sources. These sources, coupled with geographical and meteorological conditions unique to the area, stimulate the formation of unhealthy air.
The SJVAB is approximately 250 miles long and an average of 35 miles wide. It is bordered by the Sierra Nevada in the east, the Coast Ranges in the west, and the Tehachapi mountains in the south.
There is a slight downward elevation gradient from Bakersfield in the southeast end (elevation 408 feet) to sea level at the northwest end where the valley opens to the San Francisco Bay at the Carquinez Straits. At its northern end is the Sacramento Valley, which comprises the northern half of California’s Central Valley. The bowl-shaped topography inhibits movement of pollutants out of the valley (SJVAPCD, 2015).
Climate
The SJVAB is in a Mediterranean climate zone and is influenced by a subtropical high-pressure cell most of the year. Mediterranean climates are characterized by sparse rainfall, which occurs mainly
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan in winter. Summers are hot and dry. Summertime maximum temperatures often exceed 100°F in the valley.
The subtropical high-pressure cell is strongest during spring, summer, and fall and produces subsiding air, which can result in temperature inversions in the valley. A temperature inversion can act like a lid, inhibiting vertical mixing of the air mass at the surface. Any emissions of pollutants can be trapped below the inversion. Most of the surrounding mountains are above the normal height of summer inversions (1,500 to 3,000 feet).
Winter-time high pressure events can often last many weeks, with surface temperatures often lowering into the 30°F. During these events, fog can be present and inversions are extremely strong.
These wintertime inversions can inhibit vertical mixing of pollutants to a few hundred feet (SJVAPCD, 2015).
Wind Patterns
Wind speed and direction play an important role in dispersion and transport of air pollutants. Wind at the surface and aloft can disperse pollution by mixing and transporting it to other locations.
Especially in summer, winds in the San Joaquin Valley most frequently blow from the northwest. The region’s topographic features restrict air movement and channel the air mass towards the southeastern end of the valley. Marine air can flow into the basin from the San Joaquin River Delta and over Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass, where it can flow along the axis of the valley, over the Tehachapi pass, into the Southeast Desert Air Basin. This wind pattern contributes to transporting pollutants from the Sacramento Valley and the Bay Area into the SJVAB. Approximately 27 percent of the total emissions in the northern portion, 11 percent of total emissions in the central region, and 7 percent of total emission in the south valley of the SJVAB are attributed to air pollution transported from these two areas.1The Coastal Range is a barrier to air movement to the west and the high Sierra Nevada range is a significant barrier to the east (the highest peaks in the southern Sierra Nevada reach almost halfway through the Earth’s atmosphere). Many days in the winter are marked by stagnation events where winds are very weak. Transport of pollutants during winter can be very limited. A secondary but significant summer wind pattern is from the southeast and can be associated with nighttime drainage winds, prefrontal conditions, and summer monsoons.
Two significant diurnal wind cycles that occur frequently in the valley are the sea breeze and mountain-valley upslope and drainage flows. The sea breeze can accentuate the northwest wind flow, especially on summer afternoons. Nighttime drainage flows can accentuate the southeast movement of air down the valley. In the mountains during periods of weak synoptic scale winds, winds tend to be upslope during the day and downslope at night. Nighttime and drainage flows are especially pronounced during the winter when flow from the easterly direction is enhanced by nighttime cooling in the Sierra Nevada. Eddies can form in the valley wind flow and can recirculate 1 SJVAPCD. Frequently Asked Questions,
http://www.valleyair.org/general_info/frequently_asked_questions.htm#What%20is%20being%20done%20 to%20improve%20ai r%20quality%20in%20the%20San%20Joaquin%20Valley, accessed March 3, 2020.
AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-3 a polluted air mass for an extended period. Such an eddy occurs in the Fresno area during both winter and summer (SJVAPCD, 2015).
Temperature
Solar radiation and temperature are particularly important in the chemistry of ozone formation. The SJVAB averages over 260 sunny days per year. Photochemical air pollution (primarily ozone) is produced by the atmospheric reaction of organic substances (such as volatile organic compounds) and nitrogen dioxide under the influence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are very dependent on the amount of solar radiation, especially during late spring, summer, and early fall. Ozone levels typically peak in the afternoon. After the sun goes down, the chemical reaction between nitrous oxide and ozone begins to dominate. This reaction tends to scavenge and remove the ozone in the metropolitan areas through the early morning hours, resulting in the lowest ozone levels, possibly reaching zero at sunrise in areas with high nitrogen oxides emissions. At sunrise, nitrogen oxides tend to peak, partly due to low levels of ozone at this time and also due to the morning commuter vehicle emissions of nitrogen oxides.
Generally, the higher the temperature, the more ozone formed, since reaction rates increase with temperature. However, extremely hot temperatures can “lift” or “break” the inversion layer.
Typically, if the inversion layer does not lift to allow the buildup of contaminants to be dispersed, the ozone levels will peak in the late afternoon. If the inversion layer breaks and the resultant afternoon winds occur, the ozone will peak in the early afternoon and decrease in the late afternoon as the contaminants are dispersed or transported out of the SJVAB.
Ozone levels are low during winter periods when there is much less sunlight to drive the photochemical reaction (SJVAPCD, 2015).
Precipitation, Humidity, and Fog
Precipitation and fog may reduce or limit some pollutant concentrations. Ozone needs sunlight for its formation, and clouds and fog can block the required solar radiation. Wet fogs can cleanse the air during winter as moisture collects on particles and deposits them on the ground. Atmospheric moisture can also increase pollution levels. In fogs with less water content, the moisture acts to form secondary ammonium nitrate particulate matter. This ammonium nitrate is part of the valley’s PM2.5 and PM10 problem. The winds and unstable air conditions experienced during the passage of winter storms result in periods of low pollutant concentrations and excellent visibility. Between winter storms, high pressure and light winds allow cold moist air to pool on the SJVAB floor. This creates strong low-level temperature inversions and very stable air conditions, which can lead to tule fog.
Wintertime conditions favorable to fog formation are also conditions favorable to high concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10 (SJVAPCD, 2015).
Inversions
The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the San Joaquin Valley can be limited by persistent temperature inversions. Air temperature in the lowest layer of the atmosphere typically decreases with altitude. A reversal of this atmospheric state, where the air temperature increases with height,
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan is termed an inversion. The height of the base of the inversion is known as the “mixing height.” This is the level to which pollutants can mix vertically. Mixing of air is minimized above and below the inversion base. The inversion base represents an abrupt density change where little air movement occurs.
Inversion layers are significant in determining pollutant concentrations. Concentration levels can be related to the amount of mixing space below the inversion. Temperature inversions that occur on the summer days are usually 2,000 to 2,500 feet above the valley floor. In winter months, overnight inversions occur 500 to 1,500 feet above the valley floor (SJVAPCD, 2015).
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
All criteria pollutants can have human health and environmental effects at certain concentrations.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) uses six "criteria pollutants" as indicators of air quality, and has established for each of them a maximum concentration above which adverse effects on human health may occur. These threshold concentrations are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In addition, California establishes ambient air quality standards, called California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). California law does not require that the CAAQS be met by a specified date as is the case with NAAQS.
The ambient air quality standards for the six criteria pollutants (as shown in Table 3.3-1) are set to public health and the environment within an adequate margin of safety (as provided under Section 109 of the Federal Clean Air Act). Epidemiological, controlled human exposure, and toxicology studies evaluate potential health and environmental effects of criteria pollutants, and form the scientific basis for new and revised ambient air quality standards. Principal characteristics and possible health and environmental effects from exposure to the six primary criteria pollutants generated by the project are discussed below.
Ozone (O3) is a photochemical oxidant and the major component of smog. While O3 in the upper atmosphere is beneficial to life by shielding the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun, high concentrations of O3 at ground level are a major health and environmental concern. O3 is not emitted directly into the air but is formed through complex chemical reactions between precursor emissions of volatile organic compounds (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. These reactions are stimulated by sunlight and temperature so that peak O3 levels occur typically during the warmer times of the year. Both ROGs and NOx are emitted by transportation and industrial sources. ROGs are emitted from sources as diverse as autos, chemical manufacturing, dry cleaners, paint shops and other sources using solvents. Relatedly, reactive organic compounds (ROG) are defined as the subset of ROGs that are reactive enough to contribute substantially to atmospheric photochemistry.
The reactivity of O3 causes health problems because it damages lung tissue, reduces lung function and sensitizes the lungs to other irritants. Scientific evidence indicates that ambient levels of O3 not only affect people with impaired respiratory systems, such as asthmatics, but healthy adults and children as well. Exposure to O3 for several hours at relatively low concentrations has been found to significantly reduce lung function and induce respiratory inflammation in normal, healthy people AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-5 during exercise. This decrease in lung function generally is accompanied by symptoms including chest pain, coughing, sneezing and pulmonary congestion.
Studies show associations between short-term ozone exposure and non-accidental mortality, including deaths from respiratory issues. Studies also suggest long-term exposure to ozone may increase the risk of respiratory-related deaths (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2019a). The concentration of ozone at which health effects are observed depends on an individual’s sensitivity, level of exertion (i.e., breathing rate), and duration of exposure. Studies show large individual differences in the intensity of symptomatic responses, with one study finding no symptoms to the least responsive individual after a 2-hour exposure to 400 parts per billion of ozone and a 50 percent decrement in forced airway volume in the most responsive individual. Although the results vary, evidence suggest that sensitive populations (e.g., asthmatics) may be affected on days when the 8- hour maximum ozone concentration reaches 80 parts per billion (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2019b). The average background level of ozone in the California and Nevada is approximately 48.3 parts per billion, which represents approximately 77 percent of the total ozone in the western region of the U.S. (NASA, 2015).
In addition to human health effect, ozone has been tied to crop damage, typically in the form of stunted growth, leaf discoloration, cell damage, and premature death. O3 can also act as a corrosive and oxidant, resulting in property damage such as the degradation of rubber products and other materials.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless and poisonous gas produced by incomplete burning of carbon in fuels. Carbon monoxide is harmful because it binds to hemoglobin in the blood, reducing the ability of blood to carry oxygen. This interferes with oxygen delivery to the body’s organs. The most common effects of CO exposure are fatigue, headaches, confusion, and dizziness due to inadequate oxygen delivery to the brain. For people with cardiovascular disease, short-term CO exposure can further reduce their body’s already compromised ability to respond to the increased oxygen demands of exercise, exertion, or stress. Inadequate oxygen delivery to the heart muscle leads to chest pain and decreased exercise tolerance. Unborn babies whose mothers experience high levels of CO exposure during pregnancy are at risk of adverse developmental effects. Exposure to CO at high concentrations can also cause fatigue, headaches, confusion, dizziness, and chest pain.
There are no ecological or environmental effects to ambient CO (California Air Resources Board, 2019a).
Very high levels of CO are not likely to occur outdoors. However, when CO levels are elevated outdoors, they can be of particular concern for people with some types of heart disease. These people already have a reduced ability for getting oxygenated blood to their hearts in situations where the heart needs more oxygen than usual. They are especially vulnerable to the effects of CO when exercising or under increased stress. In these situations, short-term exposure to elevated CO may result in reduced oxygen to the heart accompanied by chest pain also known as angina (U.S.
EPA, 2016). Such acute effects may occur under current ambient conditions for some sensitive individuals, while increases in ambient CO levels increases the risk of such incidences.
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Nitrogen oxides (NOx) is a brownish, highly reactive gas that is present in all urban atmospheres.
The main effect of increased NO2 is the increased likelihood of respiratory problems. Under ambient conditions, NO2 can irritate the lungs, cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and lower resistance to respiratory infections. Nitrogen oxides are an important precursor both to ozone (O3) and acid rain, and may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Longer exposures to elevated concentrations of NO2 may contribute to the development of asthma and potentially increase susceptibility to respiratory infections. People with asthma, as well as children and the elderly are generally at greater risk for the health effects of NO2.
The major mechanism for the formation of NO2 in the atmosphere is the oxidation of the primary air pollutant nitric oxide (NOx). NOx plays a major role, together with ROGs, in the atmospheric reactions that produce O3. NOx forms when fuel is burned at high temperatures. The two major emission sources are transportation and stationary fuel combustion sources such as electric utility and industrial boilers.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is one of the multiple gaseous oxidized sulfur species and is formed during the combustion of fuels containing sulfur, primarily coal and oil. The largest anthropogenic source of SO2 emissions in the U.S. is fossil fuel combustion at electric utilities and other industrial facilities.
SO2 is also emitted from certain manufacturing processes and mobile sources, including locomotives, large ships, and construction equipment.
SO2 affects breathing and may aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease in high doses. Sensitive populations include asthmatics, individuals with bronchitis or emphysema, children and the elderly. SO2 is also a primary contributor to acid deposition, or acid rain, which causes acidification of lakes and streams and can damage trees, crops, historic buildings and statues. In addition, sulfur compounds in the air contribute to visibility impairment in large parts of the country.
This is especially noticeable in national parks. Ambient SO2 results largely from stationary sources such as coal and oil combustion, steel mills, refineries, pulp and paper mills and from nonferrous smelters.
Short-term exposure to ambient SO2 has been associated with various adverse health effects.
Multiple human clinical studies, epidemiological studies, and toxicological studies support a causal relationship between short-term exposure to ambient SO2 and respiratory morbidity. The observed health effects include decreased lung function, respiratory symptoms, and increased emergency department visits and hospitalizations for all respiratory causes. These studies further suggest that people with asthma are potentially susceptible or vulnerable to these health effects. In addition, SO2 reacts with other air pollutants to form sulfate particles, which are constituents of fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Inhalation exposure to PM2.5 has been associated with various cardiovascular and respiratory health effects (U.S. EPA, 2017). Increased ambient SO2 levelswould lead to increased risk of such effects.
SO2 emissions that lead to high concentrations of SO2 in the air generally also lead to the formation of other sulfur oxides (SOx). SOx can react with other compounds in the atmosphere to form small particles. These particles contribute to particulate matter (PM) pollution. Small particles may penetrate deeply into the lungs and in sufficient quantity can contribute to health problems.
AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-7 Particulate matter (PM) includes dust, dirt, soot, smoke and liquid droplets directly emitted into the air by sources such as factories, power plants, cars, construction activity, fires and natural windblown dust. Particles formed in the atmosphere by condensation or the transformation of emitted gases such as SO2 and ROGs are also considered particulate matter. PM is generally categorized based on the diameter of the particulate matter: PM10 is particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (known as respirable particulate matter), and PM2.5 is particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (known as fine particulate matter).
Based on studies of human populations exposed to high concentrations of particles (sometimes in the presence of SO2) and laboratory studies of animals and humans, there are major effects of concern for human health. These include effects on breathing and respiratory symptoms, aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, alterations in the body's defense systems against foreign materials, damage to lung tissue, carcinogenesis and premature death.
Small particulate pollution causes health impacts even at very low concentrations – indeed no threshold has been identified below which no damage to health is observed.
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) consists of small particles, less than 10 microns in diameter, of dust, smoke, or droplets of liquid which penetrate the human respiratory system and cause irritation by themselves, or in combination with other gases. Particulate matter is caused primarily by dust from grading and excavation activities, from agricultural activities (as created by soil preparation activities, fertilizer and pesticide spraying, weed burning and animal husbandry), and from motor vehicles, particularly diesel-powered vehicles. PM10 causes a greater health risk than larger particles, since these fine particles can more easily penetrate the defenses of the human respiratory system.
PM2.5 consists of fine particles, which are less than 2.5 microns in size. Similar to PM10, these particles are primarily the result of combustion in motor vehicles, particularly diesel engines, as well as from industrial sources and residential/agricultural activities such as burning. It is also formed through the reaction of other pollutants. As with PM10, these particulates can increase the chance of respiratory disease, and cause lung damage and cancer. In 1997, the U.S. EPA created new Federal air quality standards for PM2.5.
The major subgroups of the population that appear to be most sensitive to the effects of particulate matter include individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary or cardiovascular disease or influenza, asthmatics, the elderly and children. Particulate matter also impacts soils and damages materials, and is a major cause of visibility impairment.
Numerous studies have linked PM exposure to premature death in people with preexisting heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms. Studies show that every 1 microgram per cubic meter reduction in PM2.5 results in a one percent reduction in mortality rate for individuals over 30 years old (Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017). Long-term exposures, such as those experienced by people living for many years in areas with high particle levels, have been associated with problems such as reduced lung function and the development of chronic bronchitis – and even premature death. Additionally, depending on its composition, both PM10 and PM2.5 can also affect
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan water quality and acidity, deplete soil nutrients, damage sensitive forests and crops, affect ecosystem diversity, and contribute to acid rain (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2019c).
Lead (Pb) exposure can occur through multiple pathways, including inhalation of air and ingestion of Pb in food, water, soil or dust. Once taken into the body, lead distributes throughout the body in the blood and is accumulated in the bones. Depending on the level of exposure, lead can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems and the cardiovascular system. Lead exposure also affects the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. Excessive Pb exposure can cause seizures, intellectual disabilities, and/or behavioral disorders. Low doses of Pb can lead to central nervous system damage. Recent studies have also shown that Pb may be a factor in high blood pressure and subsequent heart disease.
Lead is persistent in the environment and can be added to soils and sediments through deposition from sources of lead air pollution. Other sources of lead to ecosystems include direct discharge of waste streams to water bodies from mining. Elevated lead in the environment can result in decreased growth and reproductive rates in plants and animals, and neurological effects in vertebrates.
Lead exposure is typically associated with industrial sources; major sources of lead in the air are ore and metals processing and piston-engine aircraft operating on leaded aviation fuel. Other sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers. The highest air concentrations of lead are usually found near lead smelters. As a result of the U.S. EPA’s regulatory efforts, including the removal of lead from motor vehicle gasoline, levels of lead in the air decreased by 98 percent between 1980 and 2014 (U.S. EPA, 2019d). Based on this reduction of lead in the air over this period, and since most new developments to not generate an increase in lead exposure, the health impacts of ambient lead levels are not typically monitored by the California Air Resources Board.
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the CARB have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards represent safe levels of contaminants that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant.
The federal and State ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 3.3-1 for important pollutants. The federal and State ambient standards were developed independently, although both processes attempted to avoid health-related effects. As a result, the federal and State standards differ in some cases. In general, the California standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. The U.S. EPA signed a final rule for the federal ozone eight-hour standard of 0.070 ppm on October 1, 2015, and was effective as of December 28, 2015 (equivalent to the California state ambient air quality eight-hour standard for ozone).
AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-9 TABLE 3.3-1: FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
POLLUTANT AVERAGING TIME FEDERAL PRIMARY STANDARD STATE STANDARD Ozone 1-Hour
8-Hour
--
0.070 ppm
0.09 ppm
0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour
1-Hour
9.0 ppm
35.0 ppm
9.0 ppm
20.0 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual
1-Hour
0.053 ppm
0.100 ppm
0.03 ppm
0.18 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual
24-Hour
1-Hour
0.03 ppm
0.14 ppm
0.075 ppm
--
0.04 ppm
0.25 ppm
PM10
Annual
24-Hour
--
150 ug/m3
20 ug/m3
50 ug/m3
PM2.5
Annual
24-Hour
12 ug/m3
35 ug/m3
12 ug/m3
--
Lead 30-Day Avg.
3-Month Avg.
--
0.15 ug/m3
1.5 ug/m3
--
NOTES: PPM = PARTS PER MILLION, UG/M3 = MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD, 2019A.
In 1997, new national standards for fine particulate matter diameter 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) were adopted for 24-hour and annual averaging periods. The existing PM10 standards were retained, but the method and form for determining compliance with the standards were revised.
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. TACs are injurious in small quantities and are regulated despite the absence of criteria documents. The identification, regulation and monitoring of TACs is relatively recent compared to that for criteria pollutants. Unlike criteria pollutants, TACs are regulated on the basis of risk rather than specification of safe levels of contamination.
Existing air quality concerns within Fresno County and the entire air basin are related to increases of regional criteria air pollutants (e.g., ozone and particulate matter), exposure to toxic air contaminants, odors, and increases in greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change. The primary source of ozone (smog) pollution is motor vehicles which account for 70 percent of the ozone in the region. Particulate matter is caused by dust, primarily dust generated from construction and grading activities, and smoke which is emitted from fireplaces, wood-burning stoves, and agricultural burning.
Attainment Status
In accordance with the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), the CARB is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria.
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data do not support either an attainment or nonattainment status. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.
The U.S. EPA designates areas for ozone, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For sulfur dioxide, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, the CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used.
Fresno County has a State designation Attainment or Unclassified for all criteria pollutants except for PM10 and PM2.5. Fresno County has a national designation of either Unclassified or Attainment for all criteria pollutants except for Ozone and PM2.5. Table 3.3-2 presents the state and nation attainment status for Fresno County.
TABLE 3.3-2: STATE AND NATIONAL ATTAINMENT STATUS IN FRESNO COUNTY
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS STATE DESIGNATIONS NATIONAL DESIGNATIONS Ozone (O3) (1-hour) Severe/Nonattainment Not Applicable Ozone (O3) (8-hour) Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment PM10 Nonattainment Attainment (Maintenance)
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Unclassified
Sulfates Attainment No Federal Regulation
Lead Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified No Federal Regulation
Visibility Reducing Particles Unclassified No Federal Regulation SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD, 2020.
Fresno County Air Quality Monitoring
The SJVAPCD and the CARB maintain air quality monitoring sites throughout Fresno County that collect data for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. Data for Fresno County overall was is provided for ozone, PM2.5 and PM10. It is important to note that while the State retains the one-hour standard, the federal ozone 1-hour standard was revoked by the U.S. EPA and is no longer applicable for federal standards. Data obtained from the monitoring sites between 2016 and 2018 (latest year of data available) is shown in Table 3.3-3, Table 3.3-4, and Table 3.3-5.
AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-11 TABLE 3.3-3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA SUMMARY (FRESNO COUNTY) - OZONE YEAR
DAYS > STANDARD 1-HOUR OBSERVATIONS 8-HOUR AVERAGES YEAR
COVERAGE STATE NATIONAL STATE NAT'L STATE NATIONAL
1-HR 8-HR 1-HR 8-HR MAX. D.V.¹ D.V.² MAX. D.V.¹ MAX. D.V.² MIN MAX 2018 20 65 0.7 62 0.129 0.12 0.129 0.099 0.103 0.099 0.090 96 99 2017 28 88 0.7 84 0.143 0.12 0.143 0.113 0.104 0.112 0.092 90 100 2016 37 86 0.4 82 0.131 0.12 0.131 0.101 0.105 0.101 0.094 96 98 NOTES: ALL CONCENTRATIONS EXPRESSED IN PARTS PER MILLION. THE NATIONAL 1-HOUR OZONE STANDARD WAS REVOKED IN JUNE 2005 AND IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT. STATISTICS RELATED TO THE REVOKED STANDARD ARE SHOWN IN ITALICS.D.V. ¹ = STATE DESIGNATION VALUE .D.V.²=NATIONAL DESIGN VALUE.
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (AEROMETRIC DATA ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OR IADAM) AIR POLLUTION SUMMARIES.
TABLE 3.3-4: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA SUMMARY (FRESNO COUNTY) – PM10 YEAR
EST. DAYS > STD. ANNUAL AVERAGE HIGH 24-HR AVERAGE YEAR
NAT'L STATE NAT'L STATE NAT'L STATE COVERAGE
2018 36.0 ND* 17.1 16.6 95.7 96.9 96 – 100
2017 31.1 ND* 15.0 15.0 88.3 88.3 94 – 100
2016 16.0 ND* 13.0 13.6 52.7 53.8 88 – 100
NOTES: THE NATIONAL ANNUAL AVERAGE PM10 STANDARD WAS REVOKED IN DECEMBER 2006 AND IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT. AN EXCEEDANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY A VIOLATION. STATISTICS MAY INCLUDE DATA THAT ARE RELATED TO AN EXCEPTIONAL EVENT. STATE AND NATIONAL STATISTICS MAY DIFFER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: STATE STATISTICS ARE BASED ON CALIFORNIA APPROVED SAMPLERS, WHEREAS NATIONAL STATISTICS ARE BASED ON SAMPLERS USING FEDERAL REFERENCE OR EQUIVALENT METHODS. STATE AND NATIONAL STATISTICS MAY THEREFORE BE BASED ON DIFFERENT SAMPLERS. NATIONAL STATISTICS ARE BASED ON STANDARD CONDITIONS. STATE CRITERIA FOR ENSURING THAT DATA ARE SUFFICIENTLY COMPLETE FOR CALCULATING VALID ANNUAL AVERAGES ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN THE NATIONAL CRITERIA.ND=THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT (OR NO) DATA AVAILABLE TO DETERMINE THE VALUE.
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (AEROMETRIC DATA ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OR IADAM) AIR POLLUTION SUMMARIES.
TABLE 3.3-5 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA SUMMARY (FRESNO COUNTY) - PM2.5 YEAR
EST. DAYS >
NAT'L '06
STD.
ANNUAL AVERAGE NAT'L
ANN. STD.
D.V.¹
STATE
ANNUAL
D.V.²
NAT'L '06
STD. 98TH
PERCENTILE
NAT'L
'06 24-
HR STD.
D.V.¹
HIGH 24-HOUR
AVERAGE
YEAR
COVERAGE
NAT'L STATE NAT'L STATE MIN MAX
2018 36.0 17.1 16.6 15.0 17 65.5 60 95.7 96.9 96 100
2017 31.1 15.0 15.0 14.0 15 73.3 54 88.3 47.3 94 100
2016 16.0 13.0 13.6 14.7 16 42.7 54 52.7 53.8 88 99
NOTES: ALL CONCENTRATIONS EXPRESSED IN PARTS PER MILLION. STATE AND NATIONAL STATISTICS MAY DIFFER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: STATE
STATISTICS ARE BASED ON CALIFORNIA APPROVED SAMPLERS, WHEREAS NATIONAL STATISTICS ARE BASED ON SAMPLERS USING FEDERAL REFERENCE OR EQUIVALENT METHODS. STATE AND NATIONAL STATISTICS MAY THEREFORE BE BASED ON DIFFERENT SAMPLERS. STATE CRITERIA FOR ENSURING THAT DATA ARE SUFFICIENTLY COMPLETE FOR CALCULATING VALID ANNUAL AVERAGES ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN THE NATIONAL CRITERIA. D.V. ¹ = STATE DESIGNATION VALUE. D.V. ²= NATIONAL DESIGN VALUE
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (AEROMETRIC DATA ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OR IADAM) AIR POLLUTION SUMMARIES.
ODORS
Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan With respect to odors, the human nose is the sole sensing device. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals have the ability to smell minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; in fact, an odor that is offensive to one person (e.g., from a fast-food restaurant) may be perfectly acceptable to another.
It is also important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity.
Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the odor. Intensity refers to the strength of the odor. For example, a person may use the word “strong” to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air.
When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human.
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. A sensitive receptor is a location where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons, are present and where there is a reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure to pollutants.
Examples of sensitive receptors include residences, hospitals and schools. The closest sensitive receptors to the Plan Area include existing residences located within the Plan Area itself.
3.3.2REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
Clean Air Act
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) was first signed into law in 1970. In 1977, and again in 1990, the law was substantially amended. The FCAA is the foundation for a national air pollution control effort, and it is composed of the following basic elements: NAAQS for criteria air pollutants, hazardous air pollutant standards, state attainment plans, motor vehicle emissions standards, stationary source emissions standards and permits, acid rain control measures, stratospheric ozone protection, and enforcement provisions.
AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-13 The U.S. EPA is responsible for administering the FCAA. The FCAA requires the U.S. EPA to set NAAQS for several problem air pollutants based on human health and welfare criteria. Two types of NAAQS were established: primary standards, which protect public health (with an adequate margin of safety, including for sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals suffering from respiratory diseases), and secondary standards, which protect the public welfare from nonhealth-related adverse effects such as visibility reduction.
NAAQS standards define clean air and represent the maximum amount of pollution that can be present in outdoor air without any harmful effects on people and the environment. Existing violations of the ozone and PM2.5 ambient air quality standards indicate that certain individuals exposed to these pollutants may experience certain health effects, including increased incidence of cardiovascular and respiratory ailments.
NAAQS standards have been designed to accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge and are reviewed every five years by a Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), consisting of seven members appointed by the U.S. EPA administrator. Reviewing NAAQS is a lengthy undertaking and includes the following major phases: Planning, Integrated Science Assessment (ISA), Risk/Exposure Assessment (REA), Policy Assessment (PA), and Rulemaking. The process starts with a comprehensive review of the relevant scientific literature. The literature is summarized and conclusions are presented in the ISA. Based on the ISA, U.S. EPA staff perform a risk and exposure assessment, which is summarized in the REA document. The third document, the PA, integrates the findings and conclusions of the ISA and REA into a policy context, and provides lines of reasoning that could be used to support retention or revision of the existing NAAQS, as well as several alternative standards that could be supported by the review findings. Each of these three documents is released for public comment and public peer review by the CASAC. Members of CASAC are appointed by the U.S. EPA Administrator for their expertise in one or more of the subject areas covered in the ISA. The committee’s role is to peer review the NAAQS documents, ensure that they reflect the thinking of the scientific community, and advise the Administrator on the technical and scientific aspects of standard setting. Each document goes through two to three drafts before CASAC deems it to be final.
Although there is some variability among the health effects of the NAAQS pollutants, each has been linked to multiple adverse health effects including, among others, premature death, hospitalizations and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic disease, and increased symptoms such as coughing and wheezing. NAAQS standards were last revised for each of the six criteria pollutant as listed below, with detail on what aspects of NAAQS changed during the most recent update:
• Ozone: On October 1, 2015, the U.S. EPA lowered the national eight-hour standard from
0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm, providing for a more stringent standards consistent with the current California state standard.
• CO: In 2011, the primary standards were retained from the original 1971 level, without revision. The secondary standards were revoked in 1985.
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • NO2: The national NO2 standard was most recently revised in 2010 following an exhaustive review of new literature pointed to evidence for adverse effects in asthmatics at lower NO2 concentrations than the existing national standard. • SO2: On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24- hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb.
• PM: the national annual average PM2.5 standard was most recently revised in 2012 following an exhaustive review of new literature pointed to evidence for increased risk of premature mortality at lower PM2.5 concentrations than the existing standard. • Lead: The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3- month average. In 2016, the primary and secondary standards were retained.
The law recognizes the importance for each state to locally carry out the requirements of the FCAA, as special consideration of local industries, geography, housing patterns, etc. are needed to have full comprehension of the local pollution control problems. As a result, the U.S. EPA requires each state to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that explains how each state will implement the FCAA within their jurisdiction. A SIP is a collection of rules and regulations that a particular state will implement to control air quality within their jurisdiction. The CARB is the state agency that is responsible for preparing the California SIP.
Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity requirements were added to the FCAA in the 1990 amendments, and the U.S. EPA adopted implementing regulations in 1997. See §176 of the FCAA (42 U.S.C. §7506) and 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A. Transportation conformity serves much the same purpose as general conformity: it ensures that transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects that are developed, funded, or approved by the United States Department of Transportation or that are recipients of funds under the Federal Transit Act or from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), conform to the SIP as approved or promulgated by U.S. EPA.
Currently, transportation conformity applies in nonattainment areas and maintenance areas. Under transportation conformity, a determination of conformity with the applicable SIP must be made by the agency responsible for the project, such as the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Council of Governments, or a federal agency. The agency making the determination is also responsible for all the requirements relating to public participation. Generally, a project will be considered in conformance if it is in the transportation improvement plan and the transportation improvement plan is incorporated in the SIP. If an action is covered under transportation conformity, it does not need to be separately evaluated under general conformity.
AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-15 Transportation Control Measures
One particular aspect of the SIP development process is the consideration of potential control measures as a part of making progress towards clean air goals. While most SIP control measures are aimed at reducing emissions from stationary sources, some are typically also created to address mobile or transportation sources. These are known as transportation control measures (TCMs). TCM strategies are designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled and trips, or vehicle idling and associated air pollution. These goals are achieved by developing attractive and convenient alternatives to single-occupant vehicle use. Examples of TCMs include ridesharing programs, transportation infrastructure improvements such as adding bicycle and carpool lanes, and expansion of public transit.
STATE
CARB Mobile-Source Regulation
The State of California is responsible for controlling emissions from the operation of motor vehicles in the State. Rather than mandating the use of specific technology or the reliance on a specific fuel, the CARB motor vehicle standards specify the allowable grams of pollution per mile driven. In other words, the regulations focus on the reductions needed rather than on the manner in which they are achieved. Towards this end, the CARB has adopted regulations which require auto manufacturers to phase in less polluting vehicles.
California Clean Air Act
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) was first signed into law in 1988. The CCAA provides a comprehensive framework for air quality planning and regulation, and spells out, in statute, the state’s air quality goals, planning and regulatory strategies, and performance. The CARB is the agency responsible for administering the CCAA. The CARB established ambient air quality standards pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) [§39606(b)], which are similar to the federal standards.
California Air Quality Standards
Although NAAQS are determined by the U.S. EPA, states have the ability to set standards that are more stringent than the federal standards. As such, California established more stringent ambient air quality standards. Federal and state ambient air quality standards have been established for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulates and lead. In addition, California has created standards for pollutants that are not covered by federal standards.
Although there is some variability among the health effects of the CAAQS pollutants, each has been linked to multiple adverse health effects including, among others, premature death, hospitalizations and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic disease, and increased symptoms such as coughing and wheezing. The existing state and federal primary standards for major pollutants are shown in Table 3.3-1.
Air quality standard setting in California commences with a critical review of all relevant peer reviewed scientific literature. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) uses
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan the review of health literature to develop a recommendation for the standard. The recommendation can be for no change, or can recommend a new standard. The review, including the OEHHA recommendation, is summarized in a document called the draft Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR), which is released for comment by the public, and also for public peer review by the Air Quality Advisory Committee (AQAC). AQAC members are appointed by the President of the University of California for their expertise in the range of subjects covered in the ISOR, including health, exposure, air quality monitoring, atmospheric chemistry and physics, and effects on plants, trees, materials, and ecosystems. The Committee provides written comments on the draft ISOR. The ARB staff next revises the ISOR based on comments from AQAC and the public. The revised ISOR is then released for a 45-day public comment period prior to consideration by the Board at a regularly scheduled Board hearing.
In June of 2002, the CARB adopted revisions to the PM10 standard and established a new PM2.5 annual standard. The new standards became effective in June 2003. Subsequently, staff reviewed the published scientific literature on ground-level ozone and nitrogen dioxide and the CARB adopted revisions to the standards for these two pollutants. Revised standards for ozone and nitrogen dioxide went into effect on May 17, 2006 and March 20, 2008, respectively. These revisions reflect the most recent changes to the CAAQS.
Tanner Air Toxics Act (TACs)
California regulates TACs primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588). The Tanner Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before CARB can designate a substance as a TAC. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs and has adopted U.S. EPA’s list of HAPs as TACs. Most recently, diesel PM was added to the CARB list of TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB then adopts an Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for sources that emit that particular TAC. If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate Best Available Control Technologies (BACT) to minimize emissions.
AB 2588 requires that existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a specified level prepare a toxic-emission inventory, prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant, notify the public of significant risk levels, and prepare and implement risk reduction measures. CARB has adopted diesel exhaust control measures and more stringent emission standards for various on-road mobile sources of emissions, including transit buses and off-road diesel equipment (e.g., tractors, generators). In February 2000, CARB adopted a new public-transit bus-fleet rule and emission standards for new urban buses. These rules and standards provide for (1) more stringent emission standards for some new urban bus engines, beginning with 2002 model year engines; (2) zeroemission bus demonstration and purchase requirements applicable to transit agencies; and (3) reporting requirements under which transit agencies must demonstrate compliance with the urban transit bus fleet rule.
AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-17 LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan includes objectives and policies within its Resource Conservation and Resilience Element that pertain directly to air quality. However, various objectives and policies included in the other General Plan Elements related to land use development patterns (e.g., infill and mixed-use development), transportation and transit, and urban form would also contribute in improving air quality within the proposed Plan Area and SJVAB. The Fresno General Plan establishes the following objectives and policies directly related to air quality:
URBAN FORM, LAND USE AND DESIGN ELEMENT
Objective UF-1. Emphasize the opportunity for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, and housing types.
Policy UF-1-c: Identifiable City Structure. Focus integrated and ongoing planning efforts to achieve an identifiable city structure, comprised of a concentration of buildings, people, and pedestrian-oriented activity in Downtown; along a small number of prominent east-west and north-south transit-oriented, mixed-use corridors with distinctive and strategically located Activity Centers; and in existing and new neighborhoods augmented with parks and connected by multi-purpose trails and tree lined bike lanes and streets.
Policy UF-1-e: Unique Neighborhoods. Promote and protect unique neighborhoods and mixed use areas throughout Fresno that respect and support various ethnic, cultural and historic enclaves; provide a range of housing options, including furthering affordable housing opportunities; and convey a unique character and lifestyle attractive to Fresnans.
Support unique areas through more specific planning processes that directly engage community members in creative and innovative design efforts.
Objective UF-12: Locate roughly one-half of future residential development in infill areas – defined as being within the City on December 31, 2012 – including the Downtown core area and surrounding neighborhoods, mixed-use centers and transit-oriented development along major BRT corridors, and other non-corridor infill areas, and vacant land.
Policy UF-12-a: BRT Corridors. Design land uses and integrate development site plans along BRT corridors, with transit-oriented development that supports transit ridership and convenient pedestrian access to bus stops and BRT station stops.
Policy UF-12-b: Activity Centers. Mixed-use designated areas along BRT and/or transit corridors are appropriate for more intensive concentrations of urban uses. Typical uses could include commercial areas; employment centers; schools; compact residential development; religious institutions; parks; and other gathering points where residents may interact, work, and obtain goods and services in the same place.
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy UF-12-d: Appropriate Mixed-Use. Facilitate the development of vertical and horizontal mixed-uses to blend residential, commercial, and public land uses on one site or adjacent sites. Ensure land use compatibility between mixed-use districts in Activity Centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Policy UF-12-e: Access to Activity Centers. Promote adoptions and implementation of standards supporting pedestrian activities and bicycle linkages from surrounding land uses and neighborhoods into Activity Centers and to transit stops. Provide for priority transit routes and facilities to serve the Activity Centers.
Policy UF-12-f: Mixed-Use in Activity Centers. Update the Development Code to include use regulations and standards to allow for mixed-uses and shared parking facilities, including multi-story and underground parking facilities, within Activity Centers.
Objective UF-14: Create an urban form that facilitates multi-modal connectivity.
Policy UF-14-a: Design Guidelines for Walkability. Develop and use design guidelines and standards for a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment with a network of streets and connections for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as transit and autos.
Policy UF-14-b: Local Street Connectivity. Design local roadways to connect throughout neighborhoods and large private developments with adjacent major streets and pathways of existing adjacent development. Create access for pedestrians and bicycles where a local street must dead end or be designed as a cul-de-sac to adjoining uses that provide services, shopping, and connecting pathways for access to the greater community area.
Objective LU-2: Plan for infill development that includes a range of housing types, building forms, and land uses to meet the needs of both current and future residents.
Policy LU-2-a: Infill Development and Redevelopment. Promote development of vacant, underdeveloped, and redevelopable land uses within the City Limit where urban services are available considering the establishment and implementation of supportive regulations and programs.
Policy LU-2-b: Infill Development for Affordable Housing. Consider a priority infill incentive program for residential infill development of existing vacant lots and underutilized sites within the City as a strategy to help to meet the affordable housing needs of the community.
Policy LU-3-c: Zoning for High Density on Major BRT Corridors. Consider the adoption of supportive zoning regulations for compact development along BRT corridors leading to the Downtown Core that will not diminish the long-term growth and development potential for Downtown.
Policy LU-5-f: High Density Residential Uses. Promote high-density residential uses to support Activity Centers and BRT Corridors, affordable housing and walkable access to transit stops.
AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-19 Policy LU-6-d: Neighborhood and Community Commercial Center Design. Plan for neighborhood mixed use and community commercial uses to implement the Urban Form concepts of the General Plan, promote the stability and identity of neighborhood and community shopping areas, and allow efficient access without compromising the operational effectiveness of the street system.
• Neighborhoods will be anchored by community commercial centers with a mix of uses that meet the area’s needs and create a sense of place. • Community commercial centers will be located within Activity Centers.
Policy LU-6-f: Auto-Oriented Commercial Uses. Direct highway-oriented and auto-serving commercial uses to locations that are compatible with the Urban Form policies of the General Plan. Ensure adequate buffering measures for adjacent residential uses noise, glare, odors, and dust.
Policy LU-8-b: Access to Public Facilities. Ensure that major public facilities and institutions have adequate multi-modal access and can be easily reached by public transit.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RESILIENCY ELEMENT
Objective RC-4: In cooperation with other jurisdictions and agencies in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, take necessary actions to achieve and maintain compliance with State and federal air quality standards for criteria pollutants.
Policy RC-4-a: Support Regional Efforts. Support and lead, where appropriate, regional, State and federal programs and actions for the improvement of air quality, especially the SJVAPCD’s efforts to monitor and control air pollutants from both stationary and mobile sources and implement Reasonably Available Control Measures in the Ozone Attainment Plan.
Policy RC-4-b: Conditions of Approval. Develop and incorporate air quality maintenance requirements, compatible with Air Quality Attainment and Maintenance Plans, as conditions of approval for General Plan amendments, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and development proposals.
Policy RC-4-c: Evaluate Impacts with Models. Continue to require the use of computer models used by SJVAPCD to evaluate the air quality impacts of plans and projects that require such environmental review by the City.
Policy RC-4-d: Forward Information. Forward information regarding proposed General Plan amendments, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and development proposals that require air quality evaluation, and amendments to development regulations to the SJVAPCD for their review of potential air quality and health impacts.
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy RC-4-e: Support Employer-Based Efforts. Support and promote employer implementation of staggered work hours and employee incentives to use carpools, public transit and other measures to reduce vehicular use and traffic congestion.
Policy RC-4-f: Municipal Operations and Fleet Actions. Continue to control and reduce air pollution emissions from vehicles owned by the City operations and municipal operations and facilities by undertaking the following:
• Expand the use of alternative fuel, electric, and hybrid vehicles in City fleets. • Create preventive maintenance schedules that will ensure efficient engine operation.
• Include air conditioning recycling and charging stations in the City vehicle maintenance facilities, to reduce freon gases being released into the atmosphere and electrostatic filtering systems in City maintenance shops, when feasible or when required by health regulations.
• Use satellite corporation yards for decentralized storage and vehicle maintenance. • Convert City-owned emergency backup generators to natural gas fuels whenever possible, and
• Create an advanced energy storage system.
Policy RC-4-g: FAX Actions. Continue efforts to improve Fresno Area Express (FAX) bus transit system technical performance, reduce emission levels, streamline system operations, and implement BRT where supportive land uses are proposed by Figure LU-1:
Land Use Diagram.
Policy RC-4-h: Airport Actions. Support Airport efforts to develop and maintain programs and policies to support City, State and Federal efforts to achieve and maintain air quality standards.
Policy RC-4-j: All Departments. Continue to develop and implement in all City departments, operational policies to reduce air pollution.
Policy RC-4-k: Electric Charging. Develop standards to facilitate electric charging infrastructure in both new and existing public and private buildings, in order to accommodate these vehicles as the technology becomes widespread.
Policy RC-8-j: Alternative Fuel Network. Support the development of a network of integrated charging and alternate fuel station for both public and private vehicles, and if feasible, open up municipal stations to the public as part of network development.
HEALTHY COMMUNITIES ELEMENT
Policy HC-3-d: Green Standards for Affordable Housing. Provide appropriate incentives for affordable housing providers, agencies, non-profit and market rate developers to use LEED and CalGreen Tier 1 or Tier 2 standards or third party equivalents.
AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-21 Policy HC-3-f: New Drive-Through Facilities. Include in the Development Code design review to reduce vehicle emissions resulting from queued idling vehicles at drive-through facilities in proximity to residential neighborhoods.
MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Objective MT-1: Create and maintain a transportation system that is safe, efficient, provides access in an equitable manner, and optimizes travel by all modes.
Policy MT-1-f: Match Travel Demand with Transportation Facilities. Designate the types and intensities of land uses at locations such that related travel demands can be accommodated by a variety of viable transportation modes and support Complete Neighborhoods while avoiding the rerouting of excessive or incompatible traffic through local residential streets.
Policy MT-1-g: Complete Streets Concept Implementation. Provide transportation facilities based upon a Complete Streets concept that facilitates the balanced use of all viable travel modes (pedestrians, bicyclists, motor vehicle and transit users), meeting the transportation needs of all ages, income groups, and abilities and providing mobility for a variety of trip purposes, while also supporting other City goals.
Policy MT-1-m: Standards for Planned Bus Rapid Transit Corridors and Activity Centers.
Independent of the Traffic Impact Zones identified in MT-2-I and Figure MT-4, strive to maintain the following vehicle LOS standards on major roadway segments and intersections along Bus Rapid Transit Corridors and in Activity Centers:
• LOS E or better at all times, including peak travel times, unless the City Traffic Engineer determines that mitigation to maintain this LOS would be infeasible and/or conflict with the achievement of other General Plan policies.
• Accept LOS F conditions in Activity Centers and Bus Rapid Transit Corridors only if provisions are made to improve the overall system and/or promote non-vehicular transportation and transit as part of a development project or a City-initiated project.
In accepting LOS F conditions, the City Traffic Engineer may request limited analyses of operational issues at locations near Activity Centers and along Bus Rapid Transit Corridors, such as queuing or left-turn movements.
• Give priority to maintaining pedestrian service first, followed by transit service and then by vehicle LOS, where conflicts between objectives for service capacity between different transportation modes occur.
• Identify pedestrian-priority and transit-priority streets where these modes would have priority in order to apply a multi-modal priority system, as part of the General Plan implementation.
Objective MT-4: Establish and maintain a continuous, safe, and easily accessible bikeways system throughout the metropolitan area to reduce vehicle use, improve air quality and the quality of life, and provide public health benefits.
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy MT-4-a: Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plan. To the extent consistent with this General Plan, continue to implement and periodically update the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plan to meet State standards and requirements for recommended improvements and funding proposals as determined appropriate and feasible.
Policy MT-4-b: Bikeway Improvements. Establish and implement property development standards to assure that projects adjacent to designated bikeways provide adequate rightof-way and that necessary improvements are constructed to implement the planned bikeway system shown on Figure MT-2 to provide for bikeways, to the extent feasible, when existing roadways are reconstructed; and alternative bikeway alignments or routes where inadequate right-of-way is available.
Policy MT-4-d: Prioritization of Bikeway Improvements. Prioritize bikeway components that link existing separated sections of the system, or that are likely to serve the highest concentration of existing or potential cyclists, particularly in those neighborhoods with low vehicle ownership rates, or that are likely to serve destination areas with the highest demand such as schools, shopping areas, recreational and park areas, and employment centers.
Objective MT-5: Establish a well-integrated network of pedestrian facilities to accommodate safe, convenient, practical, and inviting travel by walking, including for those with physical mobility and vision impairments.
Policy MT-5-a: Sidewalk Development. Pursue funding and implement standards for development of sidewalks on public streets, with priority given to meeting the needs of persons with physical and vision limitations; providing safe routes to school; completing pedestrian improvements in established neighborhoods with lower vehicle ownership rates; or providing pedestrian access to public transportation routes.
Policy MT-5-b: Sidewalk Requirements. Assure adequate access for pedestrians and people with disabilities in new residential developments per adopted City policies, consistent with the California Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Objective MT-6: Establish a network of multi-purpose pedestrian and bicycle paths, as well as limited access trails, to link residential areas to local and regional open spaces and recreation areas and urban Activity Centers in order to enhance Fresno's recreational amenities and alternative transportation options.
Policy MT-6-a: Link Residences to Destinations. Design a pedestrian and bicycle path network that links residential areas with Activity Centers, such as parks and recreational facilities, educational institutions, employment centers, cultural sites, and other focal points of the city environment.
Policy MT-6-c: Link Paths and Trails and Recreational Facilities. Continue to participate in multi-agency planning and implementation partnerships for the coordinated development AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-23 of the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area planned path and trail system and with Madera County for the San Joaquin River Parkway trail system.
Policy MT-6-g: Path and Trail Development. Require all projects to incorporate planned multi-purpose path and trail development standards and corridor linkages consistent with the General Plan, applicable law and case-by-case determinations as a condition of project approval.
Policy MT-6-i: Path and Trail Design Standards. Designate and design paths and trails in accordance with design standards established by the City that give consideration to all path and trail users (consistent with design, terrain and habitat limitations) and provide for appropriate widths, surfacing, drainage, design speed, barriers, fences, signage, visibility, intersections, bridges, and street cleaning.
Policy MT-6-j: Variety in Path and Trail Design. rovide for different levels and types of usable pedestrian and bicycle corridors, including broad, shaded sidewalks; jogging paths; paved and all terrain bicycle paths; through-block passageways; and hiking trails. Where a designated multi-purpose path route is adjacent to a public right-of-way which accommodates bike lane, allow for flexibility in path design, so that bike lanes may be substituted for the bicycle component of the multi-purpose path where it is safe and appropriate to do so.
Objective MT-8: Provide public transit options that serve existing and future concentrations of residences, employment, recreation and civic uses and are feasible, efficient, safe, and minimize environmental impacts.
Policy MT-8-c: New Development Facilitating Transit. Continue to review development proposals in transportation corridors to ensure they are designed to facilitate transit.
Coordinate all projects that have residential or employment densities suitable for transit services, so they are located along existing or planned transit corridors or that otherwise have the potential for transit orientation to FAX, and consider FAX’s comments in decisionmaking.
Objective MT-9: Provide public transit opportunities to the maximum number and diversity of people practicable in balance with providing service that is high in quality, convenient, frequent, reliable, cost- effective, and financially feasible.
Policy MT-9-a: Equitable Transit Provision. Provide transit that can serve all residents, including older residents and persons with disabilities.
Policy MT-9-c: Addressing Unmet Transit Needs. Continue to participate in the Council of Fresno County Governments’ annual unmet transit needs evaluation process, particularly with respect to identifying need for access to medical and educational services; perform market analysis to identify potential transit choice riders; and pursue public education and information programs to identify changes in demand characteristics and opportunities to increase ridership.
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy MT-9-d: Long-Range Transit Options. Advocate and participate in regional transportation analyses and identify appropriate long-range measures to support incorporation of light rail transit and other advanced transit service within major transportation corridors, freeway and railroad alignments.
Policy MT-9-e: Area Specific Transit Improvements. Continue to evaluate and pursue the planning and implementation of area specific transit improvements, such as street car facilities.
Policy MT-9-f: Encourage Telecommuting. Support measures that will facilitate expanded use of telecommunications technologies to reduce congestion, expansion of regional transportation facilities consistent with this General Plan, energy use, and air emissions (i.e., work at home, dispersed telecommute work centers, teleconferencing).
Fresno Municipal Code
Chapter 10, Article 13 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code addresses healthy air and smog prevention. For example, Section 10-1305 of this chapter provides an assessment and recommendations for natural gas fueling and electric vehicle charging stations. Section 10-1306 of this chapter identifies that the Director of General Services of the city, in consultation with the Advisory Committee, the California Air Resources Board, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and interested city departments, shall develop and adopt fuel-efficiency specifications governing the purchase of motor vehicles. Section 10-1308 of this chapter describes the implementation of a pilot program to evaluate the efficacy of using Alternative Fuel and/or Hybrid Electric Buses, and the phase-out of older diesel buses. Additionally, strategies to reduce air emissions from the regional public sector and private sector fleets is addressed in Section 10-1309 of the Municipal Code. In addition, Section 15-2510 of the Municipal Code identifies limitations on odors during a project’s operational phase (i.e. “No use, process, or activity shall produce objectionable odors that are perceptible without instruments by a reasonable person at the lot lines of a site”), although odors from temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the subject parcel (e.g., construction equipment, trains, vehicle emissions, trucks, etc.) are exempt from this standard.
Fresno Council of Governments
Fresno Council of Governments’ (Fresno COG’s) primary functions are transportation planning and programming. As a state-designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) and federallydesignated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Fresno County, Fresno COG must comply with both designation requirements. Fresno COG prepares a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that looks 25 years into the future, and sets policies for a wide variety of transportation options and projects. It guides how and where people and goods will travel by identifying both existing and needed transportation facilities. Fresno COG prepares the region’s Federal Transportation Improvement Program, a four-year program of financially constrained transportation projects consisting of highway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects that are selected through an approved project selection process.
AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-25 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The primary role of SJVAPCD is to develop plans and implement control measures in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin to control air pollution. These controls primarily affect stationary sources such as industry and power plants. Rules and regulations have been developed by SJVAPCD to control air pollution from a wide range of air pollution sources. SJVAPCD also provides uniform procedures for assessing potential air quality impacts of proposed projects and for preparing the air quality section of environmental documents.
AIR QUALITY PLANNING
The U.S. EPA requires states that have areas that do not meet the National AAQS to prepare and submit air quality plans showing how the National AAQS will be met. If the states cannot show how the National AAQS will be met, then the states must show progress toward meeting the National AAQS. These plans are referred to as the State Implementation Plans (SIP). California’s adopted 2007 State Strategy was submitted to the U.S. EPA as a revision to its SIP in November 2007.2 More recently, in October 2018, the CARB adopted the 2018 Updates to the California State Implementation Plan.
In addition, the CARB requires regions that do not meet California AAQS for ozone to submit clean air plans (CAPs) that describe measures to attain the standard or show progress toward attainment.
To ensure federal CAA compliance, SJVAPCD is currently developing plans for meeting new National AAQS for ozone and PM2.5 and the California AAQS for PM10 in the SJVAB (for California CAA compliance)3The following describes the air plans prepared by the SJVAPCD, which are incorporated by reference per CEQA Guidelines Section 15150.
1-HOUR OZONE PLAN
Although U.S. EPA revoked its 1979 1-hour ozone standard in June 2005, many planning requirements remain in place, and SJVAPCD must still attain this standard before it can rescind CAA Section 185 fees. The SJVAPCD’s most recent 1-hour ozone plan, the 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1- hour Ozone Standard, demonstrated attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by 2017. However, on July 18, 2016, the U.S. EPA published in the Federal Register a final action determining that SJVAB has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based on the 2012 to 2014 three-year period allowing nonattainment penalties to be lifted under federal Clean Air Act section 179b (SJVAPCD, 2015). 8-HOUR OZONE PLAN
The SJVAPCD’s Governing Board adopted the 2007 Ozone Plan on April 30, 2007. This far-reaching plan, with innovative measures and a “dual path” strategy, assures expeditious attainment of the federal 8-hour ozone standard as set by U.S. EPA in 1997. The plan projects that the valley will achieve the 8-hour ozone standard for all areas of the SJVAB no later than 2023. The CARB approved 2 Note that the plan was adopted by CARB on September 27, 2007; California Air Resources Board. 2007.
California Air Resources Board’s Proposed State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan. 3 SJVAPCD, 2012. 2012 PM2.5 Plan, December 20.
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan the plan on June 14, 2007. The U.S. EPA approved the 2007 Ozone Plan effective April 30, 2012.
SJVAPCD adopted the 2016 Ozone Plan to address the federal 2008 8-hour ozone standard, which must be attained by end of 2031.4,5
PM10 PLAN
Based on PM10 measurements from 2003 to 2006, the U.S. EPA found that the SJVAB has reached federal PM10 standards. On September 21, 2007, the SJVAPCD’s Governing Board adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation. This plan demonstrates that the valley will continue to meet the PM10 standard. U.S. EPA approved the document and on September 25, 2008, the SJVAB was redesignated to attainment/maintenance (SJVAPCD, 2015).
PM2.5 PLAN
The SJVAPCD adopted the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards on November 15, 2018.6This plan addresses the U.S. EPA federal 1997 annual PM2.5 standard of 15 μg/m³ and 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 65 μg/m³; the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 μg/m³; and the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard of 12 μg/m³. This plan demonstrates attainment of the federal PM2.5 standards as expeditiously as practicable (SJVAPCD, 2020).
All of the above-referenced plans include measures (i.e., federal, state, and local) that would be implemented through rule making or program funding to reduce air pollutant emissions in the SJVAB. Transportation control measures are part of these plans.
SJVAPCD RULES AND REGULATIONS
Assembly Bill 170
Assembly Bill 170, Reyes (AB 170), was adopted by state lawmakers in 2003, creating Government Code Section 65302.1, which requires cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley to amend their general plans to include data and analysis, comprehensive goals, policies, and feasible implementation strategies designed to improve air quality. The elements to be amended include, but are not limited to, those elements dealing with land use, circulation, housing, conservation, and open space. Section 65302.1.c identifies four areas of air quality discussion required in these amendments:
• A report describing local air quality conditions, attainment status, and state and federal air quality and transportation plans;
• A summary of local, district, state, and federal policies, programs, and regulations to improve air quality;
4 SJVAPCD. Ozone Plans. http://www.valleyair.org/ Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone_Plans.htm, accessed March 3, 2020.
5 SJVAPCD. 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard, http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone-Plan-2016.htm, accessed March 3, 2020. 6 SJVAPCD. Particulate Matter Plans. http://valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/PM_Plans.htm, accessed March 9, 2020.
AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-27 • A comprehensive set of goals, policies, and objectives to improve air quality; • Feasible implementation measures designed to achieve these goals.
SJVAPCD Indirect Source Review
On December 15, 2005, SJVAPCD adopted the Indirect Source Review Rule (ISR or Rule 9510) to reduce ozone precursors (i.e., ROG and NOx) and PM10 emissions from new land use development projects. Specifically, Rule 9510 targets the indirect emissions from vehicles and construction equipment associated with these projects and applies to both construction and operational-related impacts. The rule applies to any applicant that seeks to gain a final discretionary approval for a development project, or any portion thereof, which upon full buildout would include any one of the following:
• 50 residential units.
• 2,000 square feet of commercial space.
• 25,000 square feet of light industrial space.
• 100,000 square feet of heavy industrial space.
• 20,000 square feet of medical office space.
• 39,000 square feet of general office space.
• 9,000 square feet of educational space.
• 10,000 square feet of government space.
• 20,000 square feet of recreational space.
• 9,000 square feet of space not identified above.
• Transportation/transit projects with construction exhaust emissions of two or more tons of NOx or two or more tons of PM10.
• Residential projects on contiguous or adjacent property under common ownership of a single entity in whole or in part, that is designated and zoned for the same development density and land use, regardless of the number of tract maps, and has the capability of accommodating more than 50 residential units.
• Nonresidential projects on contiguous or adjacent property under common ownership of a single entity in whole or in part, that is designated and zoned for the same development density and land use, and has the capability of accommodating development projects that emit two or more tons per year of NOx or PM10 during project operations.
The rule requires all subject, nonexempt projects to mitigate both construction and operational period emissions by (1) applying feasible SJVAPCD-approved mitigation measures, or (2) paying any applicable fees to support programs that reduce emissions. Off-site emissions reduction fees (offsite fee) are required for projects that do not achieve the required emissions reductions through onsite emission reduction measures. Phased projects can defer payment of fees in accordance with an Off-site Emissions Reduction Fee Deferral Schedule (FDS) approved by the SJVAPCD.
To determine how an individual project would satisfy Rule 9510, each project would submit an air quality impact assessment (AIA) to the SJVAPCD as early as possible, but no later than prior to the project’s final discretionary approval, to identify the project’s baseline unmitigated emissions inventory for indirect sources: on-site exhaust emissions from construction activities and
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan operational activities from mobile and area sources of emissions (excludes fugitive dust and permitted sources).28 Rule 9510 requires the following reductions, which are levels that the SJVAPCD has identified as necessary, based on their air quality management plans, to reach attainment for ozone and particulate matter:
Construction Equipment Emissions
The exhaust emissions for construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) used or associated with the development project shall be reduced by the following amounts from the statewide average as estimated by CARB:
• 20 percent of the total NOx emissions
• 45 percent of the total PM10 exhaust emissions
Mitigation measures may include those that reduce construction emissions on-site by using less polluting construction equipment, which can be achieved by utilizing add-on controls, cleaner fuels, or newer, lower emitting equipment.
Operational Emissions
• NOx Emissions. Applicants shall reduce 33.3 percent of the project’s operational baseline NOx emissions over a period of 10 years as quantified in the approved AIA. • PM10 Emissions. Applicants shall reduce of 50 percent of the project’s operational baseline PM10 emissions over a period of 10 years as quantified in the approved AIA.
These requirements listed above can be met through any combination of on-site emission reduction measures. In the event that a project cannot achieve the above standards through imposition of mitigation measures, then the project would be required to pay the applicable off-site fees. These fees are used to fund various incentive programs that cover the purchase of new equipment, engine retrofit, and education and outreach.
Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions
SJVAPCD controls fugitive PM10 through Regulation VIII, Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. The purpose of this regulation is to reduce ambient concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate anthropogenic (human caused) fugitive dust emissions. • Regulation VIII, Rule 8021 applies to any construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities, including, but not limited to, land clearing, grubbing, scraping, travel on-site, and travel on access roads to and from the site. • Regulation VIII, Rule 8031 applies to the outdoor handling, storage, and transport of any bulk material.
• Regulation VIII, Rule 8041 applies to sites where carryout or trackout has occurred or may occur on paved roads or the paved shoulders of public roads. • Regulation VIII, Rule 8051 applies to any open area having 0.5 acre or more within urban areas or 3.0 acres or more within rural areas, and contains at least 1,000 square feet of disturbed surface area.
AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-29 • Regulation VIII, Rule 8061 applies to any new or existing public or private paved or unpaved road, road construction project, or road modification project. • Regulation VIII, Rule 8071 applies to any unpaved vehicle/equipment traffic area. • Regulation VIII, Rule 8081 applies to off-field agricultural sources.
Sources regulated are required to provide Dust Control Plans that meet the regulation requirements.
Under Rule 8021, a Dust Control Plan is required for any residential project that will include 10 or more acres of disturbed surface area, a nonresidential project with 5 or more acres of disturbed surface area, or a project that relocates 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials for at least three days. The Dust Control Plan is required to be submitted to SJVAPCD prior to the start of any construction activity. The Dust Control Plan must also describe fugitive dust control measure to be implemented before, during, and after any dust-generating activity. For sites smaller than those listed above, the project is still required to notify SJVAPCD a minimum of 48 hours prior to commencing earthmoving activities.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Rule 4002 applies in the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or removed (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants); this rule applies to all sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants.
Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations If asphalt paving will be used, then paving operations of the proposed project will be subject to Rule 4641. This rule applies to the manufacture and use of cutback asphalt, slow cure asphalt and emulsified asphalt for paving and maintenance operations.
Nuisance Odors
SJVAPCD controls nuisance odors through implementation of Rule 4102, Nuisance. Pursuant to this rule, “a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such person or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.”
Employer Based Trip Reduction Program
SJVAPCD has implemented Rule 9410, Employer Based Trip Reduction. The purpose of this rule is to reduce VMT from private vehicles used by employees to commute to and from their worksites to reduce emissions of NOx, ROG, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The rule applies to employers with at least 100 employees. Employers are required to implement an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (ETRIP) for each worksite with 100 or more eligible employees to meet applicable targets specified in the rule. Employers are required to facilitate the participation of the development of ETRIPs by providing information to its employees explaining the requirements and applicability of this rule. Employers are required to prepare and submit an ETRIP for each worksite to the District. The ETRIP must be updated annually. Under this rule, employers shall collect information on the modes of transportation used for each eligible employee’s commutes both to and from work for every day of the commute verification period, as defined in using either the
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan mandatory commute verification method or a representative survey method. Annual reporting includes the results of the commute verification for the previous calendar year along with the measures implemented as outlined in the ETRIP and, if necessary, any updates to the ETRIP.
Assembly Bill 617
In 2017, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 617 (C. Garcia, Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017) to develop a new community focused program to more effectively reduce exposure to air pollution and preserve public health. This bill directs the CARB and all local air districts to take measures to protect communities disproportionally impacted by air pollution. With input from communities and air districts throughout California, CARB developed a Community Air Protection Blueprint to implement AB 617.
There are five central components to the new AB 617 mandate:
• Community-level air monitoring;
• A state strategy and community specific emission reduction plans; • Accelerated review of retrofit pollution control technologies on industrial facilities subject to Cap-and-Trade;
• Enhanced emission reporting requirements; and
• Increased penalty provisions for polluters.
In response to AB 617 the CARB established the Community Air Protection Program. The Community Air Protection Program's mission is to reduce pollution exposure in communities based on environmental, health and socioeconomic information. This first-of-its-kind statewide effort requires community air monitoring, community emission reduction plans, and incentive funding to deploy the cleanest technologies in the most impacted areas.
3.3.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Specific Plan will have a significant impact on the environment associated with air quality if it will:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard;
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and/or • Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS MODELING
California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)TM (v.2016.3.3), developed for the California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with California air districts, was used to estimate net emissions for the Specific Plan. Given the size and complexity of the proposed Specific AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-31 Plan, it was assumed that full Specific Plan buildout would not occur until at least 2035, consistent with the assumption made in the Technical Memorandum for the Specific Plan of the West Area – CEQA Impacts and Mitigations prepared by Kittelson & Associates.
The land use assumptions for the modeling to estimate net emissions from the Specific Plan include (consistent with the land uses assumed in the Technical Memorandum for the Specific Plan of the West Area – CEQA Impacts and Mitigations): Single Family Housing – 34,474 units; Apartments Low Rise – 4,448 units; Apartments Mid Rise – 4,661 units; Apartments High Rise – 2,097 units; Regional Shopping Center – 48,890,010 square feet; General Office Building – 7,165,620 square feet; Office Park – 3,266,119; General Light Industry – 1,427,461 square feet; City Park – 243.63 acres; Place of Worship – 785,910 square feet; Elementary School – 15,631 students; Junior High School – 7,815 students; High School – 9,815 students. In addition, approximately 1,110 acres of asphalt surfaces were assumed (e.g. for roadways and related infrastructure), based on the difference between the total Plan Area and the land uses assumed by Kittelson & Associates for the Technical Memorandum for the Specific Plan of the West Area – CEQA Impacts and Mitigation. See Appendix B for further detail.
OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Operational activities are those activities that would occur during the operational (i.e. postconstruction) phase of the project. Operational activities include activities such as mobile sources (i.e. vehicles generated by development of the project), as well as area sources (such as consumer projects, landscape maintenances), and energy (such as electricity and natural gas). Mobile-source based criteria pollutant emissions were estimated using the emission factors provided within CalEEMod; an estimate of proposed Specific Plan-generated VMT developed as part of this analysis was provided by the traffic consultant, Kittelson & Associates, as provided in Appendix G of this EIR.
Criteria pollutant emissions from consumer products, landscape maintenance activities, and other sources of operational energy usage (e.g. electricity and natural gas) were estimated using the default emission factors provided in CalEEMod.
Operation emissions from all sources were estimated for both buildout of the Specific Plan, which is anticipated to occur by 2035. Maximum daily emissions were estimated for both peak summer day and peak winter day. The highest value for each criteria pollutant was used for the purposes of this analysis. The potential for Specific Plan-generated traffic to result in concentrations of CO that exceed NAAQS and State AAQS for this pollutant were evaluated based on traffic volumes generated by future buildout allowed under the proposed Specific Plan. Health risks from Specific Plangenerated, construction- and operation-related emissions of TACs were assessed qualitatively. This assessment is based on the location from which construction- or operation-related TAC emissions would be generated by land uses developed under the Specific Plan relative to off-site sensitive receptors, as well as the duration during which TAC exposure would occur. Similarly, the assessment of odor-related impacts is based on the types of odor sources associated with the land uses that would be developed under the Specific Plan and their location relative to off-site receptors.
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Construction activities were assumed take place over the course of approximately 15 years, from 2020 to 2035. These construction activities can be described as demolition, site improvements (grading, underground infrastructure, and topside improvements) and vertical construction (building construction and architectural coatings).
Demolition: Demolition activities may be performed as one task, but may be broken into two or more separate phases. The exact demolition schedule is largely dependent on the economic conditions of the region and the pace of development of that would occur within the Plan Area.
Site Improvements: The construction of site improvements may be performed as one task, but may be broken into two or more separate phases. The exact construction schedule is largely dependent on the economic conditions of the region and the ability for the market to absorb the proposed residential and commercial buildings.
The site improvement phase of construction will begin with site preparation. This step will include the use of dozers, backhoes, and loaders to strip (clear and grub) all organic materials and the upper half-inch to inch of soil from the Plan Area. This task will include vehicle trips from construction workers.
After the site is stripped of organic materials, grading would begin. This activity will involve the use of excavators, graders, dozers, scrappers, loaders, and backhoes to move soil around the Plan Area to create specific engineered grade elevations and soil compaction levels.
The next step involves the installation of underground infrastructure. This step will involve the use of excavators to dig trenches, place pipe and conduit, bury pipe and conduit, and compact trench soil. Grading the Plan Area and underground installation of infrastructure would include vehicle trips from construction workers.
The last task is to install the topside improvements, which includes pouring concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and access aprons and then paving of all streets and parking lots. This task will involve the use of pavers, paving equipment, and rollers and will take approximately three months and will include vehicle trips from construction workers.
Building Construction/Architectural Coatings: Building construction involves the vertical construction of structures and landscaping around the structures. This task will involve the use of forklifts, generator sets, welders and small tractors/loaders/backhoes. The exact construction schedule is largely dependent on the economic conditions of the region and the ability of the market to absorb the residential and commercial buildings. Architectural coatings involve the interior and exterior painting associated with the structures. This task generally begin after construction begins on the structure and will generally be completed for each building around the time of the completion of each building. Building construction and the application of architectural coatings will include vehicle trips from construction workers, and building construction will also include vehicle trips from vendors.
AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-33
MITIGATION
Air quality-related mitigation measures developed for the proposed Specific Plan were developed using CalEEMod, with default emission factors generally as provided by CalEEMod. CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures guidance, and guidance provided by the SJVAPCD were utilized, as necessary. See Appendix B to this EIR for further detail. The results from CalEEMod for operational and construction emissions are described under Impacts and Mitigation Measures, below.
IMPACTS RELATED TO PROJECT-GENERATED POLLUTANTS OF HUMAN
HEALTH CONCERN
In December 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (226 Cal.App.4th 704) (hereafter referred to as the Friant Ranch Decision). The case reviewed the long-term, regional air quality analysis contained in the EIR for the proposed Friant Ranch development. The Friant Ranch project is a 942-acre master-plan development in unincorporated Fresno County within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The Court found that the air quality analysis was inadequate because it failed to provide enough detail “for the public to translate the bare [criteria pollutant emissions] numbers provided into adverse health impacts or to understand why such a translation is not possible at this time.” The Court’s decision clarifies that the agencies authoring environmental documents must make reasonable efforts to connect a project’s air quality impacts to specific health effects or explain why it is not technically feasible to perform such an analysis.
All criteria pollutants that would be generated by the project are associated with some form of health risk (e.g., asthma). Criteria pollutants can be classified as either regional or localized pollutants. Regional pollutants can be transported over long distances and affect ambient air quality far from the emissions source. Localized pollutants affect ambient air quality near the emissions source. Ozone is considered a regional criteria pollutant, whereas CO, NO2, SO2, and lead (Pb) are localized pollutants. PM can be both a local and a regional pollutant, depending on its composition.
As discussed above, the primary criteria pollutants of concern generated by the project are ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and PM (including Diesel PM). The SJVAPCD does not currently have a methodology that would correlate the expected air quality emissions of projects to the likely health consequences of the increased emissions.
REGIONAL PROJECT-GENERATED CRITERIA POLLUTANTS (OZONE PRECURSORS AND REGIONAL PM) Adverse health effects induced by regional criteria pollutant emissions generated by future development allowed under the Specific Plan (ozone precursors and PM) are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, the number and character of exposed individuals [e.g., age, gender]). For these reasons, ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) contribute to the formation of ground-borne ozone on a regional scale, where emissions of ROG and NOx generated in one area may not equate to a specific ozone concentration in that same area. Similarly, some types of particulate pollutants may be transported over long-distances or formed through atmospheric reactions. As such, the
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan magnitude and locations of specific health effects from exposure to increased ozone or regional PM concentrations are the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region, as opposed to a single individual project.
Models and tools have been developed to correlate regional criteria pollutant emissions to potential community health impacts. Appendix B contains a table that summarizes many of these tools, identifies the analyzed pollutants, describes their intended application and resolution, and analyzes whether they could be used to reasonably correlate project-level emissions to specific health consequences. As provided in Appendix B, while there are models capable of quantifying ozone and secondary PM formation and associated health effects, these tools were developed to support regional planning and policy analysis and have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations induced by individual projects. Therefore, translating project generated criteria pollutants to the locations where specific health effects could occur or the resultant number of additional days of nonattainment cannot be estimated with a high degree of accuracy.
Technical limitations of existing models to correlate project-level regional emissions to specific health consequences are recognized by air quality management districts throughout the state, including the SJVAPCD and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), who provided amici curiae briefs for the Friant Ranch legal proceedings. In its brief, SJVAPCD (2015) acknowledges that while health risk assessments for localized air toxics, such as diesel particulate matter (DPM), are commonly prepared, “it is not feasible to conduct a similar analysis for criteria air pollutants because currently available computer modeling tools are not equipped for this task.” The air district further notes that emissions solely from the Friant Ranch project (which equate to less than onetenth of one percent of the total NOx and ROG in the Valley) is not likely to yield valid information,” and that any such information should not be “accurate when applied at the local level.” SCAQMD presents similar information in their brief, stating that “it takes a large amount of additional precursor emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozone levels”7.
As discussed above, air districts develop region-specific CEQA thresholds of significance in consideration of existing air quality concentrations and attainment or nonattainment designations under the NAAQS and CAAQS. The NAAQS and CAAQS are informed by a wide range of scientific evidence that demonstrates there are known safe concentrations of criteria pollutants. While recognizing that air quality is cumulative problem, air districts typically consider projects that generate criteria pollutant and ozone precursor emissions below these thresholds to be minor in nature and would not adversely affect air quality such that the NAAQS or CAAQS would be exceeded.
Emissions generated by the project could increase photochemical reactions and the formation of tropospheric ozone and secondary PM, which at certain concentrations, could lead to increased incidence of specific health consequences. Although these health effects are associated with ozone and particulate pollution, the effects are a result of cumulative and regional emissions. As such, a 7 For example, SCAQMD’s analysis of their 2012 Air Quality Attainment Plan showed that modeled NOx and ROG reductions of 432 and 187 tons per day, respectively, only reduced ozone levels by 9 parts per billion. Analysis of SCAQMD’s Rule 1315 showed that emissions of NOx and ROG of 6,620 and 89,180 pounds per day, respectively, contributed to 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absence (South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2015).
AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-35 project’s incremental contribution cannot be traced to specific health outcomes on a regional scale, and a quantitative correlation of project-generated regional criteria pollutant emissions to specific human health impacts is not included in this analysis.
MODELS AND TOOLS TO CORRELATE PROJECT-GENERATED CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS TO
HEALTH IMPACTS
Several models and tools capable of translating mass emissions of criteria pollutants to various health endpoints have been developed. The table provided in Appendix B summarizes key tools, identifies the analyzed pollutants, describes their intended application and resolution, and analyzes whether they could be used to reasonably correlate project-level emissions to specific health consequences. As shown in the table provided in Appendix B, each tool listed was designed for a specific scale, and each tool has problems with applicability beyond that scale. When evaluating each tool for the Specific Plan it was determined that none of these tools are well suited to analyze the scale of changes in pollutant concentrations and the health implications of those changes.
Accordingly, the analysis of health effects from criteria pollutants is based on a qualitative analysis.
This qualitative analysis is consistent with the SJVAPCD’s guidance.
The impact analysis does not directly evaluate airborne lead. Neither construction nor future operations would generate quantifiable lead emissions because of regulations that require unleaded fuel and that prohibit lead in new building materials.
TAC emissions associated with future construction associated with buildout of the Plan Area that could affect surrounding areas are evaluated qualitatively. The potential for the project operations to expose residents to TAC emissions that would exceed applicable health standards is also discussed qualitatively.
Lastly, the SJVPACD recommends that odor impacts be addressed in a qualitative manner. Such an analysis must determine if the Specific Plan would result in excessive nuisance odors, as defined under the SJVAPCD’s Rule 4102 and California Code of Regulations, Health and Safety Code Section 41700, Air Quality Public Nuisance.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.3-1: Specific Plan implementation would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (Significant and Unavoidable)
CEQA requires that projects be evaluated for consistency with the Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). A consistency determination plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the AQMPs. It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental effects of a project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to the clean air goals of the AQMPs. The regional emissions inventory for the SJVAB is compiled by SJVAPCD and Fresno Council of Governments (COG). Regional population, housing, and employment projections developed by
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Fresno COG are based, in part, on the local jurisdictions’ general plan land use designations. These projections form the foundation for the emissions inventory of the AQMP. These demographic trends are incorporated into the 2018–2042 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, compiled by Fresno COG to determine priority transportation projects within the Fresno COG region. Projects that are consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the air quality–related regional plan. Typically, only new or amended general plan elements, specific plans, and major projects that have the potential to affect the regional population and employment forecasts need to undergo a consistency review.
SJVAPCD is tasked with implementing programs and regulations required by the Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. SJVAPCD has prepared several plans to attain the National AAQS and California AAQS. Emission reductions achieved through implementation of SJVAPCD’s NSR offset requirements are a major component of SJVAPCD’s air quality plans. The established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions are based on SJVAPCD offset requirements for stationary sources. Therefore, projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be determined to “not conflict or obstruct implementation of the District’s air quality plan.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15206(b) states that a project is of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance if it is a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units or a commercial office building of 250,000 square feet or more or that employs 1,000 or more employees. Specifically, the proposed Specific Plan would introduce up to 54,953 dwelling units (DU) (including 67 DU in the commercial category, 47,072 DU in the residential category and 7,814 DU in the mixed use category), and 60,621,006.31 square feet of non-residential uses in the Plan Area, and is therefore a project of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance. Thus, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would have the potential to substantially affect Fresno COG’s demographic projections beyond what is already anticipated for the Plan Area.
In addition, the SJVAPCD is tasked with implementing programs and regulations required by the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. In that capacity, the SJVAPCD has prepared plans to attain Federal and State ambient air quality standards. To achieve attainment with the standards, the SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions in their SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (2015). Projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be determined to “Not conflict or obstruct implementation of the District’s air quality plan”.
The analyses under Impact 3.3-2 demonstrates that the proposed Specific Plan would generate construction emissions of criteria air pollutants that would exceed SJVAPCD’s regional constructionphase significance thresholds, which were established to determine whether a project has the potential to cumulatively contribute to the SJVAB’s nonattainment designations. In addition, the analyses under Impact 3.3-3 demonstrates that the proposed Specific Plan would generate longterm emissions of criteria air pollutants that would exceed SJVAPCD’s regional operation-phase significance thresholds, which were established to determine whether a project has the potential to cumulatively contribute to the SJVAB’s nonattainment designations. Thus, implementation of the AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-37 proposed Specific Plan would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations; or delay timely attainment of the AAQS.
Summary
As discussed above, while the proposed Specific Plan would result in a substantial increase in longterm criteria pollutant emissions compared to existing conditions, it would support a more sustainable development pattern for the Plan Area. As the improvements, objectives, and policies under the proposed Plan would support a more sustainable development pattern in accommodating future growth for the Plan Area, they would contribute to minimizing long-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. Various policies of the proposed Plan would promote complete streets, mixed-use and transit-oriented neighborhoods, and increased capacity for alternative transportation modes, which would help reduce air pollutant emissions. For example, Specific Plan IPR Goal 1 promotes improved access, movement, and safety for all transportation modes in the Specific Plan, and Policy IPR 1.1 promotes implementation of the Active Transportation Plan and the General Plan to provide for complete, safe, and well-maintained sidewalk, bicycle, and trail networks that are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The goals and polices in the Specific Plan would promote active transit and support the reduction in average vehicle trip distances, which would contribute to reducing overall vehicle trips and VMT.
However, despite furthering the regional transportation and planning objectives, as stated, buildout of the proposed Plan would represent a substantial increase in emissions compared to existing conditions and would exceed SJVAPCD’s regional operational and construction-related significance thresholds (see Impact 3.3-2 and Impact 3.3-3). As a result, the proposed Specific Plan could potentially exceed the assumptions in the AQMPs and would not be considered consistent with the AQMPs. Therefore, impacts are considered significant.
CONCLUSION
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in the generation of substantial longterm criteria air pollutant emissions that would exceed the SJVAPCD regional significance thresholds and would therefore not be considered consistent with the existing AQMPs. Future development projects within the Plan Area would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 (below).
No further measures to reduce criteria air pollutant emissions are available beyond the applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, the proposed Specific Plan goals and policies, and the additional mitigation measures provided under Impact 3.3-2 and Impact 3.3-3 (see below). The various goals and policies of the proposed Specific Plan, such as those outlined above, would contribute to reducing long-term criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, due to the magnitude and intensity of development accommodated by the proposed Plan, this impact would have a significant and unavoidable impact relative to this topic.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits for new development projects within the Plan Area, the project applicant(s) shall show on the building plans that all major appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) to be provided/installed are
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Energy Star-certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star-certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Impact 3.3-2: Specific Plan implementation during project construction would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. (Significant and Unavoidable)
Emissions from construction activities represent temporary impacts that are typically short in duration, depending on the size, phasing, and type of project. Air quality impacts can nevertheless be acute during construction periods, resulting in significant localized impacts to air quality.
Construction activities would temporarily increase PM10, PM2.5, ROG, NOx, SOx, and CO regional emissions within the SJVAB. The primary source of NOx, CO, and SOx emissions is the operation of construction equipment. The primary sources of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions are activities that disturb the soil, such as grading and excavation, road construction, and building demolition and construction. The primary source of ROG emissions is the application of architectural coating and off-gas emissions associated with asphalt paving.
Construction activities associated with buildout of the proposed Specific Plan are anticipated to occur sporadically over an approximately 25-year period. Buildout would be comprised of multiple smaller projects, each having its own construction timeline and activities. Development of multiple properties could occur at the same time. However, there is no defined development schedule for these future projects at this time. The amount of construction assumed is consistent with the 25- year anticipated buildout of the proposed Specific Plan. An estimate of maximum daily construction emissions is provided in Table 3.3-6, below. The table shows the maximum annual emissions that would be generated over a single year during the anticipated development period (i.e. during year 2022). See Appendix B for further detail.
TABLE 3.3-6: CONSTRUCTION PROJECT GENERATED EMISSIONS (MAXIMUM TONS PER YEAR) POLLUTANT CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5
THRESHOLD 100 10 10 27 15 15
EMISSIONS 288 366 131 2 104 29
EXCEEDS
THRESHOLD?
Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
SOURCES: CALEEMOD (V.2016.3.3)
As shown in the above table (Table 3.3-6), construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan could potentially exceed the SJVAPCD regional thresholds for CO, NOx, ROG, PM10, and PM2.5. NOx is a precursor to the formation of both ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). ROG is a precursor to the formation of ozone. Project-related emission of NOx would contribute to the ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 nonattainment designations of the SJVAB. As part of the development process, individual, site-specific projects accommodated under the proposed AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-39 Specific Plan that meet the criteria of Rule 9510 would be required to prepare a detailed air quality impact assessment (AIA). To the extent applicable under Rule 9510 for each such individual development, SJVAPCD would require calculation of the construction emissions from the development. The purpose of the AIA is to confirm a development’s construction exhaust emissions, and therefore be able to identify appropriate mitigation, either through implementation of specific mitigation measures (e.g., use of construction equipment with Tier 4-rated engines) or payment of applicable off-site fees. As stated, under Rule 9510, each project that is subject to this Rule would be required to reduce construction exhaust emissions by 20 percent for NOx or pay offset mitigation fees for emissions that do not achieve the mitigation requirements. While adherence to Rule 9510 would contribute to reducing exhaust NOx emissions, it would not be applicable to reducing ROG emissions generated operation of equipment and from off-gassing from asphalt and paints, or other criteria pollutant emissions. Therefore, project-related construction activities would result in significant regional air quality impacts.
CONCLUSION
Future development projects in the Plan Area would be required to comply with pre-existing requisite federal, State, SJVAPCD, and other local regulations and requirements. For example, application of SJVAPCD Rules 9510 and Regulation VIII would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions from construction-related activities to the extent feasible and may result in reducing constructionrelated regional air quality impacts of individual projects. However, due to the programmatic nature of the proposed Specific Plan, construction time frames and equipment for individual site specific projects are not available and there is a potential for multiple developments to be constructed at any one time, resulting in significant construction-related emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would exceed the construction-related criteria pollutant thresholds as promulgated by the SJVAPCD. Future development projects in the Plan Area would be required to implement all of the mitigation measures provided below for construction-related emissions.
However, even with implementation of the following mitigation measures, the proposed Specific Plan would cause a violation of an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, with respect to the construction of the proposed project. Therefore, construction of the Specific Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact relative to this topic.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: In order to contribute in minimizing exhaust emission from construction equipment, prior to issuance of grading or building permits whichever occurs first, the property owner(s)/developer(s) shall provide a list of all construction equipment proposed to be used in the Plan Area for projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt projects). This list may be provided on the building plans. The construction equipment list shall state the make, model, and equipment identification number of all the equipment. The property owner(s)/developer(s) shall consult with the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department on the feasibility of utilizing cleaner (e.g. higher engine tier) construction equipment than proposed.
The property owner(s)/developer(s) shall implement recommendations for the use of cleaner
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-40 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan construction equipment, as determined by the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department.
Compliance will be verified by the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department.
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 and provide a note on construction plans indicating that:
• All coatings and solvents will have a volatile organic compound (ROG) content lower than required under Rule 4601 (i.e., super compliant paints). • All architectural coatings shall be applied either by (1) using a high-volume, low-pressure spray method operated at an air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge to achieve a 65 percent application efficiency; or (2) manual application using a paintbrush, hand-roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge, to achieve a 100 percent applicant efficiency.
The construction contractor may also use precoated/natural colored building materials.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-5: During all construction activities, the project proponent shall implement the following dust control practices identified in Tables 6-2 and 6-3 of the GAMAQI (2002). a. All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, or vegetative ground cover.
b. All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. c. All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall control fugitive dust emissions by application of water or by presoaking.
d. When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, or at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
e. All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at least once every 24 hours when operations are occurring. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.
AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-41 f. Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. g. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 5 mph; and
h. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-6: Asphalt paving shall be applied in accordance with SJVAPCD Rule 4641.
This rule applies to the manufacture and use of cutback asphalt, slow cure asphalt and emulsified asphalt for paving and maintenance operations.
Impact 3.3-3: Specific Plan implementation during project operation would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. (Significant and Unavoidable) Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would result in direct and indirect criteria air pollutant emissions from transportation, energy (e.g., natural gas use), and area sources (e.g., aerosols and landscaping equipment). Mobile-source criteria air pollutant emissions are based on the traffic analysis conducted by Kittelson and Associates (see Appendix G). Per the traffic analysis, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate a net increase of 991,667 ADT. The net change of operational emissions from buildout of the proposed Specific Plan is shown in Table
3.3-7, below. The net change in emissions is based on the new emissions associated with the new land uses.
TABLE 3.3-7: OPERATIONAL PROJECT GENERATED EMISSIONS (TONS PER YEAR) POLLUTANT CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5
THRESHOLD 100 10 10 27 15 15
EMISSIONS 2,300 3,185 885 17 1,199 336
EXCEEDS
THRESHOLD?
Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
SOURCES: CALEEMOD (V.2016.3.3)
As shown in Table 3.3-7, operation of future projects at buildout would generate air pollutant emissions that exceed SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 at buildout. Emissions of ROG and NOx that exceed the SJVAPCD regional threshold would cumulatively contribute to the ozone nonattainment designation of the SJVAB. Emissions of NOx that exceed SJVAB’s regional significance thresholds would cumulatively contribute to the ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) nonattainment designations of the SJVAB. Emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 would contribute to the PM10 and PM2.5 nonattainment designations.
Similar to construction-related emissions, application of SJVAPCD Rule 9510 to future individual projects would contribute to reducing NOx and particulate matter emissions. In addition, application of SJVACPD Rule 9410 would contribute to reducing mobile-source emissions. Furthermore, as
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-42 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan stated, the planned improvements, guidelines, objectives, and policies under the proposed Specific Plan would generally support a more sustainable development pattern to accommodate growth within the area by creating complete neighborhoods and providing more transit options through improvements to the pedestrian, bicycle, public transportation, and alternative fueled vehicle networks and infrastructure, which would contribute in minimizing long-term criteria air pollutant emissions. However, while SJVAPCD rules and policies of the proposed Specific Plan may contribute in reducing operation-related regional air quality impacts of individual projects accommodated under the proposed Specific Plan to less than significant, the projected cumulative emissions associated with future development projects would be in exceedance. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in a significant impact because it would significantly contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SJVAB.
CONCLUSION
As shown in Table 3.3-7, buildout of the Specific Plan Area is expected to exceed some of the SJVAPCD operational criteria pollutant emissions thresholds, as modelled. Application of State and SJVAPCD rules and regulations, such as Rules 9510 and 9410, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan’s roadway, bicycle, and trail improvements, policies, and complete streets design guidelines, and implementation of applicable General Plan policies would reduce operation-related criteria air pollutants generated from energy, stationary, and mobile sources to the extent feasible.
In addition, Mitigation 3.3-7 (below) requires the individual project applicants to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce operational activities.
As stated, the aforementioned improvements, goals, and policies could contribute to reducing operation-phase regional air quality impacts of future individual projects. Individual projects would also be required to undergo CEQA review. However, despite implementation of the Specific Plan goals and policies, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable due to the magnitude of the overall land use development associated with the proposed Specific Plan. As such, operation of the Specific Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact relative to this topic.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.3-7: The property owner(s)/developer(s) shall incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the Project Conditions of Approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions include but are not limited to:
• For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plugging in the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
• Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage (i.e., battery) and combined heat and power (CHP, also known as cogeneration) in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-43 • Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with CARB Rule 2845 (13 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Chapter 10, Section 2485).
• Require that 240-volt electrical outlets or Level 3 chargers be installed in parking lots that would enable charging of neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) and/or battery powered vehicles.
• Maximize use of solar energy including solar panels; installing the maximum possible number of solar energy arrays on building roofs throughout the city to generate solar energy.
• Maximize the planting of trees in landscaping and parking lots. • Use light-colored paving and roofing materials.
• Require use of electric or alternatively fueled street-sweepers with HEPA filters. • Require use of electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers. • Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances. • Use of water-based or low volatile organic compound (VOC) cleaning products.
Impact 3.3-4: Specific Plan implementation has the potential to result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) ODORS
While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and the SJVAPCD. The general nuisance rule (California Health and Safety Code §41700) and Air District Rule 402 is the basis for the threshold.
Examples of facilities that are known producers of odors include: wastewater treatment facilities, chemical manufacturing, sanitary landfill, fiberglass manufacturing, transfer station, painting/coating operations (e.g. auto body shops), composting facility, food processing facility, petroleum refinery, feed lot/dairy, asphalt batch plant, and rendering plant.
Odors from the types of land uses that could generate objectional odors are regulated under Regulation IV, Prohibitions, Rule 4102, Nuisance, which states:
“A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such person or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.”
Additionally, the California Health and Safety Code §41700 prohibits emissions of air contaminants from any source that cause nuisance or annoyance to a considerable number of people or that
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-44 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan present a threat to public health or cause property damage. Compliance with these rules would preclude land uses proposed under the proposed Specific Plan from emitting objectionable odors.
Heavy industrial land uses are the primary types of land uses that have the potential to generate objectionable odors. Heavy industrial-type land uses would generally be prohibited within the proposed Specific Plan Area. Residential and other non-residential (excluding industrial) land uses could result in generation of odors such as exhaust from landscaping equipment. However, unlike heavy industrial land uses, these are not considered potential generators of odor that could affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, impacts from potential odors generated from the planned land uses associated with the proposed Specific Plan are considered less than significant.
Separately, during construction activities, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and architectural coatings would temporarily generate odors. Any construction-related odor emissions would be temporary and intermittent in nature. Additionally, noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern.
Furthermore, short-term construction-related odors are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor-producing materials. Nevertheless, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-8, as applicable. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-8, impacts associated with construction-generated odors are considered less than significant.
CARBON MONOXIDE HOTSPOTS
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the State 1-hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. The GAMAQI previously required CO hotspot monitoring. However, emissions from motor vehicles, the largest source of CO emissions, have been declining since 1985 despite increases in VMT due to the introduction of new automotive emission controls and fleet turnover.
Consequently, no CO hotspots have been reported in the SJVAB even at the most congested intersections. Furthermore, under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact.8
Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would result in approximately 991,667 ADT over existing conditions. However, distributing the total daily vehicle trips within the proposed Specific Plan Area and region and by peak hour would result in smaller traffic volumes at the various intersections.
Thus, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan is not anticipated to produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan 8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2017. California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines, May.
AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-45 would not have the potential to substantially increase CO hotspots at intersections in the vicinity of the planning area, and impacts would be less than significant relative to this issue.
TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air. However, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at very low concentrations. In general, for those TACs that may cause cancer, there is no concentration that does not present some risk. This contrasts with the criteria pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which the State and federal governments have set ambient air quality standards.
Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The U.S. EPA has assessed this expansive list in its latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007) and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources. In addition, EPA identified seven compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers from their 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment. These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3- butidiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter.
The 2007 EPA rule requires controls that will dramatically decrease Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. According to an FHWA analysis using EPA MOBILE6.2 model, even if vehicle activity (VMT) increases by 145 percent, a combined reduction of 72 percent in the total annual emission rate for the priority MSAT is projected from 1999 to 2050.
California maintains stricter standards for clean fuels and emissions compared to the national standards; therefore, it is expected that MSAT trends in California will decrease consistent with or more than the U.S. EPA's national projections.
In general, land uses that would require a permit from SJVAPCD for emissions of TACs include chemical processing facilities, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities. As the proposed Specific Plan is a program-level document, it is currently unknown which types of stationary sources may be installed, if any. However, the proposed Specific Plan would generally prohibit the development of heavy industrial-type land uses. While development of land uses may result in stationary source emissions such as dry cleaners and restaurants with charbroilers or buildings with emergency generators, these types of land uses would not be large emitters.
Additionally, they would be controlled by SJVAPCD through permitting and would be subject to further study and health risk assessment prior to the issuance of any necessary air quality permits under Regulation II. According to SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, Regulation II ensures that stationary source emissions (permitted sources) would be reduced or mitigated below SJVAPCD significance thresholds of ten in one million cancer risk and one for acute risk at the maximally exposed individual. Though these sources would incrementally contribute to the project’s inventory
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-46 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan individually, they would be mitigated to the standards identified above. Moreover, future development projects in the Plan Area would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-9, which requires project applicants for individual projects to conduct health risk assessments (where warranted by land use and proposal). In addition, Mitigation Measure 3.3-10 requires sensitive land uses to avoid incompatibilities with recommended buffer distances identified in the most current version of the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB Handbook). Sensitive land uses that are within the recommended buffer distances listed in the CARB Handbook are required to provide enhanced filtration units or submit a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to the City. If the HRA shows that the project would exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds, mitigation measures capable of reducing potential impacts to an acceptable level must be identified and approved by the City.
Therefore, overall, impacts would be less than significant relative to this environmental issue.
CONCLUSION
The Specific Plan does not propose sensitive receptors that could be exposed to odors in the vicinity; nor does it propose uses that would create odors that could expose receptors in the area. Moreover, Mitigation Measure 3.3-8 would ensure that the project would not generate an odors impact.
Therefore, operation of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in significant objectionable odors. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-8, impacts associated with exposure to odors would be less than significant.
The Plan Area is located in an area that is designated attainment-unclassified for carbon monoxide.
Therefore, no project-level conformity analysis is necessary for CO. Substantial concentrations of carbon monoxide are not expected at or along any streets or intersections affected by the development of the Plan Area. Impacts associated with carbon monoxide hotspots would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation is required.
Overall, while implementation of the Specific Plan, in and of itself, would not result in an increased exposure of sensitive receptors to localized concentrations of TACs, there is a potential for future commercial business activity, as permitted under the Specific Plan, to result in increased exposure of sensitive receptors to localized concentrations of TACs. The emission sources could be stationary sources and/or mobile source (i.e. diesel truck traffic). Because, at the Specific Plan level of land use planning, the City does not yet know the precise locations, configurations, and sizes of any future land uses within the Specific Plan that uses may generate sufficient levels of TACs to create the possibility of adverse health effects, it is premature, at the Specific Plan stage, to undertake an overall health risk assessment for the Specific Plan. Future health risk assessments will be performed where warranted, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.3-9, below. In addition, Mitigation Measure
3.3-10 requires sensitive land uses to avoid incompatibilities with recommended buffer distances, and to prepare an HRA if required.
The following mitigation measure would ensure that each future business is assessed for TACs in accordance with the requirements of the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program, Facility Prioritization AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-47 Guidelines (July 1990). Implementation of this measure would ensure that impacts related to public exposure to TACs would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.3-8: The project applicant(s) shall require developers of projects within the Specific Plan Area with the potential to generate significant odor impacts as determined through review of SJVAPCD odor complaint history for similar facilities and consultation with the SJVAPCD, to prepare an odor impact assessment and to implement odor control measures recommended by the SJVAPCD or the City as needed to reduce the impact to a level deemed acceptable by the SJVAPCD.
The City’s Planning and Development Department shall verify that all odor control measures have been incorporated into the project design specifications prior to issuing a permit to operate.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-9: Prior to future discretionary approval for individual projects within the Specific Plan Area that require environmental evaluation under CEQA, the City of Fresno shall evaluate new development proposals for new industrial or warehousing land uses that: (1) have the potential to generate 100 or more truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating dieselpowered transport refrigeration units, and (2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use. Such projects shall submit a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to the City Planning and Development Department. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the most current State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the SJVAPCD. If the HRA shows that the incremental health risks exceed their respective thresholds, as established by the SJVAPCD at the time a project is considered, the Applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms to reduce risks to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to:
• Restricting idling on site or electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter;
• Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles;
• Provide charging infrastructure for: electric forklifts, electric yard trucks, local drayage trucks, last mile delivery trucks, electric and fuel-cell heavy duty trucks; and/or • Install solar panels, zero-emission backup electricity generators, and energy storage to minimize emissions associated with electricity generation at the project site.
T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan.
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
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-48 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Handbook shall provide enhanced filtration units or submit a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to the City. If the HRA shows that the project would exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds, mitigation measures capable of reducing potential impacts to an acceptable level must be identified and approved by the City.
Impact 3.3-5: Specific Plan implementation has the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Development that would be accommodated by the proposed Specific Plan could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations during operational and construction activities if it would cause or contribute significantly to elevating those levels. As stated, the planned improvements, objectives and policies under the proposed Specific Plan would generally support a sustainable development pattern in accommodating future growth within the Plan Area, which would generally contribute to reducing long-term criteria air pollutant emissions. In addition, application of SJVAPCD Rule 9510 and Regulation VIII would contribute to reducing operation- and construction-related NOx and particulate matter emissions. Furthermore, Rule 9410 would also contribute to reducing operation-related mobile-source emissions. However, the projected cumulative emissions associated with future development projects accommodated under the proposed Specific Plan would be in exceedance and could result in causing an exceedance of the AAQS. Therefore, as construction and operation of future individual development projects accommodated under the proposed Specific Plan could result in causing or contribute to a violation of the ambient air quality standards, impacts to air quality would be significant.
As shown in the table provided in Appendix B, each tool listed was designed for a specific scale, and each tool has problems with applicability beyond that scale. When evaluating each tool for the Specific Plan it was determined that none of these tools are well suited to analyze the scale of changes in pollutant concentrations and the health implications of those changes. Accordingly, the analysis of health effects from criteria pollutants is based on a qualitative analysis. This qualitative analysis is consistent with the SJVAPCD’s guidance.
OZONE
O3 is not emitted directly into the air but is formed through complex chemical reactions between precursor emissions of (also known as ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of sunlight.
The reactivity of O3 causes health problems because it damages lung tissue, reduces lung function and sensitizes the lungs to other irritants. Scientific evidence indicates that ambient levels of O3 not only affect people with impaired respiratory systems, such as asthmatics, but healthy adults and children as well. Exposure to O3 for several hours at relatively low concentrations has been found to significantly reduce lung function and induce respiratory inflammation in normal, healthy people during exercise. This decrease in lung function generally is accompanied by symptoms including chest pain, coughing, sneezing and pulmonary congestion.
Studies show associations between short-term ozone exposure and non-accidental mortality, including deaths from respiratory issues. Studies also suggest long-term exposure to ozone may AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-49 increase the risk of respiratory-related deaths (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2019a). The concentration of ozone at which health effects are observed depends on an individual’s sensitivity, level of exertion (i.e., breathing rate), and duration of exposure. Studies show large individual differences in the intensity of symptomatic responses, with one study finding no symptoms to the least responsive individual after a 2-hour exposure to 400 parts per billion of ozone and a 50 percent decrement in forced airway volume in the most responsive individual. Although the results vary, evidence suggests that sensitive populations (e.g., asthmatics) may be affected on days when the 8- hour maximum ozone concentration reaches 80 parts per billion (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2019b).
Operational Emissions
Future development projects in the Plan Area would generate emissions of ROG and NOx during project operational activities, as shown in Table 3.3-7. The CAA regulates these pollutants mainly because they contribute to ozone formation, but they can each cause adverse reactions in people on their own, as explained earlier in this chapter. Although the exact effects of project-level emissions on local health are not precisely known, it is likely that the increases in ROG and NOx generated by the proposed Specific Plan would especially affect people with impaired respiratory systems, but also healthy adults and children located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. However, the increases of these pollutants generated by the proposed project are not on their own likely to generate an increase in the number of days exceeding the NAAQS or CAAQS standards, based on the size of the proposed Plan Area in comparison to Fresno County as a whole. Instead, the increases in ROG and NOx generated by the proposed project when combined with the existing ROG and NOx emitted regionally, would affect people, especially those with impaired respiratory systems located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area.
Construction Emissions
Although the exact effects of ROG and NOx emissions on local health are not known, it is likely that the increases in ROG and NOx generated by future development projects during construction would especially affect people with impaired respiratory systems, but also healthy adults and children located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. However, the increases of these pollutants generated by buildout of the proposed Specific Plan are not on their own likely to generate an increase in the number of days exceeding the NAAQS or CAAQS standards, based on the size of the proposed project in comparison to Fresno County as a whole. Instead, the increases in ROG and NOx generated by the proposed project, including during construction activities, when combined with the existing ROG and NOx emitted regionally, would affect people, especially those with impaired respiratory systems located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area.
However, it should be noted that, since construction emissions are temporary in nature, the potential for substantial health impacts due to project construction activities is typically much less than for project operational activities.
PARTICULATE MATTER
Based on studies of human populations exposed to high concentrations of particles (sometimes in the presence of SO2) and laboratory studies of animals and humans, PM can cause major effects of concern for human health. These include effects on breathing and respiratory symptoms,
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-50 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, alterations in the body's defense systems against foreign materials, damage to lung tissue, carcinogenesis and premature death.
Small particulate pollution has health impacts even at very low concentrations – indeed no threshold has been identified below which no damage to health is observed. The major subgroups of the population that appear to be most sensitive to the effects of particulate matter include individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary or cardiovascular disease or influenza, asthmatics, the elderly and children.
Numerous studies have linked PM exposure to premature death in people with preexisting heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms. Studies show that every 1 microgram per cubic meter reduction in PM2.5 results in a one percent reduction in mortality rate for individuals over 30 years old (Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017). Long-term exposures, such as those experienced by people living for many years in areas with high particle levels, have been associated with problems such as reduced lung function and the development of chronic bronchitis – and even premature death. Additionally, depending on its composition, both PM10 and PM2.5 can also affect water quality and acidity, deplete soil nutrients, damage sensitive forests and crops, affect ecosystem diversity, and contribute to acid rain (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2019c).
Operational Emissions
Future development projects in the Plan Area would generate emissions of PM during project operational activities, as shown in Table 3.3-7. Although the exact effects of such emissions on local health are not known, it is likely that the increases in PM generated by the proposed project would especially affect people with impaired respiratory systems, but also healthy adults and children located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. However, the increases of these pollutants generated by the proposed project are not on their own likely to generate an increase in the number of days exceeding the NAAQS or CAAQS standards, based on the size of the project in comparison the Fresno County and the wider region as a whole. Instead, the increases in PM generated by the proposed project when combined with the existing PM emitted regionally, would affect people, especially those with impaired respiratory systems located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. Nevertheless, if a health risk assessment is warranted for a specific facility within the Specific Plan Area, it would be prepared in accordance with Mitigation Measure 3.3-7.
Construction Emissions
Ambient levels of construction particulate matter emissions are likely to decrease in the future, based on current and future implementation of federal and/or state regulatory requirements, such as improvements to the statewide vehicle fleet over time (including the long-term replacement of internal combustion engine vehicles with electric vehicles in coming decades). Furthermore, based on the short-term nature of construction activities in comparison to operational activities, the potential for substantial health impacts due to particulate matters emissions during project construction is limited.
AIR QUALITY 3.3
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.3-51
DISCUSSION
As previously discussed, the magnitude and locations of any potential changes in ambient air quality, and thus health consequences, from these additional emissions cannot be quantified with a high level of certainty due to the dynamic and complex nature of pollutant formation and distribution (e.g., meteorology, emissions sources, sunlight exposure), as well as the variabilities in the receptors that reside in a particular area. Additionally, the SJVAPCD has not established any methodology or thresholds (quantitative or qualitative) for assessing the health effects from criteria pollutants. The City of Fresno is not aware of any air district in California that has an established methodology for correlating project-generated criteria pollutant emissions to health end points. From a qualitative perspective, it is well documented from scientific studies that criteria pollutants can have adverse health effects. The federal and state governments have established the NAAQS or CAAQS as an attempt to regionally, and cumulatively, assess and control the health effects that criteria pollutants have within Air Basins. It is anticipated that public health will continue to be affected by the emission of criteria pollutants, especially by those with impaired respiratory systems in the City of Fresno and the surrounding region so long as the region does not attain the CAAQS or NAAQS. However, the increases of these pollutants generated by future development under the Specific Plan are not on their own likely to generate an increase in the number of days exceeding the NAAQS or CAAQS standards, based on the size of the project in comparison to Fresno County and the wider region as a whole. Instead, the increases in criteria pollutants generated by the proposed project when combined with the existing criteria pollutants emitted regionally, would affect people, especially those with impaired respiratory systems located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area.
Separately, localized construction activities are temporary in nature, and therefore, do not pose a threat to human health in the same manner as ongoing, chronic, lifetime exposure from projects during their operational phase.
CONCLUSION
The increases in criteria pollutants generated by the proposed Specific Plan when combined with the existing criteria pollutants emitted regionally, would affect people, especially those with impaired respiratory systems located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area.
Construction emissions would be temporary in nature, while the operational activities of a project would be most likely to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, since ongoing, chronic, and lifetime exposure to criteria pollutants are key in the level of health impact. However, the increases of these pollutants generated by the proposed project are not on their own likely to generate an increase in the number of days exceeding the health-based NAAQS or CAAQS standards, based on the size of the Plan Area in comparison the Fresno County and the wider region as a whole.
For these reasons, with implementation of the mitigation measures contained under the previous impacts (i.e. Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-7, the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact related to this topic.
See Impact 3.3-4 (previous) for a more detailed discussion of the potential risks from toxic air contaminants and carbon monoxide hotspots by the proposed Specific Plan.
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.3-52 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-10.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-1 This section describes the geomorphic provinces/bioregions, vegetation, wildlife, soils, hydrogeomorphic features, wetlands, special-status species, regulatory setting, and impacts that are expected related to biological resources. This section is based in part on the following documents, reports, and studies:
• Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• Draft Master Environmental Impact Report General Plan and Development Code Update, City of Fresno, Fresno County, California (City of Fresno, 2014); • Fresno General Plan Public Review Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (City of Fresno, 2020);
• Fresno Municipal Code (City of Fresno, 2007); and
• Web Soil Survey (NRCS, 2019).
One comment was received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the following: Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019). The portion of this comment letter which relates to this topic is addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.
3.4.1ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
GEOMORPHIC PROVINCE AND BIOREGION
The City of Fresno is located in the southern portion of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province of California. The Great Valley Province is a broad structural trough bounded by the tilted block of the Sierra Nevada on the east and the complexly folded and faulted Coast Ranges on the west. The Stanislaus River is located just north of the City. This is a tributary of the San Joaquin River, which drains the Great Valley Province into the San Joaquin Delta to the north, ultimately discharging into the San Francisco Bay to the northwest.
The City of Fresno is located within the San Joaquin Valley Bioregion, which is comprised of Kings County, most of Fresno, Kern, Merced, and Stanislaus counties, and portions of Madera, San Luis Obispo, and Tulare counties. The San Joaquin Valley Bioregion is the third most populous out of ten bioregions in the state, with an estimated 2 million people. The largest cities are Fresno, Bakersfield, Modesto, and Stockton. Interstate 5 and State Route (SR) 99 are the major north-south roads that run the entire length of the bioregion.
The bioregion is bordered on the west by the coastal mountain ranges. Its eastern boundary joins the southern two-thirds of the Sierra bioregion, which features Yosemite, Kings Canyon, and Sequoia National Parks. At its northern end, the San Joaquin Valley bioregion borders the southern end of the Sacramento Valley bioregion. To the west, south, and east, the bioregion extends to the edges of the valley floor.
Habitat in the bioregion includes vernal pools, valley sink scrub and saltbush, freshwater marsh, grasslands, arid plains, orchards, and oak savannah. Historically, millions of acres of wetlands flourished in the bioregion, but stream diversions for irrigation dried all but about five percent.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Remnants of the wetland habitats are protected in this bioregion in publicly owned parks, reserves, and wildlife areas. The bioregion is considered the state's top agricultural producing region with the abundance of fertile soil.
LOCAL SETTING
Location
The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (also-known-as “Specific Plan” or “West Area” or “Plan Area”) encompasses approximately 7,077 acres (or a little more than 11 square miles) in the City of Fresno city limits and unincorporated Fresno County. Of the 11 square miles within the Plan Area,
6.9 square miles are in the city limits and 4.1 square miles are in the growth area. The Plan Area is triangular in shape and located west of SR 99. It is bounded on the south by W. Clinton Avenue, and to the west by Grantland and Garfield Avenues. The Plan Area includes the southwest portion of Highway City adjacent to SR 99.
Topography
The Plan Area is relatively flat with natural gentle slope near SR 99. The Plan Area topography ranges in elevation from approximately 283 to 315 feet above mean sea level.
Climate
The City of Fresno is located in the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley, which has a Mediterranean climate that is subject to cool, wet winters (often blanketed with fog) and hot, dry summers. The average annual precipitation is approximately 13.81 inches. Precipitation occurs as rain most of which falls between the months of November through April, peaking in January at 2.85 inches. The average temperatures range from December lows of 37.5 F to July highs of 94.3 F.
Existing Uses
A significant amount of land in the Plan Area is farmland or rural residential lots with large, uneven, and underutilized/underdeveloped parcels. According to the State Department of Conservation, the Plan Area has approximately 3,070 acres of land that is classified as Urban and Built-Up, 2,357 acres of agricultural, and 1,650 acres of vacant, disturbed, or rural residential land.
Agricultural land is scattered throughout the Plan Area, but mainly in the southern, western, and southwestern portions of the Plan Area. Irrigation ditches are also located throughout the Plan Area near these active agricultural lands. Developed uses are mainly in the northern, eastern, southern, and southeastern portions of the Plan Area. Undeveloped vacant land previously used for agricultural uses is also scattered throughout the Plan Area.
Surrounding Uses
Surrounding land uses include SR 99, the unincorporated communities of Herndon, Highway City, and Muscatel, and incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the north (including mostly industrial uses), incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the east (also including mostly industrial uses), unincorporated Fresno County and incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the south (including BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-3 farmland uses, rural residential uses, low density residential uses, and underutilized parcels) and unincorporated Fresno County to the west (including farmland and rural residential uses).
Vegetation
Most agricultural activity on-site and in the immediate vicinity has consisted of cultivation of various types of row crops. Non-cultivated portions of the Specific Plan Area are vegetated with various common non-native annual grassland species, such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), wild oat (Avena fatua), soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), black mustard (Brassica nigra), and filaree (Erodium cicutarium). Trees are also scattered throughout the developed and undeveloped portions of the Specific Plan Area, most of which are ornamental landscaping trees or residual trees from agricultural land.
Wildlife
The developed areas in the Plan Area typically provide habitat for common species that are accustomed to human disturbance, such as California scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), American robin (Turdus migratorius), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), squirrel (Sciurus spp.), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), and house mouse (Mus musculus).
Opportunistic species that may occur in agricultural lands in the Plan Area include side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), California scrub-jay, yellowbilled magpie (Pica nuttalli), house finch, small mammals, and raptors that prey on them. The edges of fields and orchards where stands of weeds, blackberry brambles, and brush are left undisturbed may provide protective cover for wildlife and food for birds. Burrowing animals such as California ground squirrels and gophers may be actively discouraged because of damage these animals can cause to irrigation systems, although their presence may be more likely in fallow fields.
The vacant lots and areas previously used for agricultural uses in the Plan Area are typically comprised of disturbed annual grassland species such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), wild oat (Avena fatua), soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), black mustard (Brassica nigra), and filaree (Erodium cicutarium). Wildlife that may occur and forage in disturbed annual grasslands as described include desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), deermouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis), sideblotched lizard, western fence lizard (Sceloperus occidentalis), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), and southern pacific rattlesnake (Crotalis oreganus helleri). California horned larks (Eremophila alpestris actia) and burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) may use disturbed grassland habitat for foraging and nesting, and red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and common raven (Corvus corax) may soar over and forage in the grasslands, depending on the size and location of the habitat patch relative to other habitat types.
The irrigation ditches in the Plan Area associated with the agricultural uses appear to be largely devoid of riparian vegetation and are generally isolated, surrounded by agricultural fields, disturbed annual grasslands, parklands, or developed areas. The aquatic habitats may provide some limited
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan habitat for wildlife such as waterfowl, red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata). These habitats likely lack persistent emergent vegetation, but surrounding vegetation may include hydrophytic plants and grasses.
CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE HABITAT RELATIONSHIPS SYSTEM
The California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) habitat classification scheme has been developed to support the CWHR System, a wildlife information system and predictive model for California's regularly-occurring birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. When first published in 1988, the classification scheme had 53 habitats. At present, there are 59 wildlife habitats in the CWHR System: 27 tree, 12 shrub, 6 herbaceous, 4 aquatic, 8 agricultural, 1 developed, and 1 nonvegetated.
Figure 3.4-1 shows the CWHR designations in the Plan Area. Table 3.4-1 summarizes the designations in the Plan Area.
TABLE 3.4-1: CWHR LAND COVER TYPES
LAND COVER TYPE ACRES WITHIN THE PLAN AREA
Annual Grassland 132.17
Barren 34.41
Deciduous Orchard 2,083.69
Dryland Grain Crops 22.68
Evergreen Orchard 12.68
Irrigated Grain Crops 1.33
Irrigated Hayfield 382.62
Irrigated Row and Field Crops 872.82
Lacustrine 3.78
Pasture 11.79
Riverine 7.76
Urban 3,100.36
Vineyard 348.66
SOURCES: CALFIRE FVEG15_1, 2015; FRESNO COUNTY; CITY OF FRESNO. MAP DATE: JULY 25, 2019.
Below is a brief description of these CWHR habitats.
DEVELOPED COVER TYPES
Deciduous Orchards are typically open single species tree dominated habitats. Depending on the tree type and pruning methods they are usually low, bushy trees with an open understory to facilitate harvest. Trees range in height at maturity for many species from 15 to 30 feet, but may be 10 feet or less depending on the species. Crowns usually touch, and are usually in a linear pattern.
Spacing between trees is uniform depending on desired spread of mature trees. The understory is usually composed of low-growing grasses, legumes, and other herbaceous plants, but may be managed to prevent understory growth totally or partially, such as along tree rows. Deciduous BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-5 orchards can be found on flat alluvial soils in the valley floors, in rolling foothill areas, or on relatively steep slopes. Though some deciduous orchards are nonirrigated, most are irrigated. Some flat soils are flood irrigated, but many deciduous orchards are sprinkler irrigated. Large numbers of orchards are irrigated by drip or trickle irrigation systems. Most deciduous orchards are in valley or foothill areas, with a few, such as, apples and pears, up to 3,000 feet elevation. Within the West Area, there are 2,083.69 acres of Deciduous Orchard habitat.
Evergreen Orchards are typically open single species tree dominated habitats. Depending on the tree type and pruning methods they are usually low, bushy trees with an open understory to facilitate harvest. Trees range in height at maturity for many species from 15 to 30 feet, but may be 10 feet or less depending on the species. Crowns often do not touch, and are usually in a linear pattern. Spacing between trees is uniform depending on desired spread of mature trees. The understory is usually composed of low-growing grasses, legumes, and other herbaceous plants, but may be managed to prevent understory growth totally or partially, such as along tree rows.
Evergreen orchards can be found on flat alluvial soils in the valley floors, in rolling foothill areas, or on relatively steep slopes. All are irrigated. Some flat soils are flood irrigated, but most evergreen orchards are sprinkler irrigated. Large numbers of orchards are irrigated by drip or trickle irrigation systems. Most evergreen orchards are in valley or foothill areas. Except for olive, most evergreen orchard trees are not very frost tolerant. Within the West Area, there are 12.68 acres of Evergreen Orchard habitat.
Vineyards are composed of single species planted in rows, usually supported on wood and wire trellises. Vines are normally intertwined in the rows but open between rows. Rows under the vines are usually sprayed with herbicides to prevent growth of herbaceous plants. Between rows of vines, grasses and other herbaceous plants may be planted or allowed to grow as a cover crop to control erosion. Vineyards can be found on flat alluvial soils in the valley floors, in rolling foothill areas, or on relatively steep slopes. All are irrigated. Most vineyards are sprinkler irrigated. Large numbers of vineyards are irrigated by drip or trickle irrigation systems. Most vineyards are in valley or foothill areas. Within the West Area, there are 348.66 acres of Vineyard habitat.
Dryland Grain Crops are composed of vegetation in the dryland (nonirrigated) grain and seed crops habitat includes seed producing grasses, primarily barley, cereal rye, oats, and wheat. These seed and grain crops are annuals. They are usually planted by drilling in rows which produce solid stands, forming 100 percent canopy at maturity in good stands. They are normally planted in fall and harvested in spring. However, they may be planted in rotation with other irrigated crops and winter wheat or barley may be planted after harvest of a previous crop in the fall, dry farmed (during the wet winter and early spring months), and then harvested in late spring. Within the West Area, there are 22.68 acres of Dryland Grain Crop habitat.
Irrigated Grain Crops include a variety of sizes, shapes and growing patterns. Field corn can reach ten feet tall while dry beans are only several inches tall. Most irrigated grain and seed crops are grown in rows. Some may form 100 percent canopy while others may have significant bare areas between rows. All seed and grain crops are annuals. They are usually planted in spring and harvested in summer or fall. However, they may be planted in rotation with other irrigated crops and sometimes winter wheat or barley may be planted after harvest of a previous crop in the fall, dry
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan farmed (during the wet winter and early spring months) or they may be irrigated, and then harvested in the late spring. Within the West Area, there are 1.33 acres of Irrigated Grain Crop habitat.
Irrigated Hayfield normally has a 2 to 6 months initial growing period, depending on climate, and soil, this habitat is dense, with nearly 100 percent cover. Average height is about 0.46 m. (1.5 feet) tall. Planted fields generally are monocultures (the same species or mixtures or a few species with similar structural properties). Structure changes to a lower stature following each harvest, grows up again and reverts to bare ground following plowing or discing. Plowing may occur annually, but is usually less often. Layering generally does not occur in this habitat. Unplanted "native" hay fields may contain short and tall patches. If not harvested for a year, they may develop a dense thatch of dead leaves between the canopy and the ground. Within the West Area, there are 382.62 acres of Irrigated Hayfield habitat.
Irrigated Row and Field Crops include a variety of sizes, shapes and growing patterns. Cotton and asparagus can be three or four feet tall while others may be a foot or less high. Most irrigated row and field crops are grown in rows. Some may form 100 percent canopy while others may have significant bare areas between rows. Most are annuals, while others, such as asparagus and strawberries are perennial. The annuals are usually planted in spring and harvested in summer or fall. However, they may be planted in rotation with other irrigated crops and sometimes winter wheat or barley may be planted after harvest of a previous crop in the fall, dry farmed (during the wet winter and early spring months), and then harvested in the late spring. In some areas of southern California three crops may be grown in a year. Within the West Area, there are 872.82 acres of Irrigated Row and Field Crop habitat.
Urban habitats are not limited to any particular physical setting. Three urban categories relevant to wildlife are distinguished: downtown, urban residential, and suburbia. The heavily-developed downtown is usually at the center, followed by concentric zones of urban residential and suburbs.
There is a progression outward of decreasing development and increasing vegetative cover. Species richness and diversity is extremely low in the inner cover. The structure of urban vegetation varies, with five types of vegetative structure defined: tree grove, street strip, shade tree/lawn, lawn, and shrub cover. A distinguishing feature of the urban wildlife habitat is the mixture of native and exotic species. Within the West Area, there are 3,100.36 acres of Urban habitat.
HERBACEOUS COVER TYPES
Annual Grassland habitat occurs mostly on flat plains to gently rolling foothills. Climatic conditions are typically Mediterranean, with cool, wet winters and dry, hot summers. The length of the frostfree season averages 250 to 300 days. Annual precipitation is highest in northern California. Within the West Area, there are 132.17 acres of Annual Grassland habitat.
Pastures are planted on flat and gently rolling terrain. Flat terrain is irrigated by the border and check method of irrigation, except on sandy soils or where water supplies are limited. Pastures established on sandy soils or hills are sprinklered. Hilly lands also use wild flooding; that is, ditches that follow the grade along ridges and hillsides, where water is released at selected points along the ditch. Climate influences the length of the growing season. For example, pastures at higher BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-7 elevations or in the north have a shorter growing season. Within the West Area, there are 11.79 acres of Pasture habitat.
AQUATIC COVER TYPES
Riverine habitats can occur in association with many terrestrial habitats. Riverine habitats are found adjacent to many rivers and streams. Riverine habitats are also found contiguous to lacustrine and fresh emergent wetland habitats. This habitat requires intermittent or continually running water generally originating at some elevated source, such as a spring or lake, and flows downward at a rate relative to slope or gradient and the volume of surface runoff or discharge. Velocity generally declines at progressively lower altitudes, and the volume of water increases until the enlarged stream finally becomes sluggish. Over this transition from a rapid, surging stream to a slow, sluggish river, water temperature and turbidity will tend to increase, dissolved oxygen will decrease, and the bottom will change from rocky to muddy. Within the West Area, there are 7.76 acres of Riverine habitat.
Lacustrine habitats are inland depressions or dammed riverine channels containing standing water.
Riverine habitats are found in association with any terrestrial habitats, riverine, and fresh emergent wetlands. Most permanent lacustrine systems support fish life; intermittent types usually do not.
Within the West Area, there are 3.78 acres of Lacustrine habitat.
OTHER COVER TYPES
Barren habitat is defined by the absence of vegetation. Any habitat with <2% total vegetation cover by herbaceous, desert, or non-wildland species and <10% cover by tree or shrub species is defined this way. The physical settings for permanently barren habitat represent extreme environments for vegetation. An extremely hot or cold climate, a near-vertical slope, an impermeable substrate, constant disturbance by either human or natural forces, or a soil either lacking in organic matter or excessively saline can each contribute to a habitat being inhospitable to plants. Within the West Area, there are 34.41 acres of Barren habitat.
Soils
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)/Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey indicates the presence of 12 soil types occurring within the Specific Plan Area. Table 3.4-2 identifies the soils found in the Specific Plan Area.
TABLE 3.4-2: USDA SOIL SERIES INFORMATION
NAME ACRES IN PLAN AREA PERCENT OF PLAN AREA
Exeter loam 215.7 3.1%
Exeter sandy loam 1,227.6 17.5%
Exeter sandy loam, shallow 150.2 2.1%
Hanford gravelly sandy loam 15.0 0.2%
Hanford sandy loam, benches 17.3 0.2%
Hesperia fine sandy loam, moderately deep 1.7 0.0%
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
NAME ACRES IN PLAN AREA PERCENT OF PLAN AREA
Pollasky fine sandy loam, 2-9% slopes 2.6 0.0%
Pollasky sandy loam, 9-15% slopes 5.3 0.1%
San Joaquin loam, 0-3% slopes 213.4 3.0%
San Joaquin loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes 757.6 10.8%
San Joaquin sandy loam, 0-3% slopes, MLRA 17 1,523.4 21.7% San Joaquin sandy loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes 2,872.8 41.0% SOURCE: NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY, 2019.
Exeter series. The Exeter series consists of moderately deep to a duripan, moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvium mainly from granitic sources. Exeter soils are on alluvial fans and stream terraces and have slopes of 0 to 9 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 11 inches and the mean annual air temperature is about 64 degrees F. The Exeter series includes but is not limited to the ‘Exeter loam’, ‘Exeter sandy loam’, and the ‘Exeter sandy loam, shallow’ soils, each of which is present within the Plan Area.
Hanford series. The Hanford series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in moderately coarse textured alluvium dominantly from granite. Hanford soils are on stream bottoms, floodplains and alluvial fans and have slopes of 0 to 15 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 12 inches and the mean annual air temperature is about 63 degrees F. The Hanford series includes but is not limited to the ‘Hanford gravelly sandy loam’, and the ‘Hanford sandy loam, benches’ soils, each of which is present within the Plan Area.
Hesperia series. The Hesperia series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in alluvium derived primarily from granite and related rocks. Hesperia soils are on alluvial fans, valley plains and stream terraces and have slopes of 0 to 9 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 8 inches and the mean annual air temperature is about 64 degrees F. The Hesperia series includes but is not limited to the ‘Hesperia fine sandy loam, moderately deep’ soil, which is present within the Plan Area.
Pollasky series. The Pollasky series consists of moderately deep, well drained, moderately coarse textured Regosols formed in the residuum from softly to moderately consolidated arkosic sediments. They occur on undulating to steep dissected terraces under annual grasses and forbs.
They have brown, slightly acid sandy loam A horizons and pale brown to yellowish brown, slightly acid to neutral, sandy loam C horizons abruptly overlying consolidated granitic sediments. Pollasky soils occur at elevations below 500 feet to semiarid mesothermal climate having a mean annual precipitation ranging from about 9 to 16 inches with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. The Pollasky series is mapped along the eastern edge of the San Joaquin Valley of California where it is moderately extensive. Used as annual range and dry farmed small grain, usually barley, with limited sprinkler irrigated pasture.
San Joaquin series. The San Joaquin series consists of moderately deep to a duripan, well and moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvium derived from mixed but dominantly granitic rock sources. They are on undulating low terraces with slopes of 0 to 9 percent. The mean annual BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-9 precipitation is about 15 inches and the mean annual temperature is about 61 degrees F. The San Joaquin series includes but is not limited to the ‘San Joaquin loam, 0-3% slopes’, San Joaquin loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes’, ‘San Joaquin sandy loam, 0-3% slopes, MRLA 17’, and ‘San Joaquin sandy loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes’ soils, each of which is present within the Plan Area.
Hydrogeomorphic Features
Fresno County is located in the San Joaquin River watershed. The San Joaquin River is about 300 miles long. It begins in the Sierra Nevada mountain range on California’s eastern border. The river runs down the western slope of the Sierra and flows roughly northwest through the Central Valley, to where it meets the Sacramento River at the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, a 1,000-square-mile maze of channels and islands that drains more than 40 percent of the state’s lands (SJRGA 2013).
The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) has primary responsibility for managing the local stormwater flows for the City, as well as a large area beyond the City’s boundaries. The City’s stormwater drains to urban stormwater basins, where it is retained for groundwater recharge or pumped to local irrigation canals owned by Fresno Irrigation District (FID) and then conveyed away from the municipal area.
The City of Fresno is located in the alluvial fans of numerous foothill streams and creeks that drain the western slope of the Sierra Nevada foothills. These streams include Big Dry Creek, Alluvial Drain, Pup Creek, Dog Creek, Redbank Creek, Mud Creek, and Fancher Creek. The City has hot dry summers and cool mild winters, with temperatures of mid-90°F in the summer and 60°F in the winter. The precipitation averages 11 inches per year and occurs almost entirely in the fall, winter, and spring.
Regionally, the City is protected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Redbank-Fancher Creeks Flood Control Project. This project includes dams, detention basins, and levees designed to control upstream flood flows to approximately the 200-year storm event. Major facilities of this project include levee systems, the Big Dry Creek, Fancher Creek, and Redbank Creek dams and reservoirs, and the Alluvial Drain, Redbank Creek, Pup Creek, Fancher Creek, Big Dry Creek, Pup Creek Enterprise, and Dry Creek Extension detention basins.
Locally, the FMFCD drainage system consists of approximately 680 miles of pipeline and more than 150 stormwater retention basins. The storm drainage pipeline system is designed to accept the peak flow rate of runoff from a two-year intensity storm event (a storm that has a 50 percent probability of occurring in any given year). When storm events occur that exceed the two-year intensity, ponding begins to occur in the streets until the pipeline system can remove the water. In the event of larger storms, “major storm breakover”, the FMFCD has planned for streets or other conveyance to move the excess runoff to the basins. The FMFCD facilities in the Plan Area are shown in Figure
3.9-2 in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.
The drainage system discharges to a system of irrigation canals, creeks, and the San Joaquin River, but is designed to retain and infiltrate as much runoff as possible into the underlying groundwater aquifer. The local drainage service area is subdivided into over 160 drainage areas, most of which drain to a retention basin. Drainage channels within the Plan Area include:
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • East Branch Victoria Canal • Teague School Canal
• Epstein Canal • Tracy Ditch
• Herndon Canal • West Branch Victoria Canal
• Minor Thornton Ditch • Wheaton Ditch
• Silvia Ditch • Austin Ditch
The Plan Area is drained by 15 drainage watersheds, six of which are fully within the Plan Area, and nine of which drain to areas immediately south or west of the Plan Area. There are seven existing retention basins within the Plan Area and an additional five that serve the Plan Area. An additional basin is planned to serve the drainage shed in the far southwestern corner of the Plan Area.
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
The following discussion is based on a background search of special-status species that are documented in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) endangered and threatened species lists. The background search was regional in scope and focused on the documented occurrences within a 12-quadrangle area (including the following U.S.
Geological Survey [USGS] 7.5-minute quadrangle maps: Madera, Gregg, Lanes Bridge, Friant, Biola, Herndon, Fresno North, Clovis, Kerman, Kearney Park, Fresno South, and Malaga). Table 3.4-3 provides a list of special-status plants and Table 3.4-4 provides a list of special-status animals that are found in the regional vicinity. Figure 3.4-2 shows all occurrences within the 12-quadrangle area.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-11 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TABLE 3.4-3: SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES WHICH MAY OCCUR IN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
SPECIES
STATUS
(FED./CA/
CNPS)
HABITAT AND BLOOMING PERIOD
California alkali grass
Puccinellia simplex
--/--/1B.2 Meadows and seeps, chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, vernal pools. Alkaline, vernally mesic.
Sinks, flats, and lake margins. 1-915 m. March-May.
California jewelflower
Caulanthus californicus
E/E/1B.1 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland, pinyon and juniper woodland. Sandy soils. 65-1860 m.
February-May.
California satintail
Imperata brevifolia
--/--/2B.1 Coastal scrub, chaparral, riparian scrub, mojavean desert scrub, meadows and seeps (alkali), riparian scrub. Mesic sites, alkali seeps, riparian areas. 3-1495 m. September- May. caper-fruited tropidocarpum
Tropidocarpum capparideum
--/--/1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland. Alkaline clay. 0-360 m. March-April. dwarf downingia
Downingia pusilla
--/--/2B.2 Valley and foothill grassland (mesic sites), vernal pools. Vernal lake and pool margins with a variety of associates. In several types of vernal pools. 1-490 m. March-May.
Greene’s tuctoria
Tuctoria greenei
E/R/1B.1 Vernal pool. Vernal pools in open grasslands. 25-1325 m.May-July. hairy Orcutt grass
Orcuttia pilosa
E/E/1B.1 Vernal pools. 25-125 m. May-September.
Hartweg's golden sunburst
Pseudobahia bahiifolia
E/E/1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland, cismontane woodland. Clay soils, often acidic. Predominantly on the northern slopes of knolls, but also along shady creeks or near vernal pools. 60-170 m. March-April. heartscale
Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata
--/--/1B.2 Saline or alkaline soils, chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland (sandy). AprilOctober.
Hoover's calycadenia
Calycadenia hooveri
--/--/1B.3 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. On exposed, rocky, barren soil. 60-260 m. JulySeptember. lesser saltscale
Atriplex minuscula
--/--/1B.1 Chenopod scrub, playas, valley and foothill grassland. In alkali sink and grassland in sandy, alkaline soils. 0- 225 m. May-October.
Madera leptosiphon
Leptosiphon serrulatus
--/--/1B.2 Cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest. Dry slopes; often on decomposed granite in woodland. 80-1645 m. April-May.
palmate-bracted bird's-beak
Chloropyron palmatum
E/E/1B.1 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Usually on Pescadero silty clay which is alkaline, with Distichlis, Frankenia, etc. 5-155 m. May-October.
recurved larkspur
Delphinium recurvatum
--/--/1B.2 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland, cismontane woodland. On alkaline soils; often in valley saltbush or valley chenopod scrub. 3-790 m. March-June.
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
Orcuttia inaequalis
T/E/1B.1 Vernal pool. 10-755 m. April-September.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
SPECIES
STATUS
(FED./CA/
CNPS)
HABITAT AND BLOOMING PERIOD
Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
--/--/1B.2 Marshes and swamps. In standing or slow-moving freshwater ponds, marshes, and ditches. 0-605 m. MayOctober (November). spiny-sepaled button-celery
Eryngium spinosepalum
--/--/1B.2 Vernal pools, valley and foothill grassland. Some sites on clay soil of granitic origin; vernal pools, within grassland. 15-1270 m. April-June.
succulent owl's-clover
Castilleja campestris var.
succulenta
T/E/1B.2 Vernal pools. Moist places, often in acidic soils. 20-705 m. (March) April-May.
NOTES:
FEDERAL
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.
T = THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.
STATE
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.
T = THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.
R = RARE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
1B = RARE, THREATENED, OR ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA AND ELSEWHERE. 2 = RARE, THREATENED, OR ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA, BUT MORE COMMON ELSEWHERE. 3 = A REVIEW LIST – PLANTS ABOUT WHICH MORE INFORMATION IS NEEDED. 4 = PLANTS OF LIMITED DISTRIBUTION – A WATCH LIST
.1 = SERIOUSLY ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA (OVER 80% OF OCCURRENCES THREATENED-HIGH DEGREE AND IMMEDIACY OF THREAT).
.2 = FAIRLY ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA (20-80% OCCURRENCES THREATENED). .3 = NOT VERY ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA (<20% OF OCCURRENCES THREATENED).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-13 TABLE 3.4-4: SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE AND FISH SPECIES WHICH MAY OCCUR IN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA) GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
INVERTEBRATES
valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
Desmocerus
californicus dimorphus
FT/-- Stream side habitats below 3,000 feet throughout the Central Valley
Riparian and oak savanna habitats with elderberry shrubs; elderberries are the host plant.
California linderiella
Linderiella occidentalis
--/-- It has been documented on most land forms,
geologic formations and soil types supporting vernal
pools in California, at altitudes as high as 1,150
meters (3,770 ft) above sea level. Most common in
the Central Valley.
Seasonal pools in unplowed grasslands with old alluvial soils underlain by hardpan or in sandstone depressions. Water in the pools has very low alkalinity, conductivity, and total dissolved solids.
midvalley fairy shrimp
Branchinecta
mesovallensis
--/-- Extending from Stillwater Plain in Shasta County
through most of the length of the Central Valley to
Pixley in Tulare County and along the central Coast
Range from northern Solano County to Pinnacles
National Monument in San Benito County.
Vernal pools with tea-colored water, most commonly in grass or mud bottomed swales, or basalt flow depression pools in unplowed grasslands.
vernal pool fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
FT/-- Central Valley, central and south Coast Ranges from Tehama County to Santa Barbara County. Isolated
populations also in Riverside County
Common in vernal pools; they are also found in sandstone rock outcrop pools.
AMPHIBIANS
California tiger
salamander
Ambystoma
californiense
FT/CT Central Valley, including Sierra Nevada foothills, up to approximately 1,000 feet, and coastal region from
Butte County south to northeastern San Luis Obispo
County.
Central Valley DPS federally listed as threatened. Santa Barbara and Sonoma counties DPS federally listed as endangered. Need underground refuges, especially ground squirrel burrows, and vernal pools or other seasonal water sources for breeding. western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
--/SSC Found along the coast and coastal mountain ranges of California from Marin County to San Diego County
and in the Sierra Nevada from Tehama County to
Fresno County
Permanent and semi-permanent aquatic habitats, such as
creeks and cold-water ponds, with emergent and submergent vegetation. May estivate in rodent burrows or cracks during dry periods.
BIRDS
black-crowned night
heron
Nycticorax nycticorax
--/-- Throughout California Colonial nester, usually in trees, occasionally in tule patches.
Rookery sites located adjacent to foraging areas: lake margins, mud-bordered bays, marshy spots.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA) GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
--/SSC Lowlands throughout California, including the Central Valley, northeastern plateau, southeastern deserts,
and coastal areas. Rare along south coast.
Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and
scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation.
Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals,
most notably, the California ground squirrel.
California horned lark
Eremophila alpestris
actia
--/SSC Coastal regions, chiefly from Sonoma County to San Diego County. Also main part of San Joaquin Valley
and east to foothills.
Short-grass prairie, "bald" hills, mountain meadows, open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, alkali flats.
double-crested
cormorant
Phalacrocorax auritus
--/WL Nonbreeding California habitat located along coastal California and the Central Valley. Migrates
throughout California.
Colonial nester on coastal cliffs, offshore islands, and along lake margins in the interior of the state. Nests along coast on sequestered islets, usually on ground with sloping surface, or in tall trees along lake margins.
great egret
Ardea alba
--/-- Throughout California Colonial nester in large trees. Rookery sites located near marshes, tide-flats, irrigated pastures, and margins of rivers and lakes.
Least Bell's vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus
FE/CE Summer resident of southern California in low
riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms.
Found below 2000 ft. Nests placed along margins of bushes or on twigs projecting into pathways, usually willow, Baccharis, mesquite.
snowy egret
Egretta thula
--/-- Found mostly throughout North, Central, and South America. Breeds in coastal and inland wetlands. Their
range has been limited over time due to habitat
destruction and hunting. A migratory species that
relocates from the United States and Canada to
Mexico, Central America, South America, and the
West Indies.
Prefer shallow water inlets for feeding such as salt-marsh pools, tidal channels, and bays. Mostly along coastal areas and islands.
During winter time they migrate and roost in the mangroves of the Caribbean.
Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
--/CT Lower Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, the
Klamath Basin, and Butte Valley. Highest nesting
densities occur near Davis and Woodland, Yolo
County.
Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs, & agricultural or ranch lands with groves or lines of trees. Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands, or alfalfa or grain fields supporting rodent populations.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-15
SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA) GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
--/C (SSC) Permanent resident in the Central Valley from Butte County to Kern County. Breeds at scattered coastal
locations from Marin County south to San Diego
County; and at scattered locations in Lake, Sonoma,
and Solano Counties. Rare nester in Siskiyou, Modoc,
and Lassen Counties.
Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central Valley & vicinity. Largely endemic to California. Requires open water, protected nesting substrate, and foraging area with insect prey within a few kilometers of the colony.
western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
FT/CE Nests along the upper Sacramento, lower Feather,
south fork of the Kern, Amargosa, Santa Ana, and
Colorado Rivers
Wide, dense riparian forests with a thick understory of willows for nesting; sites with a dominant cottonwood overstory are preferred for foraging; may avoid valley oak riparian habitats where scrub jays are abundant
FISH
hardhead
Mylopharodon
conocephalus
--/SSC Tributary streams in the San Joaquin drainage; large tributary streams in the Sacramento River and the
main stem
Resides in low to mid-elevation streams and prefer clear, deep pools and runs with slow velocities. They also occur in reservoirs.
MAMMALS
American badger
Taxidea taxus
--/SSC Badgers are found primarily in the Great Plains region of North America. Badgers occur north through the
central western Canadian provinces, in appropriate
habitat throughout the western United States, and
south throughout the mountainous areas of Mexico.
They have expanded their range since the turn of the
20th century and are now found as far east as
Ontario, Canada.
Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, with friable soils. Needs sufficient food, friable soils and open, uncultivated ground. Preys on burrowing rodents. Digs burrows.
Fresno kangaroo rat
Dipodomys nitratoides
exilis
FE/CE Western Fresno County. Alkali sink-open grassland habitats. Bare alkaline clay-based soils subject to seasonal inundation, with more friable soil mounds around shrubs and grasses.
Hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
--/-- Occur in all 50 states. Rare in the eastern United States and northern Rockies. Found mainly in the
Pacific Northwest and California, Arizona, and New
Mexico.
Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics, with access to trees for cover and open areas or habitat edges for feeding. Roosts in dense foliage of medium to large trees. Feeds primarily on moths. Requires water.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA) GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
Pallid Bat
Antrozous pallidus
--/SSC Associated with oak woodlands in coastal California. Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting.
Roosts must protect bats from high temperatures. Very
sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites.
San Joaquin kit fox
Vulpes macrotis
mutica
FE/CT Western Kern County, San Luis Obispo County, and
Contra Costa County
Annual grasslands or grassy open stages with scattered shrubby vegetation. Need loose-textured sandy soils for burrowing, and suitable prey base.
San Joaquin Pocket
Mouse
Perognathus inornatus
--/-- Found in the southern Sacramento Valley, Salinas
Valley, San Joaquin Valley and adjacent foothills,
south to the Mojave Desert.
Grassland, oak savanna and arid scrubland. Associated with fine-textured, sandy, friable soils.
spotted bat
Euderma maculatum
--/SSC Distributed across large areas of western North
America from southern British Columbia to the
central Mexican state of Queretaro.
Occupies a wide variety of habitats from arid deserts and grasslands through mixed conifer forests. Feeds over water and along washes. Feeds almost entirely on moths. Needs rock crevices in cliffs or caves for roosting.
western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis
californicus
--/SSC Widespread in the southern United States and the northern part of Mexico. Occur at elevations to 2,600
meters.
Day roosts occur in crevices of cliffs and rocky canyons as well as trees. Roost areas need to be elevated and have a 2 meter drop off for take off area. Can live in chaparral, coastal and desert shrubs, and forests and wetland habitats.
REPTILES
blunt-nosed leopard
lizard
Gambelia sila
FE/CE Distributed across eastern California Resident of sparsely vegetated alkali and desert scrub habitats, in areas of low topographic relief. Seeks cover in mammal burrows, under shrubs or structures such as fence posts; they do not excavate their own burrows.
California glossy snake
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
--/SSC Patchily distributed from the eastern portion of San Francisco Bay, southern San Joaquin Valley, and the
Coast, Transverse, and Peninsular ranges, south to
Baja California.
Generally reported from a range of scrub and grassland
habitats, often with loose or sandy soils.
coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
--/SSC Found at elevations from sea level to 8,000 ft. (2,438 m).
Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most common in lowlands along sandy washes with scattered low bushes. Open areas for sunning, bushes for cover, patches of loose soil for burial, and abundant supply of ants and other insects.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-17
SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA) GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
northern California
legless lizard
Anniella pulchra
--/-- California legless lizards are found in California and Mexico. They are found from western central
California (San Joaquin and the coastal regions),
through northwestern Baja California, and as far
south as Colonia Guerrero, Mexico.
Sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse vegetation. Soil moisture is essential. They prefer soils with a high moisture content.
western pond turtle
Emys marmorata
--/SSC Occurs from the Oregon border of Del Norte and
Siskiyou Counties south along the coast to San
Francisco Bay, inland through the Sacramento Valley,
and on the western slope of Sierra Nevada.
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation, below 6000 ft elevation. Needs basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.31 miles from water for egg-laying.
NOTES:
FEDERAL
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.
T = THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.
PE = PROPOSED FOR ENDANGERED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.
PT = PROPOSED FOR THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.
C = CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR LISTING UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.
D = DELISTED FROM FEDERAL LISTING STATUS.
STATE
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.
T = THREATENED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.
C = CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR LISTING UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.
FP = FULLY PROTECTED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE.
SSC = SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN IN CALIFORNIA.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-19
3.4.2 REGULATORY SETTING
There are a number of regulatory agencies whose responsibility includes the oversight of the natural resources of the state and nation including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), USFWS, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). These agencies often respond to declines in the quantity of a particular habitat or plant or animal species by developing protective measures for those species or habitat type. The following is an overview of the federal, State and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.
FEDERAL
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), provides protection to plant and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. In general, USFWS has jurisdiction over terrestrial and fresh-water species, while NMFS has jurisdiction over ocean-going species.
Section 9 of FESA generally prohibits all persons from causing the "take" of any member of a listed species. (16 U.S.C. § 1538.) This prohibition applies mainly to animals; it only extends to plants in areas “under federal jurisdiction” and plants already protected under state law. (Id., subd. (a)(2)(B); see also Northern Cal. River Watch v. Wilcox (9th Cir. 2010) 620 F.3d 1075.) “Take” is defined in statute as, "... to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." (16 U.S.C. § 1532(19).) Harass is defined in regulation as "...an intentional or negligent act or omission that creates the likelihood of injury to a listed species by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns that include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering." (See 50 CFR § 17.3.) Harm is defined in regulation as "...significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” (Id.) Despite the general prohibition against take, FESA in some circumstances permits “incidental take,” which means take that is incidental to, but not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. (16 U.S.C. § 1539(a).) Under section 10 of FESA, persons seeking permission to engage in actions that could result in such incidental take can obtain such permission through the approval of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) by either USFWS or NMFS. (16 U.S.C., § 1539(a).)
Proposed federal actions that would result in take of a federal-listed or proposed species require consultation with USFWS or NMFS under section 7 of FESA. (Id., § 1536.) The objective of consultation is to determine whether the proposed federal action would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Where such an outcome would not occur, USFWS or NMFS must still impose reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the effects of the incidental taking. Where such an outcome could occur, USFWS or NMFS must
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan propose reasonable and prudent alternatives that, if implemented, would avoid such an outcome. (Id.)
Compliance with ESA can be achieved under Section 7 or 10 of FESA depending on the involvement of the federal government. Section 7 requires federal agencies to make a finding on all federal actions, including the approval by an agency of a public or private action, such as the issuance of a “404 permit” for filling wetlands by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), on the potential of the action to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species impacted by the action or to result in the destruction or adverse modification of such species’ critical habitat. Provisions of Section 10 are implemented when there is no federal involvement in a project except compliance with FESA. A take not specifically allowed by federal permit under Section 7 or Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the FESA is subject to enforcement through civil or criminal proceedings under Section II of the FESA.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
To kill, posses, or trade a migratory bird, bird part, nest, or egg is a violation of the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 U.S.C., §703, Supp. I, 1989), unless it is in accordance with the regulations that have been set forth by the Secretary of the Interior.
Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provide regulations to protect bald and golden eagles as well as their nests and eggs from willful damage or injury.
Clean Water Act – Section 404
Section 404 of the CWA regulates all discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S.
Discharges of fill material includes the placement of fill that is necessary for the construction of any structure, or impoundment requiring rock, sand, dirt, or other material for its construction; sitedevelopment fills for recreational, industrial, commercial, residential, and other uses; causeways or road fills; and fill for intake and outfall pipes and subaqueous utility lines [33 C.F.R. §328.2(f)].
Waters of the U.S. include lakes, rivers, streams, intermittent drainages, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, and wet meadows. Wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” [33 C.F.R. §328.3(b)]. Waters of the U.S. exhibit a defined bed and bank and ordinary high-water mark (OHWM). The OHWM is defined by the USACE as “that line on shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” [33 C.F.R. §328.3(e)].
Clean Water Act – Section 401
Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires an applicant who is seeking a 404 permit to first obtain a water quality certification from the RWQCB. To obtain the water quality certification, the RWQCB must indicate that the proposed fill would be consistent with the standards set forth by the state.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-21 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
The Rivers and Harbors Act prohibits the obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the United States. The Act requires authorization from the USACE for any excavation or deposition of materials into these waters or for any work that could affect the course, location, condition, or capacity of rivers or harbors.
STATE
Fish and Game Code §2050-2097 - California Endangered Species Act The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) administers a number of laws and programs designed to protect fish and wildlife resources. Principal of these is the California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (CESA Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq.), which regulates the listing and take of state endangered and threatened species, as well as candidate species. Under Section 2081 of CESA, CDFW may authorize take of an endangered and/or threatened species, or candidate species, by an incidental take permit or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for scientific, educational, or management purposes. In approving an incidental permit, CDFW must ensure, among other things, that “[t]he impacts of the authorized take shall be minimized and fully mitigated.” Further, “[t]he measures required to meet this obligation shall be roughly proportional in extent to the impact of the authorized taking on the species. Where various measures are available to meet this obligation, the measures required shall maintain the applicant's objectives to the greatest extent possible. All required measures shall be capable of successful implementation.” To be consistent with Federal regulations, CESA created the categories of "threatened" and "endangered" species. It converted all "rare" animals into the Act as threatened species, but did not do so for rare plants, as previously designated under the California Native Plant Protection Act (discussed below). Thus, there are three listing categories for plants in California: rare, threatened, and endangered. Under State law, plant and animal species may be formally designated by official listing by the California Fish and Game Commission.
Fish and Game Code §2800-2835 – Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act
The Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act is set forth in Fish and Game Code Sections 2800–2835. The intent of the legislation is to provide for conservation planning as an officially recognized policy that can be used as a tool to eliminate conflicts between the protection of natural resources and the need for growth and development. In addition, the legislation promotes conservation planning as a means of coordination and cooperation among private interests, agencies, and landowners, and as a mechanism for multispecies and multi-habitat management and conservation. The development of Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs) is an alternative to obtaining take authorization under Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code.
Fish and Game Code §1900-1913 – California Native Plant Protection Act In 1977 the State Legislature passed the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) in recognition of rare and endangered plants of the state. The intent of the law was to preserve, protect, and enhance
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan endangered plants. The NPPA gave the California Fish and Game Commission the power to designate native plants as endangered or rare, and to require permits for collecting, transporting, or selling such plants. The NPPA includes provisions that prohibit the taking of plants designated as "rare" from the wild, and a salvage mandate for landowners, which requires notification of the CDFW 10 days in advance of approving a building site.
Fish and Game Code §3503, 3503.5, 3800 – Predatory Birds Under the California Fish and Game Code, all predatory birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes in California, generally called “raptors,” are protected. The law indicates that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird unless it is in accordance with the code. Any activity that would cause a nest to be abandoned or cause a reduction or loss in a reproductive effort is considered a take. This generally includes construction activities.
Fish and Game Code §1601-1603 – Streambed Alteration
Under the California Fish and Game Code, CDFW has jurisdiction over any proposed activities that would divert or obstruct the natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any lake or stream.
Private landowners or project proponents must obtain a “Streambed Alteration Agreement” from CDFW prior to any alteration of a lake bed, stream channel, or their banks. Through this agreement, the CDFW may impose conditions to limit and fully mitigate impacts on fish and wildlife resources.
These agreements are usually initiated through the local CDFW warden and will specify timing and construction conditions, including any mitigation necessary to protect fish and wildlife from impacts of the work.
Fish and Game Code §3511, 3513, 4700, and 5050 – Fully Protected Species
Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 3513, 4700, and 5050 pertain to fully protected wildlife species (birds in Sections 3511 and 3513, mammals in Section 4700, and reptiles and amphibians in Section 5050) and strictly prohibit the take of these species. CDFW cannot issue a take permit for fully protected species, except under narrow conditions for scientific research or the protection of livestock, or if an NCCP has been adopted.
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines § 15380 – Unlisted Species Worthy of Protection
The CEQA Guidelines provide that a species that is not listed on the federal or State endangered species list may nevertheless be considered rare or endangered if the species meets certain criteria. (CEQA Guidelines § 15380) Species that are not listed under FESA or CESA, but are otherwise eligible for listing (i.e. candidate, or proposed) may be protected by the local government until the opportunity to list the species arises for the responsible agency.
Species that may be considered for review are included on a list of “Species of Special Concern,” developed by the CDFW. Additionally, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), a nongovernmental organization, maintains a list of plant species native to California that have low populations, limited distribution, or are otherwise threatened with extinction. This information is published in the BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-23 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. List 1A contains plants that are believed to be extinct. List 1B contains plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. List 2 contains plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere.
California Wetlands Conservation Policy
In August 1993, the Governor announced the "California Wetlands Conservation Policy.” The goals of the policy are to establish a framework and strategy that will:
• Ensure no overall net loss and to achieve a long-term net gain in the quantity, quality, and permanence of wetland acreage and values in California in a manner that fosters creativity, stewardship, and respect for private property.
• Reduce procedural complexity in the administration of State and federal wetland conservation programs.
• Encourage partnerships to make landowner incentive programs and cooperative planning efforts the primary focus of wetland conservation and restoration.
The Governor also signed Executive Order W-59-93, which incorporates the goals and objectives contained in the new policy and directs the Resources Agency to establish an Interagency Task Force to direct and coordinate administration and implementation of the policy.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Wat. Code, § 13000 et seq.) is California’s primary water quality control statute. But its protections extend to wetlands, and in some instances wetlands that are not subject to federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Under the Porter-Cologne Act definition, waters of the state are “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” (Wat. Code, § 13050[e].) Although all waters of the United States that are within the borders of California are also waters of the state, the reverse is not necessarily true.
Therefore, California retains authority to regulate discharges of waste into any waters of the state, discharges to receiving waters more broadly than the CWA does.
Waters of the state fall under the jurisdiction of the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). Under Porter-Cologne, each RWQCB must prepare and periodically update water quality control basin plans. Each basin plan sets forth water quality standards for surface water and groundwater, as well as actions to control nonpoint and point sources of pollution. California Water Code Section 13260 requires any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, in any region that could affect the waters of the state to file a report of discharge (an application for waste discharge requirements [WDRs]) with the applicable RWQCB. Construction activities that may discharge wastes into the waters of the state must meet the discharge control requirements of the Porter-Cologne Act.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan), adopted by the Central Valley RWQCB in 1998, identifies the beneficial uses of water bodies and provides water quality objectives and standards for waters of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins, including the Delta.
State and federal laws mandate the protection of designated “beneficial uses” of water bodies. State law defines beneficial uses as “domestic; municipal; agricultural and industrial supply; power generation; recreation; aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; and preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and other aquatic resources or preserves” (Water Code Section 13050[f]). Additional protected beneficial uses of the San Joaquin River include groundwater recharge and fresh water replenishment. Major issues and the general conditions of existing beneficial uses in the San Joaquin River are as follows:
• Water Supply: The San Joaquin River is not currently a source of municipal water supply for the City of Fresno and is not identified as a source for the proposed Project, although some farms in the region use the river as a source of water for irrigation. The City uses groundwater, water from the Kings River through an agreement with FID, and Class 1 water from the Central Valley Project through a water supply contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation.
• Agricultural Supply: Extensive use is made of San Joaquin River and Delta waters for agricultural purposes. Annual water diversions from the Delta by the State Water Project (SWP) and the Central Valley Project (CVP) for agriculture are estimated to reach 4.3 million acre-feet (MAF) per year by 2030. In addition, about 2,000 privately owned agricultural water supply diversions are scattered throughout the Delta, generally consisting of riverside pumping stations.
• Recreation: Water-dependent recreation uses of the San Joaquin River and the Delta include swimming, wading, waterskiing, sport fishing, and a variety of other activities that involve contact with the water. Noncontact (water-enhanced) recreation uses include picnicking, camping, pleasure boating, hunting, bird watching, education, and aesthetic enjoyment. • Groundwater Recharge: Water from the San Joaquin River and the Delta recharges the San Joaquin Valley groundwater basin. Recharge serves to maintain salt balance in the soil column, prevent saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers, and provide for water supplies. Groundwater is replenished through deep percolation of streamflow, precipitation, and applied irrigation water. Groundwater quality is generally adequate throughout the San Joaquin Valley and the Delta, although at shallow depths within the Delta the water is often saline and contains high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) and dissolved minerals. Enforceable TDS standards do not exist for drinking water. The need for treatment generally depends on consumer acceptance.
• Fish and Wildlife: The San Joaquin River and the waterways of the Delta provide important habitat for a diverse variety of aquatic life and terrestrial wildlife. This includes temporary habitat and migration routes for anadromous and other migratory species, as well as permanent habitat for resident species. Fish dependent on the Delta as a migration corridor, nursery, or permanent residence include Chinook salmon, steelhead, delta smelt, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-25 Sacramento splittail, striped bass, American shad, sturgeon, catfish, largemouth bass, and numerous other estuary and freshwater species. The amount and quality of water flowing through the Delta greatly influences the overall productivity of the area on an annual basis.
A large assemblage of wildlife uses the Delta either seasonally or year round, including waterfowl; migratory and resident songbirds; mice, rabbits, and other small mammals; water dependent mammals, such as beaver and muskrat; and predators such as skunk, raccoon, northern harrier, and coyote.
LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan establishes the following objective and policies directly related to biological resources:
PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND SCHOOLS ELEMENT
Objective POSS-5: Provide for long-term preservation, enhancement, and enjoyment of plant, wildlife, and aquatic habitat.
Policy POSS-5-a: Habitat Area Acquisition. Support federal, State, and local programs to acquire significant habitat areas for permanent protection and/or conjunctive educational and recreational use.
Policy POSS-5-b: Habitat Conservation Plans. Participate in cooperative, multijurisdictional approaches for area-wide habitat conservation plans to preserve and protect rare, threatened, and endangered species.
Policy POSS-5-c: Buffers for Natural Areas. Require development projects, where appropriate and warranted, to incorporate natural features (such as ponds, hedgerows, and wooded strips) to serve as buffers for adjacent natural areas with high ecological value.
Policy POSS-5-d: Guidelines for Habitat Conservation. Establish guidelines for habitat conservation and mitigation programs, including:
• Protocols for the evaluation of a site's environmental setting and proposed design and operating parameters of proposed mitigation measures.
• Methodology for the analysis depiction of land to be acquired or set aside for mitigation activities.
• Parameters for specification of the types and sources of plant material used for any revegetation, irrigation requirements, and post-planting maintenance and other operational measures to ensure successful mitigation.
• Monitoring at an appropriate frequency by qualified personnel and reporting of data collected to permitting agencies.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy POSS-5-e: Pursue development of conjunctive habitat and recreational trail uses in flood control and drainage projects.
Policy POSS-5-f: Regional Mitigation and Habitat Restoration. Coordinate habitat restoration programs with responsible agencies to take advantage of opportunities for a coordinated regional mitigation program.
Fresno Municipal Code
Article 3, Street Trees and Parkways, of Chapter 13 of the Fresno Municipal Code contains the public tree policy, tree beautification and preservation regulations, and Special Tree List authorization.
Section 13-302, Public Tree Policy, declares that the public interest and welfare require that the City maintain a program for the planting and preservation of trees on all public property in the city as a municipal affair in order to beautify the city, purify its air, and provide shade for its inhabitants. Section 13-304, Tree Beautification, establishes and defines the Master Tree Plan requirements, Parkway Tree requirements, and other requirements related to new and existing development and the provision of parkway trees. Section 13-305, Tree Preservation, outlines tree removal and maintenance requirements, tree permit conditions, and payment of fees in-lieu of replacing a removed tree. Lastly, Section 13-306, Special Tree List, outlines the Special Tree List requirements and tree removal requests for Special Trees:
The Director is authorized to develop and maintain a Special Tree List. Such list is intended to include those trees of special interest to the city, including, but not limited to, landmark trees or trees of outstanding size or beauty. The City Council may also designate trees on the Special Tree List by resolution. The Director shall give and encourage others to give such trees special treatment and care to retain and protect them.
The Public Works Director shall review all tree removal requests for special trees filed independent of a development application. The Director shall render his/her decision within thirty (30) days after the filing of the request. Any denial shall state the reasons for denial. The decision of the Director shall be mailed to the applicant and to all owners of record of the subject property on the same day the decision is made. In addition, the site or tree shall be posted with a sign by the Department for at least ten calendar days indicating the decision of the Director.
Decisions of the Public Works Director may be appealed to the City Council by the Councilmember of the district in which the project is located or by the Mayor, either on their own initiative or upon receiving a petition from any person.
Appeals must be initiated by filing a letter with the Public Works Director. Such action shall require a statement of reasons for the appeal. Unless otherwise specified in a governing State or federal law, all appeals shall be filed with the Public Works Director in writing within 15 days of the date of the decision.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-27
3.4.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G is a sample Initial Study checklist that includes number of factual inquiries related to the subject of biological resources, as it does on a whole series of additional environmental topics. Notably, lead agencies are under no obligation to use these inquiries in fashioning thresholds of significance on the subject of air quality impacts, or indeed on any subject addressed in the checklist. (Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068.) Rather, with few exceptions, “CEQA grants agencies discretion to develop their own thresholds of significance.” (Ibid.) Even so, it is a common practice for lead agencies to take the language from the inquiries set forth in Appendix G and to use that language in fashioning thresholds. The City has done so here, though it has exercised its discretion to modify the language of the Appendix G threshold addressing impacts to wetlands so that it applies not only to federallyprotected wetlands, but also to wetlands that are protected under State law (the reach of which is sometimes broader than federal law).
Although CEQA generally gives agencies considerable discretion in fashioning significance thresholds, there are some thresholds that must, as a matter of law, be used by public agencies.
Many of these relate to biological resources, and are found in CEQA Guidelines section 15065 (“Mandatory Findings of Significance”).
Finally, the City is aware that neither Appendix G nor section 15065 sets forth language directly addressing potential effects on birds of prey or nesting birds due to violation of laws (described earlier) intended to protect them. The City has therefore exercised its discretion to formulate a threshold to address this particular category of impact.
In light of the foregoing, for purposes of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if implementation of the Specific Plan would:
• Substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; • Cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; • Threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community;
• Substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species;
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • Have a substantial adverse effect on federally - or state- protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance;
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan; • Result in the take or destruction of any nesting birds or birds of prey or the nest or eggs of such birds.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 3.4-1: Specific Plan implementation could directly or indirectly have a substantial adverse effect through habitat modifications or reductions, cause populations to drop below self-sustaining levels, substantially eliminate a community, or substantially reduce the number of, or restrict the range of, an endangered, rare or threatened species, including those considered candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Approval of the proposed Specific Plan would not directly approve or entitle any development or infrastructure projects. However, implementation of the Specific Plan and Land Use Map would allow and facilitate future development in the Plan Area, which could result in adverse impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species, as well as sensitive natural habitat or wildlife movement corridors. Each are discussed below.
INVERTEBRATES
Special-status invertebrates that occur within the 12-quad for the Plan Area include: valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis), midvalley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi). The Plan Area may contain suitable habitat, or more specifically, microhabitats, for these special-status invertebrate species. For example, elderberry shrubs, which are the host plant for valley elderberry longhorn beetle, are known to occur in various areas throughout the region, and may be located in the Plan Area on certain properties. It is noted that elderberry can establish itself in various areas, so the absence of this species at one point in time does not mean that it is absent in future years. Additionally, seasonally aquatic, or other aquatic areas (i.e. irrigation ditches or drainage swales) within the Plan Area could provide suitable habitat for some special status aquatic invertebrate species.
Subsequent development under the proposed Specific Plan could result in the direct loss of habitat areas associated with these special-status invertebrate species, since suitable habitat for these species does occur in the region, and can be found as a microhabitat. Additionally, indirect impacts BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-29 to special-status invertebrate species could occur with implementation of the Specific Plan. Indirect impacts could include habitat degradation as a result of impacts to water quality, increased human presence, and the loss of aquatic habitat. This is a potentially significant impact.
AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES
There are two special-status amphibian species and five special-status reptile species that are documented within the 12-quadrangle region for the Specific Plan Area, including: California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata). There are two documented occurrences of CTS in the Specific Plan Area.
The more recent occurrence was documented in February 2017. This occurrence was documented in the vicinity of N. Blythe Avenue approximately 0.2 miles northwest of the W. Austin Way junction, and 0. Mile southeast of the W. Ashland Avenue junction. There are two polygons showing approximate locations – the northern polygon is the approximate location of the detection site for the CTS, and the southern polygon is the approximate location of the relocation site for CTS. For this occurrence, one CTS adult was found on the grounds of an apartment complex by a landscape maintenance crew. The animal was delivered to a local biologist who relocated the CTS to a nearby open space area. The open space area has alfalfa and grass, standing water in the springs, and many burrows present. According to the CNDDB, the individual may have represented a remnant population that has lost too much habitat to be viable.
The second occurrence was documented in 1879. The occurrence was from the U.S. National Museum (#11794), and the Cornell University Museum of Vertebrates (#3017). The site is considered to be extirpated.
The developed and agricultural areas within the Specific Plan Area provide very limited to no potential for special status species reptile and amphibians listed above. The portions of the Plan Area with the highest potential for presence of any special status reptile or amphibian species are areas where aquatic habitat is present, such as irrigation ditches or retention basins. Additionally, there are numerous locations for refugia (debris, burrows, crevices, barns, sheds, etc.) within the Plan Area that could be used by migrating CTS.
Subsequent development under the proposed Specific Plan could result in the direct loss of habitat areas associated with these special-status reptile and amphibian species, since suitable habitat for these species does occur in the region. Additionally, indirect impacts to special-status reptile and amphibian species could occur with implementation of the Specific Plan. Indirect impacts could include habitat degradation as a result of impacts to water quality, increased human presence, and the loss of foraging habitat. This is a potentially significant impact.
FISH
There is one special-status fish species that is documented within the 12-quadrangle region for the Specific Plan Area: hardhead (Mylopharodon conocephalus). This species is not documented within
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan the Specific Plan Area or vicinity. Based on habitat conditions and records searches, this fish species does not have the potential to be present within the Specific Plan Area. The proposed Specific Plan would not, directly or indirectly, have a substantial adverse effect on fish species through habitat modifications or reductions, cause populations to drop below self-sustaining levels, substantially eliminate a community, or substantially reduce the number of, or restrict the range of, an endangered, rare or threatened species, including those considered candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. Therefore, impacts associated with special-status fish species would be less than significant.
BIRDS
There are ten special-status bird species that are documented within the 12-quadrangle region for the Specific Plan Area, including: black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auratus), great egret (Ardea alba), Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis). While none of these bird species have been documented in the Plan Area, it is highly likely that some of the aforementioned special-status bird species could regularly use or pass through the Specific Plan Area given their high mobility.
It is anticipated that the raptor species would frequent the site for foraging. There is limited to no potential for nesting in the agricultural and developed areas. The portions of the Plan Area with the highest potential for presence of any nesting birds are the more rural and vacant portions of the Plan Area. Most bird nesting would occur in trees located in these areas, with the exception of ground nesting species such as the burrowing owl.
Subsequent development under the proposed Specific Plan could result in the direct loss of habitat areas associated with these special-status bird species, since suitable habitat for these species does occur in the region. Additionally, indirect impacts to special-status bird species could occur with implementation of the Specific Plan. Indirect impacts could include habitat degradation, increased human presence, and the loss of foraging habitat. This is a potentially significant impact.
MAMMALS
There are eight special-status mammal species that are documented within the 12-quadrangle region for the Specific Plan Area, including: American badger (Taxidea taxus), Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis), Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), San Joaquin Pocket Mouse (Perognathus inornatus), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), and western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus). Fresno kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, and western mastiff bat have all been documented in the Specific Plan Area.
The agricultural areas within the Specific Plan Area provide very limited to no potential for special status species mammals, except for movement and foraging. The portion of the Plan Area with the highest potential for presence of special-status mammal species is along the vacant, undeveloped BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-31 land not used for active agriculture. These areas provide the most intact habitat available within the entirety of the Specific Plan Area, although the species could move and forage throughout much of the Plan Area.
Subsequent development under the proposed Specific Plan could result in the direct loss of habitat areas associated with these special-status mammal species, since suitable habitat for these species does occur in the region. Additionally, indirect impacts to special-status mammal species could occur with implementation of the Specific Plan. Indirect impacts could include habitat degradation, increased human presence, and the loss of foraging habitat. This is a potentially significant impact.
PLANTS
The search revealed documented occurrences of 18 special status plant species within the 12- quadrangle region for the Plan Area, as shown in Table 3.4-3.
The developed and agricultural areas within the Plan Area provide very limited to no potential for special status plant species. The tilled farmland is regularly disturbed and is planted for agricultural production and does not have any potential for these plants. The farmland fringe and irrigation ditches are the only areas within the agricultural land that have some potential for presence of native plants, although the potential for presence is very low. There exists the potential for future development or infrastructure improvements to encroach upon sensitive plant habitat within the Plan Area. Therefore, impacts associated with special-status plant species would be potentially significant.
CONCLUSION
Construction and maintenance activities associated with future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan could result in the direct and indirect loss or indirect disturbance of specialstatus plant or wildlife (i.e. mammal, bird, amphibian, or reptile) species or their habitats that are known to occur, or have potential to occur, in the region. Impacts to special-status species or their habitat could result in a substantial reduction in local population size, lowered reproductive success, or habitat fragmentation. Significant impacts on special-status species associated with individual subsequent projects could include:
• increased mortality caused by higher numbers of automobiles in new areas of development; • direct mortality from the collapse of underground burrows, resulting from soil compaction; • direct mortality resulting from the movement of equipment and vehicles through construction areas;
• direct mortality resulting from removal of trees with active nests; • direct mortality or loss of suitable habitat resulting from the trimming or removal of obligate host plants;
• direct mortality resulting from fill of wetlands features; • loss of breeding and foraging habitat resulting from the filling of seasonal or perennial wetlands;
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • loss of breeding, foraging, and refuge habitat resulting from the permanent removal of riparian vegetation;
• loss of suitable habitat for vernal pool invertebrates resulting from the destruction or degradation of vernal pools or seasonal wetlands;
• abandoned eggs or young and subsequent nest failure for special-status nesting birds, including raptors, and other non-special-status migratory birds resulting from constructionrelated noises; • loss or disturbance of rookeries and other colonial nests; • loss of suitable foraging habitat for special-status raptor species; • loss of migration corridors resulting from the construction of permanent structures or features; and
• impacts to fisheries/species associated with waterways.
Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the City’s General Plan and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of special-status plants and animals, including habitat. The Specific Plan includes numerous policies intended to protect special-status plants and animals, including habitat, from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. While future development of the Plan Area has the potential to result in significant impacts to protected special-status plants and animals, including habitat, the implementation of the policies listed below, as well as Federal and State regulations, would reduce impacts to these resources. Additionally, the mitigation measures included below would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts on special-status invertebrate species:
• Preconstruction surveys/habitat assessments for valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis), midvalley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within the project disturbance area.
• If valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis), midvalley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis), or vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), or their suitable habitat, is found during preconstruction surveys/habitat assessments within the disturbance area, activities within 200 feet of the find shall cease until appropriate measures have been completed, which may include an application for incidental take, or it is determined by the qualified biologist and City staff, in coordination with USFWS and CDFW, that the species will not be harmed by the activities. Any sightings or incidental take shall be reported to USFWS and CDFW immediately.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-33 • Construction personnel performing activities within aquatic habitats and other suitable habitats (i.e., elderberry shrubs) to be disturbed by project activities shall receive worker environmental awareness training from a qualified biologist to instruct workers to recognize the species, their habitats, and measures being implemented for its protection.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-2: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts on special-status amphibian and reptile species:
• Preconstruction surveys/habitat assessments for California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within the project disturbance area. • If California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), or western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), or their suitable habitat, is found during preconstruction surveys/habitat assessments within the disturbance area, activities within 200 feet of the find shall cease until appropriate measures have been completed, which may include an application for incidental take, or it is determined by the qualified biologist and City staff, in coordination with USFWS and CDFW, that the species will not be harmed by the activities. Any sightings or incidental take shall be reported to USFWS and CDFW immediately.
• If western pond turtles are found during preconstruction surveys, a qualified biologist, with approval from CDFW, shall move the turtles to the nearest suitable habitat outside the area subject to project disturbance. The construction area shall be reinspected whenever a lapse in construction activity of 2 weeks or more has occurred. • Construction personnel performing activities within aquatic habitats and adjacent suitable uplands to be disturbed by project activities shall receive worker environmental awareness training from a qualified biologist to instruct workers to recognize western pond turtle, their habitats, and measures being implemented for its protection. • Construction personnel shall observe a 15-miles-per-hour speed limit on unpaved roads.
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
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ownership need not be surveyed. Surveys shall take place near sunrise or sunset in accordance with CDFW guidelines. All burrows or burrowing owls shall be identified and mapped. Surveys shall take place no earlier than 30 days prior to construction. During the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are nesting in or directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any disturbance area.
Survey results shall be valid only for the season (breeding or nonbreeding) during which the survey is conducted. If burrowing owls and/or suitable burrows are not discovered, then further mitigation is not necessary.
If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), the project proponent(s) shall avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance shall include establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone (described below). Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), the project proponent(s) shall avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance shall include the establishment of a buffer zone (described below). During the breeding season, buffer zones of at least 250 feet in which no construction activities can occur shall be established around each occupied burrow (nest site). Buffer zones of 160 feet shall be established around each burrow being used during the nonbreeding season. The buffers shall be delineated by highly visible, temporary construction fencing.
If occupied burrows for burrowing owls cannot be avoided, passive relocation shall be implemented.
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.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-35 During the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 15 to September 15), construction activities within 1,000 feet of occupied nests or nests under construction shall be prohibited to prevent nest abandonment. If site-specific conditions, or the nature of the covered activity (e.g., steep topography, dense vegetation, and limited activities) indicate that a smaller buffer could be used, the City of Fresno may coordinate with CDFW/USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer size. If young fledge prior to September 15, construction activities could proceed normally. If the active nest site is shielded from view and noise from the project site by other development, topography, or other features, the project proponent(s) can apply to the City of Fresno for a waiver of this avoidance measure. Any waiver must also be approved by USFWS and CDFW. While nest is occupied, activities outside the buffer can take place.
All active nest trees shall be preserved on site, if feasible.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-5: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts to the black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), doublecrested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auratus), great egret (Ardea alba), Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and western yellowbilled cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) that may occur on the site:
• Preconstruction surveys for active nests of black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auratus), great egret (Ardea alba), Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and western yellowbilled cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within 500 feet of project disturbance. Surveys shall be conducted within 14 days before commencement of any construction activities that occur during the nesting season (February 15 to August 31) in a given area. • If any active nests, or behaviors indicating that active nests are present, are observed, appropriate buffers around the nest sites shall be determined by a qualified biologist to avoid nest failure resulting from project activities. The size of the buffer shall depend on the species, nest location, nest stage, and specific construction activities to be performed while the nest is active. The buffers may be adjusted if a qualified biologist determines it would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. If buffers are adjusted, monitoring will be conducted to confirm that project activity is not resulting in detectable adverse effects on nesting birds or their young. No project activity shall commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged or the nest site is otherwise no longer in use.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-6: Prior to any ground disturbance related to construction activities, a biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas which may support suitable breeding or denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. The survey shall establish the presence or absence of San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens and evaluate use by kit foxes in accordance with USFWS survey guidelines (USFWS, 1999). Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted not earlier than 30 days from
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan commencing ground disturbance. On the parcel where activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 250-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership need not be surveyed. The status of all dens shall be determined and mapped. Written result of preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the USFWS within 5 working days after survey completion and before start of ground disturbance. Concurrence by the USFWS is not required prior to initiation of construction activities. If San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens are not discovered, then further mitigation is not necessary. If San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens are identified in the survey area, the following measure shall be implemented.
If a San Joaquin kit fox den is discovered in the proposed development footprint, the den shall be monitored for 3 days by a CDFW/USFWS-approved biologist using a tracking medium or an infrared beam camera to determine if the den is currently being used. Unoccupied dens shall be destroyed immediately to prevent subsequent use. If a natal or pupping den is found, the USFWS and CDFW shall be notified immediately. The den shall not be destroyed until the pups and adults have vacated and then only after further consultation with USFWS and CDFW. If kit fox activity is observed at the den during the initial monitoring period, the den shall be monitored for an additional 5 consecutive days from the time of the first observation to allow any resident animals to move to another den while den use is actively discouraged. For dens other than natal or pupping dens, use of the den can be discouraged by partially plugging the entrance with soil such that any resident animal can easily escape. Once the den is determined to be unoccupied, it may be excavated under the direction of the biologist. Alternatively, if the animal is still present after 5 or more consecutive days of plugging and monitoring, the den may have to be excavated when, in the judgement of a biologist, it is temporarily vacant (i.e., during the animal’s normal foraging activities).
Mitigation Measure 3.4-7: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measures to avoid or minimize impacts on bats:
• If removal of suitable roosting areas (i.e. buildings, trees, shrubs, bridges, etc.) must occur during the bat pupping season (April 1 through July 31), surveys for active maternity roosts shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The surveys shall be conducted from dusk until dark.
• If a special-status bat maternity roost is located, appropriate buffers around the roost sites shall be determined by a qualified biologist and implemented to avoid destruction or abandonment of the roost resulting from habitat removal or other project activities. The size 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:
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-37 • Preconstruction surveys for indications of American badger (Taxidea taxus), Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis), and San Joaquin pocket mouse (Perognathus inornatus) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within 500 feet of project disturbance. Surveys shall be conducted within 14 days before commencement of any construction activities that occur in a given area.
• If any active habitat areas, or behaviors indicating that active habitat is present, are observed, appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures, including but not limited to buffer areas, shall be required. The avoidance and mitigation measures shall be determined by the qualified biologist and implemented by the project proponent(s).
Mitigation Measure 3.4-9: Prior to construction in undisturbed areas, future project proponent(s) shall retain a biologist to perform plant surveys. The surveys shall be performed during the floristic season. If any of these plants are found during the surveys, the project proponent(s) shall contact the CNPS to obtain the appropriate avoidance and minimization measures. The project proponent(s) shall also implement the avoidance and minimization measures.
SPECIFIC PLAN POLICIES THAT MITIGATE POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Policy IPR 3.5: Utilize existing regulations and procedures, including but not limited to, the Development Code and the environmental review process, in order to conserve any existing or discovered wetland, riparian, or other sensitive habitats within the Plan Area.
Policy IPR 3.6: Where sensitive biological habitats have been identified or are discovered on or immediately adjacent to a project site, the project shall include appropriate mitigation measures determined by a qualified biologist.
Policy IPR 3.7: Coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fresno County, and local watershed protection groups to identify potentially impacted aquatic habitat within the Plan Area and to develop management guidelines to be implemented by development, recreation, and other projects adjacent to ponds, ditches, canals, and other waterways.
Impact 3.4-2: Specific Plan implementation has the potential to have substantial adverse effect on federally- or state-protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The Plan Area does not contain any natural hydrologic features. The Plan Area contains an internal network of agricultural ditches along the margins of the farm fields. The ditches in proximity to active agricultural areas of the Plan Area are regularly maintained to control/collect irrigation runoff from the fields. These features are manmade and are fed only by local irrigation water during the irrigation season or rainfall during the winter/spring season.
The USACE has regulatory responsibility for navigable waters as well as "all other waters such as...streams ...wetlands...and natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan affect interstate or foreign commerce" (33 CFR 323.4) under Section 404 of the CWA. A formal jurisdictional determination must be made by the USACE relative to protected wetlands and jurisdictional waters. The agricultural irrigation ditches are manmade and believed to solely function to drain upland agricultural runoff. As such, they are expected to be exempted from the USACE jurisdiction under the Irrigation Ditch Exemption pursuant to Federal Regulations (33 CFR 323.4(a)(3)). However, a final determination must be made by the USACE prior to any filling of these ditches for urban use.
CONCLUSION
Because the proposed Specific Plan is a planning document and thus, no physical changes will occur to the environment, adoption of the Specific Plan would not directly impact the environment. There is a reasonable chance that water features could be impacted throughout the buildout of the individual projects. The implementation of an individual project would require a detailed and sitespecific review of the site to determine the presence or absence of water features. If water features are present and disturbance is required, Federal and State laws require measures to reduce, avoid, or compensate for impacts to these resources. The requirements of these Federal and State laws are implemented through the permit process. These requirements are also included in Mitigation Measures 3.4-10 and 3.4-11.
Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the City’s General Plan and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of sensitive natural communities, including protected wetlands. The Specific Plan includes numerous policies and actions intended to protect wetlands and waters of the U.S. from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. While future development has the potential to result in significant impacts to protected water features, compliance with existing Federal and State regulations would reduce impacts to these resources. Mitigation measures included below ensure these regulations are followed. Additionally, implementation of Specific Plan Policies IPR 3.5 through IPR 3.7, as detailed below, would ensure that this impact is less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.4-10: If a proposed project will result in the significant alteration or fill of a federally protected wetland, a formal wetland delineation conducted according to USACE accepted methodology would be required for each project to determine the extent of wetlands on a project site. The delineation shall be used to determine if federal permitting and mitigation strategy are required to reduce project impacts. Acquisition of permits from USACE for the fill of wetlands and USACE approval of a wetland mitigation plan would ensure a “no net loss” of wetland habitat within the Planning Area. Appropriate wetland mitigation/creation shall be implemented in a ratio according to the size of the impacted wetland.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-11: In addition to regulatory agency permitting, Best Management Practices identified from a list provided by the USACE shall be incorporated into the design and construction phase of the project to ensure that no pollutants or siltation drain into a federally protected wetland. Project design features such as fencing, appropriate drainage and incorporating BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-39 detention basins shall assist in ensuring project-related impacts to wetland habitat are minimized to the greatest extent feasible.
SPECIFIC PLAN POLICIES
Policy IPR 3.5: Utilize existing regulations and procedures, including but not limited to, the Development Code and the environmental review process, in order to conserve any existing or discovered wetland, riparian, or other sensitive habitats within the Plan Area.
Policy IPR 3.6: Where sensitive biological habitats have been identified or are discovered on or immediately adjacent to a project site, the project shall include appropriate mitigation measures determined by a qualified biologist.
Policy IPR 3.7: Coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fresno County, and local watershed protection groups to identify potentially impacted aquatic habitat within the Plan Area and to develop management guidelines to be implemented by development, recreation, and other projects adjacent to ponds, ditches, canals, and other waterways.
Impact 3.4-3: Specific Plan implementation would not have substantial adverse effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The records search revealed the presence of the following sensitive natural communities within the 12-quadrangle region for the Specific Plan Area: Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest, Northern Claypan Vernal Pool, Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool, Sycamore Alluvial Woodland. None of these community types are found in the Plan Area. Riparian habitat is located northwest of the northwestern corner of the Plan Area along the San Joaquin River; however, this riparian habitat is not found within the Plan Area. The rectangular parcel located closest to the River and associated riparian habitat is the site of the future Fresno Aquarium.
Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the City’s General Plan and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of sensitive natural communities, including riparian habitat. The Specific Plan includes policies intended to protect sensitive natural communities, including riparian habitat, from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. While future development has the potential to result in significant impacts to protected habitats, implementation of Specific Plan Policies IPR 3.5 and IPR 3.6 and Mitigation Measures 3.4-12 through 3.4-14, detailed below, would ensure that this impact is less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.4-12: A pre‐construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if a proposed project will result in the removal or impact to any riparian habitat and/or a special‐status natural community with potential to occur in the Specific Plan Area,
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-40 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan compensatory habitat‐based mitigation shall be required to reduce project impacts. Compensatory mitigation must involve the preservation or restoration or the purchase of off‐site mitigation credits for impacts to riparian habitat and/or a special‐status natural community. Mitigation must be conducted in‐kind or within an approved mitigation bank in the region. The specific mitigation ratio for habitat‐based mitigation shall be determined through consultation with the appropriate agency (i.e., CDFW or USFWS) on a case‐by‐case basis. The project applicant/developer for a proposed project shall develop and implement appropriate mitigation regarding impacts on their respective jurisdictions.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-13: A pre‐construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if a proposed project will result in significant impacts to streambeds or waterways protected under Section 1600 of Fish and Wildlife Code and Section 404 of the CWA. The project applicant/developer for a proposed project shall consult with partner agencies such as CDFW and/or USACE to develop and implement appropriate mitigation regarding impacts on their respective jurisdictions, determination of mitigation strategy, and regulatory permitting to reduce impacts, as required for projects that remove riparian habitat and/or alter a streambed or waterway.
The project applicant/developer shall implement mitigation as directed by the agency with jurisdiction over the particular impact identified.
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.
SPECIFIC PLAN POLICIES
Policy IPR 3.5: Utilize existing regulations and procedures, including but not limited to, the Development Code and the environmental review process, in order to conserve any existing or discovered wetland, riparian, or other sensitive habitats within the Plan Area.
Policy IPR 3.6: Where sensitive biological habitats have been identified or are discovered on or immediately adjacent to a project site, the project shall include appropriate mitigation measures determined by a qualified biologist.
Impact 3.4-4: Specific Plan implementation would not interfere substantially with the movement of native fish or wildlife species or with established wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (Less than Significant)
Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation resulting from land use changes or habitat conversion can alter the use and viability of wildlife movement corridors (i.e., linear habitats that naturally connect and provide passage between two or more otherwise disjunct larger habitats or habitat BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-41 fragments). Wildlife habitat corridors maintain connectivity for daily movement, travel, mateseeking, and migration; plant propagation; genetic interchange; population movement in response to environmental change or natural disaster; and recolonization of habitats subject to local extirpation or removal. The suitability of a habitat as a wildlife movement corridor is related to, among other factors, the habitat corridor’s dimensions (length and width), topography, vegetation, exposure to human influence, and the species in question.
Species utilize movement corridors in several ways. “Passage species” are those species that use corridors as thru-ways between outlying habitats. The habitat requirements for passage species are generally less than those for corridor dwellers. Passage species use corridors for brief durations, such as for seasonal migrations or movement within a home range. As such, movement corridors do not necessarily have to meet any of the habitat requirements necessary for a passage species everyday survival. “Corridor dwellers” are those species that have limited dispersal capabilities – a category that includes most plants, insects, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, and birds – and use corridors for a greater length of time.
The CNDDB record search did not reveal any documented wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites on or adjacent to the Plan Area. There is a reasonable chance that movement corridors could be impacted throughout the buildout of the individual projects in the Plan Area. The agricultural areas are not migratory wildlife corridors, although some species may move through this area.
Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the City’s General Plan, proposed Specific Plan, and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of movement corridors. The Specific Plan includes Policy IPR 3.6, which states, “Where sensitive biological habitats have been identified or are discovered on or immediately adjacent to a project site, the project shall include appropriate mitigation measures determined by a qualified biologist.” While future development has the potential to result in significant impacts to protected movement corridors, the implementation of Policy IPR 3.6, as well as Federal and State regulations, would ensure impacts to these resources to a less than significant level.
Impact 3.4-5: Specific Plan implementation would not conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. (Less than Significant)
The Plan Area overlaps with areas that are covered by PG&E’s San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP covers PG&E’s routine operations and maintenance activities, as well as minor new construction, on any PG&E gas and electrical transmission and distribution facilities, easements, private access routes, or lands owned by PG&E.
The proposed Specific Plan would not be expected to conflict or interfere with the HCP activities.
Future buildout of the Plan Area, however, would likely result in a need for PG&E gas and electrical transmission and distribution facilities to support new residential and other developed land uses not covered by the HCP; however, construction of PG&E gas and electrical transmission and distribution facilities in the Plan Area would be covered by General Plan Policies POSS-5-a through POSS-5-f, and the proposed mitigation measures described herein.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-42 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan The Plan Area is also located in the planning area of the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, which addresses recovery needs and goals for the San Joaquin kit fox, among other species. Project-level implementation of the General Plan Policies POSS-5-a through POSS-5-f, and Mitigation Measure 3.4-5 discussed in Impact 3.4-1, will reduce potential project impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox and other wildlife covered by the Recovery Plan and their associated habitat, and require consultation with the USFWS if take of federally-listed species would occur. Thus, with implementation of these measures, the proposed Specific Plan would not be expected to conflict with the goals of the Recovery Plan. The proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
Impact 3.4-6: Specific Plan implementation would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. (Less than Significant)
State law requires any decision by a city affecting land use and development to be consistent with its General Plan. This determination is ultimately made by the City Council. If an action, program or project is inconsistent with the General Plan, State law requires it be reconciled. This may involve modification to the action, program, or project, or amendment of the General Plan. Therefore, this impact discussion will evaluate the proposed projects’ consistency with the Fresno General Plan as it related to biological resources. The evaluation will consider the proposed Plan’s consistency with the adopted General Plan policies included within the Parks, Open Space, and Schools Element of the Fresno General Plan. This impact discussion also includes an evaluation of the Plan’s consistency with the City of Fresno Municipal Code.
FRESNO GENERAL PLAN
The following discussion analyzes the project’s consistency with the relevant policies of the City’s General Plan.
Policy POSS-5-a: Habitat Area Acquisition. Support federal, State, and local programs to acquire significant habitat areas for permanent protection and/or conjunctive educational and recreational use.
The Plan Area does not contain significant habitat areas. It is noted, however, that the Specific Plan land use plan includes 248.4 acres of open space uses, including pocket parks, neighborhood parks, community parks, open space, and ponding basins. These open space uses could be used for educational and/or recreational uses. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy.
Policy POSS-5-b: Habitat Conservation Plans. Participate in cooperative, multijurisdictional approaches for area-wide habitat conservation plans to preserve and protect rare, threatened, and endangered species.
As discussed in Impact 3.4-5, the Plan Area overlaps with areas that are covered by PG&E’s San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance HCP. The Plan Area is also located in the planning area of the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, which addresses BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-43 recovery needs and goals for the San Joaquin kit fox, among other species. The proposed Specific Plan would participate in both plans, as applicable, and would not conflict with PG&E’s San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance HCP or the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy.
Policy POSS-5-c: Buffers for Natural Areas. Require development projects, where appropriate and warranted, to incorporate natural features (such as ponds, hedgerows, and wooded strips) to serve as buffers for adjacent natural areas with high ecological value.
The Plan Area does not contain areas with high ecological value. The San Joaquin River and associated riparian habitat, which has high ecological value, is located northwest of the northwestern corner of the Plan Area along the San Joaquin River; however, this riparian habitat is not found on-site. The rectangular parcel located closest to the River and associated riparian habitat is the site of the future Fresno Aquarium. The Aquarium would overlook the River but would be physically buffered from this natural area. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy.
Policy POSS-5-d: Guidelines for Habitat Conservation. Establish guidelines for habitat conservation and mitigation programs, including:
• Protocols for the evaluation of a site's environmental setting and proposed design and operating parameters of proposed mitigation measures.
• Methodology for the analysis depiction of land to be acquired or set aside for mitigation activities.
• Parameters for specification of the types and sources of plant material used for any revegetation, irrigation requirements, and post-planting maintenance and other operational measures to ensure successful mitigation.
• Monitoring at an appropriate frequency by qualified personnel and reporting of data collected to permitting agencies.
As discussed above, the Specific Plan would not conflict with PG&E’s San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance HCP or the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy. The mitigation measures outlined throughout the above impact discussions include guidelines for future projects to implement in order to conserve habitat and mitigate potential impacts. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy.
Policy POSS-5-e: Pursue development of conjunctive habitat and recreational trail uses in flood control and drainage projects.
The Specific Plan includes two policies which address flood protection and design. Policy IPR 2.9 states, “Plant locally appropriate, drought-tolerant landscaping and, where possible, incorporate designs that can contribute to groundwater recharge, flood protection, and reduced urban heat island effects.” Policy LUH 5.1 states, “Update the Development Code so that when land proposed for urban development abuts active farmland, planned farmland, or rural
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-44 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan residential, the development project shall include and provide for the maintenance of one of the following design features to provide a rural/urban buffer:
• Provide landscaping and setbacks to fully obscure the new development’s buildings and fences.
• Do not include fencing, or provide only see-through fencing no greater than four feet in height between the new development and the existing property. • Provide open space such as edible gardens, landscaped walkways, or permanent on-site flood control/drainage facilities.
• Locate boundary streets between the new and existing developments.” These two Specific Plan policies supports conjunctive use of flood control facilities as recreational or open space amenities. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy.
Policy POSS-5-f: Regional Mitigation and Habitat Restoration. Coordinate habitat restoration programs with responsible agencies to take advantage of opportunities for a coordinated regional mitigation program.
As discussed above, the Specific Plan would not conflict with PG&E’s San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance HCP or the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy. Additionally, the mitigation measures outlined throughout the above impact discussions include guidelines for future projects to implement in order to conserve habitat and mitigate potential impacts. The City will continue to coordinate habitat restoration programs with responsible agencies in order to take advantage of opportunities for a coordinated regional mitigation program. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy.
FRESNO MUNICIPAL CODE
Article 3, Street Trees and Parkways, of Chapter 13 of the Fresno Municipal Code contains the public tree policy, tree beautification and preservation regulations, and Special Tree List authorization.
Section 13-302, Public Tree Policy, declares that the public interest and welfare require that the city maintain a program for the planting and preservation of trees on all public property in the city as a municipal affair in order to beautify the city, purify its air, and provide shade for its inhabitants.
Section 13-304, Tree Beautification, establishes and defines the Master Tree Plan requirements, Parkway Tree requirements, and other requirements related to new and existing development and the provision of parkway trees. Section 13-305, Tree Preservation, outlines tree removal and maintenance requirements, tree permit conditions, and payment of fees in-lieu of replacing a removed tree. Lastly, Section 13-306, Special Tree List, outlines the Special Tree List requirements and tree removal requests for Special Trees.
There are trees located throughout the Plan Area. Any removal of these trees would be required to comply with the provisions of the Fresno Municipal Code, including Article 3, Street Trees and Parkways, of Chapter 13. This is an existing standard and regulation that is enforced by the City of Fresno during the improvement/grading plan and/or building plan phase of a project.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-45
CONCLUSION
The proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The future project proponents would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. As demonstrated above, the proposed Specific Plan is generally consistent with the above relevant open space and conservation policies of the General Plan, as well as the City’s Municipal Code. Overall, the proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-46 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
N Marks Ave
W Sierra Ave
W Ashlan Ave
W Bullard Ave
N Da
nte Ave W Shields Ave
N Gates Ave
N Cornelia Ave
N Brawley Ave
W Gettysburg Ave
N Blythe Ave
W Herndon Ave
W San Jose Ave
N Polk Ave
W Dakota Ave
W Spruce Ave
W Figarden Dr
N Valentine Ave
W Clinton Ave
N Weber Ave
N Bryan Ave
W Shaw Ave
N Hayes Ave
N Emerson Ave
N Golden State Blvd
N
Figa rden Dr
W Barstow Ave
N
Marty Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N Riverside Dr
N 99 Hwy
N Grantland Ave
CITY OF FRESNO
SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
UV99
Sources: CalFire FVEG15_1, 2015; Fresno County; City of Fresno. Map date: July 25, 2019. Revised: May 29, 2020; March 1, 2021.
BOUNDARIES
Specific Plan of the West
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
LAND COVER TYPES
Annual Grassland
Barren
Deciduous Orchard
Dryland Grain Crops
Evergreen Orchard
Irrigated Grain Crops
Irrigated Hayfield
Irrigated Row and Field Crops
Lacustrine
Pasture
Riverine
Urban
Vineyard
Figure 3.4-1. Cover Types
q 0 ¼ ½
Miles
LAND COVER TYPE
ACRES WITHIN THE
SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE
WEST AREA
Annual Grassland 149.1
Barren 34.4
Deciduous Orchard 2088.7
Dryland Grain Crops 22.7
Evergreen Orchard 12.7
Irrigated Grain Crops 1.3
Irrigated Hayfield 384.4
Irrigated Row and Field Crops 875.9
Lacustrine 3.8
Pasture 11.8
Riverine 8.0
Urban 3133.6
Valley Foothill Riparian 1.9
Vineyard 349.0
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-48 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
MADERA GREGG LANES BRIDGE FRIANT
BIOLA HERNDON FRESNO NORTH CLOVIS
KERMAN KEARNEY PARK FRESNO SOUTH MALAGA
CITY OF FRESNO
SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
Figure 3.4-2. California Natural
Diversity Database
Special Status Species Occurrences
Plant (80m)
Plant (specific)
Plant (non-specific)
Plant (circular)
Animal (80m)
Animal (specific)
Animal (non-specific)
Animal (circular)
Terrestrial Comm. (specific)
Terrestrial Comm. (non-specific)
Terrestrial Comm. (circular)
Multiple (80m)
Multiple (specific)
Multiple (non-specific)
Multiple (circular)
Sensitive Environmental Occurrence
12-Quad Search*
Project Location
*The Specific Plan of the West Area lies within two USGS quads, therefore the required 9-quad search was expanded to 12 quads to encompass the entire project area's 9-quad region.
CNDDB version 06/30/2019. Please Note: the occurrences shown on this map represent the known locations of the species listed here as of the date of this version. There may be additional occurrences or additional species within this area which have not been surveyed and/or mapped. Lack of information in the CNDDB about a species or an area can never be used as proof that no special status species occur in an area. Basemap: ArcGIS Online Topographic Map Service. Map date: July 26, 2019. p 0 1 2
Miles
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4-50 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-1 This section provides a background discussion of the prehistoric period background, ethnographic background, and historic period background, as well as the known cultural resources in the region and the Plan Area. The purpose of this section is to disclose and analyze the potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources associated with development of the proposed Specific Plan.
Information in this section is derived primarily from the following:
• Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Fresno West Area Specific Plan Project (Cogstone, October 2019 – included in Appendix D).
Two comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the following: The Native American Heritage Commission (August 13, 2019) and the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe (August 6, 2019). The portion of this comment letter which relates to this topic is addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.
KEY TERMS
Cultural and Historic Resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, or objects that may have historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. Preservation of the city’s cultural heritage should be considered when planning for the future.
Archaeology. The study of historic or prehistoric peoples and their cultures by analysis of their artifacts and monuments.
Ethnography. The systematic study of contemporary human cultures.
3.5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PREHISTORY
Humans are believed to have resided in Fresno County for at least the past 5,000 years.
Archeologists who have studied these past cultures have uncovered evidence of widespread activities that allowed them to divide these previous 13,000 years into periods or phases based on the kinds of subsistence behaviors practiced.
Three periods have been identified with locally defined phases and regional cultures as identified below:
• Paleoindian and Lower Archaic Period, 11,500 – 5,550 B.C • Upper Archaic Period, 550 cal B.C.– cal 1100 A.D.
• Emergent/Late Prehistoric Period, cal 1100 A.D. – Historic Contact.
Paleoindian and Lower Archaic Periods (11,500 – 5,550 B.C.) Few archaeological sites that predate 5,000 years ago have been discovered in the region. Near the end of the Pleistocene (approximately 9,050 cal B.C.) and during the early Middle Holocene (approximately 5,550 cal B.C.), there were periods of climate change and associated alluvial deposition throughout the central California lowlands. Recent geoarchaeological studies have
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
3.5-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan verified that large segments of the Late Pleistocene landscape were removed or buried by periodic episodes of deposition or erosion during the Middle Holocene. This confirms hypotheses that Paleoindian and Lower Archaic sites were buried during the last 5,000 to 6,000 years by deposits of Holocene alluvium up to 10 meters thick along the lower stretches of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River drainage systems. Archaeological evidence for the Paleoindian Period is scant, comprised primarily by fluted projectile points. The Lower Archaic Period is also mainly represented by isolated finds, such as at the Tulare Lake basin in the southern San Joaquin Valley. As a consequence of the natural alluvial deposition processes, only one site on the valley floor has produced cultural material dating to this period, and featured stone tools, remains of birds, fish and shellfish but no plant remains or milling tools. At two Lower Archaic Period sites in the foothills of Calaveras County, abundant handstones and milling slabs have been recovered.
Spears, angling hooks, composite bone hooks, and baked clay artifacts that may have been used as net or line sinkers represent the variety of fishing implements found at sites dating to this period.
Other baked clay items include pipes and discoids, as well as cooking “stones.” Impressions of twined basketry, bone tools, shell beads, and ground and polished charmstones have also been recovered.
A variety of grave goods accompanied burials in cemetery areas, which were separate from habitation areas. The presence during the Middle Archaic of an established trade network is indicated by a variety of exotic cultural materials, including obsidian tools, quartz crystals, and Olivella shell beads.
Upper Archaic Period (550 cal B.C – cal 1100 A.D)
The Upper Archaic Period features more specialized technology, with innovations and new types of bone tools, Olivella shell beads, Haliotis ornaments, charmstones, and ceremonial blades. An abundance of grinding tools (mortars and pestles) and plant remains, accompanied by a decrease in slab milling stones and handstones, indicates a shift to a greater reliance on acorns as a dietary staple during the Upper Archaic Period. A wide variety of natural resources were exploited during this period. Subsistence strategies varied regionally, focusing on seasonally available resources suited for harvesting in bulk, such as salmon, shellfish, deer, rabbits, and acorns. Numerous large shell mounds dating to this period are located near fresh or salt water and indicate exploitation of aquatic resources was relatively intensive. The accumulations of cultural debris and habitation features, such as rock-lined ovens, house floors, burials, hearths, and fire-cracked rock, reflect longterm residential occupation.
In the western margins of the San Joaquin Valley, discrete cemeteries date to the Upper Archaic Period. In the southern San Joaquin Valley, villages on the shores of Buena Vista Lake were occupied year-round. Trade in marine shell beads and obsidian, among other items, continued to be important.
Emergent/Late Prehistoric Period (cal A.D. 1100 – Historic Contact) The archaeological record in the Central Valley for the Emergent/Late Prehistoric Period documents an increase in the diversity and number of artifacts and in the number of archaeological sites. Along with an increase in sedentism and population that led to the development of social stratification, with an elaborate ceremonial and social organization, a number of cultural innovations shaped the CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-3 Emergent Period. These include the introduction of the bow and arrow and more diverse fishing equipment (bone fish hooks, harpoons, and gorge hooks). Fishing, hunting, and gathering plant foods continue as the foci of subsistence practices, including intensive harvesting of acorns and an increased emphasis on fishing. Hopper mortars and shaped mortars and pestles, as well as bone awls used for producing coiled baskets, are common. Locally made Cosumnes Brownware has been recovered from some sites in the lower Sacramento Valley, while pottery in the Tulare basin was obtained through trade. Baked clay balls, probably used for cooking in the absence of stone, remain common.
Ceremonial and ritual items include flanged tubular pipes and baked clay effigies representing humans and animals. Clamshell disk beads were used as currency and accompanied the development of extensive exchange networks. Mortuary practices included flexed burials, the cremation of high-status individuals, and pre-interment burning of offerings in grave pits. Overall, the cultural patterns known from historic period Native American groups inhabiting the Central Valley are reflected in the subsistence and land use patterns practiced during the Emergent Period.
ETHNOLOGY
The Plan Area is located within the traditional territory of the Yokuts. Historically, the Yokuts people collectively inhabited the San Joaquin Valley as well as the eastern foothills of the Sierra Nevada from the Calaveras River southward to the Kern River. Ethnographers and linguists have traditionally divided Yokuts into three geographic groups, based on linguistic similarities and differences:
Northern Valley, Southern Valley, and Foothill. The Plan Area is located in the area historically occupied by the Northern Valley Yokuts according to Kroeber (1925: 462), who suggested that they lived along the San Joaquin River. The Northern Valley Yokuts tribes’ territory extended southward from the Calaveras River to the upper San Joaquin River and from the crest of the Coast (Diablo) Range east to the Sierra Nevada foothills.
Information on the Yokuts lifeways has been compiled by Kroeber (1925:474-543), Wallace (1978:462-470), and Latta (1977) and is summarized here. The Northern Valley Yokuts grouping consisted of 11 or more tribes, each containing 300 or so people. Most members lived within a single settlement that often had the same name as the political unit. These were generally established on low rises along the major watercourses. The eastern side of the San Joaquin River was more heavily populated than the land to the west of the river, due to greater water availability. A village generally contained at least three types of structures – oval single-family dwellings made of tule, ceremonial chambers, and sweathouses. According to Kroeber’s informants, a tribe of Yokuts known as the Hewchi lived close to the Plan Area, near Fresno River (1925: 470).
The fundamental economy of the Yokuts was subsistence fishing, hunting, and collecting plant foods. Acorns, collected in the fall and then stored in granaries, were a staple food (Wallace 1978:464). During the fall and spring runs, salmon was a dietary mainstay. Wildfowl, such as geese and ducks, were also an important staple. Additional dietary plant parts included seeds, berries and tule roots. Large game included deer, elk, antelope, and black bears.
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
3.5-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan A wide variety of tools, implements, and enclosures were used by the Northern Valley Yokuts to gather, collect, and process food resources. These included bow and arrows, nets, traps, slings, and blinds for hunting land mammals and birds; and harpoons, hooks, and nets, as well as tule rafts.
Sharpened digging sticks and woven tools (seed beaters, burden baskets, and carrying nets) would have been used to collect plant resources and a variety of implements (stone mortars and pestles, bedrock and portable mortars, stone knives, and bone tools) used for processing resources. The Northern Valley Yokuts traded with neighboring groups for bows and arrows, baskets, shell ornaments and beads, obsidian, and mussels and abalone.
The San Joaquin Valley was never settled during the Spanish and Mexican periods, but influences from the coastal missions and presidios were felt inland by the late 1700s. By 1805, Northern Valley Yokuts were transported to the San José, Santa Clara, Soledad, San Juan Bautista, and San Antonio missions that were established during the Spanish era. Later, disease and military raids claimed many lives during the Mexican period, followed by displacement during the early American Period by gold seekers and farmers.
Pre-contact population density for Northern Valley Yokuts has been estimated at 25,000 to 31,000.
In 1852, representatives of only three Northern Valley Yokuts tribes (including the Heuchi) remained to sign one of a series of statewide treaties. Today, people of Yokuts descent live on the Tule River Reservation in Tulare County and on three rancherias: Picayune in Madera County at Coarsegold, Santa Rosa in Kings County, and Table Mountain in Fresno County near Friant. Some Foothill Yokuts also live with Central Sierran Miwok on the Tuolumne Rancheria in Tuolumne County.
HISTORIC PERIOD BACKGROUND
The general history of the exploration and settlement of Fresno County has been documented in a number of sources. This section focuses on the specific history of Fresno and the Plan Area.
Spanish Exploration
Juan Cabrillo was the first European to sail along the coast of California in 1542 and was followed in 1602 by Sebastian Vizcaino (Bean and Rawls 1993). The Spanish colonization of what was then known as Alta California began with the 1769 overland expedition, led by Gaspar de Portolá, with a crew of 63 men, in order to explore the land between San Diego and Monterey. Between 1769 and 1822, the Spanish had colonized California and established missions, presidios, and pueblos and documented the people and landscape along the way (McCawley 1996).
Following the Portolá Expedition, vast tracts of land were granted to the missions. The goals of the missions were tri-fold: they establish a Spanish presence on the west coast, proselytize Christianity to the native peoples, and serve to exploit the native population as laborers. The Spanish also hoped each mission would become a town center, whereas, “the pueblo would receive a ground of four square leagues of land… and other property would be parceled out among the Indians”. The missionaries, or padres, would essentially serve as a mayor, or head of the town (Bean 1968).
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-5 Mexican Period
In 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain and worked to lessen the wealth and power held by the missions. The Secularization Act was passed in 1833, appropriating the vast mission lands to the Mexican governor and downgrading the missions’ status to that of parish churches. The governor then redistributed the former mission lands, in the form of land grants, to private owners (Bean and Rawls 1993). The lands were typically granted to soldiers who proved their loyalty to the Mexican government once liberated from the Spanish crown.
Fresno History
The County of Fresno was founded in 1856 from portions of Tulare, Merced, and Mariposa Counties.
In 1872, Central Pacific Railroad, predecessor to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, arrived in the San Joaquin Valley. The local train station, “Fresno Station,” represented the epicenter of Fresno (Planning Resource Associates, Inc. 2008).
Fresno’s original land plan was organized on a grid system which extended eastward from the Central Pacific Railroad tracks along what is currently H Street. In 1872, the Railroad began selling lots to entrepreneurs and by the end of the year Fresno consisted of a few residential homes, multiple livery stables, four restaurants and hotels, and two stores (Planning Resource Associates, Inc. 2008).
In 1874, the Fresno County seat was transferred from Millerton, which had experienced years of floods and a catastrophic fire, to the City of Fresno (Hoover & Kyle 2002). Fresno’s new position as the County seat resulted in a boost of prosperity and by 1885 Fresno was incorporated with a population of approximately 2,000 (Victor Gruen Associates 1968).
Fresno’s economic success came from its agricultural production in conjunction with the railroad.
Fresno County became the number one agricultural producer in California in addition to one of the nation’s best producers of cotton, figs, grapes, and raisins (Hoover & Kyle 2002). In 1911, the SunMaid Raisin Cooperative was founded in the City of Fresno as the principle packing center and hosted multiple packinghouses throughout the City (Hattersley-Drayton 2013). To this day, Fresno County is ranked as the nation’s highest agricultural producer with annual sales totaling over $3 billion per annum.
By the late 1890s and early 1900s, Fresno’s population and economy continued to grow with the U.S. Census showing the City’s population doubling from 12,470 in 1900 to 24,892 in 1910 (U.S.
Census 1910). The Fresno City Board of Trustees approved the establishment of the City’s first planning commission in 1916, in anticipation of further growth. By 1923, the plans were adopted and included parks and recreation centers, and streets to accommodate the increased population (Planning Resource Associates, Inc. 2008).
Fresno’s early 20th century residential development located north of the downtown area caused the expansion of the electric Fresno Street Railway established in 1888. The Railway was later taken over by the Fresno City Railway Company in 1901 and built northward to connect the suburban areas
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
3.5-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan to the City’s center. The electric streetcar would remain the primary form of mass transit in Fresno City until its replacement by the bus by 1939 (Planning Resource Associates, Inc. 2008).
During the Post-War Economic Boom (1945-1973), the population shifted from Fresno’s center to the newly developed suburbs as a result of increased population and increase in personal car ownership. This shift in population caused the decline of the City’s urban center and in the 1960s, Fresno began an urban revitalization project for downtown resulting in the construction of the Fulton Mall in 1964. This six-block pedestrian mall was considered an innovative model and effective response to what was considered at the time to be America’s “Urban Crisis” (Victor Gruen Associates 1968).
During the 1970s to 1990s, development continued to expand outward from Fresno’s City center.
Plan Area History
The Plan Area boundaries are defined by Clinton Avenue at its southern boundary, North Garfield Avenue at its western boundary, and the State Route 99 (SR-99) running northwest/southeast connecting the northern end of Garfield Avenue to the eastern end of Clinton Avenue. Historic topographic maps from 1923 (Bullard 7.5x15 minute) to approximately 1965 (Fresno North 7.5 minute) show the vast majority of the Plan Area occupied by farmland and various farmhouses. The Post-War Economic Boom (1945-1973) is depicted in historic aerials from 1962 and 1972 as an increase in tract homes on previous agricultural land as the population shifted from urban to suburban locations. The tract homes spread west of SR-99 through the Plan Area. By 1998, nearly a third of the Plan Area was developed and closely resembled the Plan Area’s built environment at it exists today.
CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
California Historic Resources Information System
The purpose of the cultural records search is to identify all previously recorded cultural resources (prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, historic buildings, structures, objects, or districts) within the Plan Area. All cultural resources, as well as cultural resource surveys, performed within the Plan Area boundaries were reviewed.
A search of the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) was requested from the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) located at California State University, Bakersfield on July 30, 2019, which included the entire Plan Area. Results of the record search indicate that 36 previous studies have been completed within the Plan Area (Table 3.5-1).
In addition to the SSJVIC records search, a variety of sources were consulted to obtain information regarding the cultural context of the Plan Area. Sources included the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), California Historical Resources Inventory (CHRI), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), and California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI). Specific information about the Plan Area, obtained from historic-era maps and aerial photographs, is presented in the Plan Area History section.
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-7 TABLE 3.5-1: PREVIOUS STUDIES WITHIN THE PLAN AREA
REPORT
NO.(FR-)
AUTHOR(S) TITLE YEAR
00069 Hudlow, Scott M. and
de la Garza, Theresa
A Phase I Architectural Survey for the Highway City Specific Plan Area City of Fresno, California
1996
00135 Hatoff, Brian, Voss,
Barb, Waechter,
Sharon, Benté, Vance,
and Wee, Stephen
Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project.
1995
00166 Kus, James S. Negative Archaeological Survey Report for Proposed Fresno Housing Authority Clinton Avenue Project
1994
00191 Wren, Donald G. An Archaeological Survey: Central Unified School District Stadium Project 1998 00271 Bissonnette, Linda
Dick
Cultural Resources Survey for Central Unified School District Adult School, Fresno County, California
1991
00287 Bissonnette, Linda
Dick
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment: Central Unified School District, Milburn/Dakota Elementary School Site, Fresno County, California 1992
00294 Bissonnette, Linda
Dick
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Central Unified School District, New High School Project, Northwest of Dakota and Cornelia Avenues, Fresno County
1993
00302 Bissonnette, Linda
Dick
Grantland Avenue Sewer Trunk and Herndon Expressway Cultural Resources Assessment
1994
00393 Dondero, Steven Negative Archaeological Survey Report for the Herndon Avenue Overcrossing, Fresno County
1988
00433 Davis, Alan, Dick,
Linda, and Varner,
Dudley
An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Gates Substation to the Proposed Gregg Substation 500 KV Transmission Line, Fresno and Madera Counties
1977
00447 Jackson, Scott R. Environmental Impact Evaluation: An Archaeological Assessment of God's Family Church Property, Fresno County, California
1990
00677 Roop, William A Cultural Resources Evaluation of Tracts 4488 (APN 311-03124) and 4581 (APN 404-071-17), Fresno, Fresno County, California
1993
00760 Varner, Dudley M. Highway City Sewer Project (Improvement Dist. #166) 1974 01640 Binning, Jeanne Day Negative Archaeological Survey Report Installation of Traffic Surveillance Stations along Interstate 5, State Route 41, and State Route 99 in Madera and Fresno Counties
1999
01656 Wren, Donald G. A Cultural Resource Study: Stormwater Retention Basin EN and EO, Fresno County, California
2000
01702 Wren, Donald G. A Cultural Resource Study: Basin CD Project, Fresno County, California 2001 01710 Szeto, Andy Site Location Map and Site Description for PL-754-01 1998 01808 Wren, Donald G. An Archaeological Survey Central Unified Education Center, Fresno County, California
2002
01811 Hildebrand, Karen and
Roper, C. Kristina
Hardpan and Adobe Brick: A National Register Evaluation of Two Highway City Adobe Buildings, Fresno, California
1997
01942 Hudlow, Scott M. and
de la Garza, Theresa
A Phase I Architectural Survey for the Highway City Specific Plan Area, City of Fresno, California
1996
01953 Wren, Donald G. Draft Environmental Impact Report: Central Unified Education Center:
State Clearinghouse No. 2002021064
2002
02029 Brady, Jon L. Historic Property Survey for the Proposed La Estancia Housing Project, Fresno, California
2004
02212 Nettles, Wendy M. Phase I Cultural Resources Study of Assessor's Parcel No. 311140-14, 5901 W. Shaw Avenue, Fresno, California
2006
02227 Losee, Caroyln New Tower Submission Packet, FCC Form 620 2006
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
3.5-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan REPORT
NO.(FR-)
AUTHOR(S) TITLE YEAR
02256 Hobbs, Kelly Historic Property Survey Report: State Route 99/Shaw Avenue Interchange Improvement Project, Fresno, California
2002
02256 Brady, Jon Underground Caverns 4951 N. Dale, Fresno California, Historic Evaluation and Determination of Significance
2000
02256 Kiaha, Krista Archaeological Survey Report for the Shaw Avenue Interchange Reconstruction at State Route 99 Fresno County, California 2001
02256 Hobbs, Kelly Historic Architecture Survey Report/Historic Resource Evaluation for State Route 99/Shaw Avenue Interchange Improvements
2002
SOURCE: COGSTONE, 2019.
The results of the records search indicate a total of 82 cultural resources have been previously recorded within the Plan Area. Of these cultural resources, four are historic archaeological sites and 78 are historic built environment resources. No fossils are known from the Plan Area or the Fresno area. No prehistoric archaeological sites have been previously recorded within the Plan Area.
Four historical archaeological sites have been recorded in the Plan Area. Three of the historic archaeological sites are in the vicinity of Teague Elementary School and one historic archaeological site, the San Joaquin River Quarry, is located just south of Highway 99 in the northern portion of the Plan Area.
Historical resources include current and former locations of historic buildings, historical archaeological sites (often near historic use areas) and the location of extant historic homes more than 45 years old. The majority of the historic built resources are historic residences clustered around North Polk Avenue and West Acacia Avenue in the northern portion of the Plan Area.
NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION
Pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52, consultation letters were sent via certified mail on August 20, 2019 requesting information related to cultural resources or heritage sites within the Plan Area. Additional attempts at contact were made by email or phone on September 6 and September 19, 2019. The letters were sent to: the Native American Heritage Commission; Ms.
Elizabeth D. Kipp, Chairperson, Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians; Carol Bill, Chairperson, Cold Springs Rancheria; Mr. Robert Ledger Sr, chairperson, Dumna Wo-Wah Tribal Government; Mr. Benjamin Charley Jr., Tribal Chair, Dunlap Band of Mono Indians; Mr. Dick Charley, Tribal Secretary, Dunlap Band of Mono Indians; Mr. Stan Alec, Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe; Mr. Ron Goode, Chairperson, North Fork Mono Tribe; Mr. Rueben Barrios Sr., Chairperson, Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe; Ms. Leanne Walker-Grant, Chairperson, and Mr. Bob Pennell, Cultural Resources Director, Table Mountain Rancheria; Mr. David Alvarez, Chairperson, and Mr.
Rick Osborne, Cultural Resources, Traditional Choinumni Tribe; and Mr. Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson, Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band. To date, three responses have been received and are summarized below. All consultation correspondence and a contact log are provided in Appendix C of Appendix D.
• On August 26, 2019 Mr. Charley, tribal secretary for the Dunlap Band of Mono Indians, responded via phone that the Plan Area is outside the Tribe's interest and that they would CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-9 not be commenting or requesting consultation. Mr. Charley recommended contacting Big Sandy or Table Mountain Rancheria for comments.
• On September 19, 2019 Mr. Alec of the Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe, responded via phone that the Tribe has no concerns with the Specific Plan. • On August 6, 2019, Mr. Pennell, Cultural Resources Director of the Table Mountain Rancheria, responded by letter stating that the Tribe is interested in the Specific Plan and requested any cultural resource reports received from the record search. Mr. Pennell requested that the City contact the Tribal office to coordinate a discussion and meeting date for the Specific Plan. On October 7, 2019 Cogstone replied to Mr. Pennell with the results of the cultural records search.
3.5.2 REGULATORY SETTING
There are a number of regulatory agencies whose responsibility includes the oversight of the cultural and tribal cultural resources of the state and nation including the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), National Register of Historic Places, and the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). These agencies often oversee the preservation of historic, cultural and tribal cultural resources. The following is an overview of the federal, State and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.
FEDERAL
National Historic Preservation Act
Most regulations at the Federal level stem from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and historic preservation legislation such as the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. NHPA established guidelines to "preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and to maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and a variety of individual choice." The NHPA includes regulations specifically for Federal landholding agencies, but also includes regulations (Section 106) which pertain to all projects that are funded, permitted, or approved by any Federal agency and which have the potential to affect cultural resources. All projects that are subject to NEPA are also subject to compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and NEPA requirements concerning cultural resources. Provisions of NHPA establish a National Register of Historic Places (The National Register) maintained by the National Park Service, the Advisory Councils on Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Offices, and grants-in-aid programs.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act and Native American Graves and Repatriation Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act recognizes that Native American religious practices, sacred sites, and sacred objects have not been properly protected under other statutes. It establishes as national policy that traditional practices and beliefs, sites (including right of access), and the use of sacred objects shall be protected and preserved. Additionally, Native American remains are protected by the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act of 1990.
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
3.5-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Other Federal Legislation
Historic preservation legislation was initiated by the Antiquities Act of 1966, which aimed to protect important historic and archaeological sites. It established a system of permits for conducting archaeological studies on Federal land, as well as setting penalties for noncompliance. This permit process controls the disturbance of archaeological sites on Federal land. New permits are currently issued under the Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979. The purpose of ARPA is to enhance preservation and protection of archaeological resources on public and Native American lands. The Historic Sites Act of 1935 declared that it is national policy to “Preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance.” STATE
California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR)
California State law also provides for the protection of cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources identified in documents prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under CEQA, a cultural resource is considered an important historical resource if it meets any of the criteria found in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Criteria identified in the CEQA Guidelines are similar to those described under the NHPA.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains the CRHR. Historic properties listed, or formally designated for eligibility to be listed, on the National Register are automatically listed on the CRHR. State Landmarks and Points of Interest are also automatically listed. The CRHR can also include properties designated under local preservation ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA requires that lead agencies determine whether projects may have a significant effect on archaeological and historical resources. This determination applies to those resources which meet significance criteria qualifying them as “unique,” “important,” listed on the CRHR, or eligible for listing on the CRHR. If the agency determines that a project may have a significant effect on a significant resource, the project is determined to have a significant effect on the environment, and these effects must be addressed. If a cultural resource is found not to be significant under the qualifying criteria, it need not be considered further in the planning process.
CEQA emphasizes avoidance of archaeological and historical resources as the preferred means of reducing potential significant environmental effects resulting from projects. If avoidance is not feasible, an excavation program or some other form of mitigation must be developed to mitigate the impacts. In order to adequately address the level of potential impacts, and thereby design appropriate mitigation measures, the significance and nature of the cultural resources must be determined. The following are steps typically taken to assess and mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources for the purposes of CEQA:
• Identify cultural resources,
• evaluate the significance of the cultural resources found, CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-11 • evaluate the effects of the project on cultural resources, and • develop and implement measures to mitigate the effects of the project on cultural resources that would be significantly affected.
Treatment of paleontological resources under CEQA is generally similar to treatment of cultural resources, requiring evaluation of resources in a project’s area of potential affect, assessment of potential impacts on significant or unique resources, and development of mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts, which may include monitoring combined with data recovery and/or avoidance. Impacts to paleontological resources are discussed in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils.
State Laws Pertaining to Human Remains
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the county coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the California Native American Heritage Commission. CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.5) specify the procedures to be followed in case of the discovery of human remains on non-Federal land. The disposition of Native American burials falls within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission.
State Laws Pertaining to Paleontological Resources
Section 5097.5 of the California Public Resources Code prohibits “knowing and willful” excavation, removal, destruction, injury, and defacement of any “vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints,” on public lands, except where the agency with jurisdiction has granted express permission. “As used in this section, ‘public lands’ means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.” Section 30244 of the California Public Resources Code requires reasonable mitigation for impacts on paleontological resources that occur as a result of development on public lands.
The California Administrative Code relating to the State Division of Beaches and Parks affords protection to geologic features and “paleontological materials” but grant the director of the State park system authority to issue permits for specific activities that may result in damage to such resources, if the activities are in the interest of the State park system and for State park purposes (California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 4307–4309).
Senate Bill 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes 2004)
Senate Bill (SB) 18, authored by Senator John Burton and signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in September 2004, requires local (city and county) governments to consult with California Native American tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places (“cultural places”) through local land use planning. This legislation, which amended §65040.2, §65092, §65351, §65352, and §65560, and added §65352.3, §653524, and §65562.5 to the Government Code; also requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to include in the General Plan Guidelines advice to local governments on how to conduct these consultations.
The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
3.5-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places. These consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of both general plans (defined in Government Code §65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in Government Code §65450 et seq.).
Assembly Bill 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014)
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of CEQA and equates significant impacts on “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts (PRC Section 21084.2). AB 52 defines a “California Native American Tribe” as a Native American tribe located in California, and included on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. AB 52 requires formal consultation with California Native American Tribes prior to determining the level of environmental document if a tribe has requested to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects. AB 52 also requires that the consultation address project alternatives and mitigation measures, for significant effects, if requested by the California Native American Tribe, and that consultation be concluded when either the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, or the agency concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.
LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan identifies the following objectives and policies related to cultural and tribal resources:
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT
Objective HCR-1: Maintain a comprehensive, citywide preservation program to identify, protect and assist in the preservation of Fresno’s historic and cultural resource.
Policy HCR-1-a: Maintain the City’s status as a Certified Local Government (CLG), and use CLG practices as the key components of the City’s preservation program.
Policy HCR-1-b: Maintain the Preservation Office, Historic Preservation Commission, and preservation program to administer the City’s preservation functions and programs.
Policy HCR-1-c: Maintain the provisions of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, as may be amended, and enforce the provisions as appropriate.
Objective HCR-2: Identify and preserve Fresno’s historic and cultural resources that reflect important cultural, social, economic, and architectural features so that residents will have a foundation upon which to measure and direct physical change.
Policy HCR-2-a: Work to identify and evaluate potential historic resources and districts and prepare nomination forms for Fresno’s Local Register of Historic Resources and California and National registries, as appropriate.
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-13 Policy HCR-2-b: Prepare historic surveys according to California Office of Historic Preservation protocols and City priorities as funding is available.
Policy HCR-2-c: Prior to project approval, continue to require a project site and its Area of Potential Effects (APE), without benefit of a prior historic survey, to be evaluated and reviewed for the potential for historic and/or cultural resources by a professional who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Qualifications. Survey costs shall be the responsibility of the project developer. Council may, but is not required, to adopt an ordinance to implement this policy.
Policy HCR-2-d: Work with local Native American tribes to protect recorded and unrecorded cultural and sacred sites, as required by State law, and educate developers and the community-at-large about the connections between Native American history and the environmental features that characterize the local landscape.
Policy HCR-2-e: Develop and adopt Alternate Public Improvement Standards for historic landscapes to ensure that new infrastructure is compatible with the landscape; meets the needs of diverse users, including motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians; and provides for proper traffic safety and drainage.
Policy HCR-2-f: Consider State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines when establishing CEQA mitigation measures for archaeological resources.
Policy HCR-2-g: Review all demolition permits to determine if the resource scheduled for demolition is potentially eligible for listing on the Local Register of Historic Resources.
Consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance, refer potentially eligible resources to the Historic Preservation Commission and as appropriate to the City Council.
Policy HCR-2-h: Continue to support enforcement of the minimum maintenance provisions of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, as may be amended, and enforce the provisions as appropriate.
Policy HCR-2-i: Consider creating a preservation mitigation fund to help support efforts to preserve and maintain historic and cultural resources.
Policy HCR-2-j: City staff will evaluate potential opportunities for identification of window replacements to ensure historic integrity is maintained while encouraging sustainability. In addition, city staff will evaluate window replacements in federally funded housing projects on a project-by-project basis with consideration for health, safety, historic values, sustainability, and financial feasibility.
Policy HCR-2-k: Maintain all City-owned historic and cultural resources in a manner that is consistent with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, as appropriate.
Policy HCR-2-l: Establish an inter-departmental Historic Preservation team to coordinate on matters of importance to history and preservation.
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
3.5-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy HCR-2-m: Recommend that property owners, who receive funds from the City of Fresno for rehabilitation of a property, consent to listing it on the Local Register of Historic Resources if the property meets the criteria for age, significance, and integrity.
Publicly funded rehabilitation properties which may meet Local Register criteria will be presented to the City’s Historic Preservation Commission for review.
Policy HCR-2-n: Identify all historic resources within the city designated on the Local, State, or National register, and potential significant resources (building, structure, object or site) in existence for at least 45 years, and provide this information on the City’s website.
Objective HCR-3: Promote a “New City Beautiful” ethos by linking historic preservation, public art, and planning principles for Complete Neighborhoods with green building and technology.
Policy HCR-3-a: Promote the adaptive reuse and integration of older buildings into new projects as part of the City’s commitment to nurturing a sustainable Fresno.
Policy HCR-3-a: Collaborate with the arts community to promote the integration of public art into historic buildings and established neighborhoods. Link arts activities (such as Art Hop) with preservation activities.
Policy HCR-3-c: Work with architects, developers, business owners, local residents and the historic preservation community to ensure that infill development is context sensitive in its design, massing, setbacks, color, and architectural detailing.
Objective HCR-4: Foster an appreciation of Fresno’s history and cultural resources.
Policy HCR-4-a: Foster cooperation with public agencies and non-profit groups to provide activities and educational opportunities that celebrate and promote Fresno’s history and heritage.
Policy HCR-4-b: Promote heritage tourism and the public’s involvement in preservation through conferences, walking tours, publications, special events, and involvement with the local media.
Policy HCR-4-c: Provide training, consultation, and support in collaboration with Historic Preservation Commissioners to community members regarding Fresno’s history, use of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and the California Historical Building Code, as time and resources allow.
Policy HCR-4-d: Maintain public archives that include information on all designated historic properties, as well as historic surveys, preservation bulletins, and general local history reference materials. Post survey reports, Historic Preservation Commission minutes and agendas, and other information of public interest on the historic preservation page of the City’s website.
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-15 Policy HCR-4-e: Continue to recognize the best work in preservation and neighborhood revitalization as may be appropriate through programs such as the biennial Mayoral Preservation Awards program.
Policy HCR-4-f: Investigate the potential for developing a Mills Act program and possible sources of funding for the Historic Rehabilitation Financing Program.
City of Fresno Historic Preservation Ordinance
Article 16, Historic Preservation Ordinance, of Chapter 12 of the City’s Municipal Code provides standards for historic and cultural resources in an effort to preserve, promote and improve the historic resources and districts of the City of Fresno for educational, cultural, economic and general welfare of the public; protect and review changes to these resources and districts which have a distinctive character or a special historic, architectural, aesthetic or cultural value to this City, state and nation; safeguard the heritage of the city by preserving and regulating its historic buildings, structures, objects, sites and districts which reflect elements of the City's historic, cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history; preserve and enhance the environmental quality and safety of these landmarks and districts; and to establish, stabilize and improve property values and to foster economic development.
The Ordinance establishes three categories of designation for properties in Fresno: Historic Resource, Heritage Property, and Local Historic District. The criteria for City of Fresno historic designation correspond closely with criteria established for State and National Register eligibility, and are as follows:
HISTORIC RESOURCE DESIGNATION
The City of Fresno Historic Preservation Commission and City Council may designate any building, structure, object or site as a Historic Resource if it is found to meet the following criteria:
It has been in existence more than 50 years and it possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and:
a) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
b) It is associated with the lives of persons significant in or past; or c) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or d) It has yielded or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Additionally, a property may be eligible for designation as a Historic Resource if it is less than 50 years old and meets the above-listed criteria, and is found to have exceptional importance within an appropriate historical context at the local, state, or national level.
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
3.5-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
HERITAGE PROPERTY DESIGNATION
Any building, structure, object or site may also be eligible for designation as a Heritage Property by the City of Fresno Historic Preservation Commission if it is found by the Commission to be worthy of preservation because of its historical, architectural, or aesthetic merit.
LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION
In order for a group of properties to be designated as a Local Historic District (LHD) by the City of Fresno, there must be a finite group of resources related to one another in a clearly distinguishable way; or a geographically definable area that possesses a significant concentration, linkage or continuity of sites, buildings, structures or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. Additionally, the proposed LHD must meet one or more of the following criteria:
1. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural heritage; or
2. It is identified with a person or group that contributed significantly to the culture and development of the city; or
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or
4. Structures within the area exemplify a particular architectural style or way of life to the city; or
5. The area is related to a designated historic resource or district in such a way that its preservation is essential to the integrity of the designated resource or Local Historic District; or
6. The area has potential for yielding information of archaeological interest.
3.5.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project is considered to have a significant impact on cultural and tribal resources if it will:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5;
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5;
• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-17 o Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
o A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts to paleontological resources are discussed in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.5-1: Specific Plan implementation may cause a substantial adverse change to a significant historical or archaeological resource, as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, or a significant tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code §21074. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
According to the Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment, a total of 82 cultural resources have been previously recorded within the Plan Area. Of these cultural resources, four are historic archaeological sites and 78 are historic built environment resources.
HISTORIC RESOURCES
The majority of the historic built resources within the Plan Area are historic residences clustered around North Polk Avenue and West Acacia Avenue. However, as full buildout of the Specific Plan would occur over several years, there is the potential for other buildings to reach 45 years old during implementation of the Specific Plan. Any future development within the Plan Area with the potential to impact a historic resource or potentially historic resource would be required to comply with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 regarding determining significant impacts to historic resources, and Mitigation Measure 3.5-1. Project specific mitigation measures would be required to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource. It is not anticipated that future ground disturbing activities associated with future development projects within the Plan Area would result in impacts to historical resources.
However, future development in proximity to a historic resource or potentially historic resource would be reviewed for the potential to generate vibration that could result in damage to a historic resource pursuant to CEQA. Potential impacts to historic resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Although no prehistoric archaeological sites have been recorded within the Plan Area, unknown resources may be present. Four historical archaeological sites have been recorded in the Plan Area.
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
3.5-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Three of the historic archaeological sites are in the vicinity of the Teague School and one historic archaeological site, the San Joaquin River Quarry, is located just south of SR 99 in the northern portion of the Plan Area. No other archaeological resources have been identified in the Plan Area.
Ground disturbing activities associated with future development projects within the Plan Area could result in impacts to currently unknown archaeological resources. The implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-2 requiring ground disturbance activities to be halted, a qualified archaeologist to be retained, and mitigation measures for the handling of any resource to be implemented, would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level.
TRIBAL RESOURCES
According to the NAHC, there are no known sacred lands within the Plan Area. Consultation requests were made to Native American Tribes pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52 to ascertain the potential for tribal cultural resources to occur within the area. To date, three responses have been received and are summarized below.
• On August 26, 2019 Mr. Charley, tribal secretary for the Dunlap Band of Mono Indians, responded via phone that the Specific Plan is outside the Tribe's interest and that they would not be commenting or requesting consultation. Mr. Charley recommended contacting Big Sandy or Table Mountain Rancheria for comments.
• On August 6, 2019, Mr. Pennell, Cultural Resources Director of the Table Mountain Rancheria, responded with by letter stating that the Tribe is interested in the Specific Plan and requested any cultural resource reports received from the record search. Mr. Pennell requested that the City contact the Tribal office to coordinate a discussion and meeting date for the Specific Plan. On 10/7/2019 Cogstone replied to Mr. Pennell with the results of the cultural records search.
• On September 19, 2019 Mr. Alec of the Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe, responded via phone that the Tribe has no concerns with the Specific Plan.
While no specific resources have been identified through consultation with affiliated tribes, it is possible that unknown tribal cultural resources may be present within the Plan Area. Site-specific development projects would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis pursuant to CEQA, which would include AB 52 consultation that could lead to the identification of potential site specific tribal resources. All future development projects would be required to comply with local policies, ordinances, and applicable permitting procedures related to protection of tribal resources. These include policies included in the proposed Specific Plan that consider State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines when establishing CEQA mitigation measures for archaeological resources; and require a project site and its Area of Potential Effects (APE), without benefit of a prior historic survey, to be evaluated and reviewed for the potential for historic and/or cultural resources by a professional who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Qualifications. Impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2. Compliance with the State and local guidelines would provide an opportunity to identify, disclose, and avoid or minimize the disturbance of and impacts to a tribal resource through tribal consultation and CEQA review CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-19 procedures. Therefore, impacts related to tribal resources would be considered less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: The City shall require project applicants for future projects with intact extant building(s) more than 45 years old to provide a historic resource technical study evaluating the significance and data potential of the resource. If significance criteria are met, detailed mitigation recommendations shall be included as part of the technical study. All work shall be performed by a qualified architectural historian meeting Secretary of the Interior Standards. The historic resource technical study shall be submitted to the City for review prior to any site disturbance within the vicinity of the building(s).
Mitigation Measure 3.5-2: If cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated artifacts and features) are discovered during the course of construction within the Specific Plan Area, work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the discovery, the City of Fresno shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery.
The City of Fresno shall consider mitigation recommendations presented by the qualified archaeologist for any unanticipated discoveries and future project proponents shall carry out the measures deemed feasible and appropriate. Such measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures. The project proponent shall be required to implement any mitigation necessary for the protection of cultural resources.
Impact 3.5-2: Specific Plan implementation may disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
There are no human remains or known burial sites identified in the Plan Area. Additionally, there are no human remains or known burial sites that have been identified in the Plan Area on maps and files maintained by the SSJVIC. There have been 36 previous cultural resource studies that examined portions of the Plan Area and no human remains or known burial sites were documented. In addition to the SSJVIC records search, a variety of sources (e.g., NRHP, CRHR, CHRI, CHL, and CPHI) were consulted to obtain information regarding the cultural context of the Plan Area, and no human remains or known burial sites were identified within the Plan Area.
It is not anticipated that future ground disturbing activities associated with future development projects within the Plan Area would result in impacts to human remains or known burial sites given that none are believed to be present. If during ground disturbance activities human remains are discovered, activities would be halted in accordance with Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 and appropriate steps taken to identify the remains and proper treatment. Compliance with Mitigation Measure 3.5- 3 would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level.
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
3.5-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.5-3: If human remains are found during ground disturbance activities associated with implementation of the Specific Plan, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 50 feet of the discovery and a qualified archeological monitor and the coroner of Fresno County shall be contacted as stated in Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If it is determined that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if:
a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-1 This section describes the regional geology, site geology, faults and seismicity, seismic hazards, and non-seismic hazard conditions in the regional and the Plan Area. The purpose of this section is to disclose and analyze the potential impacts related to geology and soils associated with development of the proposed Specific Plan. Information in this section is based in part on the following documents, reports, and studies:
• 2000 Fresno County General Plan Background Report (County of Fresno, 2000); • Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• Draft Master Environmental Impact Report General Plan and Development Code Update, City of Fresno, Fresno County, California (City of Fresno, 2014); • Fresno General Plan Public Review Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (City of Fresno, 2020);
• Fresno Municipal Code (City of Fresno, 2007);
• Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update (Krazen and Associates, 2012); • Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (County of Fresno, 2018); • Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Fresno West Area Specific Plan Project (Cogstone, October 2019 – included in Appendix D; and • Web Soil Survey (NRCS, 2019).
One comment was received during the public review period for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from Cathy Caples (August 2019). The portion of this comment letter which relates to this topic is addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.
3.6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The Plan Area is in the Great Valley Geomorphic Province, which is about 400 miles long and 50 miles wide between the Coast Ranges and Sierra Nevada. The Plan Area is in the San Joaquin Valley, the southerly of two large valleys comprising the province; the Sacramento Valley is the northerly valley. The San Joaquin Valley is surrounded by the Sierra Nevada to the east, the Coast Ranges to the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Sacramento Valley to the north.
1 The Fresno Metropolitan area is set on gently southwest-sloping alluvial fans and plains formed by the San Joaquin and Kings rivers.2
1 California Geological Survey (CGS). 2002, December. Note 36: California Geomorphic Provinces.
Available at: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/cgs_notes/Pages/index.aspx. 2 City of Fresno, 2014. Master Environmental Impact Report General Plan and Development Code Update City of Fresno, Fresno County, California, Section 5.6, Geology and Soils, July 22. https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/Sec-05-06-Geo-Fresno-MEIR.pdf, accessed September 3, 2019.
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Great Valley Geomorphic Province
The Great Valley is an alluvial plain drained by the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, which join and enter San Francisco Bay. The eastern border is the west-sloping Sierran bedrock surface, which continues westward beneath alluvium and older sediments. The western border is underlain by east-dipping Cretaceous and Cenozoic strata that form a deeply buried synclinal trough, lying beneath the Great Valley along its western side.
SITE GEOLOGY
Soil Survey
A Web Soil Survey was completed for the Plan Area using the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey program. The NRCS Soils Map is provided in Figure 3.6-1. Table 3.6- 1 identifies the type and range of soils found in the Plan Area.
TABLE 3.6-1: PLAN AREA SOILS
NAME ACRES IN PLAN AREA PERCENT OF PLAN AREA
Exeter loam 215.7 3.1%
Exeter sandy loam 1,227.6 17.5%
Exeter sandy loam, shallow 150.2 2.1%
Hanford gravelly sandy loam 15.0 0.2%
Hanford sandy loam, benches 17.3 0.2%
Hesperia fine sandy loam, moderately deep 1.7 0.0%
Pollasky fine sandy loam, 2-9% slopes 2.6 0.0%
Pollasky sandy loam, 9-15% slopes 5.3 0.1%
San Joaquin loam, 0-3% slopes 213.4 3.0%
San Joaquin loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes 757.6 10.8%
San Joaquin sandy loam, 0-3% slopes, MLRA 17 1,523.4 21.7% San Joaquin sandy loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes 2,872.8 41.0% Water 12.1 0.2%
SOURCE: NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY, 2019.
Hanford sandy loam. This soil is located on approximately 32.3 acres on the northern corner of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6-1). Hanford soils consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in moderately coarse textured alluvium dominantly from granite. Hanford soils are on stream bottoms, floodplains and alluvial fans at elevations of 150 to 3,500 feet. Slopes range from 0 to 15 percent. The climate is dry subhumid mesothermal with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters.
Exeter Loam. This soil is located throughout the plan area, particularly on the eastern half, covering approximately 1,593.5 acres of the Plan area (see Figure 3.6-1). The Exeter series consists of moderately deep to a duripan, moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvium mainly from granitic sources. Exeter soils are on alluvial fans and stream terraces and have slopes of 0 to 9 percent. This soil is used for irrigated cropland growing oranges, olives and deciduous orchards, GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-3 vineyards and row crops. It is also used for dairy and cattle production and building site development. Vegetation in uncultivated areas is mainly annual grasses and forbs. Moderately well drained; very slow to medium runoff; moderately slow permeability above the duripan.
Permeability of the duripan is very slow.
Hesperia Sandy Loam. This soil is located on approximately 1.7 acres on the northern corner of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6-1). The Hesperia series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in alluvium derived primarily from granite and related rocks. Hesperia soils are on alluvial fans, valley plains and stream terraces and have slopes of 0 to 9 percent. Used for desert range, and for production of irrigated orchards, row crops, field crops, grain, hay, pasture and grapes.
Native vegetation consists of creosotebush in the high desert and sparse annuals in the valley.
Well drained; negligible to low runoff, moderately rapid permeability.
Pollasky Sandy Loam. This soil is located on approximately 7.9 acres on the northern portion of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6-1). The Pollasky series consists of moderately deep, well drained, moderately coarse textured Regosols formed in the residuum from softly to moderately consolidated arkosic sediments. They occur on undulating to steep dissected terraces under annual grasses and forbs. They have brown, slightly acid sandy loam A horizons and pale brown to yellowish brown, slightly acid to neutral, sandy loam C horizons abruptly overlying consolidated granitic sediments. Pollasky soils occur at elevations below 500 feet to semiarid mesothermal climate having a mean annual precipitation ranging from about 9 to 16 inches with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. The Pollasky series is mapped along the eastern edge of the San Joaquin Valley of California where it is moderately extensive. Used as annual range and dry farmed small grain, usually barley, with limited sprinkler irrigated pasture.
San Joaquin Loam. This soil is located throughout the entirety of the plan area on approximately 5,367.2 acres (see Figure 3.6-1). The San Joaquin series consists of moderately deep to a duripan, well and moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvium derived from mixed but dominantly granitic rock sources. They are on undulating low terraces with slopes of 0 to 9 percent. Well and moderately well drained; medium to very high runoff; very slow permeability. Some areas are subject to rare or occasional flooding. Typically used as cropland and livestock grazing; crops are small grains, irrigated pasture and rice; vineyards, fruit and nut crops.
FAULTS AND SEISMICITY
Faults and Fault Systems
A fault is a fracture in the crust of the earth along which rocks on one side have moved relative to those on the other side. A fault trace is the line on the earth's surface defining the fault.
Displacement of the earth's crust along faults releases energy in the form of earthquakes and in some cases in fault creep. Most faults are the result of repeated displacements over a long period of time.
Surface rupture occurs when movement on a fault deep within the earth breaks through to the surface. Surface ruptures have been known to extend up to 50 miles with displacements of an inch
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan to 20 feet. Fault rupture almost always follows preexisting faults, which are zones of weakness.
Rupture may occur suddenly during an earthquake or slowly in the form of fault creep. Sudden displacements are more damaging to structures because they are accompanied by shaking.
The State of California designates faults as active, potentially active, and inactive depending on how recent the movement that can be substantiated for a fault. Table 3.6-2 presents the California fault activity rating system.
TABLE 3.6-2: FAULT ACTIVITY RATING
FAULT ACTIVITY RATING GEOLOGIC PERIOD OF LAST RUPTURE TIME INTERVAL Active (A) Holocene Within last 11,700 Years
Potentially Active (PA) Quaternary Age Undifferentiated Inactive (I) Pre-Quaternary Greater than 1.6 Million Years SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CALIFORNIA.
No active faults are mapped within the City of Fresno.3 Active faults are those showing evidence of surface displacement within the last 11,000 years.4The nearest faults to the Plan Area include the Nunez fault, located approximately 50 miles to the southwest, and the San Joaquin fault, located approximately 50 miles to the west of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6-2). The San Andreas fault zone is located approximately 60 miles to the southwest of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6-2).
Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone
A fault rupture occurs when the surface of the earth breaks as a result of an earthquake, although this does not happen with all earthquakes. These ruptures generally occur in a weak area of an existing fault. Ruptures can be sudden (i.e. earthquake) or slow (i.e. fault creep). The Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act requires active earthquake fault zones to be mapped and it provides special development considerations within these zones. The Plan Area does not have surface expression of active faults and fault rupture is not anticipated.
The nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone to the Plan Area is along the Nunez Fault about 50 miles to the southwest (see Figure 3.6-2).
Seismicity
The amount of energy available to a fault is determined by considering the slip-rate of the fault, its area (fault length multiplied by down-dip width), maximum magnitude, and the rigidity of the displaced rocks. These factors are combined to calculate the moment (energy) release on a fault.
The total seismic energy release for a fault source is sometimes partitioned between two different recurrence models, the characteristic and truncated Gutenberg-Richter (G-R) magnitudefrequency distributions. These models incorporate our knowledge of the range of magnitudes and relative frequency of different magnitudes for a particular fault. The partition of moment and the weights for multiple models are given in the following summary. 3 U.S. Geologic Survey, 2019.
4 California Geological Survey, 2019. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo, accessed September 3, 2019.
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-5 Earthquakes are generally expressed in terms of intensity and magnitude. Intensity is based on the observed effects of ground shaking on people, buildings, and natural features. By comparison, magnitude is based on the amplitude of the earthquake waves recorded on instruments, which have a common calibration. The Richter scale, a logarithmic scale ranging from 0.1 to 9.0, with 9.0 being the strongest, measures the magnitude of an earthquake relative to ground shaking. Table
3.6-3 provides a description and a comparison of intensity and magnitude.
The California Building Standards Code (CBSC) places all of California in the zone of greatest earthquake severity because recent studies indicate high potential for severe ground shaking.
TABLE 3.6-3: RICHTER MAGNITUDE SCALE FOR EARTHQUAKES
RICHTER
MAGNITUDE
EFFECTS OF INTENSITY
0.1 – 0.9 Earthquake shaking not felt
1.0 – 2.9 Shaking felt by those at rest.
3.0 – 3.9 Felt by most people indoors, some can estimate duration of shaking.
4.0 – 4.5 Felt by most people indoors. Hanging objects rattle, wooden walls and frames creak.
4.6 – 4.9 Felt by everyone indoors, the duration of shaking can be estimated by most people. Standing autos rock. Crockery clashes, dishes rattle and glasses clink. Doors open, close and swing.
5.0 – 5.5 Felt by all who estimate duration of shaking. Sleepers awaken, liquids spill, objects are displaced, and weak materials crack.
5.6 – 6.4 People frightened and walls unsteady. Pictures and books thrown, dishes and glass are broken. Weak chimneys break. Plaster, loose bricks and parapets fall.
6.5 – 6.9 Difficult to stand. Waves on ponds, cohesionless soils slump. Stucco and masonry walls fall.
Chimneys, stacks, towers, and elevated tanks twist and fall.
7.0 – 7.4 General fright as people are thrown down, hard to drive. Trees broken, damage to foundations and frames. Reservoirs damaged, underground pipes broken.
7.5 – 7.9 General panic. Ground cracks, masonry and frame buildings destroyed. Bridges destroyed, railroads bent slightly. Dams, dikes and embankments damaged.
8.0 – 8.4 Large landslides, water thrown, general destruction of buildings. Pipelines destroyed, railroads bent.
8.5 + Total nearby damage, rock masses displaced. Lines of sight/level distorted. Objects thrown into air.
SOURCE: UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.
SEISMIC HAZARDS
Seismic Ground Shaking
The Fresno region has historically been subject to low to moderate ground shaking. Two of the historic earthquakes that caused ground shaking in the region, the Owens Valley Earthquake of 1872 and the Coalinga Earthquake of 1983, each generated ground shaking of intensity VII in the region. Seismic ground shaking in the Plan Area is expected over the lifetime of the Specific Plan implementation.
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Liquefaction
Liquefaction typically requires a significant sudden decrease of shearing resistance in cohesionless soils and a sudden increase in water pressure, which is typically associated with an earthquake of high magnitude. The potential for liquefaction is highest when groundwater levels are high, and loose, fine, sandy soils occur at depths of less than 50 feet. Liquefaction potential in the City of Fresno is considered low to moderate.5 No liquefaction has been observed in Fresno from any historic earthquake.6 Additionally, liquefaction zones have not been identified in Fresno County by the State.7
Seismic Ground Settlement
Ground shaking can cause unconsolidated sediments to settle. Due to the nature of the soils underlying the City, and the history of low to moderate ground shaking, seismic settlement is not considered a significant hazard in the region.8
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading typically results when ground shaking moves soil toward an area where the soil integrity is weak or unsupported, and it typically occurs on the surface of a slope, although it does not occur strictly on steep slopes. Oftentimes, lateral spreading is directly associated with areas of liquefaction. Lateral spreading is not considered a substantial hazard in the region for the same reasons given for seismic ground settlement.
Landslides
Landslides include rockfalls, deep slope failure, and shallow slope failure. Factors such as the geological conditions, drainage, slope, vegetation, and others directly affect the potential for landslides. One of the most common causes of landslides is construction activity that is associated with road building (i.e. cut and fill). The potential for landslides is considered remote in the Plan Area, as the site has a relatively flat slope. Additionally, landslide zones have not been identified in Fresno County by the State.9
5 Krazen and Associates, Inc. June 15, 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update. 6 County of Fresno. 2018. Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=24743
7 California Department of Conservation. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps. Accessed May 27, 2002. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/ 8 Krazen and Associates, Inc. 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update.
Accessed on September 3, 2019.
9 California Department of Conservation. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps. Accessed May 27, 2002. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/ GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-7
NON-SEISMIC HAZARDS
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils can undergo significant volume change with changes in moisture content. They shrink and harden when dried and expand and soften when wet. Soils underlying the Fresno region consist partly of clays that are considered slightly to moderately expansive.10 The Plan Area is not mapped as having moderate to high expansion potential (County of Fresno, 2018).
Erosion
Erosion naturally occurs on the surface of the earth as surface materials (i.e. rock, soil, debris, etc.) are loosened, dissolved, or worn away, and transported from one place to another by gravity. Two common types of soil erosion include wind erosion and water erosion. The steepness of a slope is an important factor that affects soil erosion. Erosion potential in soils is influenced primarily by loose soil texture and steep slopes. Loose soils can be eroded by water or wind forces, whereas soils with high clay content are generally susceptible only to water erosion. The potential for erosion generally increases as a result of human activity, primarily through the development of facilities and impervious surfaces and the removal of vegetative cover.
The Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies two types of areas with moderate to high erosion potential: 1) certain soil types in the Sierra Nevada and foothills (both Sierra Nevada and Coast Ranges) on slopes generally over 30 percent, and 2) certain soil types in the western San Joaquin Valley and the Coast Ranges, both in western Fresno County. The Plan Area is not mapped in an area of moderate to high erosion potential (County of Fresno, 2018).
Subsidence
Land subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of an area with little or no horizontal motion due to changes taking place underground. It is a natural process, although it can also occur (and is greatly accelerated) as a result of human activities. Common causes of land subsidence from human activity include: pumping water, oil, and gas from underground reservoirs; dissolution of limestone aquifers (sinkholes); collapse of underground mines; drainage of organic soils; and initial wetting of dry soils. The Fresno region is not known to be subject to subsidence hazards. Areas of subsidence in Fresno County mapped in the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan are in western Fresno County over 20 miles west and southwest from the Plan Area (County of Fresno, 2018).
MINERAL RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION
Pursuant to Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), the California State Mining and Geology Board oversees the mineral resource zone (MRZ) classification system. The MRZ system characterizes both the location and known/presumed economic value of underlying mineral resources. The mineral resource classification system uses four main MRZs based on the degree of available geologic information, the likelihood of significant mineral resource occurrence, and the 10 Krazen and Associates, Inc. 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update. Accessed on September 3, 2019.
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan known or inferred quantity of significant mineral resources. The four classifications are described in Table 3.6-4.
TABLE 3.6-4: MINERAL RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION
MRZ-1
Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.
MRZ-2
Areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence.
MRZ-3 Areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated.
MRZ-4
Areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ classification.
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, 2002.
MINERAL RESOURCES
Mineral resources include commercially viable oil and gas deposits, and nonfuel mineral resources deposits. Nonfuel mineral resources include metals such as gold, silver, iron, and copper; industrial metals such as boron compounds, rare-earth elements, clays, limestone, gypsum, salt, and dimension stone; and construction aggregate, including sand, gravel, and crushed stone. California is the largest producer of sand and gravel in the nation.
According to Fresno County’s existing General Plan Background Report, Fresno County has been a leading producer of minerals because of the abundance and wide variety of mineral resources that are present in the county. Extracted resources include aggregate products (sand and gravel), fossil fuels (oil and coal), metals (chromite, copper, gold, mercury, and tungsten), and other minerals used in construction or industrial applications (asbestos, high-grade clay, diatomite, granite, gypsum, and limestone). Aggregate and petroleum have been historically considered the county’s most significant extractive mineral resources.
The principal area for mineral resources in the City is located in and immediately adjacent to the San Joaquin River Corridor. However, the Plan Area is located outside of the immediate vicinity of the San Joaquin River corridor.
The City of Fresno permits mining only within the Mining (M) Overlay District (Citywide Development Code). The Plan Area does not include any land within the M Overlay District. MRZ-2 zones are those areas documented to have regionally significant mineral resources; the Plan Area is not within a MRZ-2 zone. The boundaries of the Plan Area are classified as MRZ-3, which are defined as potential, but unproven mineral resource reserves (State of California, Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 99-02).
LOCATION OF PERMITTED AGGREGATE MINES
The California Office of Mine Reclamation periodically publishes a list of qualified permitted aggregate mines regulated under SMARA that is generally referred to as the AB 3098 List. The Public Contract Code precludes mining operations that are not on the AB 3098 List from selling sand, gravel, aggregates or other mined materials to State or local agencies. As of February 27, GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-9 2020, there are no aggregate mines on the AB 3098 list within the Plan Area. The closest mine is located approximately 0.5 miles west of the Plan Area (the Glamis Pit-Reclaimed Mine; Mine ID # 91-13-0094).
3.6.2 REGULATORY SETTING
The following is an overview of the State and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.
STATE
The State of California has established a variety of regulations and requirements related to seismic safety and structural integrity, including the California Building Code, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act.
California Building Standards Code
The California Building Standards Code (CBSC) is included in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and includes the California Building Code (CBC). Under State law, all building standards must be centralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable.
The CBSC is a compilation of three types of building criteria from three different origins:
• Building standards that have been adopted by State agencies without change from building standards contained in national model codes;
• Building standards that have been adopted and adapted from the national model code standards to meet California conditions; and
• Building standards, authorized by the California legislature, that constitute extensive additions not covered by the model codes that have been adopted to address particular California concerns.
Through the CBSC, the State provides a minimum standard for building design and construction.
The CBSC contains specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site demolition. It also regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control.
The potential for seismic ground shaking is expected in California. As a result of the foreseeable seismicity in California, the State requires special design considerations for all structural improvements in accordance with the seismic design provisions in the CBSC. These seismic design provisions require enhanced structural integrity based on several risk parameters.
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 sets forth the policies and criteria of the State Mining and Geology Board, which governs the exercise of governments’ responsibilities to prohibit the location of developments and structures for human occupancy across the trace of active faults. The policies and criteria are limited to potential hazards resulting from surface
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan faulting or fault creep within Earthquake Fault Zones, as delineated on maps officially issued by the State Geologist. Working definitions include:
• Fault – a fracture or zone of closely associated fractures along which rocks on one side have been displaced with respect to those on the other side; • Fault Zone – a zone of related faults, which commonly are braided and sub parallel, but may be branching and divergent. A fault zone has a significant width (with respect to the scale at which the fault is being considered, portrayed, or investigated), ranging from a few feet to several miles;
• Sufficiently Active Fault – a fault that has evidence of Holocene surface displacement along one or more of its segments or branches (last 11,000 years); and • Well-Defined Fault – a fault whose trace is clearly detectable by a trained geologist as a physical feature at or just below the ground surface. The geologist should be able to locate the fault in the field with sufficient precision and confidence to indicate that the required site-specific investigations would meet with some success. “Sufficiently Active” and “Well Defined” are the two criteria used by the State to determine if a fault should be zoned under the Alquist-Priolo Act.
The California legislature passed the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act in 1972 to address seismic hazards associated with faults and to establish criteria for developments for areas with identified seismic hazard zones. The California Geologic Survey (CGS) evaluates faults with available geologic and seismologic data and determines if a fault should be zoned as active, potentially active, or inactive. If CGS determines a fault to be active, then it is typically incorporated into a Special Studies Zone in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Act. Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones are usually one-quarter mile or less in width and require site-specific evaluation of fault location and require a structure setback if the fault is found traversing a Project site.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, passed in 1990, addresses non-surface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including liquefaction and seismically-induced landslides. Under the Act, seismic hazard zones are to be mapped by the State Geologist to assist local governments in land use planning.
The program and actions mandated by the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act closely resemble those of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (which addresses only surface fault-rupture hazards) and are outlined below:
The State Geologist is required to delineate the various “seismic hazard zones.” • Cities and Counties, or other local permitting authority, must regulate certain development “projects” within the zones. They must withhold the development permits for a site within a zone until the geologic and soil conditions of the site are investigated and appropriate mitigation measures, if any, are incorporated into development plans. • The State Mining and Geology Board provides additional regulations, policies, and criteria, to guide cities and counties in their implementation of the law. The Board also provides GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-11 guidelines for preparation of the Seismic Hazard Zone Maps and for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards.
• Sellers (and their agents) of real property within a mapped hazard zone must disclose that the property lies within such a zone at the time of sale.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required for discharges of pollutants to navigable waters of the United States, which includes any discharge to surface waters, including lakes, rivers, streams, bays, the ocean, dry stream beds, wetlands, and storm sewers that are tributary to any surface water body. NPDES permits are issued under the Federal Clean Water Act, Title IV, Permits and Licenses, Section 402 (33 USC 466 et seq.) The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issues these permits in lieu of direct issuance by the Environmental Protection Agency, subject to review and approval by the Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator. The terms of these NPDES permits implement pertinent provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act and the Act’s implementing regulations, including pretreatment, sludge management, effluent limitations for specific industries, and anti-degradation.
In general, the discharge of pollutants is to be eliminated or reduced as much as practicable so as to achieve the Clean Water Act’s goal of “fishable and swimmable” navigable (surface) waters.
Technically, all NPDES permits issued by the RWQCB are also Waste Discharge Requirements issued under the authority of the California Water Code.
These NPDES permits regulate discharges from publicly owned treatment works, industrial discharges, stormwater runoff, dewatering operations, and groundwater cleanup discharges.
NPDES permits are issued for five years or less, and are therefore to be updated regularly. The rapid and dramatic population and urban growth in the Central Valley Region has caused a significant increase in NPDES permit applications for new waste discharges. To expedite the permit issuance process, the RWQCB has adopted several general NPDES permits, each of which regulates numerous discharges of similar types of wastes. The SWRCB issues general permits for stormwater runoff from construction sites statewide. Stormwater discharges from industrial and construction activities in the Central Valley Region can be covered under these general permits, which are administered jointly by the SWRCB and RWQCB.
In accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit requirements, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for projects that disturb at least one acre of soil. The SWPPP must be submitted to the RWQCB.
Mandated by Congress under the Clean Water Act, the NPDES Stormwater Program is a comprehensive two-phased national program for addressing the non-agricultural sources of stormwater discharges which adversely affect the quality of our nation's waters. The program uses the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting mechanism to require the implementation of controls designed to prevent harmful pollutants, including soil erosion, from being washed by stormwater runoff into local water bodies. The construction activities that would
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan occur as part of Specific Plan implementation would be governed by the General Permit 2009- 0009-DWQ (amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ), which states:
“…Particular attention must be paid to large, mass graded sites where the potential for soil exposure to the erosive effects of rainfall and wind is great and where there is potential for significant sediment discharge from the site to surface waters. Until permanent vegetation is established, soil cover is the most cost-effective and expeditious method to protect soil particles from detachment and transport by rainfall. Temporary soil stabilization can be the single most important factor in reducing erosion at construction sites. The discharger is required to consider measures such as: covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. These erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. Erosion control BMPs should be the primary means of preventing storm water contamination, and sediment control techniques should be used to capture any soil that becomes eroded…”
General Permit 2009-0009-DWQ (amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ) further states that:
“Sediment control BMPs should be the secondary means of preventing storm water contamination. When erosion control techniques are ineffective, sediment control techniques should be used to capture any soil that becomes eroded. The discharger is required to consider perimeter control measures such as: installing silt fences or placing straw wattles below slopes. These sediment control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed…Inappropriate management of run-on and runoff can result in excessive physical impacts to receiving waters from sediment and increased flows. The discharger is required to manage all run-on and runoff from a project site. Examples include: installing berms and other temporary run-on and runoff diversions…All measures must be periodically inspected, maintained and repaired to ensure that receiving water quality is protected. Frequent inspections coupled with thorough documentation and timely repair is necessary to ensure that all measures are functioning as intended…” State Laws Pertaining to Paleontological Resources
Section 5097.5 of the California Public Resources Code prohibits “knowing and willful” excavation, removal, destruction, injury, and defacement of any “vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints,” on public lands, except where the agency with jurisdiction has granted express permission. “As used in this section, ‘public lands’ means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.”
Section 30244 of the California Public Resources Code requires reasonable mitigation for impacts on paleontological resources that occur as a result of development on public lands.
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-13 The California Administrative Code relating to the State Division of Beaches and Parks affords protection to geologic features and “paleontological materials” but grant the director of the State park system authority to issue permits for specific activities that may result in damage to such resources, if the activities are in the interest of the State park system and for State park purposes (California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 4307–4309).
LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan establishes the following objectives and policies directly related to geology and soils.
NOISE AND SAFETY ELEMENT
Objective NS-2: Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic risks.
Policy NS-2-a: Seismic Protection. Ensure seismic protection is incorporated into new and existing construction, consistent with the Fresno Municipal Code.
Policy NS-2-b: Soil Analysis Requirement. Identify areas with potential geologic and/or soils hazards, and require development in these areas to conduct a soil analysis and mitigation plan by a registered civil engineer (or engineering geologist specializing in soil geology) prior to allowing on-site drainage or disposal for wastewater, stormwater runoff, or swimming pool/spa water.
PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT
Objective PU-5: Preserve groundwater quality and ensure that the health and safety of the entire Fresno community is not impaired by use of private, on-site disposal systems.
Policy PU-5-a: Mandatory Septic Conversion. Continue to evaluate and pursue where determined appropriate the mandatory abatement of existing private wastewater disposal (septic) systems and mandatory connection to the public sewage collection and disposal system.
Policy PU-5-b: Non-Regional Treatment. Discourage, and when determined appropriate, oppose the use of private wastewater (septic) disposal systems, community wastewater disposal systems, or other nonregional sewage treatment and disposal systems within or adjacent to the Metropolitan Area if these types of wastewater treatment facilities would cause discharges that could result in groundwater degradation.
Fresno Municipal Code
The City of Fresno has incorporated and adopted the 2016 CBC with the City's amendments as Municipal Code Section 11-102, referred to as the Fresno Building Code.
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan A preliminary soils report is required under Municipal Code Section 12-1022 for every subdivision for which a final map is required. Grading and erosion control requirements are set forth in Section 12-1023.
3.6.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Specific Plan will have a significant impact on geology, soils, and seismicity if it will:
• Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
o Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault;
o Strong seismic ground shaking;
o Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; and/or o Landslides;
• Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; • Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;
• Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property; and/or • Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
There would be no impact associated with the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, since septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems would not be implemented within the Plan Area as part of Specific Plan implementation. Therefore, this issue will not be addressed further.
Additionally, consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project will have a significant impact on mineral resources if it would:
• Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State; and/or
• Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-15
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Impact 3.6-1: Specific Plan implementation would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking or seismic related ground failure. (Less than Significant)
The Plan Area is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone. There are no known faults (active, potentially active, or inactive) that traverse the city. Faults with known or estimated activity during the Holocene are generally located in the San Francisco Bay Area to the west, or in the Lake Tahoe area to the east. However, the CBSC places all of California in the zone of greatest earthquake severity because recent studies indicate high potential for severe ground shaking.
There is the potential for groundshaking caused by seismic activity anywhere in California, including the Plan Area. In order to minimize potential damage to the buildings and site improvements, all construction in California is required to be designed in accordance with the latest seismic design standards of the CBC. Design in accordance with these standards would reduce any potential impact to a less than significant level. Refer to Impact 3.6-3 for a discussion of impacts related to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, and liquefaction.
Impact 3.6-2: Specific Plan construction and implementation has the potential to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Although the Plan Area is not mapped in an area of moderate to high erosion potential, soil erosion and the loss of topsoil is one of the most common sources of polluted stormwater runoff during construction activities. When left uncontrolled, storm water runoff can erode soil and cause sedimentation in waterways, which collectively result in the destruction of fish, wildlife, and aquatic life habitats; a loss in aesthetic value; and threats to public health due to contaminated food, drinking water supplies, and recreational waterways.
As noted above in the Regulatory Setting, the future construction activities that would occur as part of Specific Plan implementation would be governed by the General Permit 2009-0009-DWQ (amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ). Construction activities associated with implementation of the Specific plan, would be required to comply with all requirements set forth in the NPDES permit for construction activities, including preparation of a SWPPP containing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and sediments to meet water quality standards.
Such BMPs may include: temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover. The BMPs and overall SWPPP is reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of the permitting process. The SWPPP, once approved, is kept on site and implemented during construction activities and must be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB and/or the lead agency.
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Nevertheless, in accordance with the NPDES Stormwater Program, Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 requires an approved SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The RWQCB has stated that these erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and are existing regulatory requirements. Additionally, as discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality, construction activities would be subject to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District rules and regulations pertaining to dust control. Specifically, Under Rule 8021, a Dust Control Plan is required for any residential project that will include 10 or more acres of disturbed surface area, a nonresidential project with 5 or more acres of disturbed surface area, or a project that relocates 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials for at least three days. The Dust Control Plan is required to be submitted to SJVAPCD prior to the start of any construction activity. The Dust Control Plan must also describe fugitive dust control measure to be implemented before, during, and after any dust-generating activity. For sites smaller than those listed above, the project is still required to notify SJVAPCD a minimum of 48 hours prior to commencing earthmoving activities.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6-1, and compliance with the Dust Control Plan required by SJVAPCD Rule 8021, would ensure that construction during Specific Plan implementation would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Prior to clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation for each phase of the Project, the Project proponent shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the RWQCB to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ). The SWPPP shall be designed with Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the RWQCB has deemed as effective at reducing erosion, controlling sediment, and managing runoff.
These include: covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. Sediment control BMPs, installing silt fences or placing straw wattles below slopes, installing berms and other temporary run-on and runoff diversions. These BMPs are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. Final selection of BMPs will be subject to approval by City of Fresno and the RWQCB. The SWPPP will be kept on site during construction activity and will be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB.
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-17 Impact 3.6-3: Specific Plan implementation has the potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of Specific Plan implementation, and potentially result in landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
LIQUEFACTION
As stated above, the Plan Area is not located within an area mapped by the State as having the potential for liquefaction. Liquefaction potential in the City of Fresno is considered low to moderate and liquefaction has not been observed in Fresno from any historic earthquake.
Additionally, liquefaction zones have not been identified in Fresno County by the State.11 Nevertheless, Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 is included below. This measure requires that future project proponents in the Plan Area complete and submit a final geotechnical evaluation of the soils at a design-level, as required by the requirements of the California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 18, Section 1803.1.1.2.
LATERAL SPREADING
Lateral spreading is not considered a substantial hazard in the region. However, since the potential for liquefaction is low to moderate within the Plan Area, the potential for lateral spreading is also present. As such, Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 is included below. This measure requires that future project proponents in the Plan Area complete and submit a final geotechnical evaluation of the soils at a design-level, as required by the requirements of the California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 18, Section 1803.1.1.2.
LANDSLIDES
As noted previously, landslide zones have not been identified in Fresno County by the State.12 The Plan Area is essentially flat; therefore, the potential for a landslide within the Plan Area is virtually non-existent.
SUBSIDENCE
Areas of subsidence in Fresno County mapped in the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan are in western Fresno County over 20 miles west and southwest from the Plan Area.13 The Fresno region is not known to be subject to subsidence hazards. Areas of subsidence in Fresno County mapped in the 11 California Department of Conservation. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps. Accessed May 27, 2002. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/ 12 California Department of Conservation. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps. Accessed May 27, 2002. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/ 13 County of Fresno. 2018. Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=24743
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan are in western Fresno County over 20 miles west and southwest from the Plan Area (County of Fresno, 2018).
CONCLUSION
The Plan Area does not have a significant risk of becoming unstable as a result landslide, subsidence, or soil collapse. There is a potential for liquefaction, liquefaction induced settlement, and lateral spreading. However, through the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-2, implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Prior to earthmoving activities associated with future development activities within the Plan Area , a certified geotechnical engineer, or equivalent, shall be retained to perform a final geotechnical evaluation of the soils at a design-level as required by the requirements of the California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 18, Section 1803.1.1.2 related to expansive soils and other soil conditions. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements outlined in California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16, Chapter 17, and Chapter 18, which addresses structural design, tests and inspections, and soils and foundation standards. The final geotechnical evaluation shall include design recommendations to ensure that soil conditions do not pose a threat to the health and safety of people or structures, including threats from liquefaction or lateral spreading. The grading and improvement plans, as well as the storm drainage and building plans shall be designed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the final geotechnical evaluation.
Impact 3.6-4: The Specific Plan would not be located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property. (Less than Significant) Soils underlying the Fresno region consist partly of clays that are considered slightly to moderately expansive.14 The Plan Area is not mapped as having moderate to high expansion potential.15 The California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 18, Section 1803.1.1.2 requires specific geotechnical evaluation when a preliminary geotechnical evaluation determines that expansive or other special soil conditions are present, which, if not corrected, would lead to structural defects.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-2, presented above, provides the requirement for a final geotechnical evaluation in accordance with the standards and requirements outlined in the California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16, Chapter 17, and Chapter 18, which addresses structural design, tests and inspections, and soils and foundation standards. The final geotechnical evaluation would include design recommendations to ensure that soil conditions do not pose a threat to the health and safety of people or structures. The grading and improvement plans, as well as the storm 14 Krazen and Associates, Inc. 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update. Accessed on September 3, 2019.
15 County of Fresno. 2018. Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=24743
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-19 drainage and building plans, are required to be designed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the final geotechnical evaluation. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6- 2 (requiring a final Geotechnical Evaluation and implementation of site recommendations), implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.6-2.
Impact 3.6-5: Project implementation has the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Although no paleontological resources have been recorded within the Plan Area, unknown resources may be present. It is possible that undiscovered paleontological resources could be encountered during ground-disturbing activities.
Damage to or destruction of a paleontological resource would be considered a potentially significant impact under local, State, or federal criteria. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6- 3 would ensure steps would be taken to reduce impacts to paleontological resources in the event that they are discovered during construction. This mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.6-3: If any paleontological resources are found during grading and construction activities, all work shall be halted immediately within a 200-foot radius of the discovery until a qualified paleontologist has evaluated the find.
Work shall not continue at the discovery site until the paleontologist evaluates the find and makes a determination regarding the significance of the resource and identifies recommendations for conservation of the resource, including preserving in place or relocating within the Plan Area, if feasible, or collecting the resource to the extent feasible and documenting the find with the University of California Museum of Paleontology.
Impact 3.6-6: Specific Plan implementation would not have the potential to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State, or in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. (Less than Significant)
The City of Fresno permits mining only within the Mining (M) Overlay District (Citywide Development Code). Moreover, the boundaries of the Plan Area are classified as MRZ-3, which are defined as potential, but unproven mineral resource reserves (State of California, Division of Mines
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan and Geology, Open File Report 99-02). MRZ-2 zones are those areas documented to have regionally significant mineral resources.
As of February 27, 2020, there are no aggregate mines on the AB 3098 list within the Plan Area.
The closest mine is located approximately 0.5 miles west of the Plan Area (the Glamis PitReclaimed Mine; Mine ID # 91-13-0094). Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this environmental topic.
N Marks Ave
W Bullard Ave
N Da
nte Ave W Shields Ave
N Gates Ave
N Cornelia Ave
W Shaw Ave
N Brawley Ave
W Gettysburg Ave
N Blythe Ave
W Herndon Ave
W San Jose Ave
N Polk Ave
W Dakota Ave
W Spruce Ave
W Figarden Dr
N Valentine Ave
W Clinton Ave
N Weber Ave
N Bryan Ave
W Ashlan Ave
N Hayes Ave
W Sierra Ave
N Emerson Ave
N Golden State Blvd
N
Figa rden Dr
W Barstow Ave
N
Marty Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N Riverside Dr
N 99 Hwy
N Grantland Ave
CITY OF FRESNO
SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
UV99
Sources: ArcGIS Online USA Soils; Fresno County; City of Fresno. Map date: March 1, 2021.
BOUNDARIES
Specific Plan of the West Area
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
MAP UNIT GROUP
Delhi loamy sand
Exeter loam
Hanford loam
Hesperia loam
Pits
Pollasky loam
San Joaquin loam
Water
Figure 3.6-1. Soil Types
q 0 ¼ ½
Miles
NRCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION
ACRES
WITHIN THE
SPECIFIC
PLAN OF THE
WEST AREA
Delhi loamy sand 10.1
Delhi loamy sand, 0-3% slopes, MLRA 17 0.6
Delhi loamy sand, 3-9% slopes 9.5
Exeter loam 1,616.2
Exeter loam 232.8
Exeter sandy loam 1,232.9
Exeter sandy loam, shallow 150.5
Hanford loam 43.3
Hanford fine sandy loam, silty substratum 5.2
Hanford gravelly sandy loam 17.9
Hanford sandy loam, benches 20.1
Hesperia loam 4.8
Hesperia fine sandy loam, deep 4.8
Pits 9.7
Pits 9.7
Pollasky loam 8.5
Pollasky fine sandy loam, 2-9% slopes 2.6
Pollasky sandy loam, 9-15% slopes 5.9
San Joaquin loam 5,372.7
San Joaquin loam, 0-3% slopes 213.3
San Joaquin loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes 757.3
San Joaquin sandy loam, 0-3% slopes 1,522.3
San Joaquin sandy loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes 2,879.8
Water 12.1
Water 12.1
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
Nunez fault
San Joaquin fault
Panoche Hills fault
Mariposa County
Madera County
Merced County
Fresno County
San Benito
County
Monterey
County
Kings County
§¨¦5
UV59
UV152
UV198
UV145
UV41
UV33
UV41
UV168
UV99
UV233
UV63
UV65
UV49
UV25
UV99
UV201
UV137
UV33
UV216
UV41
UV198
UV140
UV69
UV180
UV33
UV41
UV269
UV145
UV43
UV49
UV165
UV132
UV198
UV140
UV180
Mammoth
Lakes
Kingsburg
Huron
Exeter
Coalinga
Riverdale
Los Banos
Reedley
Mendota
Clovis
Lemoore
Avenal
Tulare
Chowchilla
Pixley
Parlier
Selma
Turlock
Fowler
Hardwick
Kerman
Goshen
Monmouth
Sanger
Waterford
Hanford
Laton
Lindsay
San Joaquin
Atwater
Visalia
Firebaugh
Madera
Fresno
Merced
Willow
C r
Salinas R
Kings R
San Joa quin R, S Fk
Sa nJoaquin R , M
Fk
Chowchilla R
Merced R
Tule R
Tuolumne R
Kawe ah R
Merced R
San Joaquin
R
Ki ngs R
San Joaquin R
Figure 3.6-2. Known Faults
Data sources: US Geologic Survey; CalAtlas. Map date: August 2, 2019.
LEGEND
Specific Plan of the West Area
QuaternaryFaults
Hartley Springs fault zone
Hilton Creek fault zone
O'Neill fault system
Ortigalita fault zone
Rinconada fault zone
San Andreas fault zone
Alquist-Priolo Zone
CITY OF FRESNO
SPECIFIC PLAN
OF THE WEST AREA
Long Valley Caldera
ring fault
Tulare County
p 0 5 10
Miles
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
3.6-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-1 This section provides a background discussion of greenhouse gases and climate change linkages and effects of global climate change. This section is organized with an existing setting, regulatory setting, approach/methodology, and impact analysis. The analysis and discussion of the greenhouse gas (GHG), climate change, and energy conservation impacts in this section focuses on the proposed Specific Plan’s consistency with local, regional, and statewide climate change planning efforts and discusses the context of these planning efforts as they relate to the proposed project. Disclosure and discussion of the Specific Plan’s estimated energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions are provided.
Comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVPACD) (July 15, 2019), and Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019). Each of the comments related to this topic are addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.
3.7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE LINKAGES
Various gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric GHGs, play a critical role in determining the Earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters Earth’s atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The Earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation.
Naturally occurring GHGs include water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Several classes of halogenated substances that contain fluorine, chlorine, or bromine are also GHGs, but they are, for the most part, solely a product of industrial activities. Although the direct GHGs CO2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally in the atmosphere, human activities have changed their atmospheric concentrations. From the pre-industrial era (i.e., ending about 1750) to 2011, concentrations of these three GHGs have increased globally by 40, 150, and 20 percent, respectively (IPCC, 2013).
GHGs, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by the industrial and electricity generation sectors (California Energy Commission, 2020).
As the name implies, global climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern,
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan respectively. California produced 440 million gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO2e) in 2016 (California Air Resources Board, 2018a).
Carbon dioxide equivalents are a measurement used to account for the fact that different GHGs have different potential to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. This potential, known as the global warming potential of a GHG, is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted.
Consumption of fossil fuels in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California’s GHG emissions in 2017, accounting for 41% of total GHG emissions in the state. This category was followed by the industrial sector (24%), the electricity generation sector (including both in-state and out of-state sources) (15%), the agriculture sector (8%), the residential energy consumption sector (7%), and the commercial energy consumption sector (5%) (California Air Resources Board, 2020c).
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
The effects of increasing global temperature are far-reaching and extremely difficult to quantify.
The scientific community continues to study the effects of global climate change. In general, increases in the ambient global temperature as a result of increased GHGs are anticipated to result in rising sea levels, which could threaten coastal areas through accelerated coastal erosion, threats to levees and inland water systems and disruption to coastal wetlands and habitat.
If the temperature of the ocean warms, it is anticipated that the winter snow season would be shortened. Snowpack in the Sierra Nevada provides both water supply (runoff) and storage (within the snowpack before melting), which is a major source of supply for the State. The snowpack portion of the supply could potentially decline by 50% to 75% by the end of the 21st century (National Resources Defense Council, 2014). This phenomenon could lead to significant challenges securing an adequate water supply for a growing state population. Further, the increased ocean temperature could result in increased moisture flux into the State; however, since this would likely increasingly come in the form of rain rather than snow in the high elevations, increased precipitation could lead to increased potential and severity of flood events, placing more pressure on California’s levee/flood control system.
Sea level has risen approximately seven inches during the last century and it is predicted to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by 2100, depending on the future GHG emissions levels (California Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). If this occurs, resultant effects could include increased coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion and disruption of wetlands. As the existing climate throughout California changes over time, mass migration of species, or failure of species to migrate in time to adapt to the perturbations in climate, could also result. Under the emissions scenarios of the Climate Scenarios report (California Environmental Protection Agency, 2010), the impacts of global warming in California are anticipated to include, but are not limited to, the following.
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-3 Public Health
Higher temperatures are expected to increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to air pollution formation. For example, days with weather conducive to ozone formation are projected to increase from 25% to 35% under the lower warming range and to 75% to 85% under the medium warming range. In addition, if global background ozone levels increase as predicted in some scenarios, it may become impossible to meet local air quality standards. Air quality could be further compromised by increases in wildfires, which emit fine particulate matter that can travel long distances depending on wind conditions. The Climate Scenarios report indicates that large wildfires could become up to 55% more frequent if GHG emissions are not significantly reduced.
In addition, under the higher warming scenario, there could be up to 100 more days per year with temperatures above 90oF in Los Angeles and 95oF in Sacramento by 2100. This is a large increase over historical patterns and approximately twice the increase projected if temperatures remain within or below the lower warming range. Rising temperatures will increase the risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke/exhaustion, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress caused by extreme heat.
Water Resources
A vast network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts capture and transport water throughout the State from northern California rivers and the Colorado River. The current distribution system relies on Sierra Nevada snow pack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months. Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snow pack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages.
The State’s water supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater would degrade California’s estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. Saltwater intrusion caused by rising sea levels is a major threat to the quality and reliability of water within the southern edge of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta, a major State fresh water supply. Global warming is also projected to seriously affect agricultural areas, with California farmers projected to lose as much as 25% of the water supply they need; decrease the potential for hydropower production within the State (although the effects on hydropower are uncertain); and seriously harm winter tourism. Under the lower warming range, the snow dependent winter recreational season at lower elevations could be reduced by as much as one month. If temperatures reach the higher warming range and precipitation declines, there might be many years with insufficient snow for skiing, snowboarding, and other snow dependent recreational activities.
If GHG emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snow pack by as much as 70% to 90%. Under the lower warming scenario, snow pack losses are expected to be only half as large as those expected if temperatures were to rise to the higher warming range. How much snow pack will be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projections for which remain uncertain. However, even under the wetter climate projections, the loss of snow pack would pose challenges to water managers, hamper hydropower generation, and nearly eliminate all skiing and other snow-related recreational activities.
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Agriculture
Increased GHG emissions are expected to cause widespread changes to the agriculture industry reducing the quantity and quality of agricultural products statewide. Although higher carbon dioxide levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency, California’s farmers will face greater water demand for crops and a less reliable water supply as temperatures rise.
Plant growth tends to be slow at low temperatures, increasing with rising temperatures up to a threshold. However, faster growth can result in less-than-optimal development for many crops, so rising temperatures are likely to worsen the quantity and quality of yield for a number of California’s agricultural products. Products likely to be most affected include wine grapes, fruits, and nuts.
Crop growth and development will be affected, as will the intensity and frequency of pest and disease outbreaks. Rising temperatures will likely aggravate ozone pollution, which makes plants more susceptible to disease and pests and interferes with plant growth.
In addition, continued global warming will likely shift the ranges of existing invasive plants and weeds and alter competition patterns with native plants. Range expansion is expected in many species while range contractions are less likely in rapidly evolving species with significant populations already established. Should range contractions occur, it is likely that new or different weed species will fill the emerging gaps. Continued global warming is also likely to alter the abundance and types of many pests, lengthen pests’ breeding season, and increase pathogen growth rates.
Forests and Landscapes
Global warming is expected to alter the distribution and character of natural vegetation through decreases in precipitation, thereby resulting in a possible increased risk of large wildfires. If temperatures rise into the medium warming range, the risk of large wildfires in California could increase by as much as 55%, which is almost twice the increase expected if temperatures stay in the lower warming range. However, since wildfire risk is determined by a combination of factors, including precipitation, winds, temperature, and landscape and vegetation conditions, future risks will not be uniform throughout the State. For example, if precipitation increases as temperatures rise, wildfires in southern California are expected to increase by approximately 30% toward the end of the century. In contrast, precipitation decreases could increase wildfires in northern California by up to 90%.
Moreover, continued global warming will alter natural ecosystems and biological diversity within the State. For example, alpine and sub-alpine ecosystems are expected to decline by as much as 60% to 80% by the end of the century as a result of increasing temperatures. The productivity of the State’s forests is also expected to decrease as a result of global warming.
Rising Sea Levels
Rising sea levels, more intense coastal storms, and warmer water temperatures will increasingly threaten the State’s coastal regions. Under the higher warming scenario, sea level is anticipated to rise 22 to 35 inches by 2100. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-5 saltwater, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats.
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Energy in California is consumed from a wide variety of sources. Fossil fuels (including gasoline and diesel fuel, natural gas, and energy used to generate electricity) are most widely used form of energy in the State. However, renewable sources of energy (such as solar and wind) are growing in proportion to California’s overall energy mix. A large driver of renewable sources of energy in California is the State’s current Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires the State to derive at least 33% of electricity generated from renewable resources by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and to achieve zero-carbon emissions by 2045 (as passed in September 2018, under AB 100).
Overall, in 2018, California’s per capita energy usage was ranked fourth-lowest in the nation (U.S.
EIA, 2020b). California’s per capita rate of energy usage has remained relatively constant since the 1970’s. Many State regulations since the 1970’s, including new building energy efficiency standards, vehicle fleet efficiency measures, as well as growing public awareness, have helped to keep per capita energy usage in the State in check.
The consumption of non-renewable energy (i.e. fossil fuels) associated with the operation of passenger, public transit, and commercial vehicles, results in GHG emissions that contribute to global climate change. Alternative fuels such as natural gas, ethanol, and electricity (unless derived from solar, wind, nuclear, or other energy sources that do not produce carbon emissions) also result in GHG emissions and contribute to global climate change.
Electricity Consumption
California relies on a regional power system composed of a diverse mix of natural gas, renewable, hydroelectric, and limited nuclear generation resources with a plan to increase renewables and the elimination of nuclear power in 2025. In 2018, about 28% of the electricity supply comes from facilities outside of the State. Much of the power delivered to California from states in the Pacific Northwest was generated by renewable energy including hydro and wind . States in the Southwest delivered power generated at coal-fired power plants, at natural gas-fired power plants, and from nuclear generating stations (U.S. EIA, 2020a). In 2016, approximately 50 percent of California’s utility-scale net electricity generation was fueled by natural gas. In addition, about 25 percent of the State’s utility-scale net electricity generation came from non-hydroelectric renewable technologies, such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass. Another 14 percent of the State’s utility-scale net electricity generation came from hydroelectric generation, and nuclear energy powered an additional 11 percent. The amount of electricity generated from coal negligible (approximately 0.2 percent) (U.S. EIA, 2020a). The percentage of renewable resources as a proportion of California’s overall energy portfolio is increasing over time, as directed the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).
According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), total statewide electricity consumption increased from 166,979 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in 1980 to 228,038 GWh in 1990, which is an estimated annual growth rate of 3.66 percent. The statewide electricity consumption in 1997 was
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 246,225 GWh, reflecting an annual growth rate of 1.14 percent between 1990 and 1997 (U.S. EIA, 2020b). Statewide consumption was 274,985 GWh in 2010, an annual growth rate of 0.9 percent between 1997 and 2010. In 2018, electricity consumption in Fresno County was 7,651 GWh (California Energy Commission, 2018).
Oil
The primary energy source for the United States is oil, which is refined to produce fuels like gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Oil is a finite, nonrenewable energy source. World consumption of petroleum products has grown steadily in the last several decades. As of 2016, world consumption of oil had reached 96 million barrels per day. The United States, with approximately five percent of the world’s population, accounts for approximately 19 percent of world oil consumption, or approximately 18.6 million barrels per day (U.S. EIA, 2020c). The transportation sector relies heavily on oil. In California, petroleum-based fuels currently provide approximately 96 percent of the State’s transportation energy needs.
Natural Gas/Propane
Most of the natural gas used in California comes from out-of-state natural gas basins. In 2017, for example, California utility customers received 38% of their natural gas supply from basins located in the U.S. Southwest, 27% from Canada, 27% from the U.S. Rocky Mountain area, and 8% from production located in California (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021). In 2018, California gas utilities were estimated to deliver about 4740 million cubic feet per day (MMcfd) of gas to their customers, on average, under normal weather conditions (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021). PG&E is the largest publicly-owned utility in California and provides natural gas for residential, industrial, and agency consumers within the Fresno County area, including the City of Fresno. In 2018, natural gas consumption in Fresno County was 347 million therms (California Energy Commission, 2018).
3.7.2 REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
Clean Air Act
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) was first signed into law in 1970. In 1977, and again in 1990, the law was substantially amended. The FCAA is the foundation for a national air pollution control effort, and it is composed of the following basic elements: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria air pollutants, hazardous air pollutant standards, State attainment plans, motor vehicle emissions standards, stationary source emissions standards and permits, acid rain control measures, stratospheric ozone protection, and enforcement provisions.
The EPA is responsible for administering the FCAA. The FCAA requires the EPA to set NAAQS for several problem air pollutants based on human health and welfare criteria. Two types of NAAQS were established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect the public welfare from non-health-related adverse effects such as visibility reduction.
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-7 On April 2, 2007, in the court case of Massachusetts et al. vs. the USEPA et al. (549 U.S. 497), the U.S. Supreme Court found that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the federal Clean Air Act (42 USC §§ 7401-7671q). The Supreme Court held that the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency must determine whether or not emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In making these decisions, the Administrator is required to follow the language of Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
On December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed GHGs (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. • Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution, which threatens public health and welfare.
These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, this action was a prerequisite for implementing GHG emission standards for vehicles. In collaboration with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) developed emission standards for light-duty vehicles (2012-2025 model years), and heavy-duty vehicles (2014- 2027 model years).
Energy Policy and Conservation Act
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 sought to ensure that all vehicles sold in the U.S. would meet certain fuel economy goals. Through this Act, Congress established the first fuel economy standards for on-road motor vehicles in the United States. Pursuant to the Act, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, which is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards.
Since 1990, the fuel economy standard for new passenger cars has been 27.5 mpg. Since 1996, the fuel economy standard for new light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less) has been
20.7 mpg. Heavy-duty vehicles (i.e., vehicles and trucks over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight) are not currently subject to fuel economy standards. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is determined on the basis of each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of its vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, which is administered by the EPA, was created to determine vehicle manufacturers’ compliance with the fuel economy standards. The EPA calculates a CAFE value for each manufacturer based on city and highway fuel economy test results and vehicle sales. Based on the information generated under the CAFE program, the USDOT is authorized to assess penalties for noncompliance.
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct)
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was passed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign petroleum and improve air quality. EPAct includes several parts intended to build an inventory of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. EPAct requires certain federal, State, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light duty AFVs capable of running on alternative fuels each year. In addition, financial incentives are included in EPAct. Federal tax deductions will be allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of AFVs. States are also required by the act to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs.
Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was signed into law on August 8, 2005. Generally, the act provides for renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for a clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy.
Federal Climate Change Policy
According to the EPA, “the United States government has established a comprehensive policy to address climate change” that includes slowing the growth of emissions; strengthening science, technology, and institutions; and enhancing international cooperation. To implement this policy, “the Federal government is using voluntary and incentive-based programs to reduce emissions and has established programs to promote climate technology and science.” The EPA administers multiple programs that encourage voluntary GHG reductions, including “ENERGY STAR”, “Climate Leaders”, and Methane Voluntary Programs. However, as of this writing, there are no adopted federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws directly regulating GHG emissions.
Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
On September 22, 2009, EPA issued a final rule for mandatory reporting of GHGs from large GHG emissions sources in the United States. In general, this national reporting requirement will provide EPA with accurate and timely GHG emissions data from facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 per year. This publicly available data will allow the reporters to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and aid in identifying cost effective opportunities to reduce emissions in the future. Reporting is at the facility level, except that certain suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial GHGs along with vehicle and engine manufacturers will report at the corporate level. An estimated 85% of the total U.S. GHG emissions, from approximately 10,000 facilities, are covered by this final rule.
STATE
The California Legislature has enacted a series of statutes in recent years addressing the need to reduce GHG emissions all across the State. These statutes can be categorized into four broad categories: (i) statutes setting numerical statewide targets for GHG reductions, and authorizing GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-9 CARB to enact regulations to achieve such targets; (ii) statutes setting separate targets for increasing the use of renewable energy for the generation of electricity throughout the State; (iii) statutes addressing the carbon intensity of vehicle fuels, which prompted the adoption of regulations by CARB; and (iv) statutes intended to facilitate land use planning consistent with statewide climate objectives. The discussion below will address each of these key sets of statutes, as well as CARB “Scoping Plans” intended to achieve GHG reductions under the first set of statutes and recent building code requirements intended to reduce energy consumption.
Statutes Setting Statewide GHG Reduction Targets
ASSEMBLY BILL 32 (GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT)
In September 2006, the California State Legislature enacted the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Health & Saf. Code, § 38500 et seq.), also known as Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (Stats. 2006, ch. 488). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. This reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that was phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources.
SENATE BILL 32
Effective January 1, 2017, SB 32 (Stats. 2016, ch. 249) added a new section 38566 to the Health and Safety Code. It provides that “[i]n adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions authorized by [Division 25.5 of the Health and Safety Code], [CARB] shall ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030.” In other words, SB 32 requires California, by the year 2030, to reduce its statewide GHG emissions so that they are 40 percent below those that occurred in 1990.
Between AB 32 (2006) and SB 32 (2016), the Legislature has codified some of the ambitious GHG reduction targets included within certain high-profile Executive Orders issued by the last two Governors. The 2020 statewide GHG reduction target in AB 32 was consistent with the second of three statewide emissions reduction targets set forth in former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2005 Executive Order known as S-3-05, which is expressly mentioned in AB 32. (See Health & Saf.
Code, § 38501, subd. (i).) That Executive Branch document included the following GHG emission reduction targets: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. To meet the targets, the Governor directed several State agencies to cooperate in the development of a climate action plan. The Secretary of Cal-EPA leads the Climate Action Team, whose goal is to implement global warming emission reduction programs identified in the Climate Action Plan and to report on the progress made toward meeting the emission reduction targets established in the executive order.
In April 2015, Governor Brown issued another Executive Order, B-30-15, which created a “new interim statewide GHG emission reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1990 levels by 2030 is established in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.” SB 32 codified this target.
In September 2018, the Governor issued Executive Order B-55-18, which established a statewide goal to “achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and maintain and achieve negative emissions thereafter.” The order directs the CARB to work with other State agencies to identify and recommend measures to achieve those goals.
Notably, the Legislature has not yet set a 2045 or 2050 target in the manner done for 2020 and 2030 through AB 32 and SB 32, though references to a 2050 target can be found in statutes outside the Health and Safety Code. In the 2015 legislative session, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 350 (SB 350) (Stats. 2015, ch. 547) (discussed in more detail below). This legislation added to the Public Utilities Code language that essentially puts into statute the 2050 GHG reduction target already identified in Executive Order S-3-05, albeit in the limited context of new state policies (i) increasing the overall share of electricity that must be produced through renewable energy sources and (ii) directing certain State agencies to begin planning for the widespread electrification of the California vehicle fleet. Section 740.12(a)(1)(D) of the Public Utilities Code now states that “[t]he Legislature finds and declares [that] … [r]educing emissions of [GHGs] to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 will require widespread transportation electrification.” Furthermore, Section 740.12(b) now states that the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC), in consultation with CARB and the California Energy Commission (CEC), must “direct electrical corporations to file applications for programs and investments to accelerate widespread transportation electrification to reduce dependence on petroleum, meet air quality standards, … and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.”
Statute Setting Target for the Use of Renewable Energy for the Generation of Electricity
CALIFORNIA RENEWABLES PORTFOLIO STANDARD
In September 2002, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1078 (Stats. 2002, ch. 516), which established the Renewables Portfolio Standard program, requiring retail sellers of electricity, including electrical corporations, community choice aggregators, and electric service providers, to purchase a specified minimum percentage of electricity generated by eligible renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, geothermal, small hydroelectric, biomass, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas. (See Pub.
Utilities Code, § 399.11 et seq. [subsequently amended].) The legislation set a target by which 20 percent of the State’s electricity would be generated by renewable sources. (Pub. Utility Code, § 399.11, subd (a) [subsequently amended].) As described in the Legislative Counsel’s Digest, Senate Bill 1078 required “[e]ach electrical corporation … to increase its total procurement of eligible renewable energy resources by at least one percent per year so that 20 percent of its retail sales are procured from eligible renewable energy resources. If an electrical corporation fails to procure sufficient eligible renewable energy resources in a given year to meet an annual target, the electrical corporation would be required to procure additional eligible renewable resources in subsequent years to compensate for the shortfall, if funds are made available as described. An electrical GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-11 corporation with at least 20 percent of retail sales procured from eligible renewable energy resources in any year would not be required to increase its procurement in the following year.” In September 2006, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 107 (Stats. 2006, ch. 464), which modified the Renewables Portfolio Standard to require that at least 20 percent of electricity retail sales be served by renewable energy resources by year 2010. (Pub. Utility Code, § 399.11, subd (a) [subsequently amended].)
In April 2011, the Legislature, in a special session, enacted Senate Bill X1-2 (Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 1), which set even more aggressive statutory targets for renewable electricity, culminating in the requirement that 33 percent of the State’s electricity come from renewables by 2020. This legislation applies to all electricity retailers in the State, including publicly owned utilities, investor-owned utilities, electricity service providers, and community choice aggregators. All of these entities must meet renewable energy goals of 20 percent of retail sales from renewables by the end of 2013, 25 percent by the end of 2016, and 33 percent by the end of 2020. (See Pub. Utility Code, § 399.11 et seq. [subsequently amended].)
In 2015, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 350 (SB 350) (Stats. 2015, ch. 547) (discussed above). It increases the Renewable Portfolio Standard to require 50 percent of electricity generated to be from renewables by 2030. (Pub. Utility Code, § 399.11, subd (a); see also § 399.30, subd. (c)(2).) Of equal significance, Senate Bill 350 also embodies a policy encouraging a substantial increase in the use of electric vehicles. As noted earlier, Section 740.12(b) of the Public Utilities Code now states that the PUC, in consultation with CARB and the CEC, must “direct electrical corporations to file applications for programs and investments to accelerate widespread transportation electrification to reduce dependence on petroleum, meet air quality standards, … and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.” In March 2012, Governor Brown had issued an Executive Order, B-16-12, which embodied a similar vision of a future in which zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) will play a big part in helping the State meet its GHG reduction targets. Executive Order B-16-12 directed the State government to accelerate the market for in California through fleet replacement and electric vehicle infrastructure. The Executive Order set the following targets:
• By 2015, all major cities in California will have adequate infrastructure and be “ZEV ready”; • By 2020, the State will have established adequate infrastructure to support 1 million ZEVs in California;
• By 2025, there will be 1.5 million ZEVs on the road in California; and • By 2050, virtually all personal transportation in the State will be based on ZEVs, and GHG emissions from the transportation sector will be reduced by 80 percent below 1990 levels.
In 2018, the Legislature enacted, and the Governor signed, Senate Bill 100 (Stats. 2018, ch. 312), which revise the above-described deadlines and targets so that the State will have to achieve a 50% renewable resources target by December 31, 2026 (instead of by 2030) and achieve a 60% target by December 31, 2030. The legislation also establishes a State policy that eligible renewable energy
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100% of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045.
In summary, California has set a statutory goal of requiring that, by the year 2030, 60 percent of the electricity generated in California should be from renewable sources, with increased generation capacity intended to sufficiently allow the mass conversion of the statewide vehicle fleet from petroleum-fueled vehicles to electrical vehicles and/or other ZEVs. By 2045, all electricity must come from renewable resources and other carbon-free resources. Former Governor Brown had an even more ambitious goal for the State of achieving carbon neutrality as soon as possible and by no later than 2045. The Legislature is thus looking to California drivers to buy electric cars, powered by green energy, to help the State meet its aggressive statutory goal, created by SB 32, of reducing statewide GHG emissions by 2030 to 40 percent below 1990 levels. Another key prong to this strategy is to make petroleum-based fuels less carbon-intensive. A number of statutes in recent years have addressed that strategy. These are discussed immediately below.
Statutes and CARB Regulations Addressing the Carbon Intensity of Petroleum-based Transportation Fuels
ASSEMBLY BILL 1493, PAVLEY CLEAN CARS STANDARDS
In July 2002, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 1493 (“Pavley Bill”) (Stats. 2002, ch. 200), which directed the CARB to develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks beginning with model year 2009. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 43018.5.) In September 2004, pursuant to this directive, CARB approved regulations to reduce GHG emissions from new motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year.
These regulations created what are commonly known as the “Pavley standards.” In September 2009, CARB adopted amendments to the Pavley standards to reduce GHG emissions from new motor vehicles through the 2016 model year. These regulations created what are commonly known as the “Pavley II standards.” (See California Code of Regulations, Title 13, §§ 1900, 1961, and 1961.1 et seq.)
In January 2012, CARB adopted an Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) program aimed at reducing both smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions for vehicles model years 2017-2025. This historic program, developed in coordination with the USEPA and NHTSA, combined the control of smogcausing (criteria) pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated set of requirements for model years 2015 through 2025. The regulations focus on substantially increasing the number of plug-in hybrid cars and zero-emission vehicles in the vehicle fleet and on making fuels such as electricity and hydrogen readily available for these vehicle technologies. The components of the ACC program are the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulations that reduce criteria pollutants and GHG emissions from light- and medium-duty vehicles, and the Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) regulation, which requires manufacturers to produce an increasing number of pure ZEVs (meaning battery electric and fuel cell electric vehicles), with provisions to also produce plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the 2018 through 2025 model years. (See California Code of Regulations, Title 13, §§ 1900, 1961, 1961.1, 1961.2, 1961.3, 1965, 1968.2, 1968.5, 1976, 1978, 2037, 2038, 2062, 2112, 2139, 2140, 2145, 2147, 2235, and 2317 et seq.)
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-13 It is expected that the Pavley regulations will reduce GHG emissions from California passenger vehicles by about 34 percent below 2016 levels by 2025, all while improving fuel efficiency and reducing motorists’ costs.
Electric Car Mandate
The transportation sector, including all passenger cars and light trucks, heavy-duty trucks, off-road vehicles, and the fuels needed to power them, is responsible for more than half of California’s greenhouse gas emissions. In 2020, Governor Newsom issued an Executive Order, N-79-20, which calls for the elimination of new internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2035. Existing vehicles that run on fossil fuel would be allowed to keep operating. The executive order will not prevent Californians from owning gasoline-powered cars or selling them on the used car market.
Innovative Clean Transit Rules for Public Transportation The Innovative Clean Transit Regulation is the first of its kind to support these programs. It was adopted in December 2018 to replace the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. The regulation requires all public transit agencies to gradually transition to a 100-percent zero-emission bus fleet and encourages them to provide innovative first and last-mile connectivity and improved mobility for transit riders.
Through the deployment of zero-emission technologies, the ICT regulation will provide significant benefits across the state, including:
• Reduce NOx and GHG emissions for all Californians, especially transit-dependent and disadvantaged communities. The majority of these benefits will be in the State’s most populated and impacted areas where transit buses are most prevalent • Increase penetration of the first wave of zero-emission heavy-duty technologies into applications that are well suited to their use to further achieve emission reduction benefits • Save energy and reduce dependency on petroleum and other fossil fuels • Expand zero-emission vehicle industry to bring high quality green jobs to local communities and trained workforce to California
• Provide other societal benefits by encouraging improved mobility and connectivity with zero-emission transportation modes and reduced growth in light-duty vehicle miles traveled.
Cap and Trade Program
On October 20, 2011, in a related action, CARB adopted the final cap‐and‐trade program for California. (See California Code of Regulations, Title 17, §§ 95801-96022.) The California cap‐and‐ trade program has created a market‐based system with an overall emissions limit for affected sectors. The program is intended to regulate more than 85 percent of California’s emissions and staggers compliance requirements according to the following schedule: (1) electricity generation and large industrial sources (2012); (2) fuel combustion and transportation (2015).
According to 2012 guidance published by CARB, “[t]he Cap-and-Trade Program will reduce GHG emissions from major sources (covered entities) by setting a firm cap on statewide GHG emissions
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan while employing market mechanisms to cost-effectively achieve the emission-reduction goals. The statewide cap for GHG emissions from major sources, which is measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e), will commence in 2013 and decline over time, achieving GHG emission reductions throughout the program’s duration. Each covered entity will be required to surrender one permit to emit (the majority of which will be allowances, entities are also allowed to use a limited number of CARB offset credits) for each ton of GHG emissions they emit. Some covered entities will be allocated some allowances and will be able to buy additional allowances at auction, purchase allowances from others, or purchase offset credits.” The guidance goes on to say that “[s]tarting in 2012, major GHG-emitting sources, such as electricity generation (including imports), and large stationary sources (e.g., refineries, cement production facilities, oil and gas production facilities, glass manufacturing facilities, and food processing plants) that emit more than 25,000 MTCO2e per year will have to comply with the Cap-and-Trade Program.
The program expands in 2015 to include fuel distributors (natural gas and propane fuel providers and transportation fuel providers) to address emissions from transportation fuels, and from combustion of other fossil fuels not directly covered at large sources in the program’s initial phase.” In early April 2017, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the lawfulness of the cap-and-trade program as a “fee” rather than a “tax.” (See California Chamber of Commerce et al. v. State Air Resources Board et al. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 604.)
In early 2017, the Legislature enacted, and the Governor signed, AB 398 (Stats. 2017, ch. 135), which extended the life of the existing Cap and Trade Program through December 2030.
Statute Intended to Facilitate Land Use Planning Consistent with Statewide Climate Objectives
CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 375 (SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY) This 2008 legislation built on AB 32 by setting forth a mechanism for coordinating land use and transportation on a regional level for the purpose of reducing GHGs. The focus is to reduce miles traveled by passenger vehicles and light trucks. CARB is required to set GHG reduction targets for each metropolitan region for the years 2020 and 2035. Each of California’s metropolitan planning organizations then prepares a sustainable communities strategy that demonstrates how the region will meet its GHG reduction target through integrated land use, housing, and transportation planning. Once adopted by the metropolitan planning organizations, the sustainable communities strategy is to be incorporated into that region’s federally enforceable regional transportation plan.
If a metropolitan planning organization is unable to meet the targets through the sustainable communities strategy, then an alternative planning strategy must be developed which demonstrates how targets could be achieved, even if meeting the targets is deemed to be infeasible.
Climate Change Scoping Plans
AB 32 SCOPING PLAN
In December 2008, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which contains the main strategies California will implement to achieve reduction of approximately 118 million metric tons GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-15 (MMT) CO2e, or approximately 22 percent from the State’s projected 2020 emission level of 545 MMT of CO2e under a business-as-usual scenario. This is a reduction of 47 MMT CO2e, or almost 10 percent, from 2008 emissions. CARB’s original 2020 projection was 596 MMT CO2e, but this revised 2020 projection takes into account the economic downturn that occurred in 2008. The Scoping Plan also includes CARB recommended GHG reductions for each emissions sector of the State GHG inventory. CARB estimates the largest reductions in GHG emissions would be by implementing the following measures and standards:
• improved emissions standards for light-duty vehicles (26.1 MMT CO2e); • the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (15.0 MMT CO2e);
• energy efficiency measures in buildings and appliances (11.9 MMT CO2e); and • renewable portfolio and electricity standards for electricity production (23.4 MMT CO2e).
In 2011, CARB adopted a cap-and-trade regulation. The cap-and-trade program covers major sources of GHG emissions in the State such as refineries, power plants, industrial facilities, and transportation fuels. The cap-and-trade program includes an enforceable emissions cap that will decline over time. The State distributes allowances, which are tradable permits, equal to the emissions allowed under the cap. Sources under the cap are required to surrender allowances and offsets equal to their emissions at the end of each compliance period. Enforceable compliance obligations started in 2013. The program applies to facilities that comprise 85 percent of the State’s GHG emissions.
With regard to land use planning, the Scoping Plan expects that reductions of approximately 3.0 MMT CO2e will be achieved through implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 375, which is discussed further below.
2014 SCOPING PLAN UPDATE
In response to comments on the 2008 Scoping Plan, and AB 32’s requirement to update the Scoping Plan every five years, CARB revised and reapproved the Scoping Plan, and prepared the First Update to the 2008 Scoping Plan in 2014 (2014 Scoping Plan). The 2014 Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will implement to achieve a reduction of 80 MMT of CO2e emissions, or approximately 16 percent, from the State’s projected 2020 emission level of 507 MMT of CO2e under the business-as-usual scenario defined in the 2014 Scoping Plan. The 2014 Scoping Plan also includes a breakdown of the amount of GHG reductions CARB recommends for each emissions sector of the State’s GHG inventory. Several strategies to reduce GHG emissions are included: the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, the Pavley Rule, the ACC program, the Renewable Portfolio Standard, and the Sustainable Communities Strategy.
2017 SB 32 SCOPING PLAN
With the passage of SB 32, the Legislature also passed companion legislation AB 197, which provides additional direction for developing the scoping plan. In response to these two pieces of legislation, CARB adopted an updated Scoping Plan in December 2017. The document represents a second update to the scoping plan to reflect the 2030 target of reducing statewide GHG emissions by 40
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan percent below 1990 levels codified by SB 32. The GHG reduction strategies in the plan that CARB will implement to meet the target include:
• SB 350 - achieve 50 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) by 2030 and doubling of energy efficiency savings by 2030;
• Low Carbon Fuel Standard - increased stringency (reducing carbon intensity 18 percent by 2030, up from 10 percent in 2020);
• Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario) – o Estimated 85% of passenger vehicles will be ZEV and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV) by 2045;
o Estimated 77% of heavy-duty fleet will be ZEV by 2045. • Sustainable Freight Action Plan - improve freight system efficiency, maximize use of nearzero emission vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy, and deploy over 100,000 zero-emission trucks and equipment by 2030;
• Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy - reduce emissions of methane and hydrofluorocarbons 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030 and reduce emissions of black carbon 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030;
• SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies - increased stringency of 2035 targets; • Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program - declining caps, continued linkage with Québec, and linkage to Ontario, Canada;
• 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from the refinery sector; and • By 2018, develop an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink.
Building Code Requirements Intended to Reduce GHG Emissions
CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
The California Energy Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), which is incorporated into the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, was first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. Although these standards were not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, increased energy efficiency results in decreased GHG emissions because energy efficient buildings require less electricity and thus less consumption of fossil fuels, which emit GHGs. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The current 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, commonly referred to as the “Title 24” standards, include changes from the previous standards that were adopted, to do the following:
• Provide California with an adequate, reasonably priced, and environmentally sound supply of energy.
• Respond to Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which mandates that California must reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. • Pursue California energy policy that energy efficiency is the resource of first choice for meeting California's energy needs.
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-17 • Act on the California Energy Commission’s Integrated Energy Policy Report, which finds that standards are the most cost effective means to achieve energy efficiency, states an expectation that the Building Energy Efficiency Standards will continue to be upgraded over time to reduce electricity and peak demand, and recognizes the role of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards in reducing energy related to meeting California's water needs and in reducing GHG emissions.
• Meet the West Coast Governors' Global Warming Initiative commitment to include aggressive energy efficiency measures into updates of State building codes. • Meet Executive Order S-20-04, the Green Building Initiative, to improve the energy efficiency of non-residential buildings through aggressive standards.
The most recent Title 24 standards are the 2019 Title 24 standards. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards improve upon the 2016 Energy Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. Buildings permitted on or after January 1, 2020, must comply with the 2019 Standards. The California Energy Commission updates the standards every three years. The 2019 Title 24 standards include the requirement by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan for net zero energy consumption for new residential development starting in 2020 and will ultimately incorporate requirements for net zero in new non‐residential development by 2030.
Single-family homes built with the 2019 standards will use about 7 percent less energy due to energy efficiency measures versus those built under the 2016 standards. Once rooftop solar electricity generation is factored in, homes built under the 2019 standards will use about 53 percent less energy than those under the 2016 standards. This will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 700,000 metric tons over three years, equivalent to taking 115,000 fossil fuel cars off the road. Nonresidential buildings will use about 30 percent less energy due mainly to lighting upgrades.
CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CALGREEN CODE) In 2008, the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) adopted Part 11 of CCR Title 24, titled the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) which became effective on August 1, 2009 as a voluntary code. The 2010 CALGreen Code was the first mandatory edition, took effect on January 1, 2011, and is now a part of the CBSC 3-year update cycle. The 2019 CALGreen Code standards became effective on January 1, 2020. The CALGreen Code establishes mandatory measures for residential and non-residential building construction and encourages sustainable construction practices in the following five categories: (1) planning and design, (2) energy efficiency, (3) water efficiency and conservation, (4) material conservation and resource efficiency, and (5) indoor environmental quality. Although the CALGreen Code was adopted as part of the State’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions, the CALGreen Code standards have co-benefits of reducing energy consumption from residential and non-residential buildings subject to the standard.
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan CEQA Direction
In 2008, the Schwarzenegger administration, through the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), issued Guidance regarding assessing significance of GHGs in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents; that Guidance stated that the adoption of appropriate significance thresholds was a matter of discretion for the lead agency. The OPR Guidance states:
“[T]he global nature of climate change warrants investigation of a statewide threshold of significance for GHG emissions. To this end, OPR has asked the CARB technical staff to recommend a method for setting thresholds which will encourage consistency and uniformity in the CEQA analysis of GHG emissions throughout the state. Until such time as state guidance is available on thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, we recommend the following approach to your CEQA analysis.”
Determine Significance
• When assessing a project’s GHG emissions, lead agencies must describe the existing environmental conditions or setting, without the project, which normally constitutes the baseline physical conditions for determining whether a project’s impacts are significant. • As with any environmental impact, lead agencies must determine what constitutes a significant impact. In the absence of regulatory standards for GHG emissions or other scientific data to clearly define what constitutes a “significant impact,” individual lead agencies may undertake a project-by-project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice.
• The potential effects of a project may be individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Lead agencies should not dismiss a proposed project’s direct and/or indirect climate change impacts without careful consideration, supported by substantial evidence. Documentation of available information and analysis should be provided for any project that may significantly contribute new GHG emissions, either individually or cumulatively, directly or indirectly (e.g., transportation impacts). • Although climate change is ultimately a cumulative impact, not every individual project that emits GHGs must necessarily be found to contribute to a significant cumulative impact on the environment. CEQA authorizes reliance on previously approved plans and mitigation programs that have adequately analyzed and mitigated GHG emissions to a less than significant level as a means to avoid or substantially reduce the cumulative impact of a project.
The OPR Guidance did not require Executive Order S-3-05 (by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels) to be used as a significance threshold under CEQA. Rather, OPR recognized that, GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-19 until the CARB establishes a statewide standard, selecting an appropriate threshold was within the discretion of the lead agency.
In 2010, the California Natural Resources Agency added section 15064.4 to the CEQA Guidelines, providing new legal requirements for how agencies should address GHG-related impacts in their CEQA documents. As amended in early 2019, section 15064.4 provides as follows:
(a) The determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions in section 15064. A lead agency shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to:
(1) Quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project; and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. (b) In determining the significance of a project's greenhouse gas emissions, the lead agency should focus its analysis on the reasonably foreseeable incremental contribution of the project's emissions to the effects of climate change. A project's incremental contribution may be cumulatively considerable even if it appears relatively small compared to statewide, national or global emissions. The agency's analysis should consider a timeframe that is appropriate for the project.
The agency's analysis also must reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes. A lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, when determining the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment:
(1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
(3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (see, e.g., section 15183.5(b)). Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project's incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. In determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project's consistency with the State's long-term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial evidence supports the
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan agency's analysis of how those goals or strategies address the project's incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project's incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable. (c) A lead agency may use a model or methodology to estimate greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project's incremental contribution to climate change. The lead agency must support its selection of a model or methodology with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use.
Section 15126.4, subdivision (c), provides guidance on how to formulate mitigation measures addressing GHG-related impacts:
Consistent with section 15126.4(a), lead agencies shall consider feasible means, supported by substantial evidence and subject to monitoring or reporting, of mitigating the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Measures to mitigate the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions may include, among others:
(1) Measures in an existing plan or mitigation program for the reduction of emissions that are required as part of the lead agency's decision; (2) Reductions in emissions resulting from a project through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F;
(3) Off-site measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required, to mitigate a project's emissions;
(4) Measures that sequester greenhouse gases;
(5) In the case of the adoption of a plan, such as a general plan, long range development plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, mitigation may include the identification of specific measures that may be implemented on a project-by-project basis. Mitigation may also include the incorporation of specific measures or policies found in an adopted ordinance or regulation that reduces the cumulative effect of emissions.
California Supreme Court Decisions
THE “NEWHALL RANCH” CASE
On November 30, 2015, the California Supreme Court released its opinion on Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204 (hereafter referred to as the Newhall Ranch Case).
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-21 Because of the importance of the Supreme Court as the top body within the California Judiciary, and because of the relative lack of judicial guidance regarding how GHG issues should be addressed in CEQA documents, the opinion provides very important legal guidance to agencies charged with preparing EIRs.
The case involved a challenge to an EIR prepared by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for the Newhall Ranch development project in Los Angeles County, which consists of approximately 20,000 dwelling units as well as commercial and business uses, schools, golf courses, parks and other community facilities in the City of Santa Clarita.
In relation to GHG analysis, the Newhall Ranch Case illustrates the difficulty of complying with statewide GHG reduction targets at the local level using CEQA to determine whether an individual project’s GHG emissions will create a significant environmental impact triggering an EIR, mitigation, and/or statement of overriding consideration. The EIR utilized compliance with AB 32’s GHG reduction goals as a threshold of significance and modelled its analysis on the CARB’s business-asusual (BAU) emissions projections from the 2008 Scoping Plan. The EIR quantified the project’s annual emissions at buildout and projected emissions in 2020 under a BAU scenario, in which no additional regulatory actions were taken to reduce emissions. Since the Scoping Plan determined a reduction of 29 percent from BAU was needed to meet AB 32’s 2020 reduction goal, the EIR concluded that the project would have a less-than-significant impact because the project’s annual GHG emissions were projected to be 31 percent below its BAU estimate.
The Supreme Court concluded that the threshold of significance used by the EIR was permissible; however, the BAU analysis lacked substantial evidence to demonstrate that the required percentage reduction from BAU is the same for an individual project as for the entire State. The court expressed skepticism that a percentage reduction goal applicable to the State as a whole would apply without change to an individual development project, regardless of its size or location. Therefore, the Supreme Court determined that the EIR’s GHG analysis was not sufficient to support the conclusion that GHG impacts would be less than significant.
In addition, the Supreme Court provided the following guidance regarding potential alternative approaches to GHG impact assessment at the project level for lead agencies:
1. The lead agency determination of what level of GHG emission reduction from business-asusual projection that a new land development at the proposed location would need to achieve to comply with statewide goals upon examination of data behind the Scoping Plan’s business-as-usual emission projections. The lead agency must provide substantial evidence and account for the disconnect between the Scoping Plan, which dealt with the State as a whole, and an analysis of an individual project’s land use emissions (the same issues with CEQA compliance addressed in this case);
2. The lead agency may use a project’s compliance with performance based standards – such as high building energy efficiency – adopted to fulfill a statewide plan to reduce or mitigate GHG emissions to assess consistency with AB 32 to the extent that the project features comply with or exceed the regulation (See Guidelines Section 15064.4(a)(2), (b)(3); see also
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3)). A significance analysis would then need to account for the additional GHG emissions – such as transportation emissions – beyond the regulated activity. Transportation emissions are in part a function of the location, size, and density or intensity of a project, and thus can be affected by local governments’ land use decision making. Additionally, the lead agency may use a programmatic effort including a general plan, long range development plan, or a separate plan to reduce GHG emissions (such as a Climate Action Plan or a SB 375 metropolitan regional transportation impact Sustainable Communities Strategy) that accounts for specific geographical GHG emission reductions to streamline or tier project level CEQA analysis pursuant to Guidelines 15183.5(a)-(b) for land use and Public Resources Code Section 21155.2 and 21159.28 and Guidelines Section 15183.5(c) for transportation.
3. The lead agency may rely on existing numerical thresholds of significance for GHG emissions (such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s proposed threshold of significance of 1,100 MT CO2E in annual emission for CEQA GHG emission analysis on new land use projects). The use of a numerical value provides what is “normally” considered significant but does not relieve a lead agency from independently determining the significance of the impact for the individual project (See Guidelines Section 15064.7).
THE SANDAG CASE
In Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497 (SANDAG), the Supreme Court addressed the extent to which, if any, an EIR for a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) with a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) must address the proposed project’s consistency with the 2050 target set forth in Executive Order S-03-05 (i.e., 80 percent below 1990 levels). The Court held that SANDAG did not abuse its discretion by failing to treat the 2050 GHG emissions target as a threshold of significance. The Court cautioned, however, that its decision applies narrowly to the facts of the case and that the analysis in the challenged EIR should not be used as an example for other lead agencies to follow going forward. Notably, the RTP itself covered a planning period that extended all the way to 2050.
The Court acknowledged the parties’ agreement that “the Executive Order lacks the force of a legal mandate binding on SANDAG[.]” (Id. at p. 513.) This conclusion was consistent with the Court’s earlier decision in Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger (2010) 50 Cal.4th 989, 1015, which held the Governor had acted in excess of his executive authority in ordering the furloughing of State employees as a money-saving strategy. In that earlier case, which is not mentioned in the SANDAG decision, the Court held that the decision to furlough employees was legislative in character, and thus could only be ordered by the Legislature, and not the Governor, who, under the State constitution, may only exercise executive authority. In SANDAG, the Court thus impliedly recognized that Governors do not have authority to set statewide legislative policy, particularly for decades into the future. Even so, however, the Court noted, and did not question, the parties’ agreement that “the Executive Order's 2050 emissions reduction target is grounded in sound science.” (3 Cal.5th at p. 513.) Indeed, the Court emphasized that, although “the Executive Order ‘is not an adopted GHG reduction plan’ and that ‘there is no legal requirement to use it as a GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-23 threshold of significance,’” the 2050 goal nevertheless “expresses the pace and magnitude of reduction efforts that the scientific community believes necessary to stabilize the climate.
This scientific information has important value to policymakers and citizens in considering the emission impacts of a project like SANDAG's regional transportation plan.” (Id. at p. 515.) Towards the end of the decision, the Court even referred to “the state’s 2050 climate goals” as though the 2050 target from E.O. S-03-05 had some sort of standing under California law. (Id. at p. 519.) The Court seemed to reason that, because the Legislature had enacted both AB 32 and SB 32, which followed the downward GHG emissions trajectory recommended in the Executive Order, the Legislature, at some point, was also likely to adopt the 2050 target as well: “SB 32 … reaffirms California's commitment to being on the forefront of the dramatic greenhouse gas emission reductions needed to stabilize the global climate.” (Id. at p. 519.) Finally, the Court explained that “planning agencies like SANDAG must ensure that CEQA analysis stays in step with evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes.” (Ibid.)
In sum, the Court recognized that the Executive Order did not carry the force of law, but nevertheless considered it to be part of “state climate policy” because the Legislature, in enacting both AB 32 and SB 32, seems to be following both the IPCC recommendations for reducing GHG emissions worldwide and evolving science. Nothing in the decision, however, suggests that all projects, regardless of their buildout period, must address the 2050 target or treat it as a significance threshold.
LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan includes the following objectives and policies that pertain directly to air quality, greenhouse gases, and energy.
URBAN FORM, LAND USE AND DESIGN ELEMENT
Objective UF-1: Emphasize the opportunity for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, and housing types.
Policy UF-1-c: Identifiable City Structure. Focus integrated and ongoing planning efforts to achieve an identifiable city structure, comprised of a concentration of buildings, people, and pedestrian-oriented activity in Downtown; along a small number of prominent east-west and north-south transit-oriented, mixed-use corridors with distinctive and strategically located Activity Centers; and in existing and new neighborhoods augmented with parks and connected by multi-purpose trails and tree lined bike lanes and streets.
Policy UF-1-e: Unique Neighborhoods. Promote and protect unique neighborhoods and mixed use areas throughout Fresno that respect and support various ethnic, cultural and historic enclaves; provide a range of housing options, including furthering affordable housing opportunities; and convey a unique character and lifestyle attractive to Fresnans.
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Support unique areas through more specific planning processes that directly engage community members in creative and innovative design efforts.
Objective UF-12: Locate roughly one-half of future residential development in infill areas – defined as being within the City on December 31, 2012 – including the Downtown core area and surrounding neighborhoods, mixed-use centers and transit-oriented development along major BRT corridors, and other non-corridor infill areas, and vacant land.
Policy UF-12-a: BRT Corridors. Design land uses and integrate development site plans along BRT corridors, with transit-oriented development that supports transit ridership and convenient pedestrian access to bus stops and BRT station stops.
Policy UF-12-b: Activity Centers. Mixed-use designated areas along BRT and/or transit corridors are appropriate for more intensive concentrations of urban uses. Typical uses could include commercial areas; employment centers; schools; compact residential development; religious institutions; parks; and other gathering points where residents may interact, work, and obtain goods and services in the same place.
Policy UF-12-d: Appropriate Mixed-Use. Facilitate the development of vertical and horizontal mixed-uses to blend residential, commercial, and public land uses on one site or adjacent sites. Ensure land use compatibility between mixed-use districts in Activity Centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Policy UF-12-e: Access to Activity Centers. Promote adoptions and implementation of standards supporting pedestrian activities and bicycle linkages from surrounding land uses and neighborhoods into Activity Centers and to transit stops. Provide for priority transit routes and facilities to serve the Activity Centers.
Policy UF-12-f: Mixed-Use in Activity Centers. Update the Development Code to include use regulations and standards to allow for mixed-uses and shared parking facilities, including multi-story and underground parking facilities, within Activity Centers.
Objective UF-14: Create an urban form that facilitates multi-modal connectivity.
Policy UF-14-a: Design Guidelines for Walkability. Develop and use design guidelines and standards for a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment with a network of streets and connections for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as transit and autos.
Policy UF-14-b: Local Street Connectivity. Design local roadways to connect throughout neighborhoods and large private developments with adjacent major streets and pathways of existing adjacent development. Create access for pedestrians and bicycles where a local street must dead end or be designed as a cul-de-sac to adjoining uses that provide services, shopping, and connecting pathways for access to the greater community area.
Objective LU-2: Plan for infill development that includes a range of housing types, building forms, and land uses to meet the needs of both current and future residents.
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-25 Policy LU-2-a: Infill Development and Redevelopment. Promote development of vacant, underdeveloped, and redevelopable land uses within the City Limit where urban services are available considering the establishment and implementation of supportive regulations and programs.
Policy LU-2-b: Infill Development for Affordable Housing. Consider a priority infill incentive program for residential infill development of existing vacant lots and underutilized sites within the City as a strategy to help to meet the affordable housing needs of the community.
Policy LU-3-c: Zoning for High Density on Major BRT Corridors. Consider the adoption of supportive zoning regulations for compact development along BRT corridors leading to the Downtown Core that will not diminish the long-term growth and development potential for Downtown.
Policy LU-5-f: High Density Residential Uses. Promote high-density residential uses to support Activity Centers and BRT Corridors, affordable housing and walkable access to transit stops.
Policy LU-6-d: Neighborhood and Community Commercial Center Design. Plan for neighborhood mixed use and community commercial uses to implement the Urban Form concepts of the General Plan, promote the stability and identity of neighborhood and community shopping areas, and allow efficient access without compromising the operational effectiveness of the street system.
• Neighborhoods will be anchored by community commercial centers with a mix of uses that meet the area’s needs and create a sense of place. • Community commercial centers will be located within Activity Centers.
Policy LU-6-f: Auto-Oriented Commercial Uses. Direct highway-oriented and auto-serving commercial uses to locations that are compatible with the Urban Form policies of the General Plan. Ensure adequate buffering measures for adjacent residential uses noise, glare, odors, and dust.
Policy LU-8-b: Access to Public Facilities. Ensure that major public facilities and institutions have adequate multi-modal access and can be easily reached by public transit.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RESILIENCY ELEMENT
Objective RC-4: In cooperation with other jurisdictions and agencies in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, take necessary actions to achieve and maintain compliance with State and federal air quality standards for criteria pollutants.
Policy RC-4-a: Support Regional Efforts. Support and lead, where appropriate, regional, State and federal programs and actions for the improvement of air quality, especially the SJVAPCD’ efforts to monitor and control air pollutants from both stationary and mobile
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan sources and implement Reasonably Available Control Measures in the Ozone Attainment Plan.
Policy RC-4-b: Conditions of Approval. Develop and incorporate air quality maintenance requirements, compatible with Air Quality Attainment and Maintenance Plans, as conditions of approval for General Plan amendments, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and development proposals.
Policy RC-4-c: Evaluate Impacts with Models. Continue to require the use of computer models used by SJVAPCD to evaluate the air quality impacts of plans and projects that require such environmental review by the City.
Policy RC-4-d: Forward Information. Forward information regarding proposed General Plan amendments, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and development proposals that require air quality evaluation, and amendments to development regulations to the SJVAPCD for their review of potential air quality and health impacts.
Policy RC-4-e: Support Employer-Based Efforts. Support and promote employer implementation of staggered work hours and employee incentives to use carpools, public transit and other measures to reduce vehicular use and traffic congestion.
Policy RC-4-f: Municipal Operations and Fleet Actions. Continue to control and reduce air pollution emissions from vehicles owned by the City operations and municipal operations and facilities by undertaking the following:
• Expand the use of alternative fuel, electric, and hybrid vehicles in City fleets. • Create preventive maintenance schedules that will ensure efficient engine operation.
• Include air conditioning recycling and charging stations in the City vehicle maintenance facilities, to reduce freon gases being released into the atmosphere and electrostatic filtering systems in City maintenance shops, when feasible or when required by health regulations.
• Use satellite corporation yards for decentralized storage and vehicle maintenance. • Convert City-owned emergency backup generators to natural gas fuels whenever possible, and
• Create an advanced energy storage system.
Policy RC-4-g: FAX Actions. Continue efforts to improve Fresno Area Express (FAX) bus transit system technical performance, reduce emission levels, streamline system operations, and implement BRT where supportive land uses are proposed by Figure LU-1:
Land Use Diagram.
Policy RC-4-h: Airport Actions. Support Airport efforts to develop and maintain programs and policies to support City, State and Federal efforts to achieve and maintain air quality standards.
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-27 Policy RC-4-j: All Departments. Continue to develop and implement in all City departments, operational policies to reduce air pollution.
Policy RC-4-k: Electric Charging. Develop standards to facilitate electric charging infrastructure in both new and existing public and private buildings, in order to accommodate these vehicles as the technology becomes widespread.
Policy RC-8-j: Alternative Fuel Network. Support the development of a network of integrated charging and alternate fuel station for both public and private vehicles, and if feasible, open up municipal stations to the public as part of network development.
HEALTHY COMMUNITIES ELEMENT
Objective HC-3: Create healthy, safe, and affordable housing.
Policy HC-3-d: Green Standards for Affordable Housing. Provide appropriate incentives for affordable housing providers, agencies, non-profit and market rate developers to use LEED and CalGreen Tier 1 or Tier 2 standards or third party equivalents.
Policy HC-3-f: New Drive-Through Facilities. Include in the Development Code design review to reduce vehicle emissions resulting from queued idling vehicles at drive-through facilities in proximity to residential neighborhoods.
MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Objective MT-1: Create and maintain a transportation system that is safe, efficient, provides access in an equitable manner, and optimizes travel by all modes.
Policy MT-1-f: Match Travel Demand with Transportation Facilities. Designate the types and intensities of land uses at locations such that related travel demands can be accommodated by a variety of viable transportation modes and support Complete Neighborhoods while avoiding the rerouting of excessive or incompatible traffic through local residential streets.
Policy MT-1-g: Complete Streets Concept Implementation. Provide transportation facilities based upon a Complete Streets concept that facilitates the balanced use of all viable travel modes (pedestrians, bicyclists, motor vehicle and transit users), meeting the transportation needs of all ages, income groups, and abilities and providing mobility for a variety of trip purposes, while also supporting other City goals.
Policy MT-1-m: Standards for Planned Bus Rapid Transit Corridors and Activity Centers.
Independent of the Traffic Impact Zones identified in MT-2-I and Figure MT-4, strive to maintain the following vehicle LOS standards on major roadway segments and intersections along Bus Rapid Transit Corridors and in Activity Centers:
• LOS E or better at all times, including peak travel times, unless the City Traffic Engineer determines that mitigation to maintain this LOS would be infeasible and/or conflict with the achievement of other General Plan policies.
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Accept LOS F conditions in Activity Centers and Bus Rapid Transit Corridors only if provisions are made to improve the overall system and/or promote non-vehicular transportation and transit as part of a development project or a City-initiated project.
In accepting LOS F conditions, the City Traffic Engineer may request limited analyses of operational issues at locations near Activity Centers and along Bus Rapid Transit Corridors, such as queuing or left-turn movements.
• Give priority to maintaining pedestrian service first, followed by transit service and then by vehicle LOS, where conflicts between objectives for service capacity between different transportation modes occur.
• Identify pedestrian-priority and transit-priority streets where these modes would have priority in order to apply a multi-modal priority system, as part of the General Plan implementation.
Policy MT-2-b: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and Trips. Partner with major employers and other responsible agencies, such the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and the Fresno Council of Governments, to implement trip reduction strategies, such as eTRIP, to reduce total vehicle miles traveled and the total number of daily and peak hour vehicle trips, thereby making better use of the existing transportation system.
Policy MT-2-c: Reduce VMT through Infill Development. Provide incentives for infill development that would provide jobs and services closer to housing and multi-modal transportations corridors in order to reduce citywide vehicle miles travelled (VMT).
Policy MT-2-g: Transportation Demand Management and Transportation System Management. Pursue implementation of Transportation Demand Management and Transportation System Management strategies to reduce peak hour vehicle traffic and supplement the capacity of the transportation system.
Objective MT-4: Establish and maintain a continuous, safe, and easily accessible bikeways system throughout the metropolitan area to reduce vehicle use, improve air quality and the quality of life, and provide public health benefits.
Policy MT-4-b: Bikeway Improvements. Establish and implement property development standards to assure that projects adjacent to designated bikeways provide adequate rightof-way and that necessary improvements are constructed to implement the planned bikeway system shown on Figure MT-2 to provide for bikeways, to the extent feasible, when existing roadways are reconstructed; and alternative bikeway alignments or routes where inadequate right-of-way is available.
Policy MT-4-d: Prioritization of Bikeway Improvements. Prioritize bikeway components that link existing separated sections of the system, or that are likely to serve the highest concentration of existing or potential cyclists, particularly in those neighborhoods with low vehicle ownership rates, or that are likely to serve destination areas with the highest demand such as schools, shopping areas, recreational and park areas, and employment centers.
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-29 Policy MT-5-a: Sidewalk Development. Pursue funding and implement standards for development of sidewalks on public streets, with priority given to meeting the needs of persons with physical and vision limitations; providing safe routes to school; completing pedestrian improvements in established neighborhoods with lower vehicle ownership rates; or providing pedestrian access to public transportation routes.
Policy MT-5-b: Sidewalk Requirements. Assure adequate access for pedestrians and people with disabilities in new residential developments per adopted City policies, consistent with the California Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Policy MT-8-c: New Development Facilitating Transit. Continue to review development proposals in transportation corridors to ensure they are designed to facilitate transit.
Coordinate all projects that have residential or employment densities suitable for transit services, so they are located along existing or planned transit corridors or that otherwise have the potential for transit orientation to FAX, and consider FAX’s comments in decisionmaking.
City of Fresno GHG Reduction Plan
The City of Fresno adopted its first GHG Reduction Plan (GHG Plan) in December 2014. The GHG Plan established a target of reducing per capita GHG emissions in the city by 21.7 percent below 2020 business-as-usual (BAU) levels by 2020 and includes GHG reduction measures designed to achieve the reduction target. The GHG Plan is considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5.2.
It should be noted that, since adoption of the GHG Plan, two significant regulations/decisions have been established. First, on September 28, 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 32 into law that sets a Statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
Additionally, on November 30, 2015, the California Supreme Court published its decision on the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan invalidating the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a variety of reasons, including the use of 29 percent below business-as-usual (BAU) as a threshold to determine significance of GHG emissions under CEQA without any supporting evidence.
The City of Fresno recently released an updated version of the GHG Plan (the GHG Plan Update) for public comment along with the City’s Recirculated Draft General Plan Program (PEIR), to ensure conformity with the mandates of California Supreme Court in the Newhall Ranch case and the State of California’s latest GHG regulations. The final version of the GHG Plan Update was adopted on September 30, 2021.
The GHG Plan Update re-evaluatesthe City’s GHG reduction targets and existing reduction strategies from the 2014 GHG Plan. New goals and supporting measures are proposed to reflect and ensure compliance with changes in the local and State policies and regulations such as SB 32 and California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. The City’s GHG inventory, based on the most recent data available for the year 2016 is evaluated and the future growth in emissions for the BAU and adjusted BAU (ABAU) scenarios (the ABAU scenario takes into account the State policies) for the years 2020, 2030, and 2035 are projected. The 2020 and 2030 forecast years in the GHG Plan Update are
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan consistent with the goals identified in Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and SB 32, which identify Statewide GHG reduction targets by 2020 and 2030. The 2035 forecast year correspond to the City’s General Plan horizon year and will allow the City to develop long-term strategies to continue GHG reductions.
The GHG inventory for the City of Fresno in the updated GHG Plan is summarized in Table 3.7-1.
Table 3.7-2 provides the City’s Adjusted Business-as-Usual (ABAU) Emissions forecast, and Table 3.7- 3 provides the State-Aligned GHG Emissions Reduction Targets by Year.
TABLE 3.7-1: CITY OF FRESNO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR 2016 AND BUSINESS-AS-USUAL (BAU) PROJECTIONS
EMISSIONS SECTOR 2016 2020 2030 2035
Transportation 1,520,052 1,594,888 1,798,498 1,909,852
Commercial Energy 524,838 557,142 627,373 657,379
Residential Energy 479,371 514,053 579,546 603,951
Fugitive Emissions 270,130 288,573 335,316 357,008
Solid Waste 119,167 127,303 147,923 157,493
Industrial Energy 10,055 10,506 11,528 12,035
Agriculture Energy 20 20 20 20
Total 2,923,633 3,092,486 3,500,204 3,697,738
NOTE: TOTALS MAY NOT ADD UP DUE TO ROUNDING.
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, 2021
TABLE 3.7-2: CITY OF FRESNO ADJUSTED BUSINESS-AS-USUAL (ABAU) GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS SECTOR 2016 2020 2030 2035
Transportation 1,520,052 1,170,329 1,131,034 1,072,955
Commercial Energy 524,838 355,121 290,950 255,226
Residential Energy 479,371 324,760 190,210 124,904
Fugitive Emissions 270,130 144,287 167,658 178,504
Solid Waste 119,167 127,303 147,923 157,493
Industrial Energy 10,055 10,506 11,528 12,035
Agriculture Energy 20 20 20 20
Total 2,923,633 2,132,326 1,939,325 1,801,137
NOTE: TOTALS MAY NOT ADD UP DUE TO ROUNDING.
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, 2021
TABLE 3.7-3: CITY OF FRESNO STATE-ALIGNED GHG EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETS BY YEAR EMISSIONS SECTOR 2016 2020 2030 2035
BAU Emissions (MT CO2e) 2,923,633 3,092,486 3,500,204 3,697,738 Adjusted BAU Emissions (MT CO2e) 2,923,633 2,132,326 1,939,325 1,801,137 State-Aligned Target
(Percent change from 1990) - 0 -40 -50
State-Aligned Target
(Percent change from 2010) - -15 -49 -58
State-Aligned Emissions Goal (MT CO2e) - 3,183,348 1,910,009 1,591,674 Reductions from Adjusted BAU needed to
meet the State-Aligned Target (MT CO2e) - Target Met 29,316 209,463 NOTE: TOTALS MAY NOT ADD UP DUE TO ROUNDING.
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, 2021
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-31
3.7.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, climate change-related impacts are considered significant if implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would do any of the following:
• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The vast majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a projectspecific impact through a direct influence to climate change; therefore, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355).
For future projects, the significance of GHG emissions may be evaluated based on locally adopted quantitative thresholds, or consistency with a regional GHG reduction plan (such as a Climate Action Plan).
The City of Fresno developed its first GHG Plan in 2014. More recently, the City of Fresno released an updated version of the GHG Plan (the GHG Plan Update) for public comment along with the City’s Recirculated Draft General Plan EIR. The GHG Plan Update was adopted on September 30, 2021. This document will ensure conformity with the mandates of California Supreme Court in the Newhall Ranch case and the State of California’s latest GHG regulations. The GHG Plan Update re-evaluates the City’s GHG reduction targets and existing reduction strategies from the 2014 GHG Plan. The City’s GHG inventory, based on the most recent data available for the year 2016 is evaluated and the future growth in emissions for the BAU and adjusted BAU (ABAU) scenarios (the ABAU scenario takes into account the State policies) for the years 2020, 2030, and 2035 are projected. The 2020 and 2030 forecast years are consistent with the goals identified in Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and SB 32, which identify Statewide GHG reduction targets by 2020 and 2030. The 2035 forecast year corresponds to the City’s General Plan horizon year and will allow the City to develop long-term strategies to continue GHG reductions. Therefore, the proposed project is evaluated in comparison with the existing GHG Plan as well as with the forthcoming GHG Plan Update (where applicable).
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE (ENERGY CONSERVATION)
Consistent with Appendices F and G of the CEQA Guidelines, energy-related impacts are considered significant if implementation of the Specific Plan would do the following:
• Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. • Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan In order to determine whether or not the proposed Specific Plan would result in a significant impact on energy use, this EIR includes an analysis of proposed Specific Plan energy use, as provided under Impacts and Mitigation Measures below.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.7-1: Specific Plan implementation could generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. A project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale relative to global emissions, but could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact. Implementation of the project would contribute to increases of GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of CO2 and other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), from mobile sources and utility usage.
The short-term construction-related and long-term operational GHG emissions associated with future buildout of the Plan Area allowed under the proposed Specific Plan were estimated using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)TM (v.2016.3.2). CalEEMod is a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify GHG emissions from land use projects. The model quantifies direct GHG emissions from construction and operation (including vehicle use), as well as indirect GHG emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. Emissions are expressed in annual metric tons of CO2 equivalent units of measure (i.e., MT CO2e), based on the global warming potential of the individual pollutants.
SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Estimated unmitigated GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed project are summarized in Table 3.7-4. These emissions include all worker vehicle, vendor vehicle, hauler vehicle, and off-road construction vehicle GHG emissions. For the purposes of this analysis, based on the anticipated buildout year, the proposed project is assumed to commence construction in 2021 and finish in 2035. It should be noted that this schedule is an approximation and may change over time. A regularized construction schedule was utilized for modelling purposes for the sake of simplicity.
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-33 TABLE 3.7-4: CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS (UNMITIGATED AVERAGE MT CO2E/YEAR) YEAR BIO- CO2 NON-BIO- CO2 TOTAL CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E
2020 0 101,058 101,058 9 0 101,272
2021 0 143,582 143,582 12 0 144,053
2022 0 150,529 150,529 12 0 150,819
2023 0 145,922 145,922 8 0 146,126
2024 0 143,930 143,930 8 0 144,133
2025 0 140,375 140,375 8 0 140,576
2026 0 138,019 138,019 8 0 138,218
2027 0 135,633 135,633 8 0 135,829
2028 0 133,051 133,051 8 0 133,243
2029 0 131,733 131,733 8 0 131,922
2030 0 130,187 130,187 7 0 130,371
2031 0 128,822 128,822 7 0 129,003
2032 0 128,168 128,168 7 0 128,348
2033 0 126,226 126,226 7 0 126,401
2034 0 125,418 125,418 7 0 125,591
2035 0 8,077 8,077 0 0 8,080
SOURCES: CALEEMOD (V.2016.3.2)
OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Estimated GHG emissions associated with the proposed project is summarized in Table 3.7-5, below.
TABLE 3.7-5: OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS (UNMITIGATED METRIC TONS/YEAR) CATEGORY BIO-CO2 NBIO-CO2 TOTAL CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E
Area 0 53,549 53,549 2 1 53,877
Energy 0 365,420 365,420 14 4 367,057
Mobile 0 1,536,405 1,536,405 112 0 1,539,212
Waste 23,325 0 23,325 1,378 0 57,787
Water 2,846 20,087 22,933 293 7 32,377
Total 26,171 1,975,461 2,001,632 1,799 12 2,050,310
SOURCES: CALEEMOD (V.2016.3.2)
The significance thresholds for GHG emissions should be related to compliance with AB 32 and SB 32, and the City of Fresno, as lead agency, has chosen to evaluate the project’s conformity with the City’s f GHG Reduction Plan Update to determine consistency with this CEQA impact. The rationale for using this threshold is outlined in the previous subsection, entitled “Thresholds of Significance”.
As stated under the previous subsection, entitled “Thresholds of Significance”, the GHG Plan is considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5.2. The GHG Plan Update is also considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5.2. Project consistency with the GHG Plan Update ensures conformity with the mandates of California Supreme Court in the Newhall Ranch case and the State of California’s latest GHG regulations.
The GHG Plan Update re-evaluates the City’s GHG reduction targets and existing reduction strategies from the 2014 GHG Plan. New goals and supporting measures are included to reflect and ensure compliance with changes in the local and State policies and regulations such as SB 32 and California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. The City’s GHG inventory, based on the most recent data available for the year 2016 is evaluated and the future growth in emissions for the BAU and adjusted BAU (ABAU) scenarios (the ABAU scenario takes into account the State policies) for the years 2020,
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2030, and 2035 are projected. The 2020 and 2030 forecast years are consistent with the goals identified in Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and SB 32, which identify Statewide GHG reduction targets by 2020 and 2030. The 2035 forecast year correspond to the City’s General Plan horizon year and will allow the City to develop long-term strategies to continue GHG reductions.
This GHG Plan Update provides a description of General Plan policies that support a reduction in GHGs from all sources within the City’s ability to control or influence. These strategies enhance the effectiveness of State strategies by ensuring that the city is developed in ways that minimize emissions. In order to reach the long-term reduction targets, the City would also need to implement local reduction measures. These measures encourage Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reductions through mixed use and infill development, transportation demand management, development and penetration of electric vehicles (EVs), energy efficiency enhancement and conservation, water conservation, and increased waste diversion and recycling strategies. Public education and outreach would play a crucial role in educating stakeholders about the importance of implementing these measures.
Analysis of GHG emissions and potential climate change impacts for new development is required under CEQA. The GHG Plan Update provides strategies and guidelines for the reduction of GHG emissions in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. A GHG Reduction Plan Consistency Checklist (Checklist) is presented to provide a streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
Finally, the GHG Plan Update in itself is not enough to meet the reduction goals without a commitment to implementation and recurring monitoring. The GHG Plan Update identifies the process for implementing and monitoring the GHG reduction strategies. Through successful implementation of this GHG Plan Update, the City will demonstrate the potential economic, social, and environmental benefits of reducing GHG emissions and providing environmental stewardship within the community.
CONCLUSION
Short-term construction GHG emissions are a one-time release of GHGs and are not expected to significantly contribute to global climate change. Additionally, the implementation of the mitigation measures presented in Section 3.2: Air Quality of this EIR would further reduce the overall annual GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. Lastly, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The project would be consistent with the current version of the City GHG Reduction Plan, which is considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5, thereby allowing for streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Moreover, the project would be required to be consistent with the adopted version of the GHG Plan Update, including with GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-35 its Project Consistency Checklist, as described by Mitigation Measure 3.7-1, below. The GHG Plan Update would also be considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5.
Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7-1, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, directly and indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment. The mitigation measure below would reduce this impact to less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: Prior to the City’s approval of the project (i.e. the Specific Plan) as well as individual development projects within the Specific Plan Area, the Director of the City Planning and Development Department, or designee, shall confirm that the Specific Plan and each individual development project is consistent with the 2021 GHG Reduction Plan Update, and shall implement all measures deemed applicable to the Specific Plan and each individual development project through the GHG Reduction Plan Update-Project Consistency Checklist (Appendix B of the GHG Reduction Plan Update).
Impact 3.7-2: Specific Plan implementation would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources, or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Less than Significant)
The CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of the potentially significant energy implications of a project. CEQA requires mitigation measures to reduce “wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary” energy usage (Public Resources Code Section 21100, subdivision [b][3]). According to the CEQA Guidelines, the means to achieve the goal of conserving energy include decreasing overall energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In particular, the proposed project would be considered “wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary” if it were to violate State and federal energy standards and/or result in significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy inefficiencies, energy intensiveness of materials, cause significant impacts on local and regional energy supplies or generate requirements for additional capacity, fail to comply with existing energy standards, otherwise result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources, or conflict or create an inconsistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation.
The proposed project is a large-scale Specific Plan, and incorporates residential, commercial, public/institutional, and open space uses. The amount of energy used by the proposed project during operation would directly correlate with the number, size, and type of project buildings, the energy efficiency of associated building equipment and appliances, and outdoor lighting, and energy use associated with other on-site buildings and activities. Other project energy uses include fuel used by vehicle trips generated during project construction and operation, fuel used by off-road construction vehicles during construction activities, and fuel used by project maintenance activities during project operation. The following discussion provides a detailed calculation of energy usage expected for the proposed project, for the unmitigated and mitigated scenarios, as provided by
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan applicable modelling software (i.e. CalEEMod v2016.3.2 and the CARB EMFAC2017). Additional assumptions and calculations are provided within Appendix B of this EIR.
ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS
Electricity and natural gas used by the proposed project would be used primarily to generate energy for on-site buildings, lighting, and water pumping, treatment, and conveyance. As shown in the following tables, “Energy” is one of the categories that was modeled for GHG emissions. The total unmitigated and mitigated GHG emissions generated from the “Energy” category in buildout year 2035 is 367,057 MT CO2e. The following discussion includes a more detailed breakdown of energy consumption in terms of natural gas and electricity consumption. The proposed project would consider effective ways to encourage alternative energy use throughout the Specific Plan Area, as described by mitigation measure provided in Section 3.2: Air Quality of this EIR.
Natural Gas: Unmitigated natural gas energy consumption for Year 2035 is estimated to be 1,904,254,144 kBTU (as provided by the CalEEMod results). See Appendix B of this EIR for further detail.
Electricity: Unmitigated electricity energy consumption for Year 2035 is estimated to be 907,952,145 kWh (as provided by the CalEEMod results). See Appendix B of this EIR for further detail.
ON-ROAD VEHICLES (OPERATION)
The proposed project would generate vehicle trips during its operational phase. A description of project operational on-road mobile energy usage is provided below.
According to the VMT Analysis prepared for the proposed project (Kittelson & Associates, 2020), and as described in more detail in Section 3.14: Transportation and Circulation of this EIR, the project would generate approximately 991,667 ADT. In order to calculate operational on-road vehicle energy usage and emissions, De Novo Planning Group used fleet mix data from the CalEEMod (v2016.3.2) output for the proposed project, Year 2035 gasoline and diesel MPG (miles per gallon) factors for individual vehicle classes as provided by EMFAC2017, weighted average MPG factors for gasoline and diesel were derived. Therefore, upon full buildout, the proposed project would generate operational vehicle trips that would use a total of approximately 75,063,072 gallons of gasoline and 25,808,784 gallons of diesel per day, or 27,398,021,200 gallons of gasoline and 9,420,206,008 gallons of diesel per year.
ON-ROAD VEHICLES (CONSTRUCTION)
The proposed project would also generate on-road vehicle trips during project construction (from construction workers and vendors travelling to and from the Plan Area). De Novo Planning Group estimated the vehicle fuel consumed during these trips based the assumed construction schedule, vehicle trip lengths and number of workers per construction phase as provided by CalEEMod, and Year 2035 gasoline and diesel MPG factors provided by EMFAC2017 (year 2035 factors were used to represent the buildout year). For the sake of simplicity, it was assumed that all construction worker GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-37 light duty passenger cars and truck trips use gasoline as a fuel source, and all medium and heavyduty vendor trucks use diesel fuel). Table 3.7-6 describes gasoline and diesel fuel consumed during each construction phase (in aggregate).
As shown, the vast majority of on-road mobile vehicle fuel used during the construction of the proposed project would occur during the building construction phase. There is no feasible mitigation available that would reduce on-road mobile vehicle GHG emissions generated by the project construction activities (requiring the use of electric construction vehicles was deemed infeasible, given price and availability concerns). The Plan Area is relatively flat, so no hauling was assumed for grading. Additionally, hauling for demolition activities were assumed to be minimal. See Appendix B of this EIR for a detailed accounting of construction on-road vehicle fuel usage estimates.
TABLE 3.7-6: ON-ROAD MOBILE FUEL GENERATED BY PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES – BY PHASE
CONSTRUCTION
PHASE
# OF
DAYS
TOTAL DAILY
WORKER
TRIPS(A)
TOTAL DAILY
VENDOR
TRIPS(A)
TOTAL HAULER
WORKER
TRIPS(A)
TOTAL GALLONS OF
GASOLINE FUEL(B)
TOTAL GALLONS OF
DIESEL FUEL(B)
Demolition 20 15 0 0 89 123,433
Site Preparation 65 18 0 0 455 0
Grading 65 20 0 0 505 0
Underground
Utilities 65 30 0 0 525 0
Paving 85 6 0 0 495 0
Building
Construction 3,833 65,164 24,601 0 4,853,381 6,397,974
Architectural
Coating 3,656 13,033 0 0 925,867 0
Total 7,789 N/A N/A N/A 5,781,317 6,521,407
NOTE:
(A) PROVIDED BY CALEEMOD OUTPUT.(B)
SEE APPENDIX B OF THIS EIR FOR FURTHER DETAIL
SOURCE: CALEEMOD (V.2016.3.2); EMFAC2017.
OFF-ROAD VEHICLES (CONSTRUCTION)
Off-road construction vehicles would use diesel fuel during the construction phase of the proposed project. A non-exhaustive list of off-road constructive vehicles expected to be used during the construction phase of the proposed project includes: forklifts, generator sets, tractors, excavators, and dozers. Based on the total amount of CO2 emissions expected to be generated by the proposed project (as provided by the CalEEMod output), and standard conversion factors (as provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration), the proposed project would use a total of approximately 31,752 gallons of diesel fuel for off-road construction vehicles. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix B of this EIR.
OTHER
The proposed project could also use other sources of energy not identified here. Examples of other energy sources include alternative and/or renewable energy (such as solar PV) and/or on-site
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan stationary sources (such as on-site diesel generators) for electricity generation. However, these sources of energy are not planned at this time.
CONCLUSION
The proposed project would use energy resources for the operation of project buildings (electricity and natural gas), for on-road vehicle trips (e.g. gasoline and diesel fuel) generated by the proposed project, and from off-road construction activities associated with the proposed project (e.g. diesel fuel). Each of these activities would require the use of energy resources. The proposed project would be responsible for conserving energy, to the extent feasible, and relies heavily on reducing per capita energy consumption to achieve this goal, including through statewide and local measures.
The proposed project would be in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. For example, PG&E, the electric and natural gas provider to the proposed project, is responsible for the mix of energy resources used to provide electricity for its customers, and it is in the process of implementing the statewide RPS to increase the proportion of renewable energy (e.g. solar and wind) within its energy portfolio. PG&E has achieved more than a 33% mix of renewable energy resources by 2020, and is required to achieve a 60% mix of renewable energy resources by 2030. Additionally, energy-saving regulations, including the latest State Title 24 building energy efficiency standards (“part 6”), would be applicable to the proposed project. These regulations would require the proposed project buildings to achieve a high level of energy efficiency.
For example, part 6 of the latest Title 24 building energy efficiency standards would require improvements for attics, walls, water heating, and lighting, as compared with the previous version of these standards. Other statewide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy-duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g. the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard), would improve vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time.
Furthermore, as described previously, the implementation of the mitigation measures provided in Section 3.2: Air Quality of this Draft EIR would reduce project energy usage (including from electricity, natural gas, and on-road vehicle gasoline and diesel sources). Overall, the incorporation of mitigation measures would ensure that the proposed project would avoid and reduce inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. The proposed project would comply with all existing energy standards, including those established by the City of Fresno, the Air District (i.e.
SJVAPCD) and the State of California, and would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources. For these reasons, the proposed project would not cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources nor cause a significant impact on any of the threshold as described by the CEQA Guidelines. This is a less than significant impact.
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-39 Impact 3.7-3: Specific Plan implementation would not generate a cumulative impact on climate change from increased project-related greenhouse gas emissions. (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
As the California Supreme Court has emphasized, all CEQA analyses of the environmental effects of GHG emissions are inherently cumulative in character. “[B]ecause of the global scale of climate change, any one project's contribution is unlikely to be significant by itself. With respect to climate change, an individual project's emissions will most likely not have any appreciable impact on the global problem by itself, but they will contribute to the significant cumulative impact caused by greenhouse gas emissions from other sources around the globe. The question therefore becomes whether the project's incremental addition of greenhouse gases is ‘cumulatively considerable’ in light of the global problem, and thus significant.’” (Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 219, quoting (Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under CEQA: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (July 2011) 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J. 203, 207–208.) Thus, the analysis below considers the entire planet as a backdrop while focusing on whether the proposed project’s incremental contribution to worldwide GHG emissions is cumulatively considerable.
In California, there has been extensive legislation passed with the goal of reducing GHG emissions.
The legislative goals are as follows: 1) 1990 levels by 2020 and 2) 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.
An additional goal -- 80% below the 1990 levels by the year 2050 – was set by Governor Schwarzenegger through Executive Order S-03-05. An even more ambitious goal of achieving carbon neutrality “as soon as possible, and no later than 2045,” was set by Governor Brown through Executive Order B-55-18. To achieve these legislative and executive goals, the CARB has developed regional GHG emission reduction targets for the automobile and light truck sectors (the largest single source of GHG emissions) for 2020 and 2040. The regional GHG emission reduction targets for each region in California were established by the CARB.
As described in Impact 3.7-2, implementation of the Specific Plan is consistent with the current version of the City GHG Reduction Plan, which is considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5. Additionally, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.7-1, the City will be required to demonstrate that Specific Plan is consistent with the 2021 GHG Plan Update , thereby allowing for streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, directly and indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment. Moreover, the Specific Plan incorporates goals and policies that emphasize compact, walkable communities, and where incorporated into the design of the proposed project, would help minimize GHG emissions generated by the proposed project. Further, the proposed project would be required to implement mitigation measures that are intended to reduce GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The State of California continues to implement measures that are intended to reduce emissions on a State-wide scale (i.e. vehicle fuel efficiency standards in fleets, low carbon fuels, etc.) that are consistent with AB 32 and SB 32. These types of statewide measures will benefit the proposed project (and city as a whole) in the long-term
3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
3.7-40 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan as they come into effect; however, the City does not have the jurisdiction to create far-reaching (i.e. statewide) measures to reduce GHG emissions. On a project-by-project case, the City of Fresno evaluates a project and the potential to impose project-specific mitigation, which has been done through this GHG analysis. For these reasons, implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable contribution impact to GHGs.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-1 This section describes the physical setting, hazards assessment, hazardous material sites, fire hazards, regulatory setting, and impacts that are expected related to hazards and hazardous materials. This section is based in part on the following documents, reports, and studies:
• Cortese List Data Resources (Cal EPA, 2019);
• Draft Master Environmental Impact Report General Plan and Development Code Update, City of Fresno, Fresno County, California (City of Fresno, 2014); • Fresno General Plan Public Review Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (City of Fresno, 2020);
• Envirostor Data Management System (California DTSC, 2019); • Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission, 2018).
• Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• Fresno Municipal Code (City of Fresno, 2007);
• GeoTracker (California State Water Resources Board, 2019); and • Web Soil Survey (NRCS, 2019).
One comment was received during the public review period for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from Cathy Caples (August 2019). The portion of this comment letter which relates to this topic is addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.
3.8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PHYSICAL SETTING
Project Location
The Plan Area is triangular in shape and located west of State Route 99. It is bounded on the south by West Clinton Avenue, and to the west by Grantland and Garfield Avenues. The Plan Area includes the southwest portion of Highway City adjacent to State Route 99. See Figure 2.0-1 for the regional location map and Figure 2.0-2 for the Plan Area vicinity map. Figures 2.0-1 and 2.0-2 found in Section
2.0 illustrate the regional location and vicinity map.
Existing Site Uses
Large portions of the Plan Area are improved with existing residential, public facilities, commercial, mixed use, undeveloped rural land, and agricultural uses. These uses are spread throughout the entire Plan Area. Agricultural uses are primarily located in the western portion of the Plan Area. The developed uses are aggregated in the central and eastern portions of the Plan Area.
A portion of the Plan Area is located within the City of Fresno City limits, and a portion is within unincorporated Fresno County (within the City’s Sphere of Influence [SOI]). The City of Fresno General Plan designates the existing Plan Area as: Low Density Residential, Medium Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Urban Neighborhood Residential, High Density Residential, Community Commercial, General Commercial, Recreation Commercial, Office, Business Park, Light
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.8-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Industrial, Corridor/Center Mixed Use, Regional Mixed Use, Community Park, Open Space – Ponding Basin, Neighborhood Park, Open Space, Public/Quasi-Public Facility, Special School, Elementary School, Elementary, Middle & High School, and High School. See Figure 2.0-4 for the existing City General Plan land use designations.
Existing Surrounding Uses
Existing surrounding land uses include State Route 99; the historic communities of Herndon and Highway City; incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the northeast; incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the east (including mostly industrial uses); unincorporated Fresno County and incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the south (including farmland uses, rural residential uses, low density residential uses, and underutilized parcels); and unincorporated Fresno County to the west (including farmland and rural residential uses).
Site Topography
The Plan Area is relatively flat with natural gentle slope near State Route 99. The Plan Area topography ranges in elevation from approximately 283 to 315 feet above mean sea level. A large amount of land in the Plan Area is farmland or rural residential lots with large, uneven, and underutilized parcels.
Site Soils
A Web Soil Survey was completed for the Plan Area using the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey program. The NRCS Soils Map is provided in Figure 3.8-1. Table 3.8- 1 identifies the type and range of soils found in the Plan Area.
TABLE 3.8-1: PLAN AREA SOILS
NAME ACRES IN PLAN AREA PERCENT OF PLAN AREA
Exeter loam 215.7 3.1%
Exeter sandy loam 1,227.6 17.5%
Exeter sandy loam, shallow 150.2 2.1%
Hanford gravelly sandy loam 15.0 0.2%
Hanford sandy loam, benches 17.3 0.2%
Hesperia fine sandy loam, moderately deep 1.7 0.0%
Pollasky fine sandy loam, 2-9% slopes 2.6 0.0%
Pollasky sandy loam, 9-15% slopes 5.3 0.1%
San Joaquin loam, 0-3% slopes 213.4 3.0%
San Joaquin loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes 757.6 10.8%
San Joaquin sandy loam, 0-3% slopes, MLRA 17 1,523.4 21.7% San Joaquin sandy loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes 2,872.8 41.0% Water 12.1 0.2%
SOURCE: NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY, 2019.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-3
HAZARDS ASSESSMENT
For the purposes of this EIR, “hazardous material” is defined as provided in California Health & Safety Code, Section 25501:
• Any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. “Hazardous materials” include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.
“Hazardous waste” is a subset of hazardous materials. For the purposes of this EIR, the definition of hazardous waste is essentially the same as that in the California Health & Safety Code, Section 25517, and in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Section 66261.2:
• Hazardous wastes are wastes that, because of their quantity, concentration, physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.
CCR Title 22 categorizes hazardous waste into hazard classes according to specific characteristics of ignitibility, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. Hazardous waste with any of these characteristics is also known as a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste.
Hazardous materials can be categorized as hazardous non-radioactive chemical materials, radioactive materials, toxic materials, and biohazardous materials. The previous definitions are adequate for non-radioactive hazardous chemicals. Radioactive and biohazardous materials are further defined as follows:
• Radioactive materials contain atoms with unstable nuclei that spontaneously emit ionizing radiation to increase their stability.
• Radioactive wastes are radioactive materials that are discarded (including wastes in storage) or abandoned.
• Toxic wastes are harmful or fatal when ingested or absorbed (e.g., containing mercury, lead). When toxic wastes are land disposed, contaminated liquid may leach from the waste and pollute groundwater.
• Biohazardous materials include materials containing certain infectious agents (microorganisms, bacteria, molds, parasites, and viruses) that cause or significantly contribute to increased human mortality or organisms capable of being communicated by invading and multiplying in body tissues.
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.8-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Medical wastes include both biohazardous wastes (byproducts of biohazardous materials) and sharps (devices capable of cutting or piercing, such as hypodermic needles, razor blades, and broken glass) resulting from the diagnosis, treatment, or immunization of human beings, or research pertaining to these activities.
There are several categories of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes that could be found on any given property based on past uses. Some common examples include agrichemicals (chlorinated herbicides, organophosphate pesticides, and organochlorine pesticides, such as such as Mecoprop (MCPP), Dinoseb, chlordane, dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and dichloro-diphenyldichloroethylene (DDE)), petroleum based products (oil, gasoline, diesel fuel), a variety of chemicals including paints, cleaners, and solvents, and asbestos-containing or lead-containing materials (e.g., paint, sealants, pipe solder).
“Recognized Environmental Conditions” is one of the terms used to identify environmental liability within the context of a Phase I Environmental Sites Assessment (ESA). The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) defines the recognized environmental condition in the E1527-13 standard as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.” Adjoining Properties
The Plan Area is bounded on the north and east by Highway 99, to the south by West Clinton Avenue, and to the west by Grantland and Garfield Avenues.
Historical Use Information
Historical information was reviewed to develop a history of the previous uses within the Plan Area and surrounding area, in order to evaluate the Plan Area and adjoining properties for evidence of environmental concerns. Standard historical sources reviewed during the preparation of this report included the following, as available:
ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS AND DATABASES
De Novo Planning Group performed a search of local, state, and federal agency databases for the Plan Area and known contaminated sites in the vicinity.
The USEPA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) does not list data on disposal or other releases of toxic chemicals in the Plan Area (USEPA, 2017). The nearest TRI site is located east of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, along North Brawley Avenue.