Exhibit R Resolution Certifying the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan EIR — Fresno City Council, October 13, 2022 (part 4 of 8)

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

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

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

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

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

Groundwater Basin Description: The City’s wells are located within the northern part of the Kings Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The following section describes the Kings Subbasin, including its water-bearing formations, water levels, and water quality. Much of the following information has been incorporated from the City’s 2020 UWMP. Except where noted, the description of the sub-basin is based largely on information provided in the 2016 DWR Bulletin 118 Interim Update, in which the groundwater basin description was last updated in December 2016.

UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-15 The Kings Subbasin is not adjudicated and there are no legal restrictions to groundwater pumping.

The Kings Subbasin is generally bounded: on the north by the San Joaquin River; on the west by the Fresno Slough; on the south by the Kings River and Cottonwood Creek; and on the east by the Sierra foothills. The upper several hundred feet within the Kings Subbasin generally consists of highly permeable, coarse-grained deposits, which are termed older alluvium. Coarse-grained stream channel deposits, associated with deposits by the ancestral San Joaquin and Kings Rivers, underlie much of the northwest portions of the City. Below the older alluvium to depths ranging from about 600 to 1,200 feet below ground surface, the finer-grained sediments of the Tertiary-Quaternary continental deposits are typically encountered. Substantial groundwater has been produced and utilized from these depths by the City; however, deeper deposits located in the southeastern and northern portions of the City have produced less groundwater. There are also reduced deposits in the northern and eastern portions of the City, at depths generally below 700 or 800 feet, which are associated with high concentrations of iron, manganese, arsenic, hydrogen sulfide, and methane gas. Groundwater at these depths does not generally provide a significant source for municipal supply wells. The City’s average groundwater depth in 2015 is approximately 130 feet below the ground surface.

Conditions of Overdraft: The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) directs DWR to identify groundwater basins and subbasins that are in conditions of critical overdraft. This designation is determined based upon the presence of "undesirable impacts" such as seawater intrusion, land subsidence, groundwater depletion, and chronic lowering of groundwater levels. Per DWR's current list of critically overdrafted basins, finalized in February 2019, the Kings Subbasin is designated as a critically overdrafted basin.

As part of the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program, DWR is required to prioritize California groundwater basins to help identify, evaluate, and determine the need for additional groundwater level monitoring. Per the current CASGEM draft prioritization, completed in April 2019, the Kings Subbasin is a high priority subbasin.

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

Groundwater Management: As part of a partnership of local municipal water purveyors, irrigation districts, a flood control district, and the overlying county, the Fresno Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan (FARGMP) was prepared in conformance with AB 3030 and SB 1938. The objectives of the FARGMP have been developed to monitor, protect, and sustain groundwater within the region. The City of Fresno and the other participating agencies subsequently adopted the groundwater management plan in 2006 (City of Fresno 2020 UWMP). The City of Fresno falls within the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NKGSA). The NKGSA prepared and submitted

3.15 UTILITIES

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

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

TABLE 3.15-5: CITY OF FRESNO HISTORICAL GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION

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

SOURCE: WEST YOST, 2022.

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

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

SOURCE: WEST YOST, 2022.

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

State

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

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

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

3.15 UTILITIES

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

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

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

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

3.15 UTILITIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.15 UTILITIES

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

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

In short, SGMA is landmark legislation that, for the first time in the history of California, requires comprehensive groundwater management, with the mandatory goal of bringing all currently overdrafted basins into sustainable conditions by no later than 2040 or 2042, with five-year increments of progress starting in 2025 and 2027.

As noted previously, the FARGMP was prepared in conformance with AB 3030 and SB 1938. The objectives of the FARGMP have been developed to monitor, protect, and sustain groundwater within the region. The City of Fresno and the other participating agencies subsequently adopted the groundwater management plan in 2006. The City of Fresno falls within the NKGSA. As a high priority basin, the Kings Subbasin must be managed under a GSP by January 31, 2020. The NKGSA finalized the GSP and submitted it to the California DWR on January 28, 2020, ahead of the January 31, 2020 mandate.

Local

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

Objective PU-8: Manage and develop the City’s water facilities on a strategic timeline basis that recognizes the long life cycle of the assets and the duration of the resources, to ensure a safe, economical, and reliable water supply for existing customers and planned urban development and economic diversification.

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

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

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

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

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

Policy PU-8-f: Water Quality. Continue to evaluate and implement measures determined to be appropriate and consistent with water system policies, including prioritizing the use of groundwater, installing wellhead treatment facilities, constructing above-ground storage and surface water treatment facilities, and enhancing transmission grid mains to promote adequate water quality and quantity.

Policy PU-8-g: Review Project Impact on Supply. Mitigate the effects of development and capital improvement projects on the long-range water budget to ensure an adequate water supply for current and future uses.

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

3.15 UTILITIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.15 UTILITIES

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE: WEST YOST, 2022.

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

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

3.15.3 STORMWATER

EXISTING SETTING
Storm Drain System
The FMFCD has primary responsibility for managing the local stormwater flows for the City, as well as a large area beyond the City’s boundaries. The City’s stormwater drains to urban stormwater basins, where it is retained for groundwater recharge or pumped to local irrigation canals owned by FID and then conveyed away from the municipal area.

Regionally, the City is protected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) Redbank-Fancher Creeks Flood Control Project. This project includes dams, detention basins, and levees designed to control upstream flood flows to approximately the 200-year storm event. Major facilities of this project include levee systems, the Big Dry Creek, Fancher Creek, and Redbank Creek dams and reservoirs, and the Alluvial Drain, Redbank Creek, Pup Creek, Fancher Creek, Big Dry Creek, Pup Creek Enterprise, and Dry Creek Extension detention basins.

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

The drainage system discharges to a system of irrigation canals, creeks, and the San Joaquin River, but is designed to retain and infiltrate as much runoff as possible into the underlying groundwater aquifer. The local drainage service area is subdivided into over 160 drainage areas, most of which drain to a retention basin. Drainage channels within the Plan Area include:
• East Branch Victoria Canal • Teague School Canal
• Epstein Canal • Tracy Ditch
• Herndon Canal • West Branch Victoria Canal
• Minor Thornton Ditch • Wheaton Ditch
• Silvia Ditch • Austin Ditch
The Plan Area is drained by 15 drainage watersheds, six of which are fully within the Plan Area, and nine of which drain to areas immediately south or west of the Plan Area. There are seven existing retention basins within the Plan Area and an additional five that serve the Plan Area. An additional basin is planned to serve the drainage shed in the far southwestern corner of the Plan Area.

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

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1981. Although the Plan Area’s northern boundary is very near the San Joaquin River, the area is not within a Special Flood Hazard Area. Local flooding can occur for events larger than a two-year event, but runoff is generally contained in the streets or other breakover easements. Such flooding is not reflected on FEMA’s maps.

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

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

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

Federal

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

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

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

NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required for discharges of pollutants to navigable waters of the United States, which includes any discharge to surface waters, including lakes, rivers, streams, bays, the ocean, dry stream beds, wetlands, and storm sewers that are tributary to any surface water body. NPDES permits are issued under the Federal Clean Water Act, Title IV, Permits and Licenses, Section 402 (33 USC Section 1342 and Sections 1341-1346).

The RWQCB issues these permits in lieu of direct issuance by the Environmental Protection Agency, subject to review and approval by the Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator. The terms of these NPDES permits implement pertinent provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations, including pre-treatment, sludge management, effluent limitations for specific industries, and anti- degradation. In general, the discharge of pollutants is to be eliminated or reduced as much as practicable so as to achieve the Clean Water Act goal of “fishable and swimmable” navigable (surface) waters. Technically, all NPDES permits issued by the RWQCB are also Waste Discharge Requirements issued under the authority of the CWA.

NPDES permits regulate discharges from publicly owned treatment works, industrial discharges, stormwater runoff, dewatering operations, and groundwater cleanup discharges. NPDES permits are issued for five years or less, and are therefore to be updated regularly. To expedite the permit issuance process, the SWRCB has adopted several general NPDES permits, each of which regulates numerous discharges of similar types of wastes. The SWRCB has issued general permits for stormwater runoff from industrial and construction sites statewide. Stormwater discharges from industrial and construction activities in the Central Coast Region can be covered under these general permits, which are administered jointly by the SWRCB and RWQCB. The SWRCB adopted general permits for Phase II Regulated Small MS4s and Small Construction Activity. On March 10, 2003, Operators of Phase II Regulated Small MS4s and Small Construction Activity were required to obtain permit coverage.

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

3.15 UTILITIES

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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)
Fresno County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a Federal program administered by FEMA. Participants in the NFIP must satisfy certain mandated floodplain management criteria. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 has adopted as a desired level of protection, an expectation that developments should be protected from floodwater damage of the Intermediate Regional Flood (IRF). The IRF is defined as a flood that has an average frequency of occurrence on the order of once in 100 years, although such a flood may occur in any given year.

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

State

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

CALIFORNIA WATER CODE
California’s primary statute governing water quality and water pollution issues with respect to both surface waters and groundwater is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Division 7 of the California Water Code) (Porter-Cologne Act). The Porter-Cologne Act grants the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and each of the RWQCBs power to protect water quality, and is the primary vehicle for implementation of California’s responsibilities under the Federal Clean Water Act. The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and the RWQCBs authority and responsibility to adopt plans and policies, to regulate discharges to surface and groundwater, to regulate waste disposal sites and to require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter-Cologne Act also establishes reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substance, sewage, or oil or petroleum product.

Each RWQCB must formulate and adopt a water quality control plan (Basin Plan) for its region the regional plans are to conform to the policies set forth in the Porter-Cologne Act and established by the SWRCB in its State water policy. The Porter-Cologne Act also provides that a RWQCB may include within its regional plan water discharge prohibitions applicable to particular conditions, areas, or types of waste.

The Water Code Section 13260 requires all dischargers of waste that may affect water quality in waters of the State to prepare and provide a water quality discharge report to the RWQCB. Section 13260a-c is as follows:
(a) Each of the following persons shall file with the appropriate regional board a report of the discharge, containing the information that may be required by the regional board:

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (1) A person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the quality of the waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system.
(2) A person who is a citizen, domiciliary, or political agency or entity of this State discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, outside the boundaries of the State in a manner that could affect the quality of the waters of the State within any region.
(3) A person operating, or proposing to construct, an injection well. (b) No report of waste discharge need be filed pursuant to subdivision (a) if the requirement is waived pursuant to Section 13269.
(c) Each person subject to subdivision (a) shall file with the appropriate regional board a report of waste discharge relative to any material change or proposed change in the character, location, or volume of the discharge.

WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan) includes a summary of beneficial water uses, water quality objectives needed to protect the identified beneficial uses, and implementation measures. The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for all the ground and surface waters of the region. The term “water quality standards,” as used in the Federal Clean Water Act, includes both the beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the levels of quality that must be met and maintained to protect those uses. The Basin Plan includes an implementation plan describing the actions by the RWQCB and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain the water quality standards.

The RWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region’s ground and surface water. Permits are issued under a number of programs and authorities.

The terms and conditions of these discharge permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means. Water quality problems in the region are listed in the Basin Plan, along with the causes, where they are known. For water bodies with quality below the levels necessary to allow all the beneficial uses of the water to be met, plans for improving water quality are included. The Basin Plan reflects, incorporates, and implements applicable portions of a number of national and statewide water quality plans and policies, including the California Water Code and the Clean Water Act.

Local

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

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

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

Objective POSS-6: Maintain and restore, where feasible, the ecological values of the San Joaquin River corridor.

Policy POSS-6-b: Effects of Stormwater Discharge. Support efforts to identify and mitigate cumulative adverse effects on aquatic life from stormwater discharge to the San Joaquin River.
• Avoid discharge of runoff from urban uses to the San Joaquin River or other riparian corridors.
• Approve development on sites having drainage (directly or indirectly) to the San Joaquin River or other riparian areas only upon a finding that adequate measures for preventing pollution of natural bodies of water from their runoff will be implemented.
• Periodically monitor water quality and sediments near drainage outfalls to riparian areas. Institute remedial measures promptly if unacceptable levels of contaminant(s) occur.

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

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

Objective NS-3: Minimize the risks to property, life, and the environment due to flooding and stormwater runoff hazards.

Policy NS-3-a: Stormwater Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan. Support the full implementation of the FMFCD Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan, the completion of planned flood control and drainage system facilities, and the continued maintenance of stormwater and flood water retention and conveyance facilities and capacities. Work with the FMFCD to make sure that its Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy NS-3-b: Curb and Gutter Installation. Coordinate with Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) to install curbing, gutters, and other drainage facilities with priority

3.15 UTILITIES

3.15-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan to existing neighborhoods with the greatest deficiencies and consistent with the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan.

Policy NS-3-c: Dual Use Facilities. Support multiple uses of flood control and drainage facilities as follows:
• Use, wherever practical, FMFCD facilities for groundwater management and recharge; and
• Promote recreational development of ponding basin facilities located within or near residential areas, compatible with the stormwater and groundwater recharge functions.

Policy NS-3-d: Landscaped Buffer. City will support the development of FMFCD ponding basins including the landscaping and irrigation for the top one third of the side sloped areas consistent with the FMFCD Basin Design Criteria.

Policy NS-3-e: Pollutants. Work with FMFCD to prevent and reduce the existence of urban stormwater pollutants pursuant to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems Act.

Policy NS-3-h: Runoff Controls. Implement grading regulations and related development policies that protect area residents from flooding caused by urban runoff produced from events that exceed the capacity of the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan system of facilities. Place all structures and/or flood-proofing in a manner that does not cause floodwaters to be diverted onto adjacent property, increase flood hazards to other property, or otherwise adversely affect other property.

Policy NS-3-i: New Development Must Mitigate Impact. Require new development to not significantly impact the existing storm drainage and flood control system by imposing conditions of approval as project mitigation, as authorized by law. As part of this process, closely coordinate and consult with the FMFCD to identify appropriate conditions that will result in mitigation acceptable and preferred by FMFCD for each project.

FRESNO MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 6, Municipal Services and Utilities, Article 7, Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control, of the Fresno Municipal Code establishes provisions regarding stormwater discharges. The purpose of the City’s Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance is to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of citizens and protect the water quality of watercourses and water bodies in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the CWA (33 U.S.C. Section 1251, et seq.) by reducing pollutants in urban stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable and by effectively prohibiting non-stormwater discharges to the storm drain system.

Chapter 11, Building Permits and Regulations, Article 6 Fresno Flood Plain Ordinance establish methods of reducing flood losses by: restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, UTILITIES 3.15
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.15-35 safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards or flood heights or velocities; requiring that uses vulnerable to floods be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction; controlling filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage; preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood water or which may increase flood hazards in other areas; and controlling the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters.

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

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

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

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

3.15 UTILITIES

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

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

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

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

3.15.4 SOLID WASTE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.15 UTILITIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.15 UTILITIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 3.15-8: ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE GENERATION

LAND USE

SOLID WASTE

GENERATION RATE

MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT

POTENTIAL

ESTIMATED SOLID

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

SOURCE: DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP, 2020.

3.15 UTILITIES

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

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

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

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

4.1 CUMULATIVE SETTING AND IMPACT ANALYSIS

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

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

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

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 4.0-2: POPULATION PROJECTIONS UNDER FRESNO GENERAL PLAN1

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

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

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

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

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

ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA ABOVE CURRENT LEVELS IN SQUARE FEET

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the City’s General Plan, proposed Specific Plan, and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of movement corridors. The Specific Plan includes Policy IPR 3.6, which states, “Where sensitive biological habitats have been identified or are discovered on or immediately adjacent to a project site, the project shall include appropriate mitigation measures determined by a qualified biologist.” Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant cumulative impact and less than cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to cumulative impacts on biological resources.

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

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

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

Impact 4.5: Specific Plan implementation would not contribute to the cumulative loss of cultural and tribal resources. (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Cumulative development anticipated in Fresno and the greater Fresno County area, including growth projected by adopted general plans, may result in the discovery and removal of cultural resources, including archaeological, paleontological, historical, and Native American resources and human remains. As discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural and Tribal Resources, a total of 82 cultural resources have been previously recorded within the Plan Area. Of these cultural resources, four are historic archaeological sites and 78 are historic built environment resources. In addition, due to the size of the proposed Specific Plan Area, buildout of the proposed plan could contribute to cumulative impacts related to the regional loss of cultural resources if previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered during construction and proper techniques are not employed.

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

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

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

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

As discussed in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not result in any significant impacts related to this environmental topic. While some cumulative impacts will occur in the region as individual projects are constructed, the proposed General Plan policies and actions, as well as State and Federal regulations, will reduce the risk to people in the region. Furthermore, mitigation measures incorporated into this EIR would require project applicants for future projects to obtain a site-specific Geotechnical Evaluation to implement sitespecific recommendations and submit an approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities.

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

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
As the California Supreme Court has emphasized, all CEQA analyses of the environmental effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are inherently cumulative in character. “[B]ecause of the global scale of climate change, any one project's contribution is unlikely to be significant by itself. […] ‘With respect to climate change, an individual project's emissions will most likely not have any appreciable impact on the global problem by themselves, but they will contribute to the significant cumulative impact caused by greenhouse gas emissions from other sources around the globe. The question therefore becomes whether the project's incremental addition of greenhouse gases is ‘cumulatively considerable’ in light of the global problem, and thus significant.’” (Center for Biological Diversity v.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 219, quoting (Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under CEQA: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (July 2011) 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J. 203, 207–208.) Thus, the analysis below considers the entire planet as a backdrop while focusing on whether the proposed project’s incremental contribution to worldwide GHG emissions is cumulatively considerable.

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Impact 4.7: Cumulative impact on climate change from increased project-related greenhouse gas emissions. (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
In California, there has been extensive legislation passed with the goal of reducing GHG emissions.

The legislative goals are as follows: 1) 1990 levels by 2020 and 2) 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.

An additional goal -- 80% below the 1990 levels by the year 2050 – was set by Governor Schwarzenegger through Executive Order S-03-05. An even more ambitious goal of achieving carbon neutrality “as soon as possible, and no later than 2045,” was set by Governor Brown through Executive Order B-55-18. To achieve these legislative and executive goals, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has developed regional GHG emission reduction targets for the automobile and light truck sectors (the largest single source of GHG emissions) for 2020 and 2040. The regional GHG emission reduction targets for each region in California were established by the CARB.

As described in Impact 3.4-2 in Section 3.4, implementation of the Specific Plan is consistent with the current version of the City GHG Reduction Plan, which is considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5, thereby allowing for streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, directly and indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment. Moreover, the Specific Plan incorporates goals and policies that emphasize compact and walkable communities, which were incorporated into the design of the proposed project and would help minimize GHG emissions generated by the proposed project. Further, the proposed project would be required to implement mitigation measures that are intended to reduce GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible.

The State of California continues to implement measures that are intended to reduce emissions on a State-wide scale (i.e. vehicle fuel efficiency standards in fleets, low carbon fuels, etc.) that are consistent with AB 32 and SB 32. These types of statewide measures will benefit the proposed project (and city as a whole) in the long-term as they come into effect; however, the City does not have the jurisdiction to create far-reaching (i.e. statewide) measures to reduce GHG emissions. On a project-by-project case, the City of Fresno evaluates a project and the potential to impose projectspecific mitigation, which has been done through this GHG analysis. For these reasons, implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact to GHGs.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The cumulative context for the analysis of cumulative hazards and human health impacts is all of Fresno County, which includes the entire Fresno General Plan Planning Area.

Impact 4.8: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
The Specific Plan, in conjunction with cumulative development in the region, would include areas designated for a variety of urban, agricultural, and open space uses as defined by the applicable OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-13 General Plan. Cumulative development would include continued operation of, or development of, new facilities as allowed under each land use designation.

Hazardous Materials Use, Generation, Transport, and Disposal New development could increase the use of hazardous materials within the region, resulting in potential health and safety effects related to hazardous materials use. Potential impacts related to hazards and/or hazardous materials associated with new and future development would primarily be confined to commercial and industrial areas and would not involve the use of hazardous substances in large quantities or be particularly hazardous. Facilities that store, use or handle hazardous materials above reportable amounts are required to prepare and file a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (Business Plan) for the safe storage and use of chemicals. In the event of an emergency, firefighters, health officials, planners, public safety officers, health care providers and others rely on the Business Plan. Implementation of the Business Plan should prevent or reduce damage to the health and safety of people and the environment if a hazardous material is released.

Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials
Incidents (such as accidental release of hazardous materials), if any, would typically be site specific and would involve accidental spills or inadvertent releases. Associated health and safety risks would generally be limited to those individuals using the materials or to persons in the immediate vicinity of the materials and would not combine with similar effects elsewhere (i.e., construction workers).

Hazard-related impacts tend to be site-specific and Project-specific. The Plan Area is not associated with any existing hazardous materials spills; however, there are numerous areas throughout Fresno County where hazardous conditions are present. In addition, Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8- 10 address potential risk of hazards due to existing hazards located on the project site.

School Sites
As provided under Impact 3.8-1, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 through 3.8-10, potential risks associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan would be reduced to a less than significant level.

For example, Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 requires businesses generating hazardous waste to comply with a HMBP and to register with the CUPA, as appropriate. Mitigation Measure 3.8-2 provides requirements for any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well. Additional requirements are provided in Mitigation Measures 3.8-3 through 3.8-10, such as Phase I and Phase II site assessments, and other remediation activities including surveys and assessments, cleanup plans, programs, and activities, as applicable. Moreover, compliance with the applicable General Plan objectives and policies would ensure that the Specific Plan implementation would have a limited potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste with one-quarter of an existing school.

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Emergency Response
As provided under Impact 3.8-5, future construction activities within the Plan Area could affect access along nearby roadways during construction. However, access would remain open and accessible at all times. Future applicants would be required to provide alternate route (i.e. detour) plans with a tentative schedule of planned closures prior to the beginning of construction to ensure that activities would not impede emergency access. These plans would be subject to review and approval by the City of Fresno Public Works Department, the Fresno Fire Department, and the Fresno Police Department. Construction activities are not expected to result in any unknown significant road closures, traffic detours, or congestion that could hinder emergency vehicle access or evacuation in the event of an emergency. Separately, the proposed project would develop new roadways within the Plan Area. However, the new roadways would be required to comply with the City’s police and fire standards for emergency access. Therefore, roadways within the Plan Area would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Moreover, where applicable, the proposed project would also be required to comply with the Fresno County’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Wildfire/Wildland Fires
As provided under Impact 3.8-6, the proposed project is not located in or near any SRAs or lands classified as VHFHSZs. Areas within the northern, central, and southern portions of the Plan Area are identified as having a moderate potential for wildland fires. According to the Fresno General Plan, the City is largely urbanized or working agricultural land without steep topographies; thus, wildland fire threats are minimal. Although Fresno is proximate to high and very high fire hazard designated areas, the City is largely categorized as little or no threat or moderate fire hazard, which is largely attributed to paved areas. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in increased urbanization of the area; including increased paved area. Future development would be required to comply with the current fire code (i.e. included in the Fresno Fire Code Section as established by the City of Fresno Fire Department), as well as all applicable City Municipal Code requirements.

Conclusion
Implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in significant increased risks of hazards in the cumulative setting, nor would it result in any significant off-site or indirect impacts. Mitigation measures have been included to reduce the risk of on-site hazards associated with future development activities. With implementation of these mitigation measures, implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant cumulative impact relative to this environmental topic. As such, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The cumulative context for the analysis of cumulative stormwater runoff impacts is best addressed on a regional/watershed basis (geography), as such an area captures flows occurring both upstream and downstream of the project site. Because water resources are highly interconnected, the OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-15 cumulative setting is based on Fresno County, which is located in the Tulare Lake Hydrological Region.

Impact 4.9: Cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality. (Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Construction of the individual development projects allowed under the land use designations of the proposed Specific Plan has the potential to result in construction-related water quality impacts, impacts to groundwater recharge, and cause flooding, erosion, or siltation from the alteration of drainage patterns.

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

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

Design and construction of flood control improvements to the satisfaction of the FMFCD would ensure there is adequate storage capacity for the additional stormwater runoff generated from the buildout of the Specific Plan. Future development within the Plan Area, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts associated with stormwater runoff.

Water Quality
As discussed in Impacts 3.1 and 3.9-2, grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with construction activities could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Construction activities could also result in soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas. The long-term operations of future development projects in the Plan Area could result in long-term impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff. The proposed Specific Plan would result in new impervious areas associated with roadways, driveways, parking lots, buildings, and landscape areas. Normal activities in these developed areas include the use of various automotive petroleum products (i.e. oil, grease, and fuel), common household hazardous materials, heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and sediment. Within urban areas, these pollutants are generally called nonpoint source pollutants. The pollutant levels vary based on factors such as time between storm events, volume of storm event, type of uses, and density of people.

Future development of the Specific Plan Area would require development and approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP will include BMPs to regulate stormwater quality for the Specific Plan Area. In accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program, compliance with existing regulatory requirements require preparation of a SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Central Valley Region, has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, and runoff during construction activities. The RWQCB has stated that these erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude the use of equally or more effective new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and the City of Fresno and are an existing regulatory requirement.

While there are no assurances that other projects in the County would incorporate the same degree or methods of treatment as the proposed Specific Plan, each project in the City that would discharge stormwater runoff would be required to comply with NPDES discharge permits from the RWQCB, which adjusts requirements on a case-by-case basis to avoid significant degradation of water quality.

Therefore, while a greater quantity of urban runoff may result from future development projects in the Plan Area because of an increase in impervious surfaces, the associated surface water quality impacts associated with the increased runoff in the Plan Area would be expected to be less-thansignificant because adherence to existing NPDES discharge permit requirements and other regulatory mechanisms which regulate stormwater runoff.

Compliance with City and FMFCD water quality protection regulations, approval from the RWQCB, and implementation of project-specific SWPPPs would ensure that the Specific Plan minimizes impacts to surface water quality. The proposed Specific Plan, when considered alongside all past, OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-17 present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts given that mitigation measures would control storm water quality. The proposed Specific Plan would not have cumulatively considerable impacts associated with water quality.

Groundwater Supplies/Recharge
The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan would result in new impervious surfaces and could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge in those areas. Infiltration rates vary depending on the overlying soil types. In general, sandy soils have higher infiltration rates and can contribute to significant amounts of ground water recharge; clay soils tend to have lower percolation potential; and impervious surfaces such as pavement significantly reduce infiltration capacity and increase surface water runoff. Future development, including water quality BMPs, detention basins, and retention basins, would be designed to minimize or eliminate increases in runoff from these new impervious surfaces entering storm drains and other FMFCD facilities.

Future development of the Plan Area under the proposed land use plan will modify the movement of water across the land surface and the infiltration of rain water into the groundwater system. The FMFCDs Storm Water Quality Management Plan, City General Plan policies, City Municipal Code requirements, and proposed Specific Plan policies include BMPs aimed at preserving water quality and groundwater recharge areas. The BMPs required as part of future development of the Plan Area are designed to infiltrate as much storm water runoff as practicable into the ground. A portion of the retained runoff will infiltrate into the ground, helping to replenish the aquifers. The required BMPs are designed to trap contaminants and to beneficially make use of nutrients in the vegetated swales and planted areas. In addition, application rates of fertilizers on urbanized areas is less than that typically used in intensive agriculture. The aggregate effect of the proposed Specific Plan will, therefore, be to decrease the loading of nutrients (in particular, nitrates) into the groundwater.

The proposed Specific Plan, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts given that mitigation measures require maintaining water quality standards and preserving the infiltration of rainwater within the aquifer.

The proposed Specific Plan would not have cumulatively considerable impacts associated with groundwater supply/recharge.

Flooding
Future development projects in the area could result in additional discharges of stormwater during storm events. When combined, these future development projects could, in theory, lead to an incremental increase in peak stormwater runoff, and potential incremental increases in downstream flood elevations. However, in order to ensure that future development projects in the County do not increase downstream flood elevations, the FMFCD has primary responsibility for managing the local stormwater flows for the City, as well as a large area beyond the City’s boundaries.

Improvements to storm drainage facilities are accomplished either as a part of privately funded on-

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan site developments or as a part of the master plan, funded by drainage fees. FMFCD maintains an ongoing update to the system hydraulic model for flood control and prepares a capital improvement plan update every five years.

The Plan Area includes an extensive system of on-site stormwater collection, treatment and retention facilities to accommodate the increased stormwater flows that originate in the Plan Area.

Surface runoff from the area will be managed via detention/retention basins and flow reducing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent local flooding within the Plan Area. These features will also reduce peak flows from the Plan Area to receiving storm drains.

As discussed in Impact 3.9-6, the Plan Area is approximately 105 miles from the coast and is not adjacent to any lakes; thus, the Plan Area is not at risk for tsunami or seiche events. Additionally, as shown on Figure 3.9-3, the entire Plan Area is designated unshaded Zone X - minimal flood hazard, and would not be expected to have a flood hazard up to the level of the 0.2-percent annual chance flood. Lands designated as unshaded Zone X are outside of the Special Flood Hazard Areas. Changes to land surfaces in these areas do not trigger map revisions and no flood insurance requirements are imposed on structures in these areas.

No other parts of the Specific Plan Area are designated as flood prone, and there are no impacts to regulatory floodways or Special Flood Hazard Areas (Zone A or AE) as defined by FEMA. Provided future storm drain system and detention/retention facilities that would be installed as part of future development are adequately sized and properly installed and maintained, flooding will not be induced by the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, the Specific Plan is not at risk of the 1-percent annual chance flood.

The proposed Specific Plan, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts given that existing City and FMFCD regulations require designs that ensure structures are outside the base flood elevation and that storm water flows are maintained to prevent downstream flooding. The proposed Specific Plan would not have cumulatively considerable impacts associated with flooding.

Conclusion
Construction of the individual development projects allowed under the land use designations of the proposed General Plan has the potential to result in construction-related water quality impacts, impacts to groundwater recharge, and cause flooding, erosion, or siltation from the alteration of drainage patterns.

While some cumulative impacts will occur in the region as individual projects are constructed, the existing General Plan policies and actions, as well as State and Federal regulations, will substantially reduce the impacts. Additionally, future projects under the Specific Plan would be required to design storm drain facilities to the satisfaction of the FMFCD to ensure each project provides adequate storage capacity for the additional stormwater runoff generated. Considering the protection granted by local, State, and Federal agencies and their permit and monitoring requirements, as discussed in OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-19 Section 3.9 (Hydrology and Water Quality), and with implementation of the policies and actions included within the General Plan, the overall cumulative impact would not be significant. As a result, the General Plan's incremental contribution to cumulative hydrology impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

LAND USE
The cumulative setting for land use is the Fresno General Plan Planning Area, as defined in the City of Fresno General Plan.

Impact 4.10: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts on communities and local land uses. (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Cumulative land use impacts, such as the potential for conflicts with adjacent land uses and consistency with adopted plans and regulations, are typically site and project-specific. The land uses allowed under the proposed Specific Plan provide opportunities for cohesive new growth at in‐fill locations within existing urbanized areas as well as new growth within the Plan Area, but would not create physical division within existing communities. New development and redevelopment projects would be designed to complement the character of existing neighborhoods and provide connectivity between existing development and new development within the cumulative analysis area. The proposed Specific Plan does not include any new roadways, infrastructure, or other features that would divide existing communities. Instead, the Specific Plan would plan for extension of existing roadways and infrastructure, as well as new future roadways and infrastructure, in order to serve future development of the Plan Area. These new roadways would link existing unincorporated areas of the County with the City of Fresno.

Overall, the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the objectives and policies of the Fresno General Plan. Other projects in the cumulative context would undergo a General Plan consistency review, similar to the proposed Specific Plan, on a project‐by‐project basis to demonstrate their consistency with the applicable land use document. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan's incremental contribution to cumulative land use and population impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

NOISE
The cumulative context for noise impacts associated with proposed Specific Plan consists of the existing and future noise sources that could affect the project or surrounding uses.

Impact 4.11: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to the cumulative exposure of existing and future noise-sensitive land uses or to increased noise resulting from cumulative development. (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Noise generated by construction would be temporary, and would not add to the permanent noise environment or be considered as part of the cumulative context. The total construction noise

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan impact of the proposed Specific Plan would not be a substantial increase to the existing future noise environment.

As discussed in Impact 3.11-1 in Section 3.11, Noise, some of the existing noise sensitive receptors located along the Specific Plan Area roadways are currently exposed to exterior traffic noise levels exceeding the City of Fresno 65 decibel (dB) day/night average level (LDN) exterior noise level standard for residential uses, as shown in Table 3.11-10. Based upon General Plan Policy NS-1j, a significant increase in ambient noise levels is assumed if the project would increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity by 3 dB Ldn or CNEL above the ambient noise limits established in the General Plan Update (or in this case the modeled increase in traffic noise levels due to the project). The contribution to traffic noise increases resulting from future development of the proposed Specific Plan is predicted to be between 0 dBA and 13.4 dBA LDN. The following roadway segments would exceed the substantial increase criteria described in Policy NS-1j and Table 3.11-10:
• Traffic noise levels along W. Shaw Avenue are expected to range between 68.1 and 73.3 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 6.9 and 8.3 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along W. Ashlan Avenue between N. Grantland Avenue and N. Blythe Avenue are expected to range between 67.5 and 70.4 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases ranging between 5.6 and 13.4 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along W. Shields Avenue between N. Polk Avenue and N. Cornelia Avenue are expected to reach up to 66 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in an increase in ambient noise level of 7.6 dBA CNEL. • Traffic noise levels along W. Clinton Avenue between N. Polk Avenue and N. Blythe Avenue and between N. Valentine Avenue and N. Marks Avenue are expected to range between

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

Dakota Avenue and between W. Shields Avenue and W. Clinton Avenue are expected to range between 67.7 and 71.0 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases in ambient noise levels between 10.5 and 11.5 dBA CNEL. • Traffic noise levels along N. Bryan Avenue between W. Gettysburg Avenue and W. Ashlan Avenue are expected to reach up to 65.3 dBA CNEL, resulting in an increase of 7.7 dBA CNEL in ambient noise levels.
• Traffic noise levels along N. Hayes Avenue between W. Shaw Avenue and W. Swift Avenue and between W. Dakota Avenue and W. Shields Avenue are expected to range between

65.9 and 66.8 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the road, resulting in increases in ambient noise levels ranging between 9.3 and 11.8 dBA CNEL. • Traffic noise levels along N. Polk Avenue between W. Shaw Avenue and W. Shields Avenue are expected to range between 65.3 and 68.7 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-21 centerline of the road, resulting in increases in ambient noise levels between 5.5 and 8.1 dBA CNEL.
• Traffic noise levels along N. Cornelia Avenue between W. Gettysburg Avenue and W.

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

Of the 115 roadway segments analyzed, 30 segments would experience substantial noise increases greater than 3 dBA attributable to buildout of the proposed Specific Plan, with noise levels that exceed 65 dB CNEL.

For these reasons, future development projects within the Plan Area would be required to implement mitigation measures that are specifically intended to ensure compliance with the City of Fresno noise standards and minimize the impact associated with the substantial increase in ambient noise levels. Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 would require the implementation of performance standards based on project-specific acoustical analysis for new residential and noise sensitive uses exposed to significant exterior community noise levels from transportation, which may include noise walls and/or berms, or setbacks.

With implementation of the mitigation measures included in Section 3.11, the proposed Specific Plan’s incremental contribution towards cumulative noise impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable and less than significant.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
The cumulative setting for population and housing includes Fresno County. This area was chosen because it represents the area that is reasonably expected to be affected by population and housing changes generated by the proposed project.

Impact 4.12: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts on population growth and displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing. (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable) As described in Section 3.12, the proposed Specific Plan accommodates future growth in the Plan Area, including new businesses and new residential uses. Infrastructure and services would need to be extended to accommodate future growth. At full buildout, the proposed Specific Plan would accommodate approximately to 54,953 dwelling units (including 47,072 dwelling units in the residential category, 7,814 dwelling units in the mixed use category, and 67 dwelling units in the commercial category) and approximately 60,621,006.31 square feet of non-residential uses. This new growth would increase the city’s population by approximately 163,211 residents. According to the General Plan, it is estimated that there would be 0.45 jobs per new resident; therefore, buildout of the proposed Specific Plan may increase the employment opportunities in Fresno by approximately 73,445 jobs.

Based on the growth projected to occur in the Plan Area, the proposed Specific Plan would not induce a substantial amount of growth that has not been adequately planned for or require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Although the number of new residents generated

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan under the proposed Plan could exceed the number analyzed under the City’s General Plan Master EIR (MEIR) under the Dual Designation Scenario, cumulative growth would be consistent with regional planning targets.

Future development of the Plan Area consistent with the proposed land use map could result in displacement of existing housing. Housing displacement associated with development of the Plan Area was accounted for in the City’s General Plan MEIR. Much of the future development would be located on areas that are vacant, contain agricultural land, or contain rural residential uses.

Redevelopment of currently developed parcels could also occur. However, the amount of housing displacement associated with buildout of the Plan Area would be vastly outweighed by the amount of housing created under the proposed Specific Plan land use map. Thus, when considered along with the proposed Plan, cumulative growth would not displace substantial numbers of people or housing or exceed planned levels of growth.

Additionally, all lands within the General Plan jurisdiction have been planned to accommodate growth within the City have been evaluated in the General Plan MEIR. The proposed project does not change the intent, intensities, or densities of land uses identified within the General Plan; instead, the Specific Plan land use map rearranges and relocates the City land use designations for the Plan Area. Therefore, development of the Specific Plan Area will not induce growth in the Specific Plan Area, adjacent undeveloped parcels, or within the City of Fresno that has not already been accounted for in the General Plan, and evaluated for environmental impacts by the City in the Final General Plan EIR.

The proposed project, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts. The proposed project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts associated with population and housing. As such, implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts to population and housing.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
The cumulative setting would include all areas covered in the service areas of the City of Fresno Police Department, Fresno Fire Department (FFD), City of Fresno Parks, After School, Recreation, and Community Services (PARCS) Department, the Central Unified School District (CUSD), and the Fresno County Public Library System.

Impact 4.13: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts on public services. (Cumulatively Considerable and Significant and Unavoidable) This geographic area was chosen because these service providers would be required to serve the Plan Area as well as the entire service area. Therefore, future development within the Plan Area along with past, present, and probably future projects within the service area, has the potential to result in a cumulative impact associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan.

OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-23 Under cumulative conditions future local and regional growth will result in increased demand for schools, police protection, fire protection, schools, parks/recreation, and library services. The City and its associated service providers must continue to evaluate the levels of service desired and the funding sources available to meet increases in demand.

The General Plan Final Master EIR analyzed cumulative impacts to public services (including police protection, fire and emergency services, schools, parks, and libraries) and found that General Plan implementation would result in less than cumulatively considerable impacts with implementation of Mitigation Measures PS-1 (regarding future fire facilities), PS-2 (regarding future police facilities), PS-3 (regarding future school facilities), and PS-4 (regarding future parks and recreational facilities).

The mitigation measures require evaluation of specific environmental effects of these future public service and recreational facilities, and list typical mitigations to reduce potential noise, traffic, and lighting impacts. The specific environmental impact of constructing new facilities could not be determined at the time, but the Final Master EIR found that construction and operation of such facilities could potentially cause significant impacts. These potential impacts, however, were addressed and mitigated to the greatest extent feasible by the General Plan mitigation measures included in Section 5.13 of the Fresno General Plan Final Master EIR.

Conclusion
Under cumulative conditions, future development of the Plan Area in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan land use map may result in the construction of public facilities, which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. The impact fees developed and reviewed by the City will recover future development’s proportionate share of City-related capital asset costs.

Fees, as applied only to new development, represent future development’s proportionate share of public services and facilities capital costs.

It is also important to note that, in addressing public service demand issues under CEQA, the appropriate focus is on the environmental effects of whatever steps might be necessary to achieve or maintain adequate service. For example, if proposed new development would create an increased demand for law enforcement or fire protection services, an EIR should inquire as to whether new or expanded physical facilities may be required in order to provide such service. The “impacts” addressed under CEQA are the physical effects of providing service, not any possible failure to provide adequate service under applicable standards. (See City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of the Cal. State University (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 843 [“[t]he need for additional fire protection services is not an environmental impact that CEQA requires a project proponent to mitigate”]; Goleta Union School Dist. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1031– 1034 [school overcrowding attributable to new development is not an environmental effect subject to CEQA, though the physical effects of new facility construction to serve new students would be]; and CEQA Guidelines, § 15131, subd. (a) [“[e]conomic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment”].)
Moreover, it is critical to understand that special legal principles apply to impacts to school facilities.

According to Government Code Section 65996, the development fees authorized by Senate Bill 50

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (1998) (described earlier) are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation” for impact caused by new development. The legislation also recognized the need for the fee to be adjusted periodically to keep pace with inflation. The legislation indicated that in January 2000, and every two years thereafter, the State Allocation Board would increase the maximum fees according to the adjustment for inflation in the statewide index for school construction.

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

The construction and operation of future public facilities required to serve cumulative development (including the Plan Area) could potentially cause significant impacts. Cumulative development including additional parks and schools within the city and service area would contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts that have been identified within this EIR related to: aesthetics and visual resources (Section 3.1), agricultural resources (Section 3.2), air quality (Section 3.3), noise (Section 3.11), and public services and recreation (Section 3.13). Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in this Draft EIR, cumulative impacts related to the construction of public facilities needed to meet future demand are considered significant and unavoidable and cumulatively considerable.

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
The cumulative setting for this analysis including the City of Fresno SOI and some nearby areas of unincorporated County.

Impact 4.14: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts to the regional transportation network. (Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
The year 2035 is the horizon year for cumulative condition impact analyses. Based on observed volumes in the existing condition, Kittelson & Associates used travel behavior forecasting software to estimate and distribute future vehicle traffic onto the roadway network in order to test how the proposed project would impact the transportation network.

Consistency with General Plan
As described in Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation, development associated with the proposed Plan would increase the amount of multimodal transportation activity which would require the improvement and expansion of the local transportation network in the Plan Area to serve the associated travel demand. The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes a number of guiding principles related to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian travel consistent with the General Plan policies, which detail how the circulation system will be improved to meet the need of all users.

Since the guiding principles of the Specific Plan support the policies of the General Plan, no conflict with policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation would occur from future OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-25 development and redevelopment under the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s cumulative contribution would be considered less than significant.

Consistency with CEQA Guideline Section 15064.3
As shown in Table 3.14-2 (as contained within Section 3.14: Transportation and Circulation), the projected VMT per capita and VMT per employee in the Plan Area are lower than existing conditions.

Under the Specific Plan, VMT per capita is 7.4 lower, or 46% lower, while VMT per employee is 12.4 lower, or 48% lower. The decrease in VMT is the result of the proposed land use mix within the proposed Plan Area. The City of Fresno Draft VMT Guidelines state specific plans would have an impact if the VMT per capita or VMT per employee in the specific plan area for the horizon year increases compared to the existing VMT per capita or VMT per employee in the region (Fresno County). The VMT per capita in the Specific Plan Area during the horizon year is 8.7, while VMT per employee is 13.2. Under existing conditions in Fresno County, the VMT per capita is 16.1, while the VMT per employee is 25.6. Because the VMT per capita and VMT per employee in the Specific Plan Area during the horizon year is less than the VMT per capita and VMT per employee for existing conditions in Fresno County, the proposed Specific Plan’s cumulative contribution to VMT would be considered less than significant.

Hazardous Geometric Designs or Incompatible Uses
The proposed Specific Plan would result in a relocation of density in the Plan Area to central corridors compared to what would develop under the City’s General Plan where density is more distributed throughout the Plan Area; however, the Specific Plan does not propose to change the types (i.e., residential, commercial, office, etc.) of land uses in the Plan Area. Buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would result in some changes to the City’s circulation network, but would not increase hazards or incompatible uses due to design features. All future roadway system improvements associated with development and redevelopment activities under the Specific Plan would be designed in accordance with the established roadway design standards, some of which have also been incorporated into the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan.

With implementation of General Plan Policy MT-2-e, Policy MT-2-I, and application of the conditions of approval at the time of review of land development projects, the Specific Plan would be designed to ensure that no hazardous circulation conditions are created as a result of implementation of the Plan. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s cumulative contribution would be considered less than significant.

Conclusion
As described in Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation, development associated with the proposed Plan would increase the amount of multimodal transportation activity which would require the improvement and expansion of the local transportation network in the Plan Area to serve the associated travel demand; however, as discussed in Impact 3.14-2, the VMT per capita and VMT per employee in the Specific Plan Area are lower than existing conditions due to the proposed land use mix within the Specific Plan Area. The retail and employment opportunities keep the VMT

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan per capita lower than the County average while the large number of dwelling units near the jobs allows employees to live close to work resulting in a VMT per employee that is lower than the County average today. The proposed Specific Plan, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts given the proposed Specific Plan would result in a lower contribution to overall transportation network than if the Plan Area was developed with the existing General Plan land use designations. As a result, this is considered less than cumulatively considerable impact.

UTILITIES
The cumulative setting for the various utilities (wastewater, water, stormwater and solid waste) are described below.

Impact 4.15: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts on utilities. (Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Under the proposed Specific Plan buildout conditions, the City of Fresno would see an increased demand for wastewater service, water service, solid waste disposal services, and stormwater infrastructure needs.

Wastewater
The study area for cumulative impacts regarding wastewater is the City of Fresno General Plan Planning Area and the City of Clovis because the City of Fresno acts as the Regional Sewering Agency and is responsible for operating the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility. The City of Fresno owns and operates two wastewater treatment facilities that serve the Fresno metropolitan area: the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (Regional Facility) and the North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility (NFWRF).

The City’s wastewater collection system comprises over 1,600 miles of gravity sewer pipes, 24,100 maintenance holes, and 15 sewer pump stations with 11.5 miles of force mains (force mains are pressurized pipelines associated with the pump stations). Generally, the collection system flows from northeast to southwest across the entire City. In the Plan Area, wastewater generally flows from the north to the south. Clovis has four connections to the City’s collection system. Each of these connections have flow meters that measure the flow from the Clovis sewer system into the City’s sewer system. The Plan Area is currently served by over 86 miles of sewer pipelines, and Pump Station Number 15.

As discussed in Section 15.1, Wastewater Service, buildout of the Specific Plan does not trigger a need to expand the Regional Facility. Given the capacity of 92 MGD, the average annual flow of approximately 56 MGD, and the 11.5 MGD generated by the buildout of the Specific Plan Area (including existing demand and future demand), there is sufficient plant capacity. Additionally, the Specific Plan wastewater collection system will include future construction of sewer improvements and replacements of existing lines, some of which are now over 75 years old. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s cumulative contribution to wastewater service is less than significant.

OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-27 Water
The study area for cumulative impacts regarding water supply is the City of Fresno General Plan Planning Area and the groundwater basins from which the Plan Area derives water. The existing incorporated area of the City of Fresno encompasses approximately 115 square miles (2020 UWMP).

The City’s General Plan includes the City’s the area outside of the City limits that the City expects to annex and urbanize in the future, also known as the SOI. With a few exceptions, the City’s water service area is coterminous with the City limits. As future developments within the SOI, but outside the City limits, are approved, they will be annexed into the City and served by the City water system.

The City’s water system consists of about 1,860 miles of distribution and transmission mains, 260 municipal groundwater wells, three surface water treatment facilities (SWTFs) with current rated capacities ranging from 4 to 54 MGD, five water storage facilities with pump stations, including one at each of the SWTFs plus two in the distribution system, and three booster pump facilities. As of the close of the 2020 calendar year, the City has over 139,500 residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional water service connections and produced nearly 122,000 AF of water.

The provision of public services and the construction of onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements will be required to accommodate future development consistent with the Specific Plan land use map. The Specific Plan would likely require extension of offsite water infrastructure to the undeveloped and underdeveloped portions of the Plan Area for water service. All offsite water piping improvements would be in or adjacent to existing roadways, thereby limiting new environmental impacts. Additionally, future development in the Plan Area would be required to pay the applicable water system connection fees and pay the applicable water usage rates. As discussed in Impact 3.15-3, the proposed Specific Plan would not require construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, resulting in a significant environmental impact. The water infrastructure would be sized to meet the demand of future projects within the Plan Area.

Table 3.15-7 summarizes the projected availability of the City’s existing and planned future potable water supplies and the City’s projected water demands in normal, single dry and multiple dry years through 2045. The WSA completed for the Specific Plan demonstrates that the City’s existing and additional potable water supplies are sufficient to meet the City’s existing and projected future potable water demands, including those future water demands associated with the Specific Plan, to the year 2045, under all hydrologic conditions. Additionally, the City’s preliminary water demand projections for the proposed Plan Area analyzed under the General Plan were higher than the water demand projections for the Specific Plan; thus, the General Plan assumed greater water demand than what would occur with implementation of the Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s cumulative contribution to water service is less than significant.

Stormwater
The study area for cumulative impacts regarding storm water drainage is the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area because the FMFCD includes an area of approximately 400 square miles and covers almost the entire portion of the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area. The specific impacts of

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan providing new and expanded stormwater drainage facilities cannot be determined at this time, as the Specific Plan does not propose development nor does it designate specific sites for new or expanded public facilities. Stormwater drainage and conveyance facilities would be evaluated at the project-level in association with subsequent development projects.

Installation of storm drainage infrastructure would occur during the construction phases of individual future projects within the Plan Area. There is significant storm drainage infrastructure remaining to be constructed to serve the Plan Area. About 32 miles of additional drainage pipelines is anticipated to be constructed to meet buildout needs. As future development and infrastructure projects within the Specific Plan Area are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the Specific Plan, General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations.

The proposed Specific Plan’s cumulative contribution to the stormwater and flood control system would be less than significant upon compliance with regulatory requirements and proposed policies for full implementation of the proposed Plan.

Solid Waste
Shortage of waste disposal capacity can have significant impacts on adjacent areas. If refuse is exported to adjacent areas with existing spare capacity, significant impacts due to increased travel distances can result in additional transportation related impacts.

As described under Impact 3.15-6, the addition of solid waste associated with future buildout of the Specific Plan Area, would result in greater solid waste needing to be disposed of at the American Avenue Landfill and the Clovis Landfill. However, this increase would not cause an exceedance of the landfill’s remaining capacity. In addition, AB 939 mandates the reduction of solid waste disposal in landfills. The City is currently achieving a 71 percent diversion rate based on 2009 data, which is anticipated to increase due to the Fresno City Council adopted resolution committing the City to a Zero Waste goal by 2025. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan’s cumulative contribution to solid waste is less than significant.

Conclusion
As described above, the proposed Specific Plan, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Fresno County), would not be expected to cause any significant cumulative impacts. The City has adequate landfill capacity to accept the solid waste and wastewater service capacity to treat wastewater flows generated from buildout of the Specific Plan. Additionally, the Water Supply Assessment completed for the proposed Plan Area shows that adequate water supplies exist to serve Specific Plan buildout.

As a result, this is considered less than cumulatively considerable impact.

OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-29

4.2 GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS

INTRODUCTION
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate the growth-inducing impacts of a proposed action, directing:

Discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a waste water treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also, discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.

It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.

Based on the CEQA Guidelines, growth inducement is any growth that exceeds planned growth of an area and results in new development that would not have taken place without implementation of the project. A project can have direct and/or indirect growth inducement potential. Direct growth inducement would result if a project, for example, involved construction of new housing. A project would have indirect growth inducement potential if it established substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial, or governmental enterprises) or if it would involve a construction effort with substantial short-term employment opportunities that would indirectly stimulate the need for additional housing and services to support the new employment demand (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors). Similarly, a project would indirectly induce growth if it would remove an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public service. A project providing an increased water supply in an area where water service historically limited growth could be considered growth-inducing.

The CEQA Guidelines further explain that the environmental effects of induced growth are considered indirect impacts of the proposed action. These indirect impacts or secondary effects of growth may result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. Potential secondary effects of growth include increased demand on other community and public services and infrastructure, increased traffic and noise, and adverse environmental impacts such as degradation of air and water quality, degradation or loss of plant and animal habitat, and conversion of agricultural and open space land to developed uses.

Growth inducement may constitute an adverse impact if the growth is not consistent with or accommodated by the land use plans and growth management plans and policies for the area affected. Local land use plans provide for land use development patterns and growth policies that

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan allow for the orderly expansion of urban development supported by adequate urban public services, such as water supply, roadway infrastructure, sewer service, and solid waste service.

The Specific Plan would result in the construction of additional housing and employment opportunities within the City of Fresno. As discussed in Section 3.12, Population and Housing, at full buildout, the proposed Specific Plan would accommodate approximately 54,953 dwelling units (including 47,072 dwelling units in the residential category, 7,814 dwelling units in the mixed use category, and 67 dwelling units in the commercial category) and approximately 60,621,006.31 square feet of non-residential uses. This new growth would increase the city’s population by approximately 163,211 residents. According to the General Plan, it is estimated that there would be

0.45 jobs per new resident; therefore, buildout of the proposed Specific Plan may increase the employment opportunities in Fresno by approximately 73,445 jobs. The Specific Plan would foster economic and population growth through the construction of additional housing and employment opportunities for a variety of income levels.

The Specific Plan currently includes primarily farmland and rural residential uses in the western area of the Plan Area. As discussed in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, residential, mixed use commercial, commercial, employment, neighborhood park, community park, schools, and open space and public facility uses would be developed in the Specific Plan Area. Buildout of the Specific Plan would require the extension of off-site and on-site roadway, potable water, wastewater, and storm drainage infrastructure to the undeveloped and underdeveloped portions of the Plan Area, which would result in the elimination of growth obstacles to serve future developments. However, as noted in Section 3.15, Utilities, wastewater generated by the proposed Specific Plan could be accommodated by the existing wastewater treatment facilities. Additionally, the City has adequate water supply to meet the water demand from buildout of the Specific Plan and the landfill that would serve the Specific Plan has adequate capacity to manage the solid waste generated as a result of the Specific Plan. Furthermore, mitigation measures set forth in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, as well as conformance with the Specific Plan, General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations, would ensure that buildout of the Specific Plan would not generate or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the FMFCD’s stormwater drainage system.

Increases in population that would occur as a result of a proposed project may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts. As discussed in Section 3.13, Public Services and Recreation, of this EIR, increased demands for fire and police protection services attributable to the proposed project would not necessitate the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts.

The future buildout of the Specific Plan is expected to generate approximately 20,319 additional students for the CUSD. Even though the project applicant will pay applicable school fees mandated by SB 50, the proposed land use map includes an additional 10.0 acres of Elementary School land uses from what is shown in the existing Fresno General Plan land use map to support the additional students generated by development of the Specific Plan. Therefore, this future school, if constructed, would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR. In addition, the proposed land use OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-31 map includes two land use designations that could be developed with other public facilities: Public Facilities – Public Facilities, and Public Facilities – Church. Future buildout of the Specific Plan may include construction of a 55.8-acre church site and 27.42 acres of other public facility uses in the Plan Area, which has the potential to cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.

Therefore, impacts related to constructing a school facility and other public facilities to serve the Plan Area are considered significant.

Given the historical and current population, housing, and employment trends, growth in the City, as well as the entire state, is inevitable. The primary factors that account for population growth are natural increase and net migration. The average annual birth rate for California is expected to be 20 births per 1,000 population. Additionally, California is expected to attract more than one third of the country’s immigrants. Other factors that affect growth include the cost of housing, the location of jobs, the economy, the climate, and transportation. While these factors would likely result in growth in Fresno during the planning period of the General Plan, growth will continue to occur based primarily on the demand of the housing market and demand for new commercial, industrial, and other non-residential uses. As future development occurs under the proposed Specific Plan, new roads, utility infrastructure, and public services would be necessary to serve the development and this infrastructure would accommodate planned growth. Based on the growth projected to occur in the City’s General Plan Planning Area, the proposed Specific Plan would not induce a substantial amount of growth that has not been adequately planned. Although the number of new residents generated under the proposed Specific Plan would exceed the number analyzed under the General Plan MEIR under the Dual Designation Scenario, cumulative growth would be consistent with regional planning targets. Thus, when considered along with the proposed Plan, cumulative growth would not displace substantial numbers of people or housing or exceed planned levels of growth.

Further, growth within the Specific Plan Area has been anticipated by the City. The land within the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan has been planned for urban development within the Fresno General Plan, and the proposed Specific Plan would serve as a bridge between the Fresno General Plan and individual development applications in the Plan Area. The proposed Specific Plan seeks to provide for the orderly and consistent development that promotes and establishes complete neighborhoods within the West Area with enhanced transportation infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation of additional parkland, and encouraging the development of a diverse housing stock. The Specific Plan’s land use map proposes the relocation of higher density land uses away from the most western and southwestern portions of the Plan Area where they are distant from public transit and community amenities and transfers those higher density land use designations to major corridors. This proposed land use mix within the Specific Plan assists in reducing a number of environmental impacts. For example, the VMT per capita and VMT per employee in the Specific Plan Area during the horizon year is less than the VMT per capita and VMT per employee for existing conditions in Fresno County. In addition, the City’s preliminary water demand projections for the proposed Plan Area under the General Plan were higher than for the Specific Plan, resulting in less water demand associated with the Specific Plan land use map when compared to build out of the General Plan. Further, the Plan Area includes future development of a portion of the City’s SOI; however, the Plan does not include extension of roadways or utility

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan infrastructure beyond the Plan Area boundary and would not induce growth beyond the limits of the SOI.

In short, while the proposed Specific Plan’s increase in population growth would be slightly larger than what was assumed under the General Plan MEIR, the overall growth would not exceed regional growth projections. Thus, while the project would foster population and economic growth, such growth would be similar to what has been previously anticipated for the project region, and a less than-significant impact related to growth inducement would occur.

4.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE EFFECTS

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA Section 15126.2(c) and Public Resources Code Sections 21100(b)(2) and 21100.1(a), requires that the EIR include a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. Irreversible environmental effects are described as:
• The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; • The primary and secondary impacts of a project would generally commit future generations to similar uses (e.g., a highway provides access to previously remote area); • The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; or • The phasing of the proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).

Determining whether the proposed project would result in significant irreversible effects requires a determination of whether key resources would be degraded or destroyed such that there would be little possibility of restoring them. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.

Analysis
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the conversion of approximately 7,077 acres of land currently used primarily for rural residential and open/space agricultural uses into residential, mixed use commercial, commercial, employment, neighborhood park, community park, schools, and open space and public facility uses. Development of the Specific Plan would constitute a longterm commitment to these uses. It is unlikely that circumstances would arise that would justify the return of the land to its original condition as agricultural land.

A variety of resources, including land, energy, water, construction materials, and human resources would be irretrievably committed for the initial construction, infrastructure installation and connection to existing utilities, and its continued maintenance. Construction of the Specific Plan would require the commitment of a variety of other non-renewable or slowly renewable natural OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-33 resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, petrochemicals, and metals.

Additionally, a variety of resources would be committed to the ongoing operation and life of the Specific Plan. The introduction of new residential, commercial, employment/light industrial, and other uses to the site will result in an increase in area traffic over existing conditions. Fossil fuels are the principal source of energy and the Specific Plan would increase consumption of available supplies, including natural gas, gasoline and diesel. These energy resource demands relate to initial project construction, project operation and site maintenance and the transport of people and goods to and from the Plan Area.

Additionally, the proposed project is in part a response to a market need for housing. California is in the midst of a housing crisis, and the proposed project is consistent with California’s legislative findings about the current housing crisis. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5[a][1][A] [“California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the State's environmental and climate objectives.”].) Future development of the proposed land use map could result in up to 54,953 DU at various densities and locations throughout the Plan Area. Buildout of the Plan Area would significantly increase and diversify the City’s available housing supply. Therefore, development of the Specific Plan would result in furtherance of the City’s Housing Element, and would assist the City in meeting the current and future housing need.

4.4 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires an EIR to discuss unavoidable significant environmental effects, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. The following significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project are discussed in Chapters 3.1 through 3.15 and previously in this chapter (cumulative-level). The following environmental topics were found to have one or more impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Public Services and Recreation, and Utilities. Those topics are summarized below:
• Impact 3.1-3: Specific Plan implementation would result in substantial adverse effects or degradation of visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. • Impact 3.2-1: Specific Plan implementation would convert Important Farmlands to nonagricultural land uses. • Impact 3.2-2: Specific Plan implementation would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract.
• Impact 3.3-1: Specific Plan implementation would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
• Impact 3.3-2: Specific Plan implementation during project construction would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in a cumulatively

4.0 OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS

4.0-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. • Impact 3.3-3: Specific Plan implementation during project operation would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. • Impact 3.13-3: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of school facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.13-4: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of park facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.13-5: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of other public facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.15-1: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 3.15-3: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 3.15-5: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in the construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 4.1: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to the cumulative degradation of the existing visual character of the region.
• Impact 4.2: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to the cumulative impact on agricultural land and uses.
• Impact 4.3: Specific Plan implementation would contribute to cumulative impacts on the region's air quality
• Impact 4.13: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts on public services.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-1

5.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyze a reasonable range of feasible alternatives that meet most or all project objectives while reducing or avoiding one or more significant environmental effects of the project. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires an EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f]). Where a potential alternative was examined but not chosen as one of the range of alternatives, the CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR briefly discuss the reasons the alternative was dismissed.

Alternatives that are evaluated in the EIR must be potentially feasible alternatives. However, not all possible alternatives need to be analyzed. An EIR must “set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(f).) The CEQA Guidelines provide a definition for a “range of reasonable alternatives” and, thus limit the number and type of alternatives that need to be evaluated in an EIR. An EIR need not include any action alternatives inconsistent with the lead agency’s fundamental underlying purpose in proposing a project. (In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1166.)
First and foremost, alternatives in an EIR must be potentially feasible. In the context of CEQA, “feasible” is defined as:
… capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors. (CEQA Guidelines 15364)
The inclusion of an alternative in an EIR is not evidence that it is feasible as a matter of law, but rather reflects the judgment of lead agency staff that the alternative is potentially feasible. The final determination of feasibility will be made by the lead agency decision-making body through the adoption of CEQA Findings at the time of action on the Project. (Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 489 see also CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15091(a)) (3) (findings requirement, where alternatives can be rejected as infeasible); 15126.6 ([an EIR] must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation”).) The following factors may be taken into consideration in the assessment of the feasibility of alternatives: site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plan or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and the ability of the proponent to attain site control (Section 15126.6 (f) (1)).

Equally important to attaining the project objectives is the reduction of some or all significant impacts, particularly those that could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The following significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project are discussed in Chapters

3.1 through 3.15 and in Chapter 4.0 (cumulative-level). The following environmental topics were found to have one or more impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable: Aesthetics,

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Public Services and Recreation, and Utilities. Those topics are summarized below:
• Impact 3.1-3: Specific Plan implementation would result in substantial adverse effects or degradation of visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. • Impact 3.2-1: Specific Plan implementation would convert Important Farmlands to nonagricultural land uses. • Impact 3.2-2: Specific Plan implementation would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract.
• Impact 3.3-1: Specific Plan implementation would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
• Impact 3.3-2: Specific Plan implementation during project construction would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. • Impact 3.3-3: Specific Plan implementation during project operation would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. • Impact 3.13-3: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of school facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.13-4: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of park facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.13-5: The proposed Specific Plan may result in, or have the potential to require the construction of other public facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.15-1: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 3.15-3: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 3.15-5: The proposed Specific Plan would require or result in the construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 4.1: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to the cumulative degradation of the existing visual character of the region.
• Impact 4.2: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to the cumulative impact on agricultural land and uses.
• Impact 4.3: Specific Plan implementation would contribute to cumulative impacts on the region's air quality
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-3 • Impact 4.13: Specific Plan implementation may contribute to cumulative impacts on public services.

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

Quantifiable Objective
The quantifiable objective of the proposed project includes the future development of up to 54,953 dwelling units (DU) (including 67 DU in the commercial category, 47,072 DU in the residential category and 7,814 DU in the mixed use category) and 60,621,006 square feet (SF) of non-residential uses.

Specific Plan Guiding Principles
The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan’s (“Specific Plan”) guiding principles are designed to form the direction of the Specific Plan, and how the Plan can best benefit the future of the Plan Area. The guiding principles incorporate input received from community members and formal recommendations of the Steering Committee. The guiding principles of the Specific Plan are summarized as follows:

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

PARKS AND TRAILS
• Create parks that are within existing and planned neighborhoods that are easily accessed by community members using pedestrian and bicycle pathways, transit services, or motor vehicles, consistent with the City of Fresno’s Parks Master Plan.

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Provide for the location of a flagship Regional Park in the Plan Area that has components of the Plan Area’s agricultural history through the planting of drought-resistant vegetation or trees, and the creation of public art that exhibits the Plan Area’s contribution to the agricultural industry.

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

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

HOUSING
• Encourage a variety of housing types and styles.
• Encourage the development of housing to accommodate an aging population including, multi-generational houses and other elder housing options. • Reaffirm the City’s commitment and obligation to affirmatively furthering access to fair and affordable housing opportunities by strongly encouraging equitable and fair housing opportunities to be located in strategic proximity to employment, recreational facilities, schools, neighborhood commercial areas, and transportation routes.

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

PUBLIC SAFETY
• Provide for safe routes to schools for children, with the City and County working together with residents, to provide sidewalks in neighborhoods that have sporadic access.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-5 • Work to promote Neighborhood Watch in all neighborhoods, and further assess the need for the location of emergency response facilities west of State Route 99.

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

5.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED
One alternative, the Additional Annexation Alternative, was considered as an alternative to the proposed Specific Plan. Under the Additional Annexation Alternative, the land uses within the Plan Area would be changed as described in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, but the area utilized for the development (i.e., the project footprint) would be increased to include the approximately 160-acre area adjacent to the southwestern corner of the Plan Area. The 160-acre area is bound by Shields Avenue on the north, Grantland Avenue on the east, Clinton Avenue on the south, and Garfield Avenue on the west. This area was recommended to be included in the Sphere of Influence expansion by the Steering Committee. Under this alternative, the approximately 160- acre area would be designated Elementary School (12 acres), Low Density (48 acres), Medium Low Density (90 acres) and Community (10 acres) by the proposed City land use map.1 This additional annexation area would allow for additional development within the Plan Area. The additional annexation area could accommodate an additional 708 residential units (including 168 Low Density units and 540 Medium Low Density units) and an additional 435,600 SF of commercial uses. When compared to the Specific Plan, this Alternative would have equal impact on Aesthetic and Visual Resources and Land Use, but would have greater impact or an increased potential for greater impact under all other environmental categories.

Figure 5.0-1 illustrates the Additional Annexation Alternative.

Expansion of the SOI is not permitted per General Plan Policy LU-1-g. The Additional Annexation Alternative would be inconsistent with this General Plan Policy. As such, the Additional Annexation Alternative would not be a feasible alternative to the Specific Plan.

5.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THIS EIR
Four alternatives to the proposed project were developed based on input from City staff, the public during the NOP review period, and technical analyses performed to identify the environmental effects of the proposed project. The alternatives analyzed in this EIR include the following four alternatives in addition to the proposed Specific Plan that is described in Chapter

2.0, Project Description.
• No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative;
• Regional Park Alternative;
• Lower Density Alternative.
1 Note: The land use designations for this additional annexation area total 150 acres. The additional approximately 10 acres includes existing and/or planned roadway right-of-way.

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

NO PROJECT (EXISTING GENERAL PLAN) ALTERNATIVE
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[e]) require consideration of a no project alternative that represents the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved. For purposes of this analysis, the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative assumes that future development of the Plan Area would occur as allowed under the existing General Plan. It is noted that the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would fail to meet the project objectives identified for the Specific Plan.

Figure 5.0-2 illustrates the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative.

REGIONAL PARK ALTERNATIVE
Under the Regional Park Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map. However, this alternative would provide a 74.2-acre Regional Park within the Plan Area. This flagship Regional Park would include components of the Plan Area’s agricultural history through the planting of drought-resistant vegetation and trees, and would include public art that exhibits the Plan Area’s contribution to the agricultural industry. The Regional Park would be provided generally south of W. Barstow Avenue, north of W. Shaw Avenue, and west of N. Grantland Avenue. The park area would be designated by the City for dual land uses. The underlying designation would be the same as the land use proposed by the Specific Plan (i.e., Neighborhood Mixed Use and Park [Community/Neighborhood]), and the overlying designation would be Park.

Figure 5.0-3 illustrates the Regional Park Alternative.

LOWER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. Additionally, this alternative would focus the medium and higher density residential uses and commercial uses at available sites on major street corridors. A mixed use town center would be provided along Shaw Avenue.

Figure 5.0-4 illustrates the Lower Density Alternative.

ALTERNATIVES NOT SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
A Notice of Preparation was circulated to the public to solicit recommendations to help the City formulate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project for inclusion in this Draft EIR. Additionally, a public scoping meeting was held during the public review period to solicit recommendations for a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. No specific ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-7 alternatives were recommended by commenting agencies or the general public during the NOP public review process.

CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(f)(2) describes conditions under which consideration of alternative project location is appropriate. The key question to be considered is whether or not any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location and whether the proposed project, placed at an alternative location, is environmentally superior to the proposed project. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in an EIR.

The City of Fresno considered alternative locations early in the Draft EIR preparation process. The City’s key considerations in identifying an alternative location were as follows:
• Is there an alternative location where significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened?
• Is there a site available within the City’s Sphere of Influence with the appropriate size and characteristics such that it would meet the basic project objectives? The City’s consideration of alternative locations for the project included a review of previous land use planning and environmental documents in Fresno, including the General Plan. The City found that there are no potential alternative locations that exist within the City’s Sphere of Influence with the appropriate size and characteristics that would meet the basic project objectives.

5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The alternatives analysis provides a summary of the relative impact level of significance associated with each alternative for each of the environmental issue areas analyzed in this EIR. Following the analysis of each alternative, Table 5.0-1 summarizes the comparative effects of each alternative.

NO PROJECT (EXISTING GENERAL PLAN) ALTERNATIVE
This alternative assumes that future development of the Plan Area would occur as allowed under the existing General Plan. It is noted that the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would fail to meet the project objectives identified for the Specific Plan.

Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, the Specific Plan Area would be designated with the same land use designations and circulation facilities as described in the Fresno General Plan. The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in the eventual conversion of the undeveloped land from agricultural uses, which would contribute to changes in the regional landscape and visual character of the area. Under this alternative, the existing uses would remain. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, future development within the Plan Area under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would be subject to the requirements of the General Plan and the Fresno Municipal Code, which includes design standards

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan in order to ensure quality and cohesive design of the Specific Plan Area. Compliance with the City’s development review process and consistency with the General Plan and the Fresno Zoning Ordinance would ensure that impacts are reduced to the greatest extent possible. This alternative would equally impact the visual and aesthetic character of the site area compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Overall, this alternative would have equal impacts to aesthetics when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to degradation of visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding would still occur under this alternative.

Agricultural Resources
The City’s existing General Plan land use map would allow fewer housing units and less nonresidential SF than the proposed Specific Plan. Because the same site and site area as the proposed Specific Plan would be developed under this alternative, impacts related to Williamson Act contracts, land use conflicts, and conversion of farmland to urban uses would be identical to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, this alternative would have equal impacts to agricultural resources as the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to agricultural resources would still occur under this alternative.

Air Quality
As described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate emissions during both the construction phase and the operational phase. Construction related impacts would be similar under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, as the area of ground disturbance would be comparable, and the duration of construction would be comparable. However, under this alternative, mobile source emissions would slightly increase. Mobile source (largely from vehicles) emissions are directly related to the number of vehicle trips generated by a project. Buildout under this alternative would facilitate up to 67,205 new residential units. Based on the City’s General Plan Housing Element estimate of approximately 2.97 persons per dwelling unit, this alternative could result in up to approximately 199,598 new residents, while buildout under the proposed Specific Plan would allow for 54,953 new residential units, resulting in approximately 163,211 new residents. Therefore, under this alternative, more residential development would be allowed, resulting in a greater increase in the number of residents, which would generate greater daily vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, resulting in increased levels of pollutants from mobile sources. Therefore, this alternative would have increased impacts related to air quality when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to air quality would still occur under this alternative.

Biological Resources
Potential impacts to biological resources are primarily related to the area proposed for disturbance and less on the type of urban uses that would occur on the Plan Area. Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, the Specific Plan Area would be designated with the same land use designations and circulation facilities as described in the Fresno General Plan. The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in the eventual conversion of the undeveloped land from agricultural uses to urban uses, which would eliminate any movement ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-9 habitat through the Specific Plan Area and any upland habitat adjacent to the movement corridors. Because the same site and site area as the proposed Specific Plan would be developed under this alternative, impacts related to biological resources would remain unchanged when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Cultural and Tribal Resources
According to the Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment, a total of 82 cultural resources have been previously recorded within the Plan Area. Of these cultural resources, four are historic archaeological sites and 78 are historic built environment resources. Additionally, as with most projects in the region that involve ground-disturbing activities, there is the potential for discovery of a previously unknown cultural and/or historical resource or human remains.

Implementation of the mitigation measures incorporated into this EIR would reduce impacts associated with unknown cultural resources where they to be found.

Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, the Specific Plan Area would be designated with the same land use designations and circulation facilities as described in the Fresno General Plan. The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in the eventual conversion of the undeveloped land from agricultural uses to urban uses. Because the same sites and site area as the proposed Specific Plan would be eventually disturbed by future development under this alternative, impacts related to cultural and tribal resources would remain unchanged when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Geology, Soils and Seismicity
The land use map for this alternative would allow more housing units and more population growth than the proposed Specific Plan. The future buildings and structures allowed under this alternative would be exposed to the same level of risk from geologic hazards as the proposed Specific Plan.

However, as discussed further below, the number of residents and employees resulting from this alternative may increase compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Because more people may be located in the Specific Plan Area under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, more people would be exposed to the risks from geologic hazards as compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, this impact would be slightly increased under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate GHG emissions during construction and operation. Short-term construction GHG emissions are a one-time release of GHGs and are not expected to significantly contribute to global climate change over the lifetime of a project. As described in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change and Energy, the proposed General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy. The proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the current version of the City’s GHG Reduction Plan, which is considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5,

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan thereby allowing for streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA.

Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, the Plan Area would be developed with the same land use designations and circulation facilities as described in the Fresno General Plan.

As described previously, buildout under this alternative would facilitate up to 67,205 new residential units. Based on the City’s General Plan Housing Element estimate of approximately

2.97 persons per dwelling unit, this alternative could result in up to approximately 199,598 new residents, while buildout under the proposed Specific Plan would allow for 54,953 new residential units, resulting in approximately 163,211 new residents.

As explained in Section 3.14 (Transportation and Circulation), implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in VMT per capita and VMT per employee during the horizon year that is less than the VMT per capita and VMT per employee of existing conditions in Fresno County.

The decreased VMT under the proposed Specific Plan is the result of the proposed land use mix within the Plan Area. The retail and employment opportunities keep the VMT per capita lower than the County average, while the large number of dwelling units near the jobs allows employees to live close to work resulting in a VMT per employee that is lower than the County average today.

Under this alternative, the amount of non-residential SF would decrease compared to the proposed Specific Plan, while the amount of residential dwelling units would increase. Residential densities would be reduced and the land use map under the existing General Plan would not provide the same opportunity for employees to live close to jobs; therefore, because there would be more residents with fewer employment-centered uses under this alternative, VMT would increase compared to the project. As such, the overall land use mix under this alternative would generally be seen to increase per capita GHG emission levels. Therefore, impacts would be increased under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Large portions of the Plan Area are improved with existing residential, public facilities, commercial, mixed use, undeveloped rural land, and agricultural uses. These uses are spread throughout the entire Plan Area. Agricultural uses are primarily located in the western portion of the Plan Area. The developed uses are aggregated in the central and eastern portions of the Plan Area.

Due to the long-term use of land for agricultural purposes, properties within the Plan Area may have residual soil (and potentially groundwater) contamination that may require remediation.

Also, potentially hazardous building materials (e.g., asbestos containing materials, lead-based paint, etc.) could be encountered during demolition of existing structures to accommodate new development. A release into the environment could pose significant impacts to the health and welfare of people and/or wildlife, and could result in contamination of water (groundwater or surface water), habitat, and countless important resources.

Like most agricultural and farming operations in the Central Valley, agricultural practices in the area have used agricultural chemicals including pesticides and herbicides as a standard practice.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-11 Residual concentrations of pesticides may be present in soil as a result of historic agricultural application and storage. Continuous spraying of crops over many years can potentially result in a residual buildup of pesticides in farm soils. Of highest concern relative to agrichemicals are chemicals such as chlorinated herbicides, organophosphate pesticides, and organochlorine pesticides, such as such as Mecoprop (MCPP), Dinoseb, chlordane, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethylene (DDE). Other chemicals may also be present due to other built-up uses. As described in the Environmental Setting section of Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, there is a historical record of soil contamination at the Proposed Constance-Sierra Elementary School site, the Westlake Proposed 430 Acre Development, and the West Shields Elementary School site, each of which are at differing levels of cleanup status. Therefore, there is the potential for other sites to have experienced contamination or have a history of hazardous materials being used as part of previous or current operations.

The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative is similar to the proposed Specific Plan in that both the Specific Plan and this alternative would result in future development of the entire Specific Plan Area with residential, commercial, mixed-use, and public uses. Because the land area to be developed would not change in comparison to the proposed Specific Plan, the potential for exposure to hazardous materials, or a release of hazardous materials would be similar with this Alternative. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, new development would introduce new sensitive receptors into an area that contains land that has historically utilized chemicals for agricultural production. Any negative health effects associated with the residuals of these chemicals would be alleviated through compliance with state and federal regulations that require remediation when above certain thresholds. There would be a long-term potential for hazards associated with use and generation of household and commercial hazardous wastes, although compliance with state and federal regulations would be required. The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in equal potential for such impacts.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of the Specific Plan has the potential to result in the violation of water quality standards and waste discharge of pollutants into surface waters during both construction and long-term operations. Construction operations could result in temporary increases in runoff, erosion, sedimentation, soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas. The long-term operation of the Specific Plan could result in long-term impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff and could enter groundwater or surface water systems. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would result in new impervious surfaces that could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. Mitigation measures incorporated into the project would reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level. The Specific Plan would not place persons or structures in a flood hazard zone.

Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, future development allowed under the City’s existing General Plan would result in a similar amount of land covered with impervious surfaces compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan,

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan stormwater would flow into the City’s stormwater system via a network of drains, pipes, and detention basins. Future development projects allowed under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would be required to develop permanent storm water control measures and incorporate these measures into the alternative in order to mitigate the impacts of pollutants in storm water runoff from the alternative. Because the alternative would be required to implement improvements in order to manage and treat stormwater flows from the site, impacts related to water quality would be similar.

As described in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, when the proposed Specific Plan is eventually developed, the on-site impervious area would increase, leading to faster runoff rates.

The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would provide a similar amount of impervious surface on-site as compared to the proposed Specific Plan, which would also result in similar impacts related to rainfall infiltration and runoff during storm events as compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

As described in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, Specific Plan implementation has the potential to result in the discharge of pollutants into detention basins and storm drains, and would change the existing drainage pattern on the site, although these impacts are less than significant as a result of compliance with local, state, and federal regulations, as well as compliance with Specific Plan policies. Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, these impacts would be similar and development of this Alternative would be required to comply with the regulatory requirements and General Plan policies to reduce potential impacts, similar to the Specific Plan. Therefore, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be similar under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Land Use
Unlike the proposed Specific Plan, the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would not require a change of the Specific Plan Area’s General Plan Land Use designations. This alternative would be consistent with the General Plan, including the goals, policies, and standards, and with the Zoning Code. The analysis in Section 3.10, Land Use, concluded that the proposed Specific Plan would not result in any significant land use impacts. The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would allow more housing units and more population growth than the proposed Specific Plan. It is noted that this this alternative would not be consistent with General Plan Policy UF-13-a, which requires future planning, such as Specific Plans, neighborhood plans or Concept Plans, for Development Areas and BRT Corridors by the General Plan. The proposed Specific Plan Area is located in the West Area; therefore, the proposed Specific Plan will serve as an implementation tool to support the General Plans goals and objectives as well as a vital instrument for much needed comprehensive planning, to improve area-wide connectivity, housing opportunities, recreation, services and infrastructure improvements. For these reasons, this alternative would have slightly greater impacts related to land use as compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-13 Noise
As discussed in Section 3.11, Noise, the primary sources of noise associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan are from increased vehicle trips on study area roadways in the project vicinity from on-site uses, and increased noise from future operation within the Specific Plan Area. Some existing noise-sensitive receptors located near the Plan Area are currently exposed to exterior traffic noise levels exceeding the 65 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard for residential uses. In some locations, the noise levels are predicted to increase to levels that would trigger a new exceedance of the 65 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard, or exceed the FICON allowable increase criteria.

Under this alternative, noise associated with vehicle trips is expected to slightly increase due to the increase in population, while other on-site noise sources would likely be comparable to those generated by the proposed Specific Plan. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan, this alternative would result in an increase in the number of housing units by approximately 12,252 units, resulting in approximately 36,388 more residents. Therefore, this alternative would generate more daily vehicle trips and peak hour trips, which would generate increased noise levels on area roadways when compared to the proposed project. Although this alternative would be subject to the mitigation measures identified for the project, due to the increase in anticipated vehicle trips and associated noise, noise impacts would be increased under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Population and Housing
The City anticipates growth within the community over time, and has responded to the anticipated growth by establishing Development Areas in the General Plan, including the West Development Area, Southwest Development Area, and Southeast Development Area. The proposed Specific Plan seeks to provide for the orderly and consistent development that promotes and establishes complete neighborhoods within the West Area with enhanced transportation infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation of additional parkland, and encouraging the development of a diverse housing stock. The proposed Specific Plan is a planning document that implements the City’s intent to focus new development, and the growth that goes along with the new development, into the West Area. The proposed Specific Plan would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing and/or substantial numbers of people, but would instead provide new housing consistent with the City’s General Plan. The Specific Plan does not divide the community, but rather, it is an extension of the existing community.

The City has undergone extensive planning efforts since 2017 to refine the General Plan’s land use vision for the West Area. The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in an increase in the number of housing units by approximately 12,252 units, resulting in approximately 36,388 more residents. Currently, the City, and the State as a whole, are having a housing crisis due to the lack of housing stock coupled with a significant increase in homelessness. The State of California has even gone as far as to pass legislation with incentives for municipalities and developers to build more housing. In response to an increase in housing stock under this

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan alternative, it would be anticipated that City would not need to look to other undeveloped areas of the region to supply housing stock to meet the regional demand and the State’s directive. This assumption is based entirely on the fact that California, and the City of Fresno, is having a housing shortage and an appropriate response to a shortage is to provide additional housing supply. The increase in residential uses under this alternative and overall land use mix would also meet the minimum number of residential units and layout required for New Urbanism principals that are established in the General Plan for the Plan Area. Overall, because the population growth under this alternative would increase compared to the proposed Specific Plan, this alternative would have a greater impact when compared to the proposed project.

Public Services and Recreation
New development would place increased demands on public services such as police, fire, schools, parks, libraries, and other governmental services. As discussed in Section 3.13, Public Services and Recreation, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in, or have the potential to require the construction of addition fire or police department facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. However, the proposed Specific Plan incorporates sites for new schools and parks.

Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project that require payment of impact fees to the City and other public agencies to ensure that the Specific Plan project does not have adverse financial impacts on these agencies. The Specific Plan includes land for schools and parks to ensure the increased demand for these services is met within the Plan Area.

The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in an increase in the number of housing units by approximately 12,252 units, resulting in approximately 36,388 more residents.

Therefore, under this alternative, there would be an increased demand for schools, parks, and other public facilities when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Future development of schools and parks within the proposed Specific Plan was determined to contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2- 1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3), and utilities (Impacts 3.15-1 through

3.15-3). These unavoidable impacts associated with construction of schools and parks under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would still occur. Therefore, when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, this alternative would have an increased impact to public services and recreation.

Transportation and Circulation
As explained in Section 3.14 (Transportation and Circulation), implementation of the Specific Plan would result in VMT per capita and VMT per employee during the horizon year that is less than the VMT per capita and VMT per employee for existing conditions in Fresno County. Under the Specific Plan, VMT per capita is 7.4 lower, or 46% lower, while VMT per employee is 12.4 lower, or 48% lower. The decrease in VMT is the result of the proposed land use mix within the Plan Area. The retail and employment opportunities keep the VMT per capita lower than the County average, while the large number of dwelling units near the jobs allows employees to live close to work resulting in a VMT per employee that is lower than the County average today. Additionally, ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-15 the guiding principles of the Specific Plan support the policies of the General Plan; therefore, no conflict with policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation would occur from future development and redevelopment under the proposed Specific Plan.

Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, the Specific Plan Area would be designated with the same land use designations and circulation facilities as described in the Fresno General Plan. As noted previously, the amount of non-residential SF would decrease compared to the proposed Specific Plan, while the amount of residential dwelling units would increase. Residential densities would be reduced and the land use map under the existing General Plan would not provide the same opportunity for employees to live close to jobs; therefore, because there would be more residents with fewer employment-centered uses under this alternative, VMT would increase compared to the project. For these reasons, this alternative would have an increased impact to transportation and circulation when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Utilities
Future development within the Specific Plan would result in an increased demand for wastewater, potable water, storm drain, and solid waste services. Under the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative, the Specific Plan Area would be designated with the same land use designations and circulation facilities as described in the Fresno General Plan. However, this Alternative anticipates an increase in the number of housing units by approximately 12,252 units, resulting in approximately 36,388 more residents when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, it is anticipated that the overall demand for water, wastewater, solid waste, and storm drainage would be increased under this alternative. As discussed in Section 3.15 (Utilities), the City’s preliminary water demand projections for the Plan Area under the General Plan were higher than for the Specific Plan.

In conclusion, the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in increased impacts to water demand. This alternative would also increase the amount of solid waste and wastewater generated at the site compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Overall, impacts under this alternative are expected to be slightly increased.

Conclusion
Table 5.0-1 summarizes the comparative effects of this alternative. As shown, the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would result in equal impacts in six areas and more or slightly more impacts in nine areas.

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan the agricultural industry. The Regional Park would be provided generally south of W. Barstow Avenue, north of W. Shaw Avenue, and west of N. Grantland Avenue. The park area would be designated by the City for dual land uses. The underlying designation would be the same as the land use proposed by the Specific Plan (i.e., Neighborhood Mixed Use and Park [Community/Neighborhood]), and the overlying designation would be Park.

Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Under the Regional Park Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map. However, this alternative would provide a Regional Park within the Plan Area, which would be about 74.2 acres in size. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan, assuming a regional park is constructed, this alternative would result in a decrease in the amount of Neighborhood Mixed Use development. Nevertheless, developing the entire Specific Plan Area would likely result in buildings with equal stories as the proposed Specific Plan. Additionally, similar to the proposed Specific Plan, future development under the Regional Park Alternative would be subject to the Development Standards, Design Guidelines, and policies of the Specific Plan, as well as the City’s General Plan policies and actions.

This alternative would equally impact the visual and aesthetic appeal of the site compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Overall, this alternative would have equal impacts to aesthetics when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to degradation of visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding would still occur under this alternative.

Agricultural Resources
The land use map for this alternative would be the exact same as the proposed Specific Plan, except 74.2 acres would have an overlay designation for the 74.2-acre Regional Park. Under this Alternative, because the same site and site area as the proposed Specific Plan would be developed under this alternative, impacts related to Williamson Act contracts, land use conflicts, and conversion of farmland to urban uses would be similar to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, this alternative would have equal impacts to agricultural resources as the proposed Specific Plan.

The significant and unavoidable impact related to agricultural resources would still occur under this alternative.

Air Quality
As described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate emissions during both the construction phase and the operational phase. Construction related impacts would be similar under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, as the area of ground disturbance would be comparable, and the duration of construction would be comparable. However, under this alternative, mobile source emissions are anticipated to slightly decrease. Mobile source (i.e., vehicle) emissions are directly related to the number of vehicle trips generated by a project. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan on the West Area, assuming a regional park is constructed, this alternative would result in a decrease in the amount of Neighborhood Mixed Use development. As such, the Regional Park Alternative is anticipated to result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and non-residential SF, ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-17 which would result in a slightly reduced population growth when compared to the proposed Specific Plan buildout due to the inclusion of a 74-acre regional park. Therefore, under this alternative, it is anticipated that slightly less people would be located in the Specific Plan Area generating less daily vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, which would produce lower levels of pollutants from mobile sources. Therefore, this alternative would have slightly reduced impacts related to air quality when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to air quality would still occur under this alternative.

Biological Resources
Potential impacts to biological resources are primarily related to the area proposed for disturbance and less on the type of urban uses that would occur on the Plan Area. Under the Regional Park Alternative, the Specific Plan’s development footprint would be the exact same as the proposed Specific Plan; therefore, an equivalent amount of habitat would be removed as the proposed Specific Plan, and a similar level of ground disturbing activities would occur as compared with the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, potential impacts to biological resources would be equal under the Regional Park Alternative.

Implementation of the mitigation measures incorporated into this EIR would reduce impacts associated with unknown cultural resources wee they to be found.

The Regional Park Alternative would result in a similar level of ground disturbing activities and would have a similar potential to disturb or destroy cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, as well as paleontological resources. While the Specific Plan is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to cultural resources with mitigation, the Regional Park Alternative would result in equal potential for impacts to cultural resources.

Geology, Soils and Seismicity
The land use map for this alternative would be the exact same as the proposed Specific Plan with the exception that 74.2 acres would have an overlay designation for the 74-acre Regional Park.

When compared to the proposed Specific Plan on the West Area, assuming a regional park is constructed, this alternative would result in a decrease in the amount of Neighborhood Mixed Use development. This would result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and nonresidential SF, which would result in a slightly reduced population growth when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The future buildings and structures allowed under this alternative would be exposed to the same level of risk from geologic hazards as the proposed Specific Plan.

However, as discussed above, it is anticipated that the number of residents and employees resulting from this alternative may slightly decrease compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Because fewer people may be located in the Specific Plan Area under the Regional Park Alternative, fewer people would be exposed to the risks from geologic hazards as compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, this impact would be slightly decreased under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate GHG emissions during construction and operation. Short-term construction GHG emissions are a one-time release of GHGs and are not expected to significantly contribute to global climate change over the lifetime of a project. As described in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy, the proposed General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy. The proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the current version of the City’s GHG Reduction Plan, which is considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5, thereby allowing for streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA.

Under the Regional Park Alternative, the land use map would be the same as the proposed Specific Plan, except 74.2 acres would have an overlay designation for a 74.2-acre Regional Park. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan on the West Area, assuming a regional park is constructed, this alternative would result in a decrease in the amount of Neighborhood Mixed Use development. This would result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and nonresidential SF, resulting in a slight decrease in population growth. This would reduce Plan Area operational GHG emissions by an approximately equivalent amount when compared to the proposed project. Therefore, it is anticipated that under this alternative, impacts related to operational-GHG emissions would be slightly reduced when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. With respect to mobile-GHG emissions, because the overall land use mix is generally the same as the proposed Specific Plan, it is assumed that it would create generally the same opportunities for non-motorized transportation options (such as walking or cycling) assisting with reducing mobile-related GHG emissions. Overall, because fewer people would likely result in the Specific Plan Area under this alternative, the mobile greenhouse gas emissions would slightly decrease when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. As such, the greenhouse gas emissions impact would be slightly reduced when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Due to the long-term use of land for agricultural purposes, properties within the Plan Area may have residual soil (and potentially groundwater) contamination that may require remediation.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-19 Also, potentially hazardous building materials (e.g., asbestos containing materials, lead-based paint, etc.) could be encountered during demolition of historic, existing structures to accommodate new development. A release into the environment could pose significant impacts to the health and welfare of people and/or wildlife, and could result in contamination of water (groundwater or surface water), habitat, and countless important resources.

Like most agricultural and farming operations in the Central Valley, agricultural practices in the area have used agricultural chemicals including pesticides and herbicides as a standard practice.

Residual concentrations of pesticides may be present in soil as a result of historic agricultural application and storage. Continuous spraying of crops over many years can potentially result in a residual buildup of pesticides in farm soils. Of highest concern relative to agrichemicals are chemicals such as chlorinated herbicides, organophosphate pesticides, and organochlorine pesticides, such as such as MCPP, Dinoseb, chlordane, DDT, and DDE. Other chemicals may also be present due to other built-up uses. As described in the Environmental Setting section of Section

3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, there is a historical record of soil contamination at the Proposed Constance-Sierra Elementary School site, the Westlake Proposed 430 Acre Development, and the West Shields Elementary School site, each of which are at differing levels of cleanup status. Therefore, there is the potential for other sites to have experienced contamination or have a history of hazardous materials being used as part of previous or current operations.

Under the Regional Park Alternative, the land use map would be the same as the proposed Specific Plan with the exception that 74.2 acres would have a Park overlay land use designation for the regional park. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan, assuming a regional park is constructed, this alternative would result in a decrease in the amount of Neighborhood Mixed Use development. This would result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and nonresidential SF, which would result in a slightly reduced population growth when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, new development would introduce new sensitive receptors into an area that contains land that has historically utilized chemicals for agricultural production. Any negative health effects associated with the residuals of these chemicals would be alleviated through compliance with state and federal regulations that require remediation when above certain thresholds. There would be a long-term potential for hazards associated with use and generation of household and commercial hazardous wastes, although compliance with state and federal regulations would be required. Given that this alternative would likely result in a slight reduction of residential and non-residential development and that all of the sites maintain their underlying land use designations, it is expected that the Regional Park Alternative would generally have an equal impact to this topic relative to the proposed Specific Plan.

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas. The long-term operation of the Specific Plan could result in long-term impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff and could enter groundwater or surface water systems. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would result in new impervious surfaces that could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. Mitigation measures incorporated into the project would reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level. The Specific Plan would not place persons or structures in a flood hazard zone.

Under the Regional Park Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map. However, this alternative would provide a Regional Park within the Plan Area, which would be 74.2 acres in size. Approximately the same area as the proposed Specific Plan would be developed with the aforementioned uses in the future. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan on the West Area, assuming a regional park is constructed, this alternative would result in a decrease in the amount of Neighborhood Mixed Use development. The amount of land covered with impervious surfaces would be slightly reduced under this alternative due to the inclusion of a regional park in lieu of urban development.

Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, stormwater from the future buildings would flow into the City’s stormwater system via a network of drains, pipes, and detention basins. Future development projects allowed under the Regional Park Alternative would be required to develop permanent storm water control measures and incorporate these measures into the alternative in order to mitigate the impacts of pollutants in storm water runoff from the alternative. Because the alternative would be required to implement improvements in order to manage and treat stormwater flows from the site, impacts related to water quality would be similar.

As described in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed Specific Plan implementation has the potential to result in the discharge of pollutants into detention basins and storm drains, and would change the existing drainage pattern on the site, although these impacts are less than significant as a result of compliance with local, state, and federal regulations.

Under this alternative, these impacts would be similar as the proposed Specific Plan. Overall, potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be similar under the Regional Park Alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Land Use
Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, the Regional Park Alternative would require a change of the Specific Plan Area’s General Plan Land Use designations. This alternative would be required to be consistent with the General Plan, including the goals, policies, and standards and with the Zoning Code. The analysis in Section 3.10, Land Use, concluded that the proposed Specific Plan would not result in any significant land use impacts. This alternative would provide generally the same housing and employment opportunities for the city. However, this alternative would include a 74- acre Park overlay designation to allow for the development of a regional park, which would slightly reduce the overall housing and employment opportunities. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, upon approval of the General Plan amendment, this alternative would be consistent ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-21 with the City’s General Plan and other land use regulations, and therefore, would have similar land use impacts as the proposed Specific Plan.

Noise
As discussed in Section 3.11, Noise, the primary sources of noise associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan are from increased vehicle trips on study area roadways in the project vicinity from on-site uses, and increased noise from future operation within the Specific Plan Area. Some existing noise-sensitive receptors located near the Plan Area are currently exposed to exterior traffic noise levels exceeding the 65 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard for residential uses. In some locations, the noise levels are predicted to increase to levels that would trigger a new exceedance of the 65 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard, or exceed the FICON allowable increase criteria.

The remainder of the Plan Area would be developed with the same land uses as the proposed Specific Plan. When compared to the proposed Specific Plan, this alternative would result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and non-residential SF. The slight decrease in residential and non-residential development would result in a slight decrease in noise levels associated with traffic, stationary sources, and construction under this alternative; however, the decrease is anticipated to be negligible since the land designated for the future regional park would generate trips and generate on-site noise associated with the regional park use. Overall, despite this slight reduction in urban development under this alternative, it is expected that some noise levels associated with traffic under this Alternative would still generate a potentially significant impact similar to the proposed Specific Plan. The same mitigation measures required for the proposed Specific Plan would be required for this alternative. As such, this alternative is expected to have an equal impact relative to the proposed Specific Plan.

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan The City has undergone extensive planning efforts since 2017 to refine the General Plan’s land use vision for the West Area. Under the Regional Park Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan’s land use map. However, this alternative would provide a Regional Park within the Plan Area, which would be 74.2 acres in size. This would result in a slight decrease in the overall number of housing units and non-residential SF, which would cause a slight decrease in the number of new residents and jobs generated under this alternative. Currently, the City, and the State as a whole, are having a housing crisis due to the lack of housing stock coupled with a significant increase in homelessness.

The State of California has even gone as far as to pass legislation with incentives for municipalities and developers to build more housing. While buildout under this alternative might result in a slight decrease of housing stock, it is anticipated that this decrease would be negligible and the overall buildout of the Specific Plan under this alternative would be generally comparable to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, it is anticipated that impacts to population and housing would be generally similar under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Public Services and Recreation
New development would place increased demands on public services such as police, fire, schools, parks, libraries, and other governmental services. As discussed in Section 3.13, Public Services and Recreation, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in, or have the potential to require the construction of additional fire or police department facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. However, the proposed Specific Plan incorporates sites for new schools and parks.

Under the Regional Park Alternative, the land use map would be the same as the proposed Specific Plan with the exception that 74.2 acres would have a Park overlay land use designation for the proposed regional park. This 74.2-acre overlay designation would result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and non-residential SF in the Specific Plan area, which would result in a slightly reduced population when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, under this alternative, it is expected that there would be a slight decrease in demand for fire, police, schools, parks, and other public facilities when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The park demand would also be less under this alternative because the amount of parkland provided would increase compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

It should be noted that the future development of a parks and open space within the proposed Specific Plan was determined to contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics (Impact 3.1-3), agricultural resources (Impact 3.2-1 and Impact 3.2-2), air quality (Impacts 3.3-1 through 3.3-3) , and utilities (Impacts 3.15-1 through 3.15-3). The proposed land use map for this alternative includes 74.2 acres for the development of a regional park. While the development of an additional park facility would contribute to this significant and unavoidable ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-23 impact, it is anticipated that this alternative would result in generally similar impacts relative to park and open space facilities when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. However, the slight decrease in demand for fire, police, schools, and other public facilities due to the slight decrease in population and jobs under this alternative would have a slightly reduced impact to public services under this alternative.

Transportation and Circulation
As explained in Section 3.14 (Transportation and Circulation), implementation of the Specific Plan would result in VMT per capita and VMT per employee during the horizon year that is less than the VMT per capita and VMT per employee for existing conditions in Fresno County. Under the Specific Plan, VMT per capita is 7.4 lower, or 46% lower, while VMT per employee is 12.4 lower, or 48% lower. The decrease in VMT is the result of the proposed land use mix within the Plan Area. The retail and employment opportunities keep the VMT per capita lower than the County average, while the large number of dwelling units near the jobs allows employees to live close to work resulting in a VMT per employee that is lower than the County average today. Additionally, the guiding principles of the Specific Plan support the policies of the General Plan; therefore, no conflict with policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation would occur from future development and redevelopment under the proposed Specific Plan.

Utilities
Future development within the Specific Plan would result in an increased demand for wastewater, potable water, storm drain, and solid waste services. Under the Regional Park Alternative, the land use map would be the exact same as the proposed Specific Plan with the exception that 74.2 acres would have a Park overlay land use designation for the proposed regional park. The regional park would include the planting of drought-resistant vegetation and trees to assist in reducing overall water demand associated with landscaping. This 74.2-acre overlay designation would result in a slight decrease in the number of housing units and non-residential SF in the Specific Plan Area, which would result in a slight reduction of population and jobs when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed regional park would generate less wastewater, potable water, and solid waste demand than the underlying land uses. For these reasons, it is anticipated that the overall demand for wastewater, potable water, solid waste, and storm

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan drainage under this alternative would be slightly less than the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, this alternative would have slightly reduced impacts to utilities when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Conclusion
Table 5.0-1 summarizes the comparative effects of this alternative. As shown, the Regional Park Alternative would result in reduced or slightly reduced impacts in five areas and equal impacts in 10 areas.

Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. This would result in reduced light and glare impacts due to less development introduced into the Plan Area.

Additionally, buildout of the Specific Plan under this alternative would result in less degradation of the visual character and quality of the site due to the preservation of land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, future development under this alternative would be subject to the Development Standards, Design Guidelines, and policies of the Specific Plan, as well as the City’s General Plan policies and actions.

Overall, despite this reduction in urban development under this alternative, it is expected that overall buildout of the Plan Area would still generate a significant and unavoidable impact related to visual quality and light and glare due to the conversion of farmland and open space into urban development; however, this alternative would result in less impacts to the visual and aesthetic appeal of the site when compared to the proposed Specific Plan due to the preservation of rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area.

Agricultural Resources
The land use map for this alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. Because fewer agricultural areas would be developed under this alternative, impacts related to Williamson Act contracts, land use conflicts, and conversion of farmland to urban uses would be reduced when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, this alternative would have less impacts to agricultural resources as the proposed Specific Plan. The ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-25 significant and unavoidable impact related to agricultural resources would still occur under this alternative, though to a lesser extent than the proposed Specific Plan.

Air Quality
As described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate emissions during both the construction phase and the operational phase. The land use map for the Lower Density Alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area, resulting in a reduced development footprint. Construction related impacts would be reduced under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, as the area of ground disturbance would be reduced, which would reduce the duration of construction. Additionally, under this alternative, mobile source emissions are anticipated to also decrease. Mobile source emissions are directly related to the number of vehicle trips generated by a project. The Lower Density Alternative would result in the development of lower densities throughout the Plan Area decreasing the number of housing units and non-residential SF, which would result in a reduced population growth when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Therefore, under this alternative, it is anticipated that less people would be located on the Specific Plan Area generating less daily vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Specific Plan, which would produce lower levels of pollutants from mobile sources. Therefore, this alternative would have reduced impacts related to air quality when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The significant and unavoidable impact related to air quality would still occur under this alternative, though to a lesser extent than the proposed Specific Plan.

Biological Resources
Potential impacts to biological resources are primarily related to the area proposed for disturbance and less on the type of urban uses that would occur on the Plan Area. The Lower Density Alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. Therefore, under this alternative, the Specific Plan’s development footprint would be less than the proposed Specific Plan, resulting in less habitat removal and reduced ground disturbing activities when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, there would be less potential for impacts to biological resources under this alternative as compared with the proposed Specific Plan.

The reduced development footprint would result in less ground disturbing activities and habitat removal, resulting in the preservation of more movement habitat and upland habitat adjacent to the movement corridors along the southern and western boundaries of the Specific Plan Area.

When compared to the proposed Specific Plan, the overall impacts to biological resources would be reduced under this alternative due to the preservation of the existing site conditions along the southern and western boundaries of the Specific Plan Area, resulting in less habitat loss and ground disturbing activities.

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Cultural and Tribal Resources
According to the Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment, a total of 82 cultural resources have been previously recorded within the Plan Area. Of these cultural resources, four are historic archaeological sites and 78 are historic built environment resources. Additionally, as with most projects in the region that involve ground-disturbing activities, there is the potential for discovery of a previously unknown cultural and/or historical resource or human remains.

Implementation of the mitigation measures incorporated into this EIR would reduce impacts associated with unknown cultural resources where they to be found.

The Lower Density Alternative would result in a reduced level of ground disturbing activities and would have less potential to disturb or destroy cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, as well as paleontological resources. While the Specific Plan is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to cultural resources with mitigation, the Lower Density Alternative would result in less potential for impacts to cultural resources.

Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. This would result in a decreased number of housing units and non-residential SF introduced into the Plan Area, which would result in a reduced population and total jobs when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The future buildings and structures allowed under this alternative would be exposed to the same level of risk from geologic hazards as the proposed Specific Plan. However, as discussed above, it is anticipated that the number of residents and employees resulting from this alternative would be less when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Because fewer people may be located in the Specific Plan Area under the Lower Density Alternative, fewer people would be exposed to the risks from geologic hazards as compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Therefore, this impact would be slightly decreased under this alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy
Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would generate GHG emissions during construction and operation. Short-term construction GHG emissions are a one-time release of GHGs and are not expected to significantly contribute to global climate change over the lifetime of a project. As described in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy, the proposed Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts to Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy. The proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the current version of the City’s GHG Reduction Plan, which is considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5, thereby allowing for streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-27 Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area, resulting in a lower development footprint. This would reduce Plan Area operational GHG emissions by an approximately equivalent amount when compared to the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to greenhouse gases under this alternative are expected to be slightly reduced when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Due to the long-term use of land for agricultural purposes, properties within the Plan Area may have residual soil (and potentially groundwater) contamination that may require remediation.

Like most agricultural and farming operations in the Central Valley, agricultural practices in the area have used agricultural chemicals including pesticides and herbicides as a standard practice.

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan which would result in a reduced population and total jobs when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, new development would introduce new sensitive receptors into an area that contains land that has historically utilized chemicals for agricultural production. Any negative health effects associated with the residuals of these chemicals would be alleviated through compliance with state and federal regulations that require remediation when above certain thresholds. There would be a long-term potential for hazards associated with use and generation of household and commercial hazardous wastes, although compliance with state and federal regulations would be required. Given that this alternative would result in lower densities throughout the Plan Area and a lower development footprint resulting a reduction of total residential and non-residential development, it is expected that the Lower Density Alternative would have a reduced impact relative to this topic.

Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area, resulting in an overall lower development footprint. This would result in less impervious surfaces introduced into the Plan Area, which would allow for increased rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge, especially at the western and southern boundaries of the Plan Area that would be preserved under this alternative.

Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, stormwater from the future buildings would flow into the City’s stormwater system via a network of drains, pipes, and detention basins. Future development projects allowed under the Lower Density Alternative would be required to develop permanent storm water control measures and incorporate these measures into the alternative in order to mitigate the impacts of pollutants in storm water runoff from the alternative. Because the alternative would be required to implement improvements in order to manage and treat stormwater flows from the site, impacts related to water quality would be similar.

As described in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed Specific Plan implementation has the potential to result in the discharge of pollutants into detention basins ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-29 and storm drains, and would change the existing drainage pattern on the site, although these impacts are less than significant as a result of compliance with local, state, and federal regulations.

Under this alternative, these impacts would be similar as the proposed Specific Plan. Overall, potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be reduced under the Lower Density Alternative when compared to the proposed Specific Plan due to the lower densities developed throughout the Plan Area.

Land Use
Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, the Lower Density Alternative would require a change of the Specific Plan Area’s General Plan Land Use designations. This alternative would be required to be consistent with the General Plan, including the goals, policies, and standards and with the Zoning Code. The analysis in Section 3.10, Land Use, concluded that the proposed Specific Plan would not result in any significant land use impacts. This alternative would provide for decreased housing and employment opportunities for the city. Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, upon approval of the General Plan amendment, this alternative would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and other land use regulations, and therefore, would have similar land use impacts as the proposed Specific Plan.

Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. This would result in a decreased number of housing units and non-residential SF introduced into the Plan Area, which would result in a reduced population and total jobs when compared to the proposed Specific Plan. The decrease in residential and non-residential development would result in a decrease in noise levels associated with traffic, stationary sources, and construction under this alternative. As such, this alternative is expected to have a reduced impact relative to the proposed Specific Plan.

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan proposed Specific Plan seeks to provide for the orderly and consistent development that promotes and establishes complete neighborhoods within the West Area with enhanced transportation infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation of additional parkland, and encouraging the development of a diverse housing stock. The proposed Specific Plan is a planning document that implements the City’s intent to focus new development, and the growth that goes along with the new development, into the West Area. The proposed Specific Plan would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing and/or substantial numbers of people, but would instead provide new housing consistent with the City’s General Plan. The Specific Plan does not divide the community, but rather, it is an extension of the existing community.

The City has undergone extensive planning efforts since 2017 to refine the General Plan’s land use vision for the West Area. Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. This would result in a decrease in the overall number of housing units and nonresidential SF, which would cause a decrease in the number of new residents and jobs generated under this alternative.

The Plan Area was planned for population and housing growth under the City’s General Plan. This alternative would not provide for the same population, housing and employment growth as anticipated by the General Plan or proposed by the Specific Plan. Neither the proposed Specific Plan nor the Lower Density Alternative would exceed the growth projections anticipated by the General Plan. Substantial unplanned growth under both this alternative and the proposed Specific Plan would not occur. Both the proposed Specific Plan and the Lower Density Alternative would not displace substantial amounts of housing. Overall, this alternative would have a similar impact when compared to the proposed project. It is noted that this alternative would not provide the amount of housing, or diversity of housing options, to the extent that the proposed Specific Plan would.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-31 Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. This would result in a decrease in the overall number of housing units and non-residential SF, which would cause a decrease in the number of new residents and jobs generated under this alternative. Therefore, the demand for police, fire and other public services would be reduced. This alternative would still result in development of public facilities (i.e. schools and parks) and would be required to pay the appropriate public safety impact fees. Overall, this alternative would have a reduced impact to public services when compared to the proposed project. The significant and unavoidable impact related to public services and recreation would still occur under this alternative.

Transportation and Circulation
As explained in Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation, implementation of the Specific Plan would result in VMT per capita and VMT per employee during the horizon year that is less than the VMT per capita and VMT per employee for existing conditions in Fresno County. Under the Specific Plan, VMT per capita is 7.4 lower, or 46% lower, while VMT per employee is 12.4 lower, or 48% lower. The decrease in VMT is the result of the proposed land use mix within the Plan Area. The retail and employment opportunities keep the VMT per capita lower than the County average, while the large number of dwelling units near the jobs allows employees to live close to work resulting in a VMT per employee that is lower than the County average today. Additionally, the guiding principles of the Specific Plan support the policies of the General Plan; therefore, no conflict with policies, plans, and programs for alternative transportation would occur from future development and redevelopment under the proposed Specific Plan.

The Lower Density Alternative would result in lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. This would result in a decrease in the overall number of housing units and nonresidential SF, which would cause a decrease in the number of new residents and jobs generated under this alternative. The reduced population and jobs under this alternative are expected to decrease the average daily vehicle trips. Therefore, transportation and circulation impacts are expected to be slightly less under this alternative.

Utilities
Future development within the Specific Plan would result in an increased demand for wastewater, potable water, storm drain, and solid waste services. Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area, resulting in a smaller development footprint. This would also result in a decrease in the overall number of housing units and non-residential SF, which would cause a decrease in the number of new residents and jobs generated under this alternative.

It is anticipated that the overall demand for wastewater, potable water, solid waste, and storm

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan drainage would be less than the proposed Specific Plan due to the smaller development footprint, lower developed density throughout the Plan Area, and the reduced population under this alternative. Therefore, this alternative would have slightly reduced impacts to utilities when compared to the proposed Specific Plan.

Conclusion
Table 5.0-1 summarizes the comparative effects of this alternative. As shown, the Lower Density Alternative would result in reduced or slightly reduced impacts in 13 areas and equal impacts in two areas.

ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative be identified among the alternatives that are analyzed in the EIR. If the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, an EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The environmentally superior alternative is that alternative with the least adverse environmental impacts when compared to the proposed project.

Table 5.0-1 presents a comparison of the alternative project impacts with those of the Specific Plan. As shown in the table, the Lower Density Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because it results in the least adverse environmental impacts when compared to the proposed project. The Lower Density Alternative would decrease or slightly decrease impacts to 13 of the 15 environmental issues. This is mostly due to the preservation of the existing farmland and rural residential areas along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area, and the decrease in development associated with the reduced densities. It is noted that none of the project alternatives would fully eliminate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur under the proposed Specific Plan; however, the significant and unavoidable impacts that would result under the proposed Specific Plan would occur to a lesser extent under the Lower Density Alternative. The Regional Park Alternative is the next best alternative as it would decrease or slightly decrease impacts to five of the 15 environmental issues. It should be noted that none of alternatives meet all of the project objectives, as described in Section 5.5 below.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 5.0-33 TABLE 5.0-1: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS TO THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE

NO PROJECT (EXISTING

GENERAL PLAN)

ALTERNATIVE

REGIONAL PARK

ALTERNATIVE

LOWER DENSITY

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

5.5 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT AND

ALTERNATIVES TO SATISFY PROJECT OBJECTIVES
This section examines how each of the alternatives selected for more detailed analysis meets the project objectives.

The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would not fully satisfy the project objectives because this alternative would not fully implement the community’s refined vision for the future growth, development, and conservation of open space and resources within the Specific Plan in a manner consistent with the quality of life desired by residents and businesses. An 11-member Steering Committee, established in March 2018 by the Fresno City Council, held regular public meetings to provide recommendations to the draft land use map and guiding principles based on input received from community members. The proposed Specific Plan seeks to provide for the orderly and consistent development that promotes and establishes complete neighborhoods within the West Area with enhanced transportation infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation of additional parkland, and encouraging the development of a diverse housing stock. The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would not be consistent with the revisions to the core goals provided in the General Plan for the West Area, which calls for the development of the West Shaw Avenue Town Center and Catalytic Corridors in the West Area. While the No Project Alternative would generally meet the project objectives and specific plan guiding principles, it would not be as effective as the proposed Specific Plan.

The Regional Park Alternative would meet the primary project objectives and would satisfy the policy guidance outlined in the City’s General Plan for West Area; however, it would not meet the quantifiable objective future development of up to 54,953 DU (including 67 DU in the commercial category, 47,072 DU in the residential category and 7,814 DU in the mixed use category) and 60,621,006 SF of non-residential uses in the Plan Area. Therefore, the Regional Park Alternative would satisfy the project objectives, but to a lesser extent than the proposed Specific Plan.

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Under the Lower Density Alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map, but at lower densities. This alternative would include lower densities throughout the Plan Area and would preserve rural residential and agricultural land along the southern and western boundaries of the Plan Area. Additionally, this alternative would focus the medium and higher density residential uses and commercial uses at available sites on major street corridors. A mixed use town center would be provided along Shaw Avenue. The land use mix under the Lower Density Alternative would not encourage a variety of housing styles and types and would not encourage the development of housing to accommodate an aging population including, multi-generational houses and other elder housing options.

Instead, this alternative would encourage the development of lower density single-family homes and ranch style homes. As such, this alternative would cause an overall reduction in housing stock in the Plan Area. Therefore, this alternative would satisfy the project objectives related to housing to a lesser extent than the proposed Specific Plan. Additionally, although this alternative would encourage development of retail along commercial corridors, the amount of retail and jobgenerating uses would decrease compared to the proposed Specific Plan. As such, the proposed Specific Plan is more effective than the Lower Density Alternative in implementing the retailrelated project objectives.

The Lower Density Alternative would accommodate and improve roadways and transit in the area, and would provide a complete roadway network. This alternative would achieve all of the transportation related objectives. This alternative would also result in creation of parks and trails in the Plan Area, and would incorporate elements of agriculture and agri-tourism ventures.

Overall, the proposed Specific Plan is more effective than the Lower Density Alternative in implementing the project objectives.

E
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB

NP NP NP
NP
P
OS
CP
NP
NP
NP
NP NP
NP
NP NP
NP
NP
P
CH
E E
E
E
E
E/M/H
H
SS
SS
CH
CH
FS
NP
NP
PB
PB
CH
CH
FS
CH
P
PB
NP
PB
NP
N Dante Ave
W Gettysburg Ave
W Shields Ave
N Blythe Ave
N Figarden Dr
W Sierra Ave
W Dakota Ave
W Spruce Ave
N Polk Ave
W Figarden Dr
N Golden State Blvd
N Emerson Ave
N Marks Ave
W Clinton Ave
N Weber Ave
W Barstow Ave
N Brawley Ave
N Valentine Ave
N Gates Ave
W Shaw Ave
N Bryan Ave
N Cornelia Ave
W Bullard Ave
N
Milburn Ave
N Hayes Ave
N Grantland Ave
W Ashlan Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N
Ma rty Ave
W San Jose Ave
W Herndon Ave

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
UV99
Sources: Fresno County; City of Fresno. Map date: July 25, 2019. Revised: May 31, 2020. q
0 ¼ ½
Miles

PROPOSED LAND USE
Residential - Low Density
Residential - Medium Low Density
Residential - Medium Density
Residential - Medium High Density
Urban Neighborhood
Residential - High Density
Open Space
Public Facility
Corridor - Center Mixed Use
Employment - Office
Employment - Business Park
Employment - Light Industrial
Neighborhood Mixed-Use
Commercial - Community
Commercial - Recreation
Commercial - General
Commercial - Regional
Potential Dual Use Basin FMFCD:

BOUNDARIES
Specific Plan of the West Area
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
Proposed Sphere of Influence Expansion
Figure 5.0-1.

Additional Annexation
Alternative
SS - Special School
E - Elementary School
E&M - Elem & Middle School
E/M/H - Elem, Middle & High
H - High School
CH - Church
FS - Fire Station
CP - Community Park
NP - Neighborhood Park
OS - Open Space
P - Park
PB - Ponding Basin
*Open Space Label Key **Public Facility Label Key
Residential Medium Low/Open Space PB
PB

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

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

VALENTINE AVE

EMERSON AVE

DANTE AVE

BULLARD AVE

GATES AVE

CLINTON AVE

VAN NESS BLVD

MARK S AVE

POLK AVE

SIERRA AVE

DAKOTA AVE

HUGHES AVE

SPRUCE AVE

RIVER VISTA DR

ALLUVIAL AVE

ASHLAN AVE

SHAW AVE

EMERSON AVE

PALO ALTO AVE

FIGARDEN DR

HAYES AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

MILBURN AVE

VALENTINE AVE

SPRUCE AVE

SIERRA AVE

ESCALON AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

SHIELDS AVE

BULLARD AVE

CECELIA AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

M AR TY AVE

MCKINLEY AVE

HERNDON AVE

BARSTOW AVE

SANTA FE AVE

WEBER AVE

SAN JOSE AVE

RIVERSIDE DR

JEANNE AVE

BLYTHE AVE
99 99

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

COMMERCIAL
Community
Recreation
General

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

EMPLOYMENT
Office
BP Business Park
Light Industrial

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

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

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
Figure 5.0-2. No Project
(Existing General Plan) Alternative

BOUNDARIES

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

5.0-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

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

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
UV99
Sources: Fresno County; City of Fresno. Map date: May 26, 2020.

Figure 5.0-3.

Regional Park Alternative
q 0 ¼ ½
Miles

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

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

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

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

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

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
UV99
Sources: Fresno County; City of Fresno. Map date: July 25, 2019. Revised: May 31, 2020.

Figure 5.0-4.

Lower Density Alternative
q 0 ¼ ½
Miles

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
Residential - Low Density
Residential - Medium Low Density
Residential - Medium Density
Residential - Medium High Density
Urban Neighborhood
Residential - High Density
Open Space
Public Facility
Employment - Office
Employment - Business Park
Employment - Light Industrial
Corridor - Center Mixed Use
Regional Mixed-Use
Commercial - Community
Commercial - Recreation
Commercial - General

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

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

5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

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

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

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

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

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

6.0 REPORT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.0 REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.0 REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

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

Accessed on September 3, 2019.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published November 11, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

7.0 REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX A
Notice of Preparation and NOP Comments

NOTICE OF PREPARATION

FOR THE

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
JULY 2019
Prepared for:

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

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

NOTICE OF PREPARATION

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

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

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

1 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROJECT LOCATION
The Specific Plan of the West Area (also-known-as “Specific Plan” or “West Area”) encompasses approximately 7,077 acres (or a little more than 11 square miles) in the City of Fresno city limits and unincorporated Fresno County. The footprint of the Specific Plan is referred to as the “Plan Area.” Of the eleven square miles within the Plan Area, 6.9 square miles are in the city limits and

4.1 square miles are in the growth area. The growth area is land outside the city limits but within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary, which is the adopted limit for future growth.

The Plan Area is triangular in shape and located west of State Route 99. It is bounded on the south by West Clinton Avenue, and to the west by Grantland and Garfield Avenues. The Plan Area includes the southwest portion of Highway City adjacent to State Route 99. See Figure 1 for the regional location map and Figure 2 for the Plan Area vicinity map.

PROJECT SETTING

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

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

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

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

Once annexation occurs, the County zoning would not apply to the parcel. 4 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Guidelines Section 15124(b), a clear statement of objectives and the underlying purpose of the proposed project shall be discussed. The objectives of the proposed project include future development of land for a wide variety of land uses including: Low Density Residential, Medium Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, Urban Neighborhood Residential, High Density Residential, Community Commercial, Recreation Commercial, General Commercial, Regional Commercial, Office, Business Park, Light Industrial, Corridor/Center Mixed Use, Regional Mixed Use, Pocket Park, Neighborhood Park, Community Park, Open Space, Ponding Basin, Public Facility, Church, Special School, Elementary School, Elementary, Middle & High School, High School, and Fire Station uses, as well as the required transportation and utility improvements.

Other objectives and purposes of the Specific Plan are summarized as follows:
 Accommodate and improve roadway access, connectivity and mobility among all modes of transportation, and prioritize roadway widening where bottlenecking exists.  Accommodate planned transit services in the West Area by locating routes near or adjacent to the community centers, schools, parks, and retail centers.  Provide a complete, safe, and well-maintained sidewalk network from residential neighborhoods to commercial centers, schools, parks, and community centers.  Provide a complete, safe, and well-maintained roadway network that allows for efficient and smooth access from the West Area to other sections of the City and region.  Create parks that are within existing and planned neighborhoods that are easily accessed by community members using pedestrian and bicycle pathways, transit services, or motor vehicles, consistent with the City of Fresno’s Parks Master Plan.  Provide for the location of a flagship Regional Park in the Plan Area that has components of the Plan Area’s agricultural history through the planting of drought-resistant vegetation or trees, and the creation of public art that exhibits the Plan Area’s contribution to the agricultural industry.
 Incorporate elements of agriculture in future parks by planting a mixture of native drought tolerant vegetation, shrubs, and trees that can serve to provide shade and enhance the streetscape.
 Encourage and provide land use opportunities for agri-tourism ventures to occur in the West Area.
 Encourage the development of harvest – producing community gardens.  Attract desired and needed local retail establishments to serve the needs of the West Area community. Such establishments include grocery stores, bakeries, restaurants other than fast food places, and boutiques.
 Discourage the expansion of undesirable retail establishments such as liquor stores, tobacco and vapor stores, short-term loan and pawn shops, and adult stores.  Encourage the development of retail establishments along commercial corridors. 5  Encourage the orderly and consistent development of civic, parkland, retail and commercial, mixed-use, and multi-family uses along West Shaw Avenue, West Ashlan Avenue, Veterans Boulevard, West Shields Avenue, West Clinton Avenue, and Blythe Avenue.
 Encourage a variety of housing types and styles.
 Encourage the development of housing to accommodate an aging population including, multi-generational houses and other elder housing options.  Reaffirm the City’s commitment and obligation to affirmatively furthering access to fair and affordable housing opportunities by strongly encouraging equitable and fair housing opportunities to be located in strategic proximity to employment, recreational facilities, schools, neighborhood commercial areas, and transportation routes.  Attract much needed educational opportunities for the residents of the West Area, especially for post-secondary education, and access to programs for life-long learners.  Provide for safe routes to schools for children, with the City and County working together with residents, to provide sidewalks in neighborhood that have sporadic access.
 Work to promote Neighborhood Watch in all neighborhoods, and further assess the need for the location of emergency response facilities west of State Route 99.

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS AND DESCRIPTION

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

The 11-member Steering Committee, established in March 2018 by the Fresno City Council, held regular public meetings to provide recommendations to the draft land use map and guiding principles based on input received from community members. Additionally, approximately 25 community stakeholders were interviewed from January 2018 to April 2018. Next, a kick-off survey regarding the Plan Area was released in April 2018. The survey covered topics such as quality of life, needed improvements, needed housing and commercial development, agritourism, and the overall future vision for the Plan Area. Two community conversations (i.e., workshops) were also held in order to receive feedback: Community Conversation No. 1 was held in May 2018, and Community Conversation No. 2 was held in June 2018. The Steering Committee then held meetings in June, July, August, November, and January 2018 in order to review and select the conceptual land use options. The draft land use map and guiding principles were released to the public on November 28, 2018. The draft land use map was then amended by the Steering Committee in January 2019. Lastly, an agri-tourism workshop was held in the spring of 2019.
6 INTRODUCTION
The proposed Specific Plan will establish the land use planning and regulatory guidance, including the land use and zoning designations and policies, for the approximately 7,077-acre Plan Area. The Specific Plan will serve as a bridge between the Fresno General Plan and individual development applications in the Plan Area.

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

LAND USE MAP AND MAXIMUM BUILDOUT POTENTIAL
The proposed Specific Plan refines the General Plan’s land use vision for the West Area. The draft land use map proposes the relocation of higher density land uses away from the most western and southwestern portions of the Plan Area where they are distant from public transit and community amenities and transfers those higher density land use designations to major corridors. The Specific Plan of the West Area land use plan utilizes the City’s existing General Plan land use designations to maintain or re-designate some parcels in the West Area. Some of the designation changes include: Low Density Residential (1 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre [DU/AC]), Medium Low Density Residential (3.5 to 6 DU/AC), Medium Density Residential (5 to 12 DU/AC), Medium High Density Residential (12 to 16 DU/AC), Urban Neighborhood Residential (16 to 30 DU/AC), High Density Residential (30 to 45 DU/AC), Community Commercial (1.0 maximum floor-area-ratio [FAR]), Recreation Commercial (0.5 maximum FAR), General Commercial (2.0 maximum FAR), Regional Commercial (1.0 maximum FAR), Office (2.0 maximum FAR), Business Park (1.0 maximum FAR), Light Industrial (1.0 maximum FAR), Corridor/Center Mixed Use (16 to30 UD/AC and 1.5 maximum FAR), Regional Mixed Use (30 to 45 UD/AC and 2.0 maximum FAR), Pocket Park, Neighborhood Park, Community Park, Open Space, Ponding Basin, Public Facility, Church, Special School, Elementary School, Elementary, Middle & High School, High School, and Fire Station. See Table 1 for a summary of the existing and proposed land uses within the city limits, growth area, and Plan Area. See Figure 6 for the proposed General Plan land use designations.

As previously indicated, the City of Fresno Zoning Map designates the Plan Area as: RE, RS-1, RS2, RS-3, RS-4, RS-5, RM-1, RM-2, RM-3, RM-MH, CC, CG, CR, CRC, IL, CMX, NMX, RMX, BP, O, OS, and PR. The Fresno County Zoning Map designates the portions of the Plan Area outside the city limits as: RCC, C4, C6, M1, AE20, AL20, RR, RA, R1B, and TP. In conjunction with the approval of the Specific Plan, the parcels in the City which would have a changed land use designation as a result of the Specific Plan would be rezoned to the corresponding City zoning designation. 7 TABLE 1: PARCEL ACREAGES BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR GENERAL PLAN AND PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE

DESIGNATIONS

CITY LIMITS GROWTH AREA PLAN AREA TOTAL

GENERAL PLAN
ACRES

SPECIFIC PLAN
ACRES

DIFFERENCE IN
CITY

GENERAL PLAN
ACRES

SPECIFIC PLAN
ACRES

DIFFERENCE IN

GROWTH AREA

GENERAL PLAN
ACRES

SPECIFIC PLAN
ACRES

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

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

0.00 45.87
+ 26.92

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

0.00 44.83
+ 69.06

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

0.00 0.00
+ 14.49

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

16.81 14.78
+ 25.59

21.78 27.42
+ 57.65
Church 9.93 21.20 1.66 34.60 11.59 55.80
Special School 4.50 4.50 13.88 13.88 18.38 18.38
Elem. School 56.18 66.17 25.65 25.65 81.82 91.82
Elem./Middle/High School 145.37 145.37 0.00 0.00 145.37 145.37 High School 46.95 46.95 0.00 0.00 46.95 46.95
Fire Station 0.20 3.32 5.32 0.00 5.52 3.32
Subtotal - Public Facilities 268.10 300.15 63.32 88.91 331.41 389.06 Grand Total 3,675.75 3,675.75 -- 2,430.39 2,430.39 -- 6,106.14 6,106.14 -- 8 The parcels that are currently within the County will not be rezoned. Instead, upon a proposal to annex unincorporated land into the city limits, the City of Fresno would prezone the land to a zone that is consistent with the General Plan land use. Once annexation occurs, the County zoning would not apply to the parcel.

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

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

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
(AND DENSITY/INTENSITY)

SPECIFIC PLAN
ACRES

MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

DWELLING UNITS NON-RESIDENTIAL SF
Low (1-3.5 DU/AC) 516.57 1,807 --
Medium Low (3.5-6 DU/AC) 1,456.98 8,741 --
Medium (5-12 DU/AC) 2,065.37 24,784 --
Medium High (12-16 DU/AC) 275.55 4,408 --
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 DU/AC) 171.64 5,149 --
High (30-45 DU/AC) 51.33 2,309 --
Subtotal - Residential 4,537.44 47,199 --
Community (1.0 Max. FAR) 52.74 -- 2,297,354.40
Recreation (0.5 Max. FAR) 41.34 -- 900,385.20
General (2.0 Max. FAR) 220.78 -- 19,234,353.60
Regional (1.0 Max. FAR) 4.24 -- 184,694.40
Subtotal - Commercial 319.10 -- 22,616,787.60
Office (2.0 Max. FAR) 88.81 -- --
Business Park (1.0 Max. FAR) 56.02 -- --
Light Industrial (1.0 Max. FAR) 32.75 -- --
Subtotal - Employment 177.59 -- --
Neighborhood (12-16 DU/AC; 1.5 Max. FAR) 255.95 4,095 16,723,773.00 Corridor/Center (16-30 UD/AC; 1.5 Max. FAR) 96.00 2,880 6,272,640.00 Regional (30-45 UD/AC; 2.0 Max. FAR) 82.61 3,717 7,196,983.20 Subtotal - Mixed Use 434.56 10,692 30,193,396.20
Pocket Park 1.55 -- --
Neighborhood Park 86.26 -- --
Community Park 24.20 -- --
Regional Park 0.00 -- --
Open Space 6.79 -- --
Ponding Basin 129.59 -- --
Subtotal - Open Space 248.40 -- --
Public Facility 27.42 -- --
Church 55.80 -- --
Special School 18.38 -- --
Elem. School 91.82 -- --
Elem./Middle/High School 145.37 -- --
High School 46.95 -- --
Fire Station 3.32 -- --
Subtotal - Public Facilities 389.06 -- --
Grand Total 6,106.14 57,891 DU 52,810,183.80 SF
As shown in the table, the Specific Plan would allow for the future development of up to 57,891 DU (including 47,199 DU in the residential category and 10,692 DU in the mixed use category) and 52,810,183.80 SF of non-residential uses. The proposed land use plan also designates public facility uses that are currently existing within the Plan Area, including schools and churches. In the northern portion of the Plan Area, Fire Station No. 18 is located off of West Bullard Avenue at 5938 North La Ventana Avenue. Fire Station 18 will be relocated to a permanent location on 9 the south side of the 6000 block of West Shaw Avenue to maximize the department’s “4 Minutes to Excellence” response time goal. Additionally, the proposed land use plan would allow for approximately 248 acres of park, open space, and ponding basin uses. The Specific Plan also includes circulation and utility improvements, some of which are planned in the City’s current program for capital improvements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that an EIR analyze a reasonable range of feasible alternatives that meet most or all project objectives while reducing or avoiding one or more significant environmental effects of the project. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that 10 requires an EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f]). Where a potential alternative was examined but not chosen as one of the range of alternatives, the CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR briefly discuss the reasons the alternative was dismissed.

ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
Equally important to attaining the project objectives is the reduction of some or all significant impacts, particularly those that could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The exact alternatives that will be evaluated in the Draft EIR will be determined through the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Scoping Process. Through preliminary discussions, there are three alternatives to the proposed Specific Plan that are being contemplated for evaluation in the Draft EIR. The alternatives being considered include the following:
11  No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative: Under this alternative, the Plan Area would remain in its current General Plan land use and zoning designations. Future development allowed under the existing General Plan land use map would be permitted in the Plan Area.
 Regional Park Alternative: Under this alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map.

However, this alternative would provide a Regional Park within the Plan Area, which would be a minimum of 40 acres in size.
 Lower Density Alternative: Under this alternative, future development in the Plan Area would occur similar to what would be allowed under the proposed land use map, but at lower densities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Geographically,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WILLO W CR

CHOWCHILLA R

S AN J O AQUINR

KINGS R

SAN JOAQUIN R

CITY OF FRESNO

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

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
Figure 3. Aerial View of Project Site
Legend
Specific Plan of the West Area Boundary
Area Features
!( Fire Station
!( Golf Course
!( Park
!( Post Office
!( School
!( Shopping
!( Special Point of Interest
Sources: Fresno County; Madera County, Cal Atlas. Map date: May 8, 2019. 1 Station #18
2 Station #16
3 Station #14
4 Riverside Golf Course
5 San Joaquin Country Club
6 Community Park
7 Victoria Neighborhood Park
8 Inspiration Park
9 Highw ay City Community Center
10 Stallion Park
11 Fresno County Horse Park
12 US Post Office
13 Herndon-Barstow Elementary School
14 Glacier Point Middle School
15 Hanh Phan Tilley Elementary School
16 John Steinbeck Elementary School
17 Central High School East Campus
18 Roosevelt Elementary School
19 Teague Elementary School
20 William Saroyan Elementary School
21 Rio Vista Middle School
22 River Bluff Elementary School
23 Law less Elementary School
24 El Capitan Middle School
25 James K Polk Elementary School
26 Costco
27 Marketplace at El Paso
28 Island Water Park
29 Deran Koligian Stadium
30 Gatew ay Ice Center
31 Central Unified Aquatics Complex
Fire Stations
Special Point of Interest
Shopping
Schools
Post Office
Parks
Golf Courses
q 0 ¼ ½
Miles
UV99
San Joaquin River
CP
C
C C
C
C C
C
C
C C
C
G G
G
G
G
G
G
G
CMX
PB
PB
PB
PB
NP
NP
CP
NP
CP
NP
NP
NP NP
NP
NP NP
NP
NP
CH
E E
E
E
E
E/M/H
H
SS
SS
BP
RMX
NP
RMX
RMX
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
C
PB
RUN
G
G
G
C-R
RUN
PB

VALENTINE AVE

EMERSON AVE

DANTE AVE

BULLARD AVE

GATES AVE

CLINTON AVE

VAN NESS BLVD

MARK S AVE

POLK AVE

SIERRA AVE

DAKOTA AVE

HUGHES AVE

SPRUCE AVE

RIVER VISTA DR

ALLUVIAL AVE

ASHLAN AVE

SHAW AVE

EMERSON AVE

PALO ALTO AVE

FIGARDEN DR

HAYES AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

MILBURN AVE

VALENTINE AVE

SPRUCE AVE

SIERRA AVE

ESCALON AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

SHIELDS AVE

BULLARD AVE

CECELIA AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

M AR TY AVE

MCKINLEY AVE

HERNDON AVE

BARSTOW AVE

SANTA FE AVE

WEBER AVE

SAN JOSE AVE

RIVERSIDE DR

JEANNE AVE

BLYTHE AVE
99 99

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

COMMERCIAL
Community
Recreation
General

EMPLOYMENT
Office
BP Business Park
Light Industrial

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

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

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

VALENTINE AVE

EMERSON AVE

DANTE AVE

BULLARD AVE

GATES AVE

VAN NESS BLVD

M ARKS A
VE

POLK AVE

DAKOTA AVE

HUGHES AVE

RIVER VISTA DR

ALLUVIAL AVE

ASHLAN AVE

SHAW AVE

E MERSON AVE

FIGARDEN
DR
HA

YE S AVE
BRA
WLEY
A
VE

MILBURN AVE

SPRUCE AVE

SIERRA AVE BRA
WLEY
A
VE

MCKINLEY AVE

SHIELDS AVE

BULLARD AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD
M

ART Y AVE
99 HWY

HERNDON AVE

BARSTOW AVE

SANTA FE AVE

WEBER AVE

SAN JOSE AVE

R I VERSIDE DR
99 Source: City of Fresno

RESIDENTIAL
Low Density (1-3.5 D.U./acre)
Medium Low Density (3.5-6 D.U./acre)
Medium Density (5.0-12 D.U./acre)
Medium High Density (12-16 D.U./acre)
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 D.U./acre)
High Density (30-45 D.U./acre)
Figure 6. Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations
´ Date: 6/28/2019
This map is believed to be an accurate representation
of the City of Fresno GIS data. However, we make
no warranties either expressed or implied for the
correctness of this data.
0 0.25 0.5
Miles

COMMERCIAL
Community
Recreation
General
Regional

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

EMPLOYMENT
Office
Business Park
Light Industrial
BP

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

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

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

EMERSON AVE

DANTE AVE

BULLARD AVE

GATES AVE

VAN NESS BLVD

M ARKS A
VE

POLK AVE

DAKOTA AVE

HUGHES AVE

RIVER VISTA DR

ALLUVIAL AVE

ASHLAN AVE

SHAW AVE

E MERSON AVE

FIGARDEN
DR
HA

YE S AVE
BRA
WLEY
A
VE

MILBURN AVE

SPRUCE AVE

SIERRA AVE BRA
WLEY
A
VE

MCKINLEY AVE

SHIELDS AVE

BULLARD AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD
M

ART Y AVE
99 HWY

HERNDON AVE

BARSTOW AVE

SANTA FE AVE

WEBER AVE

SAN JOSE AVE

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

COMMERCIAL
Community
General
Regional

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

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

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

EMPLOYMENT
Office
BP Business Park

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mail:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,
Ashleigh Garrett

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

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

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

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

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