Fresno City Council
October 13, 2022

The increases in criteria pollutants generated by the proposed Specific Plan when combined with the existing criteria pollutants emitted regionally, would affect people, especially those with impaired respiratory systems located in the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. Construction emissions would be temporary in nature, while the operational activities of a project would be most likely to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, since ongoing, chronic, and lifetime exposure to criteria pollutants are key in the level of health impact. However, the increases of these pollutants generated by the proposed project are not on their own likely to generate an increase in the number of days exceeding the health-based NAAQS or CAAQS standards, based on the size of the Plan Area in comparison the Fresno County and the wider region as a whole. For these reasons, with implementation of the mitigation measures contained under the previous impacts (i.e. Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-7, the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact related to this topic.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-10 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

CEQA FINDINGS
36 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. IMPACT 3.4-1: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION COULD DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY HAVE A

SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT THROUGH HABITAT MODIFICATIONS OR REDUCTIONS, CAUSE

POPULATIONS TO DROP BELOW SELF-SUSTAINING LEVELS, SUBSTANTIALLY ELIMINATE A

COMMUNITY, OR SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF, OR RESTRICT THE RANGE OF, AN

ENDANGERED, RARE OR THREATENED SPECIES, INCLUDING THOSE CONSIDERED CANDIDATE,

SENSITIVE, OR SPECIAL STATUS IN LOCAL OR REGIONAL PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS, OR BY THE CDFW OR USFWS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to directly or indirectly have a substantial adverse effect through habitat modifications or reductions, cause populations to drop below self-sustaining levels, substantially eliminate a community, or substantially reduce the number of, or restrict the range of, an endangered, rare or threatened species, including those considered candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS, is discussed on pages

3.4-28 through 3.4-37 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.4-1 through 3.4-9.
(c) Findings. A background search was completed for the Plan Area vicinity using the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) endangered and threatened species lists. The background search was regional in scope and focused on the documented occurrences within a 12-quadrangle area (including the following U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 7.5-minute quadrangle maps:

Madera, Gregg, Lanes Bridge, Friant, Biola, Herndon, Fresno North, Clovis, Kerman, Kearney Park, Fresno South, and Malaga). Table 3.4-3 in Section 3.4 provides a list of special-status plants and Table 3.4-4 provides a list of special-status animals that are found in the regional vicinity. Figure 3.4-2 in Section 3.4 shows all occurrences within the 12-quadrangle area.

Approval of the proposed Specific Plan would not directly approve or entitle any development or infrastructure projects. However, implementation of the Specific Plan and Land Use Map would allow and facilitate future development in the Plan Area, which could result in adverse impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species, as well as sensitive natural habitat or wildlife movement corridors. Potentially significant impacts would result related to invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and plants.

Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the City’s General Plan and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of specialstatus plants and animals, including habitat. The Specific Plan includes numerous

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 37 policies intended to protect special-status plants and animals, including habitat, from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. While future development of the Plan Area has the potential to result in significant impacts to protected special-status plants and animals, including habitat, the implementation of the policies listed below, as well as Federal and State regulations, would reduce impacts to these resources. The implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-1 through 3.4-9 would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level. The measures pertain to special-status invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and plants. Preconstruction surveys and avoidance measures would be required.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.4-1 through

3.4-9 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to directly or indirectly have a substantial adverse effect through habitat modifications or reductions, cause populations to drop below self-sustaining levels, substantially eliminate a community, or substantially reduce the number of, or restrict the range of, an endangered, rare or threatened species, including those considered candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS, will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

2. IMPACT 3.4-2: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL

ADVERSE EFFECT ON FEDERALLY- OR STATE-PROTECTED WETLANDS (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, MARSH, VERNAL POOL, COASTAL, ETC.) THROUGH DIRECT REMOVAL, FILLING, HYDROLOGICAL INTERRUPTION, OR OTHER MEANS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have substantial adverse effect on federally- or state-protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means is discussed on pages 3.4-37 through 3.4-39 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.4-10 and 3.4-11.
(c) Findings. The Plan Area does not contain any natural hydrologic features. The Plan Area contains an internal network of agricultural ditches along the margins of the farm fields.

The ditches in proximity to active agricultural areas of the Plan Area are regularly maintained to control/collect irrigation runoff from the fields. These features are manmade and are fed only by local irrigation water during the irrigation season or rainfall during the winter/spring season.

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

CEQA FINDINGS
38 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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. These requirements are also included in Mitigation Measures 3.4-10 and 3.4-11.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.4-10 and

3.4-11 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to have substantial adverse effect on federally- or state-protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

3. IMPACT 3.4-3: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION WOULD NOT HAVE SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE

EFFECTS ON RIPARIAN HABITAT OR OTHER SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITY IDENTIFIED IN

LOCAL OR REGIONAL PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS OR BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE OR U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have substantial adverse effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service is discussed on pages 3.4-39 and 3.4-40 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.4-12 through 3.4-14.
(c) Findings. The records search revealed the presence of the following sensitive natural communities within the 12-quadrangle region for the Specific Plan Area: Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest, Northern Claypan Vernal Pool, Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool, Sycamore Alluvial Woodland. None of these community types are found in the Plan Area. Riparian habitat is located northwest of the northwestern corner of the Plan Area along the San Joaquin River; however, this riparian habitat is not found within the Plan Area. The rectangular parcel located closest to the River and associated riparian habitat is the site of the future Fresno Aquarium.

Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the City’s General Plan and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of sensitive natural communities, including riparian habitat. The Specific Plan includes policies intended to protect sensitive natural communities, including riparian habitat, from

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 39 adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. While future development has the potential to result in significant impacts to protected habitats, implementation of Specific Plan Policies IPR 3.5 and IPR 3.6 and Mitigation Measures 3.4-12 through 3.4-14 would ensure that this impact is less than significant.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.4-12 through 3.4-14 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to have substantial adverse effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

D. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES

1. IMPACT 3.5-1: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION MAY CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE

CHANGE TO A SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE, AS DEFINED IN CEQA GUIDELINES §15064.5, OR A SIGNIFICANT TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCE, AS DEFINED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE §21074.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to cause a substantial adverse change to a significant historical or archaeological resource, as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, or a significant tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code §21074 is discussed on pages 3.5-17 and 3.5-19 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-2.
(c) Findings. The majority of the historic built resources within the Plan Area are historic residences clustered around North Polk Avenue and West Acacia Avenue. However, as full buildout of the Specific Plan would occur over several years, there is the potential for other buildings to reach 45 years old during implementation of the Specific Plan. Any future development within the Plan Area with the potential to impact a historic resource or potentially historic resource would be required to comply with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 regarding determining significant impacts to historic resources, and Mitigation Measure 3.5-1. Project specific mitigation measures would be required to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource. It is not anticipated that future ground disturbing activities associated with future development projects within the Plan Area would result in impacts to historical resources. However, future development in proximity to a historic resource or potentially historic resource would be reviewed for the potential to

CEQA FINDINGS
40 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan generate vibration that could result in damage to a historic resource pursuant to CEQA.

Potential impacts to historic resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Although no prehistoric archaeological sites have been recorded within the Plan Area, unknown resources may be present. Four historical archaeological sites have been recorded in the Plan Area. Three of the historic archaeological sites are in the vicinity of the Teague School and one historic archaeological site, the San Joaquin River Quarry, is located just south of SR 99 in the northern portion of the Plan Area. No other archaeological resources have been identified in the Plan Area. Ground disturbing activities associated with future development projects within the Plan Area could result in impacts to currently unknown archaeological resources. The implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-2 requiring ground disturbance activities to be halted, a qualified archaeologist to be retained, and mitigation measures for the handling of any resource to be implemented, would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level.

While no specific tribal cultural resources have been identified through consultation with affiliated tribes, it is possible that unknown tribal cultural resources may be present within the Plan Area. Site-specific development projects would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis pursuant to CEQA, which would include Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation that could lead to the identification of potential site specific tribal resources. All future development projects would be required to comply with local policies, ordinances, and applicable permitting procedures related to protection of tribal resources. These include policies included in the proposed Specific Plan that consider State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines when establishing CEQA mitigation measures for archaeological resources; and require a project site and its Area of Potential Effects (APE), without benefit of a prior historic survey, to be evaluated and reviewed for the potential for historic and/or cultural resources by a professional who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Qualifications. Impacts would be reduced to a lessthan-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 and 3.5- 2 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to cause a substantial adverse change to a significant historical or archaeological resource, as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, or a significant tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code §21074 will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 41

2. IMPACT 3.5-2: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION MAY DISTURB HUMAN REMAINS, INCLUDING THOSE INTERRED OUTSIDE OF FORMAL CEMETERIES.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, is discussed on pages 3.5-19 and 3.5-20 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.5-3.
(c) Findings. There are no human remains or known burial sites identified in the Plan Area.

Additionally, there are no human remains or known burial sites that have been identified in the Plan Area on maps and files maintained by the SSJVIC. There have been 36 previous cultural resource studies that examined portions of the Plan Area and no human remains or known burial sites were documented. In addition to the SSJVIC records search, a variety of sources (e.g., NRHP, CRHR, CHRI, CHL, and CPHI) were consulted to obtain information regarding the cultural context of the Plan Area, and no human remains or known burial sites were identified within the Plan Area.

It is not anticipated that future ground disturbing activities associated with future development projects within the Plan Area would result in impacts to human remains or known burial sites given that none are believed to be present. If during ground disturbance activities human remains are discovered, activities would be halted in accordance with Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 and appropriate steps taken to identify the remains and proper treatment.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

E. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY

1. IMPACT 3.6-2: SPECIFIC PLAN CONSTRUCTION AND IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL SOIL EROSION OR THE LOSS OF TOPSOIL. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil is discussed on pages 3.6-15 and 3.6-16 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.6-1.

CEQA FINDINGS
42 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (c) Findings. The future construction activities that would occur as part of Specific Plan implementation would be governed by the General Permit 2009-0009-DWQ (amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ). Construction activities associated with implementation of the Specific plan, would be required to comply with all requirements set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities, including preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) containing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and sediments to meet water quality standards. Such BMPs may include: temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover. The BMPs and overall SWPPP is reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of the permitting process. The SWPPP, once approved, is kept on site and implemented during construction activities and must be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB and/or the lead agency.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 requires an approved SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The RWQCB has stated that these erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and are existing regulatory requirements. Additionally, as discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality, construction activities would be subject to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District rules and regulations pertaining to dust control. Specifically, Under Rule 8021, a Dust Control Plan is required for any residential project that will include 10 or more acres of disturbed surface area, a nonresidential project with 5 or more acres of disturbed surface area, or a project that relocates 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials for at least three days. The Dust Control Plan is required to be submitted to SJVAPCD prior to the start of any construction activity. The Dust Control Plan must also describe fugitive dust control measure to be implemented before, during, and after any dust-generating activity. For sites smaller than those listed above, the project is still required to notify SJVAPCD a minimum of 48 hours prior to commencing earthmoving activities.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 43

2. IMPACT 3.6-3: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE LOCATED ON A

GEOLOGIC UNIT OR SOIL THAT IS UNSTABLE, OR THAT WOULD BECOME UNSTABLE AS A RESULT

OF SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, AND POTENTIALLY RESULT IN LANDSLIDE, LATERAL SPREADING, SUBSIDENCE, LIQUEFACTION OR COLLAPSE.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of Specific Plan implementation, and potentially result in landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse is discussed on pages 3.6-17 and 3.6-18 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.6-2.
(c) Findings. The Plan Area does not have a significant risk of becoming unstable as a result landslide, subsidence, or soil collapse. There is a potential for liquefaction, liquefaction induced settlement, and lateral spreading. Nevertheless, Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 requires that future project proponents in the Plan Area complete and submit a final geotechnical evaluation of the soils at a design-level, as required by the requirements of the California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 18, Section 1803.1.1.2.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of Specific Plan implementation, and potentially result in landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

3. IMPACT 3.6-5: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY DESTROY A UNIQUE PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource is discussed on page 3.6-19 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.6-3.
(c) Findings. Although no paleontological resources have been recorded within the Plan Area, unknown resources may be present. It is possible that undiscovered paleontological resources could be encountered during ground-disturbing activities.

Damage to or destruction of a paleontological resource would be considered a potentially significant impact under local, State, or federal criteria. Implementation of

CEQA FINDINGS
44 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.6-3 would ensure steps would be taken to reduce impacts to paleontological resources in the event that they are discovered during construction.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.6-3 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

F. GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY

1. IMPACT 3.7-1: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION COULD GENERATE GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THAT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE

ENVIRONMENT OR CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE PLAN, POLICY, OR REGULATION ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES. (a) Potential Impact. The potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases is discussed on pages 3.7-32 through 3.7-35 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.7-1.
(c) Findings. Short-term construction GHG emissions are a one-time release of GHGs and are not expected to significantly contribute to global climate change. Additionally, the implementation of the mitigation measures presented in Section 3.2: Air Quality of this EIR would further reduce the overall annual GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. Lastly, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The project would be consistent with the current version of the City GHG Reduction Plan, which is considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5, thereby allowing for streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Moreover, the project would be required to be consistent with the adopted version of the GHG Plan Update, including with its Project Consistency Checklist, as described by Mitigation Measure 3.7-1, below. The GHG Plan Update would also be considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines §15183.5.

Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7-1, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, directly and indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 45 In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. IMPACT 3.8-1: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CREATE A

SIGNIFICANT HAZARD THROUGH THE ROUTINE TRANSPORT, USE, OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS OR THROUGH THE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE UPSET AND ACCIDENT CONDITIONS INVOLVING THE RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT. (a) Potential Impact. The potential to create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment is discussed on pages 3.8-21 through 3.8-26 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-10.
(c) Findings. Implementation of the Specific Plan could involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with future construction and/or remediation activities. The transport of hazardous materials and any potential remediation activities would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations. Additionally, the proposed project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-10, which provide requirements for any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well; require Phase I and Phase II site assessments, and other remediation activities including surveys and assessments, cleanup plans, programs, and activities, as applicable; and requires actions to ensure that developing a property within the Plan Area does not present an unacceptable risk to human health, if applicable, through the use of an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP).

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

CEQA FINDINGS
46 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Implementation of the Specific Plan will allow for the development of 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.

Each of these uses will likely use a variety of hazardous materials commonly found in urban areas including: paints, cleaners, and cleaning solvents. There could be a risk of release of these materials into the environment if they are not stored and handled in accordance with best management practices approved by Fresno County Environmental Health Division and the FFD. In addition, Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 requires that, prior to bringing hazardous materials onsite, the applicant shall submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to Fresno County Environmental Health Division (CUPA) for review and approval. This would further reduce the potential for a significant impact to this topic.

Implementation of the mitigation measures in Section 3.8 will ensure that these potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through

3.8-10 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

H. NOISE

1. IMPACT 3.11-1: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION COULD POTENTIALLY SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE MOBILE NOISE LEVELS AT EXISTING AND PROPOSED RECEPTORS. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to substantially increase mobile noise levels at existing and proposed receptors is discussed on pages 3.11-22 through 3.11-32 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.11-1.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 47 (c) Findings. Vehicle traffic generated noise associated with SR 99 will continue to be the dominant noise source in the eastern portion of the Plan Area with ADTs ranging between 77,000 and 107,000 adjacent to the Plan Area. Although most noise sensitive land uses adjacent to SR 99 are shielded by existing sound walls, topography or buildings, there are still some noise sensitive land uses where existing plus project plus cumulative noise levels will exceed the City’s 60 dBA Ldn noise standard.

As shown in Table 3.11-10 in Section 3.11, existing plus project plus cumulative traffic conditions will result in significant increases in ambient noise levels along the following road segments:
• 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 centerline of the road, resulting in increases in ambient noise levels between 5.5 and 8.1 dBA CNEL.

CEQA FINDINGS
48 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • 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.

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. Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 would reduce traffic noise levels to a less-than-significant level.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to substantially increase mobile noise levels at existing and proposed receptors will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

2. IMPACT 3.11-2: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE NOISE LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to substantially increase noise levels associated with construction and demolition activities is discussed on pages 3.11-32 through 3.11-34 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.11-2 and 3.11-3.
(c) Findings. Future development projects in the Plan Area are expected to require the use of scrapers, bulldozers, motor grader, and water and pickup trucks. Noise associated with the use of construction equipment is estimated to reach between 79 and 89 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the active construction area for the grading phase.

The maximum noise level generated by each scraper is assumed to be approximately 87 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from the scraper in operation. Each bulldozer would also generate approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The maximum noise level generated by the sound sources with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. The worst-case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 91 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from an active construction area. Noise reduction potential will be project and site specific.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 49 Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels will be loudest during grading phase. A likely worst-case construction noise scenario during grading assumes the use of a grader, a dozer, and two (2) excavators, two (2) backhoes and a scrapper operating at 50 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor.

Assuming a usage factor of 40 percent for each piece of equipment, unmitigated noise levels at 50 feet have the potential to reach 90 dBA Leq and 92 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptors during grading. Noise levels for the other construction phases would be lower and range between 85 to 90 dBA. For this reason, the West Area Specific Plan Noise Impact Study identifies a number of measures to minimize construction noise impacts associated with the buildout of the Specific Plan, which have been incorporated as mitigation measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11-2 and 3.11-3 would ensure that the nearby sensitive receptors to the Plan Area would not be subject to construction noise levels in excess of the City’s standards.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.11-2 and

3.11-3 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to substantially increase noise levels associated with construction and demolition activities will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

3. IMPACT 3.11-3: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE NOISE VIBRATION ASSOCIATION WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. (b) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to substantially increase noise vibration association with construction activities is discussed on pages 3.11-34 through 3.11-18 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.11-4.
(c) Findings. Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent land uses. Typical development projects in the Plan Area would not likely require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. For example, the primary vibration source during most future construction may be from a bulldozer. A large bulldozer has a vibration impact of 0.089 inches per second PPV at 25 feet, which is perceptible but below any risk to architectural damage. As shown in Table 3.11-9, a PPV of 0.20 is the threshold at which there is a risk to “architectural” damage to normal dwellings. It also the level at which ground-borne vibration are annoying to people in buildings. Impacts would be significant if

CEQA FINDINGS
50 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan construction activities result in ground-borne vibration of 0.20 inches per second PPV or higher at sensitive receptors.

For buildout of the proposed Specific Plan, the distance of the construction equipment would likely be at least 10 feet or more from any existing structure. At a distance of 10 feet, a large bulldozer would yield a worst-case 0.244 inches per second PPV which may be perceptible for short periods of time during site preparation of the southeastern corner of the project site, but no damage is expected. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-4 would further reduce construction related groundborne vibration.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.11-4 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to substantially increase noise vibration association with construction activities will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

4. IMPACT 3.11-4: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE STATIONARY NOISE AT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS.
(c) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to substantially increase stationary noise at sensitive receptors is discussed on pages 3.11-36 and 3.11-37 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measure. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.11-5.
(c) Findings. Due to the suburban/rural nature of the Plan Area, future development of the Plan Area will result in a substantial increase in existing ambient noise conditions.

Increases in ambient noise levels associated with existing and future stationary noise impacts may result in potentially significant impacts. However, enforcement of the Sections 10-105 through 10-109 of the City’s Noise Ordinance and analysis of noise producing projects, along with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-5, would ensure that the nearby sensitive receptors to the Plan Area would not be subject to stationary noise levels in excess of the City’s standards.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.11-5 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to substantially increase stationary noise at sensitive receptors will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 51

5. IMPACT 3.11-5: SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE AMBIENT INTERIOR NOISE AT FUTURE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS.
(d) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to substantially increase ambient interior noise at future sensitive receptorsis discussed on pages 3.11-37 and 3.11-38 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.11-6.
(c) Findings. As discussed in Impact 3.11-1, the existing and future traffic noise levels anticipated from implementation of proposed Specific Plan would result in exterior noise levels exceeding 65 dBA, which could result in the interior noise levels at future land uses exceeding the City’s interior noise level standards of 45dBA, as presented in

3.11-5. To reduce the interior noise impacts, site-specific noise analyses will be required for future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.11-6. The site-specific noise analyses will be required to fine-tune and finalize noise reduction features and must demonstrate the interior noise level will not exceed the City’s 45 dBA CNEL noise limit. Potential noise reduction features may include a “windows closed” condition and possibly upgraded windows with increased STC ratings for doors and windows.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-6 would ensure that the future land uses within the Specific Plan would not be subject to interior noise levels in excess of the City’s standards.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.11-6 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to substantially increase ambient interior noise at future sensitive receptors will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

I. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

1. IMPACT 3.13-1: THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN MAY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION OF FIRE

DEPARTMENT FACILITIES WHICH MAY CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the proposed Project to require the construction of fire department facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts is discussed on pages 3.13-29 through 3.13-31 of the Draft EIR.

CEQA FINDINGS
52 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.13-1.
(c) Findings. The proposed Specific Plan would not create a need for new or expanded fire protection facilities that could result in offsite physical impacts on the environment.

Relocation of Station 18, which was planned independent of the proposed Specific Plan, would improve response times in the Plan Area. Any future development under the approved General Plan, which includes development within the Plan Area, is required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the General Plan and Draft Master EIR (City of Fresno, 2014). Additionally, Development Impact Fees will recover future development’s proportionate share of FFD capital asset costs. As outlined in Article 4.9 of the City’s Municipal Code, the City collects Development Impact Fees from new development based upon projected impacts from the development, for purposes of mitigating for project impacts on public facilities, including fire protection facilities. The City also reviews the adequacy of impact fees on an annual basis to ensure that the fee is commensurate with anticipated future facilities demands, assessed on a fair share basis for new development. Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 requires the applicant to pay all applicable project impact fees per the impact fee schedule.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the proposed Project to require the construction of fire department facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

V. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THOSE IMPACTS

WHICH ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT OR LESS THAN

CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE
Specific impacts within the following categories of environmental effects were found to be less than significant as set forth in more detail in the Draft EIR.

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.1-1 and 3.1-2.

Agricultural Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.2-3 and 3.2-4.

Biological Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant:

3.4-4, 3.4-5, and 3.4-6.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 53 Geology, Soils and Seismicity: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.6-1 and 3.6-6.

Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy: The following specific impact was found to be less than significant: 3.7-2.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.8-2, 3.8-3, 3.8-4, 3.8-5 and 3.8-6.

Hydrology and Water Quality: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.9-1, 3.9-2, 3.9-3, 3.9-4, 3.9-5 and 3.9-6.

Land Use: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.10-1 and

3.10-2.

Noise: The following specific impact was found to be less than significant: 3.11-6.

Population and Housing: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.12-1 and 3.12-2.

Public Services and Recreation: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.13-2.

Transportation and Circulation: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.14-1. 3.14-2, 3.14-3, and 3.14-4.

Utilities: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.15-2, 3.15- 4, and 3.14-6.

The Project was found to have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to specific impacts within the following categories of environmental effects as set forth in more detail in the Draft EIR.

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.1.

Biological Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.4.

Cultural and Tribal Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.5.

Geology, Soils and Seismicity: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.6.

Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.7.

CEQA FINDINGS
54 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.8.

Hydrology and Water Quality: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.9.

Land Use and Population: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.10.

Noise: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable:

4.11. Population and Housing: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.12.

Public Services and Recreation: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.13.

Transportation and Circulation: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.14.

Utilities: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable:

4.15. The above impacts are less than significant or less than cumulatively considerable for one of the following reasons:
• The EIR determined that the impact is less than significant for the Project; • The EIR determined that the Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impact; or
• The EIR determined that the impact is beneficial (would be reduced) for the Project.

VI. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A. IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES
An EIR is required to identify a range of reasonable alternatives to the project. The “range of potential alternatives to the project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one of more of the significant effects.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c).) “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent).” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1).)

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 55 The quantifiable objective of the proposed Specific Plan includes the future development of up to 54,953 DU (including 67 DU in the commercial category, 47,072 DU in the residential category and 7,814 DU in the mixed use category) and 60,621,006 SF of non-residential uses.

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

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

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

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

Retail
• Attract desired and needed local retail establishments to serve the needs of the Plan Area community. Such establishments include grocery stores, bakeries, restaurants other than fast food places, and boutiques.
• Discourage the expansion of undesirable retail establishments such as liquor stores, tobacco and vapor stores, short-term loan and pawn shops, and adult stores.

CEQA FINDINGS
56 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • 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. • 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).

B. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS IN EIR
The alternatives analysis provides a summary of the relative impact levels of significance associated with each alternative for each of the environmental issue areas analyzed in the Draft EIR. The environmental analysis for each of the alternatives is included in Chapter 5.0.

1. NO PROJECT (EXISTING GENERAL PLAN) ALTERNATIVE:

The No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-6, and 5.0-7 through

5.0-15 of the Draft EIR. 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.

Findings: There are no environmental benefits of this alternative over the proposed Project because this alternative would result in equal, slightly more, or more impacts in all resource areas.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 57 In addition to not achieving any environmental benefits over the proposed Project, the No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative would not achieve any of 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.

For all of these foregoing reasons and any one of them individually, this alternative is determined to be infeasible and rejected.

2. REGIONAL PARK ALTERNATIVE:

The Regional Park Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-6, and 5.0-15 through 5.0-24 of the Draft EIR. 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.

Findings: Environmental benefits of this alternative over the proposed Project include the reduction of impacts to air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gases, climate change and energy, public services and recreation, and utilities. The remaining resources areas would have equal or similar impacts to the Project.

On balance, the alternative is less desirable than the Project and does not lessen the overall environmental impacts nor provide the same level of benefits as the proposed Project. While the City recognizes the environmental benefits of this alternative, this

CEQA FINDINGS
58 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan alternative would not achieve all of the Project objectives. 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.

On balance, the minor environmental benefits that might be achieved with this alternative are outweighed, independently and separately, by the reasons described above, and the failure of this alternative to provide the same level of benefits as the Project.

For all of these foregoing reasons and any one of them individually, this alternative is determined to be infeasible and rejected.

3. LOWER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE:

The Lower Density Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-6, and 5.0-24 through 5.0-32 of the Draft EIR. 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.

Findings: Environmental benefits of this alternative over the proposed Project include the reduction of impacts to aesthetics and visual Resources, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology, soils and seismicity, greenhouse gas, climate change, and energy, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services and recreation, transportation and circulation, and utilities. The remaining resources areas (land use, and population and housing) would have equal or similar impacts to the Project.

On balance, the alternative is less desirable than the Project and does not provide the same level of benefits as the proposed Project. This alternative would not achieve all of the Project objectives. 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

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 59 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 retail-related 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.

On balance, the minor environmental benefits that might be achieved with this alternative are outweighed, independently and separately, by the reasons described above, and the failure of this alternative to provide the same level of benefits as the Project.

For all of these foregoing reasons and any one of them individually, this alternative is determined to be infeasible and rejected.

6. 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 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.

As shown on Table 5.0-1 of the Draft EIR (on page 5.0-33), 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

CEQA FINDINGS
60 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 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.

It should be noted that the Lower Density Alternative does not meet all of the Project objectives.

This alternative would provide fewer residential units, which would result in fewer opportunities for Fresno residents to buy or rent. This would also reduce the property tax a and sales tax revenue generation as compared to the Project. While the City recognizes the environmental benefits of the Lower Density Alternative, this alternative would not result in the mix of residential and nonresidential uses that are identified in the Project objectives under full buildout of the Project site.

For the reasons provided above, this alternative is determined to be infeasible and rejected.

VII. STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO THE

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN FINDINGS
As described in detail in Section III of these Findings, the following significant and unavoidable impacts could occur with implementation of the Project:
• Impact 3.1-3: Specific Plan implementation would result in substantial adverse effects or degradation of visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. • 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.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 61 • 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.

The adverse effects listed above, and described in detail in Section III, are substantive issues of concern to the City. However, the City finds that the Project would have the following economic, social, technological, and environmental benefits:

1. Consistency with the General Plan. The City of Fresno has a General Plan that provides for an array of land uses throughout the City that are intended to accommodate the City’s needs for growth over the foreseeable future. The proposed Specific Plan refines the General Plan’s land use vision for the Plan Area. The proposed Specific Plan would continue to carry forward and implement, policies and objectives from the City’s existing General Plan that were intended for environmental protection and would not remove or conflict with City plans, policies, or regulations adopted for environmental protection. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the adopted General Plan and has been designed to encourage implementation of the General Plan’s primary objectives. The General Plan’s overarching land use objective for the Growth Areas includes Objective UF-13 that calls for the City to locate roughly one-half of future residential development in the Growth Areas (including the West Development Area), which are to be developed with Complete Neighborhoods that include housing, services, and recreation; mixed-use centers; or along future BRT corridors. As discussed throughout the proposed Specific Plan, the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan holds firm to the goal of achieving Complete Neighborhoods.

The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan will serve as an implementation tool to support the General Plan’s 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.

CEQA FINDINGS
62 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

2. Consistency with the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The Specific Plan includes 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 Zoning Code would prevail.

The Specific Plan is intended to be adopted by the City Council and to serve as a tool for the City of Fresno to implement. The 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.

The City of Fresno Zoning Map designates the Plan Area as: RE, RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4, RS-5, RM-1, RM-2, RM-3, RM-MH, CC, CG, CR, CRC, IL, CMX, NMX, RMX, BP, O, OS, and PR. The Fresno County Zoning Map designates the portions of the Plan Area outside the city limits as: RCC, C4, C6, M1, AE20, AL20, RR, RA, R1B, and TP. In conjunction with the approval of the Specific Plan, the parcels in the City which would have a changed land use designation as a result of the Specific Plan would be rezoned to the corresponding City zoning designation. Zoning designations are generally consistent with the existing General Plan land uses. The proposed Specific Plan would require modifications to the City’s Zoning Map to provide consistency between the General Plan and zoning; however, these modifications will not remove or adversely modify portions of the Fresno Municipal Code that were adopted to mitigate an environmental effect.

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.

3. Consistency with the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR contemplates environmental impacts of developing land throughout the General Plan planning area. Where the General Plan EIR identifies impacts, mitigation measures were adopted to reduce the impacts. In some cases, the impacts of development were anticipated to be significant and unavoidable and the City adopted a statements of overriding consideration. There are Project specific impacts associated with the proposed Project that are the same as those that were anticipated under the General Plan, and there are others that vary from what was anticipated. For instance, the physical environmental impacts associated with converting the Project site from vacant undeveloped property to an urban developed property is not

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 63 unique or different with the proposed General Plan amendment. Instead, the physical environmental impacts from this land conversion is the same under the proposed Project and the General Plan EIR. However, as it relates to environmental topics such as air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, etc., the environmental impacts are more closely related to the actual use, density, and intensity of development as opposed to the environmental footprint of the site. Under these environmental topics, the impacts would vary from what was anticipated under the General Plan EIR, and are very specific to the Project characteristics. Nevertheless, each environmental topic was analyzed in light of the anticipated impacts under the General Plan, and the actual environmental impacts caused by the General Plan amendment, the project characteristics, and the physical characteristics of the Project site. The DEIR for this Project, and these Findings, incorporate, either expressly or by reference, such impacts, mitigation measures and statements of overriding consideration that are applicable to the Project.

4. General Plan Policies. The proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the relevant General Plan policies, including:
• Future Planning to Require Design Principles. Require future planning, such as Specific Plans, neighborhood plans or Concept Plans, for Development Areas and BRT Corridors designated by the General Plan to include urban design principles and standards consistent with the Urban Form, Land Use, and Design Element. (UF-13-1) • Provision of Public Facilities and Services. Promote orderly land use development in pace with public facilities and services needed to serve development. (LU-1-c) • Scale and Character of New development. Allow new development in or adjacent to established neighborhoods that is compatible in scale and character with the surrounding area by promoting a transition in scale and architectural character between new buildings and established neighborhoods, as well as integrating pedestrian circulation and vehicular routes. (LU-5-g)
• Circulation Plan Diagram Implementation. Design and construct planned streets and highways that complement and enhance the existing network, as well as future improvements to the network consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan, as shown on the Circulation Diagram (Figure MT-1), to ensure that each new and existing roadway continues to function as intended. (MT-1-b) • Integrate Land Use and Transportation Planning. Plan for and maintain a coordinated and well integrated land use pattern, local circulation network and transportation system that accommodates planned growth, reduces impacts on adjacent land uses, and preserves the integrity of established neighborhoods. (MT-1-d) • Bicycle Safety, Awareness, and Education. Promote bicycle ridership by providing secure bicycle facilities, promoting traffic safety awareness for both bicyclists and motorists, promoting the air quality benefits, promoting non-renewable energy savings, and promoting the public health benefits of physical activity. (MT-4-k) • Sidewalk Requirements. Assure adequate access for pedestrians and people with disabilities in new residential developments per adopted City policies, consistent with the California Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act. (MT-5-b)

CEQA FINDINGS
64 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Path and Trail Design Standards. Designate and design paths and trails in accordance with design standards established by the City that give consideration to all path and trail users (consistent with design, terrain and habitat limitations) and provide for appropriate widths, surfacing, drainage, design speed, barriers, fences, signage, visibility, intersections, bridges, and street cleaning. (MT-6-i) • Path and Trail Buffers. Use landscaping with appropriate and adequate physical and visual barriers (e.g., masonry walls, wrought iron, or square-tube fencing) to screen path and trail rights-of ways and separate paths and trails from mining operations, drainage facilities, and similar locations as warranted. (MT-6-k) • Environmentally Sensitive Path and Trail Design. Develop paths and trails with minimum environmental impact by taking the following actions: (MT-6-m) o Surface paths and trails with materials that are conducive to maintenance and safe travel, choosing materials that blend in with the surrounding area; o Design paths and trails to follow contour lines where the least amount of grading (fewest cuts and fills) and least disturbance of the surrounding habitat will occur; o Beautify path and trail rights-of-way in a manner consistent with intended use, safety, and maintenance;
o Use landscaping to stabilize slopes, create physical or visual barriers, and provide shaded areas; and
o Preserve and incorporate native plant species into the landscaping. • Emergency Vehicle Access along Paths and Trails. Provide points of emergency vehicle access within the path and trail corridors, via parking areas, service roads, emergency access gates in fencing, and firebreaks. (MT-6-n)
• Adequate Infrastructure. Continue to pursue the provision of adequate water supplies, hydrants, and appropriate property access to allow for adequate fire suppression throughout the City. (PU-3-f)
• System Extension and Cost Recovery. Pursue enlargement or extension of the sewage collection system where necessary to serve planned urban development, with the capital costs and benefits allocated equitably and fairly between the existing users and new users. (PU-4-c)
• 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. (PU-8-g)
• Link Land Use to Transportation. Promote mixed-use, higher density infill development in multi-modal corridors. Support land use patterns that make more efficient use of the transportation system and plan future transportation investments in areas of higherintensity development. Discourage investment in infrastructure that would not meet these criteria. (RC-2-a)
• Evaluate Impacts with Models. Continue to require the use of computer models used by SJVAPCD to evaluate the air quality impacts of plans and projects that require such environmental review by the City. (RC-4-c)
• Forward Information. Forward information regarding proposed General Plan amendments, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 65 development proposals that require air quality evaluation, and amendments to development regulations to the SJVAPCD for their review of potential air quality and health impacts. (RC-4-d)
• SCS and CAP Conformity Analysis. Ensure that the City includes analysis of a project’s conformity to an adopted regional Sustainable Community Strategy or Alternative Planning Strategy (APS), an adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP), and any other applicable City and regional greenhouse gas reduction strategies in effect at the time of project review. (RC-5-d)
• Ensure Compliance. Ensure ongoing compliance with GHG emissions reduction plans and programs by requiring that air quality measures are incorporated into projects’ design, conditions of approval, and mitigation measures. (RC-5-e) • Evaluate Impacts with Models. Continue to use computer models such as those used by SJVAPCD to evaluate greenhouse gas impacts of plans and projects that require such review. (RC-5-g)
• Land Use and Development Compliance. Ensure that land use and development projects adhere to the objective of the Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan to provide sustainable and reliable water supplies to meet the demand of existing and future customers through 2025. (RC-6-c)
• Protect Recharge Areas. Continue to protect areas of beneficial natural groundwater recharge by preventing uses that can contaminate soil or groundwater. (RC-6-g) • Project Development. Prior to project approval, continue to require a project site and its Area of Potential Effects (APE), without benefit of a prior historic survey, to be evaluated and reviewed for the potential for historic and/or cultural resources by a professional who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Qualifications. Survey costs shall be the responsibility of the project developer. Council may, but is not required, to adopt an ordinance to implement this policy. (HCR-2-c)
• Archaeological Resources. Consider State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines when establishing CEQA mitigation measures for archaeological resources. (HCR-2-f) • Mitigation by New Development. Require an acoustical analysis where new development of industrial, commercial or other noise generating land uses (including transportation facilities such as roadways, railroads, and airports) may result in noise levels that exceed the noise level exposure criteria established by Tables 9-2 and 9-3 to determine impacts, and require developers to mitigate these impacts in conformance with Tables 9-2 and 9-3 as a condition of permit approval through appropriate means.

Noise mitigation measures may include:
o The screening of noise sources such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment;
o Providing increased setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings; o Installation of walls and landscaping that serve as noise buffers; o Installation of soundproofing materials and double-glazed windows; and o Regulating operations, such as hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup.

CEQA FINDINGS
66 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level reduction may be approved by the City, provided a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces. As a last resort, developers may propose to construct noise walls along roadways when compatible with aesthetic concerns and neighborhood character. This would be a developer responsibility, with no City funding. (NS-1-i)
• Significance Threshold. Establish, as a threshold of significance for the City's environmental review process, that 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 or more above the ambient noise limits established in this General Plan Update. (NS-1-j)
• Proposal Review. Review all new public and private development proposals that may potentially be affected by or cause a significant increase in noise levels, per Policy NS-1- i, to determine conformance with the policies of this Noise Element. Require developers to reduce the noise impacts of new development on adjacent properties through appropriate means. (NS-1-k)
• Transportation Related Noise Impacts. For projects subject to City approval, require that the project sponsor mitigate noise created by new transportation and transportationrelated stationary noise sources, including roadway improvement projects, so that resulting noise levels do not exceed the City’s adopted standards for noise sensitive land uses. (NS-1-m)
• Soil Analysis Requirement. Identify areas with potential geologic and/or soils hazards, and require development in these areas to conduct a soil analysis and mitigation plan by a registered civil engineer (or engineering geologist specializing in soil geology) prior to allowing on-site drainage or disposal for wastewater, stormwater runoff, or swimming pool/spa water. (NS-2-b)
• 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. (NS-3-i) • Soil and Groundwater Contamination Reports. Require an investigation of potential soil or groundwater contamination whenever justified by past site uses. Require appropriate mitigation as a condition of project approval in the event soil or groundwater contamination is identified or could be encountered during site development. (NS-4-c)
• Compliance with County Program. Require that the production, use, storage, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials conform to the standards and procedures established by the County Division of Environmental Health. Require compliance with the County’s Hazardous Waste Generator Program, including the submittal and implementation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, when applicable. (NS-4-e)

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 67 • Emergency Vehicle Access. Require adequate access for emergency vehicles in all new development, including adequate widths, turning radii, hard standing areas, and vertical clearance. (NS-6-f)

5. Consistency with Smart Growth Principles. The Specific Plan is generally consistent with commonly accepted principles of Smart Growth supporting the development of mixedincome communities; supporting a range of housing types as well as social diversity; promoting the use of existing infrastructure investments, and encouraging efficient land development and proximity to activity centers. The Plan Area is located in an area with existing community streets, and the Specific Plan includes a proposed layout for new public streets to serve the Plan Area is buildout occurs. The proximity of the Project to retail uses, schools and employment centers will encourage and accommodate the use of alternative modes of transportation, including bicycle and pedestrian modes, and encourage the reduced reliance on the automobile as a travel mode. (American Planning Association (APA), US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)).

6. Create Employment Opportunities for Local Residents. The proposed Project has been designated with land uses that are intended to generate jobs and tax revenue for the City, while providing public and recreational facilities, retail opportunities, and housing opportunities. The proposed Project would provide an increase in local jobs that could be filled by the citizens of Fresno, which could reduce the number of citizens commuting to areas outside of the City. Implementation of the proposed Project would provide job growth to the area. It is anticipated that local employment would be increased to provide administrative, management, visitor-serving areas, and retail services. The proposed Project is expected to require both full-time and part-time employees. Additionally, future development consistent with the Specific Plan would provide short-term employment opportunities within the construction, engineering, and design field, among others. The actual number of jobs would vary by the actual businesses and types of businesses that locate within the Project site.

7. Contribute to and Fund Needed Infrastructure Improvements. Future development of the Plan Area will be required to contribute to needed transportation infrastructure improvements by paying its fair share towards infrastructure improvements. The Project will also construct or contribute to funding other infrastructure improvements that will benefit additional development projects and City residents and visitors.

8. Generate Economic Benefits from Taxes. Future development of the Plan Area will provide increased sales tax and property tax revenue to the City, local schools and other agencies.

These revenues will benefit the City and other local governmental agencies, and their residents and constituencies, by providing needed revenue for the provision of required services and amenities.

9. Expansion of the City's Housing Stock. The Project would provide housing opportunities for current and future residents. Implementation of the Project would increase and diversify

CEQA FINDINGS
68 CEQA Findings – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan the housing supply in the City, which could spur development, economic growth, and tax generation within the area.

Based on the entire record and the EIR, the City Council has determined that the economic and social benefits of the Project in Fresno outweigh and override the significant unavoidable environmental effects that would result from future Project implementation as more fully described in Section III, Findings and Recommendations Regarding Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. The City finds that the Project has been carefully reviewed and that the goals, objectives, and policies included in the Project along with the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR have avoided or substantially lessened several environmental impacts, to the extent feasible. Nonetheless, the Project may have certain environmental effects which cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. The City has carefully considered all of the environmental impacts which have not been mitigated to an insignificant level. The City has carefully considered the economic, legal, social, and technological benefits of the Project, as well as other considerations. The City has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable and unmitigated adverse environmental impacts and, based upon substantial evidence in the record, has determined that the benefits of the Project outweigh the adverse environmental effects.

The City finds that any one or more of these overriding considerations would have been sufficient to outweigh adverse impacts. As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed action, the City of Fresno has carefully reviewed the Project and the alternatives presented in the EIR, and fully understands the Project and Project alternatives proposed for development. Further, this City Council finds that all potential adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts from the Project have been identified in the Draft EIR, the Final EIR and public testimony.