Exhibit R Resolution Certifying the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan EIR — Fresno City Council, October 13, 2022 (part 1 of 8)

Exhibit R
Resolution Certifying Environmental Impact Report
SCH. No. 2019069117
Attachment 1 - Final EIR
Attachment 2 - CEQA Findings of Fact which include:
- Impacts Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance
- Significant Unavoidable Impacts
- Feasibility of Project Alternatives
- Statement of Overriding Considerations
RESOLUTION NO. - --

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRESNO,

CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH
NO. 2019069117 AS RELATED TO THE WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN, RELATED PLAN AMENDMENTS P22-01351 , P22- 01352, P22-01353, AND RELATED REZONE P22-01353; ADOPTING

FINDINGS OF FACT AS REQUIRED BY PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21081(A) AND CEQA
GUIDELINES SECTION 15091, APPROVING A MITIGATION

MONITORING PROGRAM AS REQUIRED BY PUBLIC RESOURCES
CODE SECTION 21081.6 AND CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15097,

ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AS REQUIRED BY PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21081(8) AND CEQA GUIDELINES
SECTION 15093, AS RELATED TO THE ADOPTION OF THE WEST

AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN , RELATED PLAN

AMENDMENTS, AND RELATED REZONES
WHEREAS, pursuant to Fresno Municipal Code Section 15-4902-B, the Council of the City of Fresno adopted Resolution 2019-140 initiating the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan, corresponding amendments to the Fresno General Plan, and the repeal of the West Are Community Plan and approximately 455 acres of the Highway City Neighborhood Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the above actions shall be described collectively as the "West Area Specific Plan Actions" or the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Development determined that an environmental impact report (EIR) shall be prepared for the West Area Neighborhoods Plan Actions, and the City contracted with a professional environmental consultant to conduct the requisite studies and analyses of the potential environmental impact and proposed mitigation measures, as applicable, for the Fresno General Plan; and 1 of 15
Date Adopted:

Date Approved:

Effective Date:

City Attorney Approval: fV1 ~!) Resolution No.
----
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2019, the Planning and Development Department duly issued and circulated a Notice of Preparation, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082 and Public Resources Code Section 21080.4; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2019, the Planning and Development Department held a scoping meeting pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15802(c) and Public Resources Code Section 21080.4 attended by members of the public and at which written and verbal comments were submitted; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2022, Planning and Development Department staff exercising their independent judgement, completed the draft environmental impact report (hereinafter Draft EIR), and the City provided due public Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR for public comments pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15087; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2022, the City issued a Notice of Completion pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21161 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15085; and,
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2022, a public Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was posted in the office of the Fresno County Clerk Pursuant to Section 15087(d) of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, for at least forty-five days following the date of publication of the Notice of Availability, the public was given opportunity to comment, in writing, on the adequacy of the Draft EIR as an informational document; and WHEREAS, the City caused the preparation of a Final EIR (SCH No. 2019069117), completed on June 26, 2022, and dated June 2022 pursuant to CEQA 2 of 15
Guidelines Sections 15088, 15089, and 15132, which included the Draft EIR, responses to public comments on the Draft EIR, and minor corrections, as well as all appendices; and
WHEREAS, July 20, 2022 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which the Commission considered the adequacy of proposed Final EIR (which included the Draft EIR, Responses to Comments and Revisions, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding considerations), as an informational document and voted to recommend to the City Council certification of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 the Final EIR is required to be completed in compliance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21092.5 of CEQA, the City provided written responses to comments to all public agencies as well as private parties that commented on the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2022, the City Council conducted a public hearing and considered the record of proceedings for the EIR, which includes, but is not limited to the following:
(1) The Notice of Preparation for the Project (the "NOP"), and all other public notices issued by the City in connection with the Project; (2) The Final EIR dated June 2022;
(3) The Draft EIR dated February 2022;
(4) All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during any public review comment period on the Draft EIR. 3 of 15
(5) All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the Project (consistent with City Council policy) at which such testimony was taken, including without limitation, the Report to Council, including all attachments, any all presentations by City staff, the City's consultants, the public, and any other interested party; and (6) The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project (MMRP) included as Chapter 4 of the Final EIR;
(7) The reports, studies and technical memoranda included and/or referenced in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and/or their appendices; (8) All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR;
(9) All Ordinances and Resolutions presented to and/or adopted by the City in connection with the Project; and all documents incorporated by reference therein, specifically including, but not limited to, this Resolution and all of its exhibits, the Plan Amendment resolutions, and the Rezone ordinance bill; (10) Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited, to federal, state, and local laws and regulations, adopted City plans, policies and the professional qualifications of its staff members; (11) Any documents expressly cited in this Resolution and its exhibits, the Report to Council, the Final EIR, or the Draft EIR; and (12) Any other relevant materials required to being the record of proceedings under Section 21167 .6(e) of the Public Resources Code; and 4 of 15
WHEREAS, the City Council concluded the public comment portion of the hearing on August 18, 2022, deliberated the matter on the same day; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 2022, the City Council considered and discussed the adequacy of the proposed Final EIR as an informational document and applied its own independent judgement and analysis to the review and hereby desires to take action to certify the Final EIR, as having been completed in compliance with CEQA, based on the findings found herein; and
WHEREAS, notice of the August 18, 2022 City Council hearing was properly noticed at least 10 days before the hearing, by publication in the Fresno Bee; and WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines require the following for certification of a Final EIR; SECTION 15090. CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR
(a) Prior to approving a project the lead agency shall certify that:
(1) The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (2) The Final EIR was presented to the decision making body of the lead agency and that the decision making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project; and
(3) The Final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgement and analysis
SECTION 15091. FINDINGS
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant 5 of 15
effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
(b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subdivision (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1 ), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen 6 of 15
significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitutes the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section.

SECTION 15092. APPROVAL
(a) After considering the Final EIR and in conjunction with making findings under Section 15091 , the lead agency may decide whether or how to approve or carry out the project.
(b) A public agency shall not decide to approve or carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless either:
(1) The project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment, or
(2) The agency has:
(A). Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible as shown in findings under Section 15091, and
(B). Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable as shown in findings under Section 15091 are acceptable due to the overriding concerns as described in Section 15093.
7 of 15
(c) With respect to a project which includes housing development, the public agency shall not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure if it determines that there is another feasible specific mitigation measure available that will provide a comparable level of mitigation.

SECTION 15093. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final El R and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. 8 of 15
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Fresno as follows:
(1 ). Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
(2). Findings. Council finds based upon the substantial evidence in the record of proceedings, and its independent judgement and analysis that:
(a). Compliance with CEQA. The Final EIR, dated June 2022, in Attachment 1: Final EIR to this Resolution which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, includes the Draft EIR SCH No. 2019069117 dated February 2022 and all related appendices, the Response to Comments, the
Revisions, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as Chapter 4 to the Final EIR document, and all
related appendices, in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
(b). Ratifications of Findings and Analysis in the Final EIR. In making the findings in this Resolution, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis and explanation in the Final EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions in the Final EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures.
9 of 15
(c). Findings Regarding Significant Effects that Can be Mitigated to Less Than Significant. Council adopts the statements and findings in Attachment 2: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section IV) to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The Project has significant effects that can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation measures. These avoidable significant effects are identified in Attachment 2: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section IV). These avoidable significant effects will be reduced to a less than significant effect with the changes that have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project through the imposition of mitigation measures as described in Attachment 2: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section IV). These mitigation measures identified in Attachment 2:

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section IV) will be imposed pursuant to the MMRP included as Chapter 4 of the Final EIR document. All mitigation
measures in the MMRP are feasible.

To the extent that many of the mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and of the City, those mitigation measures can and will be adopted 10 of 15
and imposed by the other agency based on state and/or
federal law, communications by those agencies, and/or
existing policies and/or intergovernmental relationships with those agencies
(d). Findings Regarding Unavoidable Significant Impacts. Council adopts the statements and findings in Attachment 2: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section Ill) to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference. The Project has
significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation
measures. These significant effects are identified in
Attachment 2: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section Ill).

Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR for the significant impacts identified in Attachment 2: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section Ill) including considerations based upon the findings in
Attachment 2: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section VII) to this Resolution, and the findings in Attachment 2: Findings of Fact and Statement of 11 of 15
Overriding Considerations (Section VI) regarding the
proposed alternatives. Therefore, those impacts are found to be significant and unavoidable.
(e). Finding Regarding Insignificant Impacts. Any and all potential significant impacts discussed in the Final EIR that are not subject to paragraph 2(c) or 2(d) above, as either an avoidable significant impact, or as an unavoidable significant impact, are insignificant impacts to the environment.
(f). Alternatives. The City Council adopts the Statement of Findings on Project Alternatives in Attachment 2: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section VI) to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
(3). Final EIR Reviewed and Considered. The Council certifies that the Final EIR:
(a). Has been completed in compliance with CEQA;
(b). Was presented to the Council and that the Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approval of the Project and all other information contained therein has substantially influenced all aspects of the decision by the Council; and
(c). Reflects Council's independent judgement and analysis. 12 of 15
(4). Statement of Overriding Considerations. The council adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Attachment 2: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section VII) to this Resolution which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Council finds that each of the Significant and Unavoidable Impacts identified in Attachment 2: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section Ill) may be considered acceptable.
(5). Mitigation Monitoring. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) set forth in Chapter 4 of the Final EIR Document, attached as Attachment 1: Final EIR to this Resolution, which sets forth specific monitoring actions, timing requirements and monitoring/verification entities for each mitigation measure contained in the Final EIR and which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby adopted to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted for the West Area
Neighborhoods Specific Plan are fully implemented.
(6). Location and Custodian of Documents. The record of project approval shall be kept in the office of the City Clerk, City of Fresno, City Hall, 2600 Fresno Street, Fresno California 93721 which shall be held by the City Clerk as the custodian of the documents; all other record of proceedings shall be kept with the Planning and 13 of 15
Development Department and the Planning Director shall be the custodian of the documents.
(7). Certification. Based on the above facts and findings, the Council of the City of Fresno certifies the Final EIR in Attachment 1: Final EIR for the West Area Neighborhoods Planning Actions as accurate and adequate. The City Council further certifies that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The Director of Planning and Development is directed to file a Notice of Determination as required by the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines within five (5) working days of adoption of this resolution. (8). This resolution shall be effective upon final approval. 14 of 15

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF FRESNO ) ss.

CITY OF FRESNO )
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I, TODD STERMER, City Clerk of the City of Fresno, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Council of the City of Fresno, at a regular meeting held on the _ ___ day of _______ 2022.

AYES
NOES
ABSENT

ABSTAIN
Mayor Approval: _______________ , 2022
Mayor Approval/No Return : , 2022
Mayor Veto: , 2022
Council Override Vote: , 2022

TODD STERMER, CMC
City Clerk
By:-------------
Deputy Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

RINA M. GONZALES
Interim City Attorney
By:-------------
Mary Raterman-Doidge Date
Senior Deputy City Attorney
Attachments:
- Attachment 1: Final EIR
- Attachment 2: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 15 of 15
Exhibit R - Attachment 1:

Final EIR

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

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

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

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

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

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

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TOC-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (also-known-as “Specific Plan”, “Plan Area”) encompasses approximately 7,077 acres (or a little more than 11 square miles) in the City of Fresno city limits and unincorporated Fresno County. The footprint of the Specific Plan is referred to as the “Plan Area.” Of the eleven square miles within the Plan Area, 6.9 square miles are in the city limits and 4.1 square miles are in the growth area. The growth area is land outside the city limits but within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary, which is the adopted limit for future growth.

The proposed Specific Plan will establish the land use planning and regulatory guidance, including the land use and zoning designations and policies, for the approximately 7,077-acre Plan Area. The Specific Plan will serve as a bridge between the Fresno General Plan and individual development applications in the Plan Area.

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

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

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan The parcels that are currently within the County will not be rezoned. Instead, upon a proposal to annex unincorporated land into the city limits, the City of Fresno would pre-zone the land to a zone that is consistent with the General Plan land use. Once annexation occurs, the County zoning would no longer apply to the parcel.

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

In the northern portion of the Plan Area, Fire Station No. 18 is temporarily located off of West Bullard Avenue at 5938 North La Ventana Avenue. Fire Station 18 will be relocated to a permanent location on the south side of the 6000 block of West Shaw Avenue to maximize the department’s response time goal. Additionally, the proposed land use plan would allow for approximately 248 acres of park, open space, and ponding basin uses. The Specific Plan also includes circulation and utility improvements, some of which are planned in the City’s current program for capital improvements.

Refer to Chapter 2.0, Project Description, for a more complete description of the details of the proposed Specific Plan.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or to the location of the project which would reduce or avoid significant impacts, and which could feasibly accomplish the basic objectives of the Specific Plan. The alternatives analyzed in this EIR include the following four alternatives in addition to the Specific Plan:
• No Project (Existing General Plan) Alternative;
• Additional Annexation Alternative;
• Regional Park Alternative;
• Lower Density Alternative.

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

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
ES-3 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Alternative. The Regional Park Alternative is the next best alternative as it would decrease or slightly decrease impacts to five of the 15 environmental issues.

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

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

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

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

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

1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THE EIR

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

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

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

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

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

The environmental review process enables interested parties to evaluate the Project in terms of its environmental consequences, to examine and recommend methods to eliminate or reduce potential adverse impacts, and to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding adverse environmental effects, the lead

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan agency must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including the economic and social benefits of a project, in determining whether a project should be approved.

This EIR will be used as the primary environmental document to evaluate all aspects of construction and operation of the Project. The details and operational characteristics of the Project are identified in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR (February 2022).

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

NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY
The City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed project on June 28, 2019 to responsible and trustee agencies, the State Clearinghouse, and the public. A public scoping meeting was held on July 24, 2019 at 6:00 p.m., at the Glacier Point Middle School Cafeteria in Fresno to present the project description to the public and interested agencies, and to receive comments from the public and interested agencies regarding the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the Draft EIR. Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR. The NOP and responses to the NOP by interested parties are presented in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.

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

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

The Draft EIR contains a description of the Project, description of the environmental setting, identification of Project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of Project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. The Draft EIR identifies issues determined to have no impact or a less-than-significant impact, and provides detailed analysis of potentially significant and significant impacts. Comments received in response to the NOP were considered in preparing the analysis in the Draft EIR.

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

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

CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR/PROJECT CONSIDERATION
The Fresno Planning Commission and City Council will review and consider the Final EIR. If the City Council finds that the Final EIR is "adequate and complete," the Council may certify the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA and City environmental review procedures and codes. The rule of adequacy generally holds that an EIR can be certified if:
1) The EIR shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information; and 2) The EIR provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the proposed project which intelligently take account of environmental consequences.

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

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

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

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

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 2.0-1 LIST OF COMMENTERS ON DRAFT EIR

RESPONSE
LETTER

INDIVIDUAL OR

SIGNATORY

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

2.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impacts associated with the potential to create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment are discussed on pages 3.8-21 through 3.8-26. As discussed, construction activities would occur in phases through the implementation of the Specific Plan.

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

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

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-11 Mitigation Measure 3.8-6: If the findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA(s), site characterization and/or risk assessment demonstrate the presence of concentrations of hazardous materials exceeding regulatory threshold levels, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, property owners and/or developers of properties shall complete site remediation and potential risk assessment with oversight from the applicable regulatory agency including, but not limited to, the CalEPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD). Potential remediation could include the removal or treatment of water and/or soil. If removal occurs, hazardous materials shall be transported and disposed at a hazardous materials permitted facility.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-7: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an individual property within the Plan Area with residual environmental contamination, the agency with primary regulatory oversight of environmental conditions at such property ("Oversight Agency") shall have determined that the proposed land use for that property, including proposed development features and design, does not present an unacceptable risk to human health, if applicable, through the use of an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) that could include institutional controls, site-specific mitigation measures, a risk management plan, and deed restrictions based upon applicable risk-based cleanup standards. Remedial action plans, risk management plans and health and safety plans shall be required as determined by the Oversight Agency for a given property under applicable environmental laws, if not already completed, to prevent an unacceptable risk to human health, including workers during and after construction, from exposure to residual contamination in soil and groundwater in connection with remediation and site development activities and the proposed land use.

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

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

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-12 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (or their designee(s)) prior to any demolition and/or renovation activities. If asbestoscontaining materials are left in place, an Operations and Maintenance Program (O&M Program) shall be developed for the management of asbestos containing materials.

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

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

As discussed in Response A-4, impacts associated with the potential to create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment are discussed on pages 3.8-21 through 3.8-26.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR includes the following mitigation measure, which requires that imported soil be sampled for toxic or hazardous materials to determine if concentrations exceed applicable Environmental Screening Levels for the proposed land use at such a property, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the DTSC or the Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) requirements.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

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

Mitigation Measure 3.8-3: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that a Phase I ESA (performed in accordance with the current ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process [E 1527]) shall be conducted for each individual property prior to development or redevelopment to ascertain the presence or absence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HRECs), and Potential Environmental Concerns (PECs) relevant to the property COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-15 under consideration. The findings and conclusions of the Phase I ESA shall become the basis for potential recommendations for follow-up investigation, if found to be warranted.

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-22 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan provide for the orderly and consistent development that promotes and establishes the Plan Area as a complete neighborhood with enhanced transportation infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation of additional parkland, and development of a diverse housing stock. The Plan Area does not currently have needed commercial amenities, causing residents to travel east of State Route 99 for retail services. The Plan Area also lacks a complete roadway network and parkland.

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

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

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

3.14-3.

TABLE 3.14-1: BUS ROUTES SERVING THE PLAN AREA

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

Fresno County Right-to-Farm Notice: ‘It is the declared policy of Fresno County to preserve, protect, and encourage development of its agricultural land and industries for the production of food and other agricultural products. Residents of property in or near agricultural districts should be prepared to accept the inconveniencies and discomfort associated with normal farm activities. Consistent with this policy, California Civil Code 3482.5 (right-to-farm law) provides that an agricultural pursuit, as defined, maintained for commercial uses shall not become a nuisance due to a changed condition in a locality after such agricultural pursuit has been in operation for three years.’” This comment is noted. The County’s Right to Farm Ordinance is discussed on page 3.2- 13 of Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. As discussed, Fresno County’s Right to Farm Ordinance is intended to reduce the occurrence of such conflicts between nonagricultural and agricultural land uses between the County of Fresno and the City of Fresno through requiring the transferor of any property in the County to provide a disclosure statement describing that the County permits agricultural operations. Projects outside of the Plan Area that are compliant with the County’s Right to Farm Ordinance would include adequate measures to buffer project uses from adjacent agricultural uses and would reduce adverse effects on neighboring agricultural uses.

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-36 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan agricultural use within the Plan Area at a 1:1 ratio. Once the acreage of land zoned for agricultural use which would be converted by the project is determined, one of the following mitigation options shall be utilized to mitigate the loss: Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, or Land Use Regulation. For mitigation options which would preserve off-site agricultural lands, the lands shall occur locally, and the definition of “locally” shall be determined in consultation with the City of Fresno.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

The proposed Specific Plan will establish the land use planning and regulatory guidance, including the land use and zoning designations and policies, for the approximately 7,077- acre Plan Area. The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan seeks to provide for the orderly and consistent development that promotes and establishes the Plan Area as a complete neighborhood with enhanced transportation infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation of additional parkland, and development of a diverse housing stock. The Plan Area does not currently have needed commercial amenities, causing residents to travel east of State Route 99 for retail services. The Plan Area also lacks a complete roadway network and parkland. As such, future development in accordance with the Specific Plan would not preclude the FID from accessing its canals from public roads.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

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

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

No further response is necessary.

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

The following agencies are considered Responsible Agencies for this project, and may be required to issue permits or approve certain aspects of the proposed project:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW);
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans);
• Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD);
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board – Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general construction permit;
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – Approval of construction-related air quality permits, authority to Construct, Permit to Operate for stationary sources of air pollution;
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-117 • Central Unified School District – Approval of school sites.

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

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

The City received thirteen written comment letters on the NOP for the proposed project Draft EIR. A copy of each letter is provided in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. A public scoping meeting was held on July 24, 2019 to present the project description to the public and interested agencies, and to receive comments from the public and interested agencies regarding the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the Draft EIR.

1. April Henry (August 1, 2019)

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

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

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

5. Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019)

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

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

8. Forgotten Fresno (July 17, 2019)

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

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

11. Jeff Roberts (July 24, 2019)

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

13. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (July 15, 2019) Response H-7: The commenter states the following: “Page 2.0-15: Include FMFCD as Responsible and Trustee Agency.”
This revision has been made to Chapter 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revision, which is reproduced below:

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

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

Response H-9: The commenter states the following: “Page 3.4-9; Paragraph 7: ‘Drainage channels within the Plan Area include’ should remove the word channels and be corrected to say ‘Drainage irrigation canals owned by FID within the Plan Area include’.” This revision has been made to Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. See Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR for the revision, which is reproduced below: ‘ The drainage system discharges to a system of irrigation canals, creeks, and the San Joaquin River, but is designed to retain and infiltrate as much runoff as possible into the underlying groundwater aquifer. The local drainage service area is subdivided into over 160 drainage areas, most of which drain to a retention basin. Drainage channels irrigation canals owned by FID within the Plan Area include:

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

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

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

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

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

3.9-2. Locally, the FMFCD drainage system consists of approximately 680 750 miles of pipeline and more than 150 stormwater retention basins. The storm drainage pipeline system is designed to accept the peak flow rate of runoff from a two-year intensity storm event (a storm that has a 50 percent probability of occurring in any given year). When storm events occur that exceed the two-year intensity, ponding begins to occur in the streets until the pipeline system can remove the water. In the event of larger storms, “major storm breakover”, the FMFCD has planned for streets or other conveyance features to move the excess runoff to the basins. The FMFCD basin facilities in the Plan Area are shown in Figure 3.9-2.

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

The drainage system discharges to a system of irrigation canals, creeks, and the San Joaquin River, but is designed to retain and infiltrate as much runoff as possible into the underlying groundwater aquifer. The local drainage service area is subdivided into over 160 drainage areas, most of which drain to a retention basin. Drainage channels irrigation canals owned by FID within the Plan Area include:
• East Branch Victoria Canal • Teague School Canal
• Epstein Canal • Tracy Ditch
• Herndon Canal • West Branch Victoria Canal
• Minor Thornton Ditch • Wheaton Ditch
• Silvia Ditch • Austin Ditch
Response H-14: The commenter states the following: “Page 3.9-12: Revise Policy NS-3-b: ‘(FMFCD) to install curbing, gutters, and other drainage facilities….’ to read ‘(FMFCD) to install drainage facilities in conjunction with City installation of curb and gutter…..’.” This suggested revision to Policy NS-3-b on page 3.9-12 of Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, was not made because the text in question is a City General Plan Policy.

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

As such, no revision is warranted.

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

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

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-121 Locally, the FMFCD drainage system consists of approximately 680 750 miles of pipeline and more than 150 stormwater retention basins. The storm drainage pipeline system is designed to accept the peak flow rate of runoff from a two-year intensity storm event (a storm that has a 50 percent probability of occurring in any given year). When storm events occur that exceed the two-year intensity, ponding begins to occur in the streets until the pipeline system can remove the water. In the event of larger storms, “major storm breakover”, the FMFCD has planned for streets or other conveyance features to move the excess runoff to the basins. The FMFCD basin facilities in the Plan Area are shown in Figure

3.9-2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

The Water Supply Assessment was also revised, as shown:

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

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

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

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

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

3.1 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR

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

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

Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Prior to initiation of grading activities, the project proponent shall implement the following measure to mitigate impacts related to agriculturally-zoned land located on the site: The project proponent shall mitigate the loss of land zoned for agricultural use within the Plan Area at a 1:1 ratio. Once the acreage of land zoned for agricultural use which would be converted by the project is determined, one of the following mitigation options shall be utilized to mitigate the loss: Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, or Land Use Regulation. For mitigation options which would preserve off-site agricultural lands, the lands shall occur locally, and the definition of “locally” shall be determined in consultation with the City of Fresno.

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

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

3.0 REVISIONS

3.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.8-9: In the event of planned renovation or demolition of residential and/or commercial structures on the subject site, prior to the issuance of demolition permits, asbestos, and lead based paint (LBP), lead based products, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk surveys shall be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of asbestos-containing materials (ACM), and/or LBP, mercury, and/or polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal of friable ACM, and non-friable ACMs that have the potential to become friable, during demolition and/or renovation shall conform to the standards set forth by the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).

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

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

None feasible.Mitigation Measure 3.13-3: As detailed plans for future parks and recreational facilities in the Plan Area are submitted to the City, environmental review of proposed facilities shall be completed to meet the requirements of CEQA. Typical impacts from park facilities include air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, and lighting.

None feasible.Mitigation Measure 3.13-4: As detailed plans for future libraries and other public facilities in the Plan Area are submitted to the City, environmental review of proposed facilities shall be completed to meet the requirements of CEQA. Typical impacts from park facilities include air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, and lighting.

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

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

The following change was made to page 1.0-10 of Chapter 1.0 of the Draft EIR:

The City received thirteen written comment letters on the NOP for the proposed project Draft EIR.

A copy of each letter is provided in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. A public scoping meeting was held on July 24, 2019 to present the project description to the public and interested agencies, and to REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-3 receive comments from the public and interested agencies regarding the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the Draft EIR.

1. April Henry (August 1, 2019)

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

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

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

5. Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019)

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

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

8. Forgotten Fresno (July 17, 2019)

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

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

11. Jeff Roberts (July 24, 2019)

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

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

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

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

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

3.0 REVISIONS

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

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

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

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

The project proponent shall mitigate the loss of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance within the Plan Area at a 1:1 ratio. The acreage of lost farmland shall be determined using the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model. The LESA Model evaluates measures of soil resource quality, a given project’s size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands.

Once the acreage of farmland converted is determined, one of the following mitigation options shall be utilized to mitigate the loss: Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, or Land Use Regulation. For mitigation options which would preserve off-site agricultural lands, the lands shall occur locally, and the definition of “locally” shall be determined in consultation with the City of Fresno. Should the City develop a Farmland Preservation Program before future construction within the Plan Area begins, the project proponent shall mitigate for Farmland pursuant to the Program.

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

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

Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Prior to initiation of grading activities, the project proponent shall implement the following measure to mitigate impacts related to agriculturally-zoned land located on the site: The project proponent shall mitigate the loss of land zoned for agricultural use within the Plan Area at a 1:1 ratio. Once the acreage of land zoned for agricultural use which would be converted by the project is determined, one of the following mitigation options shall be utilized to mitigate the loss: Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, or Land Use Regulation. For mitigation options which would REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-5 preserve off-site agricultural lands, the lands shall occur locally, and the definition of “locally” shall be determined in consultation with the City of Fresno.

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

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

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

Locally, the FMFCD drainage system consists of approximately 680 750 miles of pipeline and more than 150 stormwater retention basins. The storm drainage pipeline system is designed to accept the peak flow rate of runoff from a two-year intensity storm event (a storm that has a 50 percent probability of occurring in any given year). When storm events occur that exceed the two-year intensity, ponding begins to occur in the streets until the pipeline system can remove the water. In the event of larger storms, “major storm breakover”, the FMFCD has planned for streets or other conveyance features to move the excess runoff to the basins. The FMFCD basin facilities in the Plan Area are shown in Figure 3.9-2 in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

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

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

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

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

3.0 REVISIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.0 REVISIONS

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

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

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

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

Locally, the FMFCD drainage system consists of approximately 680 750 miles of pipeline and more than 150 stormwater retention basins. The storm drainage pipeline system is designed to accept the peak flow rate of runoff from a two-year intensity storm event (a storm that has a 50 percent probability of occurring in any given year). When storm events occur that exceed the two-year intensity, ponding begins to occur in the streets until the pipeline system can remove the water. In the event of larger storms, “major storm breakover”, the FMFCD has planned for streets or other conveyance features to move the excess runoff to the basins. The FMFCD basin facilities in the Plan Area are shown in Figure 3.9-2.

REVISIONS 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.0-9 The drainage system discharges to a system of irrigation canals, creeks, and the San Joaquin River, but is designed to retain and infiltrate as much runoff as possible into the underlying groundwater aquifer. The local drainage service area is subdivided into over 160 drainage areas, most of which drain to a retention basin. Drainage channels irrigation canals owned by FID within the Plan Area include:
• East Branch Victoria Canal • Teague School Canal
• Epstein Canal • Tracy Ditch
• Herndon Canal • West Branch Victoria Canal
• Minor Thornton Ditch • Wheaton Ditch
• Silvia Ditch • Austin Ditch
The following change was made to page 3.9-7 of Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR:

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

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

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

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

As noted previously, the FMFCD drainage system consists of approximately 680 750 miles of pipeline and more than 150 stormwater retention basins. The storm drainage pipeline system is designed to accept the peak flow rate of runoff from a two-year intensity storm event (a storm that has a 50 percent probability of occurring in any given year). The FMFCD storm drain and flood control system is designed to retain and infiltrate as much stormwater and urban runoff as possible.

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

3.0 REVISIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.0 REVISIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 3.14-1: BUS ROUTES SERVING THE PLAN AREA

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

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

3.0 REVISIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.0 REVISIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.0 REVISIONS

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

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

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

3.0 REVISIONS

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

3.0 REVISIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)

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

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

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

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

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

Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: Prior to initiation of grading activities, the project proponent shall implement the following measure to mitigate impacts on Important Farmland located on the site: The project proponent shall mitigate the loss of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance within the Plan Area at a 1:1 ratio. The acreage of lost farmland shall be determined using the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model. The LESA Model evaluates measures of soil resource quality, a given project’s size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. Once the acreage of farmland converted is determined, one of the following mitigation options shall be utilized to City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
initiation of
grading
activities
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-3

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
mitigate the loss: Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, or Land Use Regulation. For mitigation options which would preserve off-site agricultural lands, the lands shall occur locally, and the definition of “locally” shall be determined in consultation with the City of Fresno. Should the City develop a Farmland Preservation Program before future construction within the Plan Area begins, the project proponent shall mitigate for Farmland pursuant to the Program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
construction would expose
sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations or
result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in
nonattainment under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard.
building permits, whichever occurs first, the property owner(s)/developer(s) shall provide a list of all construction equipment proposed to be used in the Plan Area for projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt projects). This list may be provided on the building plans. The construction equipment list shall state the make, model, and equipment identification number of all the equipment. The property owner(s)/developer(s) shall consult with the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department on the feasibility of utilizing cleaner (e.g. higher engine tier) construction equipment than proposed. The property owner(s)/developer(s) shall implement recommendations for the use of cleaner construction equipment, as determined by the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department. Compliance will be verified by the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: During construction activities, the construction contractors shall ensure that the equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations; and, that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9.

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

The construction contractor may also use precoated/natural colored Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
activities
During
construction
activities
During
construction
activities
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-5

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
building materials.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-5: During all construction activities, the project proponent shall implement the following dust control practices identified in Tables 6-2 and 6-3 of the GAMAQI (2002).
a. All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical
stabilizer/suppressant, or vegetative ground cover.
b. All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
c. All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall control fugitive dust emissions by application of water or by presoaking. d. When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, or at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
e. All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at least once every 24 hours when operations are occurring. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.
f. Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
g. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 5 mph; and
h. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.

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

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

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Impact 3.3-3: Specific Plan
implementation during project
operation would expose
sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations or
result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in
nonattainment under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-7. The property owner(s)/developer(s) shall incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the Project Conditions of Approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce longterm emissions include but are not limited to:
• For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plugging in the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
• Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage (i.e., battery) and combined heat and power (CHP, also known as cogeneration) in appropriate
applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
• Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with CARB Rule 2845 (13 California Code of
Regulations [CCR] Chapter 10, Section 2485).
• Require that 240-volt electrical outlets or Level 3 chargers be installed in parking lots that would enable charging of neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) and/or battery powered vehicles.
• Maximize use of solar energy including solar panels; installing the maximum possible number of solar energy arrays on building roofs throughout the city to generate solar energy.
• Maximize the planting of trees in landscaping and parking lots. • Use light-colored paving and roofing materials.
• Require use of electric or alternatively fueled street-sweepers with HEPA filters.
• Require use of electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers. • Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances.
• Use of water-based or low volatile organic compound (VOC) cleaning products.

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
approval of
future project
improvement
plans
Impact 3.3-4: Specific Plan
implementation has the potential
to result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
Mitigation Measure 3.3-8: The project applicant(s) shall require developers of projects within the Specific Plan Area with the potential to generate significant odor impacts as determined through review of SJVAPCD odor complaint history for similar facilities and consultation with the SJVAPCD, to City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Prior to
approval of
future project
improvement
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-7

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
affecting a substantial number of
people.
prepare an odor impact assessment and to implement odor control measures recommended by the SJVAPCD or the City as needed to reduce the impact to a level deemed acceptable by the SJVAPCD. The City’s Planning and Development Department shall verify that all odor control measures have been incorporated into the project design specifications prior to issuing a permit to operate.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-9: Prior to future discretionary approval for individual projects within the Specific Plan Area that require environmental evaluation under CEQA, the City of Fresno shall evaluate new development proposals for new industrial or warehousing land uses that: (1) have the potential to generate 100 or more truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered transport refrigeration units, and (2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, or nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use. Such projects shall submit a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to the City Planning and Development Department. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the most current State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the SJVAPCD. If the HRA shows that the incremental health risks exceed their respective thresholds, as established by the SJVAPCD at the time a project is considered, the Applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms to reduce risks to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to:
• Restricting idling on site or electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter;
• Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles;
• Provide charging infrastructure for: electric forklifts, electric yard trucks, local drayage trucks, last mile delivery trucks, electric and fuel-cell heavy duty trucks; and/or
• Install solar panels, zero-emission backup electricity generators, and energy storage to minimize emissions associated with electricity generation at the project site.

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

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

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

Mitigation Measure 3.3-10: Locate sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, and daycare centers) to avoid incompatibilities with recommended buffer distances identified in the most current version of the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB Handbook). Sensitive land uses that are within the recommended buffer distances listed in the CARB Handbook shall provide enhanced filtration units or submit a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to the City. If the HRA shows that the project would exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds, mitigation measures capable of reducing potential impacts to an acceptable level must be identified and approved by the City.

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

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

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.4-1: Specific Plan
implementation could directly or
indirectly have a substantial
adverse effect through habitat
modifications or reductions,
cause populations to drop below
self-sustaining levels,
substantially eliminate a
community, or substantially
reduce the number of, or restrict
the range of, an endangered, rare
or threatened species, including
those considered candidate,
sensitive, or special status in
local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the CDFW or
USFWS.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts on special-status invertebrate species:
• Preconstruction surveys/habitat assessments for valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis), midvalley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within the project disturbance area. • If valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis), midvalley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis), or vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), or their suitable habitat, is found during preconstruction surveys/habitat assessments within the disturbance area, activities within 200 feet of the find shall cease until appropriate measures have been completed, which may include an application for incidental take, or it is determined by the qualified biologist and City staff, in coordination with USFWS and City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to and
during
construction
activities
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-9

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
CDFW, that the species will not be harmed by the activities. Any sightings or incidental take shall be reported to USFWS and CDFW immediately.
• Construction personnel performing activities within aquatic habitats and other suitable habitats (i.e., elderberry shrubs) to be disturbed by project activities shall receive worker environmental awareness training from a qualified biologist to instruct workers to recognize the species, their habitats, and measures being implemented for its protection.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-2: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts on special-status amphibian and reptile species:
• Preconstruction surveys/habitat assessments for California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within the project disturbance area.
• If California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), or western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), or their suitable habitat, is found during preconstruction surveys/habitat assessments within the disturbance area, activities within 200 feet of the find shall cease until appropriate measures have been completed, which may include an application for incidental take, or it is determined by the qualified biologist and City staff, in coordination with USFWS and CDFW, that the species will not be harmed by the activities. Any sightings or incidental take shall be reported to USFWS and CDFW immediately.
• If western pond turtles are found during preconstruction surveys, a qualified biologist, with approval from CDFW, shall move the turtles to the nearest suitable habitat outside the area subject to project disturbance. The construction area shall be reinspected City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to and
during
construction
activities

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
whenever a lapse in construction activity of 2 weeks or more has occurred.
• Construction personnel performing activities within aquatic habitats and adjacent suitable uplands to be disturbed by project activities shall receive worker environmental awareness training from a qualified biologist to instruct workers to recognize western pond turtle, their habitats, and measures being implemented for its protection.
• Construction personnel shall observe a 15-miles-per-hour speed limit on unpaved roads.

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

Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged.

During the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), the project proponent(s) shall avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Avoidance shall include the establishment of a buffer zone (described below).

During the breeding season, buffer zones of at least 250 feet in which no construction activities can occur shall be established around each occupied burrow (nest site). Buffer zones of 160 feet shall be established around each burrow being used during the nonbreeding season. The buffers shall be delineated by highly visible, temporary construction fencing.

If occupied burrows for burrowing owls cannot be avoided, passive relocation shall be implemented. Owls may be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone under an authorization from the CDFW. Such exclusion would be anticipated to include the installation of one-way doors in burrow entrances.

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

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

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

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
features, the project proponent(s) can apply to the City of Fresno for a waiver of this avoidance measure. Any waiver must also be approved by USFWS and CDFW. While nest is occupied, activities outside the buffer can take place.

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

Mitigation Measure 3.4-5: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts to the black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), doublecrested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auratus), great egret (Ardea alba), Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) that may occur on the site:
• Preconstruction surveys for active nests of black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auratus), great egret (Ardea alba), Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within 500 feet of project disturbance. Surveys shall be conducted within 14 days before commencement of any construction activities that occur during the nesting season (February 15 to August 31) in a given area. • If any active nests, or behaviors indicating that active nests are present, are observed, appropriate buffers around the nest sites shall be determined by a qualified biologist to avoid nest failure resulting from project activities. The size of the buffer shall depend on the species, nest location, nest stage, and specific construction activities to be performed while the nest is active. The buffers may be adjusted if a qualified biologist determines it would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. If buffers are adjusted, monitoring will be conducted to confirm that project activity is not resulting in detectable adverse effects on nesting birds or their young. No project activity shall commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged or the nest site is otherwise no longer in use.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-6: Prior to any ground disturbance related to City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Prior to and
during
construction
activities
Prior to and
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-13

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
construction activities, a biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas which may support suitable breeding or denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. The survey shall establish the presence or absence of San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens and evaluate use by kit foxes in accordance with USFWS survey guidelines (USFWS, 1999). Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted not earlier than 30 days from commencing ground disturbance. On the parcel where activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 250-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership need not be surveyed. The status of all dens shall be determined and mapped. Written result of preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the USFWS within 5 working days after survey completion and before start of ground disturbance. Concurrence by the USFWS is not required prior to initiation of construction activities. If San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens are not discovered, then further mitigation is not necessary. If San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens are identified in the survey area, the following measure shall be implemented.

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

Alternatively, if the animal is still present after 5 or more consecutive days of plugging and monitoring, the den may have to be excavated when, in the judgement of a biologist, it is temporarily vacant (i.e., during the animal’s normal foraging activities).

Mitigation Measure 3.4-7: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
during
construction
activities
Prior to and
during

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
measures to avoid or minimize impacts on bats:
• If removal of suitable roosting areas (i.e. buildings, trees, shrubs, bridges, etc.) must occur during the bat pupping season (April 1 through July 31), surveys for active maternity roosts shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The surveys shall be conducted from dusk until dark.
• If a special-status bat maternity roost is located, appropriate buffers around the roost sites shall be determined by a qualified biologist and implemented to avoid destruction or abandonment of the roost resulting from habitat removal or other project activities.

The size of the buffer shall depend on the species, roost location, and specific construction activities to be performed in the vicinity.

No project activity shall commence within the buffer areas until the end of the pupping season (August 1) or until a qualified biologist confirms the maternity roost is no longer active.

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

Mitigation Measure 3.4-9: Prior to construction in undisturbed areas, future project proponent(s) shall retain a biologist to perform plant surveys.

The surveys shall be performed during the floristic season. If any of these plants are found during the surveys, the project proponent(s) shall contact Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
construction
activities
Prior to and
during
construction
activities
Prior to and
during
construction
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-15

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

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

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

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

Mitigation Measure 3.4-10: If a proposed project will result in the significant alteration or fill of a federally protected wetland, a formal wetland delineation conducted according to USACE accepted methodology would be required for each project to determine the extent of wetlands on a project site. The delineation shall be used to determine if federal permitting and mitigation strategy are required to reduce project impacts. Acquisition of permits from USACE for the fill of wetlands and USACE approval of a wetland mitigation plan would ensure a “no net loss” of wetland habitat within the Planning Area. Appropriate wetland mitigation/creation shall be implemented in a ratio according to the size of the impacted wetland.

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

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
If a proposed
project will
result in the
significant
alteration or fill
of a federally
protected
wetland
If a proposed
project will
result in the
significant
alteration or fill
of a federally
protected
wetland
Impact 3.4-3: Specific Plan
implementation would not have
substantial adverse effects on
riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-12: A pre‐construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if a proposed project will result in the removal or impact to any riparian habitat and/or a special‐status natural community with potential to occur in the Specific Plan Area, compensatory habitat‐based mitigation shall be required to reduce project impacts. Compensatory mitigation must involve the preservation or restoration or the purchase of off‐site mitigation credits for impacts to riparian habitat and/or a special‐status natural community. Mitigation must be conducted in‐kind or within an approved mitigation bank in the region.

The specific mitigation ratio for habitat‐based mitigation shall be determined through consultation with the appropriate agency (i.e., CDFW or USFWS) on a case‐by‐case basis. The project applicant/developer for a proposed project shall develop and implement appropriate mitigation regarding impacts on their respective jurisdictions.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-13: A pre‐construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if a proposed project will City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Prior to and
during
construction
activities
Prior to and
during
construction

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
result in significant impacts to streambeds or waterways protected under Section 1600 of Fish and Wildlife Code and Section 404 of the CWA. The project applicant/developer for a proposed project shall consult with partner agencies such as CDFW and/or USACE to develop and implement appropriate mitigation regarding impacts on their respective jurisdictions, determination of mitigation strategy, and regulatory permitting to reduce impacts, as required for projects that remove riparian habitat and/or alter a streambed or waterway. The project applicant/developer shall implement mitigation as directed by the agency with jurisdiction over the particular impact identified.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-14: Prior to project approval, a pre‐construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if a proposed project will result in project‐related impacts to riparian habitat or a special‐status natural community or if it may result in direct or incidental impacts to special‐status species associated with riparian or wetland habitats. The project applicant/developer for a proposed project shall be obligated to address project‐specific impacts to special‐status species associated with riparian habitat through agency consultation, development of a mitigation strategy, and/or issuing incidental take permits for the specific special‐status species, as determined by the CDFW and/or USFWS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)

1. The City of Fresno shall consider mitigation recommendations presented by the qualified archaeologist for any unanticipated discoveries and future project proponents shall carry out the measures deemed feasible and appropriate. Such measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation,
documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures. The project proponent shall be required to implement any mitigation necessary for the protection of cultural resources. during the
course of
construction
within the
Specific Plan
Area
Impact 3.5-2: Specific Plan
implementation may disturb
human remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries.

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

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

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

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact 3.6-2: Specific Plan
construction and
implementation has the potential
to result in substantial soil
Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Prior to clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation for each phase of the Project, the Project proponent shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the RWQCB to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
clearing,
grading, and
disturbances to
the ground

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
erosion or the loss of topsoil. Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ). The SWPPP shall be designed with Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the RWQCB has deemed as effective at reducing erosion, controlling sediment, and managing runoff. These include: covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. Sediment control BMPs, installing silt fences or placing straw wattles below slopes, installing berms and other temporary run-on and runoff diversions. These BMPs are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. Final selection of BMPs will be subject to approval by City of Fresno and the RWQCB. The SWPPP will be kept on site during construction activity and will be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB.

Regional Water
Quality Control
Board
such as
stockpiling, or
excavation for
each phase of
the Project
Impact 3.6-3: Specific Plan
implementation has the potential
to be located on a geologic unit
or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a
result of Specific Plan
implementation, and potentially
result in landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse.

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

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

Implement Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 See Mitigation
Measure 3.6-2
See Mitigation
Measure 3.6-2
Impact 3.6-5: Project
implementation has the potential
to directly or indirectly destroy a
Mitigation Measure 3.6-3: If any paleontological resources are found during grading and construction activities, all work shall be halted immediately within a 200-foot radius of the discovery until a qualified City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
If any
paleontological
resources are
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-19

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
unique paleontological resource. paleontologist has evaluated the find.

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

Department found during
grading and
construction
activities

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

Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: Prior to the City’s approval of the project (i.e. the Specific Plan) as well as individual development projects within the Specific Plan Area, the Director of the City Planning and Development Department, or designee, shall confirm that the Specific Plan and each individual development project is consistent with the final version of the GHG Reduction Plan Update, and shall implement all measures deemed applicable to the Specific Plan and each individual development project through the GHG Reduction Plan Update-Project Consistency Checklist (Appendix B of the GHG Reduction Plan Update).

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to the
City’s approval
of the project
(i.e. the Specific
Plan) as well as
individual
development
projects within
the Specific
Plan Area
Impact 3.7-3: Specific Plan
implementation would not
generate a cumulative impact on
climate change from increased
project-related greenhouse gas
emissions.

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

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 3.8-1: Specific Plan
implementation has the potential
to create a significant hazard
through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous
materials or through the
reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions
involving the release of
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Prior to bringing hazardous materials onsite, the applicant shall submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to Fresno County Environmental Health Division (CUPA) for review and approval. If during the construction process the applicant or their subcontractors generates hazardous waste, the applicant must register with the CUPA as a generator of hazardous waste, obtain an EPA ID# and accumulate, ship and dispose of the hazardous waste per Health and Safety Code Ch. 6.5. (California Hazardous Waste Control Law).

Fresno County
Environmental
Health Division
Prior to
bringing
hazardous
materials
onsite

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

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

Fresno County
Environmental
Health
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
initiation of any
ground
disturbance
activities
within 50 feet
of a well
Prior to the
issuance of a
grading permit
In the event
that the
findings and
conclusions of
the Phase I ESA
for a property
result in
evidence of
RECs, HRECs
and/or PECs
warranting
further
investigation
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-21

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

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

Potential remediation could include the removal or treatment of water and/or soil. If removal occurs, hazardous materials shall be transported and disposed at a hazardous materials permitted facility.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-7: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an individual property within the Plan Area with residual environmental contamination, the agency with primary regulatory oversight of environmental conditions at such property ("Oversight Agency") shall have determined that the proposed land use for that property, including proposed development features and design, does not present an unacceptable risk to City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
In the event the
findings and
conclusions of
the Phase II
ESA reveal the
presence of
significant
concentrations
of hazardous
materials
warranting
further
investigation
If the findings
and
conclusions of
the Phase II
ESA(s), site
characterizatio
n and/or risk
assessment
demonstrate
the presence of
concentrations
of hazardous
materials
exceeding
regulatory
threshold
levels
Prior to the
issuance of a
building permit
for an
individual
property within
the Plan Area

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
human health, if applicable, through the use of an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) that could include institutional controls, sitespecific mitigation measures, a risk management plan, and deed restrictions based upon applicable risk-based cleanup standards. Remedial action plans, risk management plans and health and safety plans shall be required as determined by the Oversight Agency for a given property under applicable environmental laws, if not already completed, to prevent an unacceptable risk to human health, including workers during and after construction, from exposure to residual contamination in soil and groundwater in connection with remediation and site development activities and the proposed land use.

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

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is the responsible agency on the local level to enforce the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) and shall be notified by City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
with residual
environmental
contamination
For those sites
with potential
residual
volatile organic
compounds
(VOCs) in soil,
soil gas, or
groundwater
that are
planned for
redevelopment
with an
overlying
occupied
building
In the event of
planned
renovation or
demolition of
residential
and/or
commercial
structures on
the subject site
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-23

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
the property owners and/or developers of properties (or their designee(s)) prior to any demolition and/or renovation activities. If asbestos-containing materials are left in place, an Operations and Maintenance Program (O&M Program) shall be developed for the management of asbestos containing materials.

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

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

If future exterior noise levels are expected to exceed the applicable standards presented in Table 9-2 of the Fresno General Plan Noise Element (Table 3.11- 5 of this EIR), the mitigation measure presented below shall be implemented, as applicable. A qualified Acoustical Consultant shall provide information demonstrating that site specific mitigation will be effective at reaching the applicable noise standard.
• Install noise walls, berms and/or a combination of a landscaped berm with wall, and reduced barrier height in combination with increased distance or elevation differences between noise source and noise receptor. The City of Fresno has established a maximum allowable height for noise walls of 15 feet. As such, the noise walls, berms and/or a combination of a landscaped berm with wall shall City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
approval of
improvement
plans for
projects which
involve
residential or
other noise
sensitive uses

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
not exceed 15 feet.

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

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

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

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

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

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
During
construction
activities
During
construction
activities
Impact 3.11-3: Specific Plan
implementation would not
substantially increase noise
vibration association with
Mitigation Measure 3.11-4: For future projects which would require the use of highly vibratory equipment in the Plan Area, an additional site- and project-specific analysis shall be conducted by a noise and vibration specialist prior to project approval. The analysis shall evaluate potential ground-borne vibration impacts to existing structures and sensitive receptors, and shall City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
For future
projects which
would require
the use of
highly
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 4.0-25

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
construction activities. also recommend additional mitigation measures, as necessary. The recommendations of the site- and project-specific analysis shall be implemented by the project proponent(s), to the satisfaction of the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department.
vibratory
equipment in
the Plan Area
Impact 3.11-4: Specific Plan
implementation would not
substantially increase stationary
noise at sensitive receptors.

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

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

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

A qualified Acoustical Consultant shall provide information demonstrating that site specific mitigation will be effective at reaching the applicable noise standard, which includes:
• Install noise walls, berms and/or a combination of a landscaped berm with wall, and reduced barrier height in combination with increased distance or elevation differences between noise source and noise receptor. The City of Fresno has established a maximum allowable height of 15 feet. As such, the noise walls, berms and/or a combination of a landscaped berm with wall shall not exceed 15 feet.
• Utilize façades with substantial weight and insulation. • Install sound-rated windows for primary sleeping and activity areas.
• Install sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at primary City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to
approval of
improvement
plans

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
sleeping and activity areas.
• Install acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys, attic and gable ends. • Install mechanical ventilation systems that provide fresh air under closed window conditions.

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

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

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

City of Fresno
Planning and
Development
Department
Prior to the
issuance of a
Certificate of
Occupancy for
each future
dwelling unit to
be developed
within the Plan
Area (and prior
to issuance of
building
permits for
non-residential
uses)
Impact 3.13-3: The proposed
Specific Plan may result in, or
have the potential to require the
construction of school facilities
which may cause substantial
adverse physical environmental
impacts.

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

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

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

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

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

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A L a n d U s e P l a n n i n g , D e s i g n , a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l F i r m

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subsequent individual development that requires further discretionary approvals will be examined in light of this EIR to determine whether additional environmental documentation must be prepared.

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

CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 states that a program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either:
1) Geographically;
2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; 3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or
4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.

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

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

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

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Section 15168(c), entitled “Use with Later Activities,” provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared:
(1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration.
(2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.
(3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into subsequent actions in the program. (4) Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the program EIR.

Here, the City anticipates preparing a written checklist or similar device whenever landowners within the Plan Area submit applications for site-specific approvals (i.e. small-lot tentative maps, conditional use permits, or other discretionary entitlements). The checklist would serve, in part, as a consistency checklist to determine if the application for site specific approval is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan, Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures. It would also include a review of the project details relative to what was anticipated and analyzed in the program EIR (i.e. are there new environmental effects that were not covered by the program EIR). In some cases, a site-specific application (i.e. commercial use) may have specific issues associated with the project, or business, that this program EIR could not anticipate given the information that was available at the time. In those situations, the detailed site-specific information from that application could have site-specific effects not wholly anticipated in this EIR and would require some additional environmental review. (See also CEQA Guidelines section 15063, subd. (b)(1)(C).) Future site-specific approvals may also be narrowed pursuant to the rules for tiering set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152. “‘[T]iering is a process by which agencies can adopt programs, plans, policies, or ordinances with EIRs focusing on ‘the big picture,’ and can then use streamlined CEQA review for individual projects that are consistent with such…[first tier decisions] and are…consistent with local agencies’ governing general plans and zoning.’” (Koster v. County of San Joaquin (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 29, 36.) Section 15152 provides that, where a first-tier EIR has “adequately addressed” the subject of cumulative impacts, such impacts need not be revisited in second- and third-tier documents. Furthermore, second- and third-tier documents may limit the examination of impacts to those that “were not examined as significant effects” in the prior EIR or “[a]re susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means.” In general, significant environmental effects have been “adequately addressed” if the lead agency determines that:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ES-3 (A) they have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior environmental impact report and findings adopted in connection with that prior environmental impact report; or (B) they have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior environmental impact report to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project.

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

In addition, for purely residential projects consistent with the Specific Plan, the City intends to preserve its ability to treat such projects as exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code section 65457. Subdivision (a) of that statute provides that “[any residential development project, including any subdivision, or any zoning change that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an [EIR] has been certified after January 1, 1980, is exempt from the requirements of [CEQA].” The statutes go on to say, moreover, that “if after adoption of the specific plan, an event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code occurs, the exemption provided by this subdivision does not apply unless and until a supplemental [SEIR] for the specific plan is prepared and certified in accordance with the provisions of [CEQA]. After a supplemental [SEIR] is certified, the exemption … applies to projects undertaken pursuant to the specific plan.” (See also CEQA Guidelines section 15182.)
When purely residential projects are proposed, the City will consider whether they qualify for this exemption or whether the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan EIR must be updated through a supplement to this EIR or a subsequent EIR as required by Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163.

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

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan The proposed Specific Plan will establish the land use planning and regulatory guidance, including the land use and zoning designations and policies, for the approximately 7,077-acre Plan Area. The Specific Plan will serve as a bridge between the Fresno General Plan and individual development applications in the Plan Area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE

NO PROJECT
(EXISTING

GENERAL PLAN)

ALTERNATIVE

ADDITIONAL

ANNEXATION

ALTERNATIVE

REGIONAL PARK

ALTERNATIVE

LOWER DENSITY

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

LS None required. --

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

4.8, Chapter 9.

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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.

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), the project proponent(s) shall avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance shall include establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone (described below). Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged.

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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.

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

Impact 3.4-4: Specific Plan implementation
would not interfere substantially with the
movement of native fish or wildlife species
or with established wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites.

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

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

LS None required. --

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

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

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

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

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

PS Implement Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 LS

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

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

LS None required. --

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

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

LS None required. --

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

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

6.5. (California Hazardous Waste Control Law).

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

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

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

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

LS None required. --

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

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

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

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

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

LS None required. --

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

LS None required. --

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

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

LS None required. --

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

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

LS None required. --

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LS None required. --

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

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

LS None required. --

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

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

LS None required. --

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

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

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

LS None required. --

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

LS/LCC None required. --

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LS/LCC None required. --

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

WITHOUT

MITIGATION

MITIGATION MEASURE

RESULTING

LEVEL OF

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

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

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

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

CC/SU None required. --
Impact 4.14: Specific Plan implementation
may contribute to cumulative impacts to
the regional transportation network.

LS/LCC None required. --
Impact 4.15: Specific Plan implementation
may contribute to cumulative impacts on
utilities.

LS/LCC None required. --
INTRODUCTION 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-1 This section summarizes the purpose of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan “project” or “proposed project.” The following discussion addresses the environmental procedures that are to be followed according to State law, the intended uses of the EIR, the project’s relationship to the City’s General Plan, the EIR scope and organization, and a summary of the agency and public comments received during the public review period for the Notice of Preparation (NOP).

1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THE EIR
The City of Fresno, as lead agency, determined that the proposed Specific Plan is a "project" within the definition of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires the preparation of an environmental impact report prior to approving any project, which may have a significant impact on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, the term "project" refers to the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378[a]).

An EIR must disclose the expected environmental impacts, including impacts that cannot be avoided, growth-inducing effects, impacts found not to be significant, and significant cumulative impacts, as well as identify mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or avoid its adverse environmental impacts. CEQA requires government agencies to consider and, where feasible, minimize environmental impacts of proposed development. CEQA further requires public agencies to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors in making a decision to approve a development project with significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.

The City of Fresno, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Draft EIR to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies with an objective analysis of the potential environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of the Specific Plan Project. The environmental review process enables interested parties to evaluate the proposed project in terms of its environmental consequences, to examine and recommend methods to eliminate or reduce potential adverse impacts, and to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding adverse environmental effects, the lead agency must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including the economic and social benefits of a project, in determining whether a project should be approved.

This EIR will be used by the City to determine whether to approve, modify, or deny the proposed project and associated approvals in light of the project’s environmental effects. The EIR will be used as the primary environmental document to evaluate full project development, along with all associated infrastructure improvements, and permitting actions associated with the Project. All of the actions and components of the proposed project are described in detail in Chapter 2.0 of this Draft EIR.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

1.2 TYPE OF EIR
The CEQA Guidelines identify several types of EIRs, each applicable to different project circumstances. This EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. The program-level analysis considers the broad environmental effects of the proposed project as a whole.

It is noted that the Specific Plan provides a very high level of design detail for certain components of the project. To the extent that sufficient detail is available in the Specific Plan, a full project-level analysis is provided in this EIR. Examples of a full project level analysis would include topics that are related to the physical acreage affected (i.e. the project footprint), as opposed to the number of units, land uses/zoning, or other design parameters. Topics such as Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Hydrology/Water Quality are analyzed at a project-level analysis in this EIR given that these are physical environmental resources, and the area of impact is fully defined. Additionally, the Specific Plan includes a substantial level of detailed information that allows for a project-level analysis of topics such as Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change, Noise, Population and Housing, Transportation and Circulation, and Utilities. The analysis for these topics is driven by the number of units and square footage of development, which is detailed in the land use design and development projections. In some cases, there may be specific commercial uses that have design details developed at a later date that cannot reasonably be analyzed at a project-level at this time.

Additionally, the design of the school facilities and other public facilities are not known at this time, so they are not able to be analyzed at a project-level.

This EIR examines the planning, construction and operation of the project. The program-level approach, with some project-level analysis, is appropriate for the proposed project because it allows comprehensive consideration of the reasonably anticipated scope of the development plan; however, as discussed above, not all design aspects of the future development phases are known at this stage in the planning process. Subsequent individual development that requires further discretionary approvals will be examined in light of this EIR to determine whether additional environmental documentation must be prepared.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 states that a program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either:
1) Geographically,
2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, 3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or
4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, subdivision (c)(5), “[a] program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible.” Later environmental documents (EIRs, mitigated negative INTRODUCTION 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-3 declarations, or negative declarations) can incorporate by reference materials from the program EIR regarding regional influences, secondary impacts, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[d][2]). These later documents need only focus on new impacts that have not been considered before (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[d][3]).

Section 15168(c), entitled “Use with Later Activities,” provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Here, the City anticipates preparing a written checklist or similar device whenever landowners within the Specific Plan area submit applications for site-specific approvals (i.e. tentative maps, conditional use permits, or other discretionary entitlements). The checklist would serve in part as a consistency checklist to determine if the application for site specific approval is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan, Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures, and it would also include a review of the project details relative to what was anticipated and analyzed in the program EIR (i.e. are there new environmental effects that were not covered by the program EIR). The City’s expectation, at least at present, is that the checklist will conclude that most, or all, components of the Specific Plan can be developed with no new analysis of environmental effects given that there is a high level of resolution with regard to the project details that have been analyzed in this program EIR. In some cases, however, a site-specific application (i.e. commercial use) may have specific issues associated with the project, or business, that this program EIR could not anticipate given the information that was available at this time. In those situations, the detailed site-specific information from that application could have site-specific effects not wholly anticipated in this EIR and would require some additional environmental review. (See also CEQA Guidelines section 15063, subd. (b)(1)(C).)
Future site-specific approvals may also be narrowed pursuant to the rules for tiering set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152. “‘[T]iering is a process by which agencies can adopt programs, plans, policies, or ordinances with EIRs focusing on ‘the big picture,’ and can then use streamlined CEQA review for individual projects that are consistent with such…[first tier decisions] and are…consistent

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan with local agencies’ governing general plans and zoning.’” (Koster v. County of San Joaquin (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 29, 36.) Section 15152 provides that, where a first-tier EIR has “adequately addressed” the subject of cumulative impacts, such impacts need not be revisited in second- and third-tier documents. Furthermore, second- and third-tier documents may limit the examination of impacts to those that “were not examined as significant effects” in the prior EIR or “[a]re susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means.” In general, significant environmental effects have been “adequately addressed” if the lead agency determines that:
a) they have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior environmental impact report and findings adopted in connection with that prior environmental impact report; or b) they have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior environmental impact report to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project.

Here, as noted above, the City anticipates preparing a written checklist or similar device whenever landowners within the Specific Plan area submit applications for site-specific approvals (i.e. tentative maps, conditional use permits, or other discretionary entitlements). The checklist would serve in part as a consistency checklist to determine if the application for site specific approval is consistent with the General Plan, Specific Plan, Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures, and it would also include a review of the project details relative to what was anticipated and analyzed in the program EIR (i.e. have all significant environmental impacts identified been “adequately addressed” in the program EIR). Thus, if a new analysis is required for these site-specific actions, it would focus on impacts that cannot be “avoided or mitigated” by mitigation measures that either (i) were adopted in connection with the Specific Plan or (ii) were formulated based on information in this EIR.

In addition, for purely residential projects consistent with the Specific Plan, the City intends to preserve its ability to treat such projects as exempt from CEQA pursuant to Government Code section 65457. Subdivision (a) of that statute provides that “[a]ny residential development project, including any subdivision, or any zoning change that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an [EIR] has been certified after January 1, 1980, is exempt from the requirements of [CEQA].” The statutes go on to say, moreover, that “if after adoption of the specific plan, an event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code occurs, the exemption provided by this subdivision does not apply unless and until a supplemental [EIR] for the specific plan is prepared and certified in accordance with the provisions of [CEQA]. After a supplemental [EIR] is certified, the exemption … applies to projects undertaken pursuant to the specific plan.” (See also CEQA Guidelines section 15182.)
When purely residential projects are proposed, the City will consider whether they qualify for this exemption or whether the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan EIR must be updated through a supplement to this EIR or a subsequent EIR as required by Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163.

INTRODUCTION 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-5

1.3 RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES
As required by CEQA, this EIR defines lead, responsible, and trustee agencies. The City of Fresno is the “Lead Agency” for the project because it holds principal responsibility for approving the project.

The term “Responsible Agency” includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency that have discretionary approval power over the project or an aspect of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381). For the purpose of CEQA, a “Trustee” agency has jurisdiction by law over natural resources that are held in trust for the people of the State of California. CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 recognizes four particular trustee agencies: (a) the California Department of Fish and Wildlife with regard to the fish and wildlife of the State, to designated rare or endangered native plants, and to game refuges, ecological reserves, and other areas administered by the department; (b) the State Lands Commission with regard to State owned “sovereign” lands such as the beds of navigable waters and State school lands; (c) the State Department of Parks and Recreation with regard to units of the State Park System; and (d) The University of California with regard to sites within the Natural Land and Water Reserves System.

The following agencies are considered Responsible Agencies for this project, and may be required to issue permits or approve certain aspects of the proposed project:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW);
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans);
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board – Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general construction permit;
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – Approval of construction-related air quality permits, authority to Construct, Permit to Operate for stationary sources of air pollution;
• Central Unified School District – Approval of school sites.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife will also function as a trustee agency with respect to the proposed project. The City is unaware of any other trustee agency, as the proposed project would not affect any state owned “sovereign” lands, any units of the State Park System, or any sites within the University of California’s Natural Land and Water Reserves System.

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The review and certification process for the EIR has involved, or will involve, the following general procedural steps:

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed project on June 28, 2019 to responsible and trustee agencies, the State Clearinghouse, and the public. A public scoping meeting was held on July 24, 2019 at 6:00 p.m., at the Glacier Point Middle School Cafeteria in Fresno to present the project description to the public and interested agencies, and to receive comments

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan from the public and interested agencies regarding the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the Draft EIR. Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR. The NOP and responses to the NOP by interested parties are presented in Appendix A of this EIR.

DRAFT EIR
This document constitutes the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR contains a description of the project, description of the environmental setting, identification of project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts.

This Draft EIR identifies issues determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact, and provides detailed analysis of potentially significant and significant impacts. Comments received in response to the NOP were considered in preparing the analysis in this EIR. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City has filed the Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Clearinghouse of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period.

PUBLIC NOTICE/PUBLIC REVIEW
The City has provided a public notice of availability for the Draft EIR, and invites comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. Consistent with CEQA, the review period for this Draft EIR is forty-five (45) days. Public comment on the Draft EIR or questions regarding the Draft EIR should be addressed to:

Casey Lauderdale
City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065, Fresno, CA 93721
[email protected]

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS/FINAL EIR
Following the public review period, a Final EIR will be prepared. The Final EIR will respond to significant environmental issues raised either in written comments received during the public review period or in oral comments received at a public hearing during such review period.

CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR/PROJECT CONSIDERATION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 requires lead agencies to certify the final EIR prior to approving a project. The lead agency decision-making body shall certify that (i) the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (ii) that the final EIR was presented to the decision-making body, which reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project; and (iii) that the final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.

INTRODUCTION 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-7 For the proposed project, the City Council City shall be the City’s ultimate decision-making body. The Council will therefore review and consider the Final EIR and make a determination regarding whether the document is "adequate and complete." In general, a Final EIR meets this standard if:
1) The EIR shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information; and 2) The EIR provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the proposed project in contemplation of environmental considerations.

The level of detail contained throughout this EIR is consistent with Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines and recent court decisions, which provide the standard of adequacy on which this document is based. The Guidelines state as follows:
“An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of the environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.”
Following review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City may take action to approve, modify, or reject the project. As part of project approval, the City also is also required to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as described below, prepared in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program must include all of the mitigation measures that have been incorporated into or imposed upon the project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment, and would be designed to ensure that these measures are actually carried out during project implementation.

1.5 ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE
Sections 15122 through 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines identify the content requirements for Draft and Final EIRs. An EIR must include or address a description of the environmental setting, an environmental impact analysis, mitigation measures, alternatives, significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. Discussion of the environmental issues addressed in the Draft EIR was established through review of environmental and planning documentation developed for the project, environmental and planning documentation prepared for recent projects located within the City of Fresno, applicable local and regional planning documents, and responses to the NOP.

This Draft EIR is organized in the following manner:

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Executive Summary summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project, known areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, and provides a concise summary matrix of the project’s environmental impacts and possible mitigation measures. This chapter identifies alternatives that reduce or avoid at least one significant environmental effect of the proposed project.

CHAPTER 1.0 – INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1.0 briefly describes the purpose of the environmental evaluation, identifies the lead, trustee, and responsible agencies, summarizes the process associated with preparation and certification of an EIR, and identifies the scope and organization of the Draft EIR.

CHAPTER 2.0 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Chapter 2.0 provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including the location, intended objectives, background information, the physical and technical characteristics, including the decisions subject to CEQA, related infrastructure improvements, and a list of related agency action requirements.

CHAPTER 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND

MITIGATION MEASURES
Chapter 3.0 contains an analysis of each environmental topic area as identified below. Each subchapter addressing a topical area is organized as follows:

Environmental Setting. A description of the existing environment as it pertains to the topical area.

Regulatory Setting. A description of the regulatory environment that may be applicable to the project.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Identification of the significance criteria (also referred to as “thresholds of significance” throughout this EIR) by which the significance of impacts are determined, a description of project-related impacts associated with the environmental topic, identification of appropriate mitigation measures, and a conclusion as to the significance of each impact after the incorporation of proposed mitigation measures.

The following environmental topics are addressed in this chapter:
• Aesthetics
• Agricultural Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural and Tribal Resources
• Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
• Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
INTRODUCTION 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-9 • Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services and Recreation
• Transportation and Circulation
• Utilities
CHAPTER 4.0 – OTHER CEQA-REQUIRED TOPICS
Chapter 4.0 evaluates and describes the CEQA required topics as follows: cumulative and significant and unavoidable environmental effects under cumulative conditions. Chapter 4.0 also evaluates and describes the CEQA required topics as follows: impacts considered less-than-significant, significant and irreversible impacts, growth-inducing effects, and significant and unavoidable environmental effects.

CHAPTER 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and avoid and/or lessen any significant environmental effects of the project. Chapter 5.0 provides a comparative analysis between the environmental impacts of the project and the selected alternatives.

CHAPTER 6.0 – REPORT PREPARERS
This chapter lists all authors and agencies that assisted in the preparation of the EIR, by name, title, and company or agency affiliation.

CHAPTER 7.0 – REFERENCES
This chapter lists all references used in the preparation of the EIR.

APPENDICES
This section includes all notices and other procedural documents pertinent to the EIR, as well as technical material prepared to support the analysis. The EIR appendices are available in electronic format. The appendices can be viewed online at: https://www.fresno.gov/westareaplan.

1.6 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA (“THRESHOLDS”)
In general, CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial” adverse change in the physical environment. A potential impact is considered significant if a project would substantially degrade the environmental quality of land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines §§15360, 15382).

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Definitions of significance vary with the physical condition affected and the setting in which the change occurs. The CEQA Guidelines set forth physical impacts that trigger the requirement to make “mandatory findings of significance” (CEQA Guidelines §15065).

This CEQA document relies on three levels of impact significance:

1. Less-than-significant impact, for which no mitigation measures are warranted;

2. Significant impact that can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant; and,

3. Significant impact that cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. Such impacts are referred to as significant and unavoidable.

Each resource area uses a distinct set of significance criteria (also referred to as “thresholds of significance” throughout the EIR). The significance criteria are identified at the beginning of the impact discussion for each resource area. These significance criteria promote consistent evaluation of impacts for all alternatives considered, even though significance criteria are necessarily different for each resource considered. When criteria for significance determinations relative to a specific environmental resource are not identified in the CEQA Guidelines, specific criteria have been developed for this Draft EIR consistent with the past pattern and practice of the City of Fresno.

1.7 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The City received thirteen written comment letters on the NOP for the proposed project Draft EIR.

A copy of each letter is provided in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. A public scoping meeting was held on July 24, 2019 to present the project description to the public and interested agencies, and to receive comments from the public and interested agencies regarding the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the Draft EIR.

1. April Henry (August 1, 2019)

2. California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (July 19, 2019)

3. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit (June 28, 2019)

4. Carl & Lydia Franklin (August 2, 2019)

5. Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019)

6. Central Grizzlies Youth Football & Cheer (August 2, 2019)

7. City of Fresno Transportation Department, Fresno Area Express (July 29, 2019)

8. Forgotten Fresno (July 17, 2019)

9. Fresno Metropolitan Floor Control District (August 1, 2019)

10. Fresno County Public Library (July 8, 2019)

11. Jeff Roberts (July 24, 2019)

12. Patricia and Clifford Upton (July 24, 2019)

13. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (July 15, 2019)

1.8 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
The following are topics of public concern or potential controversy that have become known to the City staff based on public input, known regional issues, and staff observations:

INTRODUCTION 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 1.0-11 • Conversion of undeveloped land to urban use
• Light, glare, and skyglow
• Traffic congestion from automobiles and large trucks, ensuring safe routes to schools, and provision of alternative transportation infrastructure
• Annexation of county properties into the city
• Parkland, trail, and ball field impacts
• Need for aesthetics improvements, including tree planting • Air quality and pollution concerns, including dust from construction and agricultural uses, and air pollution along Highway 99
• Project impact on regional stormwater, drainage, and flood control

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-1

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING

REGIONAL LOCATION AND SETTING
The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan (also-known-as “Specific Plan”, “Plan Area”) encompasses approximately 7,077 acres (or a little more than 11 square miles) in the City of Fresno city limits and unincorporated Fresno County. The footprint of the Specific Plan is referred to as the “Plan Area.” Of the eleven square miles within the Plan Area, 6.9 square miles are in the city limits and 4.1 square miles are in the growth area. The growth area is land outside the city limits but within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary, which is the adopted limit for future growth.

The Plan Area is triangular in shape and located west of State Route 99. It is bounded on the south by West Clinton Avenue, and to the west by Grantland and Garfield Avenues. The Plan Area includes the southwest portion of Highway City adjacent to State Route 99. See Figure 2.0-1 for the regional location map and Figure 2.0-2 for the Plan Area vicinity map.

SPECIFIC PLAN AREA PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The Plan Area is relatively flat with natural gentle slope near State Route 99. The Plan Area topography ranges in elevation from approximately 283 to 315 feet above mean sea level. A large amount of land in the Plan Area is farmland or rural residential lots with large, uneven, and underutilized parcels.

The Plan Area has approximately eight different existing land uses which include the following:
• Rural/Estate Residential: Approximately 27 percent, or 1,911 acres, of the existing land uses within the Plan Area are currently used as rural/estate residential. Of the 6,109 acres of developable lands within the Plan Area, 1,640.68 acres are low-density single-family homes that are occupied lots with a size of two to nine acres per dwelling units. • Multiple Family Residential: Approximately two percent, or 141 acres, of the Plan Area account for multi-family residential development. These uses are primarily located adjacent to arterial roads with easy access to State Route 99, and Fresno Area Express (FAX) service lines.
• Single-Family Residential: Approximately 21 percent of the existing uses within the Plan Area are currently developed with single-family residential uses. These uses are located primarily within the city limits.
• Vacant Land: Approximately 15 percent of the land in the Plan Area, or 911.34 acres, account for vacant lands. Vacant areas are located throughout the Plan Area, in both the city limits and SOI. Vacant areas represent infill opportunities within the Plan Area’s densest neighborhoods.
• Public/Government Facilities: Approximately six percent, or 337.83 acres, of land within the Plan Area contain public or government facilities. These land uses include Central Unified School District facilities, churches, the Dante Club, and the Hacienda facility.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Open Space/Agricultural Land: Approximately 25 percent or 1,554.06 acres, in the Plan Area contain open space or agricultural land. While there are some open space land uses within the City, most of these uses are primarily located in the SOI. These uses include parks and ponding basins.
• Industrial Uses: Approximately one percent, or 57.33 acres, of the Plan Area account for industrial uses. The largest industrial land use in the Plan Area contains an agricultural business located at the intersection of West Dakota Avenue and North Grantland Avenue. • Commercial Uses: Approximately three percent, or 219.76 acres, of the Plan Area account for commercial uses. Commercial uses are spread throughout the eastern and southeastern portions of the Plan Area, closer to State Route 99.

The Plan Area has approximately 3,070.95 acres of land that is classified as Urban and Built-Up, according to the State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

Prime Farmland is principally located outside of the Plan Area. The Plan Area has 285.65 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance which is located primarily in the western edge of the Plan Area.

Approximately 509.39 acres of Unique Farmland is located within the Plan Area, most of which is within the southwest portion of the Plan Area. Farmland of Local Importance is located throughout the entire Plan Area, and totals approximately 1,562.82 acres. Vacant or Disturbed Land and Rural Residential Land account for approximately 1,650.17 acres within the growth area.

See Figure 2.0-3 for an aerial view of the Plan Area.

SURROUNDING LAND USES
Surrounding land uses include State Route 99; the historic communities of Herndon and Highway City; incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the north; incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the east (including mostly industrial uses); unincorporated Fresno County and incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the south (including farmland uses, rural residential uses, low density residential uses, and underutilized parcels); and unincorporated Fresno County to the west (including farmland and rural residential uses).

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USES AND ZONING
A portion of the Plan Area is located within the City of Fresno city limits, and a portion is within unincorporated Fresno County (within the City’s SOI). The City of Fresno General Plan designates the Plan Area as: Low Density Residential; Medium Low Density Residential; Medium Density Residential; Urban Neighborhood Residential; High Density Residential; Community Commercial; General Commercial; Recreation Commercial; Office; Business Park; Light Industrial; Corridor/Center Mixed Use; Regional Mixed Use; Community Park; Open Space – Ponding Basin; Neighborhood Park; Open Space; Public/Quasi-Public Facility; Special School; Elementary School; Elementary, Middle & High School; and High School. See Figure 2.0-4 for the existing City General Plan land use designations.

The City of Fresno Zoning Map provides zoning for those portions of the Plan Area located within the city limits, but not for areas within the unincorporated County. Zoning designations are generally consistent with the existing General Plan land uses. The City zoning designations for the Plan Area PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-3 include: Residential Estate (RE), Residential Single-Family, Extremely Low Density (RS-1), Residential Single-Family, Very Low Density (RS-2), Residential Single-Family, Low Density (RS-3), Residential Single-Family, Medium Low Density (RS-4), Residential Single-Family, Medium Density (RS-5), Residential Multi-Family, Medium High Density (RM-1), Residential Multi-Family, Urban Neighborhood (RM-2), Residential Multi-Family, High Density (RM-3), Mobile Home Park (RM-MH), Commercial Community (CC), Commercial General (CG), Commercial Regional (CR), Commercial Recreation (CRC), Light Industrial (IL), Corridor/Center Mixed Use (CMX), Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMX), Regional Mixed Use (RMX), Business Park (BP), Office (O), Open Space (OS), and Park and Recreation (PR). See Figure 2.0-5 for the existing zoning designations.

In the unincorporated areas of the Plan Area, the Fresno County Zoning Map designates the portions of the Plan Area outside the city limits but within the SOI as: Rural Commercial Center (RCC), Central Trading (C4), General Commercial (C6), Light Industrial (M1), Exclusive Agricultural (AE20), Limited Agricultural (AL20), Rural Residential (RR), Single Family Residential Agricultural (RA), Single Family Residential (12,500) (R1B), and Trailer Park Residential (TP). Upon a proposal to annex unincorporated land into the city limits, the City of Fresno would prezone the land to a zone that is consistent with the General Plan land use. Once annexation occurs, the County zoning would no longer apply to the parcel.

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

INTRODUCTION
The proposed Specific Plan will establish the land use planning and regulatory guidance, including the land use and zoning designations and policies, for the approximately 7,077-acre Plan Area. The Specific Plan will serve as a bridge between the Fresno General Plan and individual development applications in the Plan Area.

The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan seeks to provide for the orderly and consistent development that promotes and establishes the Plan Area as a complete neighborhood with enhanced transportation infrastructure, development of core commercial centers, creation of additional parkland, and development of a diverse housing stock. The Plan Area does not currently have needed commercial amenities, causing residents to travel east of State Route 99 for retail services. The Plan Area also lacks a complete roadway network and parkland.

BACKGROUND
The proposed Specific Plan process officially started in September 2017 with the drafting of the existing conditions report. That document provides a detailed overview of the existing land uses within the Plan Area. Outreach to the Plan Area community started in early 2018 with individual meetings between City staff and community stakeholders, including residents, local agencies, institutional partners, elected officials, land owners, and developers. Public outreach included community stakeholder interviews, Steering Committee orientation sessions and meetings, community meetings and workshops, and an on-line survey.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan The 11-member Steering Committee, established in March 2018 by the Fresno City Council, held regular public meetings to provide recommendations on the draft land use map and guiding principles based on input received from community members. Additionally, approximately 25 community stakeholders were interviewed from January 2018 to April 2018. Next, a kick-off survey regarding the Plan Area was released in April 2018. The survey covered topics such as quality of life, needed improvements, needed housing and commercial development, agritourism, and the overall future vision for the Plan Area. Two community conversations (i.e., workshops) were also held in order to receive feedback: Community Conversation No. 1 was held in May 2018, and Community Conversation No. 2 was held in June 2018. The Steering Committee then held meetings in June, July, August, November, and January 2018 in order to review and select the conceptual land use options.

The draft land use map and guiding principles were released to the public on November 28, 2018.

The draft land use map was then amended by the Steering Committee in January 2019. Lastly, an agritourism workshop was held in the spring of 2019.

RELATED PLANNING EFFORTS
The Specific Plan serves as the first major specific planning effort, environmental evaluation, and infrastructure analysis for the Plan Area. However, other past and in-progress planning efforts impacting the Plan Area have occurred and are described below.

The Highway City Neighborhood Specific Plan (1998)
The Highway City Neighborhood Specific Plan, which applies to about five percent of the Plan Area, was adopted on January 6, 1998 and was prepared to address problems, issues, and opportunities of the Highway City neighborhood. One of the guiding principles for the Highway City Neighborhood Specific Plan encouraged development of neighborhoods characterized by a diverse but compatible arrangement of residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses to be supported by existing single-family residential areas. The proposed Specific Plan will replace a portion of the Highway City Neighborhood Specific Plan, but will carry forward applicable area-specific policies.

The West Area Community Plan (2002)
The West Area Community Plan was adopted on February 1, 2002 as “Appendix W” of the 2025 General Plan and applies to the area encompassing the Plan Area and additional land to the east (to the railroad tracks east of Golden State Boulevard) and south (to Belmont Avenue and the railroad tracks south of Belmont Avenue). The core goals of the Community Plan were to develop the West Area as a planned community with a complete range of services, facilities, and public infrastructure development, and to minimize land use conflicts between agriculture and urban uses. The proposed Specific Plan would replace the Community Plan, updating and incorporating still-relevant policies.

The General Plan (2014)
The General Plan was adopted on December 18, 2014 and set a forward-looking course for the city focusing on infill development, Complete Neighborhoods, and multimodal transportation to achieve fiscally sustainable and environmentally responsible growth. It establishes the foundation for this Specific Plan, anticipating that this Plan will further refine the General Plan’s vision for the Plan Area.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-5 One of the primary goals of the General Plan is to support established neighborhoods in Fresno with safe, well maintained, and accessible streets; public utilities, education and job training; proximity to jobs, retail services, health care, affordable housing, youth development opportunities, open space and parks, transportation options; and opportunities for home grown businesses. Another key goal of the General Plan that is reiterated in the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan is to resolve existing public infrastructure and service deficiencies, make full use of existing infrastructure, and invest in improvements to increase connectivity, competitiveness, and to promote economic growth.

To achieve its goals while maintaining orderly development, the General Plan designates a sequencing of development that calls for roughly half to occur in infill areas (defined as within the city limits on December 31, 2012) and permits half to occur in greenfield areas. For greenfield areas, development must first occur in parts of the Sphere of Influence defined as Growth Area 1, which is deemed to be infrastructure-ready. Growth Area 2, on the other hand, is in need of significant infrastructure investment that the City has not planned for nor funded. Development within the city and Growth Area 1 is supported by and based on planned infrastructure expansion, public service capacity, and financial considerations undertaken during the General Plan process. The Plan Area is within Growth Area 1 and therefore has capacity to support growth.

The General Plan’s vision for the Plan Area is to create opportunities for the development of Complete Neighborhoods. The concept of Complete Neighborhoods is to enable Fresnans to live in communities with convenient access to services, employment, and recreation within walking distance. It provides residents with amenities that make their neighborhood mostly self-sufficient and interconnected. Characteristics of a Complete Neighborhood, which can create an enhanced quality of life and increased property values, include:
a) A range of housing choices;
b) Neighborhood-serving retail;
c) Employment opportunities;
d) Public services, such as health clinics;
e) Entertainment and cultural assets;
f) Parks and public schools;
g) Community services, such as a library, recreation center, senior center, and/or community garden;
h) Sidewalks, bikeways, trails and other active transportation infrastructure; i) Public plaza/civic space; and
j) Access to public transit.

Fresno Municipal Code Chapter 15: Citywide Development Code (2015) The main purpose of the Development Code, which was adopted in 2015, is to implement the General Plan and other adopted plans. The Development Code is the City’s zoning code, and it seeks to protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the city of Fresno. It classifies the city into districts, or “zones” that allow various land uses, including:

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan residential single-family, residential multi-family, mixed-use, commercial, public and semi-public, downtown, and employment districts.

ADA Transition Plan for the Right of Way (2016)
The 2016 Update to the ADA Transition Plan for the Right of Way (ROW Transition Plan) was adopted by Council on February 25, 2016. The goal of the ROW Transition Plan is to ensure that the City maintains accessible paths of travel in the ROW for people with disabilities. The ROW Transition Plan incorporates retrofitting Curb Ramps, Sidewalks, and Accessible Pedestrian Signals and replaces the 2003 Amended Curb Ramp Transition Plan.

The Active Transportation Plan (2017)
The Active Transportation Plan (ATP) was adopted on March 2, 2017 and serves as the City’s comprehensive guide for active transportation. The ATP envisions a complete, safe, and comfortable network of trails, sidewalks, and bikeways that serve as a means for people to safely get to their destinations while reducing roadway congestion and improving the air quality. This also results in replacing vehicle miles traveled with walking or biking. Additional Class II bike lanes are planned for the Plan Area and Class I bicycle and pedestrian trails are to be constructed with four connection points over State Route 99 at Herndon Avenue, Veterans Boulevard, Gettysburg Avenue, and the Herndon Canal which is located near West Shaw Avenue.

The Parks Master Plan (2017)
The Parks Master Plan was adopted on December 14, 2017 and serves as a community-based vision and road map for achieving a complete park system in the city of Fresno. Through a public outreach process, examination of existing conditions, and analysis of the General Plan’s goals, the Parks Master Plan determined the amount of parkland needed for the city’s existing and future population.

LAND USE MAP AND MAXIMUM BUILDOUT POTENTIAL
The proposed Specific Plan refines the General Plan’s land use vision for the Plan Area. The draft land use map proposes the relocation of higher density land uses away from the most western and southwestern portions of the Plan Area where they are distant from public transit and community amenities and transfers those higher density land use designations to major corridors. The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan land use plan utilizes the City’s existing General Plan land use designations to maintain or re-designate some parcels in the Plan Area. See Table 2.0-1 for a summary of the existing and proposed land uses within the city limits, growth area, and Plan Area.

See Figure 2.0-6 for the proposed General Plan land use designations.

As indicated in Table 2.0-1, the Specific Plan would result in an increase in land designated for employment, mixed use, open space and public facilities uses and a decrease in land designated for residential and commercial uses compared to the existing General Plan.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-7 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TABLE 2.0-1: PARCEL ACREAGES BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR GENERAL PLAN AND PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE

DESIGNATIONS

CITY LIMITS GROWTH AREA PLAN AREA TOTAL

GENERAL PLAN
ACRES

SPECIFIC PLAN
ACRES

DIFFERENCE IN
CITY

GENERAL PLAN
ACRES

SPECIFIC PLAN
ACRES

DIFFERENCE IN

GROWTH AREA

GENERAL PLAN
ACRES

SPECIFIC PLAN
ACRES

OVERALL
CHANGE
Low 146.20 95.82
- 104.93
671.59 420.76
- 183.73
817.79 516.57
- 288.66
Medium Low 582.37 821.03 243.59 619.19 825.97 1,440.22
Medium 1,460.88 1,316.66 896.13 801.34 2,357.00 2,118.00 Medium High 261.09 229.03 88.33 51.24 349.42 280.27
Urban Neighborhood 214.65 79.11 213.96 75.11 428.61 154.21 High 28.00 46.61 37.76 0.00 65.76 46.61
Subtotal - Residential 2,693.19 2,588.26 2,151.36 1,967.63 4,844.55 4,555.89 Community 81.87 51.14
- 16.94

56.79 6.60
+ 12.10
138.66 57.74
- 4.82
Recreation 41.34 41.34 0.00 0.00 41.34 41.34
General 141.59 155.38 1.63 59.69 143.21 215.07
Regional 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.24 0.00 4.24
Subtotal - Commercial 264.80 247.86 58.42 70.52 323.21 318.39 Office 7.51 36.38
+ 26.35

0.00 45.87
+ 45.87

7.51 82.25
+ 72.22 Business Park 22.71 20.57 54.40 54.40 77.11 74.97 Light Industrial 33.13 32.75 0.00 0.00 33.13 32.75
Subtotal - Employment 63.35 89.70 54.40 100.27 117.75 189.97 Neighborhood 0.00 263.59
+ 84.47

0.00 44.83
+ 69.06

0.00 308.43
+ 153.53 Corridor/Center 106.19 71.78 0.00 24.23 106.19 96.00 Regional 144.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 144.72 0.00
Subtotal - Mixed Use 250.90 335.37 0.00 69.06 250.90 404.43 Pocket Park 2.45 1.55
+ 44.64

0.00 0.00
+ 34.55

2.45 1.55
+ 10.09
Neighborhood Park 36.67 39.22 47.04 47.04 83.71 86.26
Community Park 24.20 24.20 13.98 0.00 38.18 24.20
Regional Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Open Space 5.03 5.03 1.76 1.76 6.79 6.79
Ponding Basin 67.06 110.04 40.12 19.55 107.18 129.59
Subtotal - Open Space 135.41 180.05 102.90 68.35 238.31 248.40 Public Facility 4.98 12.64
+ 32.05

16.81 14.78
+ 25.59

21.78 27.42
+ 57.65
Church 9.93 21.20 1.66 34.60 11.59 55.80
Special School 4.50 4.50 13.88 13.88 18.38 18.38
Elem. School 56.18 66.17 25.65 25.65 81.82 91.82
Elem./Middle/High School 145.37 145.37 0.00 0.00 145.37 145.37 High School 46.95 46.95 0.00 0.00 46.95 46.95
Fire Station 0.20 3.32 5.32 0.00 5.52 3.32
Subtotal - Public Facilities 268.10 300.15 63.32 88.91 331.41 389.06 Grand Total 3,675.75 3,741.39 -- 2,430.39 2,364.74 -- 6,106.14 6,106.14 -- PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-8 As previously indicated, the City of Fresno Zoning Map designates the Plan Area as: RE, RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS-4, RS-5, RM-1, RM-2, RM-3, RM-MH, CC, CG, CR, CRC, IL, CMX, NMX, RMX, BP, O, OS, and PR. The Fresno County Zoning Map designates the portions of the Plan Area outside the city limits as: RCC, C4, C6, M1, AE20, AL20, RR, RA, R1B, and TP. In conjunction with the approval of the Specific Plan, the parcels in the City which would have a changed land use designation as a result of the Specific Plan would be rezoned to the corresponding City zoning designation.

The parcels that are currently within the County will not be rezoned. Instead, upon a proposal to annex unincorporated land into the city limits, the City of Fresno would prezone the land to a zone that is consistent with the General Plan land use. Once annexation occurs, the County zoning would no longer apply to the parcel and the zoning established in the prezoning would take effect.

Table 2.0-2 summarizes the existing General Plan land uses, the maximum number of units, and the maximum non-residential square footage that would be allowed under the existing General Plan. As shown, the existing General Plan land use designations for the Plan Area could result in up to 67,205 dwelling units (DU) and up to 44,419,656.60 square feet (SF) of non-residential uses within the Plan Area.

Table 2.0-3 summarizes the acreages of each land use, the maximum number of units, and the maximum non-residential square footage that would be allowed under the proposed Specific Plan.

As shown in the table, the Specific Plan land use plan that was recommended by the Steering Committee would allow for the future development of up to 54,953 DU (including 67 DU in the commercial category, 47,072 DU in the residential category and 7,814 DU in the mixed use category), and 60,621,006.31 SF of non-residential uses. The proposed land use plan also designates public facility uses that are currently existing within the Plan Area, including schools and churches. In the northern portion of the Plan Area, Fire Station No. 18 is located off of West Bullard Avenue at 5938 North La Ventana Avenue. Fire Station 18 will be relocated to a permanent location on the south side of the 6000 block of West Shaw Avenue to maximize the department’s response time goal.

Additionally, the proposed land use plan would allow for approximately 248 acres of park, open space, and ponding basin uses. The Specific Plan also includes circulation and utility improvements, some of which are planned in the City’s current program for capital improvements.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-9 TABLE 2.0-2: MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WITHIN WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA– EXISTING GENERAL PLAN

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
(AND DENSITY/INTENSITY)

SPECIFIC PLAN
ACRES

MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

DWELLING UNITS NON-RESIDENTIAL SF
Low (1-3.5 DU/AC) 817.79 2,862 --
Medium Low (3.5-6 DU/AC) 825.97 4,955 --
Medium (5-12 DU/AC) 2,357.00 28,284 --
Medium High (12-16 DU/AC) 349.42 5,590 --
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 DU/AC) 428.61 12,858 --
High (30-45 DU/AC) 65.76 2,959 --
Subtotal - Residential 4,844.55 57,508 --
Community (1.0 Max. FAR) 138.66 -- 6,040,029.60
Recreation (0.5 Max. FAR) 41.34 -- 900,385.20
General (2.0 Max. FAR) 143.21 -- 12,476,455.20
Regional (1.0 Max. FAR) 0.00 0 0.00
Subtotal - Commercial 323.21 0 19,416,870.00
Office (2.0 Max. FAR) 7.51 -- 654,271.20
Business Park (1.0 Max. FAR) 77.11 -- 3,358,911.60
Light Industrial (1.0 Max. FAR) 33.13 -- 1,443,142.80
Subtotal - Employment 117.75 -- 5,456,325.60
Neighborhood (12-16 DU/AC; 1.5 Max. FAR) 0.00 0 0.00
Corridor/Center (16-30 UD/AC; 1.5 Max. FAR) 106.19 3,185 6,938,454.60 Regional (30-45 UD/AC; 2.0 Max. FAR) 144.72 6,512 12,608,006.40 Subtotal - Mixed Use 250.90 9,697 19,546,461.00
Pocket Park 2.45 -- --
Neighborhood Park 83.71 -- --
Community Park 38.18 -- --
Regional Park 0.00 -- --
Open Space 6.79 -- --
Ponding Basin 107.18 -- --
Subtotal - Open Space 238.31 -- --
Public Facility 21.78 -- --
Church 11.59 -- --
Special School 18.38 -- --
Elem. School 81.82 -- --
Elem./Middle/High School 145.37 -- --
High School 46.95 -- --
Fire Station 5.52 -- --
Subtotal - Public Facilities 331.41 -- --
Grand Total 6,106.14 67,205 44,419,656.60

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TABLE 2.0-3: MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL WITHIN WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN – PROPOSED WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
(AND DENSITY/INTENSITY)

SPECIFIC PLAN
ACRES

MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

DWELLING UNITS NON-RESIDENTIAL SF
Low (1-3.5 DU/AC) 516.57 1,808 --
Medium Low (3.5-6 DU/AC) 1,440.22 8,641 --
Medium (5-12 DU/AC) 2,118.00 25,416 --
Medium High (12-16 DU/AC) 280.27 4,484 --
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 DU/AC) 154.21 4,626 --
High (30-45 DU/AC) 46.61 2,097 --
Subtotal - Residential 4,555.89 47,072 --
Community (1.0 Max. FAR) 57.74 -- 2,515,345.93
Recreation (0.5 Max. FAR) 41.34 -- 900,316.07
General (2.0 Max. FAR) 215.07 -- 18,737,081.61
Regional (1.0 Max. FAR) 4.24 67 184,521.12
Subtotal - Commercial 318.39 67 22,337,264.74
Office (2.0 Max. FAR) 82.25 -- 7,166,022.23
Business Park (1.0 Max. FAR) 74.97 -- 3,265,670.81
Light Industrial (1.0 Max. FAR) 32.75 -- 1,426,584.42
Subtotal - Employment 189.97 -- 11,858,277.47
Neighborhood (12-16 DU/AC; 1.5 Max. FAR) 308.43 4,934 20,152,641.61 Corridor/Center (16-30 UD/AC; 1.5 Max. FAR) 96.00 2,880 6,272,822.49 Regional (30-45 UD/AC; 2.0 Max. FAR) 0.00 0 0.00
Subtotal - Mixed Use 404.43 7,814 26,425,464.11
Pocket Park 1.55 -- --
Neighborhood Park 86.26 -- --
Community Park 24.20 -- --
Regional Park 0.00 -- --
Open Space 6.79 -- --
Ponding Basin 129.59 -- --
Subtotal - Open Space 248.40 -- --
Public Facility 27.42 -- --
Church 55.80 -- --
Special School 18.38 -- --
Elem. School 91.82 -- --
Elem./Middle/High School 145.37 -- --
High School 46.95 -- --
Fire Station 3.32 -- --
Subtotal - Public Facilities 389.06 -- --
Grand Total 6,106.14 54,953 DU 60,621,006.31 SF
The proposed Specific Plan land uses could result in a decrease in the number of residential units in the Plan Area and an increase in the amount of non-residential square footage. Specifically, the proposed Specific Plan could decrease the number of housing units by 12,252 DU (including a 10,436 DU reduction in the residential category, a 67 DU increase in the commercial category, and an 1,883 DU reduction in the mixed use category). The proposed Specific Plan could increase the amount of non-residential SF by 16,201,349.72 SF (including a 2,920,394.74 SF increase in the commercial category, a 6,401,951.87 SF increase in the employment category, and a 6,879,003.11 SF increase in the mixed use category).

The Specific Plan is designed to provide flexibility, so there are a number of variations/combinations for residential and non-residential development. However, the development potential identified within the table represents the maximum development that would be allowed based upon the PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-11 existing and proposed land uses and their associated densities and intensities without requiring a future amendment to the Specific Plan. In effect, this is very likely an overestimate of what will actually be developed, but for purposes of environmental analysis in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) it represents the worst-case scenario.

It is noted that the proposed Specific Plan would amend the land uses for approximately half of the land within the Plan Area. The remaining parcels would maintain their existing land use and zoning designations. The parcels that are proposed for change by the proposed land use map are shown in Figure 2.0-7.

REVISIONS TO CORE GOALS
In addition to the proposed land use plan, the following are revisions to the core goals provided in the General Plan for the Plan Area:

1. West Shaw Avenue Town Center: The West Shaw Avenue Town Center (the Town Center) will extend from State Route 99 to the east side of Grantland Avenue and is envisioned to be comprised of mixed-use development supported by enhanced transit service. Land on the south side of West Shaw Avenue will provide additional neighborhood and commercial mixed-use opportunities.

2. Catalytic Corridors: The proposed Specific Plan designates higher density land uses along corridors for the purpose of providing easy access to major arterials and streets, retail centers, and community amenities. Catalytic corridors will include transit services. The corridors are designed to include neighborhood and pocket parks, commercial and retail uses, educational facilities, multi-family dwelling units, and professional offices. The corridors are located on the following streets:
a) West Shaw Avenue, from State Route 99 to Grantland Avenue; b) West Ashlan Avenue, from State Route 99 to Grantland Avenue; c) North Blythe Avenue, from West Shields to West Ashlan Avenue; d) West Clinton Avenue from State Route 99 to North Brawley Avenue; and e) Veterans Boulevard, from West Gettysburg Avenue to West Barstow Avenue.

PLAN ADOPTION AND REGULATION
The Specific Plan will include certain development regulations and standards that are intended to be specific to the Specific Plan Area. Where there is a matter or issue not specifically covered by the Specific Plan development regulations and design standards, the Fresno Zoning Code would apply (as set forth in Section 15-204-B of the City Code). Where there is a conflict between the Specific Plan and the Zoning Code, the Zoning Code would prevail.

The Specific Plan is intended to be adopted by the City Council and to serve as a tool for the City of Fresno to implement the General Plan. The Specific Plan is to be used by designers, developers, builders, and planners, to guide development of the Plan Area. The land use standards and development standards are provided to ensure that all proposed developments remain consistent with the vision established by the Specific Plan as the Plan Area is built over time. The Specific Plan development concepts and standards are in accordance with the City’s General Plan, Municipal

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Ordinances, and City Specifications. The Specific Plan shall be used to review, process, and approve development proposals for the Plan Area including but not limited to site specific development applications and site improvement plans.

PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
The City of Fresno will be the Lead Agency for the proposed Specific Plan, pursuant to the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15050.

Actions that would be required from the City include, but are not limited to the following:
• Repeal of a portion of the Highway City Specific Plan that overlaps with the plan area boundaries;
• Repeal of the West Area Community Plan;
• Certification of the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan EIR and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP);
• Approval of the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan; • Amendment of the General Plan land use map to incorporate the planned land uses of the Specific Plan; and
• Rezone of all parcels proposed for land use changes within city limits of the Specific Plan area to a zone district consistent with the planned land use.

2.3 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the proposed Specific Plan include future development of land for a wide variety of land uses including: Low Density Residential; Medium Low Density Residential; Medium Density Residential; Medium High Density Residential; Urban Neighborhood Residential; High Density Residential; Community Commercial; Recreation Commercial; General Commercial; Regional Commercial; Office; Business Park; Light Industrial; Corridor/Center Mixed Use; Regional Mixed Use; Pocket Park; Neighborhood Park; Community Park; Open Space; Ponding Basin; Public Facility; Church; Special School; Elementary School; Elementary, Middle & High School; High School; and Fire Station uses, as well as the required transportation and utility improvements.

QUANTIFIABLE OBJECTIVES
The quantifiable objective of the proposed Specific Plan includes the future development of up to 54,953 DU (including 67 DU in the commercial category, 47,072 DU in the residential category and 7,814 DU in the mixed use category) and 60,621,006 SF of non-residential uses.

SPECIFIC PLAN GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The Specific Plan’s guiding principles are designed to form the direction of the Specific Plan, and how the Plan can best benefit the future of the Plan Area. The guiding principles incorporate input received from community members and formal recommendations of the Steering Committee. The guiding principles of the Specific Plan are summarized as follows:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-13 Transportation
• Accommodate and improve roadway access, connectivity and mobility among all modes of transportation, and prioritize roadway widening where bottlenecking exists. • Accommodate planned transit services in the Plan Area by locating routes near or adjacent to the community centers, schools, parks, and retail centers. • Provide a complete, safe, and well-maintained sidewalk network from residential neighborhoods to commercial centers, schools, parks, and community centers. • Provide a complete, safe, and well-maintained roadway network that allows for efficient and smooth access from the Plan Area to other sections of the City and region.

Parks and Trails
• Create parks that are within existing and planned neighborhoods that are easily accessed by community members using pedestrian and bicycle pathways, transit services, or motor vehicles, consistent with the City of Fresno’s Parks Master Plan. • Provide for the location of a flagship Regional Park in the Plan Area that has components of the Plan Area’s agricultural history through the planting of drought-resistant vegetation or trees, and the creation of public art that exhibits the Plan Area’s contribution to the agricultural industry.

Agriculture
• Incorporate elements of agriculture in future parks by planting a mixture of native drought tolerant vegetation, shrubs, and trees that can serve to provide shade and enhance the streetscape.
• Encourage and provide land use opportunities for agritourism ventures to occur in the Plan Area.
• Encourage the development of harvest – producing community gardens.

Retail
• Attract desired and needed local retail establishments to serve the needs of the Plan Area community. Such establishments include grocery stores, bakeries, restaurants other than fast food places, and boutiques.
• Discourage the expansion of undesirable retail establishments such as liquor stores, tobacco and vapor stores, short-term loan and pawn shops, and adult stores. • Encourage the development of retail establishments along commercial corridors. • Encourage the orderly and consistent development of civic, parkland, retail and commercial, mixed-use, and multi-family uses along West Shaw Avenue, West Ashlan Avenue, Veterans Boulevard, West Shields Avenue, West Clinton Avenue, and Blythe Avenue.

Housing
• Encourage a variety of housing types and styles.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Encourage the development of housing to accommodate an aging population including, multi-generational houses and other elder housing options. • Reaffirm the City’s commitment and obligation to affirmatively furthering access to fair and affordable housing opportunities by strongly encouraging equitable and fair housing opportunities to be located in strategic proximity to employment, recreational facilities, schools, neighborhood commercial areas, and transportation routes.

Education
• Attract much needed educational opportunities for the residents of the Plan Area, especially for post-secondary education, and access to programs for life-long learners.

Public Safety
• Provide for safe routes to schools for children, with the City and County working together with residents, to provide sidewalks in neighborhoods that have sporadic access. • Work to promote Neighborhood Watch in all neighborhoods, and further assess the need for the location of emergency response facilities west of State Route 99.

These Specific Plan guiding principles functionally represent project objectives as required by CEQA Guidelines section 15124, subdivision (b).

2.4 USES OF THE EIR AND REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS
The City of Fresno will be the Lead Agency for the proposed Specific Plan, pursuant to the State Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA, Section 15050. Actions that would be required from the City include, but are not limited to the following:
• Repeal of a portion of the Highway City Specific Plan that overlaps with the plan area boundaries;
• Repeal of the West Area Community Plan;
• Certification of the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan EIR and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP);
• Approval of the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan; • Amendment of the General Plan land use map to incorporate the planned land uses of the Specific Plan; and
• Rezone of all parcels proposed for land use changes within city limits of the Specific Plan area to a zone district consistent with the planned land use. • Approval of the West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan.

The following agencies are considered Responsible Agencies for this Specific Plan, and may be required to issue permits or approve certain aspects of the proposed Specific Plan:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW);
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans);
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 2.0-15 • Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board – Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general construction permit;
• Fresno Irrigation District (FID);
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – Approval of construction-related air quality permits, authority to Construct, Permit to Operate for stationary sources of air pollution;
• Central Unified School District – Approval of school sites.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife will also function as a trustee agency with respect to the proposed Specific Plan. The City is unaware of any other trustee agency, as the proposed Specific Plan would not affect any state owned “sovereign” lands, any units of the State Park System, or any sites within the University of California’s Natural Land and Water Reserves System.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

F R E S N O C O U N T Y F R E S N O C O U N T Y

K I N G S C O U N T Y K I N G S C O U N T Y

M A D E R A C O U N T Y M A D E R A C O U N T Y

T U L A R E T U L A R E

C O U N T Y C O U N T Y
Chowchilla
Chowchilla
Madera
San
Joaquin
Sanger
Reedley
Selma
Kerman
Kingsburg
Fowler
Parlier
Fresno
Fresno
Clovis
Clovis
UV180
UV145
UV41
UV41
UV269
UV168
UV233
UV152
UV41
UV168
UV99
UV180
UV43
UV99
UV145
UV145
UV180

WILLO W CR

CHOWCHILLA R

S AN J O AQUINR

KINGS R

SAN JOAQUIN R

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
Figure 2.0-1. Regional Location Map
Legend
Specific Plan of the West Area
City Area
County Boundary
Sources: CalAtlas; Madera County; Fresno County. Map date: May 8, 2019. 0 2½ 5
Miles
q

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

Barstow
Biola
Junction
Borden
Bowles
Calwa
Cameo
Cecile
Cincotta
Easton
Figarden
Glorietta
Goldleaf
Gordon
Gregg
Hammond
Herndon
Highway
City
Irrigosa
Las Palmas
Malaga
Mattei
Melvin
Muscatel
Oleander
Pinedale
Pratton
Raco
Raisin City
Ripperdan
Rolinda
Sierra
Sky Park
Biola
Sunnyside
Tarpey
Trigo
West Park
Banadelle Ranchos Bonadelle
Ranchos
Nine
Madera
Ranchos
Rolling
Hills
San Joaquin
River Estates
Sumner
Hill
Parksdale
Floyd
Parkwood
Kerman
Fowler
Fresno
Fresno
Clovis
UV41
UV99
UV99
UV168
UV180
UV41
UV99
UV180
E North Ave
E American Ave
Fowler Ave
W Shaw Ave
N West Ave
S Cornelia Ave
N Palm Ave
Madera Ave
S West Ave
N Cedar Ave
E Bullard Ave
S Fowler Ave
S Cedar Ave
W Belmont Ave
W Bullard Ave
E Central Ave
W Mckinley Ave
N Blackstone Ave
W Shields Ave
S Chestnut Ave
S Peach Ave
N Marks Ave
N FirstSt
W North Ave
E Shields Ave
E Jensen Ave
W Ashlan Ave
S Clovis Ave
E Shepherd Ave
S Elm Ave
S Goldenrod Ave
E Nees Ave
W Jensen Ave
W California Ave
N Grantland Ave
Auberry
Rd
S Jameson Ave
W American Ave
Madera

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
Figure 2.0-2. Vicinity Map q 0 1 2
Miles
Legend
Specific Plan of the West Area
County Boundary
City Areas
Clovis
Fowler
Fresno
Kerman
Madera
San Joa q uin River

M A D E R A C O U N T Y M A D E R A C O U N T Y

F R E S N O C O U N T Y F R E S N O C O U N T Y
Sources: Fresno County; Madera County, Cal Atlas.

Map date: May 7, 2019. Revised: May 29, 2020.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
27 13
1 6 28
29 14
2 7 15
30 16
17 18
31 8
19 9
20 3
21 22
26 12
23 4 5
11 24
25 10
N Blythe Ave
N Polk Ave
N Marks Ave
N Golden State Blvd
W Ashlan Ave
W
Figarden Dr
W Shaw Ave
N Grantland Ave
W Mckinley Ave
N Weber Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
W Shields Ave
N Vista Ave

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
Figure 2.0-3. Aerial View of Project Site
Legend
Specific Plan of the West Area
Area Features
!( Fire Station
!( Golf Course
!( Park
!( Post Office
!( School
!( Shopping
!( Special Point of Interest
Sources: Fresno County; Google Maps; ArcGIS Online World Imagery Map Service. Map date: May 8, 2019. Revised: May 29, 2020. 1 Station #18
2 Station #16
3 Station #14
4 Riverside Golf Course
5 San Joaquin Country Club
6 Community Park
7 Jaswant Singh Khalra Park
8 Inspiration Park
9 Highw ay City Community Center
10 Stallion Park
11 Fresno County Horse Park
12 US Post Office
13 Herndon-Barstow Elementary School
14 Glacier Point Middle School
15 Hanh Phan Tilley Elementary School
16 John Steinbeck Elementary School
17 Central High School East Campus
18 Roosevelt Elementary School
19 Teague Elementary School
20 William Saroyan Elementary School
21 Rio Vista Middle School
22 River Bluff Elementary School
23 Law less Elementary School
24 El Capitan Middle School
25 James K Polk Elementary School
26 Costco
27 Marketplace at El Paso
28 Island Water Park
29 Deran Koligian Stadium
30 Gatew ay Ice Center
31 Central Unified Aquatics Complex
Fire Stations
Special Point of Interest
Shopping
Schools
Post Office
Parks
Golf Courses
q 0 ¼ ½
Miles
UV99
San Joaquin River

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-22 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

CP
C
C C
C
C C
C
C
C C
C
G G
G
G
G
G
G
G
CMX
PB
PB
PB
PB
NP
NP
CP
NP
CP
NP
NP
NP NP
NP
NP NP
NP
NP
CH
E E
E
E
E
E/M/H
H
SS
SS
BP
RMX
NP
RMX
RMX
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
RUN
C
PB
RUN
G
G
G
C-R
RUN
PB

VALENTINE AVE

EMERSON AVE

DANTE AVE

BULLARD AVE

GATES AVE

CLINTON AVE

VAN NESS BLVD

MARK S AVE

POLK AVE

SIERRA AVE

DAKOTA AVE

HUGHES AVE

SPRUCE AVE

RIVER VISTA DR

ALLUVIAL AVE

ASHLAN AVE

SHAW AVE

EMERSON AVE

PALO ALTO AVE

FIGARDEN DR

HAYES AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

MILBURN AVE

VALENTINE AVE

SPRUCE AVE

SIERRA AVE

ESCALON AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

SHIELDS AVE

BULLARD AVE

CECELIA AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

M AR TY AVE

MCKINLEY AVE

HERNDON AVE

BARSTOW AVE

SANTA FE AVE

WEBER AVE

SAN JOSE AVE

RIVERSIDE DR

JEANNE AVE

BLYTHE AVE
99 99

S A N J O A Q U I N R I V E R

RESIDENTIAL
Low Density (1-3.5 D.U./acre)
Medium Low Density (3.5-6 D.U./acre)
Medium Density (5.0-12 D.U./acre)
Medium High Density (12-16 D.U./acre)
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 D.U./acre)
High Density (30-45 D.U./acre) ´ 0 0.25 0.5
Miles

COMMERCIAL
Community
Recreation
General

PUBLIC FACILITIES
Public/Quasi-public Facility
Special School
Elementary School
Elementary, Middle & High School
High School
Church
Fire Station
SS
E
E/M/H
H
CH
FS
City Limits
West Area Specific Plan Boundary
Sphere Of Influence

EMPLOYMENT
Office
BP Business Park
Light Industrial

MIXED USE
CMX Corridor/Center Mixed Use
NMX Regional Mixed Use

OPEN SPACE
CP Community Park
PB Open Space - Ponding Basin
NP Neighborhood Park
Open Space
P Park

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
Figure 2.0-4. Existing General Plan
Land Use Designations

BOUNDARIES

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

N Blythe Ave
N Marks Ave
W Bullard Ave
W Ashlan Ave
W
Figarden Dr
W Shaw Ave
N Golden State Blvd
N Grantland Ave
N Weber Ave
W Shields Ave
W Shaw Ave
N
Valentine Av
W Gettysburg Ave e
W Clinton Ave
W Herndon Ave
W San Jose Ave
W Sierra Ave
W Spruce Ave
N Polk Ave
N Hayes Ave
W Dakota Ave
N Bryan Ave
N Emerson Ave
W Palo Alto Ave
N
MarksAve
N Weber Ave
N Dante Ave
W Escalon Ave
N Gates Ave
W Bullard Ave N Cornelia Ave N Milburn Ave
N Grantland Ave
N Cecelia Ave
W Shields Ave
W Barstow Ave
N
Ma rty Ave
N Figarden Dr
W Figarden Dr
N Golden State Blvd
N Santa Fe Ave
W Ashlan Ave
N Blythe Ave
N
Brawley Ave

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
Figure 2-0-5. Existing Zoning Designations
UV99
San Joaquin River
Sources: Fresno County; City of Fresno.

Map date: May 8, 2019. Revised: May 29, 2020.

CITY OF FRESNO ZONING DESIGNATIONS
CC:Commercial Community
CG:Commercial General
CH:Commercial Highway and Auto
CR:Commercial Regional
CRC:Commercial Recreation
IL:Light Industrial
CMX:Corridor/Center Mixed Use
NMX:Neighborhood Mixed Use
RMX:Regional Mixed Use
BP:Business Park
O:Office
PI:Public and Institutional
OS:Open Space
PR:Park and Recreation
RE:Residential Estate
RS-1:Residential Single-Family, Extremely Low Density
RS-2:Residential Single-Family, Very Low Density
RS-3:Residential Single-Family, Low Density
RS-4:Residential Single-Family, Medium Low Density
RS-5:Residential Single-Family, Medium Density
RM-1:Residential Multi-Family, Medium High Density
RM-2:Residential Multi-Family, Urban Neighborhood
RM-3:Residential Multi-Family, High Desnity
RM-MH:Mobile Home Park

FRESNO COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATIONS
County Overlay
RCC - Rural Commercial Center
C4 - Central Trading
C6 - General Commercial
M1 - Light Manufacturing
CP - Administrative/Professional Office
AE20 - Exclusive Agriculture
AL20 - Limited Agriculture
RA - Single Family Residential Agricultural
RR - Rural Residential
R1A/R1AH - Single Family Residential (20,000)
R1B - Single Family Residential (12,500)
R1C - Single Family Residential (9,000)
R1 - Single Family Residential (6,000)
TP - Trailer Park Residential
O - Open Conservation Land Use

BOUNDARIES
Specific Plan of the West Area
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
q 0 ¼ ½
Miles
UV99

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

N Dante Ave
W Sierra Ave
W Gettysburg Ave
W Shields Ave
N Blythe Ave
N Figarden Dr
W Dakota Ave
W Spruce Ave
N Polk Ave
W Clinton Ave
W Figarden Dr
N Golden State Blvd
N Emerson Ave
N
Mar ks Ave
N Weber Ave
W Barstow Ave
N Brawley Ave
N Gates Ave
N Cornelia Ave
W Bullard Ave
W Shaw Ave
N Valentine Ave
N
Milburn Ave
N Bryan Ave
N Hayes Ave
N Grantland Ave
W Ashlan Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N
Ma rty Ave
W San Jose Ave
W Herndon Ave

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
UV99
Sources: Fresno County; City of Fresno. Map date: May 11, 2020. Revised: May 28, 2020.

BOUNDARIES
Specific Plan of the West Area
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence

PROPOSED LAND USE
Residential
Low Density (1-3.5 D.U./acre)
Medium Low Density (3.5-6 D.U./acre)
Medium Density (5.0-12 D.U./acre)
Medium High Density (12-16 D.U./acre)
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 D.U./acre)
High Density (30-45 D.U./acre)
Commercial
Community
Recreation
General
Regional
Employment
Office
Business Park
Light Industrial
Mixed Use
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Corridor/Center Mixed Use
Open Space
Open Space
Park (Community/Neighborhood)
Ponding Basin
Public Facilities
Public/Quasi-public Facility
School (Elementary/Middle/High/Special)
Church
Fire Station
Figure 2.0-6.

Proposed Land Uses
q 0 ¼ ½
Miles

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

N Bryan Ave
N Dante Ave
W Gettysburg Ave
W Sierra Ave
W Shields Ave
N Blythe Ave
N Figarden Dr
W Dakota Ave
W Spruce Ave
N Polk Ave
W Figarden Dr
W Clinton Ave
N Golden State Blvd
N Emerson Ave
N
Mar ks Ave
N Weber Ave
W Barstow Ave
N Brawley Ave
N Gates Ave
W Shaw Ave
N Cornelia Ave
W Bullard Ave
N
Mi bl urn Ave
N Valentine Ave
N Hayes Ave
N Grantland Ave
W Ashlan Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N
Marty Ave
W San Jose Ave
W Herndon Ave

CITY OF FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE WEST AREA
UV99
Sources: Fresno County; City of Fresno. Map date: May 11, 2020. Revised: May 28, 2020.

BOUNDARIES
Specific Plan of the West Area
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence

PROPOSED LAND USE
Residential
Low Density (1-3.5 D.U./acre)
Medium Low Density (3.5-6 D.U./acre)
Medium Density (5.0-12 D.U./acre)
Medium High Density (12-16 D.U./acre)
Urban Neighborhood (16-30 D.U./acre)
High Density (30-45 D.U./acre)
Commercial
Community
General
Regional
Employment
Office
Mixed Use
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Corridor/Center Mixed Use
Open Space
Park (Community/Neighborhood)
Ponding Basin
Public Facilities
Public/Quasi-public Facility
School (Elementary/Middle/High/Special)
Church
Fire Station
Figure 2.0-7.

Areas of Proposed Change
q
0 ¼ ½
Miles

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan This page left intentionally blank.

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.1-1 This section provides an overview of the visual character, scenic resources, views, scenic highways, and sources of light and glare that are encountered in the Plan Area and the surrounding area. This section provides an evaluation of the potential impacts to aesthetic resources associated with implementation of the Specific Plan and recommendations for mitigating those impacts. Information in this section is derived primarily from the following:
• California Scenic Highway Mapping System (Caltrans, 2019); • City of Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• City of Fresno Master Environmental Impact Report EIR (City of Fresno, 2014); • Fresno General Plan Public Review Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (City of Fresno, 2020);
• City of Fresno Municipal Code, Chapter 13 Sidewalks, Streets, Parkways, and Underground Utility Districts Section 13-305 Tree Preservation (City of Fresno, 2019).

Comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the following: Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019). The portion of this comment letter which relates to this topic is addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.

3.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
The Plan Area is triangular in shape and located west of State Route 99. It is bounded on the south by West Clinton Avenue, and to the west by Grantland and Garfield Avenues. The Plan Area includes the southwest portion of Highway City adjacent to State Route 99. The Plan Area encompasses approximately 7,077 acres (approximately 11 square miles) in the City of Fresno city limits and unincorporated Fresno County. Of the eleven square miles within the Plan Area, 6.9 square miles are in the city limits and 4.1 square miles are in the growth area. The growth area is land outside the city limits but within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary, which is the adopted limit for future growth.

The Plan Area is relatively flat with natural gentle slope near State Route 99. The Plan Area topography ranges in elevation from approximately 283 to 315 feet above mean sea level. A large amount of land in the Plan Area is farmland or rural residential lots with large, uneven, and underutilized parcels.

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan to arterial roads with easy access to State Route 99, and Fresno Area Express (FAX) service lines.
• Single-Family Residential: Approximately 21 percent of the existing uses within the Plan Area are currently developed with single-family residential uses. These uses are located primarily within the city limits.
• Vacant Land: Approximately 15 percent of the land in the Plan Area, or 911.34 acres, account for vacant lands. Vacant areas are located throughout the Plan Area, in both the city limits and SOI. Vacant areas represent infill opportunities within the Plan Area’s densest neighborhoods.
• Public/Government Facilities: Approximately six percent, or 337.83 acres, of land within the Plan Area contain public or government facilities. These land uses include Central Unified School District facilities, churches, the Dante Club, and the Hacienda facility. • Open Space/Agricultural Land: Approximately 25 percent or 1,554.06 acres, in the Plan Area contain open space or agricultural land. While there are some open space land uses within the City, most of these uses are primarily located in the SOI. These uses include parks and ponding basins.
• Industrial Uses: Approximately one percent, or 57.33 acres, of the Plan Area account for industrial uses. The largest industrial land use in the Plan Area contains an agricultural business located at the intersection of West Dakota Avenue and North Grantland Avenue. • Commercial Uses: Approximately three percent, or 219.76 acres, of the Plan Area account for commercial uses. Commercial uses are spread throughout the eastern and southeastern portions of the Plan Area, closer to State Route 99.

Surrounding land uses include State Route 99; the historic communities of Herndon and Highway City; incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the north; incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the east (including mostly industrial uses); unincorporated Fresno County and incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the south (including farmland uses, rural residential uses, low density residential uses, and underutilized parcels); and unincorporated Fresno County to the west (including farmland and rural residential uses).

REGIONAL SCENIC RESOURCES
Visual resources are generally classified into two categories: scenic views and scenic resources.

Scenic views are elements of the broader viewshed such as mountain ranges, valleys, and ridgelines.

They are usually mid-ground or background elements of a viewshed that can be seen from a range of viewpoints, often along a roadway or other corridor. Scenic resources are specific features of a viewing area (or viewshed) such as trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. They are specific features that act as the focal point of a viewshed and are usually foreground elements.

Features of the built environment that may also have visual significance include individual or groups of structures that are distinctive due to their aesthetic, historical, social, or cultural significance or characteristics. Examples of the visually significant built environment may include bridges or overpasses, architecturally appealing buildings or groups of buildings, landscaped freeways, and a location where a historic event occurred. Aesthetically significant features occur in a diverse array AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.1-3 of environments within the region, ranging in character from urban centers to rural agricultural lands to natural water bodies.

SCENIC HIGHWAYS AND CORRIDORS
Scenic highways and corridors make major contributions to the quality of life enjoyed by the residents of a region. The development of community pride, the enhancement of property values, and the protection of aesthetically-pleasing open spaces reflecting a preference for the local lifestyle are all ways in which scenic corridors are valuable to residents.

Scenic highways and corridors can also strengthen the tourist industry. For many visitors, highway corridors will provide their only experience of the region. Enhancement and protection of these corridors ensures that the tourist experience continues to be a positive one and, consequently, provides support for the tourist-related activities of the region's economy.

Scenic Highways
A scenic highway is generally defined by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as a public highway that traverses an area of outstanding scenic quality, containing striking views, flora, geology, or other unique natural attributes. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler's enjoyment of the view.

There are no officially Designated Scenic Highways in Fresno County. Fresno County has four eligible State Scenic Highways, and the nearest eligible highways are east of the Plan Area along State Route 33 (approximately 27 miles west of the Plan Area), along State Route 168 east of the City of Clovis (approximately 19 miles east of the Plan Area), along State Route 180 (approximately 67 miles east of the Plan Area), and along State Route 198 (approximately 37 miles south of the Plan Area). The Plan Area is not visible from any of these eligible State Scenic Highways.

Scenic Corridors
A scenic corridor is the view from the road that may include a distant panorama and/or the immediate roadside area. A scenic corridor encompasses the outstanding natural features and landscapes that are considered scenic. It is the visual quality of the man-made or natural environments within a scenic corridor that are responsible for its scenic value. Commonly, the physical limits of a scenic corridor are broken down into foreground views (zero to one quarter mile) and distant views (over one quarter mile). In addition to distinct foreground and distant views, the visual quality of a scenic corridor is defined by special features, which include:
• Focal points - prominent natural or man-made features which immediately catch the eye. • Transition areas - locations where the visual environment changes dramatically. • Gateways - locations which mark the entrance to a community or geographic area.

The Fresno General Plan designates the following roadway segments as scenic corridors:
• Van Ness Boulevard – Weldon to Shaw Avenues

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan • Van Ness Extension - Shaw Avenue to the San Joaquin River Bluff • Kearney Boulevard - Fresno Street to Polk Avenue
• Van Ness/Fulton couplet - Weldon Avenue to Divisadero • Butler Avenue - Peach to Fowler Avenues
• Minnewawa Avenue - Belmont Avenue to Central Canal
• Huntington Boulevard - First Street to Cedar Avenue
The nearest scenic corridor to the Plan Area is Van Ness Boulevard, located approximately 5.34 miles east of the Plan Area. However, the Plan Area is not visible from Van Ness Boulevard or any of the above designated scenic corridors.

LIGHT AND GLARE
There are two typical types of light intrusion. First, light emanates from the interior of structures and passes out through windows. Secondly, light projects from exterior sources such as street lighting, security lighting, balcony lighting, and landscape lighting. “Light spill” is typically defined as the presence of unwanted and/or misdirected light on properties adjacent to the property being illuminated.

Glare is the sensation produced by luminance within the visual field that is significantly greater than the luminance to which the eyes are adapted, which causes annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility.

The majority of the Plan Area is urbanized, with significant sources of light and glare, such as streetlights, parking lots, interior lights from buildings, lighted recreational facilities, and light emitted from residential and non-residential buildings throughout the Plan Area. Substantial lighting currently exists in the more developed portions of the Plan Area along SR 99 and the eastern portion of the Plan Area. Limited lighting currently exists in rural residential and agricultural areas that are located within the western and southwestern portions of the Plan Area. Buildings and structures made with glass, metal, and polished exterior or roofing materials exist throughout the Plan Area.

These surfaces, as well as the natural and manmade light sources, could result in localized glare.

3.1.2 REGULATORY SETTING
There are a number of regulatory agencies whose responsibility includes the oversight of the aesthetic resources of the state including the California Department of Transportation, Scenic Highway Program, and the California Energy Commission. These agencies are often responsible for preserving the economic, social and scenic values of aesthetic resources such as the California Highway System and combating light pollution of the night sky. The following is an overview of the State and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.1-5 STATE
California Scenic Highway Program
The intent of the California Scenic Highway Program is “to protect and enhance California’s natural scenic beauty and to protect the social and economic values provided by the State’s scenic resources.” Caltrans administers the program, which was established in 1963 and is governed by the California Streets and Highways Code (§260 et seq.). The goal of the program is to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would diminish the aesthetic value of the adjacent land. Caltrans has compiled a list of state highways that are designated as scenic and county highways that are eligible for designation as scenic.

Scenic highway designation can provide several types of benefits to the region. Scenic areas are protected from encroachment of inappropriate land uses, free of billboards, and are generally required to maintain existing contours and preserve important vegetative features. Only low-density development is allowed on steep slopes and along ridgelines on scenic highways, and noise setbacks are required for residential development.

Nighttime Sky – Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Standards
The California legislature passed a bill in 2001 requiring the California Energy Commission (CEC) to adopt energy efficiency standards for outdoor lighting for both the public and private sectors. In addition to improved energy efficiency standards, Title 24 standards regulate lighting characteristics such as maximum power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls to turn lighting on and off.

Different lighting standards are set by classifying areas by lighting zone. The classification is based on population figures of the 2010 Census. Areas can be designated as LZ1 (dark), LZ2 (rural), or LZ3 (urban). Lighting requirements for dark and rural areas are stricter in order to protect the areas from new sources of light pollution and light trespass.

LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno General Plan contains the following objectives and policies that are relevant to aesthetics and visual resources:

URBAN FORM, LAND USE, AND DESIGN ELEMENT
Objective D-1: Provide and maintain an urban image that creates a “sense of place” throughout Fresno.

Policy D‐1‐a: Direct Access to Units. Require all new multi-family residential development along BRT and other transit or pedestrian-oriented streets (Collector and Local), including high-rise, townhomes or other units, to provide direct pedestrian street access and to promote walkable connectivity, individualization, family-friendly development, identity, and street safety to the maximum extent reasonably feasible.

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy D‐1‐b: Active Ground Floor Frontage. Encourage all new development located within Activity Centers and/or along BRT corridors to incorporate active ground floor frontages that engage pedestrians to the maximum extent feasible. Establish pedestrian-oriented design standards in the Development Code for building frontages, transparency, fenestration, and entries to create active streetscapes.

Policy D‐1‐c: Privately Owned Public Spaces. Consider creating and adopting design standards and incentives for providing privately owned public open spaces and plazas for gathering to enhance the pedestrian realm and provide opportunities for social interaction.

Policy D‐1‐d: Public Art. Continue to promote a citywide public art program that contributes to an awareness of the City’s history and culture.

Policy D‐1‐e: Graphic Identity. Continue the preservation, promotion, procurement and strategic location of landmarks, monuments and artwork that provide orientation and represent Fresno's cultural heritage and artistic values.

Policy D‐1‐f: Update Street Signs. Consider updating street sign regulations to create a wayfinding system and graphic identity without dominating city and district appearance.

Policy D‐1‐g: Reducing Surface Parking. Consider adopting and implementing incentives to replace existing large surface parking lots in centers with parking structures, and to incorporate them into high-density mixed use developments.

Policy D‐1‐h: Screening of Parking. Consider requiring all new development with parking in Activity Centers and along corridors to be screened or concealed. Locate principal pedestrian entrances to new nonresidential buildings on the sidewalk; any entrances from parking areas should be incidental or emergency use only.

Policy D‐1‐i: Wrapping Parking Structures. Consider requiring new development of abovegrade parking structures to be wrapped with and provide direct access to active uses, such as dwelling units, offices, and shopping spaces.

Policy D‐1‐j: Lighting Standards. Update lighting standards to reflect best practices and protect adjoining uses from glare and spillover light.

Objective D-2: Enhance the visual image of all “gateway” routes entering the Fresno Planning Area.

Policy D‐2‐a: Design Requirements for Gateways. Create unified design requirements for gateways to welcome travelers to the City’s Activity Centers.

Policy D‐2‐b: Funding for Gateway Enhancements. Pursue funding to implement gateway enhancement plans and programs.

Policy D‐2‐c: Highway Beautification. Work with Caltrans, the Fresno Council of Governments, Tree Fresno, neighboring jurisdictions, and other organizations to obtain funding for highway beautification programs.

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.1-7 Objective D-3: Create unified plans for Green Streets, using distinctive features reflecting Fresno’s landscape heritage.

Policy D-3-a: Green Street Tree Planting. Create a Green Street Tree Planting Program, with a well-balanced variety and spacing of trees to establish continuous shading and visual continuity for each streetscape. Strive to achieve coherent linkages between public and private spaces, prioritizing tree planting along tree-deficient Arterial Roadways in neighborhoods characterized by lower per capita rates of vehicle ownership.

Policy D-3-b: Funding for Green Street Tree Planting Program. Pursue funding for the Green Street Tree Planting Program, including landscaping of median islands.

Policy D-3-c: Local Streets as Urban Parkways. Develop local streets as “urban parkways,” where appropriate, with landscaping and pedestrian space.

Policy D-3-d: Undergrounding Utilities. Partner with utility companies to continue to pursue the undergrounding of overhead utilities as feasible.

Objective D‐4: Preserve and strengthen Fresno’s overall image through design review and create a safe, walkable and attractive urban environment for the current and future generations of residents.

Policy D-4-a: Design Review for Large Buildings. Consider adopting and implementing a streamlined design review process for new construction and visible exterior alterations of large and significant multi-family, mixed-use and non-residential development.

Policy D-4-b: Incentives for Pedestrian-Oriented Anchor Retail. Consider adopting and implementing incentives for new pedestrian-friendly anchor retail at intersections within Activity Centers and along corridors to attract retail clientele and maximize foot traffic.

Policy D-4-c: Appropriate Day and Night Activity. Promote new residential, commercial and related forms of development that foster both day and appropriate night time activity; visual presence on the street level; appropriate lighting; and minimally obstructed view areas.

Policy D-4-d: Design for Safety. Continue to involve the City’s Police Department in the development review process to ensure new buildings are designed with security and safety in mind.

Policy D‐4‐e: Flexibility through Overlay Districts. Allow innovative lot designs and patterns to enhance community livability in residential neighborhoods through new zoning provisions, with flexible development standards.

Policy D-4-f: Design Compatibility with Residential Uses. Strive to ensure that all new nonresidential land uses are developed and maintained in a manner complementary to and compatible with adjacent residential land uses, to minimize interface problems with the surrounding environment and to be compatible with public facilities and service.

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Policy D-4-g: Development Code Update for Design Concepts. Ensure that standards in the Development Code implement General Plan design concepts for each land use type.

Policy D‐4‐h: Metal Buildings. Promote the establishment of standards and guidelines for metal buildings to be acceptable and economical forms of structures. • New buildings with metal walls or metal roofs shall be painted or have other appropriate finishes, as approved by the City; and
• Mechanical equipment shall be screened with parapet walls, mechanical wells, or other means. Roof vent color must match that of the roof. The distinctive pattern of ribs and joints in standing seam and other metal roofing materials should coordinate dimensionally with similar elements in exterior walls.

Objective D‐6: Encourage design that celebrates and supports the cultural and ethnic diversity of Fresno.

Policy D‐6‐a: Consult with neighboring populations, including non-English speaking groups, to inform the architecture, landscape, programming, and interior design of City-owned facilities such as parks, offices, street lighting, and other visible features.

Policy D‐6‐b: Consider adopting and implementing incentives for, and support efforts by, private development to incorporate culturally-specific architectural elements in areas with a predominant ethnic population.

Objective D-7: Continue applying local urban form, land use, and design policies to specific neighborhoods and locations.

Policy D-7-b: Consider preparing new community, neighborhood, and/or Specific Plans for neighborhoods and locations that were covered by repealed plans.

MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Objective MT-3: Identify, promote and preserve scenic or aesthetically unique corridors by application of appropriate policies and regulations
Policy MT-3‐b: Preserve street trees lining designated scenic corridors or boulevards.

Replace trees of the predominant type and in a comparable pattern to existing plantings if there is no detriment to public safety..

Fresno Outdoor Lighting and Illumination Ordinance
The City’s Zoning Ordinance contains Article 20, General Site Regulations, which provides standards for outdoor lighting in an effort to minimize light pollution, glare, and light trespass caused by inappropriate or misaligned light fixtures, while improving nighttime public safety, utility, security, and preserving the night sky as a natural resource and thus facilitating people’s enjoyment of stargazing.

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.1-9 Fresno Tree Preservation Ordinance
The City’s Zoning Ordinance contains Article 3.5, Street Trees and Parkways, which contains policies regarding the preservation of trees within city limits. The Ordinance requires the City to plant, maintain, protect, preserve, and to regulate the planting, maintaining, protecting and preserving of public trees and landscaping; to eliminate dangerous conditions caused by trees and shrubs that may result in injuries to persons or property; to protect all trees within the City against the spread of disease or pests, and to provide for the special protection of heritage and landmark trees within the city limits. This portion of Fresno’s Municipal Code implements a comprehensive permitting process for new and existing development and property owners and provides feasible alternatives and options to tree removal where practicable.

3.1.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Specific Plan will have significant impact on aesthetics if it would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
• Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; • In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; • Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.1-1: Specific Plan implementation would not result in substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas. (No Impact)
No part of Plan Area is designated as a scenic vista by the City of Fresno General Plan, nor does the Plan Area contain any unique or distinguishing features that would qualify it for designation as a scenic vista.

The Plan Area is partially visible from State Route 99. Because the topography of the Plan Area is relatively flat and SR 99 is at a similar elevation as the surrounding area, views from SR 99 are primarily limited to the more developed and urbanized portions of the Plan Area. More specifically, views from SR 99 primarily consist of uses located immediately adjacent to the freeway. As the Plan Area is not identified as having scenic vistas and expansive views across the Plan Area are limited due to intervening structures and the relatively flat and consistent topography of the area, no impact would occur to scenic vistas.

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Impact 3.1-2: Project implementation would not substantially damage scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. (No Impact) There are no designated State Scenic Highways within or in the vicinity of the Project area. There are no highways in Fresno County listed as a Designated Scenic Highway by the Caltrans Scenic Highway Mapping System. Fresno County has three eligible State Scenic Highways; the nearest eligible highways are located east of the Planning Area along State Route 180 (approximately 7 miles east of the Planning Area) and along State Route 168 east of the City of Clovis(approximately 5 miles east of the Planning Area). The nearest designated State Scenic Highway is located within the County of Madera, more than 30 miles northeast of the Planning Area. Thus, no impact to scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway would occur with implementation of the Project.

Impact 3.1-3: Specific Plan implementation would result in substantial adverse effects or degradation of visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. (Significant and Unavoidable)
Future development of the Plan Area with new and/or more intense development of residential, commercial, employment, mixed use, open space, and public facility uses would substantially change the visual character of individual sites and the Plan Area.

Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would change the existing visual character of the Plan Area from a relatively undeveloped area to a primarily urbanized area. Impacts related to a change in visual character are largely subjective and very difficult to quantify. People have different reactions to the visual quality of a project or a project feature, and what is considered “attractive” to one viewer may be considered “unattractive” to other viewers.

The western half of the Plan Area is generally more rural and less developed while more developed portions of the Plan Area are along SR 99 and the southeastern portion of the Plan Area. The proposed Plan would result in the conversion of undeveloped land to urban uses, which may contribute to changes in the regional landscape and visual character of the area. In order to reduce visual impacts, development within the Plan Area is required to be consistent with the General Plan, Fresno Zoning Ordinance, and the proposed Specific Plan, which includes development standards in order to ensure quality and cohesive design. These standards include specifications for building height, massing, and orientation; exterior lighting standards and specifications; and landscaping standards. Implementation of the design standards would ensure quality design throughout the Plan Area, and result in development that would be internally cohesive while maintaining an aesthetic quality similar to surrounding uses. Thus, development of an existing developed or urbanized site would not conflict with zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. In addition, a majority of the parcels identified for change are already planned for development in the exising General Plan or contain existing urbanized land uses.

In addition to future development anticipated within the existing City Limits, the Specific Plan anticipates future development in areas outside the existing City limits, but within the City’s SOI.

These areas are primarily rural and agricultural lands. Thus, development of these areas with more urbanized uses would alter the visual character of the area from its current conditions. However, as AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.1-11 noted above, development within these areas would be in compliance with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, along with the development standards and guidelines established by the Specific Plan to ensure compatible development and cohesive development that considers the visual character of the specific site and surrounding uses. Further, the Specific Plan anticipates less urbanized development within the outer portions of the Plan Area and approximately 250 acres of park, recreational, and open space uses which will provide visual relief within the Plan Area. The proposed Specific Plan would also include visual components that would assist in enhancing the appearance of the Plan Area following site development. These improvements may include landscaping improvements such as new street trees, open lawn area and other vegetation landscaping associated with residential and non-residential development. Although compliance with development regulations and guidelines would improve the aesthetic character of the area associated with more urbanized development, existing views provided to the public of vast open space lands would be replaced with more urbanized development. Additionally, public views of expansive rural and agricultural lands that occur to the west of the Plan Area would be limited within the Plan Area due to intervening development conditions. Thus, impacts to visual character are considered significant and unavoidable.

Various temporary visual impacts could occur as a result of construction activities as the Plan Area develops, including grading, equipment and material storage, and staging. Some of these impacts could last for several weeks or months during any single construction phase. The loss of existing landscaping and trees would also be a temporary impact until new landscaping matures. However, these construction-related impacts would be temporary and viewer sensitivity in the majority of cases would be slight to moderate. Thus, construction impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed Specific Plan includes goals policies that would reduce impacts to visual and aesthetic resources. Specifically, Infrastructure & Public Realm (IPR) Goal 2 includes policies that are intended to improve streetscapes within the Specific Plan Area and contribute to the community's safety and quality of life. Land Use & Housing (LUH) Goal 1 includes policies that promote the orderly development of the Specific Plan Area and LUH Goal 2 includes policies that promote retention of agricultural uses and agritourism within the West Area.

Overall, the loss of the visual appearance of the existing vacant and open space land in the Plan Area will change the visual character of the area in perpetuity. Compliance with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, and implementation of the proposed Specific Plan’s development regulations would reduce visual impacts to the greatest extent feasible; however, the proposed Plan would permanently convert undeveloped rural, agricultural, and open space areas to urbanized uses. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. There is no feasible mitigation available that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Impact 3.1-4: Specific Plan implementation has the potential to result in light and glare impacts. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would introduce new sources of light and glare into the Plan Area. However, there are no specific features within the proposed Plan that would create

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan unusual light and glare. Implementation of existing Outdoor Lighting and Illumination Ordinance and the General Plan policies, such as Policies D-4-c, D-1-j, addressing light and glare may also ensure that no unusual daytime glare or nighttime lighting is produced.

LIGHT IMPACTS
Many areas within the Plan Area are currently exposed to a nominal amount of light due to the rural and agricultural setting. The western half of the Plan Area is generally more rural and less developed, and therefore uses within those areas are exposed to less artificial light from urbanized uses. Other areas within the Plan Area are exposed to substantial lighting, such as the more developed portions of the Plan Area along SR 99 and the southeastern portion of the Plan Area.

Increases in lighting and the introduction of new light sources would occur with new development in the Plan Area. Development within the Plan Area will include new roads, some of which will include lighting systems along the rights-of-way. Residential development will include interior and exterior light sources. Non-residential development will include lighting systems for parking areas, building, and signs, including security lighting. Some park and recreation facilities may include sports lighting to illuminate play areas for evening activities. Other public facility uses, such as schools and fire stations, will also involve lighting for parking, buildings, and security. Additionally, with the increase in development in the Plan Area, there will be increases in nighttime traffic that will increase lighting from car headlights. Although lighting would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis, for the purposes of this analysis, it has been conservatively assumed that exterior lighting would be located throughout most of the outdoor areas of the Plan Area. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, street lighting in the residential areas; exterior lighting on the buildings; courtyard lighting; and parking lot lighting.

The introduction of new light sources and intensification of lighting within the Plan Area would be most notable in areas that are not currently developed or have minimal development within the western and southern portions of the Plan Area. Development in the westernmost portion of the Plan Area could result in lighting within the Plan Area being visible from uses adjacent to and outside of the Plan Area. The City’s Outdoor Lighting and Illumination Ordinance would reduce the impact of lighting impacts onto adjacent properties. However, although direct impacts associated with new lighting would be reduced with compliance with General Plan policies and adherance to the City’s Outdoor Lighting and Illumination Ordinance, the overall increase in lighting that would occur within the area would create a new source of substantial light which could adversely affect nighttime views in the area, specifically the nightime sky.

GLARE IMPACTS
Development in accordance with the Specific Plan will increase the amount of structures that could create new sources of glare within the Planning Area and directly adjacent to the Planning Area.

These new sources of glare could be from materials used on building facades, parking lots, signs, and motor vehicles. Within the City limits, there are currently many sources of glare, and future development will add to the existing sources. Within the rural and agricultural areas, there are AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.1-13 limited sources of glare. The primary sources of glare that will be added within the Planning Area will occur from vertical structures such as building facades. Parking lots, roadway surfaces and motor vehicles do not create substantial amount of glare. Due to the substantial amount of new building square footage planned for the Plan Area, new buildings may have the potential, to result in a substantial increase in glare. This increase could result in a potentially significant glare impact.

However, glare impacts would be reduced with compliance of General Plan policies, design review, municipal code requirements, and implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 that will require reflective building materials, visible from sensitive receptors, be prohibited from future project sites within the Plan Area.

CONCLUSION
There is the potential for reflective building materials and windows to result in increases in daytime glare within the Plan Area. The use of reflective building materials, including polished steel and reflective glass, could increase daytime glare for sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project area. However, Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 would ensure that the potential for glare from proposed project buildings and structures would be minimized. With implementation of this mitigation measure, this is considered less than significant impact.

Light sources from the proposed development may have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding areas, by introducing nuisance light into the area and decreasing the visibility of nighttime skies. Additionally, on-site light sources may create light spillover impacts on surrounding land uses in the absence of mitigation. However, the proposed project will be required to comply with the City of Fresno outdoor lighting and illumination standards and specifications, and would be required to incorporate design features to minimize the effects of light and glare. However, without a detailed lighting plan, increase of nighttime lighting is a potentially significant impact.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-2 would reduce potential impacts associated with nighttime lighting and light spillage onto adjacent properties to a less than significant level.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.1-1: In order to reduce the potential for glare from buildings and structures within the project area, the Preliminary and Final Design Review plan(s) for all future projects in the Plan Area shall show that the use of reflective building materials that have the potential to result in glare that would be visible from sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the project sites shall be prohibited. The City of Fresno Planning and Development Department shall ensure that the approved project uses appropriate building materials with low reflectivity to minimize potential glare nuisance to off-site receptors. These requirements shall be included in future project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Fresno.

3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

3.1-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan section 15-2508. – Lighting and Glare and section 15-2015 – Outdoor Lighting and Illumination of the City of Fresno Municipal Code. Use of LED lighting or other proven energy efficient lighting shall be required for facilities to be dedicated to the City of Fresno for maintenance. These requirements shall be included in future project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Fresno.

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhood Specific Plan 3.2-1 The purpose of this section is to disclose and analyze the potential impacts to agricultural resources associated with the development of the proposed Specific Plan. This section also discusses the potential conflicts between the proposed uses within the Plan Area and ongoing agricultural activities in the vicinity of the Plan Area. This section is primarily based on information from the following resources:
• City of Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• City of Fresno Master Environmental Impact Report EIR (City of Fresno, 2014); • Fresno General Plan Public Review Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (City of Fresno, 2020);
• Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (California Department of Conservation, 2016); • Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (United States Department of Agriculture, 2017);
• Fresno County Crop Report (County of Fresno, Agricultural Commissioner, 2017).

Comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation (NOP) regarding this topic from the following: Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019). The portion of the comment letter related to this topic is addressed within this section. Full comments received on the NOP are included in Appendix A.

3.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE
The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies lands that have agriculture value and maintains a statewide map of these lands called the Important Farmlands Inventory (IFI). IFI classifies land based upon the productive capabilities of the land, rather than the mere presence of ideal soil conditions.

The suitability of soils for agricultural use is just one factor for determining the productive capabilities of land. Suitability is determined based on many characteristics, including fertility, slope, texture, drainage, depth, and salt content. A variety of classification systems have been devised by the State to categorize soil capabilities. The two most widely used systems are the Capability Classification System and the Storie Index. The Capability Classification System classifies soils from Class I to Class VIII based on their ability to support agriculture with Class I being the highest quality soil. The Storie Index considers other factors such as slope and texture to arrive at a rating. The IFI is in part based upon both of these two classification systems.

Soil Capability Classification System
The Soil Capability Classification System takes into consideration soil limitations, the risk of damage when soils are used, and the way in which soils respond to treatment. Capability classes range from Class I soils, which have few limitations for agriculture, to Class VIII soils that are unsuitable for agriculture. Generally, as the rating of the capability classification increases, yields and profits are

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

3.2-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan more difficult to obtain. A general description of soil classifications, as defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is provided in Table 3.2-1 below.

TABLE 3.2-1: SOIL CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION

CLASS DEFINITION
I Soils have slight limitations that restrict their use.

II Soils have moderate limitations that restrict choice plants or that require moderate conservation practices.

III Soils have severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices, or both.

IV Soils have very severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both.

V
Soils are not likely to erode but have other limitations; impractical to remove that limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat.

VI Soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuited to cultivation and limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat.

VII Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuited to cultivation and that restrict their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat.

VIII Soils and landforms have limitations that preclude their use for commercial plans and restrict their use to recreation, wildlife habitat, water supply, or aesthetic purposes.

SOURCE: NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY, 2019
Storie Index Rating System
The Storie Index Rating system ranks soil characteristics according to their suitability for agriculture from Grade 1 soils (80 to 100 rating) which have few or no limitations for agricultural production, to Grade 6 soils (less than 10) which are not suitable for agriculture. Under this system, soils deemed less than prime can function as prime soils when limitations such as poor drainage, slopes, or soil nutrient deficiencies are partially or entirely removed. The six grades, ranges in index rating, and definition of the grades, as defined by the NRCS, are provided below in Table 3.2-2.

TABLE 3.2-2: STORIE INDEX RATING SYSTEM

GRADE INDEX RATING DEFINITION
1 80 - 100 Few limitations that restrict their use for crops 2 60 – 80 Suitable for most crops, but have minor limitations that narrow the choice of crops and have a few special management needs
3 40 – 60 Suited to a few crops or to special crops and require special management 4 20 – 40 If used for crops, severely limited and require special management 5 10 – 20 Not suited for cultivated crops, but can be used for pasture and range 6 Less than 10 Soil and land types generally not suited to farming SOURCE: NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY, 2019
In addition to soil suitability, other factors for determining the agricultural value of land include whether soils are irrigated, the depth of soil, water-holding capacity, and physical and chemical characteristics. Areas considered to have the greatest agricultural potential are designated as Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance; refer to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program discussion below.

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) was established in 1982 to continue the Important Farmland mapping efforts begun in 1975 by the United States Department of Agriculture AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.2-3 Soil Conservation Service (USDA-SCS). The intent of the USDA-SCS was to produce agriculture maps based on soil quality and land use across the nation. As part of the nationwide agricultural land use mapping effort, the USDA-SCS developed a series of definitions known as Land Inventory and Monitoring (LIM) criteria. The LIM criteria classified the land’s suitability for agricultural production; suitability included both the physical and chemical characteristics of soils and the actual land use.

Important Farmland Maps are derived from the USDA-SCS soil survey maps using the LIM criteria.

Since 1980, the State of California has assisted the USDA-SCS with completing its mapping in the state. The FMMP was created within the California Department of Conservation (CDC) to carry on the mapping activity on a continuing basis, and with a greater level of detail. The CDC applied a greater level of detail by modifying the LIM criteria for use in California. The LIM criteria in California utilize the Soil Capability Classification and Storie Index Rating systems, but also consider physical conditions such as dependable water supply for agricultural production, soil temperature range, depth of the ground water table, flooding potential, rock fragment content, and rooting depth.

The CDC classifies lands into seven agriculture-related categories: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Statewide Farmland), Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance (Local Farmland), Grazing Land, Urban and Built-up Land (Urban Land), and Other Land. The first four types listed above are collectively designated by the State as Important Farmlands. Important Farmland maps for California are compiled using the modified LIM criteria (as described above) and current land use information. The minimum mapping unit is 10 acres unless otherwise specified. Units of land smaller than 10 acres are incorporated into surrounding classifications. Each of the seven land types is summarized below.

PRIME FARMLAND
Prime farmland is farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE
Farmland of statewide importance is farmland with characteristics similar to those of prime farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture.

Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

UNIQUE FARMLAND
Unique farmland is farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state's leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

3.2-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

FARMLAND OF LOCAL IMPORTANCE
Farmland of local importance is land of importance to the local agricultural economy, as determined by each county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee.

GRAZING LAND
Grazing land is land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen's Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities.

URBAN AND BUILT-UP LAND
Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.

OTHER LAND
Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than forty acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.

FRESNO COUNTY AGRICULTURE
Although the Plan Area is located within the Fresno Sphere of Influence (SOI), it is immediately adjacent to active agricultural operations in Fresno County. Agriculture is a major activity within the undeveloped portions of Fresno County. According to the 2017 Fresno County Crop Report, published by the Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, the gross value of Fresno County’s agricultural production for 2017 was $7,028,024,100. Almonds were the top agricultural commodity grown in the County, with production values near $1.2 billion.

In 2017, Fresno County was estimated to have 1,359,540 acres of Important Farmland: 675,722 acres of Prime Farmland, 397,134 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, 94,902 acres of Unique Farmland, and 191,782 acres of Farmland of Local Importance [California Department of Conservation (CDC), 2016]. Over the past decade, the availability of Important Farmland has been consistently declining from year to year primarily because of conversions to urban and other developed land uses.

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The Plan Area encompasses approximately 7,077 acres (approximately 11 square miles) in the City of Fresno city limits and unincorporated Fresno County. Of the eleven square miles within the Plan AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.2-5 Area, 6.9 square miles are in the city limits and 4.1 square miles are in the growth area. The growth area is land outside the city limits but within the City’s SOI boundary, which is the adopted limit for future growth. A large amount of land within the Plan Area is farmland or rural residential lots with large, uneven, and underutilized parcels. The Plan Area is relatively flat with natural gentle slope near State Route 99. The Plan Area topography ranges in elevation from approximately 283 to 315 feet above mean sea level.

As shown on Figure 3.2-1, the Plan Area has approximately 3,099.9 acres of land that is classified as Urban and Built-Up, according to the State Department of Conservation. Prime Farmland is principally located outside of the Plan Area, with the exception of approximately 1.5 acres located near the western boundary, west of North Grantland Avenue. The Plan Area has 285.65 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance which are located primarily in the western portion of the Plan Area. Approximately 505.39 acres of Unique Farmland are located within the Plan Area, most of which is within the southwest portion of the Plan Area. Farmland of Local Importance is located throughout the entire Plan Area, and totals approximately 1,562.82 acres. Vacant or Disturbed Land and Rural Residential Land account for approximately 1,650.17 acres within the growth area.

ADJACENT AGRICULTURAL USES
Surrounding land uses include State Route 99; the historic communities of Herndon and Highway City; and incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the north; incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the east (including mostly industrial uses); unincorporated Fresno County and incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the south (including farmland uses, rural residential uses, low density residential uses, and underutilized parcels); and unincorporated Fresno County to the west (including farmland and rural residential uses).

Lands to the north, and east of the Plan Area are classified as urban and built up and are currently zoned for Light Industrial, Commercial and Mixed Use. Lands to the south of the Plan Area are classified as urban and built up with large portions classified as farmland of local importance. These lands are currently zoned for Low and Medium Density Residential, Community and General Commercial, Parks and Recreation, and Public and Institutional by the City of Fresno zoning map and zoned Rural Residential by the County Zoning map. The lands west of the Plan Area are classified as Farmland of Local Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance and Prime Farmland as shown on Figure 3.2-1 and are currently zoned Exclusive Agricultural by the County of Fresno zoning map.

PROJECT AREA SOILS AND FARMLAND CHARACTERISTICS
The Soil Capability Classifications and Storie Index ratings are presented in Table 3.2-3. As shown in Table 3.2-3, the Soil Survey of Fresno County, shows that the Plan Area contains Capability Class II, Class III and Class IV (non-irrigated and irrigated soils). Soils present within the project area are shown in Figure 3.6-1 and described below.

3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

3.2-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan TABLE 3.2-3: ON-SITE SOIL CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATIONS AND STORIE INDEX RATING

SOIL NAME
SOIL CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION1 STORIE
INDEX

ACRES IN

IRRIGATED NON-IRRIGATED PLAN AREA
Exeter loam IIIs IVs 35 215.7
Exeter sandy loam IIIs IVs 34 1,227.6
Exeter sandy loam, shallow IVs IVs 23 150.2
Hanford gravelly sandy loam IVs IIs 72 15.0
Hanford sandy loam, benches IVe IIe 86 17.3
Hesperia fine sandy loam moderately deep IVs IIs 90 1.7 Pollasky fine sandy loam 2-9% IVe IVe 85 2.6
Pollasky sandy loam, 9-15% IVe IVe 78 5.3
San Joaquin loam, 0-3% IIIs IVs 31 213.4
San Joaquin loam, shallow, 0-3% IVs IVs 25 757.6
San Joaquin sandy loam, 0-3% IVs IVs 16 1,523.4
San Joaquin sandy loam, shallow, 0-3% IVs IVs 21 2,872.8 TOTAL 7,002.6
NOTES:

1. CAPABILITY SUBCLASSES ARE SOIL GROUPS WITHIN ONE CLASS. THEY ARE DESIGNATED BY ADDING A SMALL LETTER, E, W, S, OR C, TO THE CLASS NUMERAL, FOR EXAMPLE, IIE. THE LETTER ‘E’ SHOWS THAT THE MAIN HAZARD IS THE RISK OF EROSION UNLESS CLOSEGROWING PLANT COVER IS MAINTAINED; ‘W’ SHOWS THAT WATER IN OR ON THE SOIL INTERFERES WITH PLANT GROWTH OR CULTIVATION (IN SOME SOILS THE WETNESS CAN BE PARTLY CORRECTED BY ARTIFICIAL DRAINAGE); ‘S’ SHOWS THAT THE SOIL IS LIMITED MAINLY BECAUSE IT IS SHALLOW, DROUGHTY, OR STONY; AND ‘C’, USED IN ONLY SOME PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES, SHOWS THAT THE CHIEF LIMITATION IS CLIMATE THAT IS VERY COLD OR VERY DRY.

Fresno City CouncilOctober 13, 2022

Fresno City Council
October 13, 2022