Exhibit I - Environmental Assessment Comment Letters — Fresno City Council, June 29, 2023 (part 1 of 3)

NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA
WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM
DRAFT
Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
for Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan
City of Fresno, Fresno County, California
Prepared for:

City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
559.621.2489
Contact: Drew Wilson, Supervising Planner, Planning and Development Department Prepared by:

FirstCarbon Solutions
7726 N. First Street, #413
Fresno, CA 93720
714.508.4100
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Phil Ault, Project Director
Rachel Krusenoski, Project Manager
Report Date: February 1, 2023

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents FirstCarbon Solutions iii Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations........................................................................................................v Section 1: Introduction.................................................................................................................1

1.1 - Purpose.............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 - Project Location................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 - Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................... 2

1.4 - Project Background ........................................................................................................... 4

1.5 - Project Description............................................................................................................ 6

1.6 - Project Objectives.............................................................................................................. 8

1.7 - Required Discretionary Approvals................................................................................... 10

1.8 - Intended Uses of this Document..................................................................................... 10 Section 2: Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation...............................................21

2.1 Aesthetics, Light, and Glare........................................................................................ 22

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................... 27

2.3 Air Quality................................................................................................................... 32

2.4 Biological Resources................................................................................................... 49

2.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources...................................................... 71

2.6 Energy......................................................................................................................... 87

2.7 Geology, Seismicity, and Soils..................................................................................... 95

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................... 103

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials............................................................................ 108

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................................... 115

2.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................. 123

2.12 Mineral Resources.................................................................................................... 125

2.13 Noise......................................................................................................................... 127

2.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................................... 139

2.15 Public Services.......................................................................................................... 142

2.16 Recreation ................................................................................................................ 148

2.17 Transportation.......................................................................................................... 150

2.18 Utilities and Service Systems.................................................................................... 165

2.19 Wildfire..................................................................................................................... 172

2.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................... 175 Section 3: List of Preparers.......................................................................................................177 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Supporting Information A.1 - Records Search Map
A.2 - California Historical Resources Information System Request and Results A.3 - Native American Heritage Commission Request, Response, and Letters Transportation Supporting Information
B.1 - Final Traffic Study Memorandum
B.2 - Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Table of Contents Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration iv FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx List of Tables
Table 1: Existing General Plan Land Uses in the Specific Plan Area ........................................................3 Table 2: Proposed Land Uses in the Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan..........................................6 Table 3: Proposed Subareas in the Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan ...........................................7 Table 4: Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses...........................................................34 Table 5: Vegetation Communities within the Specific Plan Area ..........................................................50 Table 6: Vegetation Community Types and Description .......................................................................55 Table 7: Special-status Plant Species within the Plan Area...................................................................56 Table 8: Special-status Wildlife Species within the Plan Area...............................................................61 Table 9: Cultural Resources Recorded Within a 0.5-mile Radius of the Specific Plan Area ..................72 Table 10: Previous Investigations Within a 0.5-mile Radius of the Specific Plan Area..........................76 Table 11: Transportation (Non–Aircraft) Noise Source .......................................................................130 Table 12: Stationary Noise Sources.....................................................................................................130 Table 13: Ambient Noise Levels ..........................................................................................................131 List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map..........................................................................................................11 Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................13 Exhibit 3: Specific Plan Area Map..........................................................................................................15 Exhibit 4: Existing Land Use Map ..........................................................................................................17 Exhibit 5: Proposed Land Use Map .......................................................................................................19 Exhibit 6: Land Cover Types and Vegetation Communities...................................................................53 Exhibit 7: CNDDB Special-status Species Occurrences..........................................................................59 Exhibit 8: Existing and Proposed Transit Network ..............................................................................155 Exhibit 9: Proposed Bicycle Network ..................................................................................................159 Exhibit 10: Proposed Pedestrian Network ..........................................................................................161 City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Acronyms and Abbreviations FirstCarbon Solutions v Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°C degrees Celsius (Centigrade)
°F degrees Fahrenheit
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
AB Assembly Bill
AFY acre-feet per year
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
AQMD Air Quality Management District
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
AQP Air Quality Plan
ARB California Air Resources Board
ARB Handbook ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective ARFF Airport Rescue Fire Fighting
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ATP Active Transportation Plan
BAU Business as Usual
BERD Built Environment Resource Directory
BMP Best Management Practices
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
BWF Base Wastewater Flow
CAA Clean Air Act
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Cal/OES California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARTS Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station
CBC California Building Standards Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology
City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Acronyms and Abbreviations Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration vi FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFC California Fire Code
CH4 methane
CHL California Historical Landmarks
CHP combined heat and power
CMP Construction Management Plan
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
COG Council of Governments
CPHI California Points of Historical Interest
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CSE Central Southeast
CSMP Collection System Master Plan
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOT Department of Transportation
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EISA Energy Independence and Security Act
EOC Emergency Operations Center
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPO Emergency Preparedness Officer
EV electric vehicle
FAX Fresno Area Express
FBO Fixed Base Operator
FCS FirstCarbon Solutions
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FFD Fresno Fire Department
City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Acronyms and Abbreviations FirstCarbon Solutions vii Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FID Fresno Irrigation District
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FMC Fresno Municipal Code
FMFCD Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FPD Fresno Police Department
FPP Farmland Preservation Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
ft-L footlambert
FUSD Fresno Unified School District
GHG greenhouse gas
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
GWh gigawatt-hours
GWP global warming potential
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HEPA high-efficiency particulate air
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HSC Health and Safety Code
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
KCNP Kings Canyon National Park
LEEDTM Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MEIR Master Environmental Impact Report
mgd million gallons per day
MM Mitigation Measure
mpg miles per gallon
mph miles per hour
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
N2O nitrous oxide
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
NEVs neighborhood electric vehicles
NIMS National Incident Management System
NKGSA North King Groundwater Sustainability Agency
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Acronyms and Abbreviations Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration viii FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx NOx oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NSR New Source Review
OEHHA State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OPR Office of Planning and Research
PARCS Parks, After School, Recreation, and Community Services PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM10 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter POSS Parks, Open Space, and Schools
ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
PWWF Peak Wet Weather Flow
ROG reactive organic gases
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
RWRF Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility
SB Senate Bill
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SEMS Standardized Emergency Management System
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVLS San Joaquin Valley Library System
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOI Sphere of Influence
SOx sulfur oxides
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
SSJVIC Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWTF Surface Water Treatment Facility
TAC toxic air contaminant
T-BACTs Best Available Control Technologies for Toxics
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
TRU Transport Refrigeration Unit
City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Acronyms and Abbreviations FirstCarbon Solutions ix Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UST underground storage tank
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
Valley Air District San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds
WMD Wastewater Management Division
WWF Wet Weather Flow
ZEV Zero-Emission Vehicle
ZNE zero-net-energy

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 1 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 - Purpose
The purpose of this Draft Initial Study/Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/Subsequent MND) is to identify any potential environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Project (proposed project) in the City of Fresno (City), in Fresno County, California. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15367, the City is the Lead Agency and has discretionary authority over the proposed project and the preparation of this Draft IS/Subsequent MND and any additional environmental documentation required for the proposed project. The intended use of this document is to analyze the proposed project pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and to provide the basis for input from public agencies, organizations, and interested members of the public.

The remainder of this section provides a brief description of the project location and the primary project characteristics. Section 2 includes an environmental checklist that provides an overview of the potential impacts that may result from project implementation, elaborates on the information contained in the environmental checklist, and provides justification for each checklist response, and Section 3 contains the List of Preparers.

1.2 - Project Location
Location
Regional Location
The Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Area (Specific Plan Area) is located in the southeast area of the City, in Fresno County (County), California (Exhibit 1). The City is located in the central San Joaquin Valley, approximately 200 miles north of Los Angeles, and 170 miles south of Sacramento.

The City is located on the State Route (SR) 99 corridor.

Local Setting
The Specific Plan Area is approximately 2,200 acres just east and southeast of Downtown Fresno and is bounded by Belmont Avenue to the north, East Avenue to the west, Church Avenue to the south, and Peach Avenue to the east (Exhibit 2). Additionally, the Specific Plan Area is located within the Roosevelt Community Plan Area.

The Specific Plan Area sits just north of the Industrial Triangle and is surrounded to the west by some of the oldest City neighborhoods and to the east by unincorporated County agricultural lands (Exhibit 3). The northernmost portion of the Specific Plan Area is 0.25 mile from access to State Route 180 (SR-180), while the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area generally runs along city limits, adjacent to and circumventing several unincorporated lands under the jurisdiction of the County. The Specific Plan Area is located on the Clovis, Fresno South, and Malaga, California United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Map Range 20 East, Township 13 South, Section 36; Range 21 East, Township 13 South, Section 31; Range 20 East, Township 14 City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Introduction Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
2 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx South, Sections 1, 2, 11, 13, 14, 23, 24; and Range 21 East, Township 14 South, Sections 5,6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19.

1.3 - Environmental Setting
Existing Land Use Activities
The Specific Plan Area represents approximately 3 percent of the City. The Specific Plan Area includes approximately 30,624 people and 9,150 households and is characterized by a blend of older single-family and multi-family housing developments, industrial facilities, public facilities, vacant land, and commercial areas such as Ventura/Kings Canyon Road. The Specific Plan Area includes several regional and local institutions, including the Fresno Fairgrounds, the Sal Mosqueda Community Center, and Fresno Pacific University. The San Joaquin Valley Railroad operates a local freight distribution line that provides services to existing industrial facilities adjacent to California Avenue. The Specific Plan Area contains approximately 112 acres of parklands and has a park ratio of

1.68 acres per 1,000 residents.

The Specific Plan Area is primarily delineated by five major arterials and a network of wide collectors that form 0.5 mile square quarter-tracts as well as local roads with a single lane in each direction.

Maple Avenue, a four-lane collector; Chestnut Avenue, a four-lane arterial; and Willow Avenue, a two-lane collector, are the principal north–south roadways within the Specific Plan Area. East Kings Canyon Road, a four-lane arterial, and East Butler Avenue, a three-lane collector, run parallel to SR180 and the California Avenue railroad right-of-way and are the principal east–west roadways within the Specific Plan Area. Most roadways in the Specific Plan Area operate acceptably under the City’s traffic impact thresholds. There are currently no plans for road widening capacity improvements within the Specific Plan Area, except for Willow Avenue (north of Kings Canyon Road), which is planned to be expanded from two to four lanes. In addition, a roadway segment of Lane Avenue, from Chestnut Avenue to Willow Avenue, is planned to reduce traffic lanes.

The Braley Canal enters the Specific Plan Area from the southeast and flows parallel to California Avenue extending from Orange Avenue, which forms the western border of the Specific Plan Area past Peach Avenue, which forms the eastern border of the Specific Plan Area.

Existing General Plan Designations and Zoning
Existing uses in the Specific Plan Area include a mix of suburban housing developments, public facilities, strip shopping centers, industrial uses, and vacant land (Exhibit 4). The Specific Plan’s Existing Conditions Report (Appendix A) includes the following key land use designations for the Specific Plan Area: Residential – Medium Density (approximately 22 percent of the total acreage); Public Facilities (approximately 20 percent of the total acreage); Residential – Medium Low Density (approximately 10 percent of the total acreage); and Vacant (approximately 9 percent of the total acreage). The existing land uses in the Specific Plan Area are further described in Table 1 below.

City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 3 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Table 1: Existing General Plan Land Uses in the Specific Plan Area Land Use Designation
Approximate Acres of Land Use in
Specific Plan Area Percent of Total Specific Plan Area
Residential–Rural 12.2 0.7%
Residential–Low Density 18.1 1.0%
Residential–Medium Low Density 173.3 9.7%
Residential–Medium Density 384.9 21.5%
Residential–Medium High Density 130.9 7.3%
Residential–High Density 134.2 7.5%
Residential–Mobile Home Park 27.6 1.5%
Commercial–Community 114.9 6.4%
Commercial–General 11.1 0.6%
Commercial–Neighborhood 22.1 1.2%
Commercial–Office 2.7 0.1%
Commercial–Parking 4.9 0.3%
Employment–Heavy Industrial 56.2 3.1%
Employment–Light Industrial 9.3 0.5%
Open Space 119.6 6.7%
Park 39.9 2.2%
Public Facility 366.5 20.4%
Railroad 10.6 0.6%
Vacant 153.7 8.6%
Total 1,792.5 100%
Notes:

All acreage values are approximate.

Source: City of Fresno, Fresno Central Southeast Specific Plan Existing Conditions Report, 2022.

The vast majority of commercial uses are located along Ventura/Kings Canyon Road (Commercial– Community), with very limited neighborhood and general commercial uses along Orange Avenue and Butler Avenue. Most of the Commercial–Community uses are in the form of strip shopping centers and include a mix of discount stores, fast food restaurants, and regional commercial retailers such as Walmart, Home Depot, and Big Lots, with a few smaller independent shops and restaurants scattered throughout. Office uses in the Specific Plan Area are limited to just a few small parcels on either side of Ventura/Kings Canyon Road. The southern portion of the Specific Plan Area around California Avenue is dominated by heavy and light industrial facilities.

Vacant and underutilized land also make up a large portion of the Specific Plan Area. Underutilized land includes parcels that are partially vacant, comprised primarily of surface parking lots, have City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Introduction Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
4 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx vacant buildings, or where existing buildings are aging and/or lower density than what is allowed on the site.

1.4 - Project Background
City of Fresno General Plan
The City Council adopted the Fresno General Plan (General Plan) and Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) in December 2014. In 2021, the City certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) that evaluated the General Plan, including text changes to the Mobility and Transportation Element related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis, and an update to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. The PEIR was certified by the City on September 30, 2021. In doing so, the City converted the previously certified MEIR to a PEIR with the goal of extending the life of the environmental document pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15179. This update is intended to streamline implementation of the General Plan’s programs and policies by supporting them with updated environmental analysis, a current regulatory framework and mitigation measures, pursuant to CEQA.

There have been minimal changes to the land use designations within the Specific Plan Area since the 2014 General Plan MEIR was certified, and there are no land use changes adopted for the Specific Plan Area as part of the 2021 General Plan PEIR. The City adopted a new Development Code in December 2015, establishing new zoning districts, permitted uses, development standards, and procedures to align with the General Plan.

Amendments to the General Plan
Since the General Plan was adopted and the MEIR was certified in 2014, several amendments to the General Plan have been adopted, and new local, State, and/or federal regulations have been enacted, including the following:
• Downtown Neighborhoods and Community Plan, 2016
• Fulton Corridor Specific Plan, 2016
• Housing Element, 2017
• Southwest Fresno Specific Plan, 2017
• Active Transportation Plan, 2017
• Parks Master Plan, 2018
• Approximately 32 General Plan Amendments (GPAs) involving over 150 sites • New airport land use plans and noise contours, 2018
City of Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan
The proposed project would create the City of Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan (Specific Plan), a long-range planning document that provides a vision for growth and development in the community over the next 20 to 30 years. The proposed Specific Plan would address a wide range of topics that impact the quality of life in the community, including affordable housing, jobs and economic development, transportation, parks and open space, and a healthy environment.

City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 5 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Specific Plan Approval Process
The proposed Specific Plan is a policy-level document and does not include any specific development proposals. Therefore, the Specific Plan would be adopted solely by the City Council. The Planning Commission and other decision-making bodies would review the Specific Plan and make recommendations to the City Council. In addition, the City may consult with the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to review the Specific Plan. While other agencies may be consulted during the adoption process, their approval is not required for adoption of the proposed Specific Plan. However, subsequent development under the proposed Specific Plan may require approval of State, federal and responsible trustee agencies that may rely on the program-level analysis in this Draft IS/Subsequent MND for decisions in their areas of expertise.

Contents of the Specific Plan
The proposed Specific Plan is organized into the following eight chapters. A set of objectives and implementing policies are provided in each relevant chapter. The Specific Plan’s chapters are as follows:

Introduction
This chapter provides a broad overview of the planning context, community engagement process, and organization of the Specific Plan.

Vision and Goals
This chapter outlines the vision and guiding principles for the Specific Plan Area that were articulated during the community engagement process.

Land Use and Urban Design
This chapter describes the proposed land uses in the Specific Plan Area. It also outlines a unique set of goals and strategies that pertain to future desired uses and development in each “change area” or subarea in the Specific Plan Area.

Transportation, Public Realm, and Infrastructure
This chapter outlines priority circulation improvements for all travel modes–including walking, bicycling, driving, and transit–and specific design recommendations to make streets and pathways more walkable and comfortable for residents of the Specific Plan Area. It also includes utility and infrastructure needs in the Specific Plan Area.

Parks and Open Space
This chapter describes the existing context for public parks, open spaces, and recreational facilities within the Specific Plan Area and identifies key opportunities for improvement. Strategies include both new parks on opportunity sites and enhanced programming at existing facilities.

Economic Development
This chapter outlines an inclusive and sustainable economic development strategy that targets growth in key industry sectors, as well as improved economic opportunity for the Specific Plan Area and businesses through job training and workforce development.

City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Introduction Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
6 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Quality of Life
This chapter outlines strategies to improve quality of life in the Specific Plan Area by addressing the social and environmental determinants of health. This multifaceted approach includes improving public safety, promoting healthy lifestyles, mitigating environmental hazards, and building capacity within communities. Topics covered include public health, public safety, environment and environmental justice, and community empowerment.

Next Steps and Funding
This chapter summarizes the community priorities, next steps, and potential funding and financing strategies to implement the Plan’s recommended improvements and programs.

1.5 - Project Description
Project Summary
The proposed Specific Plan would address community needs and guide future public and private development to create a more vibrant, attractive, equitable, and healthy community in a way that builds upon the social and cultural strengths of the existing Community Plan Area. The Specific Plan is a continuation of the recent Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan, adopted in 2016, picking up where the Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan left off along the northwestern boundary.

Proposed Land Uses
The proposed land use designations of the Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan; however, the Specific Plan proposes changing the land use designation for some of the Specific Plan Area’s parcels, which will require the General Plan Land Use map to be amended. The proposed Specific Plan includes land use changes that would reclassify some parcels to match uses currently on the ground that are likely to remain for the foreseeable future (Exhibit 5). These changes would also change concentrations of vacant lands or facilities along the Kings Canyon Corridor, reduce oversized parking lots near the Maple Avenue and Butler Avenue intersection, and develop underutilized land near the Cedar Avenue and Butler Avenue intersection. The Specific Plan would also create higher intensity mixed-use infill opportunities along priority corridors and at key opportunity sites, strengthen neighborhoods that provide a range of office types, and include office, clean tech, and other non-nuisance employment generating uses that provide a buffer between industrial neighborhoods. Overall, development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of the development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan.

Table 2 below describes the land use classifications that are proposed with implementation of the Specific Plan.

Table 2: Proposed Land Uses in the Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan Land Use Designation
Proposed Acres of Land Uses
in Specific Plan Area Percent of Total Specific Plan Area Residential–Low Density 2 acres 0.1%
City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 7 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Land Use Designation
Proposed Acres of Land Uses
in Specific Plan Area Percent of Total Specific Plan Area Residential–Medium Low Density 144 acres 8.0%
Residential–Medium Density 422 acres 23.6%
Residential–Medium High Density 341 acres 19.1%
Residential–Urban Neighborhood 46 acres 2.6%
Commercial–Community 14 acres 0.8%
Commercial–General 2 acres 0.1%
Employment–Office 89 acres 5.0%
Employment–Light Industrial 0 acres 0%
Employment–Heavy Industrial 0 acres 0%
Mixed Use–Neighborhood 3 acres 0.2%
Mixed Use–Corridor Center 201 acres 11.2%
Open Space 53 acres 3.0%
Park 51 acres 2.8%
Public Facilities 402 acres 22.5%
Railroad – –
Vacant – –
Total 1,770 100%
Source: City of Fresno 2021.

The subareas in the Specific Plan Area that are identified for comprehensive redevelopment include three corridors and three districts. Though unified under a single vision for the entire Specific Plan Area, each subarea possesses its own distinct identity, set of characteristics, and unique opportunity sites that will advance its transformation. The development proposed for each subarea is described in in Table 3.

Table 3: Proposed Subareas in the Central Southeast Fresno Specific Plan Subarea
Types
Subarea
Name/Location Subarea Objective
Major Projects
Proposed
(if applicable)
Project Descriptions
(if applicable)
Corridors Kings Canyon Road Transform Kings
Canyon into an
active mixed-use
corridor.

Former UMC
Hospital
Redevelop the former UMC
Hospital Site into a holistic
health and wellness center.

International
Shopping and
Entertainment
Village
Evolve strip shopping centers
such as Asian Village into
mixed-use/entertainment
centers that focus on
international food
City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Introduction Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
8 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Subarea
Types
Subarea
Name/Location Subarea Objective
Major Projects
Proposed
(if applicable)
Project Descriptions
(if applicable)
establishments and cultural
shopping amenities.

Butler Avenue Create a series of
neighborhood
centers along
Butler Avenue.

Mosqueda Regional
Cultural and
Community Center
Build on the success of
Mosqueda Center to expand
this area into a hub for
cultural activities, education,
and recreation.

Hanoian Shopping
Center
Redevelop Hanoian Shopping
Center into a small mixed-use
neighborhood center that will
meet the daily needs of
residents.

Orange Avenue Evolve Orange Avenue into a neighborhood “main street.” Districts Fairgrounds Activate and strengthen connections to the Fresno Fairground as an important hub for community, cultural, and recreational activities.

IRS Processing
Center
Redevelop the IRS site into an education campus and/or tech hub.

Employment District Transform industrial areas into a business park/office/R&D district with clean/non-nuisance employment uses.

Source: City of Fresno 2021.

1.6 - Project Objectives
The objectives of the proposed project are to:
• Emphasize cultural diversity. Protect and enhance the diverse cultures and ethnicities in the Specific Plan Area through historic preservation and recording of history, supporting multicultural events, protecting diverse retail establishments and promoting racial tolerance. This will allow all people, regardless of race, class, income or age, to thrive in the Specific Plan Area.
• Keep the engaged population active. Continue the community’s history of having an active and engaged citizenry through the Specific Plan process. This includes engaging residents in the decision-making process, building capacity to implement the vision of the community, and engaging youth in civic activities.
• Support the underserved. Protect and celebrate Specific Plan Area residents’ willingness to help one another and support those in need.
• Preserve strong and unique neighborhoods. Preserve the character, identity and sense of place. As part of the process, strive to protect the character of neighborhoods while allowing for growth and change over time.

City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 9 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx • Protect housing affordability and minimize displacement. Protect existing housing affordability and reduce the potential for the displacement of current residents as the area reaches its full potential. Strategies include supporting both market rate and affordable housing and creating more housing choice in the neighborhood to serve a diverse demographic of new and existing residents.
• Enhance connections to Downtown. Build upon the Specific Plan Area’s strategic location in proximity to Downtown to enhance access to jobs, services, cultural, and other community amenities.
• Improve safety. Improve safety in and around the Specific Plan Area through a range of strategies including increased pedestrian activity, more “eyes on the street,” community policing, better lighting, activation of vacant spaces, and an increased sense of ownership and stewardship by residents, workers, and visitors.
• Enhance mobility and improve connectivity. Improve pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and vehicle connections with a focus on improving transportation safety (especially around schools and parks) and inexpensive mobility options. Expand transit service to ensure that residents can quickly and easily access jobs and services throughout the City. Support the recent Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) investment along Kings Canyon Road as an important strategy to better connect residents to jobs and services in Downtown and other parts of the City. • Expand access to educational opportunities. Seek to improve educational opportunities for residents of all ages. This includes improving youth education to expand access to opportunity, providing vocational training, and supporting on-the-job training at local businesses. As part of this strategy, partner with local educational institutions to ensure access for the Specific Plan Area residents.
• Support economic vitality. Encourage an environment where diverse businesses can flourish and thrive. Expand job opportunities, workforce training programs, and support for local businesses.
• Reduce pollution and protect environmental health. Improve air quality by supporting innovative programs for environmental sustainability and increase resilience of the community against hazards. Protect residents from the adverse health impacts of nearby industrial land uses.
• Support health and equity. Promote equity, health, and well-being by providing a range of community services and access to healthcare, recreational opportunities, and healthy food options. Encourage the development of grocery stores, farmers’ markets, and community farming.
• Build and improve parks and community facilities. Seek new ways to fund park maintenance and plan for new neighborhood parks, community facilities, and other public spaces that will provide a place for the community to gather, socialize, and play. • Invest in maintenance and beautification. Invest in maintaining and cleaning streets and public spaces. Improve walkability, sense of place, public spaces, and community aesthetics City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Introduction Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
10 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx through landscaping, streetscape treatments, and façade improvements. Create a welcoming community that is clean, safe, and inviting.
• Encourage continued and expanded diversity of uses. Support a diverse mix of uses including retail, jobs, services, housing, civic spaces, and community facilities, particularly along Kings Canyon Road, in neighborhood retail areas and in nonresidential areas. Encourage retention of key retail and ethnic establishments while introducing more varied essential goods and services.
• Utilize the Fairgrounds. Support existing events and encourage new events and flexible or temporary uses that will activate the Fresno Fairgrounds year-round, attract both local and regional populations and provide a long-term and tangible benefit for the Specific Plan Area residents.

1.7 - Required Discretionary Approvals
As mentioned previously, the City has discretionary authority over the proposed project and is the CEQA Lead Agency for the preparation of the Draft IS/Subsequent MND. In order to implement the proposed project, the City would need to approve the following discretionary actions:
• Adoption of Central Southeast Area Specific Plan and repeal of a portion of the Roosevelt Community Plan
• Approval of the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration • General Plan Amendment
• Rezone

1.8 - Intended Uses of this Document
This Draft IS/Subsequent MND has been prepared to determine the appropriate scope and level of detail required in completing the environmental analysis for the proposed project. This document will also serve as a basis for soliciting comments and input from members of the public and public agencies regarding the proposed project. The Draft IS/Subsequent MND will be circulated for a minimum of 30 days, during which comments concerning the analysis contained in the Draft IS/Subsequent MND should be sent to:

Jennifer Clark, Director, Planning and Development Department c/o Drew Wilson, Supervising Planner, Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Suite 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
559.621.8031
[email protected]
[email protected]
99 201
180
41 168
Fresno County
Tulare County
Madera County
Fresno County
Millerton
Lake
Big Dry Creek
Reservoir
Hensley Lake
Sierra
National
Forest
Clovis
Fresno
Sanger
Reedley
Selma
Fowler
Exhibit 1
Regional Location Map
5 2.5 0 5
Miles
Text
Project Site
Source: Census 2000 Data, The California Spatial Information Library (CaSIL).

CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN

SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
50000002 • 10/2022 | 1_regional.mxd
Project Site

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
50000002 • 10/2022 | 2_local_vicinity.cdr CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN

SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 2
Local Vicinity Map
Source: City of Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan, April 2021.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
50000002 • 10/2022 | 3_Specific Plan Area Map.cdr CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN

SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 3
Specific Plan Area Map
Source: City of Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan, April 2021.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
50000002 • 10/2022 | 4_Existing Land Use Map.cdr CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN

SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 4
Existing Land Use Map
Source: City of Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan, April 2021.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
I
50000002 • 10/2021 | 5_Proposed Land Use Changes.cdr
Exhibit 5
Proposed Land Use Changes

RAIMI AND ASSOCIATES

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT

ADDENDUM
Source: City of Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan, April 2021.

EVALUATION
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources and Tribal
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology, Seismicity, and
Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Utilities and Service
Systems
Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Date: 2/3/2023 Signed:

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 22 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.1 Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic building within a State Scenic Highway?
c) 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?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
Environmental Evaluation
Introduction
As noted in the proposed Specific Plan, the land use designations of the Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan buildout assumptions; however, the Specific Plan proposes changing the land use designation for some of the Specific Plan Area’s parcels, which will require the General Plan Land Use map to be amended. These proposed land use designation changes would reduce the total amount of development compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan for the Specific Plan Area.

Environmental Setting
A scenic vista is typically a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. According to the General Plan, no scenic vistas are identified or designated within the City.1 Although no scenic vistas have been officially designated, there may be locations within the City that could provide distant views of natural landscape features such as the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range and the San Joaquin River bluffs.

Scenic highways are California highways designated by a local governing body and protected by the State Scenic Highway Program for the purpose of protecting and enhancing the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment. The California 1 City of Fresno. 2020. Fresno General Plan. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wpcontent/uploads/sites/10/2019/07/ConsolidatedGP6182020.pdf. Accessed August 8, 2022.

Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than significant impact. As mentioned above, the General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas within the City. The San Joaquin River bluffs contain publicly valued scenic features, but the Specific Plan Area is not visible from these vista points. Furthermore, views of the Sierra Nevada mountains are not visible from the Specific Plan Area due to existing development. As discussed above, the General Plan identifies one scenic corridor within the Specific Plan Area. General Plan Policy MT-3-a requires the implementation of measures to preserve and enhance scenic corridors, and Policy MT-3-b requires that street trees lining designated scenic corridors, such as the street 2 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. California Scenic Highway Program: List of eligible and officially designated State Scenic Highways. Website: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-iscenic-highways. Accessed August 30, 2022. 3 Ibid. 4 City of Fresno. 2020. Fresno General Plan. Website: chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wpcontent/uploads/sites/10/2019/07/ConsolidatedGP6182020.pdf. Accessed August 8, 2022. 5 Ibid.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 24 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx trees on both sides of Peach Avenue, be preserved. While the proposed project does not contemplate specific development in the Specific Plan Area, all future development in accordance with implementation of the proposed project on or near the portion of Peach Avenue that is designated a scenic corridor would be required to comply with these General Plan policies.

Moreover, development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of the development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan, reducing the potential impact to street trees.

Additionally, the proposed project includes policies to further beautify the major thoroughfares within the Plan Area, including Kings Canyon Road and Butler Avenue. As a result, impacts to scenic vistas and the scenic corridors identified in the General Plan would be less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a State Scenic Highway?
No impact. As described above, four eligible and officially designated State Scenic Highways are located within the County. The Specific Plan Area is located approximately 15 miles west of the portion of SR-180 that has been officially designated as a State Scenic Highway. The Specific Plan Area is located approximately 4 miles south of the eligible portion of SR-168, approximately 42 miles east from the eligible portion of SR-198, and approximately 45 miles east from the eligible portion of SR-33. Therefore, future development in accordance with implementation of the proposed project would not impact scenic resources within a designated or eligible State Scenic Highway. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c) 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? Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the Specific Plan Area is characterized as urban as it generally consists of older single-family and multi-family housing developments, industrial facilities, public facilities, vacant land, and commercial areas such as Ventura/Kings Canyon Road.

There are no land uses within the Specific Plan Area that are designated for the protection of scenic views or scenic quality. Additionally, there are no rural or agricultural land uses within the Specific Plan Area.

Moreover, while the proposed project increases the amount of land designated for Residential– Medium Density, Residential–Medium High Density, Employment–Office, and Public Facility, development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of the development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan.

Future development would also be required to undergo discretionary review by the City, which would ensure compliance with applicable land use and zoning requirements, and would ensure consistency with the policies and programs included in the General Plan. Future development would also be guided by the Specific Plan’s development requirements, which include goals and policies to improve the visual quality of the Specific Plan Area. For example, Specific Plan Policy ED-1.8 City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 25 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx establishes a Façade Improvement and Beautification Program in the Specific Plan Area, Policy T-3.1 aims to beautify the streets while improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and Policy LU-3.1 implements coordinated streetscape and frontage enhancements along Orange Avenue to revitalize and activate the public realm.

Furthermore, one of the proposed project’s objectives is to invest in the maintenace and beautification of the Specific Plan Area. This objective is achieved by the proposed project through policies that promote cleaning streets and public spaces and improve walkability, sense of place, public spaces, and community aesthetics through landscaping, streetscape treatments, and façade improvements. As such, impacts to visual character and regulations related to scenic quality would be less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than signficant impact with mitigation incorporated. As discussed above in Impact 2.1(c), the proposed project increases the amount of land designated for Residential–Medium Density, Residential–Medium High Density, Employment–Office, and Public Facility. While future development consistent with the proposed project would be generally consistent with the densities and intensities of the existing land uses within the Specific Plan Area and would overall reduce the total amount of the development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan, the proposed project could result in additional sources of light and glare.

New development within the city limits could increase the amount of light from streetlights, exterior lighting systems on private and public property, exterior lighting from buildings, and vehicular headlights, resulting in light spillover onto adjacent properties and substantially illuminating the sky at night. However, all future development in accorandance with the proposed project would be required to be consistent with the City’s Development Code and implement General Plan PEIR Mitigation Measures (MM) (MM AES-4.1 through MM AES-4.5), which require lighting systems to include shields and direct light away from light-sensitive land uses, minimize light spillover, reduce lighting intensity, and use non-reflective surfaces. Because of the existing urban nature of the Specific Plan Area, implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce potential lighting impacts to a less than signficant level. Additionally, the Specific Plan includes policies that directly address light and glare in the Specific Plan Area. For example, Specific Plan Policy PS-1.3 provides guidance on lighting near schools and parks. Thus, impacts would be less than signficant.

Mitigation Measures
The following General Plan PEIR mitigation measures apply to the proposed project:

MM AES-4.1 Lighting for Street and Parking Areas. Lighting systems for street and parking areas shall include shields to direct light to the roadway surfaces and parking areas.

Vertical shields on the light fixtures shall also be used to direct light away from adjacent light-sensitive land uses such as residences.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 26 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx MM AES-4.2 Lighting for Public Facilities. Lighting systems for public facilities such as active play areas shall provide adequate illumination for the activity; however, low intensity light fixtures and shields shall be used to minimize spillover light onto adjacent properties.

MM AES-4.3 Lighting for Nonresidential Uses. Lighting systems for non-residential uses, not including public facilities, shall provide shields on the light fixtures and orient the lighting system away from adjacent properties. Low intensity fixtures shall also be used if excessive spillover light onto adjacent properties will occur.

MM AES-4.4 Signage Lighting. Lighting systems for freestanding signs shall not exceed 100 footlamberts (ft-L) when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of less than 2.0 horizontal foot-candles and shall not exceed 500 ft-L when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of 2.0 horizontal foot-candles or greater.

MM AES-4.5 Use of Non-Reflective Materials. Materials used on building façades shall be nonreflective.

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Environmental Evaluation
Introduction
As noted in the proposed Specific Plan, the land use designations of the Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan buildout assumptions; however, the Specific Plan proposes changing the land use designation for some of the Specific Plan Area’s parcels, which would require the General Plan Land Use map to be amended. These proposed land use designation changes would reduce the total amount of development compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan for the Specific Plan Area.

As further described below, the following analysis utilizes the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) as Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 28 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx a model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. The following analysis also utilizes information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board (ARB).

Environmental Setting
The DOC’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) was established by the State Legislature in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and conversion of these lands over time. The FMMP has established five farmland categories. • Prime Farmland consists of the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term agricultural production. Irrigated agricultural production is a necessary land use 4 years prior to the mapping date. The land must be able to store moisture and produce high yields.
• Farmland of Statewide Importance possesses similar characteristics to Prime Farmland with minor shortcomings, such as less ability to hold and store moisture and more pronounced slopes.
• Unique Farmland has a production history of propagating crops with high economic value. • Farmland of Local Importance is important to the local agricultural economy. Local advisory committees and county specific board of supervisors determine this status. • Grazing Land is suitable for browsing or grazing of livestock.

Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Presently, the Specific Plan Area does not contain any land designated for agricultural uses. The FMMP identifies the vast majority of the Specific Plan Area as Urban and Built-Up Land, with small portions designated as Farmland of Local Importance (approximately 4.7 acres) and Prime Farmland (approximately 13 acres). 6 According to
the FMMP California Important Farmland Finder, there is no Unique Farmland within the Specific Plan Area. While approximately 13 acres of the Specific Plan Area are identified by FMMP as Prime Farmland, this land was already planned for urbanization as part of buildout of the General Plan. The Specific Plan does not contemplate or approve any specific development; however, agricultural preservation is a guiding principle behind the planning and design of the Specific Plan. As the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan, implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in new impacts beyond what was already evaluated and disclosed in the General Plan PEIR, which concluded that impacts would still be significant and unavoidable with General Plan 6 California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed November 15, 2021.

City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 29 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx (GP) PEIR MM AG-1.1 and General Plan policies incorporated. Policy RC-9-a directs the City to work with the Counties of Fresno and Madera, the City of Clovis, and other public agencies to conserve agricultural land resources, and Policy RC-9-c describes implementation of the Farmland Preservation Program (FPP). Consistent with Policy RC-9-c, incorporation of the GP MM AG-1.1, which requires future development to comply with the FPP once adopted, into the conditions of approval would ensure that all future development would be required to mitigate the loss of farmland if Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance are proposed to be converted to urban uses within the SOI outside city limits. However, because the FPP has not been developed yet, the proposed project would implement project-specific MM AG-2, which requires that all future development would be required to comply with CEQA Guidelines to address potential environmental impacts on an individual basis. Thus, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? No impact. The Specific Plan Area does not contain any parcels that are currently under a Williamson Act Contract, precluding the possibility that the proposed project would conflict with a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, no impacts related to conflicts with agricultural zoning or Williamson Act Contracts would occur.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No impact. The Specific Plan Area does not contain land that is used for forestry purposes, and there are no properties that are designated or zoned for forestry use. Implementation of the Specific Plan would not therefore conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, no impact would occur. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No impact. There are no lands within the Specific Plan Area that are used for forestry purposes, so implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, resulting in no impact. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would indirectly result in the conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. As discussed previously, the Specific Plan Area contains approximately 13 acres of Prime Farmland and approximately 4.7 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, which are already planned for urbanization under the General Plan. The proposed project would be consistent with General Plan Policy RC-9-c and GP PEIR MM AG-1.1. by adhering to Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 30 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx any applicable standards developed for the FPP. Additonally, the proposed project would implement project-specific MM AG-2, which would require new development to be analyzed consistent with CEQA on a project-by-project basis until the FPP has been implemented. The proposed project would not result in changes in the existing environment that would impact agricultural uses within the Specific Plan Area. For example, the proposed project would not result in any physical improvements or changes in land restrictions (such as Williamson Act Contracts) that would result in impacts to agricultural resources. Furthermore, as discussed previously, there are no lands within the Specific Plan Area that are used or zoned for forestry purposes, so there would be no conversion of forest land to non-forest uses within the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, the proposed project would not involve changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, resulting in less than significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures
The following General Plan PEIR mitigation measure applies to the proposed project:

MM AG-1.1 Consistent with Policy RC-9-c of the approved General Plan, the City, in coordination with regional partners or independently, shall establish a Farmland Preservation Program by 2025. The intent of the Farmland Preservation Program would be that, when Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance are proposed for development and converted to urban uses within the Sphere of Influence outside city limits, this program would require that the developer of such a project mitigate the loss of farmland consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The Farmland Preservation Program shall establish thresholds of significance and provide several mitigation options that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Restrictive Covenants or Deeds
• In Lieu Fees
• Mitigation Banks
• Fee Title Acquisition
• Conservation Easements
• Land Use Regulations
The Farmland Preservation Program may be modeled after some or all of the programs described by the California Council of Land Trusts. Prior to the adoption of the Farmland Preservation Program, projects shall be required to comply with CEQA to address potential environmental impacts on an individual basis.

The following project-specific mitigation measure applies to the proposed project:

MM AG-2 Prime Farmland Impact Reduction Measure. Until the City’s Farmland Preservation Program is implemented consistent with the GP PEIR MM AG-1.1 and General Plan Policy RC-9-c, all development in the Specific Plan Area which would convert land designated as Prime Farmland to nonagricultural uses shall be analyzed on a project- City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 31 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx by-project basis, consistent with the requirements of CEQA at the time of project application. Where a specific development project site would include the conversion of Prime Farmland to nonagricultural uses, the project applicant shall identify feasible mitigation prior to project approval and implement such mitigation prior to any construction or ground-disturbing activities. Such mitigation may include but is not limited to: siting projects to avoid Farmland; payment of in lieu fees; or, the acquisition and/or conservation of equivalent prime farmland land at another location, where it is financially feasible to do so, in the form of agricultural conservation easements, or other feasible mitigation.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 32 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.3 Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or State
ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors or) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
Environmental Evaluation
Introduction
As noted in the proposed Specific Plan, the land use designations of the Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan buildout assumptions; however, the Specific Plan proposes changing the land use designation for some of the Specific Plan Area’s parcels, which will require the General Plan Land Use map to be amended. These proposed land use designation changes would reduce the total amount of development compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan for the Specific Plan Area.

Environmental Setting
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Air Pollutants
Air pollutants relevant to the CEQA checklist questions for Air Quality are briefly described below.7 • Ozone is a gas that is formed when reactive organic gases (ROGs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX)—both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust—undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature 7 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2022. Common Air Pollutants. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/common-airpollutants. Accessed June 7, 2022.

Potential health effects from CO depends on exposure and can include slight headaches; nausea; aggravation of angina pectoris (chest pain) and other aspects of coronary heart disease; decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; impairment of central nervous system functions; possible increased risk to fetuses; death.
• Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent gas. At levels greater than 0.5 parts per million (ppm), the gas has a strong odor, similar to rotten eggs. Sulfur oxides (SOX) include SO2 and sulfur trioxide. Sulfuric acid is formed from sulfur dioxide, which can lead to acid deposition and can harm natural resources and materials. Although SO2 concentrations have been reduced to levels well below State and federal standards, further reductions are desirable because SO2 is a precursor to sulfate and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10).
• PM10 and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) consist of extremely small, suspended particles or droplets 10 microns and 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter.

Some sources of particulate matter, like pollen and windstorms, are naturally occurring.

However, in populated areas, most particulate matter is caused by road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, abrasion of tires and brakes, and construction activities. Health effects from short-term exposure (hours/days) can include the following: irrigation of the eyes, nose, throat; coughing; phlegm; chest tightness; shortness of breath; aggravate existing lung disease, causing asthma attacks and acute bronchitis; those with heart disease can suffer heart attacks and arrhythmias. Health effects from long-term exposure can include the following: reduced lung function; chronic bronchitis; changes in lung morphology; or death. • Toxic air contaminants (TACs) refer to a diverse group of air pollutants that can affect human health but have not had AAQS established for them. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is a toxic Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 34 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx air contaminant that is emitted from construction equipment and diesel-fueled vehicles and trucks. Some short-term (acute) effects of DPM exposure include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. Studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems. Human studies on the carcinogenicity of DPM demonstrate an increased risk of lung cancer, although the increased risk cannot be clearly attributed to diesel exhaust exposure.

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. For purposes of this assessment, the significance thresholds recommended by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) were applied herein.

Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
The ARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan has led to the adoption of new California regulatory standards for all new on-road, off-road, and stationary diesel-fueled engines and vehicles to reduce DPM emissions by about 90 percent overall from year 2000 levels. The projected emission benefits associated with the full implementation of this plan, including federal measures, are reductions in DPM emissions and associated cancer risks of 75 percent by 2010, and 85 percent by 2020.8 The ARB Air Quality Land Use Handbook lists the following ARB advisory recommendations that address the issue of siting “sensitive land uses” near specific sources of air pollution:9 • Chrome plating facilities
• Distribution centers
• Dry cleaners
• High traffic freeways and roads
• Large gas dispensing facilities
• Ports
• Rail yards
• Refineries
The ARB-recommended screening distances are shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Source Category Advisory Recommendations
Freeways and High Traffic Roads Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.
8 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-fueled Engines and Vehicles. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2022. 9 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2022.

Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.

Rail Yards Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard. Within 1 mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches.

Ports Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the ARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.

Refineries Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries. Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate separation.

Chrome Platers Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.

Dry Cleaners Using Perchloroethylene Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines, consult with the local air district.

Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perchloroethylene dry cleaning operations.

Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.

Notes:

These recommendations are advisory. Land use agencies have to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. This document proposes the following criteria for determining project consistency with the current Air Quality Plans (AQPs):

1. Will the project conform to the growth assumptions in the AQPs?

2. Will the project comply with applicable control measures in the AQPs? Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 36 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx The use of the criteria listed above is a standard approach for CEQA analysis of projects in the Valley Air District’s jurisdiction, as well as within other air districts, for the following reasons:
• AQP emissions inventories and attainment modeling are based on growth assumptions for the area within the air district’s jurisdiction.
• AQPs rely on a set of air district-initiated control measures, as well as implementation of federal and State measures, to reduce emissions within their jurisdictions with the goal of attaining the air quality standards.

AQPs are plans for reaching attainment of air quality standards. The assumptions, inputs, and control measures are analyzed to determine whether the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) can reach attainment for the Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). In order to show attainment of the standards, the Valley Air District analyzes the growth projections in the valley, contributing factors in air pollutant emissions and formations, and existing and adopted emissions controls. The Valley Air District then formulates a control strategy to reach attainment that includes both State and Valley Air District regulations and other local programs and measures.

Consistency with Assumptions in AQPs
A method for determining consistency with the AQP’s assumptions is determining consistency with the applicable General Plan to ensure that the proposed project’s population density and land use are consistent with the growth assumptions used in the AQPs for the SJVAB. The regional emissions inventory for the SJVAB is compiled by the Valley Air District and Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG). Regional population, housing, and employment projections developed by Fresno COG are based, in part, on the local jurisdictions’ General Plan Land Use designations. These projections form the foundation for the emissions inventory of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). These demographic trends are incorporated into the 2022–2046 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), compiled by Fresno COG in July 2022, to determine priority transportation projects within the Fresno COG region.10 Projects that are consistent with the General Plan are considered consistent with the air qualityrelated regional plan. CEQA Guidelines Section 15206(b) states that a project is of statewide, regional, or areawide significance if it is a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units or a commercial office building of 250,000 square feet or more or that employs 1,000 or more employees. Presently, the Specific Plan Area includes approximately 30,624 people and 9,150 households. Conservatively, the proposed project could increase the number of dwelling units in the Specific Plan Area by approximately 9,699 and increase the number of residents by approximately 26,676 people. Therefore, the project is considered a project of statewide, regional, or areawide significance, and implementation of the proposed project would have the potential to substantially affect Fresno COG’s demographic projections beyond what is already anticipated for the Specific Plan Area.

However, it is important to note that buildout of the proposed project would reduce the total amount of the development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was completed by the 10 Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG). 2022. Regional Transportation Plan, Chapter 1.

The Valley Air District is tasked with implementing programs and regulations required by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and the California CAA. The CAA of 1970 tasks the EPA with setting air quality standards. The State of California also sets air quality standards that are in some cases more stringent than federal standards and address additional pollutants.

The Valley Air District has prepared several plans to attain the National AAQS and California AAQS.

Emission reductions achieved through implementation of the Valley Air District’s New Source Review (NSR) offset requirements are a major component of the Valley Air District’s AQPs. The established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions are based on the Valley Air District’s offset requirements for stationary sources. Therefore, projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be determined to “not conflict or obstruct implementation of the District’s air quality plan.” The analysis in the response to impact discussion AIR-2 demonstrates that it would be too speculative to evaluate air quality impacts of future individual development projects at this time. Therefore, this analysis relies solely on the proposed project’s consistency with the General Plan.

Various policies of the General Plan and the proposed Specific Plan would promote Complete Streets, mixed-use and transit-oriented neighborhoods, and increased capacity for alternative transportation modes, which would help reduce air pollutant emissions. For example, Policy UF-12-a supports transit-oriented development near bus stops and BRT station stops. Policy UF-14-a supports a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment with solid connections for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Policy RC-4-b encourages incorporation of air quality maintenance requirements as conditions of approval for Specific Plans. Policy HC-3-d promotes green standards for affordable housing. Policy MT-2-c aims to reduce VMT through Infill Development.

Proposed Specific Plan Policies LU-1.2 and LU-2.3 aim to convert large strip shopping centers to mixed-use destinations, which would reduce VMT. Furthermore, Transportation Policies such as T-1 aim to create a network of safe, connected, and accessible Complete Streets for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit vehicles, and motorists. Policy T-2 aims to improve connectivity between residential areas and local and regional destinations. Policy T-3 contains measures to create a safer pedestrian and bicycle environment. Policy T-4 aims to create a more convenient and pleasant pedestrian environment. Policy T-6 contains measures to create greater connectivity within the community and improve bus stops. These policies promote active transit, clean air measures, and support the reduction in average vehicle trip distances, which contribute to reducing overall per capita VMT in the region.

Additionally, the proposed project would implement General Plan PEIR MM AIR-2.1, MM AIR-2.2, and MM AIR-3.1, which would serve to further reduce emissions generated by future development projects envisioned in the Specific Plan Area. General Plan PEIR MM AIR-2.1 and MM AIR-2.2 require the submittal of a technical assessment of project-specific construction phase and operation-related air quality impacts, and the identification of project-specific mitigation measures as appropriate, prior to future discretionary project approval. General Plan MM AIR-3.1 requires the submittal of a Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 38 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Health Risk Assessment and the inclusion of project-specific Best Available Control Technologies for Toxics (T-BACTs) as appropriate, prior to future discretionary approval for future industrial or warehousing projects located within established screening distances. These conditions of approval will ensure that individual future development projects in the Specific Plan Area do not have a significant impact on sensitive receptors.

Control Measures
The AQP contains a number of control measures, which are enforceable requirements through the adoption of rules and regulations. Future individual development projects under the Specific Plan would comply with all applicable District rules and regulations. Therefore, the proposed project complies with this criterion and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality attainment plan. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. This impact is related to the cumulative effect of a project’s regional criteria pollutant emissions. By its nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact resulting from emissions generated over a large geographic region. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development within the SJVAB, and this regional impact is a cumulative impact. In other words, new development projects (such as the proposed project) within the SJVAB would contribute to this impact only on a cumulative basis. No single project would be sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of regional air quality standards. Instead, a project’s emissions may be individually limited but cumulatively considerable when taken in combination with past, present, and future development projects. All new development that would result in an increase in air pollutant emissions above those assumed in regional AQPs would contribute to cumulative air quality impacts.

Buildout of future individual development projects under the Specific Plan would result in direct and indirect criteria air pollutant emissions from area, energy, and mobile sources. Area sources would include activities such as landscape maintenance and occasional architectural coatings. Energy sources would include electricity and natural gas combustion for space and water heating. Mobile sources would include vehicle trips associated with passenger cars.

At this time, it is too speculative to determine whether future individual development projects would result in cumulatively considerable net increases in criteria pollutants. The proposed project is a programmatic project and until specific future projects are proposed, the associated cumulative air pollution impacts cannot be determined or modeled at this time. The Valley Air District regional emission significance thresholds would be used to determine the proposed project’s impact significance.

Furthermore, the proposed Specific Plan policies emphasize development of mixed-use areas and improvements to active and public transit facilities that would contribute to reducing vehicle trips and VMT. As an example, the proposed project would create mixed-use areas and would integrate distinct neighborhood commercial development areas that would provide daily services and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 39 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx amenities for the nearby residences and businesses. Specific Plan policies such as these would reduce impacts related to cumulatively considerable air pollution.

As required by General Plan Policies RC-4-b and RC-4-c, future individual development projects would be required to use computer models used by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) to evaluate the air quality impacts of plans and projects that require environmental review. Future individual development projects will be required to develop and incorporate air quality maintenance requirements compatible with Air Quality Attainment and Maintenance Plans, as conditions of approval for development proposals. Future individual development projects would also implement General Plan MM AIR-2.1, MM AIR-2.2, MM AIR-3.1, MM AIR-3.2, and MM AIR-4.1. The proposed project would also implement project-specific MM AIR5 through MM AIR-10, which would reduce impacts related to construction and operation of future development in the Specific Plan Area. Given that future individual development projects will implement the listed General Plan policies and mitigation measures discussed above, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness. The Valley Air District considers a sensitive receptor to be a location that houses or attracts children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants.

Examples of sensitive receptors include hospitals, residences, convalescent facilities, and schools.

Reactive Organic Gases
Construction
ROG is emitted during the application of architectural coatings (painting). The amount emitted is dependent on the amount of ROG (or VOC) in the paint. ROG emissions are typically an indoor air quality health hazard concern rather than an outdoor air quality health hazard concern. Therefore, exposure to ROG during architectural coatings is a less than significant health impact.

There are three types of asphalt that are typically used in paving: asphalt cements, cutback asphalts, and emulsified asphalts. However, District Rule 4641 prohibits the use of the following types of asphalt: rapid cure cutback asphalt; medium cure cutback asphalt; slow cure asphalt that contains more than 0.5 percent of organic compounds that evaporate at 500°F or lower; and emulsified asphalt containing organic compounds, in excess of 3 percent by volume, that evaporate at 500°F or lower. An exception to this is medium cure asphalt when the National Weather Service official forecast of the high temperature for the 24-hour period following application is below 50°F.

The acute (short-term) health effects from worker direct exposure to asphalt fumes include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat. Other effects include respiratory tract symptoms and pulmonary function changes. The studies were based on occupational exposure of fumes. Residents are not in the immediate vicinity of the fumes; therefore, they would not be subjected to concentrations high enough to evoke a negative response. In addition, the restrictions that are placed on asphalt in the Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 40 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx San Joaquin Valley reduce ROG emissions from asphalt and exposure. The impact to nearby sensitive receptors from ROG during construction is less than significant.

Operation
During operation, ROG would be emitted primarily from motor vehicles. Direct exposure to ROG from project motor vehicles would not result in health effects, because the ROG would be distributed across miles and miles of roadway and in the air. The concentrations would not be great enough to result in direct health effects.

NOX, PM10, and PM2.5
As stated, the planned improvements, objectives and policies under the proposed Specific Plan would generally support a sustainable development pattern in accommodating future growth within the Specific Plan Area, which would generally contribute to reducing long-term criteria air pollutant emissions. In addition, application of the Valley Air District Rule 9510 and Regulation VIII would contribute to reducing operation- and construction-related NOX and particulate matter emissions.

Furthermore, Rule 9410 would also contribute to reducing operation-related mobile source emissions.

Toxic Air Contaminants
During construction and operation, the proposed project could result in emissions of several TACs that could potentially impact nearby sensitive receptors. The Valley Air District has defined health risk significance thresholds. These thresholds are represented as a cancer risk to the public and a non-cancer hazard from exposures to TACs. Cancer risk represents the probability (in terms of risk per million individuals) that an individual would contract cancer resulting from exposure to TACs continuously over a period of several years. The Valley Air District’s latest threshold of significance for TAC emissions is an increase in cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual of 20 in a million (formerly 10 in a million). Exposures to TACs can also result in both short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic) non-cancer health impacts. Such impacts could include illnesses related to reproductive effects, respiratory effects, eye sensitivity, immune effects, kidney effects, blood effects, central nervous system, birth defects, or other adverse environmental effects.

Construction of future individual development projects would involve the use of diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment that emit DPM, which is considered a TAC. Industrial land uses, such as chemical processing facilities, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities, have the potential to be substantial stationary sources that would require a permit from the Valley Air District for emissions of TACs. However, the Specific Plan does not propose any industrial uses.

Emissions of TACs would be controlled through permits issued by the Valley Air District and would be subject to further study and an HRA prior to the issuance of any necessary air quality permits. In addition to stationary/area sources of TACs, commercial operations could generate a substantial amount of DPM emissions from off-road equipment use and truck idling. New land uses in the proposed Plan Area that use diesel trucks, including trucks with Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs), could generate an increase in DPM that would contribute to cancer and non-cancer health risk in the SJVAB.

ARB developed a guidance document, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (ARB Handbook), to address the siting of sensitive land uses in the vicinity of freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasolinedispensing facilities. This guidance document was developed to assess compatibility and associated health risks when placing sensitive receptors near existing pollution sources. ARB’s recommendations for the siting of new sensitive land uses were based on a compilation of studies that evaluated data on the adverse health effects from proximity to air pollution sources. The key observation in these studies is that proximity to air pollution sources substantially increases both exposure and the potential for adverse health effects. Respiratory and cardiovascular problems including asthma, lung cancer, and premature death have been associated with living near major roadways and freeways. Children who live near major roadways and freeways have been found to have higher asthma rates and reduced lung function. There are three carcinogenic TACs that constitute the majority of the known health risks from motor vehicle traffic: DPM from trucks and benzene and butadiene from passenger vehicles. It has been found that outdoor concentrations are highest near the roadway and decrease with increasing distance downwind of the source. The ARB recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of urban roads with more than 100,000 vehicles per day or rural roads with more than 50,000 vehicles per day.11 General Plan PEIR Mitigation Measure AIR-3.2 requires that sources be sited in adherence to the recommendations included in the ARB Handbook, or that an HRA be performed and potential health impacts be mitigated.

Future development envisioned as a part of the proposed project would be required to comply with AB 2588 and ARB standards for diesel engines. While existing City policies and regulations are intended to minimize impacts associated with sensitive receptors, mitigation measures for future project developments that implement these policies and regulations are identified to ensure that the intended environmental protections are achieved. Compliance with General Plan PEIR Mitigation Measure AIR-3.1 would help to ensure that mobile sources of TACs not covered under the Valley Air District permits are considered during subsequent project-level environmental review. This mitigation measure requires the preparation of project-specific technical health risk assessments for certain discretionary large industrial or warehousing uses to evaluate operational-related health risk impacts to further ensure that operational-related emissions are reduced to a less than significant level. However, information regarding operational characteristics of future specific development projects and the associated emissions cannot be determined at the time of this analysis; therefore, 11 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 42 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx cumulative growth within the Specific Plan Area could result in an overall impact above the healthbased thresholds established by the Valley Air District.

In addition to operational emissions from new stationary sources of emissions and vehicle trips to and within the Plan Area, the proposed project would locate new sensitive receptors (residents) that could be subject to existing sources of TACs within the proposed project boundary. The California Supreme Court in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District concluded that agencies generally subject to CEQA are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents. However, various types of mitigation are potentially available to reduce potential impacts to new sensitive receptors in the Plan Area. General Plan PEIR Mitigation Measure AIR-3.2 identifies the use of the discretionary review process for residential and other sensitive land uses near freeways to impose site plan and design features aimed at minimizing exposure to environmental pollution. This mitigation measure would apply to the proposed project and help to reduce the potential health risks to future sensitive receptors located in the Specific Plan Area.

As required by General Plan Policies RC-4-b and RC-4-c, future individual development projects would be required to use computer models used by Valley Air District to evaluate the air quality impacts of plans and projects that require environmental review. Future individual development projects will be required to develop and incorporate air quality maintenance requirements compatible with Air Quality Attainment and Maintenance Plans, as conditions of approval for development proposals. Future individual development projects would also be required to implement General Plan MM AIR-2.1, MM AIR-2.2, MM AIR-3.1, MM AIR-3.2, and MM AIR-4.1) as well as MM AIR-5 through MM AIR-10. Given that future individual development projects will implement the listed policies and mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant. d) Result in other emission (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Odors can cause a variety of responses. The impact of an odor is dependent on interacting factors such as frequency (how often), intensity (strength), duration (in time), offensiveness unpleasantness), location, and sensory perception.

While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies.

Growth within the proposed Specific Plan Area could generate new sources of odors. Odors from the types of land uses that could generate objectional odors are regulated under Regulation IV, Prohibitions, Rule 4102, Nuisance, which states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such person or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.

Industrial land uses have the potential to generate objectionable odors. Examples of industrial projects are wastewater treatment plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch manufacturing plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. Agricultural operations, such as the existing agricultural land uses currently included in the Plan Area, may also generate odors.

Future developments in the Plan Area are not expected to include additional industrial or agricultural uses. The proposed project would develop different types of residential and retail activities, which are not typical odor-generating land uses. Potential impacts from odor sources would be mitigated through compliance with General Plan Policy PU-9-d and by enforcement actions by agencies with regulatory authority over odors. General Plan Policy PU-9-d would ensure that waste and recycling facilities are properly located. The Valley Air District addresses odor issues through Rule 4102– Nuisance. Facilities creating nuisance odors generating public complaints can result in Valley Air District enforcement action.

Future individual development projects consistent with the proposed project will be required to determine whether odors would be a potentially significant impact as part of CEQA review. In addition, projects containing sensitive receptors are not likely to be proposed near existing odor sources, such as agricultural operations. Projects proposing new receptors within screening level distances would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Proposal of a new source within the screening distance would require the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed facility includes odor controls within its design and through implementation of odor management practices to reduce odors to less than significant.

Development consistent with the proposed project could also result in sensitive receptors being constructed within the screening level distances from existing odor sources. These potential odor impacts on new sensitive receptors could be significant. When potential odor impacts on these new sensitive receptors occur, the Valley Air District has authority under Rule 4102 to require the owner of the odor-generating source to take actions that would reduce impacts to less than significant.

In addition to the existing regulatory programs described above, the proposed project would implement General Plan MM AIR-4.1, which requires developers of projects with the potential to generate significant odor to prepare an odor impact assessment and to implement odor control measures, as a condition of approval. Compliance with this mitigation measure required by the General Plan would further reduce potential impacts of objectionable odors to below a level of significance. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project’s policies would help to minimize Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 44 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx the effects of growth and development on air quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
The following General Plan PEIR mitigation measures apply to the proposed project:

MM AIR-2.1 Prior to future discretionary project approval, development project applicants shall prepare and submit to the Director of the City Planning and Development Department, or designee, a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction phase-related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) methodology for assessing construction impacts. If construction-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the Valley Air District adopted threshold of significance, the Planning and Development Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures into construction plans to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the Project Conditions of Approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce construction emissions include but are not limited to:
• Install temporary construction power supply meters on-site and use these to provide power to electric power tools whenever feasible. If temporary electric power is available on-site, forbid the use of portable gasoline- or diesel-fueled electric generators.
• Use of diesel oxidation catalysts and/or catalyzed diesel particulate traps on diesel equipment as feasible.
• Maintain equipment according to manufacturers’ specifications. • Restrict idling of equipment and trucks to a maximum of five minutes (per California Air Resources Board regulation).
• Phase grading operations to reduce disturbed areas and times of exposure. • Avoid excavation and grading during wet weather.
• Limit on-site construction routes and stabilize construction entrance(s). • Remove existing vegetation only when absolutely necessary. • Sweep up spilled dry materials (e.g., cement, mortar, or dirt track-out) immediately. Never attempt to wash them away with water. Use only minimal water for dust control.
• Store stockpiled materials and wastes under a temporary roof or secured plastic sheeting or tarp.

MM AIR-2.2 Prior to future discretionary project approval, development project applicants shall prepare and submit to the Director of the City Planning and Development Department, or designee, a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 45 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the Valley Air District adopted thresholds of significance, the Planning and Development Department shall require that applicants for new development projects 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 ARB Rule 2845 (13 California Code of Regulations 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.

MM AIR-3.1 Prior to future discretionary approval for projects 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 (TRUs), 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 proposed 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 San Joaquin Valley Air Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 46 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Pollution Control District (Valley Air District). If the HRA shows that the incremental health risks exceed their respective thresholds, as established by the Valley Air District 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 (DPM);
• 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.

MM AIR-3.2 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 ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (ARB Handbook). Sensitive land uses that are within the recommended buffer distances listed in the ARB 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 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District)thresholds, mitigation measures capable of reducing potential impacts to an acceptable level must be identified and approved by the City.

MM AIR-4.1 Require developers of projects with the potential to generate significant odor impacts as determined through review of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District)odor complaint history for similar facilities and consultation with the Valley Air District, to prepare an odor impact assessment and to implement odor control measures recommended by the Valley Air District or the City as needed to reduce the impact to a level deemed acceptable by the Valley Air District. 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.

The following project-specific mitigation measures apply to the proposed project:

MM AIR-5 As part of a standard grading permit submittal, the project applicant shall submit documentation to the City of Fresno that demonstrates that all off-road construction equipment in excess of 50 horsepower is equipped with engines meeting the United City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 47 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier IV Final off-road engine emission standards or cleaner. The construction contractor shall maintain records concerning its efforts to comply with this requirement during construction, including equipment lists. Off-road equipment descriptions and information may include but are not limited to equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine model year, engine certification (tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number. The project applicant and/or construction contractor shall submit the construction operations plan and records of compliance to the City of Fresno.

If engines that comply with Tier IV Final off-road emission standards are not commercially available, then the construction contractor shall use the next cleanest piece of off-road equipment (e.g., Tier IV Interim) available. For purposes of this mitigation measure, “commercially available” shall mean the availability of Tier IV Final engines taking into consideration factors such as (i) critical-path timing of construction; and (ii) geographic proximity to the project site of equipment. The contractor can maintain records for equipment that is not commercially available by providing letters from at least two rental companies for each piece of off-road equipment where the Tier IV Final engine is not available.

MM AIR-6 Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for each individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for each development shall provide the City with documentation demonstrating the use of “Super-Compliant” architectural coatings, as defined by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD), during construction of the proposed project. “SuperCompliant” architectural coatings, as defined by the South Coast AQMD, are paints which do not exceed 10 grams of reactive organic gas (ROG) per liter of paint.

All architectural coatings shall be applied either by (1) using a high-volume, lowpressure 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 application efficiency. The construction contractor shall also use precoated/natural colored building materials, where feasible.

MM AIR-7 All nonresidential buildings shall be designed to provide infrastructure to support use of electric-powered forklifts and/or other interior vehicles.

All nonresidential buildings shall be designed to provide electric infrastructure to support use of exterior yard trucks and on-site vehicles. The operation of yard trucks that are used to move trailers and on-site vehicles within the project site shall be powered by electricity unless the project applicant can reasonably demonstrate that specific equipment is not available for a task. Compliance with this mitigation measure shall be verified by the City of Fresno prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 48 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx MM AIR-8 Each implementing development project shall be required to implement, at a minimum, an increase in each building’s energy efficiency 15 percent beyond Title 24, and reduce indoor water use by 25 percent. All requirements will be documented through a checklist to be submitted to the City of Fresno prior to issuance of building permits for the implementing development project with building plans and calculations.

MM AIR-9 Prior to issuance of building permits for non-single-family residential and mixed-use residential development projects in the Plan Area, the project applicant shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of Fresno prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. • Electric vehicle (EV) charging shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Code.
• Bicycle parking shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.

MM AIR-10 Prior to the issuance of building permits for nonresidential development projects in the Plan Area, project applicants shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of Fresno prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
• For buildings with more than 10 tenant-occupants, changing/shower facilities shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Code. • Preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.5.1 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
• Facilities shall be installed to support future electric vehicle (EV) charging at each nonresidential building with 30 or more parking spaces. Installation shall be consistent with Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.

2.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State
Habitat Conservation Plan?
Environmental Evaluation
Introduction
As noted in the proposed Specific Plan, the land use designations of the Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan buildout assumptions; however, the Specific Plan proposes changing the land use designation for some of the Plan Area’s parcels, which will require the General Plan Land Use map to be amended. These proposed land use designation changes would reduce the total amount of development compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan for the Specific Plan Area.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 50 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx This section describes the existing biological setting and potential effects from project implementation in the Specific Plan Area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based, in part, on the General Plan, proposed Specific Plan, the City of Fresno Municipal Code (Municipal Code), aerial photographs and maps, the existing conditions report prepared for the proposed project, and the results of database searches.

Environmental Setting
Vegetation Communities and Wildlife Habitats
For the purposes of the evaluation contained in the following analysis, vegetation communities are classified according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Natural Communities List.

Overall, the Specific Plan Area is mainly comprised of previously disturbed urban and developed areas and includes several types of vegetation communities as shown on Exhibit 6, which includes a map of the vegetation communities’ locations in the Specific Plan Area.

There are a total of five vegetation communities within the Specific Plan Area. Of these vegetation communities identified, none are considered special-status natural communities by CDFW. Table 5, below, describes the vegetation communities identified in the Specific Plan Area as well as their associated acreages and percentages of the total Specific Plan Area.12 Table 5: Vegetation Communities within the Specific Plan Area Vegetation Community Type
Total Acreage within the Specific Plan
Area (acres)
Approximate Percentage of the Total
Specific Plan Area
Urban 2,054.4 95%
Irrigated Row and Field Crops 25.05 1%
Deciduous Orchard 74.41 3%
Annual Grassland 0.06 Less than 1%
Lacustrine 14.42 Less than 1%
Source: City of Fresno, 2020.

As described above, approximately 95 percent of land cover in the Specific Plan Area includes urban, developed land, consisting of commercial and residential development as well as roadways and parking lots. Approximately 4 percent of the Specific Plan Area includes previously disturbed agricultural lands and orchards. Generally, as shown on Exhibit 6, the majority of the deciduous orchard and irrigated row and field crop communities are concentrated at the eastern boundary of the Specific Plan Area.
12 City of Fresno. 2020. Fresno General Plan, Program Environmental Impact Report. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/generalplan-development-code/. Accessed September 27, 2022.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
50000002 • 10/2022 | 6_land_cover_veg.mxd
Exhibit 6
Land Cover Types and
Vegetation Communities
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery. USFS Central Valley Vegetation Cover Types

CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN

SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Belmont Ave
Chestnut Ave
Winery Ave
Kings Canyon Rd
Tulare St
Maple Ave
Cedar Ave
Orange Ave
Butler Ave
Drummond Ave
East Ave
Hamilton Ave
Cedar Ave
Olive Ave
Maple Ave
Huntington Blvd
Belmont Ave
1st St
Church Ave Church Ave
Peach Ave Peach Ave
Golden State Blvd
99 180
168
2,400 1,200 0 2,400
Feet
Legend
Fresno Central Southeast Specific Plan Area 2,168.34 acres Annual Grasland 0.06 acre
Deciduous Orchard 74.41 acres
Irrigated Row and Field Crops 25.05 acres
Lacustrine 14.42 acres
Urban 2,054.40 acres
Annual Grasland

This community provides poor
quality habitat for any specialstatus species. Special-status species are unlikely to occur within
this vegetation community.

Irrigated
Row and
Field Crops
Irrigated Row and Field Crops land occurs most frequently in floodplains or upland areas with high soil quality.

Irrigated row and field crows include annual and perennial crops, grown in rows, with open space between the rows.

Row and field crops are artificially irrigated and feature a moderate disturbance rate by vehicle and pedestrian
encroachment typically associated with farming activities.

Species composition changes frequently, both by season
and by year.

This community contains active
agriculture and is significantly
disturbed with altered substrates.

This vegetation community does
not provide suitable habitat for any
special-status plant species and
provides limited habitat for two
special-status wildlife species:
burrowing owl, California horned
lark.

Deciduous
Orchard
Deciduous orchard communities primarily occur where
there are flat alluvial soils on valley floors, rolling foothills and relatively steep slopes. Orchard communities are
typically comprised of artificially irrigated habitat
dominated by one, sometimes several, tree or shrub
species planted for cultivation. Trees are typically low and bushy, and the understory is open, with little groundcover.

In the City and its SOI, deciduous orchards include a variety of fruit trees (e.g., apples, apricots, cherries, citrus, kiwi, peaches, nectarines, pears, persimmons, plums, pluots,
pomegranates, etc.) and/or nut trees and shrubs (e.g.,
almonds, olives, pistachios, walnuts, etc.). Understory species generally consist of short native and non-native grasses and other herbaceous species.

This community is relatively
disturbed, containing very little
groundcover and planted trees that
provide moderately suitable
habitat for only one special-status
species: California horned lark.

Lacustrine Lacustrine communities consist of standing/open waters in topographic depressions (i.e., lakes) or dammed river
channels. Lacustrine communities lack persistent emergent vegetation but may have submerged or floating-leaved
aquatic vegetation. Generally, lacustrine systems are
surrounded by hydrophytic plants, grasses, and trees.

This community provides a suitable
habitat for species that need
standing/open waters: western
spadefoot, tricolored blackbird,
hoary bat, spotted bat, western
pond turtle, dwarf downingia, and
Sanford’s arrowhead.

Annual
Grassland
Annual grassland communities includes a mix of native and non-native, annual grasses, which often occur in
association with ruderal herbs and occasional native
annual forbs. The dominant plant species within the annual grassland vegetation community typically include black
needlegrass (Nasella sp.), fescue (Vulpia sp.), brome
(Bromus sp.), and wild oats (Avena spp), with mustard
(Brassica nigra), dove weed (Eremocarpus setigerus), and poppy (Eschscholzia sp.). These grasses germinate with the This community supports several
special-status species that have the
potential to occur in the Specific
Plan Area. These special-status
species include the American
Badger, Burrowing owl, California
horned lark, California tiger
salamander, Fresno kangaroo rat,
Pallid bat, San Joaquin kit fox, San
Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 56 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Vegetation
Community
Type Description Suitability for Special-Status Species fall rains, grow during the winter and spring, and wither in the early summer.

Joaquin pocket mouse, Swainson’s
hawk, Western mastiff bat,
Western spadefoot, Hartweg’s
golden sunburst, Caper-fruited
tropidocarpum, California jewel
flower, Dwarf downingia, Spiny‐
sepaled button‐celery, Succulent
owl’s clover, and Greene’s tuctoria.

Source: Esri Imagery 2022; City of Fresno 2020.

The special-status species, including plants and wildlife in the Specific Plan Area, are further discussed in detail below.

Special-status Plant Species
A special-status plant species is defined as any plant species which is listed, or proposed for listing, as threatened or endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act.14 This includes any species designated by USFWS as a “candidate” or “species of concern” or species identified on California Native Plant Societty’s Lists 1A, 1B, or 2, implying potential danger or extinction.

According to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), six special-status plants have the potential to occur in the Specific Plan Area. Table 7 describes the three special-status plant species listed for the Specific Plan Area and their legal status as shown on Exhibit 7 as well as the three plant species and their legal status that are not shown on Exhibit 7, but which are also known to occur within this 4-quad radius of the Specific Plan Area.15
Table 7: Special-status Plant Species within the Plan Area Special-status Species Name
Federal Legal
Status
State Legal
Status
CNPS List and
Threat
Shown on Exhibit 7
California satintail (Imperata brevifolia) None None CNPS 2B.1 California jewel flower (Caulanthus californicus) FE SE CNPS 1B.1 Madera leptosiphon (Leptosiphon serrulatus) None None CNPS 1B.2 Not Shown on Exhibit 7
Succulent owl’s clover (Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta) FT SE CNPS 1B.2 14 City of Fresno. 2014. Fresno General Plan. December 18 Website: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wpcontent/uploads/sites/10/2019/07/ConsolidatedGP6182020.pdf. Accessed September 27, 2022. 15 California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 2022. Rare Plant Program. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9-01 1.5). Website:
https://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed September 27, 2022.

Listing Status:

FE = Federally Listed Endangered
FT = Federally Listed Threatened
FC = Federal Species of Concern
SE = State Listed Endangered
ST = State Listed Threatened
SR = State Rare
SSC = California Species of Special Concern
SP = State Fully Protected Species
CNPS Lists:

Rank 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere Rank 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere Rank 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California but common elsewhere Rank 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere Rank 3: Plants about which more information is needed
Rank 4: Watch List: Plants of limited distribution
CNPS Treat Code Extensions:
1 = Seriously endangered in California
2 = Fairly endangered in California
3 = Not very endangered in California
Sources: California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) 2022.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 2022.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FirstCarbon Solutions 59
Exhibit 7: CNDDB Special-status Species Occurrences
This exhibit contains sensitive information relating to biological resources and is not intended for public distribution pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21082.3(C)(2). A copy of confidential Exhibit 7: CNDDB Special-Status Species Occurrences is on file with the City of Fresno and is available to qualified professionals upon request.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 61 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Special-status Wildlife Species
A special-status wildlife species is defined as any wildlife species which is listed, or proposed for listing, as threatened or endangered by the USFWS or National Marine Fisheries Service under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act.16 It also includes any species designated by the CDFW as a “candidate” or “species of concern.”
According to the CNDDB, 21 special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur in the Specific Plan Area. Table 8 describes the nine special-status wildlife species listed for the Specific Plan Area and their legal status as shown on Exhibit 7 as well as the 12 special-status wildlife species and their legal status that are not shown on Exhibit 7, but which are also known to occur within this 4-quad radius of the Specific Plan Area.

Table 8: Special-status Wildlife Species within the Plan Area Special-status Species Name
Federal Legal
Status
State Legal
Status
Shown on Exhibit 7
Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) None ST
Northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra) None SSC California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis) None SSC Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) None SSC
California tiger salamander–Central California DPS (Ambystoma californiense pop. 1)
FT None
Molestan blister beetle (lytta molesta) – –
Crotch’s bumble bee (bombus crotchii) – –
Antioch efferian robberfly (Efferia antiochi) – –
Hurd’s retapogon robberfly (Metapogon hurdi) – –
Not Shown on Exhibit 7
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) None SSC
Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) FT None
Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) None SSC
Great egret (Ardea alba) – –
Western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) None SSC
California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis) – –
Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) – –
Snowy egret (Egretta thula) – –
16 City of Fresno. 2014. Fresno General Plan. December 18 Website: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wpcontent/uploads/sites/10/2019/07/ConsolidatedGP6182020.pdf. Accessed July 7, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 62 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Special-status Species Name
Federal Legal
Status
State Legal
Status
Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) – –
Black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) – –
Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) None SSC
American badger (Taxidea taxus) None SSC
Notes:

Listing Status:

Rank 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere Rank 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere Rank 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California but common elsewhere Rank 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere Rank 3: Plants about which more information is needed
Rank 4: Watch List: Plants of limited distribution
CNPS Treat Code Extensions:
.1 = Seriously endangered in California
.2 = Fairly endangered in California
.3 = Not very endangered in California
Source: California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) 2022.

Project-related impacts to the Specific Plan Area’s vegetation communities and special-status species are further described in the analysis below.

Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. This analysis evaluates the potential for the Specific Plan Area to support special-status plant and wildlife species. The description and legal status of these species is presented in Table 7 and Table 8 above. Exhibit 7 shows the records for special-status plants and animals contained within the CNDDB as of September 2022 within a 4-quad radius of the Specific Plan Area.

Development under the proposed project would result in additional new residential and nonresidential land use development throughout the Specific Plan Area. The proposed project may City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 63 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx result in other private and public improvements throughout the Specific Plan Area with the potential for environmental effects related to Biological Resources. Thus, development consistent with the proposed project could result in the direct and indirect loss of natural vegetation communities that provide suitable habitat for 27 special-status plant and wildlife species that have the potential to occur or are known to occur within the Specific Plan Area. The vegetation communities within the Specific Plan Area that provide suitable habitat for listed and other special-status species are described above. Development within the Specific Plan Area could result in the loss or degradation of natural habitats such as lacustrine, riverine, and pasture, which may support special-status plant and wildlife species. Project-related impacts to any of these habitat types may result in a substantial adverse effect, if it is determined that a special-status species would be impacted, either directly or through habitat modifications.

Special-status Plant Species
A significant impact to special-status plant species would occur if future development under the proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.

Special-status and rare plant surveys were not conducted within the Specific Plan Area. However, as shown on Exhibit 7, a database search was conducted to identify where rare plants occurences are located within the Specific Plan Area. The results of that search determined that six special-species plants have limited potential to occur in the Specific Plan Area, as shown in Table 7. If individuals of these species are present in the Specific Plan Area, plants could be adversely impacted from development (e.g., soil compaction, trampling, or earthmoving activities) of the Specific Plan Area.

Special-status Wildlife Species
A significant impact would occur if future development under the proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.

Special-status wildlife surveys were not conducted within the Specific Plan Area. However, as shown on Exhibit 7, a database search was conducted to identify where special-status wildlife is located within the Specific Plan Area. The results of that search determined that 21 special-species wildlife have limited potential to occur in the Speciifc Plan Area, as shown in Table 8.

Direct project impacts to species listed as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species by local, State, and federal agencies should be avoided to the greatest extent feasible; however, it is acknowledged it may not be feasible for future projects to avoid these species. Project-related impacts that result in the direct take of a special-status species may be considered a significant impact. The presence or absence of a special-status species on a project site and the potential to impact a special-status species must be determined prior to project construction. If development within the Specific Plan Area results in the direct take or loss of suitable habitat for any of the 27 special-status species that have the potential to occur in the Specific Plan Area, project-level sitespecific mitigation would be required to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant levels.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 64 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Project impacts to special-status species listed as threatened or endangered by CDFW and/or USFWS may also require agency consultation and/or take permits. However, future development in the Specific Plan Area would be required to comply with the following General Plan policies pertaining to biological resources, specifically within the Parks, Open Space, and Schools Element (POSS), as outlined above. Project-level implementation of the General Plan Policies POSS-5-a through POSS-5-f would reduce potential project impacts to special-status species and their associated habitats.

Furthermore, the proposed project would incorporate General Plan PEIR MM BIO-1.1 through MM BIO-1.4, which would ensure that if one or more of these special-status species occur in the Specific Plan Area, their presence would be detected and the risk of mortality would be avoided to the maximum extent feasible.

Additionally, all future development in the Specific Plan Area would be required to comply with the proposed Specific Plan policies pertaining to biological resources, including Policy OS-2.2, which protects passive open space, and Policy OS-5.2, which protects habitat corridors.

The Municipal Code also includes policies pertaining to biological resources that relate to future development within the Specific Plan Area, such as Section 12-4.1302 and 12-4.1303 that prevent infill developments from occurring within habitats that can be used for endangered, rare, or threatened species.

Implementation of the City’s relevant General Plan policies pertaining to biological resources (POSS5-a through POSS-5-f); adopted General Plan PEIR MM BIO-1.1 to MM BIO-1.4; Specific Plan policies (OS-2.2 and OS-5.2); and Sections 12-4.1302 and 12-4.1303 of the Municipal Code would reduce impacts to special-status species to a less than significant level. Avoidance and mitigation to protect said species would reduce all impacts to less than significant. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Sensitive natural communities are vegetation communities or special wildlife habitats that are rare or occur in limited distributions or provide specific habitat requirements for special-status plant or wildlife species. The CDFW maintains a list of natural communities which attempts to classify vegetation types found within the State of California and rank them based on rarity. Communities ranked S1-S3 are considered sensitive natural communities.17 Riparian habitat is defined as any habitat with characteristic vegetation relating to or located on the bank of a natural watercourse, often described as riparian corridors.

A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFW.
17 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022. Natural Communities List, Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities. Accessed September 27, 2022.

However, the presence of riparian habitat and/or a sensitive natural community on a project site must be evaluated prior to project approval. Any project-related impacts to riparian habitat and/or a sensitive natural community are considered a significant impact and require mitigation. Project-level implementation of the approved General Plan Objective (POSS-6) and Policies (POSS-6-a and POSS-6- b), and Objective (POSS-7) and Policies (POSS-7-a through POSS-7-d) will reduce potential project impacts to riparian habitats. Further, incorporation of the General Plan MMs BIO-2.1 to MM BIO-2.3 would ensure that sensitive natural communities and/or riparian habitats are not significantly impacted. Thus, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Wetlands are defined as areas that are permanently wet or periodically covered with shallow water, such as saltwater and freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish marshes, swamps, mud flats, and fens.18 A significant impact would occur if the construction or operations of the proposed project produced a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands including marshes, vernal pools, coastal, etc., through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means.

Development within the Specific Plan Area, particularly in undeveloped areas with the potential to support wetland habitat (e.g., pasture/grassland), could result in the loss of jurisdictional wetland habitat, which includes vernal pool habitats, seasonal wetlands and waters of the United States or intermittent/permanent water bodies. Any project-related impacts that result in the significant alteration or fill of a State or federally protected wetland is considered a significant impact.

Additionally, special-status species associated with wetlands and vernal pool habitats, such as vernal pool fairy shrimp, may be impacted as a result of project impacts to protected wetlands. Projectspecific agency (i.e., CDFW, RWQCB, and/or USACE) coordination and/or regulatory permitting would be required to reduce potential project impacts to wetland habitat. The implementation of Policies (POSS-6-a through POSS-7-d) would reduce potential project impacts to wetlands and wetland habitat. Further, incorporation of the General Plan PEIR MM BIO-3.1 and MM BIO-3.2 into the conditions of approval would ensure that wetlands are not significantly impacted. Thus, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
18 City of Fresno. 2014. Fresno General Plan. December 18. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wpcontent/uploads/sites/10/2019/07/ConsolidatedGP6182020.pdf. Accessed September 27, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 66 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
Less than significant impact. A wildlife corridor is defined as a natural corridor, such as an undeveloped ravine, that is frequently used by wildlife to travel from one area to another.19 A significant impact would occur if any construction or operations of the proposed project would interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridor or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites.

As previously discussed, the majority of the Specific Plan Area includes disturbed land. These areas are mainly surrounded by existing development and disturbed habitat areas resulting in habitat fragmentation. Because of the isolation of these areas, there are not many substantive linkages to consider them as part of a wildlife movement corridor. Regardless, all future development would be required to comply with the approved General Plan, including Policies (POSS-6-a through POSS-7-d) that would reduce impacts to wildlife movement corridors by providing buffer zones, control stormwater runoff, and providing periodic monitoring of the biological resource conditions. These policies would reduce potential impacts to wildlife movement corridors to a less than significant level.

The Municipal Code also includes policies pertaining to fish and wildlife movement corridors that relate to future development within the Plan Area such as Section 12-5.510, which also dictates that all practical and reasonable measures should be taken to protect fish and wildlife and preserve wildlife corridors.

Additionally, all future development in the Specific Plan Area resulting from the proposed project must comply with the proposed Specific Plan policies pertaining to biological resources, including Policy OS-2.2, which protects passive open space, and Policy OS-5.2, which protects habitat corridors. As such, impacts would be less than significant. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if any construction or operation within the proposed project would conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Future development projects must meet restrictions mandated by Section 13-305 of the Municipal Code which defines “Protected Trees” and sets forth the requirements for mitigating impacts to protected trees.

Project development within the Specific Plan Area may result in the removal or alteration of existing street and public trees within the boundaries of the Specific Plan Area. Existing preserved trees and landscaped trees within public property, including parkways, must be preserved in order to beautify the City, purify its air, and provide shade for its inhabitants. 19 City of Fresno. 2014. Fresno General Plan. December 18 Website: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wpcontent/uploads/sites/10/2019/07/ConsolidatedGP6182020.pdf. Accessed September 27, 2022.

Mitigation Measures
The following General Plan PEIR mitigation measures apply to the proposed project:

MM BIO-1.1 Construction of a proposed project shall avoid, where possible, vegetation communities that provide suitable habitat for special-status species known to occur within the Planning Area. If construction within potentially suitable habitat must occur, the presence/absence of any special-status plant or wildlife species must be determined prior to construction, to determine whether the habitat supports any special-status species. If special-status species are determined to occupy any portion of a project site, avoidance and minimization measures shall be incorporated into the construction phase of a project to avoid direct or incidental take of a listed species to the greatest extent feasible. Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to special-status species shall be determined on a case-by-case basis through agency consultation during the review process for discretionary projects, and shall be consistent with survey protocols and mitigations measures recommended by the agency at the time of consultation.

MM BIO-1.2 Direct or incidental take of any State or federally listed species shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. If construction of a proposed project will result in the direct or incidental take of a listed species, consultation with the resource agencies and/or additional permitting may be required. Agency consultation through the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2081 and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 7 or Section 10 permitting processes shall take place prior to any action that may result in the direct or incidental take of a listed Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 68 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx species. Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to a listed species will be determined on a case-by-case basis through agency consultation during the review process for discretionary projects, and shall be consistent with survey protocols and mitigations measures recommended by the agency at the time of consultation.

MM BIO-1.3 Development within the Planning Area shall avoid, where possible, special-status natural communities and vegetation communities that provide suitable habitat for special-status species. If a proposed project will result in the loss of a special-status natural community or suitable habitat for special-status species, compensatory habitat-based mitigation is required under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Mitigation shall consist of preserving on-site habitat, restoring similar habitat or purchasing off-site credits from an approved mitigation bank. Compensatory mitigation shall be determined through consultation with the City and/or resource agencies. An appropriate mitigation strategy and ratio shall be agreed upon by the developer and lead agency to reduce project impacts to special-status natural communities to a less than significant level. Agreed-upon mitigation ratios shall depend on the quality of the habitat and presence/absence of a special-status species. Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to special-status natural communities and vegetation communities shall be determined on a case-by-case basis through agency consultation during the review process for discretionary projects, and shall be consistent with survey protocols and mitigations measures recommended by the agency at the time of consultation.

MM BIO-1.4 Proposed projects within the Planning Area should avoid, if possible, construction within the general nesting season of February through August for avian species protected under Fish and Game Code 3500 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), if it is determined that suitable nesting habitat occurs on a project site. If construction cannot avoid the nesting season, a pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist to determine whether any nesting birds or nesting activity is observed on or within 500 feet of a project site. If an active nest is observed during the survey, a biological monitor shall be on-site to ensure that no proposed project activities would impact the active nest. A suitable buffer shall be established around the active nest until the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Project activities may continue in the vicinity of the nest only at the discretion of the biological monitor. Prior to commencement of grading activities and issuance of any building permits, the Director of the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department, or designee, shall verify that all proposed project grading and construction plans include specific documentation regarding the requirements of the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code Section 5303, that pre-construction surveys have been completed and the results reviewed by staff, and that the appropriate buffers (if needed) are noted on the plans and established in the field.

Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to avian species City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 69 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx protected under Fish and Game Code 3500 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) shall be determined on a case-by-case basis through agency consultation during the review process for discretionary projects, and shall be consistent with survey protocols and mitigations measures recommended by the agency at the time of consultation.

MM BIO-2.1 A pre-construction clearance survey, following current California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) protocols, shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist to determine whether 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 Planning 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 inkind 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 United States Fish and Wildlife Service [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.

MM BIO-2.2 A pre-construction clearance survey, following current California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) protocols, shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist to determine whether 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 Clean Water Act (CWA). The project applicant/developer for a proposed project shall consult with partner agencies such as California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or United States Army Corp of Engineers (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.

MM BIO-2.3 Prior to project approval, a pre-construction clearance survey, following current California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) protocols, shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist to determine whether a proposed project would 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 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 70 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx MM BIO-3.1 If a proposed project will result in the significant alteration or fill of a federally protected wetland, a formal wetland delineation conducted according to the United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE)-accepted methodology is required for each project to determine the extent of wetlands on a project site. The delineation shall be used to determine whether 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 at a ratio according to the size of the impacted wetland.

MM BIO-3.2 In addition to regulatory agency permitting, Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified from a list provided by the United States Army Corp of Engineers (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.

2.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
d) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1(k), or
e) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Environmental Evaluation
Introduction
As noted in the proposed Specific Plan, the land use designations of the Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan buildout assumptions; however, the Specific Plan proposes changing the land use designation for some of the Plan Area’s parcels, which will require the General Plan Land Use map to be amended. These proposed land use designation changes would reduce the total amount of development compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan for the Specific Plan Area.

Environmental Setting
This section describes the existing cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) setting and potential effects from project implementation in the Specific Plan Area. Descriptions and analysis in this Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 72 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx section are based on the General Plan, Fresno Municipal Code, the Office of Historic Preservation Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Fresno County, the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) records search for the Specific Plan Area, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), and the California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) list.

The non-confidential record search results, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) correspondence, and pedestrian survey photographs are provided in Appendix A.

Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center
On October 6, 2021, a records search for the project site and a 0.5-mile radius beyond the Specific Plan Area boundaries, was conducted at the SSJVIC located at California State University, Bakersfield.

To identify additional historic properties or resources, the current inventories of the NRHP, the CRHR, the California Historical Landmarks (CHL) list, the CPHI list, and the BERD for Fresno County were reviewed to determine the existence of previously documented local historical resources.

Ethnographic resources were also reviewed for information regarding reported Native American village sites located within the City.

Results from the records search indicate 68 resources (67 of which are historic, one of which is both historic and protohistoric, and one of which is an informal resource) have been recorded within a

0.5-mile radius of the Specific Plan Area as shown on Table 9. Thirty-five of those resources are located within the Specific Plan Area. In addition, 40 previous studies are on file with the SSJVIC within a 0.5-mile radius of the Specific Plan Area, 18 of which address locations within the Specific Plan Area itself as shown on Table 10.

Table 9: Cultural Resources Recorded Within a 0.5-mile Radius of the Specific Plan Area Resource No. Resource Description Date Recorded
Within the Specific
Plan Area?
P-10-003930 Southern Pacific Railroad, Historic AH07
(Roads/trails/railroad grades), HP11
(Engineering structure)
1998, 1999, 2002,
2004, 2009, 2010,
2013, 2015, 2016, 2018
Yes
P-10-004248 California Products Co. HP02 (Single-family property),
1978 No
P-10-004249 The Giffen Home, HP02 (Single-family property) Unknown Yes P-10-004253 Shuttera Residence, HP02 (Single-family
property)
1978 No
P-10-004274 Sckitchfield Residence; Hughes Residence, HP02 (Single-family property)
Unknown No
P-10-004280 San Joaquin Grocers Wholesale Warehouse,
HP06 (1-3 story commercial building)
1978 No
P-10-004286 Sun Maid Raisin Plant, HP33 (Farm/ranch); HP95 (Concrete Construction)
1978 No
P-10-004287 Old Barn, HP39 (Other)–Barn/Garage Unknown No City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 73 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Resource No. Resource Description Date Recorded
Within the Specific
Plan Area?
P-10-004299 Mingle Transportation and Warehouse
Company; Fresno Brewery, HP06 (1-3 story
commercial building)
1978, 1983 No
P-10-004310 The Robinson Home, HP02 (Single-family
property)
Unknown No
P-10-004312 The Euless Home, HP02 (Single-family property) Unknown No P-10-004349 Van Ness Entrance Gate, HP46
(Walls/gates/fences)
1978 No
P-10-004675 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, HP19
(Bridge); HP37 (Highway/trail)–Rail Road
2000, 2019 Yes
P-10-004677 Central Canal, HP20 (Canal/aqueduct) 2000, 2003, 2004 No P-10-004762 133 S. Peach Avenue, HP02 (Single-family
property); HP04 (Ancillary building)
2001 No
P-10-004763 144 S. Peach Avenue, HP02 (Single-family
property); HP04 (Ancillary building)
2001 No
P-10-004764 145 S. Peach Avenue, HP02 (Single-family
property)
2001 No
P-10-004765 The Steinwand Home, HP02 (Single-family
property); HP04 (Ancillary building); HP33
(Farm/ranch)
2001 No
P-10-004766 317 S. Peach Avenue, HP02 (Single-family
property); HP04 (Ancillary building)
2001 No
P-10-004767 358 S. Peach Avenue, HP02 (Single-family
property); HP04 (Ancillary building)
2001 No
P-10-004768 The John M. Euless Home, HP02 (Single-family property); HP04 (Ancillary building)
1994 No
P-10-004769 270 N. Peach Avenue, HP02 (Single-family
property)
2001 No
P-10-004770 284 N. Peach Avenue, HP02 (Single-family
property); HP04 (Ancillary building)
2001 No
P-10-005120 Martin Dedkian Residence; Mardiros S.

Asadoorian Residence, HP02 (Single-family
property)
1992 No
P-10-005121 Kings Canyon-Peach Site; Mosesian & Sons; San Joaquin Winery, HP08 (Industrial building)–
Packing facility
1992 No
P-10-005225 The Lindstrom Residence; The Olivas Residence, HP02 (Single-family property)
1997 No
P-10-005305 USDA Horticultural Field Station, HP04 (Ancillary building); HP14 (Government building); HP30
2003, 2005 No
Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 74 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Resource No. Resource Description Date Recorded
Within the Specific
Plan Area?
(Trees/vegetation); HP33 (Farm/ranch); HP35
(New Deal Public Works Project)
P-10-005306 4808 E. Balch Avenue, HP02 (Single-family
property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005307 4814 E. Balch Avenue; Lot 8 in Block 2 of
Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family
property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005308 4818 E. Balch Avenue; Lot 7 in Block 2 of
Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family
property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005309 4826 E. Balch Avenue; Lot 5 in Block 2 of
Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family
property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005310 4830 E. Balch Avenue; Lot 4 in Block 2 of
Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family
property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005311 4836 E. Balch Avenue; Lot 3 in Block 2 of
Mitchell Simpson Tract, City of Fresno, HP02
(Single-family property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005312 4844 E. Balch Avenue; Lot 1 in Block 2 of
Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family
property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005313 4845 E. Inyo Avenue; Lot 20 in Block 2 of
Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family
property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005314 4841 E. Inyo Avenue; Lot 19 in Block 2 of
Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family
property); HP04 (Ancillary building)
2003 Yes
P-10-005315 4835 E. Inyo Avenue; Lot 18 in Block 2 of
Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family
property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005316 4831 E. Inyo Avenue, HP02 (Single-family
property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005317 4827 E. Inyo Avenue; Lot 16 in Block 2 of
Mitchell Simpson Tract, in the City of Fresno,
HP02 (Single-family property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005318 4821 E. Inyo Avenue; Lot 15 in Block 2 of
Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family
property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005319 4817 E. Inyo Avenue; Lot 14 in Block 2 of
Mitchell Simpson, HP02 (Single-family property)
2003 Yes
City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 75 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Resource No. Resource Description Date Recorded
Within the Specific
Plan Area?
P-10-005320 4813 E. Inyo Avenue; Lot 13 in Block 2 of
Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family
property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005321 4808 E. Inyo Avenue; Lot 9 and the East 20 feet of Lot 10 in Block 3 of Mitchell Simpson Tract,
HP02 (Single-family property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005322 4812 E. Inyo Avenue; Lot 8 in Block 3 of Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005323 4816 E. Inyo Avenue; Lot 7 in Block 3 of Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005324 4822 E. Inyo Avenue; Lot 6 in Block 3 of Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005325 4826 E. Inyo Avenue; Lot 5 in Block 3 of Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005326 4830 E. Inyo Avenue; Lot 4 in Block 3 of Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005327 4834 E. Inyo Avenue; Lot 3 in Block 3 of Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005328 4840 E. Inyo Avenue; Lot 2 in Block 3 of Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005329 4844 E. Inyo Avenue; Lot 1 in Block 3 of Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005330 4845 E. Mono Avenue; Lot 20 in Block 3 of
Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family
property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005331 4841 E. Mono Avenue; Lot 19 in Block 3 of
Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family
property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005332 4835 E. Mono Avenue; Lot 18 in Block 3 in
Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family
property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005333 4831 E. Mono Avenue; The East 1/2 of Lot 16 and all of Lot 17 in Block 3 of Mitchell Simpson
Tract, HP02 (Single-family property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005334 4817 E. Mono Avenue, HP02 (Single-family
property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005335 4815 E. Mono Avenue; Lot 13 in Block 3 of
Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family
property)
2003 Yes
P-10-005336 4809 E. Mono Avenue; Lot 12 in Block 3 of
Mitchell Simpson Tract, HP02 (Single-family
property)
2003 Yes
Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 76 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Resource No. Resource Description Date Recorded
Within the Specific
Plan Area?
P-10-006224 Berberian Residence; Map Reference No.1;
Portion of Lot 24 of the Newhall Tract, HP02
(Single-family property)
2003 No
P-10-006225 Map Reference No.2; Garza Residence, HP02
(Single-family property)
2003 No
P-10-006594 S-31, HP02 (Single-family property) – Craftsman 1992 No P-10-006595 S-32, HP02 (Single-family property)–Modern 1992 No P-10-006596 S-33, HP02 (Single-family property)–Craftsman 1992 No P-10-006599 S-68, HP02 (Single-family property)–Tudor
Revival
1992 No
P-10-006600 S-69, HP03 (Multiple-family property)–Tudor Revival
1992 No
P-10-006601 S-70, HP02 (Single-family property)–Modern 1992 No P-10-007094 APN 478-162-01 Historical Deposit, AH04
(Privies/dumps/trash scatters)
2018 No
Source: Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) Records Search. October 18, 2021.

Table 10: Previous Investigations Within a 0.5-mile Radius of the Specific Plan Area Resource No. Report Title Author Date
Within the
Specific Plan
Area?
FR-00135 Cultural Resources Inventory Report
for the Proposed Mojave Northward
Expansion Project
Hatoff, Brian, Voss, Barb,
Waechter, Sharon, Benté,
Vance, and Wee, Stephen
1995 No
FR-00257 Historic Property Survey Report Route
180 Chestnut Avenue to Highland
Avenue; 06-FRE-180, R60.9/R6736
06250- 342400
1990 Yes
FR-00296 Cultural Resources Assessment for the
Fresno Unified School District,
Southeast Fresno High School, Middle
School, and Elementary School
Bissonnette, Linda Dick 1992 Yes
FR-01231 Negative Archaeological Survey Report
for the Construction of Route 180
Urban Project
Nissen, Karen, Comeyne,
Dominique, and AguilarLuna, Judy
1994 No
FR-01651 Cultural Resources Survey for the Level
(3) Communications Long Haul Fiber
Optics Project: Segment WS04:

Sacramento to Bakersfield
Nelson, Wendy J. 2000 Yes
City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 77 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Resource No. Report Title Author Date
Within the
Specific Plan
Area?
FR-01686 Cultural Resources Assessment for the
Pacific Bell Site, CV-600-01, and the
Fairgrounds Site, City of Fresno, Fresno
County, California
Peak, Melinda A. 2000 No
FR-01694 Supplementary Historic Building
Survey, Historic Resources Survey
(Ratkovich Plan), Fresno, California
Powell, John Edward and
McGuire, Michael J.
1994 No
FR-01696 A Cultural Resource Study for the SelfHelp Housing Project In the Southeast Fresno Area, Fresno County, California
Varner, Dudley M. 2001 No
FR-01723 An Archaeological Survey of the Qualls
Property, Fresno County, California–EA
4101
Wren, Donald G. 1995 Yes
FR-01742 Archaeological Survey and Record
Search for WorldCom Fresno 180 Aerial
Project (800-25)
Sutch, Cordelia 2001 Yes
FR-01800 Archaeological Survey and
Architectural Evaluation for the Peach
Avenue Widening Project, Belmont to
Butler Avenues, Fresno County,
California
Nettles, Wendy M. and
Baloian, Mary Clark
2002 Yes
FR-01850 Nextel Communications Wireless
Telecommunications Service Facility,
Fresno County
Billat, Lorna 2000 No
FR-01979 Historic Property Survey for Fresno
Unified School District, Proposed
Elementary School Site D-2 Fresno,
California
Livingstone, David M. 2003 Yes
FR-02000 Cultural Resources Survey and
Inventory of the USDA Peach Avenue
Property in Fresno, California
Nettles, Wendy M. and
Baloian, Randy
2003 No
FR-02002 Cultural Resources Survey Report for
Level 3 Long Haul Fiber Optic Project:

WS04 Connection to Fresno 3R Facility,
in the City of Fresno, Fresno County,
California
Mason, Roger D. and
Shepard, Richard S.
2000 No
FR-02073 Environmental Assessment No. PW2004-08 Acquire and Construct an Intermodal Facility On the Southeast
Corner of East Kings Canyon and South
Alder Avenues
Fraser, Becky 2004 Yes
FR-02076 Historic Architecture Survey Report for
the "Bungalow" Court Project, Fresno,
California
Hattersley-Drayton,
Karana
2004 Yes
Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 78 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Resource No. Report Title Author Date
Within the
Specific Plan
Area?
FR-02106 Request for SHPO Review of FCC
Undertaking (FAT-0064 Kings Canyon +
Cedar)
Parker, Lori D. 2005 No
FR-02109 Archaeological Survey for a MultiFamily and Single-Family Homes Project (APN 472-021-01), East Kings
Canyon Road and South Adler Avenue,
Fresno, California
Brady, Jon L. 2005 Yes
R-02143 A Cultural and Paleontological
Resources Study for the KB Home
Summit Hills Project
Kaptain, Neal and
Matzen, Ben
2005 No
FR-02169 Records Search Results and Site Visit
for Cricket Telecommunications Facility
Candidate FAT-040B (Butler/Willow),
5130 East Lane, Fresno, Fresno County,
California
Bonner, Wayne H. 2005 Yes
FR-02172 New Tower Submission Packet, FCC
Form 620–Cedar-Butler, SC-10132B
Supernowicz, Dana E. 2006 No
FR-02192 New Tower Submission Packet, FCC
Form 620–South Peach, SC-10122A
Billat, Lorna 2006 No
FR-02194 Cultural Resources Assessment–
Dedekian Property (APN 481-060-02S)
Parcel at the Northwest Corner, E.

California and S. Willow Avenues, City
of Fresno, Fresno County
Busby, Colin I. 2005 Yes
FR-02217 National Register of Historic Places
Evaluation of the USDA Horticultural
Field Station on Peach Avenue in
Fresno, California
Nettles, Wendy M. and
Baloian, Randy
2005 No
FR-02228 New Tower Submission Packet, FCC
Form 620 for 5189 East Kings Canyon
Road
Losee, Carolyn 2005 Yes
FR-02238 Cultural Resource Records Search and
Site Visit Results for Cricket
Telecommunications Facility Candidate
FAT-017C (Chestnut/Belmont), 4765
East Belmont, Fresno, Fresno County,
California
Bonner, Wayne H. 2006 No
FR-02287 Cultural Resources Final Report of
Monitoring and Findings for the Qwest
Network Construction Project, State of
California
Arrington, Cindy, Bass,
Bryon, Brown, Joan,
Corey, Chris, and Hunt,
Kevin
2006 No
City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 79 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Resource No. Report Title Author Date
Within the
Specific Plan
Area?
FR-02332 Records Search and Site Visit Results
for T-Mobile Omnipoint
Communications Facility Candidate
SC40140 (Marks Kitchen), 4828 East
Belmont Avenue, Fresno, Fresno
County, California, 93727
Bonner, Wayne H. 2008 Yes
FR-02496 Historic Resource Survey for the
Placement of Verizon Cell Tower at
5339 East Butler Ave, Fresno, Fresno
County, California
Hatoff, Brian 2009 No
FR-02504 Historic Property Survey for the Home
Project for Self Help on South Willow
and East Jensen Avenues in Fresno,
California
Brady, Jon and Hobbs,
Kelly
2003 No
FR-02620 Records Search and Site Visit Results
for T-Mobile Omnipoint
Communications Facility Candidate
SC40140 (Mark's Kitchen), 4828 East
Belmont Avenue, Fresno, Fresno
County, California 93727
Bonner, Wayne 2008 Yes
FR-02628 Cultural Resources Analysis for E
Ventura Ensite #10768 (211849) 4066
East Ventura Avenue, Fresno, Fresno
County, California
Way, Michael A. 2012 No
FR-02653 Cultural Resources Survey Big Fresno
Fair/CVU0729 1121 South Chance
Avenue, Fresno, Fresno County,
California 93702
Ocampo, Gabriel 2014 Yes
FR-02655 Cultural Resources Survey S
Winery/Ensite #17717 (263603) 5080
East Tulare Avenue, Fresno, Fresno
County, California 93727
Willers, David 2014 No
FR-02722 Fresno Recycled Water Distribution
System Project, Phase I Cultural
Resources Study, Fresno County,
California
Anderson, Katherine and
Vader, Michael
2015 No
FR-02806 Cultural Resources Inventory for the
Proposed Lennar Tract No. 5449
Residential Development in the City of
Fresno, Fresno County, California
Tibbet, Josh and Baloian,
Mary
2016 No
FR-02896 Fresno Fulton Corridor Specific Plan
and Downtown Neighborhoods
Community Plan Project
Slawson, Dana N. and
Kay, Michael
2012 No
Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 80 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Resource No. Report Title Author Date
Within the
Specific Plan
Area?
FR-02972 Cultural Resources Records Search and
Site Visit Results for AT&T Mobility, LLC
Candidate CL01406_CVU3017 (Fresno
Pacific University), 1890 South Wullow
Avenue, Fresno, Fresno County,
California, CASPR NO 3101A0D73E
Davis, Shane and Wills,
Carrie D.
2018 Yes
FR-02992 Basin Training Center 8 FUDS Project Highland, Steven 2018 Yes Source: Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) Records Search. October 18, 2021.

Native American Heritage Commission Record Search
On October 6, 2021, FCS sent a request to the NAHC in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on its Sacred Lands File for the Specific Plan Area. A response was received on November 14, 2021, indicating that the Sacred Lands File was negative for the presence of Native American cultural resources in the Specific Plan Area. The NAHC included a list of 12 tribal representatives available for consultation who may have additional knowledge of the Specific Plan Area. To ensure that all Native American knowledge and concerns over potential TCRs that may be affected by the proposed project are addressed, a letter containing project information requesting any additional information was sent by FCS to each tribal representative on November 15, 2021. No responses have been received to date. Correspondence related to the NAHC letters and tribal representatives can be found in Appendix A.

Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is defined at Section 15064.5(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines as the “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.” Known historic structures are located throughout the Specific Plan Area as described in the preceding sections.

While development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of the development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan, development under the proposed project would result in additional residential and nonresidential development throughout the Specific Plan Area that could have significant environmental impacts related to historic resources. Therefore, subsequent development under the proposed project could affect known historic resources or previously unidentified or undesignated resources, creating a potentially significant impact.

As the City receives development applications for subsequent development under the proposed project, those applications will be reviewed by the City for compliance with the objectives and policies in the General Plan and the Specific Plan related to the protection of historical resources.

The City’s Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, which implement the City’s General Plan, would be reviewed when development applications are received.

Therefore, compliance with General Plan policies would ensure that future development projects are appropriately reviewed in terms of potential impacts to historic resources. Furthermore, the proposed project would implement General Plan PEIR MM CUL-1.1 and MM CUL-1.2. MM CUL-1.1 would require construction to halt in the immediate vicinity of previously undiscovered resources, should they be encountered during grading or construction activities, and the implementation of measures to protect these resources. MM CUL-1.2 requires a site-specific evaluation of historic and/or cultural resources by a professional, as well as provision of recommendations to mitigate potential impacts to historic and/or cultural resources. Thus, implementation of these MMs would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Based on a review of information available at the SSJVIC, portions of the Specific Plan Area have been previously surveyed for archaeological resources. While no known archaeological resource sites have been recorded within the Specific Plan Area, archaeological sites have been recorded within 0.5-mile and the possibility exists that additional undiscovered archaeological sites could be present within the Specific Plan Area.

While development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of the development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was completed by the General Plan, construction activities within previously undisturbed soils could result in a significant impact to unknown archaeological resources.

The potential for additional archaeological sites to be present within the Specific Plan Area exists but varies by location. Prehistoric habitation sites tend to be situated in proximity to creeks and other areas with a reliable water supply. Task-specific sites or resource procurement sites can be situated in almost any environment conducive to human activity. Buried prehistoric archaeological sites tend to be found on Holocene-era landforms, particularly alluvial fans, floodplains, and areas along rivers and streams. There are no naturally occurring rivers and streams within the Specific Plan Area. The proposed project would also be required to comply with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, which is incorporated as Article 16 in the City’s Municipal Code.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 82 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx As the City receives development applications for subsequent development under the proposed project, those applications would be reviewed by the City for compliance with General Plan Policies as well as the regulations of the Historic Preservation Ordinance related to archaeological resources.

In particular, proposed new developments in the Specific Plan Area would be required to conduct an updated records search with the SSJVIC to determine the archaeological sensitivity of the site, as well as be referred to the NAHC and local Native American tribes. If required, an archaeological survey of the site would be conducted and/or accidental discovery procedures for archaeological resources would be required.

In conclusion, development envisioned by the proposed project could affect known or previously unidentified archaeological resources within the Specific Plan Area, creating a potentially significant impact. However, compliance with General Plan policies as well as the regulations of the Historic Preservation Ordinance would ensure that future development projects are appropriately reviewed and designed in terms of potential impacts to archaeological resources. Furthermore, the future development under the proposed project would be required to implement General Plan MM CUL-2, which would require a field survey and literature search for prehistoric archaeological resources if a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. While development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of the development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was completed by the General Plan, there is always a possibility that grounddisturbing activities associated with future development may uncover previously unknown buried human remains that may not be marked in formal burial locations. Therefore, as future individual development and infrastructure projects are reviewed by the City, each project would be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, the Historic Preservation Ordinance and other applicable State regulations. Under CEQA, human remains are protected under the definition of archaeological materials as being “any evidence of human activity.”
Public Resources Code Section 5097 has specific stop-work and notification procedures to follow when Native American human remains are inadvertently discovered during excavation and construction activities. Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code sets forth provisions related to the treatment of human remains, including the treatment of human remains found in locations other than a dedicated cemetery and the responsibilities of the Coroner. These requirements apply to all construction projects within the Specific Plan Area.

It is always possible that subsurface construction activities associated with future developments under the proposed project, such as trenching and grading, could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains, creating a potentially significant impact. Compliance with adopted State, federal and local regulations for the protection of archaeological resources and human remains, would ensure that future development under the proposed project would not result in significant adverse effects to human remains. Future development under the proposed project would implement General Plan PEIR MM CUL-3. MM CUL-3 would require construction to halt in the City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 83 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx event that human remains are uncovered during construction activities and that the County Coroner be notified. If the remains are determined to be those of Native American descent, the NAHC shall be notified, and the landowner will take appropriate steps to prevent further disturbance or damage to the remains until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
d) A Tribal Cultural Resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Grading and construction activities within previously undisturbed soils within the Specific Plan Area could result in a significant impact to unknown Native American artifacts and human remains.

However, it is always possible that subsurface excavation activities may encounter previously undiscovered TCRs that may meet the eligibility requirements for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. Therefore, any unidentified TCRs could be adversely affected by development under the proposed project and create a potentially significant impact.

While the proposed project does not directly propose any adverse changes to any recorded TCRs, future development allowed under the proposed project could affect known or previously unidentified TCRs. In addition, the potential for additional undiscovered eligible TCRs to be present within the Specific Plan Area exists but varies by location.

The General Plan includes policies intended to conserve and reduce impacts to TCRs. Policy HCR-2-d requires that the City works with local Native American tribes to protect recorded and unrecorded cultural and sacred sites, as required by State law. The proposed project would also be required to comply with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, which is incorporated as Article 16 in the City’s Municipal Code.

By adhering to the policies and actions in the General Plan and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, the provisions under State and federal law, and implementing General Plan PEIR MM Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 84 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx CUL-1.1, MM CUL-1.2, MM CUL-2, and MM CUL-3, potential impacts to existing or undiscovered eligible TCRs within the Specific Plan Area would be reduced to less than significant. e) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As stated above, grading and construction activities within previously undisturbed soils within the City could result in a significant impact to unknown Native American artifacts and human remains.

On October 6, 2021, a letter was sent to the NAHC to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on its Sacred Lands File for the Specific Plan Area. A response was received on November 14, 2021, indicating the search returned negative results for TCRs in the Specific Plan Area, and recommended contacting tribal representatives from 12 tribes for additional information. A letter containing project information was sent by FCS to each tribal representative on November 15, 2021. No responses have been received to date (Appendix A).

At this time, the City, in its capacity as Lead Agency, has not identified any TCRs meeting the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 that would be adversely impacted by the proposed project. Nonetheless, as described under Impact 2.5(d) future development allowed under the proposed project could affect previously unidentified TCRs.

As discussed under Impact 2.5(d), the General Plan includes policies to conserve and reduce impacts to TCRs, such as Policy HCR-2-d. By adhering to the policies in the General Plan, the provisions under State and federal law, as well as implementing General Plan PEIR MM CUL-1.1, MM CUL-1.2, MM CUL-2, and MM CUL-3, potential impacts to existing or undiscovered eligible TCRs within the Specific Plan Area would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
The following General Plan PEIR mitigation measures apply to the proposed project:

MM CUL-1.1 If previously unknown resources are encountered before or during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified historical resources specialist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified historical resources specialist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the lead agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 85 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.

No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City-approved institution or person who is capable of providing long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.

MM CUL-1.2 Prior to approval of any discretionary project that could result in an adverse change to a potential historic and/or cultural resource, the City shall require a site-specific evaluation of historic and/or cultural resources by a professional who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Qualifications. The evaluation shall provide recommendations to mitigate potential impacts to historic and/or cultural resources and shall be approved by the Directory of Planning and Development.

MM CUL-2 Subsequent to a preliminary City review of the project grading plans, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for prehistoric archaeological resources shall be conducted. The following procedures shall be followed.
• If prehistoric resources are not found during either the field survey or literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence. In the event that buried prehistoric archaeological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. If the resources are determined to be unique prehistoric archaeological resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the lead agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the lead agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any prehistoric archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City-approved institution or person who is capable of providing long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.
• If prehistoric resources are found during the field survey or literature review, the resources shall be inventoried using appropriate State record forms and the forms shall be submitted to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC). The resources shall be evaluated for significance. If the resources are Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 86 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx found to be significant, measures shall be identified by the qualified archaeologist.

Similar to above, appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. In addition, appropriate mitigation for excavation and construction activities in the vicinity of the resources found during the field survey or literature review shall include an archaeological monitor. The monitoring period shall be determined by the qualified archaeologist. If additional prehistoric archaeological resources are found during excavation and/or construction activities, the procedure identified above for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed.

MM CUL-3 In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately.

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.

2.6 Energy
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Environmental Evaluation
Introduction
As noted in the proposed Specific Plan, the land use designations of the Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan buildout assumptions; however, the Specific Plan proposes changing the land use designation for some of the Specific Plan Area’s parcels, which will require the General Plan Land Use map to be amended. These proposed land use designation changes would reduce the total amount of development compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan for the Specific Plan Area.

Environmental Setting
End-use electricity and gas customers in Fresno County (County) are served solely by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to meet electrical power and natural gas demands. As of 2021, PG&E’s electric power mix contains 48 percent electricity generated from renewable sources.20 The smallest scale at which electricity consumption information is readily available is the County level. Therefore, electricity consumption in Fresno County is used herein to generally characterize the City’s existing electricity consumption. Fresno County includes several incorporated cities and a large unincorporated area. According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), Fresno County consumed approximately 7,444.9 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in 2019.21 Note that year 2019 was used over reporting year 2020 to present a pre-COVID-19 pandemic level of energy usage. Similarly, the smallest scale at which natural gas consumption information is readily available is at the County level; therefore, natural gas consumption in the County is used herein to also characterize the City’s existing natural gas consumption. According to the CEC, Fresno County consumed approximately 20 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2022. Corporate Sustainability Report, Executive Summary. Website:
https://www.pgecorp.com/corp_responsibility/reports/2022/assets/PGE_CSR_2022_Executive_Summary.pdf. Accessed September 12, 2022. 21 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020. “Electricity Consumption by County.” Website:
https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed September 12, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 88 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx 352.2 million U.S. therms of natural gas in 2019, or approximately 35,220 billion BTU.22 As with electricity consumption, the year 2019 was used over reporting year 2020 to present a pre-COVID-19 pandemic level of natural gas usage.

The Specific Plan Area is in an urbanized area, located just to the east and southeast of Downtown Fresno, and is characterized by a blend of older single-family and multi-family housing developments, industrial facilities, public facilities, vacant land, and commercial areas. Existing development within the Specific Plan Area currently uses electricity and natural gas from existing utilities, as well as generate vehicle trips and subsequent fuel use.

Energy-Related Regulations
Federal and State agencies regulate energy use and consumption through various means and programs. At the federal level, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), the United States Department of Energy, and the EPA are three federal agencies with substantial influence over energy policies and programs. Generally, federal agencies influence and regulate transportation energy consumption through establishment and enforcement of fuel economy standards for automobiles and light trucks, through funding of energy-related research and development projects, and through funding for transportation infrastructure improvements. At the State level, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the CEC are two agencies with authority over different aspects of energy. The CPUC regulates privately owned utilities in the energy, rail, telecommunications, and water fields. The CEC collects and analyzes energy-related data, prepares statewide energy policy recommendations and plans, promotes and funds energy efficiency programs, and adopts and enforces appliance and building energy efficiency standards. California is exempt under federal law from setting State fuel economy standards for new on-road motor vehicles. Some of the more relevant federal and State energy-related laws and plans are discussed below.

Federal Energy Independence and Security Act, Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency Standards In response to Massachusetts et al. vs. Environmental Protection Agency et al., the Bush Administration issued an Executive Order on May 14, 2007, directing the EPA and USDOT to establish regulations that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles, nonroad vehicles, and nonroad engines by 2008. On December 19, 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was signed into law, requiring an increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard of 35 miles per gallon (mpg) for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by the 2020 model year.

In addition to setting increased CAFE standards for motor vehicles, the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) includes the following additional provisions:
• Renewable Fuel Standard (Section 202)
• Appliance and Lighting Efficiency Standards (Sections 301–325) • Building Energy Efficiency (Sections 411–441)
22 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020. Gas Consumption by County. Website: https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.

Accessed September 12, 2022.

California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Title 24 and California Green Building Standards Code The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Title 24, Part 6 provides efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings under CALGreen. The standards are updated periodically to allow for incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. The existing 2016 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Title 24 (2016 California Standards) became effective on January 1, 2017. The 2019 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2019 California Energy Code) go into effect on January 1, 2020, and are applicable to building permit applications submitted on or after that date. The 2019 California Energy Code requires solar photovoltaic systems for new homes, establishes requirements for newly constructed healthcare facilities, encourages demand responsive technologies for residential buildings, and updates indoor and outdoor lighting for nonresidential buildings.

The CEC anticipates that single-family homes built with the 2019 California Energy Code will use approximately 7 percent less energy compared to the residential homes built under the 2016 California Standards. Additionally, after implementation of solar photovoltaic systems, homes built under the 2019 California Energy Code will consume about 53 percent less energy than homes built under the 2016 California Standards. Nonresidential buildings will use consume approximately 30 percent less energy due to lighting upgrades.

California Assembly Bill 1007 (Pavley, Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) Assembly Bill (AB) 1007 required the CEC to prepare a State plan (State Alternative Fuels Plan) to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. To comply with this requirement, the CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan in partnership with the ARB and in consultation with other State, federal, and local agencies. The final State Alternative Fuels Plan, published in December 2007, attempts to achieve an 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions associated with personal transportation, even as California’s population increases.

California Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Section 2449(d)(2) No vehicle or engines subject to this regulation may idle for more than 5 consecutive minutes. The idling limit does not apply to:
• idling when queueing,
• idling to verify that the vehicle is in safe operating condition, • idling for testing, servicing, repairing or diagnostic purposes, • idling necessary to accomplish work for which the vehicle was designed (such as operating a crane),
• idling required to bring the machine system to operating temperature, and • idling necessary to ensure safe operation of the vehicle.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 90 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. While overall the proposed project includes less development than contemplated in the General Plan, the proposed project does include the reclassification of land use designations of some parcels within the Specific Plan Area to accommodate residential development and higher intensity mixed-use infill along priority corridors.

Future development under the proposed project would consume energy throughout the construction and operation of such new development, in addition to energy consumption associated with existing development in the Specific Plan Area. Energy would be required during construction for the transportation of building materials, manufacturing of building materials, and the actual construction of buildings and infrastructure. During the operation, energy would be associated with building heating and cooling, use of consumer products, lighting, and vehicular traffic. Thus, future development under the proposed project would result in additional electricity and natural gas use.

However, the General Plan includes policies and programs to ensure that new development is constructed and operated in a manner that uses fuel and energy in an efficient manner.

Furthermore, the electricity provider, PG&E, is subject to California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). The RPS requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020 and to 50 percent of total procurement by 2030. Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from resources, which are naturally replenished within a human timescale such as sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat. The project would be served with electricity provided by PG&E. Given PG&E’s power mix,23 the increase in reliance on such energy resources further ensures this project would not result in the waste of the finite energy resources. Finally, in addition to compliance with applicable federal, State and local standards regarding energy consumption, future development within the Specific Plan Area would be required to assess the potential energy impacts on a project-specific basis.

Construction Energy Usage
During construction, the proposed project would result in energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, and construction equipment and the use of electricity for temporary buildings, lighting, and other sources. It is not anticipated that natural gas would be consumed as part of project construction. Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during site clearing, grading, paving, and building construction. The types of equipment could include gasoline- and diesel-powered construction and transportation equipment, including trucks, bulldozers, frontend loaders, forklifts, and cranes. Limitations on idling of vehicles and equipment and requirements that equipment be properly maintained would result in fuel savings. California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2485, limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment 23 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2018. Where your electricity comes from. Website:
https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/your-account/your-bill/understand-your-bill/bill-inserts/2018/10- 18_PowerContent.pdf. Accessed September 9, 2022.

Other equipment could include construction lighting, field services (office trailers), and electrically driven equipment such as pumps and other tools. Because of the temporary nature of construction and the financial incentives for developers and contractors to use energy-consuming resources in an efficient manner, the construction phase of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.

Furthermore, as required by the Municipal Code, Chapter 11, Article 1, SEC. 11-108 and SEC. 11-109, new development would be subject to energy conservation requirements in the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR], California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) and CALGreen (CCR Title 24, Part 11). Based on standards for new construction established by the State and adherence to the development standards in the Municipal Code, activities associated with implementation of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, the City would review development proposals prior to the approval of development plans to ensure that sufficient energy resources and facilities are available and that the development complies with energy conservation and efficiency standards of Title 24 and the Municipal Code.

Additionally, implementation of the proposed project’s policies would help to minimize the effects of growth and development on energy resources. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project will have a less than significant impact under this criterion.

Operation Energy Usage
Operation of future developments envisioned as a part of the proposed project would consume natural gas and electricity for building heating and power, lighting, and water conveyance, among other operational requirements.

Future development projects would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the California Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Title 24 standards include a broad set of energy conservation requirements that apply to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building. For example, the Title 24 Lighting Power Density requirements define the maximum wattage of lighting that can be used in a building based on its square footage. Title 24 additionally requires new low-rise residential developments to include rooftop solar systems meeting a minimum system capacity consistent with calculations contained in Title 24, Part 6, Subchapter 8. Title 24 standards, widely regarded as the most advanced energy efficiency standards, would help to reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and heating and air conditioning in buildings and promote energy conservation. Additionally, implementation of the General Plan and the proposed project’s policies would help to minimize the effects of growth and development on energy resources. The plans and policies in the General Plan as well as the Specific Plan encourage alternative transit options through the creation of bicycle and pedestrian paths to improve the bikeability and walkability in the Plan Area.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 92 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Additionally, the General Plan includes numerous policies and implementation programs focused on improving the sustainability of the City, including reducing the consumption of non-renewable energy resources by requiring and encouraging conservation measures and the use of alternative energy sources (Policies RC-8-a through RC-8-k) and incentives for affordable housing providers, agencies, and non-profit and market rate developers to use Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEEDTM) and CALGreen Tier 1 or Tier 2 standards or third party equivalents (Policy HC-3-d).

Moreover, the energy efficiency of buildings is expected to continue to increase and improve throughout the life of the project as new energy efficiency standards are established. Similarly, the proposed project includes Policy RC-1.4 which includes Energy Conservation Strategies and incentives for residential projects.

Plans submitted for building permits of development projects in the project area would be required to include verification demonstrating compliance with the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings in effect at the time building permits are issued. These standards are updated every 3 years, with the latest update (2022) having gone into effect on January 1, 2023. The proposed project would also be required to adhere to the provisions of CALGreen, which established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (beyond the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. Additionally, because developments that would be considered under the proposed project have not been designed or proposed at this time, potential improvements to the current energy and natural gas facilities would be identified at the time such projects are considered. Therefore, with adherence to Title 24 regulations and the objectives and policies included in the approved General Plan and the proposed Specific Plan, the proposed project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation.

Furthermore, implementation of project-specific MM AIR-8, MM AIR-9, and MM AIR-10 would reduce energy usage from the proposed project by requiring energy efficiency measures that go beyond the Title 24 and CALGreen standards, including the use of energy efficient building design and materials and electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure as included as a part of the City of Fresno GHG Reduction Plan. Implementation of these mitigation measures would further reduce the potential energy impacts of the proposed project.

Transportation Energy Usage
In addition to increasing demand for electricity and natural gas from the construction and operation of future development under the proposed project, increased energy use would also result from project-related trips. As the Specific Plan is a long-range planning project, forecasting future energy use related to travel for specific projects is speculative. Rather, the more appropriate measure of estimating energy use is to consider the VMT associated with the proposed project. A VMT analysis was conducted on August 16, 2022 for the proposed project by LSA (Appendix B). Because the proposed project is a Specific Plan, it qualifies as a land use plan, and therefore, the project’s VMT analysis was prepared using the criteria set forth in the City’s 2020 VMT Guidelines for land use plans. VMT Metrics for the entire Specific Plan Area were estimated both with and without the proposed land use changes. The analysis concluded that for both per capita and per employee VMT, City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 93 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx the proposed project would have lower VMT as compared to the no-project scenario within the entire Specific Plan Area. According to the General Plan PEIR, with the continued implementation of the approved General Plan, in 2035 the City VMT per capita (16.5 miles) is forecast to be 17 percent less than the County VMT per capita (19.9 miles). Corresponding numbers for VMT per employee indicates that the City average is forecast to be 13 percent lower than the approved General Plan (2035) County average. Additionally, development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of the development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was completed by the General Plan. Morever, the fuel efficiency of vehicles is expected to continue to increase and improve throughout the life of the project as new fuel economy standards are established. Lastly, the impact of future development projects on transportation energy demand would be assessed for specific projects. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact transportation energy demands.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than significant impact. The proposed project would be subject to all relevant provisions of the most recent update of CALGreen, including the 2016 California Standards, which would ensure that the project would consume energy efficiently through the incorporation of energy efficient features, such as door and window interlocks, direct digital controls for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, and high efficiency outdoor lighting. Furthermore, compliance with CALGreen in connection with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan would ensure that the building energy use associated with the project would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

In addition, PG&E would supply electricity and natural gas to the project, and as per PG&E compliance with the State’s RPS, a portion of the energy consumed during project operations would originate from renewable sources. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts would be less than significant.

Construction
As previously discussed, the proposed project would result in energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, construction equipment and through the use of electricity for temporary buildings, lighting, and other sources.

California Code of Regulations Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2485, limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are enforced by the ARB. Future development under the proposed project would comply with these regulations. There are no policies at the local level applicable to energy conservation specific to the construction phase; thus, it is anticipated that implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing energy use or increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore, construction-related energy efficiency and renewable energy standards consistency impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The General Plan aims to promote mixed-use development and encourage alternative modes of transportation to reduce vehicle trip lengths and reliance on the automobile, which in turn would Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 94 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx reduce the transportation energy demand in the Specific Plan Area. The General Plan also encourages development of housing near employment and transportation, which supports reductions in per capita VMT. Implementation of the policies in the General Plan, as well as the guiding principles and policies included in the proposed project, would also promote land use patterns that would improve walking and bicycling facilities to be more prominent, comfortable, and safe throughout the City. Compliance with the policies included in the General Plan, including Policy RC-8-j, would support the development of a network of integrated charging and alternate fuel station for both public and private vehicles that would also serve to reduce the overall transportation energy demand. The proposed project includes policies to promote the use of sustainable design features and renewable energy sources and to promote energy efficiency, conservation, and waste reduction measures.

As discussed above, California’s RPS requires that 33 percent of electricity retail sales be served by renewable energy sources by 2020. The proposed project would be served with electricity provided by PG&E. A total of 48 percent of PG&E’s delivered electricity comes from renewable sources, including solar, wind, geothermal, small hydroelectric and various forms of bioenergy. PG&E reached California’s 2020 renewable energy goal in 2017 and is positioned to meet the State’s 60 percent by 2030 renewable energy mandate set forth in Senate Bill (SB) 100.24 The State’s Title 24 energy efficiency standards establishes mandatory measures for residential buildings, including material conservation and resource efficiency. Development consistent with the proposed project would be required to comply with these mandatory measures. The proposed project would also comply with the California Building Standards Code (CBC) requiring proposed lowrise residential buildings to include rooftop solar systems. In addition, per the CBC, the proposed buildings would be required to provide wiring that would allow installation of EV charging equipment in any private garages or carports. Mandatory compliance with the applicable provisions of CALGreen would ensure that development consistent with the proposed project uses energy efficiently.

Compliance with the above measures would ensure that development consistent with the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing energy use or increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore, operational energy efficiency and renewable energy standards consistency impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implement project-specific MM AIR-8, MM AIR-9, and MM AIR-10. 24 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2022. Renewable Energy and Storage web page. Website:
https://www.pgecorp.com/corp_responsibility/reports/2022/pf03_renewable_energy_storage.html. Accessed December 15, 2022.

2.7 Geology, Seismicity, and Soils
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Environmental Evaluation
Introduction
As noted in the proposed Specific Plan, the land use designations of the Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan buildout assumptions; however, the Specific Plan proposes changing the land use designation for some of the Specific Plan Area’s parcels, which will require the General Plan Land Use map to be amended. These proposed land use designation changes would reduce the total Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 96 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx amount of development compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan for the Specific Plan Area.

Environmental Setting
According to the General Plan, the City does not lie within a known active Earthquake Fault Zone.

Although a number of faults are located within the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range to the east of the Specific Plan Area, none are considered active. Numerous active faults are present within the central Coast Ranges west of the Specific Plan Area including the San Andreas Fault located approximately 68 miles west of the area. There is an active fault approximately 78 miles east of the Specific Plan Area near the census-designated place of Independence, California along the Fresno County-Inyo County border. The Great Valley Fault Zone also represents a source of seismotectonic forces. The Great Valley Fault Zone exists at the boundary of the Coastal Range and the Central Valley, approximately 40 miles west of the Specific Plan Area.
25 Overall, seismic-related concerns (including
liquefaction and subsidence) are considered fairly minor within the City. The City is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Special Fault Study Zone, that is, it has not been identified as a zone of special study around active faults. Hidden faulting in western Fresno County did manifest itself in the Coalinga Earthquake of 1983, causing ground shaking in Fresno, but resulted in minimal damage. Ground shaking represents the principal potential earthquake hazard for the City, which could cause damage to buildings and infrastructure. However, the distance between the City and major faults minimizes this potential hazard.26 Surface faulting is absent within the Specific Plan Area and the majority of the area is relatively flat. The general soil profile within the City consists predominately of silty sands, sandy silts, clayey sands, sandy clayey silts, and sands.

The State has established minimum standards for building design through the CBC, which contain specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site demolition. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has also published standards for minimum design loads for buildings in the 2010 ASCE-7 standards. The CBC also contains standards for grading activities, including drainage and erosion control (Chapter 18, Appendix J).

Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Historically, ground surface displacements closely follow the trace of geologically young faults. As previously described, the Specific Plan Area is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and no known active or potentially active faults occur within the Specific Plan Area. 25 City of Fresno. 2020. City of Fresno General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report. March. 26 City of Fresno. 2014. City of Fresno General Plan, Noise and Safety. December.

Further, future development under the proposed project would comply with the 2022 CBC, which contains seismic safety requirements. Lastly, the proposed project would implement General Plan PEIR MM GEO-6.1, which requires future development to conduct a field survey and literature review, and project-specific MM GEO-7, which would require future development under the proposed project to conduct a design-level geotechnical study and incorporate all constructionrelated recommendations to address site-specific conditions, which would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than significant impact. As with most areas within the State, the Specific Plan Area would be exposed to ground shaking from seismic events on local and regional faults. However, the Fresno area has historically experienced a low to moderate degree of seismicity. According to the General Plan PEIR, the nearest source of seismotectonic forces to the project area is the Great Valley Fault Zone located over 40 miles to the southwest, which is capable of producing a 6.1 moment magnitude earthquake. Therefore, the seismicity of the project area is governed by the activity of the Great Valley Fault, although ground shaking from future earthquakes on other faults could also be felt at the site. The intensity of earthquake ground motion at the site would depend upon the characteristics of the generating fault, distance to the earthquake epicenter, and magnitude and duration of the earthquake. Strong to very strong ground shaking could occur at the site during a large earthquake on one of the nearby faults. Future development in the Specific Plan Area would be designed to withstand strong ground shaking, because all built projects are required to comply with the CBC to minimize the potential effects of ground shaking and other seismic activity. To reduce ground shaking impacts, the proposed project would also be consistent with General Plan Objective NS-2 and policies NS-2-a through NS-2-d, which aim to minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic risks. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to strong seismic ground shaking. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As previously discussed, the soil profile within the City consists predominately of silty sands, sandy silts, clayey sands, sandy clayey silts, and sands. The potential for soil liquefaction in the Specific Plan Area was determined by the General Plan PEIR to range from very low to moderate. In addition to liquefaction, the Specific Plan Area could be susceptible to induced settlement of loose unconsolidated soils or lateral spread during seismic shaking events. However, based on the nature of the subsurface materials and the relatively low to moderate seismicity of the region, the seismic settlement and/or lateral spread are not anticipated to represent a substantial hazard within the Specific Plan Area during seismic events.

Further, future development within the Specific Plan Area would comply with CBC seismic design standards General Plan PEIR MM GEO-6.1, and MM GEO-7. As previously discussed, General Plan Objective NS-2 and Policies NS-2-a through NS-2-d also require the City to minimize risks by Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 98 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx implementing a series of measures to reduce impacts to new development. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to seismic-related ground failure with mitigation incorporated.
iv) Landslides?
Less than significant impact. As previously discussed, the City is generally flat. Therefore, there is not a significant risk of landslides in the City or the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan Area has not been identified as an area of high landslide hazard.27 Future development under the proposed project would be required to comply with the CBC, General Plan policies, and the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to landslide hazards.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact. The General Plan PEIR determined that development and land use activities contemplated by the Specific Plan Area would result in site preparation activities, such as grading and trenching, at future project sites located throughout the Specific Plan Area. Future projects would also result in the addition of impervious surfaces within the Specific Plan Area, and depending on the location of the project, could possibly result in the alteration of topographic features at the project site. The alteration of topographic features could lead to increased erosion by creating unstable rock or soil surfaces. Because much of the Specific Plan Area is relatively flat and the locations of projects that would substantially alter topography are limited, there would be minimal geotechnical effects related to erosion. Moreover, development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan.

Future development under the proposed project would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program as well as the Fresno Municipal Code and General Plan. Fresno Municipal Code Section 15-3302 requires every approved map to be conditioned on compliance with the requirements for grading and erosion control, including the prevention of sedimentation or damage to off-site property. All future projects on sites larger than 1 acre within the Specific Plan Area are required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Grading Plan to the City that identify specific actions and BMPs to prevent stormwater pollution from construction sources. The plans would identify a practical sequence for site restoration, BMP implementation, contingency measures, responsible parties, and agency contacts.

Compliance with these policies and with other pertinent regulations will ensure that potential soil erosion impacts, or the potential loss of topsoil, would be less than significant. 27 Fresno County. 2018. Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, Figure 4.23 Landslide Hazards and Areas of Subsidence in Fresno County. May.

Finally, development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan.

With implementation of General Plan PEIR MM GEO-6.1 and project-specific MM GEO-7, which requires a geotechnical study with preventive measures for liquefaction and landslides, and compliance with General Plan policies and the Municipal Code, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The General Plan PEIR anticipated that there are localized areas within City that contain expansive soils, though the specific locations of these areas are not known. As previously discussed, the general soil profile within the City consists predominately of silty sands, sandy silts, clayey sands, sandy clayey silts, and sands. The clayey soils are slightly to moderately expansive.

Because the Specific Plan Area may contain expansive soils, which can cause movement and cracking of foundations, pavement, and slabs, future development under the proposed project would be required to implement General Plan PEIR MM GEO-6.1 and MM GEO-7. In general, the effects of expansive soil can be mitigated by moisture-conditioning the expansive soil, providing non-expansive fill below slabs, and either supporting foundations below the zone of severe moisture change or by providing a stiff, shallow foundation that can limit deformation of the superstructure as the underlying soil shrinks and swells. Future development under the proposed project would comply with the CBC and General Plan, as well as the Municipal Code Ordinance Section 12-1022, which requires preliminary soil reports be prepared to identify potential site-specific soil issues such as expansive soils, and to include foundation support and grading parameters in the project design to address site-specific soil conditions. Preliminary soil reports may include measures that should be incorporated into project plans that reduce potential impacts related to expansive soil or other potentially hazardous soil conditions. Further, grading and erosion control measures are required under Section 15-1603 of the Municipal Code. Moreover, development consistent with the proposed Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 100 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx project would reduce the total amount of development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan, thus reducing the amount of development that would potentially be located on expansive soils as compared to what was considered in the General Plan.

Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to expansive soils with mitigation incorporated.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No impact. The General Plan PEIR determined that there would be no impacts related to septic systems or other alternative wastewater disposal systems as General Plan buildout requires mandatory abatement of existing septic systems. With General Plan buildout, septic systems would be removed, and public sewage collection and disposal systems would be installed.

Because the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, there would be no septic tank systems included in the buildout of the Specific Plan Area. Sewer services in the Specific Plan Area are provided by the City. Thus, no impact would occur.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The General Plan PEIR determined that there are two primary surficial deposits: (1) Pleistocene non-marine; and (2) Quaternary non-marine fan deposits. The Pleistocene non- marine deposits are considered to have a high potential sensitivity. The Quaternary non-marine deposits consist of Pleistocene-Holocene alluvial sediments.

Since these deposits include Pleistocene sediments, they are also considered to have a high potential for sensitivity. Therefore, excavation and/or construction activities within the Specific Plan Area that are associated with continued implementation of the approved General Plan have the potential to impact paleontological/geological resources during excavation and construction activities within previously undisturbed soils. Thus, the potential to impact paleontological resources during excavation and construction activities is considered potentially significant. However, the proposed project would implement General Plan PEIR MM GEO-6.1 and project-specific MM GEO-8, which requires a qualified Paleontological Monitor to be retained prior to initiation of excavation procedures and would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on unique paleontological resources or geologic features.

Mitigation Measures
The following General Plan PEIR mitigation measure applies to the proposed project:

MM GEO-6.1 Subsequent to a preliminary City review of the project grading plans, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for unique paleontological/geological resources shall be conducted. The following procedures shall be followed:

If the resources are found to be significant, mitigation measures shall be identified by the qualified paleontologist. Similar to above, appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. In addition, appropriate mitigation for excavation and construction activities in the vicinity of the resources found during the field survey or literature review shall include a paleontological monitor. The monitoring period shall be determined by the qualified paleontologist. If additional paleontological/geological resources are found during excavation and/or construction activities, the procedure identified above for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed.

The following project-specific mitigation measures apply to the proposed project:

MM GEO-7 Prior to issuance of building permits for new construction on any property within the Specific Plan, the project applicant shall submit a design-level geotechnical study and building plans to the City of Fresno for review and approval. The building plans shall demonstrate that they incorporate all applicable recommendations of the design-level geotechnical study and comply with all applicable requirements of the most recent version of the California Building Standards Code (CBC). A licensed Professional Engineer shall prepare the plans, including those that pertain to soil engineering and structural foundations. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. All on-site soil engineering activities shall be conducted under the supervision of a licensed Geotechnical Engineer or Certified Engineering Geologist.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 102 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx MM GEO-8 Prior to approval of any discretionary project that could result in an adverse change to a potential paleontological resource, the City shall require a site-specific evaluation of paleontological resources by a professional who meets the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology qualification standards. The evaluation shall provide recommendations to mitigate potential impacts to paleontological resources and shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Development.

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
Environmental Evaluation
Introduction
As noted in the proposed Specific Plan, the land use designations of the Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan buildout assumptions; however, the Specific Plan proposes changing the land use designation for some of the Specific Plan Area’s parcels, which will require the General Plan Land Use map to be amended. These proposed land use designation changes would reduce the total amount of development compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan for the Specific Plan Area.

Environmental Setting
GHGs are generated from natural geological and biological processes and through human activities, including the combustion of fossil fuels and industrial and agricultural processes. GHGs include CO2, nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons.

While GHGs are emitted locally, they have global implications. GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere, which heats up the surface of the Earth. This concept is known as global warming and is contributing to climate change. Changing climatic conditions pose several potential adverse impacts including sea level rise, increased risk of wildfires, degraded ecological systems, deteriorated public health, and decreased water supplies.

To address GHGs at the State level, the California legislature passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act in 2006 (AB 32), which requires Statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Executive Order S-3-05 provides the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) with the regulatory authority to coordinate the State’s effort to achieve GHG reduction targets. Executive Order S-3-05 goes beyond AB 32 and calls for an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. SB 375 was adopted in 2008, which seeks to curb GHGs by reducing urban sprawl and VMT.

The Governor signed SB 32 in September of 2016, giving ARB the statutory responsibility to include the 2030 target previously contained in Executive Order B-30-15 in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 104 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Plan Update. SB 32 states that “[i]n adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions authorized by this division, the state [air resources] board shall ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030.”28 The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update addressing the SB 32 targets was adopted by the ARB on December 14, 2017. The recently adopted 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan, adopted by the ARB in December 2022, includes measures to further reduce GHG emissions, supporting State goals of carbon neutrality by 2045.

The City is located in the in the SJVAB. The SJVAB consists of Kings, Madera, San Joaquin, Merced, Stanislaus, and Fresno Counties, as well as a portion of Kern County. The local agency with jurisdiction over air quality in the SJVAB is the Valley Air District. The City developed its first GHG Plan in 2014 and adopted an updated GHG Plan (the GHG Plan Update) on September 30, 2021, pursuant to a certified General Plan PEIR. The GHG Plan Update was developed by the City to ensure conformity with the mandates of California Supreme Court in the Newhall Ranch case and the State of California’s latest GHG regulations. The GHG Plan Update re-evaluates the City’s GHG reduction targets and reduction strategies from the 2014 GHG Plan. The City’s GHG inventory, based on the most recent data available for the year 2016, is evaluated and the future growth in emissions for the Business as Usual scenario (BAU) and adjusted BAU scenarios (the adjusted BAU scenario takes into account the State policies) for the years 2020, 2030, and 2035 are projected. The 2020 and 2030 forecast years are consistent with the goals identified in AB 32 and SB 32, which identify Statewide GHG reduction targets by 2020 and 2030. The 2035 forecast year corresponds to the City’s General Plan horizon year and will allow the City to develop long-term strategies to continue GHG reductions.

Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to global climate change through direct emissions of GHG from on-site area sources and vehicle trips generated by the proposed project, and indirectly through off-site energy production required for on-site activities, water use, and waste disposal. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of CO2 and other GHG pollutants, such as CH4 and N2O, from mobile sources and utility usage.

Construction
Construction activities associated with future development under the proposed project would generate temporary short-term GHG emissions from heavy-duty construction equipment, worker trips, and material delivery and hauling. On-site activities would consist of the operation of off-road construction equipment as well as on-site truck travel (e.g., haul trucks, dump trucks, and concrete trucks). Off-site sources would include emissions from construction vehicles used for hauling materials and worker vehicle trips. Future development under the proposed project would comply 28 California Legislative Information. 2015–2016. SB-32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions limit. Website:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB32. Accessed September 9, 2022.

Therefore, future development under the proposed project at construction would not result in significant adverse effects related to GHG emissions. As such, the implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

Operation
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the project. Sources of emissions may include motor vehicles and trucks, energy usage, water usage, waste generation, and area sources, such as landscaping activities. While implementation of the proposed project would generate an increase in GHG emissions, its guiding principles, design guidelines, and proposed land use designations for the Specific Plan Area would contribute to minimizing emissions to the extent feasible. Guiding principles and objectives of the proposed project include promoting sustainable development and encouraging modes of transportation other than vehicles. Applicable General Plan policies support the installation of electric infrastructure to support electric vehicles at residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Future developments under the proposed project would be subject to State regulations that will reduce emissions from project construction and operation, including Title 24 and CALGreen standards and the California Code of Regulations, which the City has adopted. As such, the implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include ARB’s Scoping Plan, the Fresno COG RTP/SCS, and the City’s GHG Reduction Plan. A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below.

Consistency with the City’s GHG Reduction Plan
As discussed earlier, the City of Fresno has developed a GHG Reduction Plan that meets the description of mitigation found in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(3) and Section 15183.5 and allows for streamlined CEQA compliance for new development projects. The GHG Reduction Plan Update was developed consistent with AB 32, SB 32, and Executive Order S-3-05, and supports State and international efforts to stabilize climate change. The GHG Plan Update provides strategies and guidelines for the reduction of GHG emissions in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.

The first step in analyzing a project’s consistency with the GHG Reduction Plan is to determine the proposed project’s consistency with the land use assumptions in the GHG Reduction Plan. The land use designations of the Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan buildout assumptions; however, the Specific Plan proposes changing the land use designation for some of the Specific Plan Area’s parcels, which will require the General Plan Land Use map to be amended. These proposed land use designation changes would reduce the total amount of development compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan for the Specific Plan Area and would overall be consistent with the General Plan.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 106 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Future development under the proposed project would comply with the requirements of the City’s General Plan policies and programs related to GHG emissions as well as applicable Valley Air District regulations. Short-term construction GHG emissions are a one-time release of GHGs and are not expected to significantly contribute to global climate change. Additionally, the implementation of the mitigation measures presented in Section 2.3, Air Quality, would further reduce the overall annual GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. For instance, MM AIR-6 would require the use of “super-compliant” architectural coatings during construction to reduce the generation of VOC emissions, which are also GHGs with low global warming potential (GWP). Therefore, future development under the proposed project at construction would not result in significant adverse effects related to GHG emissions. As such, the construction of future development consistent with the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

Consistency with the Fresno COG RTP/SCS
The RTP/SCS envisions an increase in development density that would encourage fewer and shorter trips and more trips by transit, walking, and bicycling in amounts sufficient to achieve the SB 375 targets. The strategies included in the Specific Plan are consistent with the measures included in the RTP/SCS and would serve to support a per capita reduction in VMT in the Specific Plan Area after the implementation of the proposed project.

Consistency with ARB Scoping Plan
In accordance with AB 32, the ARB developed the 2008 Scoping Plan to outline the State’s strategy established by AB 32, which is to return to the State’s GHG emissions inventory to 1990 levels by the year 2020. In September 2016, SB 32 was signed into law, requiring the State’s GHG emissions to return to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Executive Order B-30-15 and SB 32 require the ARB to prepare another update to the Scoping Plan to address the 2030 target for the State. On January 20, 2017, the ARB released the draft 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan to address the new interim GHG emissions target under SB 32. The ARB Scoping Plan is applicable to State agencies and is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects. Nonetheless, the Scoping Plan has been the primary tool to develop performance-based and efficiency-based CEQA criteria and GHG reduction targets for climate action planning efforts. The recently updated 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan builds on the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan and provides strategies for the State to meet the 2030 GHG reduction target as established under SB 32, as well as supporting State goals of carbon neutrality in 2045. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan include implementing SB 350, which expands the RPS to 50 percent by 2030 and doubles energy efficiency savings; achieving a per capita VMT reduction of at least 25 percent below 2019 levels by 2030; achieving 100 percent Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) sales of light-duty vehicles by 2035; ; installing anaerobic digesters to maximize air and water quality protection, maximize biomethane capture, and direct biomethane to specific sectors; increasing the stringency and scope of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS); implementing SB 905; and implementing the Climate Smart Strategy for Natural and Working Lands.
29 The proposed project would comply with these Statewide GHG emissions reduction measures. In addition, future development under the proposed project would be subject to the future triannual updates to the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, 29 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2022. The 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf. Accessed December 27, 2022.

The proposed project is consistent with the applicable local plans, policies, and regulations and would not conflict with the provisions of AB 32, the applicable air quality plan, or any other State or regional plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
Implement General Plan PEIR MM AIR-2.1, MM AIR-2.2, MM AIR-3.1, MM AIR-3.2, MM AIR-4.1, and project-specific MM AIR-5, MM AIR-6, MM AIR-7, MM AIR-8, MM AIR-9, and MM AIR-10.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 108 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Environmental Evaluation
Introduction
As noted in the Specific Plan, the land use designations of the Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan buildout assumptions; however, the Specific Plan proposes changing the land use designation for some of the Specific Plan Area’s parcels, which will require the General Plan Land Use map to be amended. These proposed land use designation changes would reduce the total amount of development compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan for the Specific Plan Area.

Emergency Response
In addition to emergency response to hazardous materials incidents, both the City and the County implement programs to facilitate emergency preparedness for other types of incidents within the Specific Plan Area. Specifically, the City has an Emergency Operations Plan that describes what the City’s actions will be during a response to an emergency. This plan also describes the role of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and the coordination that occurs between the EOC, City Departments, and other response agencies. The plan establishes a requirement for the emergency management organization to mitigate any significant emergency disaster affecting the City. The plan also identifies the policies, responsibilities, and procedures required to protect the health and safety of City communities, public and private property, and the environmental effects of natural or technological disasters. In addition, the plan establishes the operation concepts and procedures associated within initial response operations (field response) to emergencies, the extended response operations (City of Fresno EOC Activities), and the recovery process. Furthermore, the plan complies with the State of California Emergency Operations Plan “Cross Walk” checklist for determining whether an emergency plan has addressed critical elements of California’s Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the National Incident Management System (NIMS).

The County of Fresno has a Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which is a plan that aims to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people or property from natural hazards. The plan, which covers all territory within Fresno County’s jurisdictional boundaries, was adopted by the City of Fresno in 2009, and an update was completed in 2018. The plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 so that Fresno County and the jurisdictions within it would be eligible for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants.

Existing Schools
The proposed project is located within the Fresno Unified School District (FUSD). Presently, there are a number of schools, universities, and childcare facilities located within the Specific Plan boundary as shown on Exhibit 3.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 110 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Airport Hazards
There are three airports located within the City: Fresno Yosemite International Airport, Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, and Sierra Sky Park. None of the airports are located in the Specific Plan Area.

Fresno Yosemite International Airport is located approximately 1.34 miles northeast of the Specific Plan Area, along East Clinton Way. The airport is a joint use civilian/military airport. It is used by commercial air carriers, air cargo operators, charter operators, the State of California, general aviation, and the United States Military. The California Air National Guard occupies a 58-acre area adjacent to East McKinley Avenue in the southeast portion of the airport. A helicopter repair and maintenance unit of the Army National Guard, the California Division of Forestry, and a number of corporate aviation businesses occupy facilities north of the runways. About 250 general aviation aircraft are based at Fresno Yosemite International Airport and two Fixed Base Operators (FBOs) offer a wide range of aeronautical services.

According to the Fresno Yosemite International Airport Safety Compatibility Zones Map, no portion of the Specific Plan Area is located within the 60 decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour.30 A small northern portion of the Plan Area is located within the Traffic Pattern Zone.31
Wildland Fire Hazard
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) designates the Specific Plan Area as a Local Responsibility Area (LRA).32 There are no wildlands located within or adjacent to the Specific Plan Area.33
The Specific Plan Area is located within the Central Valley and is relatively flat. The Specific Plan Area is located within a developed area of the City, with current land use designations consisting of mostly of commercial, residential, and public facilities. The Sierra Nevada foothills to the north and east of the City provide the nearest areas where large expanses of undeveloped properties occur. Because of the topography and the distance between the developed portions of the City and undeveloped areas, the primary fire hazard concern within the City consists of the potential for structure fires in developed areas.
30 Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG). Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Exhibit D2 Future Noise Contours. Fresno Yosemite International Airport. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2020/04/ALUCP-FresnoYosemite-International-Airport.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2022. 31 Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG). Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Exhibit D1- Fresno Yosemite Intl. – Airport Influence Area and Safety Zones. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2020/04/ALUCP-FresnoYosemite-International-Airport.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2022. 32 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). FHSZ Viewer. Website: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed September 1, 2022. 33 City of Fresno. 2018. Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Figure 4.53 Fresno County’s Wildfire Severity Zones. Website:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=24743. Accessed September 1, 2022.

Furthermore, potential risks involving soil contamination exposure would be minimized by managing old underground storage tanks (USTs), if applicable, according to the Fresno County standards as enforced by the Department of Environmental Health. If groundwater contamination has been identified, remediation activities would be required by the RWQCB, DTSC, or other appropriate regulatory agency prior to the start of any new construction activities. With implementation of the General Plan policies, as well as compliance with applicable federal and State law, project impacts regarding the exposure of hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials will remain less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than significant impact. The proposed project would include minor land use changes and subsequent redevelopment that could potentially create hazards, emit hazardous materials, or develop on hazardous sites. The City of Fresno Fire Department recognizes the potential for a large chemical release to occur which could expose thousands of people to hazardous/toxic vapors.

Therefore, the City of Fresno Fire Department Hazardous Materials Response Team has embraced an all-hazards approach to emergency response to ensure that the community receives adequate service to all hazardous materials events. To reduce potential impacts from the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment within the Specific Plan Area, all future development must comply with General Plan policies and adhere to local programs within the County’s Hazardous Waste Generator Program and Hazardous Materials Incident Response Plan. Evaluation of hazards and hazardous materials would be considered at the time of planning and development for individual sites. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 112 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than significant impact. As discussed previously, the proposed project is located within the FUSD and a number of schools, universities, and childcare facilities are located within the Specific Plan Area. Specifically, there are five elementary schools, two middle schools, one high school and Fresno Pacific University, as well as childcare facilities such as the Boys & Girls Club within the Specific Plan Area. The proposed project would include minor land use changes and subsequent redevelopment that could potentially create hazards, emit hazardous materials, or develop on hazardous sites. Evaluation of hazards and hazardous materials would be considered at the time of planning and development for individual sites. These individual sites may be located within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. However, all generation, transport, and treatment of hazardous materials would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local requirements.

Additionally, any future projects would be reviewed by the City of Fresno in light of their potential impacts and location in relation to existing and/or proposed schools. All future development would be subject to environmental review to ensure significant impacts are reduced to a less than significant level or are avoided entirely. As such, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less than significant impact. As previously mentioned, the proposed project would include minor land use changes and subsequent redevelopment that could potentially create hazards, emit hazardous materials, or develop on sites included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Hazardous sites would be identified during subsequent CEQA review of all future discretionary development. Further, before a development would be permitted to occur on such a site, the site would be required to be remediated to address any on-site hazardous materials consistent with the requirements of the DTSC, Fresno County Division of Environmental Health, and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board, to a level that would permit development on-site depending on the site characteristics. Additionally, new development would have to comply with General Plan policies and these policies would require facilities that handle hazardous materials or hazardous wastes to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable hazardous materials and waste management laws and regulations.

Evaluation of hazards and hazardous materials would be considered at the time of planning and development for individual sites. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Less than significant impact. As previously discussed, there are three public or public use airports located within in the Specific Plan Area: Fresno Yosemite International Airport; Fresno Chandler City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 113 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Executive Airport, and Sierra Sky Park. The Fresno Yosemite International Airport is located approximately 1.34 miles northeast of the Specific Plan Area, and a portion of the Specific Plan Area is located within Traffic Pattern Zone.34 The Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) also establishes the planning boundaries around each of these airport facilities that define safety areas, noise contours, and height/airspace protection for policy implementation. The ALUCP is intended to protect and promote the safety and welfare of residents, businesses, and airport users near the public use airports and Naval Air Station Lemoore in Fresno County. Future development under the proposed project would have to comply with General Plan policies and the Fresno County ALUCP. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than significant impact. The City’s Police and Fire Departments are the lead agencies for all local emergency response efforts. The City's full-time Emergency Preparedness Officer (EPO) is responsible for ensuring that Fresno's emergency response plans are up-to-date and implemented properly. The EPO also facilitates cooperation between City departments and other local, State and federal agencies that would be involved in emergency response operations. With adequate services provided by the City’s Police and Fire Departments and implementation of General Plan policies, potential interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be reduced to a less than significant level. Any future development within the Specific Plan Area of the proposed project would comply with all fire codes and regulations regarding emergency access and evaluation of the impact on adopted emergency response plans would be considered at the time of planning and development for individual sites. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less than significant impact. Although the City is located near high and very high fire hazard designated areas, the City is largely categorized as little or no threat or moderate fire hazard. Some small areas along the San Joaquin River Bluff area in northern Fresno are prone to wildfires due to relatively steep terrain/vegetation. The San Joaquin River is more than 8 miles north of the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan Area is designated as an LRA, 35 and there are no wildlands located within
or adjacent to the Specific Plan Area.36 As previously discussed, because of the topography and the distance between the developed portions of the City and undeveloped areas, the primary fire hazard concern within the City consists of the potential for structure fires in developed areas. Impacts relating to wildfires would be discussed and evaluated during the environmental review process for future site development under the proposed plan. Future development under the proposed project 34 Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG). Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Exhibit D1- Fresno Yosemite Intl. – Airport Influence Area and Safety Zones. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2020/04/ALUCP-FresnoYosemite-International-Airport.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2022. 35 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). FHSZ Viewer. Website: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed September 1, 2022. 36 City of Fresno. 2018. Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. Figure 4.53 Fresno County’s Wildfire Severity Zones. Website:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=24743. Accessed September 1, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 114 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx would comply with General Plan policies and the 2022 CBC; thus, potential significant impacts related to wildland fires would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site;
(iii) 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; or
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Environmental Evaluation
Introduction
As noted in the proposed Specific Plan, the land use designations of the Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan buildout assumptions; however, the Specific Plan proposes changing the land use designation for some of the Specific Plan Area’s parcels, which will require the General Plan Land Use map to be amended. These proposed land use designation changes would reduce the total amount of development compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan for the Specific Plan Area.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 116 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Environmental Setting
At the federal level, the Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law that governs and authorizes water quality control. Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all surface waters of the United States. The CWA establishes the NPDES permit program to regulate municipal and industrial discharge, including those from municipal storm sewer systems, which require Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permits. At the State level, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act oversees California’s water quality control. The act establishes the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the nine regional offices, each having jurisdiction to regulate and protect waters in each region. More importantly, the State Water Board and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issue and enforce waste discharge permits, NPDES permits, and CWA Section 401 quality permits. At the Regional level, the Central Valley RWQCB serves all or part of 38 of the State’s 58 counties, including Fresno County.
37 The Specific Plan Area is located within the Upper Dry Subbasin of the Tulare-Buena Vista Lakes Watershed.
38 The San Joaquin River and the Kings River are the principal rivers that influence the hydrology in the City, and thus the Plan Area. Three dams control flows on the two rivers. The Friant and Mendota Dams on the San Joaquin River are reservoirs for municipal and agricultural irrigation supply and provide some flood control. The Pine Flat Dam is a flood control dam on the Kings River.39 The Plan Area is within the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s (FMFCD) urban flood control system consisting of 158 drainage areas, each 1 to 2 square miles in area; all but five of the drainage areas are served by a detention or retention basin.40 Stormwater drainage systems within the Plan Area are constructed and maintained by the FMFCD.

The Specific Plan Area is underlain by the Kings Groundwater Subbasin within the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The Kings Groundwater basin spans 1,530 square miles and serves Fresno, Kings, and Tulare Counties with groundwater flowing generally to the southwest.41 The City of Fresno is also located within the jurisdiction of the North King Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NKGSA).

The Specific Plan Area falls entirely within the service area of the FMFCD, 42 which is responsible for
developing and implementing the Storm Drain Master Plan for the City. As land is developed, the FMFCD works with developers and the City to implement the storm drainage system to collect and dispose of the increased runoff rates and volumes and prevent them from entering local surface waters.
37 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB). Region 5. 2022. About Us. Website:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/about_us/. Accessed September 5, 2022. 38 United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2022. The National Map – Advanced Viewer. Website:
https://apps.nationalmap.gov/viewer/. Accessed September 5, 2022. 39 City of Fresno. 2020. City of Fresno General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report. March. 40 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD). 2022. Urban Basins, Sandbags, Dams and Streams. Website:
https://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/urban-basins-sandbags-dams-streams/. Accessed September 5, 2022. 41 California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2006. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118. Website: https://water.ca.gov/- /media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118/Files/2003-BasinDescriptions/5_022_08_KingsSubbasin.pdf. Accessed September 5, 2022. 42 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD). 2022. District Service Area. Website: www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/09/district_service_area.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2022.

However, development proposed in the Specific Plan is less than what was contemplated by the General Plan and is therefore consistent with the stormwater rates and volumes anticipated in the General Plan.

Development within the Specific Plan Area would be required to comply with the requirements of all applicable rules and regulations, including the NPDES Construction General Permit, which would reduce the effects of construction and operational activities on water quality.

Construction
Extensive soil removal during the construction period may cause erosion and temporary impacts to water quality. As previously identified, any new development that would disturb more than 1 acre of soil would be required to obtain the NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires development and implementation of a SWPPP, which would include BMPs to eliminate contact of rainfall and stormwater runoff with sources of pollution. Compliance with this permit would ensure that impacts related to new development under the Specific Plan are less than significant.

Operation
During operation of any new project within the Specific Plan Area, changes to the amount of stormwater infiltration that occurs on the site would have the potential to affect long-term water quality by increasing the amount of pollutants that are discharged from the site. However, implementation of permanent stormwater quality features as and implementation of postconstruction BMPs as required under the NPDES Permit would ensure that no stormwater discharge requirements are violated.

Additionally, implementation of General Plan Policies POSS-6-b, PU-5-a through PU-5-c, PU-7-a through PU-7-f, RC-6-e through RC-6-h, NS-3-e, and NS-3-i would reduce long-term project impacts 43 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Website:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=Fresno%2C%20CA#searchresultsanchor. Accessed September 5, 2022. 44 State of California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. 2015. MyHazards. Website: https://myhazards.caloes.ca.gov. Accessed September 5, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 118 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx associated with water quality standards and wastewater discharge requirements to less than significant levels.

Future development would be required to prepare, implement, and be consistent with the NPDES Permit, as well as continued implementation of General Plan and Specific Plan policies, which would reduce project operational impacts associated with water quality standards and wastewater discharge requirements to less than significant.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less than significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the use of less groundwater than anticipated by the General Plan because the Specific Plan would include less development than what was contemplated for the Specific Plan Area by the General Plan. Therefore, the groundwater demand of new development in the Specific Plan Area has been accounted for by the General Plan.

As discussed above, the Specific Plan Area is underlain by the Kings Groundwater Subbasin. The City’s water supply is made up of approximately 47 percent groundwater and 53 percent surface sources. The Kings Subbasin has been identified as critically over-drafted basin by the Department of Water Resources (DWR). However, the City has invested in other water supplies such as surface water, recycled water and conservation, and groundwater levels in the Kings Subbasin have begun to recover.45 Groundwater is recharged through natural recharge, subsurface inflow, and intentional recharge. Natural recharge in the City was about 24,970 acre-feet per year (AFY) in 2020. Subsurface inflow into the aquifer below the City was estimated at about 47,510 AFY in 2020. The City has averaged over 60,000 AFY the previous five years with the exception of 2021 and 2022 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 the City to draw on additional groundwater during dry years.46 According to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City has enough projected supply to meet demand in normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry year scenarios.

Under single dry year and multiple dry year scenarios groundwater recharge is reduced.47 Thus, assuming all water allocations are available to the City, the available supply of groundwater and surface water would be sufficient.

Additionally, the proposed project would implement General Plan Objective RC-6, Policies RC-6-a through RC-6-e and RC-6-I, Objective RC-7, Policies RC- 7-a through RC-7-h, Policy PU-7-d, Policy PU7-d, Objective PU-8, and Policies PU-8-a and PU-8-g, which would reduce the potential for groundwater overdraft impacts.
45 City of Fresno. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. July. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid.

The proposed project would also implement the approved General Plan Policies POSS-6-b, NS-3-a, NS-3-b, NS-3-d, NS-3-e NS-3-i and Objective NS-3, which would reduce long-term project impacts associated with alteration of grading patterns or creeks or streams and erosion to a less than significant level. General Plan Policy RC-5.2 also requires an erosion and sedimentation control plan and runoff control measures to prevent erosion on construction sites. Therefore, with the implementation of relevant General Plan Policies, and compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit program and other applicable City, State, and federal regulations regarding construction and grading, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Less than significant impact. As previously discussed, future development under the Specific Plan could include ground-disturbing activities, which could change existing surface drainage patterns and increase the potential for flooding, particularly during storm events. Temporary, ground-disturbing construction activities that substantially compact the development site soils could increase runoff volumes that could result in flooding on or off the construction site. 48 City of Fresno Planning and Development Department Building and Safety Services Division. 2021. Grading Plan Process. Website:
https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2021/09/GRADING_PLAN_REQUIREMENTS_2021.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 120 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Regulatory mechanisms in place that would reduce the impacts of construction activities on drainage patterns that could result in flooding on or off the construction site include compliance with the City’s grading plan check process, the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan, and the NPDES Construction General Permit. Discussion of these regulatory processes is included in the previous section’s discussion of erosion and siltation. Compliance with these required regulations would reduce the project construction impacts on drainage patterns and flooding on and off the construction site to less than significant levels.

Operationally, future development under the proposed project has the potential to increase the amount of paved, impervious surfaces within the Specific Plan Area. However, development proposed in the Specific Plan is less than what was contemplated by the General Plan and is therefore consistent with the stormwater rates and volumes anticipated in the General Plan.

Objective NS-3 and Policies NS-3-a, NS-3-b, NS-3-e, NS-3-h, NS-3-i of the approved General Plan were designed to reduce flooding impacts. Implementation of the grading plan check process, and compliance with General Plan policies would ensure that surface runoff and long-term project flooding impacts associated with alteration of grading patterns are less than significant. (iii) 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; or
Less than significant impact. Continued implementation of the General Plan is projected to increase the impervious surface area within the City and its SOI. The proposed project would redevelop a number of vacant parcels to other uses. While the proposed project has the potential to increase impervious surface and as such, increase the amount of stormwater runoff, development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan. Therefore, runoff from the proposed project has already been anticipated by the General Plan and would not exceed the capacity of the storm drainage system.

Additionally, the proposed project would include storm drain improvements in California Avenue between Cedar and Maple Avenues and the detention basin to the south of the Specific Plan Area.

Participation in the NPDES Permit process would reduce impacts to surface waters to acceptable levels, and long-term project impacts to surface or groundwater quality would not exceed acceptable levels. Continued implementation of the approved General Plan policies NS-3-a, NS-3-b, NS-3-e, NS-3-h, NS-3-I and POSS-6-b, along with preparation, implementation, and participation in the NPDES Permit process would reduce project-specific impacts on water quality associated with the significant increase in stormwater runoff. Additionally, Chapter 6, Article 7, Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control, of the Fresno Municipal Code establishes provisions regarding stormwater discharges to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of citizens and protect the water quality of watercourses and water bodies by reducing pollutants in urban stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable and by effectively prohibiting non- City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 121 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx stormwater discharges to the storm drain system.49 Because development associated with the proposed project would result in less development within the Specific Plan Area as compared to what was considered in the General Plan, and future development would comply with General Plan policies and the NPDES Permit requirements, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on stormwater drainage system capacity or stormwater quality. (iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than significant impact. Constructing buildings in floodplains puts those structures in danger of repeated flooding.

FEMA prepares Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) to map flood zones in order to assist communities with floodplain management regulations and flood insurance requirements. FEMA has prepared multiple FIRMs for the City that show floodplain zones throughout Fresno and surrounding areas. According to the FIRMs that include the Specific Plan Area, the Specific Plan Area is not located in an area that has been identified as a 100-year flood zone. Additionally, implementation of the approved General Plan includes Objective NS-3 and Policies NS-3-a, NS-3-b, NS-3-f and NS-3-h through NS-3-m to address potential flood impacts. Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations and requirements to prevent development within the 100-year floodplain would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Thus, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on flood flows.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the Specific Plan Area is not located in a 100-year flood zone and is not within a Tsunami Emergency Response Planning Zone. A seiche is a “standing” wave oscillating in a body of water. This phenomenon occurs in large bodies of water such as bays and lakes. A seiche may occur in any semi- or fully enclosed body of water. They can be caused by strong winds and earthquakes.50 The nearest body of water capable of producing a seiche is Big Dry Creek Dam and Reservoir, over 9 miles northeast of the Specific Plan Area. Implementation of the Specific Plan would not introduce new land uses near the reservoir that could be inundated.

Additionally, this is a relatively small reservoir, and it would not be subject to strong oscillations during an earthquake event. Further, the Noise and Safety Element of the approved General Plan includes Objective NS-2 and Policies NS-2-a, NS-2-b, and NS-2-d that would minimize potentially hazardous conditions posed by geologic and soils risks. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with respect to release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. Impacts would be less than significant. 49 City of Fresno. 2022. Fresno Municipal Code. Chapter 6 Municipal Services and Utilities, Article 7, Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control. 50 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2022. What is a seiche? Website:
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/seiche.html. Accessed September 6, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 122 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than significant impact. As previously discussed, the Specific Plan Area is within the jurisdiction of the NKGSA. In November 2019, the NKGSA adopted the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) with the sustainability goal to ensure that by 2040, the Kings Groundwater Subbasin is being managed in a sustainable manner to maintain a reliable water supply by balancing water demand with available water supply. The North Kings GSP determined that the NKGSA will reach sustainability by 2040 if groundwater flows from within the NKGSA to neighboring Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) and basins are reduced, and projects are developed to mitigate present and future projected impacts.51 Implementation of the Specific Plan would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of projects and management actions included in the North Kings GSP.

Furthermore, development under the proposed project would be required to comply with the NPDES program and other local requirements, ensuring that impacts related to consistency with a water quality control plan or groundwater management plan would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
51 North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NKGSA). 2019. Groundwater Sustainability Plan. November 21.

2.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) 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?
Environmental Evaluation
Introduction
As noted in the proposed Specific Plan, the land use designations of the Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan buildout assumptions; however, this Plan proposes changing the land use designation for some of the Plan Area’s parcels, which will require the General Plan Land Use map to be amended. These proposed land use designation changes would reduce the total amount of development compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan for the Plan Area.

Environmental Setting
The overall purpose of the Specific Plan is to refine the vision for the Specific Plan Area established in the General Plan. As previously discussed, the Specific Plan includes proposed land use changes that would reclassify some parcels to match uses currently on the ground that are likely to remain for the foreseeable future. These changes would facilitate revitalization of vacant lands or facilities along the Kings Canyon Corridor, reduce oversized parking lots near the Maple and Butler intersection, and develop publicly controlled underutilized land near the Cedar Avenue and California Avenue intersection. The Specific Plan would also create higher intensity mixed-use infill along priority corridors and at key opportunity sites, strengthen neighborhoods that provide a range of office types, and include office, clean tech, and other non-nuisance employment generating uses that provide a buffer between industrial neighborhoods.

The Specific Plan Area sits on 2,200 acres of land. While the proposed project increases the amount of land designated for Residential – Medium Density, Residential – Medium High Density, Employment – Office, and Public Facility, development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of the development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan.

Would the project:

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 124 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx a) Physically divide an established community?
Less than significant impact. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a linear feature, such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a means of access, such as a local bridge that would impact mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying area. The Specific Plan does not contemplate or authorize any such physical changes to an established community.

As discussed in Section 1, Project Description, the proposed project increases the amount of land designated for medium density residential, office uses, and public facilities and reduces the amount of land designated for commercial and industrial uses as well as vacant land. The Specific Plan does not propose or approve specific development; rather, the Specific Plan provides a framework for the cohesive development of the Specific Plan Area. In addition, the Specific Plan includes general goals and policies which will regulate future development. Implementation of the proposed project would allow for planned development and growth while promoting the emergence of new communities.

The proposed project would not alter development patterns or activities and would not include the addition of new roadways, which precludes the possibility of dividing an established community.

Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community and impacts would be less than significant.
b) 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? Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if the project would conflict with various federal, State, and local plans, policies, and regulations. While the proposed project increases the amount of land designated for Residential – Medium Density, Residential – Medium High Density, Employment – Office and Public Facility, development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan. The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan; therefore, it would be consistent with various federal, State, and local plans, policies, and regulations. Therefore, potential conflicts with land use plans, policies, and regulations would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

2.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) 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?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Environmental Evaluation
Introduction
As noted in the proposed Specific Plan, the land use designations of the Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan buildout assumptions; however, this Plan proposes changing the land use designation for some of the Plan Area’s parcels, which will require the General Plan Land Use map to be amended. These proposed land use designation changes would reduce the total amount of development compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan for the Specific Plan Area.

Environmental Setting
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) is the primary California law concerning mineral resources, including sand, gravel, and building stone which are important for commercial purposes. Because of the economic importance of mineral resources, SMARA limits new development in areas with significant mineral deposits. SMARA also requires State Geologists to classify specified areas into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs). According to the General Plan, most areas outside of the San Joaquin and Kings River Resource Areas have been designated as MRZ-3 by the California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). The Specific Plan Area is located in an area designated as MRZ-3.52 The MRZ-3 designation represents areas that may contain, but are not proven to contain, economically recoverable mineral resources. The Specific Plan Area is not designated as an area of significant mineral deposits, but it is approximately 8.19 miles southeast of MRZ-1 and MRZ-2 areas located along the San Joaquin River Corridor containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance.53 The MRZ-1 designation represents an area where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. The MRZ-2 designation represents areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high liklihood exists for their presence. There are no mineral resource 52 Fresno County. 2000. Fresno County General Plan, Figure 7-9 Generalized Mineral Resource Zone Classification Website:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/8398/636379166183770000. Accessed October 4, 2022. 53 Fresno County. 2000. Fresno County General Plan, Figure 7-10 Mineral Resource Zone Designated Lan Along San Joaquin River.

Website: https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/8398/636379166183770000. Accessed October 4, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 126 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx recovery sites within the Specific Plan Area, which is located to the east and southeast of Downtown Fresno, and is surrounded by urbanized areas as well as unincorporated County agricultural lands to the east. According to the General Plan PEIR, the Kings River area is another area rich with mineral deposits and that is currently being used for mining operations and mineral extraction, with lands in the area primarily classified as MRZ-2. The Kings River is approximately 11.30 miles east of the Specific Plan Area.

Would the project:
a) 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?
Less than significant impact. As described above, the Specific Plan Area is not designated as an area of significant mineral deposits, indicating that no significant mineral resources are present. While areas to the north and east of the Specific Plan Area are classified as MRZ-2 (where known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance are present), the Specific Plan Area is already developed and surrounded by urban and agricultural land use so future mineral deposit designations would not affect development. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Less than significant impact. The Plan Area is on developed land to the east and southeast of Downtown Fresno and as described above, there are no mineral resource recovery sites within the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan Area is not designated as an area of significant mineral deposition and is already developed and surrounded by urban and agricultural land uses, so future mineral deposit designations would not affect development. Additionally, as described above, areas to the north and east of the Specific Plan Area are designated MRZ-2 and are located along the San Joaquin River and Kings River. Any future development within the Specific Plan Area would comply with General Plan objectives and policies, including Objective RC-10 which aims to conserve aggregate mineral resources identified by the Division of Mines and Geology. Furthermore, development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed plan would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

2.13 Noise
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Environmental Evaluation
Introduction
As noted in the proposed Specific Plan, the land use designations of the Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan buildout assumptions; however, the Specific Plan proposes changing the land use designation for some of the Plan Area’s parcels, which will require the General Plan Land Use map to be amended. These proposed land use designation changes would reduce the total amount of development compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan for the Specific Plan Area.

Setting
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Most of the sounds that we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing in sound level. The intensities of each frequency add together to generate a sound. Noise is typically generated by transportation, specific land uses, and ongoing human activity.

The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the dB. The 0 point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. A change of 3 dB is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments, while a change of 5 dBA is considered to be the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments.

Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, the dBA was derived to relate noise to the sensitivity of humans, as it gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 128 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx which the human ear is most sensitive. The A-weighted sound level is the basis for a number of various sound level metrics, including the Ldn and the CNEL, both of which represent how humans are more sensitive to sound at night. In addition, the Leq is the average sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period and the Lmax is the maximum instantaneous noise level occurring over a sample period.

Regulatory Framework
Fresno General Plan
The following are the General Plan noise policies applicable to the proposed project:

Policy NS–1–a Desirable and Generally Acceptable Exterior Noise Environment. Establish 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL as the standard for the desirable maximum average exterior noise levels for defined usable exterior areas of residential and noise-sensitive uses for noise but designate 60 dBA Ldn or CNEL (measured at the property line) for noise generated by stationary sources impinging upon residential and noise-sensitive uses. Maintain 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL as the maximum average exterior noise levels for non-sensitive commercial land uses and maintain 70 dBA Ldn or CNEL as maximum average exterior noise level for industrial land uses, both to be measured at the property line of parcels where noise is generated which may impinge on neighboring properties.

Policy NS–1–b Conditionally Acceptable Exterior Noise Exposure Range. Establish the conditionally acceptable noise exposure level range for residential and other noise-sensitive uses to be 65 dBA Ldn or require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determined by a site-specific acoustical analysis to comply with the desirable and conditionally acceptable exterior noise level and the required interior noise level standards set in Table 9–2 [Table X1].

Policy NS–1–c Generally Unacceptable Exterior Noise Exposure Range. Establish the exterior noise exposure of greater than 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL to be generally unacceptable for residential and other noise-sensitive uses for noise generated by sources in Policy NS–1–a, and study alternative less noise-sensitive uses for these areas if otherwise appropriate. Require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determined by a site-specific acoustical analysis to comply with the generally desirable or generally acceptable exterior noise level and the required 45 dBA interior noise level standards set in Table 9–2 [Table X1] as conditions of permit approval.

Policy NS–1–f Performance Standards. Implement performance standards for noise reduction for new residential and noise-sensitive uses exposed to exterior community noise levels from transportation sources above 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL, as shown on Figure NS–3:

Future Noise Contours, or as identified by a project-specific acoustical analysis based on the target acceptable noise levels set in Table 9–2 [Table X1] and Policies NS–1–a through NS–1–c.

Noise mitigation measures may include:
• The screening of noise sources such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment.
• Providing increased setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings. • Installation of walls and landscaping that serve as noise buffers. • Installation of soundproofing materials and double–glazed windows. • Regulating operations, such as hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup.
• Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level reduction may be approved by the City, provided a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative designs will achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces. As a last resort, developers may propose to construct noise walls along roadways when compatible with aesthetic concerns and neighborhood character. This would be a developer responsibility, with no City funding.

Policy NS–1–j Significance Threshold. Establish, as a threshold of significance for the City's environmental review process, that a significant increase in ambient noise levels is assumed if the project would increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity by 3 dBA Ldn or CNEL or more above the ambient noise limits established in this General Plan Update.

Policy NS–1–o Sound Wall Guidelines. Acoustical studies and noise mitigation measures for projects shall specify the heights, materials, and design for sound walls and other noise barriers. Aesthetic considerations shall also be addressed in these studies and mitigation measures such as variable noise barrier heights, 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, with a maximum allowable height of 15 feet. The City will develop guidelines for aesthetic design measures of sound walls, and may commission area wide noise mitigation studies that can serve as templates for acoustical treatment that can be applied to similar situations in the urban area.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 130 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Table 11: Transportation (Non–Aircraft) Noise Source
Noise-Sensitive Land Use1
Outdoor Activity Areas2
CNEL/Ldn dB
Interior Spaces
CNEL/Ldn dB CNEL/Ldn dB3
Residential 65 45 —
Transient Lodging 65 45 —
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 65 45 —
Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls — — 35
Churches, Meeting Halls 65 — 45
Office Buildings — — 45
Schools, Libraries, Museums — — 45
Notes:

CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dB = decibel
Ldn = day/night average sound level 1 Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown or is not applicable, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. 2 As determined for a typical worst–case hour during periods of use. 3 As determined for a typical worst–case hour during periods of use.

Source: Fresno General Plan, Noise and Safety Element. 2014.

Table 12: Stationary Noise Sources
Category
Daytime
(7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
Hourly Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), dB 50 45
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax), dB 70 65
Notes:
dB = decibel
Ldn = day/night average sound level
Lmax = maximum noise/sound level 1 The Department of Development and Resource Management Director, on a case-by-case basis, may designate land uses other than those shown in this table to be noise-sensitive and may require appropriate noise mitigation measures. 2 As determined at outdoor activity areas. Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown or not applicable, the noise exposure standard shall be applied at the property line of the receiving land use. When ambient noise levels exceed or equal the levels in this table, mitigation shall only be required to limit noise to the ambient plus 5 dB.

Source: Fresno General Plan Noise and Safety Element. 2014.

City of Fresno Municipal Code
Chapter 10, Article 1 (Noise Regulations), of the Fresno Municipal Code establishes excessive noise guidelines and exemptions. The following portions of the Municipal Code are applicable to the proposed project:

Table 13: Ambient Noise Levels
District Time Sound Level Decibels
Residential 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50
Residential 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55
Residential 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 60
Commercial 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 60
Commercial 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 65
Industrial anytime 70
Chapter 15, Article 25 (Performance Standards), of the Fresno Municipal Code establishes noise and vibration performance standards. The following portions of the Municipal Code are applicable to the proposed project:

SEC. 15–2506 Noise
The provisions of this section apply to noise sources resulting from and relating to new development or the expansion of a use or activity. Section 15–2506 establishes noise exposure thresholds from transportation–related noise sources for new noisesensitive land use development. The maximum allowable exterior noise level for noise-sensitive land uses is 65 dBA Ldn/CNEL, and the maximum allowable interior noise level for noise-sensitive land uses is 45 dBA Leq.

Section 15–2506 also establishes land use compatibility standards for new development proposed near transportation noise sources. For example, environments with traffic noise levels ranging up to 65 dBA Ldn/CNEL are considered satisfactory for new residential or similar noise-sensitive land use development and may be permitted without requiring noise attenuation. Environments with traffic noise levels between 65 dBA and 70 dBA CNEL would require analysis and integration of noise reduction measures in the project design. Environments with traffic noise levels between 70 dBA and 75 dBA CNEL would require a site-specific Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 132 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx acoustical study and implementation of noise attenuation measures. Environments with traffic noise levels above 75 dBA CNEL are not acceptable for new residential or similar noise-sensitive development.

Section 15–2506 further establishes noise performance standards for stationary noise sources. The daytime noise performance standards are 50 dBA Leq (hourly) and 70 dBA Lmax; and the nighttime standards are 45 dBA Leq (hourly) and 60 dBA Lmax.

SEC. 15–2507 Vibration
No vibration shall be produced that is transmitted through the ground and is discernible without the aid of instruments by a reasonable person at the lot lines of the site. Vibrations from temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the subject parcel (e.g., construction equipment, trains, trucks, etc.) are exempt from this standard.

Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The analysis below discusses both potential construction and operational noise impacts.

Temporary Construction Noise Impacts
A significant impact would occur if project-related, noise producing construction activities result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in excess of the established standards. The City’s Noise Ordinance identifies that 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 by site preparation and grading, are exempt from the noise performance standards of the Noise Ordinance provided such work takes place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday.

Development that could occur from implementation of the Specific Plan is expected to result in construction activities within the Planning Area. Noise impacts from construction activities would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities.

For future development projects, temporary short-term noise impacts are related to noise generated during site preparation, grading, and construction activities. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics.

These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on-site. Thus, the noise levels vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the types and sizes of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.

Development projects that could occur with implementation of the of the Specific Plan would be expected to require the use of some of the loudest pieces of construction equipment. For example, the maximum noise level generated by bulldozers would generate 85 dBA Lmax at 25 feet, the maximum noise level generated by graders is approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 25 feet, and large vibratory rollers produce noise levels of up to 85 dBA Lmax at 25 feet. Each doubling of sound sources with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each piece of construction equipment operates at some distance from the other equipment, a reasonable worst–case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the acoustical center of a construction area. This would result in a reasonable worst–case hourly average of 86 dBA Leq. The acoustical center reference is used because construction equipment must operate at some distance from one another on a project site and the combined noise level as measured at a point equidistant from multiple sources operating simultaneously would represent the worst–case noise levels.

There are no site-specific development plans; however, project development in the Plan Area could result in the potential for relatively high single event construction noise resulting in temporary substantial increases in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of an active construction site, potentially resulting in exceedance of the City’s established construction noise standards. As noted previously, the City’s Noise Ordinance identifies that 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, are exempt from the noise performance standards of the Noise Ordinance provided such work takes place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday.

Therefore, mitigation is required to reduce this potential impact. Restrictions on permissible hours of construction and requirements to prepare a construction noise mitigation plan that includes implementation of best management noise reduction measures, would ensure that potential temporary construction noise impacts would comply with the City’s construction noise standards and these temporary construction noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Therefore, implementation of project-specific MM NOI–3 and MM NOI–4, would ensure that temporary construction noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Operational Mobile Source Noise Impacts
A significant impact would occur if project–generated traffic would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels compared with those that would exist without the proposed project. The City does not define “substantial increase” or specific thresholds related to mobile source noise impacts; therefore, for purposes of this analysis, a substantial increase is based on the following criteria. A Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 134 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx characteristic of noise is that audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dBA or more as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. A change of 5 dBA is considered the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would cause the CNEL to increase by any of the following:
• 5 dBA or more even if the CNEL would remain below normally acceptable levels for a receiving land use.
• 3 dBA or more, thereby causing the CNEL to exceed normally acceptable levels for a receiving land use.

A characteristic of noise is that a doubling of sound sources with equal strength is required to result in a perceptible increase (defined to be a 3 dBA or greater) in noise levels. As is identified in the Final Traffic Study (see Appendix B) prepared by Stantec for this project, the Specific Plan would not result in any changes to the roadway segment peak-hour levels of service identified in the General Plan PEIR. In addition, the anticipated trip generation with implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a reduction of 8,102 total average daily trips compared to the trips that would be generated with development anticipated under the General Plan. Development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in any increase in traffic noise levels compared to the traffic noise levels that will occur with the level of development anticipated under the General Plan. Therefore, project-related traffic noise impacts on off-site receptors would be less than significant.

Operational Stationary Source Noise Impacts
A significant impact would occur if operational noise levels generated by stationary noise sources associated with development projects within the Plan Area would exceed the noise performance standards of Section 15–2506 of the Municipal Code.

Development projects that could occur with implementation of the Specific Plan would include new stationary noise sources. These stationary noise sources could involve a wide spectrum of uses and activities, including various industrial uses, commercial operations, agricultural production, school playgrounds, high school football games and marching bands, HVAC units, generators, lawn maintenance equipment, and swimming pool pumps. These would be potential point sources of noise that could affect noise-sensitive receptors in the Specific Plan Area.

Typical maximum noise levels from truck loading and unloading activity are 65 dBA to 75 dBA Lmax as measured at 50 feet. These maximum noise levels include noise from associated truck loading/unloading activities, including maneuvering, trailer loading and unloading, backup alarms or beepers, and docking noise. Parking activities including vehicles cruising at slow speeds, doors shutting, or cars starting, would generate noise levels of approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Current market-available residential mechanical ventilation equipment has rated operational noise levels up to 70 dBA Leq at a distance of 3 feet. Current market-available commercial grade City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 135 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx mechanical ventilation equipment is rated as having operational noise levels up to 80 dBA Leq at 3 feet from the operating equipment.

These stationary source operational noise levels could exceed the City’s noise performance thresholds if they were to occur in areas adjacent to sensitive receptor land uses. Therefore, mitigation would be required to reduce this potential impact. Operational activity noise levels can be mitigated either at the source or at the receiving land use using setbacks, soundwalls, acoustic–rated windows, or by siting loading/parking areas on sides of buildings opposite sensitive receptors (using buildings as shielding). For example, at a distance of 300 feet, unobstructed truck loading activity noise levels would attenuate to below 60 dBA Lmax, while properly sited structural shielding (building or sound wall) can provide 15 dBA or greater additional noise reduction.

Therefore, implementation of project-specific MM NOI–5, which requires preparation of a stationary source noise reduction plan to identify appropriate design measures, where required, would ensure stationary source operational noise impacts generated by future development projects would be reduced to less than significant.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. This section analyzes both construction and operational groundborne vibration impacts. The City prohibits groundborne vibration that is discernible without the aid of instruments by a reasonable person at the lot lines of the site; however, vibrations from temporary construction activities are exempt from this standard.

Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) vibration impact criteria are utilized to analyze construction vibration impacts. The FTA has established industry accepted standards for vibration impact criteria and impact assessment. These guidelines are published in its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

A significant impact would occur if existing structures at the project site or in the project vicinity would be exposed to groundborne vibration levels in excess of levels established by the FTA’s Construction Vibration Impact Criteria. Development of the Specific Plan would require the use of construction equipment which are vibration generators.

Short-term Construction Vibration Impacts to Off-site Receptors Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment used on the site. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings in the vicinity of a construction site respond to these vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the low levels to slight damage at the highest levels.

Of the variety of equipment used during construction, impact pile drivers that could be used in the site preparation phase of construction would produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels.

Impact pile drivers produce groundborne vibration levels ranging up to 0.644 inch per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the operating equipment. The heaviest type of Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 136 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx mobile equipment that would produce the highest vibration levels would be a large vibratory roller producing groundborne vibration levels ranging up to 0.201 in/sec PPV as measured at 25 feet.

However, all projects constructed within the Plan Area would implement General Plan PEIR MM NOI2, which prohibits the use of heavy construction equipment within 25 feet of existing structures.

Furthermore, development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan.

Therefore, implementation of MM NOI-2 of would ensure that construction vibration impacts generated by future development projects would be reduced to a less than significant impact.

Operational Vibration Impacts
Based on the proposed types of land uses of the Specific Plan, future related development projects are not anticipated to include any permanent sources of vibration that would expose persons in the project vicinity to excessive groundborne vibration levels, and development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan. In addition, there are no existing significant permanent sources of groundborne vibration located within the Specific Plan development area to which future development projects would be exposed. Therefore, project operational groundborne vibration level impacts would be considered less than significant. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The Fresno Yosemite International Airport is located approximately 1.34 miles northeast of the Plan Area. At this distance, the entire Plan Area is located outside of the airport’s 65 dBA CNEL noise contours. Therefore, implementation of the project would not expose persons residing or working in the Plan Area to noise levels from airport activity that would be in excess of normally acceptable standards. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
The following General Plan PEIR mitigation measure applies to the proposed project:

MM NOI–2 Construction Vibration. The use of heavy construction equipment within 25 feet of existing structures shall be prohibited.

The following project-specific mitigation measures apply to the proposed project:

MM NOI–3 Construction Activity Hours. Construction activity which requires a permit issued by the City of Fresno shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays. Any construction activity outside of these hours must comply with the City’s noise performance standards of Section 15.2506 of the Municipal Code.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 138 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx • Minimize the use of impact devices such as jackhammers, pavement breakers, and hoe rams. Where possible, use concrete crushers or pavement saws rather than hoe rams for tasks such as concrete or asphalt demolition and removal. • The final noise-reduction measures to be implemented and their associated details shall be determined by the construction–level noise analysis. The final noise-reduction measures shall be included on all construction and building documents and/or construction management plans and submitted for verification to the City; implemented by the construction contractor through the duration of the construction phase; and discussed at the pre-demolition, -grade, and/or – construction meetings.

MM NOI–5 Operational Stationary Noise Source Impacts. Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall be responsible to implement the following measures to limit operational stationary noise source impacts:
• Any proposed development projects that include unshielded parking areas within 175 feet, or unshielded truck loading docks within 300 feet, or unshielded mechanical ventilation equipment systems within 35 feet of a noise-sensitive receptor, shall demonstrate compliance with Municipal Code Section 15–2506 by submitting a site-specific acoustic study. These reports shall demonstrate that the proposed project incorporates sufficient noise attenuation features, if needed, to meet the City of Fresno’s exterior/interior noise performance standards. The individual project owner/developer shall submit the acoustic study to the Planning Director for review and approval. Upon approval by the City, the proposed acoustical design features shall be incorporated into the proposed development. Noise reduction design features may include, but are not limited to, locating stationary noise sources on the site to be shielded by structures (buildings, enclosures, or sound walls) or by using equipment that has a quieter rating.

2.14 Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Environmental Evaluation
Introduction
As noted in the proposed Specific Plan, the land use designations of the Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan buildout assumptions; however, this Plan proposes changing the land use designation for some of the Plan Area’s parcels, which will require the General Plan Land Use map to be amended. These proposed land use designation changes would reduce the total amount of development compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan for the Specific Plan Area.

Environmental Setting
The City experienced significant growth from 2000 to 2010, adding 6,700 residents per year, a population increase of 16 percent.54 According to the California Department of Finance, the City of Fresno had a population of 1,008,654 as of April 1, 2020.55 The Fresno General Plan projects that the City of Fresno will add 76,000 housing units for a total of 267,000 units and an additional 226,000 residents by buildout in 2035.56
The General Plan includes a range of policies designated to accommodate this future growth, including policies to enhance the character of neighborhoods and districts and provide a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, and housing types to meet the affordable housing needs of Fresno’s communities. General Plan Goals UF-1-d and UF-1-e emphasize the opportunity for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, and housing types. The City has also made significant efforts to support housing needs for low-income residents. General Plan Objective H-2 commits the City to assist in the 54 City of Fresno. 2014. Fresno General Plan, Introduction, page 1-23. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wpcontent/uploads/sites/10/2019/07/ConsolidatedGP6182020.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2022. 55 California Department of Finance. 2020. Report E-5, Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State. Website:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state2020-2022/. Accessed September 13, 2022. 56 City of Fresno. 2014. Fresno General Plan, Introduction, page 1-23. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wpcontent/uploads/sites/10/2019/07/ConsolidatedGP6182020.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 140 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.

Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than significant impact. Presently, the Specific Plan Area includes approximately 30,624 people, which is approximately 5.4 percent of the City’s total population, and approximately 9,150 homes, which is approximately 4.7 percent of the City’s housing units. At buildout of the proposed project, the Specific Plan Area could include up to approximately 18,849 homes; however, this number represents the maximum number of dwelling units permitted in the Plan Area. The actual number of dwelling units at buildout would likely be less. Given the City’s average household size of approximately 3.04 persons per household,
57 the Specific Plan Area is anticipated to have up to
approximately 57,300 residents at buildout. Conservatively, the proposed project could increase the number of dwelling units in the Specific Plan Area by approximately 9,699 and increase the number of residents by approximately 26,676 people.

As previously discussed, the growth generated by the Specific Plan was anticipated by the General Plan. At its buildout, the General Plan anticipated that it would add 76,000 housing units for a total of 267,000 units and an additional 226,000 residents. The growth projected for the Specific Plan Area is within planned growth for the City. Furthermore, it is important to note that development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of the development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan. Additionally, the proposed project does not propose any extension of roads or major infrastructure projects that would indirectly create unplanned growth. Thus, impacts would be less than signifcant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the proposed project would increase the number of homes in the Specific Plan Area by up to 9,699 dwelling units and increase the number of residents by approximately 26,676 people. Additionally, the proposed project would create a more diverse range of housing in the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, it would not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing. Moreover, development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan. As a result, the construction of replacement housing would not be necessary due to the development of a net increase of new housing units and potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. 57 United States Census Bureau. 2020. QuickFacts: Fresno City, California. Website:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fresnocitycalifornia. Accessed October 4, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 142 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.15 Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
Environmental Evaluation
Introduction
As noted in the proposed Specific Plan, the land use designations of the Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan buildout assumptions; however, this Plan proposes changing the land use designation for some of the Plan Area’s parcels, which will require the General Plan Land Use map to be amended. These proposed land use designation changes would reduce the total amount of development compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan for the Plan Area.

Environmental Setting
The City provides public facilities and services to its residents that will support existing and future development. Public services include fire and police protection, education, parks and recreation, and other public facilities such as libraries.

Fire Protection
The Fresno Fire Department (FFD) provides the following services within the city limits: fire prevention, fire suppression, hazardous material mitigation, rescue, and emergency medical services. The FFD serves a population of more than 540,000 in the City, and the Fig Garden Fire Protection District (over 128 square miles) with 21 fire stations, including the Airport Rescue Fire Fighting (ARFF) station. The FFD staffs 27 fire companies, consisting of 19 engines, five ladder trucks, and three squads.
58 There is one FFD station within the Plan Area located at 1428 South Cedar.59 58 City of Fresno. 2022. Fire Suppression. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/fire/fire-suppression/. Accessed September 1, 2022. 59 City of Fresno. 2022. Station Address. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/fire/wpcontent/uploads/sites/6/2016/09/StationLocations-1170x905.jpg. Accessed September 1, 2022.

The Southeast Policing District is located south of Ashlan Avenue (east of Clovis Avenue), south of Clinton Avenue between East Avenue and Clovis Avenue, east of SR99 (south of Church Avenue) to the southern City limit.62 In addition to the Fresno Police Headquarters, located at 2323 Mariposa Mall, the FPD operates five police stations within the City:
63 • Southwest: 1211 Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93706
• Southeast: 1617 South Cedar Avenue, Fresno, CA 93702
• Northeast: 1450 East Teague Avenue, Fresno, CA 93720
• Northwest: 3781 North Hughes Avenue, Fresno, CA 93705 • Central: 3502 North Blackstone, Suite 201, Fresno, CA 93726 Schools
The Specific Plan Area falls entirely within FUSD.
64 The FUSD serves more than 74,000 students and
operates 64 elementary schools, 15 middle schools, eight high schools, four alternative schools, and three special education schools.65 The FUSD has a maximum enrollment capacity of 78,648 students while FUSD (charter) has a maximum enrollment of 2,247 students. Between 2019 and 2020, FUSD had a total enrollment of 73,381.66 Eight FUSD schools are located within the Specific Plan Area, which include two middle schools, five elementary schools, and one high school. 67 The Specific Plan
Area also contains Fresno Pacific University and three community facilities offering childcare.

Parks and Other Public Facilities
The City provides residents with several types of parks and facilities. Park types in the General Plan are classified as follows: pocket park, neighborhood park, community park, regional park, and trail/greenway/parkway.68 The General Plan states that the City’s parkland standard is 3 acres per 60 City of Fresno. 2022. Fire Department Station Locations. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/fire/station-locations/. Accessed September 1, 2022. 61 City of Fresno General Plan, 2014. Chapter 6: Public Utilities and Services. December. 62 City of Fresno. 2022. Policing District Locator. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/police/policing-district-locator/. Accessed September 1, 2022. 63 Ibid. 64 City of Fresno General Plan, 2014. Chapter 5: Parks, Open Space, and Schools. Figure POSS-3: Schools and School Districts.

December. 65 Fresno Unified School District (FUSD). 2022. History of Fresno Unified. Website: https://www.fresnounified.org/history/. Accessed September 1, 2022. 66 California Department of Education. 2021. California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System – Fresno Unified. Website:
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/enrolldowndata.asp. Accessed October 27, 2021. 67 Fresno Unified School District (FUSD). 2022. School Locator. Website: https://apps.fresnounified.org/schoollocator. Accessed September 1, 2022. 68 City of Fresno General Plan, 2014. Chapter 5: Parks, Open Space, and Schools. December.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 144 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx 1,000 residents for Pocket, Neighborhood, and Community parks. There are currently 50.8 acres of parkland within the Plan Area, with a ratio of 1.68 acres of park per 1,000 residents, above the current City average of 1.06 (pocket, neighborhood, and community parks) but below the General Plan goal of 3 acres per 1,000 residents.69A majority of the Specific Plan Area is within walking distance (0.5 mile) of a park or open space, with the exception of the neighborhoods around the western and southeastern boundary of the Specific Plan Area. 70 Additional recreational facilities can be found at many of the 12 schools located within the Specific Plan Area. The City’s park and recreation facilities are maintained by the Parks, After School, Recreation, and Community Services (PARCS).
71The Mosqueda Community Center is located within the Plan Area at 4670 East Butler Avenue.
72 The City is served by the Fresno County Library system. The Fresno County Library system is part of the San Joaquin Valley Library System (SJVLS), a cooperative network of 10 public library jurisdictions in the counties of Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced and Tulare.73 Fresno County Public Library provides collections and services through its Central Resource Library and 34 branches. The Mosqueda Branch Library is within the Specific Plan Area, and the Sunnyside Regional Library is approximately 0.95 mile to the east.74
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would be located east and southeast of Downtown Fresno, which is served by the FFD. As discussed above, the Specific Plan Area includes one fire station. Location of fire stations will become more dependent on density and availability rather than “running distances” between fire stations. Because implementation of the proposed project would result in an increased demand for fire protection services, fire stations will require commensurate increases in firefighter staffing and facilities and equipment. However, this increase in demand can be met with additional staffing requirements at the existing fire stations that serve the Specific Plan Area. It would not result in the need to construct additional government facilities.

Moreover, development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan. 69 City of Fresno. 2021. Public Draft Central Southeast Area Specific Plan. April. 70 City of Fresno. 2021. Public Draft Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Figure 5-1 Park Facilities within a Half Mile Radius. April. 71 City of Fresno. 2022. Parks, After School, Recreation and Community Services. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/parks/. Accessed September 1, 2022. 72 City of Fresno. 2022. Parks, Trails and Facilities. Visiting Our Parks. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/parks/parks-trailsfacilities/#tab-1. Accessed September 2, 2022. 73 Fresno County Public Library. 2022. About the Library. Website: https://fresnolibrary.org/about/index.html. Accessed September 2, 2022. 74 Fresno County Library. 2022. Map of Fresno County and Branches. Website: https://fresnolibrary.org/branch/county.html. Accessed September 2, 2022.

Development projects within the Specific Plan Area would be subject to the Municipal Code, which requires each development to pay a Police Facilities Fee in order to mitigate the impacts on police protection services caused by future development within the City. Payment of the appropriate development impact fees would offset the construction and acquisition costs of required police facility improvements. Lastly, development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan.

Therefore, because development associated with the proposed project would amount to less development than was considered by the General Plan and because any future development under the proposed project would undergo individual environmental review, as well as pay the appropriate development impact fees, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact associated with the provision of police protection services.
c) Schools?
Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the proposed project is located entirely within the FUSD. Based on the existing capacities of FUSD, including the charter schools and the projected additional dwelling units from the proposed project, students generated by the project would not exceed FUSD’s maximum enrollment capacity. As of 2022, the FUSD projects that approximately 300 single-family-units and 800 multiple-family units will be constructed in the district in the next five years. FUSD has a student generation rate of 0.625 students per single-family unit, and 0.405 students per multiple-family unit. Therefore, the FUSD projects enrollment of an additional 511.5 students over the next five years.75 Implementation of the proposed project would result in 75 Fresno Unified School District (FUSD). 2022. Development Fee Justification Study. Website: https://facilities.fresnounified.org/wpcontent/uploads/FUSD-Fee-Study-2022.pdf. Accessed October 3, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 146 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx additional residential development. This would generate additional students who would attend schools within the FUSD. However, development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan. Furthermore, all development would be subject to State-mandated development fees in compliance with SB 50 requirements. Section 12-805, Dedication and Fees, of the Municipal Code allows for school districts within the City to negotiate school impact fees with developers per square footage for residential units in order to fund school improvements. As such, future projects under the proposed project would be required to comply with the provision of school developer fees for new or altered facilities, and new or expanded school facilities would be funded by fees collected by future development projects. Additional school resources would also continue to be funded by an increase in tax revenue as a result of future population growth. In addition, future school facilities would be required to undergo individual environmental review in accordance with CEQA. Therefore, impacts of the proposed project-related to student generation and the potential need for additional school facilities would be less than significant.
d) Parks?
Less than significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the redevelopment and development of residential, office, mixed-use and other land uses and would potentially increase the City’s residential population. This projected growth in the Specific Plan Area would result in an increased demand for parks and recreational facilities.

The Parks Master Plan was updated in 2017 pursuant to General Plan Parks, Open Space and Schools element policy POSS-1-b. The Fresno General Plan states that the City’s parkland standard is 3 acres per 1,000 residents for Pocket, Neighborhood, and Community parks, with an aspirational goal of 5 acres per 1,000 residents for all parks throughout the City, if additional funding for regional parks and trails is identified. There are currently 50.8 acres of parkland within the Specific Plan Area, with a ratio of 1.68 acres of park per 1,000 residents, above the current City average of 1.06 (pocket, neighborhood, and community parks) but below the General Plan goal of 3 acres per 1,000 residents. A majority of the Specific Plan Area is within walking distance (0.5 mile) of a park or open space with the exception of the neighborhoods around the western and southeastern boundary of the Plan. Parks are distributed throughout the Specific Plan Area in the form of two community parks (Calwa and Mosqueda), and several smaller neighborhood parks nestled among low-density residential areas.

The proposed project would include improvements to existing parks as well as conceptual locations for new parks, open spaces, and/or recreational facilities. Future development in the Specific Plan Area would be subject to Specific Plan Goal P-1.1, which promotes an increase in the amount of parkland in the Specific Plan Area to ensure all residents are within a 5-minute walk of a park or open space.

Additionally, future development projects within the Specific Plan Area would be required to comply with the Municipal Code, which requires each development to pay a Park Facilities Fee in order to mitigate the impacts on park facilities caused by future development in the City. Payment of the appropriate development impact fees would offset the construction and acquisition costs of City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 147 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx required park facility improvements. However, the provision of new or physically altered park facilities proposed under the Plan could result in adverse environmental impacts. The construction or expansion of park facilities would be required to undergo environmental review to meet the requirements of CEQA.

Therefore, because development associated with the proposed project would amount to less development than was considered by the General Plan and because any future development under the proposed project would undergo individual environmental review, as well as pay the appropriate development impact fees, the impacts associated with the proposed project would be considered less than significant.
e) Other public facilities?
Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the Specific Plan Area is currently served by a number of park and recreation facilities, as well as the Mosqueda Community Center and the Mosqueda Branch Library. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the redevelopment and development of residential, office, industrial, mixed-use and other land uses, and would potentially increase the City’s residential population. However, development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan. In order to meet the increased demand for neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities, the proposed project includes several goals to improve and provide parks, open space, and recreational facilities as well as improve connectivity between residential areas and local and regional destinations such as schools and community centers. This includes Specific Plan Policy P-1.1 which proposes to build new parks, open spaces, and recreational facilities, prioritizing underserved areas, and Policy P-2.1 which aims to renovate and upgrade existing park facilities to support the recreational, physical, and social needs of residents. However, future development would be subject to General Plan policies and the Municipal Code, and all future development would be subject to CEQA environmental review.

Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 148 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.16 Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Environmental Evaluation
Introduction
As noted in the proposed Specific Plan, the land use designations of the Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan buildout assumptions; however, this Plan proposes changing the land use designation for some of the Plan Area’s parcels, which will require the General Plan Land Use map to be amended. These proposed land use designation changes would reduce the total amount of development compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan for the Specific Plan Area.

Setting
As previously discussed, the City provides residents with several types of parks and facilities. Park types in the General Plan are classified as follows: pocket park, neighborhood park, community park, regional park, and trail/greenway/parkway.76 The General Plan states that the City’s parkland standard is 3 acres per 1,000 residents for Pocket, Neighborhood, and Community parks, with an aspirational goal of 5 acres per 1,000 residents for all parks throughout the City, if additional funding for regional parks and trails is identified. The Specific Plan Area currently has 50.8 acres of parkland, with a ratio of 1.68 acres of park per 1,000 residents, above the current City average of 1.06 (pocket, neighborhood, and community parks) but below the General Plan goal of 3 acres per 1,000 residents.77 A majority of the Specific Plan Area is within walking distance (0.5 mile) of a park or open space, with the exception of the neighborhoods around the western and southeastern boundary of the Plan Area.78 Additional recreational facilities can be found at many of the 12 schools located within the Plan Area. The City’s park and recreation facilities are maintained by the PARCS Department.79
76 City of Fresno General Plan, 2014. Chapter 5: Parks, Open Space, and Schools. December. 77 City of Fresno. 2021. Public Draft Central Southeast Area Specific Plan. April. 78 City of Fresno. 2021. Public Draft Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Figure 5-1 Park Facilities within a Half Mile Radius. April. 79 City of Fresno. 2022. Parks, After School, Recreation and Community Services. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/parks/. Accessed September 1, 2022.

As previously discussed, the proposed project would include improvements to existing parks as well as conceptual locations for new parks, open spaces, and/or recreational facilities. Future development in the Specific Plan Area would be subject to Specific Plan Goal P-1.1, which promotes an increase in the amount of parkland in the Specific Plan Area to ensure all residents are within a 5- minute walk of a park or open space. Specific Plan Policy P-1.1 recommends that the proposed project develop approximately 40 additional acres of parkland and open space to the meet the City’s ratio.

Future individual development projects within the Specific Plan Area would be required to comply with Sections 12-4.701 through 12-4.706 of the Fresno Municipal Code, which requires each development to pay a Park Facilities Fee in order to mitigate the impacts on park facilities caused by future development in the City. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on existing recreational facilities.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than significant impact. Development under the proposed project would result in additional residential and nonresidential development throughout the Specific Plan Area. However, development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan. Future development under the proposed project would include additional parks and recreational facilities.

As previously discussed, Specific Plan Policy P-1.1 proposes to build new parks, open spaces, and recreational facilities, prioritizing underserved areas while Policy P-2.1 aims to renovate and upgrade existing park facilities to support the recreational, physical, and social needs of residents. As previously discussed, development under the proposed project would be required to comply with City of Fresno General Plan objectives and policies related to parks. Future specific development projects within the Plan Area will be assessed on an individual basis to determine their impact with respect to recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with respect to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 150 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.17 Transportation
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy of the circulation system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Environmental Evaluation
Introduction
As noted in the Specific Plan, the land use designations of the Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan buildout assumptions; however, the Specific Plan proposes changing the land use designation for some of the Specific Plan Area’s parcels, which will require the General Plan Land Use map to be amended. These proposed land use designation changes would reduce the total amount of development compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan for the Specific Plan Area.

Environmental Setting
The following analysis is based on the VMT Analysis Memorandum dated August 16, 2022, prepared by LSA and included in Appendix H.

Changes to the CEQA Guidelines were adopted in December 2018 to implement SB 743. Guideline 15064.3, which describes criteria for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts, provides that VMT is generally “the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts,” and that except for roadway capacity projects, a project’s effect on traffic delays “shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” These provisions went into effect July 1, 2020.

While Guideline 15064.3 governs a lead agency’s assessment of traffic impacts under CEQA, it does not preclude a discussion of Level of Service (LOS) for informational purposes or other traffic analysis based on general plan or zoning standards, or on other agency policies. Therefore, while this Draft IS/Subsequent MND does not include an analysis of LOS, Appendix H does provide this analysis for information purposes only. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15064.3, the City can use this analysis to evaluate traffic impacts in support of General Plan consistency, apart from CEQA.

East Kings Canyon Road, Butler Avenue, and Church Avenue are arterial roads running east–west through the Specific Plan Area. Cedar Avenue, Maple Avenue, and Chestnut Avenue are arterial roads running north and south through the Plan Area.

Bicycle Facilities
As described in the Specific Plan, the Specific Plan Area has a very limited bicycle and trail network and one of the lowest bike ridership rates as well as some of the highest concentration areas for bicycle and vehicle collisions in the City. The Specific Plan Area has two continuous bike lanes along Kings Canyon Road, which connects to Downtown, and along Chestnut Avenue, but they do not provide any buffer from fast-moving vehicular traffic. Trails, or Class I bike paths, are multiuse pathways separated from vehicle traffic and shared between bicyclists and pedestrians. Currently, there is one trail segment in the northern part of the Specific Plan Area along McKenzie Avenue between Willow and Clovis Avenues.

Bicycle facilities consist of the following four classifications:
• Bike Paths (Class I) are often referred to as shared-use paths or trails, or multiuse paths, which are off-street facilities that provide exclusive use for non-motorized travel, including bicyclists and pedestrians. Class I facilities are typically 10- to 12-foot-wide concrete/asphalt paved surfaces with 2-foot-wide shoulders. Bike paths have minimal cross flow with motorists and are typically located along landscaped corridors. Bike paths can be utilized for both recreational and commute trips. These paths provide an important recreational amenity for bicyclists, pedestrians, dog walkers, runners, skaters, and all residents using other nonmotorized forms of travel. • Bike Lanes (Class II) are designated on-street facilities that use striping, stencils, and signage to denote preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists. On-street bikes lanes are typically 5 feet wide and are adjacent to motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are intended to alert drivers about the predictable movements of bicyclists and provide adequate space for comfortable bicycle riding. Current City standards require Class II bike lanes on all new Collectors and Arterials; many existing Collectors are already constructed with Class II bike lanes. • Bike Routes (Class III) are on-street pavement markings or signage that connect the bicycle roadway network. Class III bike routes can be utilized to connect bicycle lanes or paths along corridors that do not provide enough space for dedicated lanes on low-speed and low-volume streets.
• Separated Bikeways (Class IV) are designated on-street bicycle facilities separated by a physical boundary such as a vertical curb, a painted buffer with flexible posts, parked cars, a landscape area, or a fixed barrier. Separate Bikeways (Class IV), also called cycle tracks, are typically 7 feet wide with 3-foot-wide shoulders and can include one-way or two-way lanes, Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 152 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx accommodating a single direction of travel or both. Cycle tracks can be utilized along streets with high vehicular volumes and speeds and located in areas with fewer driveways.

Pedestrian Network
The pedestrian network in the Specific Plan Area currently has long block lengths, wide streets, unmarked and unsignalized intersections, and few street trees. While most streets have sidewalks, there are gaps in the sidewalk network in the areas near the northern and southern limits of the Specific Plan Area.

Transit Facilities
Fresno Area Express (FAX) provides transit service in the Specific Plan Area, as well as adjacent communities in the City of Fresno. FAX operates 18 bus routes throughout the City, with six routes serving the Specific Plan Area (Routes 1, 22, 26, 33, 38, and 41). Routes 1 and 38 operate at 10- and 15-minute peak period frequencies respectively, with the rest operating at 30-minute frequencies on weekdays and reduced frequencies on weekends.

Local Regulations
City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan.

The City’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP), adopted in March 2017, provides a comprehensive guide outlining the vision for active transportation in Fresno. This plan lays out specific goals to improve bicycle and pedestrian access and connectivity in Fresno. These goals include the following:
• Equitably improve the safety and perceived safety of walking and bicycling in Fresno; • Increase walking and bicycling trips in Fresno by creating user-friendly facilities; • Improve the geographical equity of access to walking and bicycling facilities in Fresno; and • Fill key gaps in Fresno’s walking and bicycling networks.

General Plan Policy MT-1-g: Complete Streets Concept Implementation.

Provide transportation facilities based upon a Complete Streets concept that facilitates the balanced use of all viable travel modes (pedestrians, bicyclists, motor vehicle and transit users), meeting the transportation needs of all ages, income groups, and abilities and providing mobility for a variety of trip purposes, while also supporting other City goals.

General Plan Policy MT-2-l: Region-Wide Transportation Impact Fees.

Continue to support the implementation of metropolitan-wide and region-wide transportation impact fees sufficient to cover the proportional share of a development’s impacts and need for a comprehensive multimodal transportation system that is not funded by other sources.

General Plan Policy MT-4-c: Bikeway Linkages.

Provide linkages between bikeways, trails and paths, and other regional networks such as the San Joaquin River Trail and adjacent jurisdiction bicycle systems wherever possible.

Prioritize bikeway components that link existing separated sections of the system, or that are likely to serve the highest concentration of existing or potential cyclists, particularly in those neighborhoods with low vehicle ownership rates, or that are likely to serve destination areas with the highest demand such as schools, shopping areas, recreational and park areas, and employment centers.

General Plan Policy MT-5-a: Sidewalk Development.

Pursue funding and implement standards for development of sidewalks on public streets, with priority given to meeting the needs of persons with physical and vision limitations; providing safe routes to school; completing pedestrian improvements in established neighborhoods with lower vehicle ownership rates; or providing pedestrian access to public transportation routes.

General Plan Policy MT-5-b: Sidewalk Requirements.

Assure adequate access for pedestrians and people with disabilities in new residential developments per adopted City policies, consistent with the California Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

General Plan Policy MT-5-d: Pedestrian Safety.

Minimize vehicular and pedestrian conflicts on both major and non-roadways through implementation of traffic access design and control standards addressing street intersections, median island openings and access driveways to facilitate accessibility while reducing congestion and increasing safety. Increase safety and accessibility for pedestrians with vision disabilities through the installation of Accessible Pedestrian Signals at signalized intersections.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than significant impact. This section assesses whether the proposed project would be consistent with applicable regional and local transportation programs, plans, ordinances, and policies that were summarized above. The proposed project would not conflict with the City’s adopted ATP.

Transit Facilities
The proposed project includes strategies to improve multimodal connections to local transit stops in and around the Specific Plan Area, as well as street design recommendations to encourage increased transit ridership. For example, Exhibit 8 illustrates the existing transit network in the Specific Plan Area. Specific Plan Policy T-6.1 supports pedestrian and bicycle improvements that would increase access to transit stops. Policy T-6.2 encourages protected, well-lit, and attractive bus stops and amenities along bus routes. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with General Plan Policy MT-1-g, described above, and impacts to transit facilities would be less than significant.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
50000002 • 10/2022 |8_transit_network.cdr CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN

SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 8
Existing and Proposed Transit Network
Source: Fresno Central Southeast Specific Plan.

Pedestrian Facilities
As described above, the pedestrian network in the Specific Plan Area is currently insufficient. The Specific Plan proposes Policy T-3.1 to implement traffic calming measures around parks and schools and Policy T-3.2 to install crossing enhancements at priority intersections. Policy T-4.1 requires the City to identify gaps and build sidewalks to complete the pedestrian network and Policy T-4.2 requires the City to prioritize street furnishings and other pedestrian amenities along key corridors to create a better pedestrian experience. Exhibit 10 illustrates the proposed pedestrian network and identifies several intersections as priorities for improvements. It also illustrates proposed sidewalks where they are currently missing. These pedestrian improvements would be consistent with General Plan Policies MT-5-a, MT-5-b, and MT-5-d, described above. Therefore, impacts to pedestrian facilities would be less than significant.

Because site-specific designs for transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities have not been developed, there are no specific details to review and assess impacts on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities.

As part of the standard development review process, the City will require all future proposed development of parcels to go through a review of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities in the area surrounding the individual development project to ensure that future developments do not conflict with existing or planned facilities supporting those travel modes. All pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities proposed would be designed using the appropriate design standards. Furthermore, per General Plan Policy MT-2-l, developers of future projects in the Plan Area would be required to pay proportional share impact fees to fund a comprehensive multimodal transportation system. The impact on these facilities would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than significant impact. The primary components of Section 15064.3 include:
• Identifies VMT (amount and distance of automobile traffic attributable to a project) as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts;
• Declares that a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact (except for projects increasing roadway capacity); • Creates a rebuttable presumption of no significant transportation impacts for (a) land use projects within 0.5 mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor, (b) land use projects that reduce VMT below existing conditions, and (c) transportation projects that reduce or have no impact on VMT;

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
50000002 • 10/2022 |9_bicycle_network.cdr CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN

SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 9
Proposed Bicycle Network
Source: Fresno Central Southeast Specific Plan. I

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
50000002 • 10/2022 |10_pedestrian_network.cdr CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST SPECIFIC PLAN

SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 10
Proposed Pedestrian Network
Source: Fresno Central Southeast Specific Plan. I

The Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Memorandum prepared by LSA analyzes VMT resulting from the proposed project using the criteria set forth in the City’s CEQA Guidelines for VMT Thresholds.80 The City’s VMT guidelines require that, for land use plans, the project’s VMT per capita and VMT per employee under forecast/cumulative scenario be compared to the corresponding base year VMT per capita/employee to determine whether the project would have a significant VMT impact.

The City’s threshold for a significant VMT impact is 14.0 VMT per capita and 22.3 VMT per employee.

The estimated VMT for 2035 including the entire Plan Area and regional VMT Metrics without implementation of the proposed project would be 9.2 VMT per capita and 20.7 VMT per employee.

The estimated VMT for 2035 including the entire Specific Plan Area and Regional VMT Metrics with implementation of the proposed project would be 8.7 VMT per capita and 20.4 VMT per employee.

The VMT for the proposed project with implementation would be below the City’s significance thresholds and would be less than the no-project scenario. Additionally, development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than significant impact. The proposed project does not approve or entitle any specific development and specific project design is unknown at this time. Development consistent with the proposed project would undergo individual design review at the time of application and additional project-specific environmental review may be required. It is not anticipated that development would substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses because the City would require design review of proposed future developments for consistency with applicable regulations and General Plan policies that are designed to ensure safety. This would eliminate any such hazards. The impacts would be less than significant. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project may require temporary lane closures or detours during construction activity of future development projects.

However, all lane closures or detours would be coordinated with the sheriff and fire departments to ensure that access to existing businesses and through circulation are maintained as well as emergency access. The construction contractor would provide signage, cones, and/or flag persons as deemed necessary through a project-specific Construction Management Plan (CMP) to ensure 80 City of Fresno. June 2020. CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 164 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx adequate emergency access. All development will be required to prepare a CMP to demonstrate to the City and the associated sheriff and fire departments that emergency access would be maintained at all times during construction. Preparation of a CMP is incorporated as project-specific MM TRANS1.

Furthermore, operation of future development projects resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan could result in an increased amount of vehicle traffic, which could impact emergency access. However, the City would require review of proposed future developments for consistency with applicable regulations that secure adequate emergency access. Moreover, development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
The following project-specific mitigation measure applies to the proposed project.

MM TRANS-1 At the time of planning application submittal, the project applicant shall prepare a Construction Management Plan (CMP) that will specify traffic controls required to maintain adequate circulation and access throughout the Central Southeast (CSE) Specific Plan Area. At least one lane shall remain open in each direction during construction and access to all existing businesses shall be maintained. This plan shall be subject to approval by the jurisdictional police and fire departments prior to commencement of construction.

2.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, State, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
Environmental Evaluation
Introduction
As noted in the Specific Plan, the land use designations of the Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan buildout assumptions; however, this Plan proposes changing the land use designation for some of the Plan Area’s parcels, which will require the General Plan Land Use map to be amended. These proposed land use designation changes would reduce the total amount of development compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan for the Specific Plan Area.

Environmental Setting
The City provides residents with potable water, sewage collection and treatment, and solid waste pickup while the FMFCD provides storm drainage and flood control. The City’s Department of Public Utilities—Water Division manages and operates the City’s water system and delivers drinking water to approximately 500,000 urban residential, commercial, and industrial customers in over 114 Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 166 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx square miles of the City as well as many County islands within the City’s SOI.81 The City relies on groundwater from the North Kings Subbasin, surface water and recycled water. Water production in the City has consisted of 100 percent groundwater prior to the commissioning of the City’s first Surface Water Treatment Facility (SWTF) in 2004. Since 2004, the City has invested in expanding its surface water treatment capabilities and now has three SWTFs that provide approximately half of all potable water demands in the service area.

82. Recycled water is not yet utilized in the Specific Plan Area but is planned and will be provided by the City.

The City of Fresno’s Wastewater Management Division (WMD) provides wastewater collection, conveyance, treatment, and reclamation services for residential, commercial, and industrial sewer customers in the Fresno-Clovis metropolitan area. The wastewater collection system consists of approximately 1,600 miles of pipes which convey over 60 million gallons of wastewater per day.

Almost all wastewater generated in the metropolitan area travels to the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF).
83 The RWRF includes preliminary, primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment units with disinfection with a permitted treatment capacity of 91.5 million gallons per day to secondary standards and 5 million gallons per day to tertiary standards.84,85 As discussed previously in Section 2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the FMFCD has primary responsibilities for managing local stormwater runoff in the Fresno metropolitan area and the Plan Area. Most stormwater in the City drains to urban stormwater basins, where the water is retained to attenuate peak flow runoff and recharge stormwater or is pumped to local irrigation canals for conveyance away from the municipal areas. Stormwater capture and infiltration are considered an integral component of natural groundwater recharge.86
The City’s Solid Waste Management Division is responsible for the collection of residential solid waste, recyclables, green waste, and Operation Clean Up for approximately 116,000 residential customers. The City had also granted exclusive franchise agreements for the collection of large multifamily developments, commercial and industrial solid waste, recyclables, and green waste to two franchise haulers: Allied Waste Services (formerly Republic Services), which is responsible for servicing the northern portion of the City, and Mid Valley Disposal, which is responsible for the southern portion of the City.
87 Ashlan Avenue is the dividing line between the two service areas; therefore, the Specific Plan Area is located fully within the Mid Valley Disposal service area. 88 Garbage disposed of in the City is taken to Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station (CARTS).

Once trash has been off-loaded at the transfer station, it is sorted and non-recyclable solid waste is loaded onto large trucks and taken to the American Avenue Landfill, which has been operated by the County since 1993. It is estimated that the landfill will be able to continue operation until 2031 when 81 City of Fresno. 2022. About DPU. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/about-dpu/. Accessed September 6, 2022. 82 City of Fresno. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. July. 83 City of Fresno. 2022. Sewer and Wastewater. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/sewer-wastewater/. Accessed September 6, 2022. 84 City of Fresno. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. July. 85 City of Fresno. 2022. Sewer and Wastewater. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/sewer-wastewater/. Accessed September 6, 2022. 86 City of Fresno. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. July. 87 City of Fresno. 2020. City of Fresno General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report. Accessed December, 2022. 88 City of Fresno. 2022. Department of Public Utilities, Trash Disposal & Recycling, Multi-Family & Commercial Services. Website:
https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/trash-disposal-recycling/multi-family-commercial-services/. Accessed December 19, 2022.

The need for new or expanded water, wastewater, storm drainage, electricity, gas and telecommunication facilities are addressed below.

Water
The City’s 2020 UWMP provides potable and non-potable water demand projections through 2045 for normal water use. The demand for potable water is projected to be 167,947 AFY in 2045, while demand for non-potable water, which would be used for groundwater recharge, is projected to be 73,500 AFY. This represents a total demand of 241,447 AFY. The 2020 UWMP projects a “reasonably available volume” of 357,330 AFY in 2045, exceeding the projected demand.92 Because the proposed project contains less development than anticipated in the General Plan, the proposed project would not require the construction of additional water facilities. The impact of future development on potable water infrastructure would be assessed on an individual basis for specific projects. 89 City of Fresno. 2022. Solid Waste Facilities. Website: https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/trash-disposal-recycling/solid-wastefacilities/#tab-2. Accessed September 6, 2022. 90 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (Cal Recycle). 2019. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. Website:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/4535?siteID=352. Accessed September 6, 2022. 91 City of Fresno. 2020. City of Fresno General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report. March. 92 City of Fresno. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. July.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 168 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx Wastewater
As discussed above, the City’s WMD provides wastewater collection and treatment services to the City, including the Specific Plan Area. The WMD manages and maintains approximately 1,600 miles of gravity sewer lines up to 84-inches in diameter, 15 active lift stations, and associated force mains.

Nearly all of the wastewater generated within the sewer service area is conveyed to the City’s RWRF for treatment. The City’s 2015 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (CSMP) Update identified 2015 wastewater flows and projected wastewater flows at General Plan buildout. In general, wastewater consists of Base Wastewater Flow (BWF) and Wet Weather Flow (WWF). BWF is flow generated by routine water usage in the residential, commercial, business and industrial sectors of the collection system. WWF includes stormwater inflow, trench infiltration, and wet weather ground water infiltration. Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) is the highest observed hourly flow that occurs following the design storm event. The City’s BWF is projected to roughly double from 64.1 million gallons per day (mgd) to 129.9 mgd by buildout, whereas the PWWF is projected to increase from 123.9 mgd to about 202.4 mgd by buildout (an increase of approximately 63 percent). Therefore, the City’s PWWF to BWF peaking factor is projected to decrease from roughly 1.93 to 1.56, which is relatively low for sanitary sewer collection systems.93 The CSMP Update concluded that, in general, the City’s existing collection system has sufficient capacity to convey current PWWFs without exceeding the established flow depth criterion. However, there are a few areas where capacity restrictions lead to flow depths that exceed allowable levels.

The 2015 CSMP Update identified improvements to address current and future deficiencies in the sewer collection system. The majority of improvements are driven by future development, which consist of new sewers that serve future growth or improvements to existing facilities that are needed to serve future growth. When fully implemented, the capital projects will allow the conveyance of PWWFs to the RWRF during buildout conditions The primary impact identified within the Plan Area was the Orange Avenue trunk sewer main. The needed capacity improvements consist of replacing approximately 6,050 feet of 36-inch diameter pipeline with a new 42-inch diameter sewer on segments of 8th Street, Woodward Avenue, and Orange Avenue in the Plan Area. No major sewer pipeline structural deficiencies were identified within the Specific Plan Area.

The approved General Plan includes several policies to address wastewater generation and reduction of wastewater flows including PU-7-a, PU-7-b and PU-7-f. In addition, continual update of the Sewer System Management Plan and CSMP and capital improvement projects would serve to ensure that wastewater flows would be accommodated.
94 The impact of future development on wastewater
infrastructure would be assessed on an individual basis for specific projects. Additionally, because the proposed project contains less development than anticipated in the General Plan, the proposed project would not require the construction of additional wastewater facilities.

Stormwater
As previously discussed, the Specific Plan Area is within the FMFCD. According to the Specific Plan, California Avenue between Cedar and Maple Avenues and the detention basin to the south of the Plan Area have been identified for storm drain improvements. The FMFCD approved the 2016 93 City of Fresno. 2015. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update. September. 94 City of Fresno. 2020. City of Fresno General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report. March.

Electricity, Gas, and Telecommunication
As discussed above, the Plan Area would receive its natural gas and electricity from PG&E.

Telecommunication services are provided by multiple providers; however, AT&T is the largest provider of cellular and fixed telephone services. Future development under the proposed project would likely connect to existing electric, natural gas and telecommunication facilities. Should the creation of new or re-located electric, natural gas and telecommunications facilities be required, construction would be subject to compliance with the City’s and service provider’s regulations and standard conditions for new construction-related to infrastructure improvements. These regulations and conditions would require construction of gas and electric lines to include BMPs that require construction areas to minimize dust generation, limit construction noise to daytime hours to limit impacts to sensitive receptors and use modern equipment to limit emissions. In addition, such work would be subject to compliance with applicable regulations and standard conditions of approval for construction projects, including City permits/review for construction (e.g., grading permits, private development review, encroachment permits, etc.).96 The impact of future development resulting from constructing new or relocating electric, natural gas and telecommunication facilities would be assessed on an individual basis for specific projects.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than significant impact. New residential, commercial, mixed use, and industrial land uses in the Planning Area would increase demand for water. As previously discussed, total demand for 2045 is projected to be 241,447 AFY. The 2020 UWMP projects a “reasonably available volume” of 357,330 AFY in 2045, exceeding the projected demand. Further, the General Plan PEIR determined that water supplies are adequate to accommodate the demand in 2040 and at buildout of the approved General Plan in 2056. Finally, supply and demand comparisons for normal-water-year, single-drywater-year, and five-consecutive-year-drought-period scenarios show that there are sufficient water supplies to serve future development.97 Because the proposed project contains less development than anticipated in the General Plan, the proposed project would not require the construction of additional water facilities.

The impact of future development on water service reliability during normal, dry, and multiple dry years would be assessed on an individual basis for specific projects. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to water supplies. 95 City of Fresno. 2020. City of Fresno General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report. March. 96 Ibid. 97 City of Fresno. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. July.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 170 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than significant impact. The 2015 CSMP Update identified improvements to address current and future deficiencies in the sewer collection system. The majority of improvements are driven by future development, which consist of new sewers that serve future growth or improvements to existing facilities that are needed to serve future growth. When fully implemented, the capital projects will allow the conveyance of PWWFs to the RWRF during buildout conditions. The primary impact identified within the Specific Plan Area was the Orange Avenue trunk sewer main. The needed capacity improvements consist of replacing approximately 6,050 feet of 36-inch diameter pipeline with a new 42-inch diameter sewer on segments of 8th Street, Woodward Avenue, and Orange Avenue in the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan identified no major sewer pipeline structural deficiencies within the Specific Plan Area. Furthermore, utility providers currently serving the Specific Plan Area have plans in place to serve future needs in accordance with the General Plan.

Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the adequacy of the wastewater treatment provider’s capacity to serve the Plan Area. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than significant impact. New residential, commercial, mixed use, and industrial land uses in the Planning Area would increase the amount of solid waste generated by residents and businesses. As discussed above, the City’s Solid Waste Management Division is responsible for the collection of residential municipal solid waste in the Specific Plan Area. Mid Valley Disposal is responsible for the collection of solid waste, recyclables, and green waste for large multi-family, commercial, and industrial developments in the Planning Area. The American Avenue Landfill has a permitted capacity of 36,700,000 cubic yards and a maximum permitted throughput of 2,200 tons per day.

However, the landfill is expected to close in 2031.

Continued development under the approved General Plan would result in the generation of approximately 2,223 tons of solid waste per day. Based on the estimated closure dates of the American Avenue Landfill in 2031 there is a potential for additional landfill capacity needed to accommodate future development under the proposed project. However, AB 939 mandates the reduction of solid waste disposal in landfills, and the City is currently achieving a 71 percent diversion rate (based on 2009 data) which is anticipated to increase due to a Fresno City Council resolution that commits the City to a Zero Waste goal by 2025. Because the proposed project contains less development than anticipated in the General Plan, the proposed project would not generate more solid waste than anticipated by the General Plan.

Additionally, all future development under the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan Objective PU-9 and Policies PU-9-a through PU-9-e and would be evaluated by the City to determine whether the proposed development could contribute solid waste to a landfill that is at capacity until additional capacity is provided. Thus, the impact of future development with respect to constructing new solid waste infrastructure would be assessed on an individual basis for specific City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 171 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx projects. As such, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on solid waste capacity of local infrastructure.
e) Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than significant impact. As previously discussed, the Solid Waste Management Division is responsible for the collection of residential solid waste in the Specific Plan Area, and Mid Valley Disposal would be responsible for the collection of solid waste, recyclables, and green waste for large multi-family, commercial, and industrial developments in the Specific Plan Area. Construction and operational activities that generate solid waste are handled, transported, and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to municipal waste. In accordance with the approved General Plan, solid waste would continue to be handled, transported, and disposed of according to all applicable federal, State, and local regulation pertaining to municipal waste disposal. The City currently has a number of provisions that require or promote recycling and waste reduction. Development consistent with the proposed project would reduce the total amount of development in the Specific Plan Area compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan. This would result in a lesser impact related to solid waste than what would have occurred under the development scenario considered in the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with regard to compliance with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 172 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx .Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.19 Wildfire
If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Environmental Evaluation
Introduction
As noted in the Specific Plan, the land use designations of the Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan buildout assumptions; however, this Plan proposes changing the land use designation for some of the Plan Area’s parcels, which will require the General Plan Land Use map to be amended. These proposed land use designation changes would reduce the total amount of development compared to what was contemplated by the General Plan for the Specific Plan Area.

Environmental Setting
The City consists largely of urbanized or working agricultural land and lacks steep slopes, thus wildfire threats are minimal. Although the City is near to high and very high fire hazard designated areas, the City is largely categorized as little or no threat or moderate fire hazard, which is largely attributed to paved areas. The Specific Plan Area is in an urbanized area, located just to the east and southeast of Downtown Fresno, and is characterized by a blend of older single-family and multifamily housing developments, industrial facilities, public facilities, vacant land, and commercial areas. Further, according to CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Viewer, the City does not City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Checklist and Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 173 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx contain any lands within the State Responsibility Area (SRA) or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) within the LRA.
98 Would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than significant impact. The California Emergency Services Act requires cities to prepare and maintain an emergency plan for natural, manmade, or war-caused emergencies that result in conditions of disaster or in extreme peril to life. According to the General Plan, the City does have an adopted Emergency Operations Plan (EOP); however, the EOP does not designate evacuation routes.

The Noise and Safety Element of the General Plan addresses emergency events, including those associated with wildfire hazards. Objectives PU-2 and PU-3 of the General Plan relate to maintaining the level of fire protection and emergency service level objectives in the City. While the proposed project does not include any specific plans for development, future construction under the proposed project would be required to comply with the California Fire Code (CFC). Further, design and construction or alteration of roadways would be consistent with applicable State and City standards for roadway widths, turning radii, and sightlines and would not impair emergency response or emergency evacuation. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less than significant impact. As previously discussed, the Specific Plan Area does not contain any lands within the SRA or lands classified as VHFHSZ within the LRA.99 According to the Noise and Safety Element of the General Plan, the City’s high temperatures and sunlight during summer months combined with low rainfall could exacerbate wildfire risk by drying and pre-heating combustible material, which would encourage the spontaneous combustion of such material.

Additionally, the City’s estimated maximum wind speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), which could also exacerbate wildfire risks. However, given that the City is largely urbanized and paved, wildfire threats in the City are minimal. Further, rural agricultural lands located outside of the city limits lack steep topographies, thus the risk of the uncontrolled spread of wildfire is limited. Finally, the Specific Plan Area itself is in an urbanized area, located just to the east and southeast of Downtown Fresno, and is surrounded by existing development. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on wildfire risk and the spread of associated pollutants. 98 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. FHSZ Viewer. Website: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.

Accessed September 11, 2022. 99 Ibid.

Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 174 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less than significant impact. Future development under the General Plan may require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk. Therefore, future discretionary projects facilitated by the General Plan would be evaluated for project-specific wildfire impacts at the time they are proposed. As previously discussed, the Specific Plan Area is located in a developed, urban area within the City and in its existing state is characterized by single-family and multi-family housing developments, industrial facilities, public facilities, vacant land, and commercial areas. The Specific Plan Area is currently served by multiple utility providers. Water and sewer services are provided by the City of Fresno; stormwater drainage systems are constructed and maintained by the FMFCD; irrigation water is supplied by the Fresno Irrigation District (FID); electricity and gas utilities are provided by PG&E; and telephone, fiber, and cable service is provided by AT&T/Comcast/Xfinity.

Utility providers currently serving existing needs in the area have plans in place to serve future needs in accordance with the Fresno General Plan.100 Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be evaluated for project-specific wildfire impacts at the time they are proposed.

Should any future development under the proposed project require the construction of associated infrastructure, the installation and maintenance of said infrastructure would comply with applicable local, State, and federal requirements, including the CBC and CFC. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or impacts to the environment.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less than significant impact. As previously discussed, the City is relatively flat with agricultural lands outside of the city limits also lacking steep slopes. The Plan Area is largely categorized as little or no threat or moderate fire hazard, with no lands within the SRA or lands classified as VHFHSZ within the LRA.101 As discussed in Section 2.7, Geology, Seismicity, and Soils, due to its flat topography the City and the Specific Plan Area are not considered to be in area which could be impacted by landslides.

Further, the Specific Plan Area is not located within a 100-year flood zone.102 Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
100 City of Fresno. 2021. Public Draft Central Southeast Area Specific Plan. April. 101 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. FHSZ Viewer. Website: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.

Accessed September 11, 2022. 102 City of Fresno General Plan, 2014. Chapter 9: Noise and Safety. Figure NS-17: Existing Flood Plains. December.

2.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Environmental Evaluation
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project would involve the construction of new residential and nonresidential land uses and the implementation of a range of mitigation and actions designed to reduce impacts. With implementation of proposed mitigation measures (MM AIR-2.1, MM AIR-2.2, MM AIR-3.1, MM AIR-3.2, MM AIR-4.1, MM AIR-5, AIR-6, AIR-7, AIR-8, AIR-9, AIR-10, MM BIO-1.1, MM BIO-1.2, MM BIO-1.3, MM BIO-1.4, MM BIO-2.1, MM BIO-2.2, MM BIO2.3, MM BIO-3.1, MM BIO-3.2, MM CUL-1.1, MM CUL-1.2, MM CUL-2, and MM CUL-3) impacts to air quality, biological resources, and cultural resources would also be reduced to less than significant levels. While unlikely, there is the potential to uncover undiscovered archaeological, paleontological or human remains in the course of construction activities on-site, and accordingly the cultural resources mitigation identified above and MM GEO-8 would be required to avoid the accidental destruction or disturbance of previously undiscovered cultural resources. Overall, with Environmental Checklist and City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Environmental Evaluation Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration 176 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx implementation of these mitigation measures, the project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment and associated impacts would be less than significant. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project is a document that provides a vision for growth and development in the Central Southeast Fresno community over the next 20 to 30 years. This long-range planning document addresses a wide range of topics including affordable housing, jobs and economic development, transportation, parks and open space, and a healthy environment. As the proposed project is a policy-level document, it does not include any specific development proposals. The Specific Plan proposes changing land use designations for some of the Specific Plan Area’s parcels, which would require an amendment to the General Plan Land Use map. Potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and transportation would be mitigated to less than significant levels with the implementation of MM AES-4.1, MM AES-4.2, MM AES-4.3, MM AES-4.4, MM AES-4.5, MM AG-1.1, MM AG-2, MM AIR-2.1, MM AIR-2.2, MM AIR-3.1, MM AIR-3.2, MM AIR-4.1, MM AIR-5, AIR-6, AIR-7, AIR-8, AIR-9, AIR-10, MM BIO-1.1, MM BIO-1.2, MM BIO-1.3, MM BIO-1.4, MM BIO-2.1, MM BIO-2.2, MM BIO-2.3, MM BIO-3.1, MM BIO-3.2, MM CUL-1.1, MM CUL-1.2, MM CUL-2, MM CUL-3, MM GEO-6.1, MM GEO-7, MM GEO-8, MM NOI-2, MM NOI-3, MM NOI-4, MM NOI-5 and MM TRANS-1. Overall, with the implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.

The implementation of other projects in the City would be required to demonstrate regulatory compliace and implement similar mitigation measures, as applicable. Therefore, the proposed project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than significant impact. Compliance with existing regulations and implementation of the City of Fresno standard permit conditions would ensure that the proposed project, and future development consistent with the proposed project, would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings, including effects related to air pollution, seismic and geologic hazards, hazardous materials, flooding and natural disasters, or noise and vibration. Therefore, impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implement MM AES-4.1, MM AES-4.2, MM AES-4.3, MM AES-4.4, MM AES-4.5, MM AIR-2.1, MM AIR-2.2, MM AIR-3.1, MM AIR-3.2, MM AIR-4.1, MM AIR-5, AIR-6, AIR-7, AIR-8, AIR-9, AIR-10, MM BIO-1.1, MM BIO-1.2, MM BIO-1.3, MM BIO-1.4, MM BIO-2.1, MM BIO-2.2, MM BIO-2.3, MM BIO3.1, MM BIO-3.2, MM CUL-1.1, MM CUL-1.2, MM CUL-2, MM CUL-3, MM GEO-6.1, MM GEO-7, MM GEO-8, MM NOI-2, MM NOI-3, MM NOI-4, MM NOI-5 and MM TRANS-1.

City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration List of Preparers FirstCarbon Solutions 177 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5000/50000002/SMND/50000002 Fresno Central Southeast Area SP Subsequent MND (1).docx SECTION 3: LIST OF PREPARERS
FirstCarbon Solutions
7726 N. First Street, #413
Fresno, CA 93720
Phone: 714.508.4100
Project Director .......................................................................................................................Mary Bean Project Director ......................................................................................................... Phil Ault, LEED® AP Project Manager..........................................................................................................Rachel Krusenoski Assistant Project Manager................................................................................................. Maddie Dolan FCS’ Legal Counsel ...........................................................................................................Megan Starr, JD Director of Cultural Resources.......................................................................... Dana DePietro, PhD, RPA Biologist II ...........................................................................................................................Robert Carroll Environmental Services Analyst..........................................................................................Isobel Cooper Intern .......................................................................................................................................Kelly Evans Publications Manager............................................................................................................ Susie Harris Publications Coordinator.........................................................................................................Alec Harris Document Specialist.......................................................................................................Melissa Ramirez GIS/Graphics................................................................................................................ Karlee McCracken GIS/Graphics................................................................................................................. Sebastian Macias

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
FirstCarbon Solutions
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Supporting Information

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
FirstCarbon Solutions
A.1 - Records Search Map

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
50000002 • 10/2021 | 50000002_record_search_map1.mxd CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT

ADDENDUM
Record Search Map 1
Source: USGS Clovis, Malaga, & Fresno South 7.5' Quadrangles / Land Grants: T13S R20E Sec: 36; T13S R21E Sec: 31; T14S R20E Sections: 1, 2, 11, 13, 14, 23, 24; T14S R21E Sections: 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19. 2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
Project Area
Half-Mile Radius
50000002 • 10/2021 | 50000002_record_search_map2.mxd CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT

ADDENDUM
Record Search Map 2
Source: USGS Clovis, Malaga, & Fresno South 7.5' Quadrangles / Land Grants: T13S R20E Sec: 36; T13S R21E Sec: 31; T14S R20E Sections: 1, 2, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24; T14S R21E Sections: 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19. 2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
Project Area
Half-Mile Radius
City of Fresno–Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration
FirstCarbon Solutions
A.2 - California Historical Resources Information System Request and Results

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
California Historical Resources Information System
CHRIS Data Request Form
1 of 3
2-29-2020 Version
ACCESS AND USE AGREEMENT NO.:_______________ IC FILE NO.:________________________ To: ___________________________________________________________________ Information Center Print Name: ____________________________________________________ Date: _____________________ Affiliation: ________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________________________________________________________ City: _________________________________________ State: ________________ Zip: __________________ Phone: __________________ Fax: __________________ Email: ____________________________________ Billing Address (if different than above): _________________________________________________________ Billing Email: _______________________________________________ Billing Phone: ___________________ Project Name / Reference: ___________________________________________________________________ Project Street Address: ______________________________________________________________________ County or Counties: ________________________________________________________________________ Township/Range/UTMs: _____________________________________________________________________ USGS 7.5’ Quad(s): ________________________________________________________________________ PRIORITY RESPONSE (Additional Fee): yes / no
TOTAL FEE NOT TO EXCEED: $___________________________
(If blank, the Information Center will contact you if the fee is expected to exceed $1,000.00) Special Instructions:

Information Center Use Only
Date of CHRIS Data Provided for this Request: ___________________________________________________ Confidential Data Included in Response: yes / no
Notes: ___________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 of 3
2-29-2020 Version
California Historical Resources Information System
CHRIS Data Request Form
Mark the request form as needed. Attach a PDF of your project area (with the radius if applicable) mapped on a

7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle to scale 1:24000 ratio 1:1 neither enlarged nor reduced and include a shapefile of your project area, if available. Shapefiles are the current CHRIS standard for submitting digital spatial data for your project area or radius. Check with the appropriate IC for current availability of digital data products.
• Documents will be provided in PDF format. Paper copies will only be provided if PDFs are not available at the time of the request or under specially arranged circumstances. • Location information will be provided as a digital map product (Custom Maps or GIS data) unless the area has not yet been digitized. In such circumstances, the IC may provide hand drawn maps. • In addition to the $150/hr. staff time fee, client will be charged the Custom Map fee when GIS is required to complete the request [e.g., a map printout or map image/PDF is requested and no GIS Data is requested, or an electronic product is requested (derived from GIS data) but no mapping is requested].

For product fees, see the CHRIS IC Fee Structure on the OHP website.

1. Map Format Choice:

Select One: Custom GIS Maps  GIS Data  Custom GIS Maps and GIS Data  No Maps  Any selection below left unmarked will be considered a "no. " Within project area Within ______ radius
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
yes / no
yes / no yes / no
yes / no
Within ______
radius
Location Information:

ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Locations1
NON-ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Locations
Report Locations1
“Other” Report Locations2

3. Database Information:
(contact the IC for product examples, or visit the SSJVIC website for examples) Within project area
ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Database1
List (PDF format) yes / no yes / no
Detail (PDF format)
Excel Spreadsheet
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
NON-ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Database
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
List (PDF format)
Detail (PDF format)
Excel Spreadsheet yes / no yes / no
Report Database1
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
List (PDF format)
Detail (PDF format)
Excel Spreadsheet
Include “Other” Reports 2
yes / no yes / no

4. Document PDFs (paper copy only upon request):

Within project area Within ______
radius
ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Records1
NON-ARCHAEOLOGICAL Resource Records
Reports1
“Other” Reports2
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
yes / no yes / no
California Historical Resources Information System
CHRIS Data Request Form

5. Eligibility Listings and Documentation:

Within project area Within ______
radius
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
OHP Built Environment Resources Directory3:

Directory listing only (Excel format)
Associated documentation4
OHP Archaeological Resources Directory1,5:

Directory listing only (Excel format)
Associated documentation4
California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976):

Directory listing only (PDF format)
Associated documentation4

6. Additional Information:

The following sources of information may be available through the Information Center. However, several of these sources are now available on the OHP website and can be accessed directly. The Office of Historic Preservation makes no guarantees about the availability, completeness, or accuracy of the information provided through these sources. Indicate below if the Information Center should review and provide documentation (if available) of any of the following sources as part of this request.

Caltrans Bridge Survey yes
/ no
/ no
yes
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
Ethnographic Information
Historical Literature
Historical Maps
Local Inventories
GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps
Shipwreck Inventory
Soil Survey Maps
1 In order to receive archaeological information, requestor must meet qualifications as specified in Section III of the current version of the California Historical Resources Information System Information Center Rules of Operation Manual and be identified as an Authorized User or Conditional User under an active CHRIS Access and Use Agreement. 2 “Other” Reports GIS layer consists of report study areas for which the report content is almost entirely non-fieldwork related (e.g., local/regional history, or overview) and/or for which the presentation of the study area boundary may or may not add value to a record search.
3 Provided as Excel spreadsheets with no cost for the rows; the only cost for this component is IC staff time. Includes, but not limited to, information regarding National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and historic building surveys. Previously known as the HRI and then as the HPD, it is now known as the Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD). The Office of Historic Preservation compiles this documentation and it is the source of the official status codes for evaluated resources. 4 Associated documentation will vary by resource. Contact the IC for further details. 5 Provided as Excel spreadsheets with no cost for the rows; the only cost for this component is IC staff time. Previously known as the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, now it is known as the Archaeological Resources Directory (ARD).

The Office of Historic Preservation compiles this documentation and it is the source of the official status codes for evaluated resources.
3 of 3
2-29-2020 Version
50000002 • 10/2021 | 50000002_record_search_map1.mxd CITY OF FRESNO

FRESNO CENTRAL SOUTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT

Dana DePietro
FirstCarbon Solutions
1350 Treat Blvd. Suite 380
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Re: Fresno Central Southeast Area Specific Plan Project Records Search File No.: 21-410
The Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Clovis, Malaga, and Fresno USGS 7.5’ quad. The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and the 0.5 mile radius:

As indicated on the data request form, the locations of resources and reports are provided in the following format: ☒ custom GIS maps ☐ GIS data
Resources within project area: 35 Resources, See attached list.

Resources within 0.5 mile radius: 33 Resources, See attached list.

Reports within project area: 18 Reports, See attached list.

Reports within 0.5 mile radius: 22 Reports, See attached list.

Note:

Resource Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed ☐ not available Report Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed ☐ not available Note: Only the Title Page, Table of Contents, & Executive Summary of TU-00102 was included.

OHP Built Environment Resources Directory: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed CA Inventory of Historic Resources (1976): ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed Note: P-15-007046 is not listed in the BERD. The 2013 HPD page was included for this resource.

Caltrans Bridge Survey: Not available at SSJVIC; please see https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental-analysis/cultural-studies/california-historical-bridges-tunnels Ethnographic Information: Not available at SSJVIC
Historical Literature: Not available at SSJVIC
Historical Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see
http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/
Local Inventories: Not available at SSJVIC
GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx#searchTabIndex=0&searchByTypeIndex=1 and/or http://www.oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb8489p15p;developer=local;style=oac4;doc.view=items Shipwreck Inventory: Not available at SSJVIC; please see https://www.slc.ca.gov/shipwrecks/
Soil Survey Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.

The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Invoices for Information Center services will be sent under separate cover from the California State University, Bakersfield Accounting Office.

Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).

Sincerely,
Jeremy E. David
Assistant Coordinator
SSJVIC Record Search 21-410
Reports in PA: Reports in .5 mile: Resources in PA: Resources in .5 mile: Informal Resource FR-00257 FR-00135 P-10-003930 P-10-004248 SHL #934
FR-00296 FR-01231 P-10-004249 P-10-004253
FR-01651 FR-01686 P-10-004675 P-10-004274
FR-01723 FR-01694 P-10-005306 P-10-004280
FR-01742 FR-01696 P-10-005307 P-10-004286
FR-01800 FR-01850 P-10-005308 P-10-004287
FR-01979 FR-02000 P-10-005309 P-10-004299
FR-02073 FR-02002 P-10-005310 P-10-004310
FR-02076 FR-02106 P-10-005311 P-10-004312
FR-02109 FR-02143 P-10-005312 P-10-004349
FR-02169 FR-02172 P-10-005313 P-10-004677
FR-02194 FR-02192 P-10-005314 P-10-004762
FR-02228 FR-02217 P-10-005315 P-10-004763
FR-02332 FR-02238 P-10-005316 P-10-004764
FR-02620 FR-02287 P-10-005317 P-10-004765
FR-02653 FR-02496 P-10-005318 P-10-004766
FR-02972 FR-02504 P-10-005319 P-10-004767
FR-02992 FR-02628 P-10-005320 P-10-004768
FR-02655 P-10-005321 P-10-004769
FR-02722 P-10-005322 P-10-004770
FR-02806 P-10-005323 P-10-005120
FR-02896 P-10-005324 P-10-005121
P-10-005325 P-10-005225
P-10-005326 P-10-005305
P-10-005327 P-10-006224
P-10-005328 P-10-006225
P-10-005329 P-10-006594
P-10-005330 P-10-006595
P-10-005331 P-10-006596
P-10-005332 P-10-006599
P-10-005333 P-10-006600
P-10-005334 P-10-006601
P-10-005335 P-10-007094
P-10-005336
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources SSJVIC Record Search 21-410
FR-00135 1995 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project.

Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
Hatoff, Brian, Voss, Barb,
Waechter, Sharon,
Benté, Vance, and Wee,
Stephen
NADB-R - 1140863
FR-00257 1990 Historic Property Survey Report Route 180 Chestnut Avenue to Highland Avenue; 06-
FRE-180, R60.9/R6736 06250-342400
DeLeuw, Cather and
Company; David Chavez
Associates
Caltrans - 06-FRE180 R60.9/R67.6
06250-342400
FR-00296 1992 Cultural Resources Assessment for the
Fresno Unified School District, Southeast
Fresno High School, Middle School, and
Elementary School
Cultural Resources
Consulting
NADB-R - 1140239 Bissonnette, Linda Dick
FR-01231 1994 Negative Archaeological Survey Report for the Construction of Route 180 Urban Project
California Department of
Transportation
Nissen, Karen, Comeyne,
Dominique, and AguilarLuna, Judy
Caltrans - 06-FRE180 P.M. 56.1/60.9
CU 821 EA 025731
FR-01231A 1993 Supplemental Historic Architectural Survey Report for the Route 180 Urban Project
Sections of Cedar Avenue and East Thomas
Avenue
Lortie, Frank Cal Trans
FR-01231B 1994 Supplemental Historic Property Survey
Report for the Route 180 Urban Project
between Route 99 and Chestnut Avenue
Aguilar-Luna, Judy Cal Trans
FR-01651 2000 Cultural Resources Survey for the Level (3) Communications Long Haul Fiber Optics
Project: Segment WS04: Sacramento to
Bakersfield
Far Western
Anthropological Research
Group, Inc.

Submitter - Project Nelson, Wendy J.

Number 27101
FR-01686 2000 Cultural Resources Assessment for the
Pacific Bell Site, CV-600-01, and the
Fairgrounds Site, City of Fresno, Fresno
County, California
Peak, Melinda A. Peak & Associates, Inc.

FR-01694 1994 Supplementary Historic Building Survey,
Historic Resources Survey (Ratkovich Plan),
Fresno, California
California State University,
Fresno
Powell, John Edward and
McGuire, Michael J.

FR-01696 2001 A Cultural Resource Study for the Self-Help Housing Project In the Southeast Fresno
Area, Fresno County, California
Varner, Dudley M. Varner Associates
FR-01723 2000 Historical and Cultural Resource Assessment For A Proposed Telecommunications Facility
Site No. CV-600-08, 4696 East Kings Canyon
Road, Fresno, California
Brown, R. Keith and Brown & Mills, Inc.

Pastron, Allen G.

Page 1 of 5 ends

Fresno City CouncilJune 29, 2023

Fresno City Council
June 29, 2023