Fresno City Council
March 21, 2024

Selma
Tulare
Dinuba
Sanger
Fresno
Clovis
Madera
Visalia
Reedley
Corcoran
Figure 4.6.1
Fault Map
Source: California Geological Survey, 2016; PlaceWorks, 2017.

CLIENT NAME (CENTURY GOTHIC, 12 PT)
PROJECT NAME (CENTURY GOTHIC, 12 PT)
0 10 20 5
Miles
%&'(5
Æþ101
·|}þ152
·|}þ41
%&'(5
·|}þ152
Fault Classification
Recency of Movement
Historic
Holocene
Late Quaternary
Quaternary
Quaternary Faults
Pre-Quaternary Faults
Southwest Fresno SP Boundary
San Andreas Fault
Ortigalita Fault
Nunez Fault
Sierra
Nevada Fault Zone
Clovis Fault
Owe
n
s
Valley
Fault Zon
Selma e
Tulare
Dinuba
Sanger
Fresno
Clovis
Madera
Visalia
Reedley
Corcoran
Figure 4.6.1
Fault Map
Source: California Geological Survey, 2016; PlaceWorks, 2017.

CLIENT NAME (CENTURY GOTHIC, 12 PT)
PROJECT NAME (CENTURY GOTHIC, 12 PT)
0 5 10 20
Miles
%&'(5
Æþ101
·|}þ152
·|}þ41
%&'(5
·|}þ152
Fault Classification
Recency of Movement
Historic
Holocene
Late Quaternary
Quaternary
Quaternary Faults
Pre-Quaternary Faults
Southwest Fresno SP Boundary
San Andreas Fault
Ortigalita Fault
Nunez Fault
Sierra
Nevada Fault Zone
Clovis Fault
Owe
n
s
Valley
Fault Zone
Figure 4.6-1
Fault Map
Source: California Geological Survey, 2016; PlaceWorks, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

PLACEWORKS

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.6-6 AUGUST 2017
 Pleistocene non-marine sedimentary deposits of Riverbank Formation granitic sand, silt, and clay in the San Joaquin Valley.10 The Pleistocene Epoch extends from about 11,700 to approximately 2.59 million years before present (ybp) (see Figure 4.6-2).11 Subsurface Soils in the Fresno Region
Based on the experience of Krazan and Associates, who prepared the Geologic Hazards Investigation for the 2025 Fresno General Plan, approximately the uppermost 6 to 12 inches of soils in the Fresno region are very loose silty sand, silty sand with trace clay, sandy silt, clayey sand, or clayey gravel. These soils are disturbed, have low strength characteristics, and are highly compressible when saturated.

Between approximately 2 to 4 feet below ground surface (bgs), soils are generally loose/soft to very dense/hard clays, silts, sands, and gravels. These soils are typically moderately strong and slightly to moderately compressible.

Below 3 to 5 feet bgs, soils generally consist of clays, silts, sands, and gravels. These soils are typically moderately strong and slightly compressible.12
Geologic Hazards
The following description of geologic hazards is based partly on the geological hazards investigation prepared for the Fresno General Plan by Krazan and Associates in 2012. The information presented here is a region-wide summary only and is not indicative of conditions on any development site. Site-specific geotechnical investigations would be required for each development project considered for approval under the proposed Plan.

Strong Ground Shaking
The peak ground acceleration with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years—that is, an average return period of 2,475 years—ranges from approximately 0.320g on the northeast site boundary to

0.321g at the southeast corner of the site to 0.328g at the northwest corner of the site; g is the acceleration of gravity.13
Ground acceleration of 0.328g correlates with intensity VII on the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale, a subjective scale of how earthquakes are felt by people and the effects of earthquakes on buildings.14 The
10 California Geological Survey (CGS), 1965. Fresno Sheet, Geologic Map of California, ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/gam/GAM_005_Fresno/GAM_005_Explanation_1965.pdf, accessed July 11, 2017. 11 US Geological Survey (USGS), 2013. Divisions of Geologic Time, January 9, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2007/3015/. 12 Krazan and Associates, Inc., 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update, https://www.fresno.gov/ darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/E-1-Geologic-Hazards-Investigation.pdf, accessed July 11, 2017. 13 California Geological Survey (CGS), 2017b. Ground Motion Interpolator, http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ PSHA/psha_interpolator.html, accessed July 11, 2017. 14 Wald, David J., et al., 1999. Relationships Between Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California. Earthquake Spectra 15 No. 3.

Figure 4.6-2
Geologic Map
Source: California Geological Survey, 1965.

Downtown
Fresno
Qf Granitic sand and silt of Quaternary age – within the last approximately 2.59 million years Qc Granitic sand, silt, and clay of Pleistocene age – from about 11,700 years before present (ybp) to about 2.59 million ybp

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Southwest Fresno SP Boundary

PLACEWORKS

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.6-8 AUGUST 2017
MMI Scale is a 12-point scale where Intensity I earthquakes are generally not felt by people and Intensity XII earthquakes result in total damage with objects thrown into the air. In an intensity VII earthquake, some chimneys are broken and damage is negligible in buildings of good design and construction, is slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures, and considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures.15
The Fresno region has historically been subject to low to moderate ground shaking. Two of the historic earthquakes that caused ground shaking in the region, the Owens Valley Earthquake of 1872 and the Coalinga Earthquake of 1983, each generated ground shaking of intensity VII in the region.16 The Geologic Hazards Investigation prepared for the Fresno General Plan includes estimated ranges of seismic parameters pursuant to the CBC; seismic parameters must be calculated for each development project.17
Liquefaction
Liquefaction refers to loose, saturated sand or silt deposits that behave as a liquid and lose their loadsupporting capability when strongly shaken. Loose granular soils and silts that are saturated by relatively shallow groundwater are susceptible to liquefaction.

Soils in the Fresno region range from gravel to sand to silt to clay. Shallow soils—especially within 1 foot of the ground surface— are highly compressible; deeper soils—over 3 to 5 feet bgs—are typically moderately strong and slightly compressible.
18 In spring 2017, the depth to groundwater under the site ranged from approximately 90 to 100 feet bgs. 19 Groundwater may be found at much shallower depths—all the way to the surface—next to water bodies such as canals, retention ponds, and lakes.20
Liquefaction potential in the City of Fresno is considered low to moderate. 21 No liquefaction has been
observed in Fresno from any historic earthquake.22
15 US Geological Survey (USGS), 2017. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/ learn/topics/mercalli.php, accessed July 11, 2017. 16 Krazan and Associates, Inc., 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update. https://www.fresno.gov/ darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/E-1-Geologic-Hazards-Investigation.pdf, accessed July 11, 2017. 17 Krazan and Associates, Inc., 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update. https://www.fresno.gov/ darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/E-1-Geologic-Hazards-Investigation.pdf, accessed July 11, 2017. 18 Krazan and Associates, Inc., 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update. https://www.fresno.gov/ darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/E-1-Geologic-Hazards-Investigation.pdf, accessed July 11, 2017. 19 Department of Water Resources, 2017. Groundwater Information Center Map Interactive Map Application, https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/gicima/, accessed July 11, 2017. 20 Krazan and Associates, Inc., 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update, https://www.fresno.gov/ darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/E-1-Geologic-Hazards-Investigation.pdf, accessed July 11, 2017. 21 Krazan and Associates, Inc., 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update, https://www.fresno.gov/ darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/E-1-Geologic-Hazards-Investigation.pdf, accessed July 11, 2017. 22 County of Fresno, 2009. Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PL AN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-9
Seismic Ground Settlement
Ground shaking can cause unconsolidated sediments to settle. Due to the nature of the soils underlying the city, and the history of low to moderate ground shaking, seismic settlement is not considered a significant hazard in the region.23
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is the downslope movement of surface sediment due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Lateral spreading is not considered a substantial hazard in the region for the same reasons given for seismic ground settlement.24
Landslides
The Plan Area and surroundings are not subject to landslides, as the site slopes to the southwest with an average grade of about 0.1 percent.

Erosion
Erosion is the movement of soil from place to place, and is a natural process. The main natural agents of erosion in the region are wind and flowing water. Erosion can be accelerated dramatically by grounddisturbing activities if effective erosion control measures are not used. Soil can be carried off construction sites or bare land by wind and water, and tracked off construction sites by vehicles. Sediments can increase the turbidity (cloudiness) of water, clog fish gills, reduce spawning habitat, lower survival rates of young aquatic organisms, smother bottom-dwelling organisms, and suppress aquatic vegetation growth.

The Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies two types of areas with moderate to high erosion potential: 1) certain soil types in the Sierra Nevada and foothills (both Sierra Nevada and Coast Ranges) on slopes generally over 30 percent, and 2) certain soil types in the western San Joaquin Valley and the Coast Ranges, both in western Fresno County. The Plan Area is not mapped in an area of moderate to high erosion potential.25
Construction projects 1 acre or larger in area are required to employ construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) —including erosion control BMPs—to minimize pollution of stormwater by construction activity, including pollution with sediment.

Ground Subsidence
The major causes of ground subsidence are the excessive withdrawal of groundwater and the withdrawal of petroleum. The Fresno region is not known to be subject to subsidence hazards. Substantial subsidence 23 Krazan and Associates, Inc., 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update, https://www.fresno.gov/ darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/E-1-Geologic-Hazards-Investigation.pdf, accessed July 11, 2017. 24 Krazan and Associates, Inc., 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update, https://www.fresno.gov/ darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/E-1-Geologic-Hazards-Investigation.pdf, accessed July 11, 2017. 25 County of Fresno, 2009. Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.6-10 AUGUST 2017
has occurred elsewhere in the San Joaquin Valley: up to 28 feet in western Fresno County in the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley; more than 12 feet in southwestern Tulare County; and more than 8 feet in Kern County south of Bakersfield.26 Areas of subsidence in Fresno County mapped in the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan are in western Fresno County over 20 miles west and southwest from the Plan Area. 27 Collapsible Soils
Collapsible soils shrink upon being wetted and/or being subject to a load. Shallow soils on-site—to depths of at least 3 to 5 feet bgs —are expected to be compressible to varying degrees, with compressibility generally increasing nearer the surface.
28 Expansive Soils
Expansive soils contain substantial amounts of clay that swells when wetted and shrinks when dried; the swelling or shrinking can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. Soils underlying the Fresno region consist partly of clays that are considered slightly to moderately expansive.29 The Plan Area is not mapped as having moderate to high expansion potential.30

4.6.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed Plan would result in a significant impact to geology and soils if it would:

1. Expose people or structures to 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.

2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

3. 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.
26 Krazan and Associates, Inc., 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update, https://www.fresno.gov/ darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/E-1-Geologic-Hazards-Investigation.pdf, accessed July 11, 2017. 27 County of Fresno, 2009. Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. 28 Krazan and Associates, Inc., 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update, https://www.fresno.gov/ darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/E-1-Geologic-Hazards-Investigation.pdf, accessed July 11, 2017. 29 Krazan and Associates, Inc., 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update, https://www.fresno.gov/ darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/E-1-Geologic-Hazards-Investigation.pdf, accessed July 11, 2017. 30 County of Fresno, 2009. Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PL AN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-11

4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property.

5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.

4.6.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
The impact analysis is based partly on the geological hazards investigation prepared for the Fresno General Plan by Krazan and Associates in 2012. That investigation is a region-wide summary only and is not indicative of conditions on any development site. Site-specific geotechnical investigations would be required for each development project considered for approval under the proposed Plan.

GEO-1 Development under the proposed Plan would not subject people or structures to hazards from surface rupture of a known active fault.

Buildout of the proposed Plan would not subject people or structures to hazards from surface rupture of a known active fault. The closest known active fault to the Plan Area is the Nunez Fault about 50 miles to the southwest; the nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone to the site is along the Nunez Fault. No impact would occur due to the distance of the Plan Area from the nearest known active fault.

Significance Without Mitigation: No Impact.

GEO-2 Ground shaking can be expected to occur within the design lifetimes of buildings that would be constructed under the proposed Plan. Such developments would comply with building codes then in effect. Buildout of the proposed Plan would not subject people or structures to substantial hazards from ground shaking.

Ground shaking is likely to occur within the design lifetimes of buildings that would be constructed under the proposed Plan.

There are several active faults within about 90 miles of the Plan Area, including the Nunez Fault about 50 miles to the southwest; the Ortigalita Fault about 59 miles to the west; the San Andreas Fault approximately 65 miles to the southwest; the Sierra Nevada Fault Zone about 83 miles to the east; and the Owens Valley Fault Zone about 91 miles to the east.

The Fresno region has historically been subject to low to moderate ground shaking. Two of the historic earthquakes that caused ground shaking in the region, the Owens Valley Earthquake of 1872 and the Coalinga Earthquake of 1983, each generated ground shaking of Intensity VII in the region.31 31 Krazan and Associates, Inc., 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update, https://www.fresno.gov/ darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/E-1-Geologic-Hazards-Investigation.pdf, accessed July 11, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.6-12 AUGUST 2017
The peak ground acceleration with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years—that is, an average return period of 2,475 years—ranges from approximately 0.320g on the northeast site boundary to

0.321g at the southeast corner of the site to 0.328g at the northwest corner of the site; g is the acceleration of gravity.32
Developments built under the proposed Plan would be designed and built conforming to CBC seismic safety standards, which are based on factors such as occupancy type, the types of soil and rock on-site, and the strength of ground motion with a specified probability at the site. The CBC is updated on a threeyear cycle; the current 2016 CBC took effect in January 2017.

Geotechnical investigations would be required for certain categories of projects considered for approval under the proposed Plan. Each geotechnical investigation would estimate seismic design parameters for its Plan Area based on site-specific geologic and soil conditions and the types of building occupancies proposed.

Impacts from ground shaking would be less than significant after compliance with the CBC and with seismic design parameters to be estimated in project-specific geotechnical investigations.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

GEO-3 Buildout of the proposed Plan would subject people and structures to hazards from seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction refers to loose, saturated sand or silt deposits that behave as a liquid and lose their loadsupporting capability when strongly shaken. Liquefaction potential in the City of Fresno is considered low to moderate.33 No liquefaction from historic earthquakes has been observed in Fresno.34 Buildings constructed under the proposed Plan could be subject to liquefaction. Geotechnical investigations would be required for certain categories of projects approved under the proposed Plan.

Each geotechnical investigation would assess liquefaction potential on its Plan Area; and would provide needed recommendations, such as for foundation design, to minimize hazards arising from liquefaction.

Seismic Ground Settlement
Seismic settlement is not considered a significant hazard in the Fresno region due to the nature of the underlying soils and the history of low to moderate ground shaking. 32 California Geological Survey (CGS), 2017b. Ground Motion Interpolator, http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/PSHA/psha_interpolator.html, accessed July 11, 2017. 33 Krazan and Associates, Inc., 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update, https://www.fresno.gov/ darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/E-1-Geologic-Hazards-Investigation.pdf, accessed July 11, 2017. 34 County of Fresno, 2009. Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PL AN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-13
Geotechnical investigations for projects developed under the proposed Plan would assess the potential for soil settlement—including seismic settlement—on the affected project sites, and provide needed recommendations to minimize hazards arising from such settlement.

Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is the downslope movement of surface sediment due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Lateral spreading is not considered a substantial hazard in the Fresno region for the same reasons pertaining to seismic ground settlement.

Geotechnical investigations for projects considered for approval under the proposed Plan would include site-specific assessments of the potential for seismic ground failure, and would provide needed recommendations—such as for remedial grading and/or foundation design—to minimize any ensuing hazards.

Therefore, buildout of the proposed Plan would not subject people and structures to hazards from seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

GEO-4 The Plan Area and surroundings are nearly level, with a southwest slope of about 0.1 percent grade. Buildout of the proposed Plan would not subject people or structures to landslide hazards.

Implementation of the proposed Plan would not subject people or structures to landslide hazards. The site and surroundings are nearly level, with a southwest slope of about 0.1 percent grade; and thus are not subject to landslides. No impact would occur.

Significance Without Mitigation: No Impact.

GEO-5 Construction projects under the proposed Plan would disturb and expose large amounts of soil, thus dramatically increasing the potential for soil erosion on-site. Construction projects 1 acre or larger would be required to use Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion from the site.

Construction of projects approved under the proposed Plan would greatly increase the potential for soil erosion on-site through disturbing and exposing large amounts of soil.

Construction projects of 1 acre or more would be required to comply with the General Construction Permit, Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ, issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in 2012.

Projects obtain coverage by developing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) estimating sediment risk from construction activities to receiving waters, and specifying BMPs

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.6-14 AUGUST 2017
that would be used by the project to minimize pollution of stormwater. There are several categories of construction BMPs. The following four categories of construction BMPs are relevant to erosion control:
 Erosion Controls: Cover and/or bind soil surface, to prevent soil particles from being detached and transported by water or wind. Examples include mulch, geotextiles, mats, hydroseeding, earth dikes, and swales.
 Sediment Controls: Filter out soil particles that have been detached and transported in water.

Examples include barriers such as straw bales, sandbags, fiber rolls, and gravel bag berms; desilting basin; and cleaning measures such as street sweeping.
 Tracking Controls: Minimize the tracking of soil off-site by vehicles. Examples include stabilized construction roadways and construction entrances/exits, and entrance/outlet tire wash.  Waste Management and Controls (housekeeping): Management of materials and wastes to avoid contamination of stormwater. Examples include spill prevention and control, stockpile management, and management of solid wastes and hazardous wastes.
35 Construction-related impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

GEO-6 Buildout of the proposed Plan would not subject people or structures to substantial hazards from ground subsidence.

The Fresno region is not known to be subject to subsidence hazards.36 Buildout of the proposed Plan would not expose people or structures to substantial hazards from ground subsidence, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

GEO-7 Shallow site soils are expected to be compressible and unsuitable for supporting structures for human occupancy. Implementation of the proposed Plan could pose hazards to people and structures arising from compressible soils.

Collapsible soils shrink upon being wetted and/or being subject to a load. Shallow soils on-site—to depths of at least 3 to 5 feet bgs—are expected to be compressible to varying degrees, with compressibility generally greater nearer the surface.37
35 California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), 2003. Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook:

Construction, January. 36 Krazan and Associates, Inc., 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update, https://www.fresno.gov/ darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/E-1-Geologic-Hazards-Investigation.pdf, accessed July 11, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PL AN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-15
Applicants for certain categories of projects would be required to have geotechnical studies conducted for their projects before the City of Fresno would issue building permits for those projects. Each geotechnical study would evaluate whether site soils were suitable for supporting the proposed structures. Each project applicant would be required to comply with the recommendations of the applicable geotechnical investigation report. Such reports usually conclude that at least the top few feet of soil are unsuited for supporting structures, and recommend removing such soils and replacing them with engineered, moistened, and compacted fill soils. Therefore, buildout of the proposed Plan would not pose hazards to people and structures arising from compressible soils, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

GEO-8 Expansive soils may be present on-site, and buildout of the proposed Plan could pose hazards to people or structures arising from expansive soils.

Expansive soils contain substantial amounts of clay that swells when wetted and shrinks when dried; the swelling or shrinking can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. Soils underlying the Fresno region consist partly of clays that are considered slightly to moderately expansive.38 The Plan Area is not mapped as having moderate to high expansion potential.39 Development of projects under the proposed Plan could expose people or structures to hazards arising from expansive soils.

Geotechnical investigations would be required for certain categories of projects approved under the proposed Plan. Each such investigation would include testing of subsurface soil samples for expansion potential, and would provide recommendations for minimizing any identified hazards related to expansive soils. Developers would be required to comply with recommendations in geotechnical investigation reports for affected projects. Therefore, buildout of the proposed Plan would not pose hazards to people and structures arising from expansive soils, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

GEO-9 Buildout of the proposed Plan would not add land uses to the Plan Area relying on septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems, and thus would have a less-than-significant impact respecting soils incapable of supporting such systems.
37 Krazan and Associates, Inc., 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update, https://www.fresno.gov/ darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/E-1-Geologic-Hazards-Investigation.pdf, accessed July 11, 2017. 38 Krazan and Associates, Inc., 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update, https://www.fresno.gov/ darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/E-1-Geologic-Hazards-Investigation.pdf, accessed July 11, 2017. 39 County of Fresno, 2009. Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.6-16 AUGUST 2017
The proposed Plan includes several proposed sewer improvements, and would require developers to build, or contribute toward design and construction, of sewers sufficient to convey wastewater generation at buildout of the proposed Plan. Implementation of the proposed Plan would not add land uses relying on septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Thus, buildout of the proposed Plan would have a less-than-significant impact respecting soils incapable of supporting septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.6.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
GEO-10 No significant cumulative impacts to geology and soils are anticipated, and impacts of buildout of the proposed Plan would not be cumulatively considerable.

The area considered for cumulative impacts to geology and soils is the City of Fresno and its SOI, the area studied by the Geological Hazards Investigation used in this Section.

Due to the site-specific nature of geological conditions (i.e., soils, geological features, seismic features, etc.), geology and soils impacts are typically assessed on a project-by-project basis, rather than on a cumulative basis.

Seismic hazards affecting other projects are expected to be moderate due to the low to moderate historic ground shaking in the region, and the distance to known active faults. Other projects would comply with CBC seismic safety requirements, and would have project-specific geotechnical investigations conducted and comply with recommendations in the reports of such investigations. The region bears little to no susceptibility to some seismic hazards: to surface rupture of a known active fault due to the lack of such faults in the region; and to seismic ground settlement and lateral spreading due to the nature of the soils underlying the city and the history of low to moderate ground shaking.

Preparation of geotechnical investigation reports and compliance with recommendations in such reports would also minimize other geologic hazards, such as ground subsidence, collapsible soils, and expansive soils, for other projects. Therefore, buildout of the proposed Plan would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-1

4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This chapter evaluates the potential for land use changes associated with adopting and implementing the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan (proposed Plan) to cumulatively contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Because no single project is large enough individually to result in a measurable increase in global concentrations of GHG emissions, climate change impacts of a project are considered on a cumulative basis. This analysis is based on the methodology recommended by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). GHG emissions are based on average daily trip (ADT) generation and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data provided by Fehr and Peers for the on-road transportation emissions section (see Appendix G). The GHG emissions modeling is included in Appendix C, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Data, of this Draft EIR.

4.7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

4.7.1.1 GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as GHGs, to the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHGs is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHGs— water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3)—that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHGs identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent are nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons.1,2,3 The major GHGs are briefly described below.
 Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and respiration, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. 1 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water vapor is not considered a pollutant, because it is considered part of the feedback loop rather than a primary cause of change. 2 Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly, by absorbing sunlight, and indirectly, by depositing on snow (making it melt faster) and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is the most strongly lightabsorbing component of particulate matter (PM) emitted from burning fuels such as coal, diesel, and biomass. Reducing black carbon emissions globally can have immediate economic, climate, and public health benefits. California has been an international leader in reducing emissions of black carbon, with close to 95 percent control expected by 2020 due to existing programs that target reducing PM from diesel engines and burning activities (California Air Resources Board. 2017, March 14. Final Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm). However, state and national GHG inventories do not include black carbon yet due to ongoing work resolving the precise global warming potential of black carbon. Guidance for CEQA documents does not yet include black carbon. 3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-2 AUGUST 2017
 Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and from the decay of organic waste in municipal landfills and water treatment facilities.  Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during the combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
 Fluorinated gases are synthetic, strong GHGs that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes.

Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances. These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent GHGs, they are sometimes referred to as high global-warming-potential (GWP) gases.  Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are GHGs covered under the 1987 Montreal Protocol and used for refrigeration, air conditioning, packaging, insulation, solvents, or aerosol propellants. Since they are not destroyed in the lower atmosphere (troposphere, stratosphere), CFCs drift into the upper atmosphere where, given suitable conditions, they break down the ozone layer. These gases are therefore being replaced by other compounds that are GHGs covered under the Kyoto Protocol.  Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are a group of human-made chemicals composed of carbon and fluorine only. These chemicals (predominantly perfluoromethane [CF4] and perfluoroethane [C2F6]) were introduced as alternatives, along with hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), to ozone-depleting substances.

In addition, PFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are used in manufacturing. PFCs do not harm the stratospheric ozone layer, but they have a high GWP.  Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is a colorless gas soluble in alcohol and ether, and slightly soluble in water.

SF6 is a strong GHG used primarily in electrical transmission and distribution systems as an insulator.
 Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) contain hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon atoms.

Although they are ozone-depleting substances, they are less potent than CFCs. They have been introduced as temporary replacements for CFCs.
 Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) contain only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. They were introduced as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances to serve many industrial, commercial, and personal needs. HFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are also used in manufacturing. They do not significantly deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, but they are strong GHGs.4,5
GHGs are dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Some GHGs have a stronger greenhouse effect than others. These are referred to as high GWP gases. The GWP of GHG emissions are shown in Table 4.7-1. The GWP is used to convert GHGs to CO2-equivalence (CO2e) to show the relative potential that different GHGs have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. For example, under IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) GWP 4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1996. Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995. 5 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2017. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-3
TABLE 4.7-1 GHG EMISSIONS AND THEIR RELATIVE GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL COMPARED TO CO2 GHGs
Second Assessment
Report Atmospheric
Lifetime (Years)
Fourth
Assessment
Report
Atmospheric
Lifetime (Years)
Second
Assessment
Report Global
Warming
Potential
Relative to CO2
a
Fourth
Assessment
Report Global
Warming
Potential
Relative to CO2
a
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50 to 200 50 to 200 1 1
Methaneb (CH4) 12 (±3) 12 21 25
Nitrous Oxide (N20) 120 114 310 298
Hyrofluorocarbons
HFC-23 264 270 11,700 14,800
HFC-32 5.6 4.9 650 675
HFC-125 32.6 29 2,800 3,500
HFC-134a 14.6 14 1,300 1,430
HFC-143a 48.3 52 3,800 4,470
HFC-152a 1.5 1.4 140 124
HFC-227ea 36.5 34.2 2,900 3,220
HFC-236fa 209 240 6,300 9,810
HFC-4130mee 17.1 15.9 1,300 1,030
Perfluoromethane: CF4 50,000 50,000 6,500 7,390
Perfluoroethane: C2F6 10,000 10,000 9,200 12,200
Perfluorobutane: C4F10 2,600 NA 7,000 8,860
Perfluoro-2-methylpentane: C6F14 3,200 NA 7,400 9,300
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 NA 23,900 22,800
Note: The IPCC has published updated global warming potential (GWP) values in its Fifth Assessment Report that reflect new information on atmospheric lifetimes of GHGs and an improved calculation of the radiative forcing of CO2.( Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013. Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2013, New York: Cambridge University Press.) The 2014 Scoping Plan Update was based on the GWP values in the Fourth Assessment Report.
a. Based on 100-year time horizon of the GWP of the air pollutant compared to CO2. b. The methane GWP includes direct effects and indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect effect due to the production of CO2 is not included.

Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1996. Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. New York: Cambridge University Press.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-4 AUGUST 2017
values for CH4, a project that generates 10 metric tons (MT) of CH4 would be equivalent to 250 MT of CO2.
6 California’s GHG Sources and Relative Contribution
California is the 20th largest GHG emitter in the world and the 2nd largest emitter of GHG emissions in the United States, surpassed only by Texas.7 However, California also has over 12 million more people than Texas. Because of more stringent air emission regulations, in 2014, California ranked third lowest in energy-related carbon emissions per capita.8
In 2016, the Statewide GHG emissions inventory was updated for 2000 to 2014 emissions using the AR4 GWPs.9 Based on these GWPs, California produced 442 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e GHG emissions in 2014. California’s transportation sector remains the single largest generator of GHG emissions, producing 36.1 percent of the State’s total emissions; industrial sector emissions made up 21.1 percent, and electric power generation made up 20.0 percent. Other major sectors of GHG emissions include commercial and residential (8.7 percent), agriculture (8.2 percent), high-GWP GHGs (3.9 percent), and recycling and waste (2.0 percent).10
Human Influence on Climate Change
For approximately 1,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere remained relatively constant. During the 20th century, however, scientists observed a rapid change in the climate and the quantity of climate change pollutants in the Earth’s atmosphere that is attributable to human activities. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 35 percent since preindustrial times and has increased at an average rate of 1.4 parts per million per year since 1960, mainly due to combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation.11 These recent changes in the quantity and concentration of climate change pollutants far exceed the extremes of the ice ages, and the global mean temperature is warming at a rate that cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Human activities are directly altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of climate change pollutants.12 In the past, gradual changes in the earth’s temperature changed the distribution of species, 6 CO2-equivalence is used to show the relative potential that different GHGs have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. The global warming potential of a GHG is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. 7 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2014. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000–2012: By Category as Defined by the Scoping Plan. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. 8 US Energy Information Administration. 2014. Rankings: Total Carbon Dioxide Emissions 2014. Website accessed on July 3, 2017 at http://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/#/series/226. 9 Methodology for determining the statewide GHG inventory is not the same as the methodology used to determine statewide GHG emissions under Assembly Bill 32 (2006). 10 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2016. 2016 Edition California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2014: By Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. 11 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. New York:

Cambridge University Press. 12 California Climate Action Team, 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-5
availability of water, etc. However, human activities are accelerating this process so that environmental impacts associated with climate change no longer occur in a geologic time frame but within a human lifetime.13
Like the variability in the projections of the expected increase in global surface temperatures, the environmental consequences of gradual changes in the Earth’s temperature are also hard to predict.

Projections of climate change depend heavily upon future human activity. Therefore, climate models are based on different emission scenarios that account for historical trends in emissions and on observations of the climate record that assess the human influence of the trend and projections for extreme weather events. Climate-change scenarios are affected by varying degrees of uncertainty. For example, there are varying degrees of certainty on the magnitude of the trends for:
 Warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas.  Warmer and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas.  An increase in frequency of warm spells/heat waves over most land areas.  An increase in frequency of heavy precipitation events (or proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls) over most areas.
 Larger areas affected by drought.
 Intense tropical cyclone activity increases.
 Increased incidence of extreme high sea level (excluding tsunamis).

Potential Climate Change Impacts for California
Observed changes over the last several decades across the western United States reveal clear signs of climate change. Statewide average temperatures increased by about 1.7°F from 1895 to 2011, and warming has been greatest in the Sierra Nevada. By 2050, California is projected to warm by approximately 2.7°F above 2000 averages, a threefold increase in the rate of warming over the last century. By 2100, average temperatures could increase from 4.1 to 8.6°F, depending on emissions levels.14 In California and western North America, observations of the climate have shown: 1) a trend toward warmer winter and spring temperatures; 2) a smaller fraction of precipitation falling as snow; 3) a decrease in the amount of spring snow accumulation in the lower and middle elevation mountain zones; 4) a shift in the timing of snowmelt of 5 to 30 days earlier in the spring; and 5) a similar shift (5 to 30 days earlier) in the timing of spring flower blooms.15 According to the California Climate Action Team—a committee of State agency secretaries and the heads of agencies, boards, and departments, led by the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency—even if actions could be taken to 13 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. New York:

Cambridge University Press. 14 California Climate Change Center, 2012. Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability and Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California. 15 California Climate Action Team, 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-6 AUGUST 2017
immediately curtail climate change emissions, the potency of emissions that have already built up, their long atmospheric lifetimes (see Table 4.7-1), and the inertia of the Earth’s climate system could produce as much as 0.6°C (1.1°F) of additional warming. Consequently, some impacts from climate change are now considered unavoidable. Global climate change risks to California are shown in Table 4.7-2 and include impacts to public health, water resources, agriculture, coastal sea level, forest and biological resources, and energy impacts.

TABLE 4.7-2 SUMMARY OF GHG EMISSIONS RISKS TO CALIFORNIA Impact Category Potential Risks
Public Health Impacts
Heat waves will be more frequent, hotter, and longer
Fewer extremely cold nights
Poor air quality made worse
Higher temperature increase ground-level ozone levels
Water Resource Impacts
Decreasing Sierra Nevada snow pack
Challenges in securing adequate water supply
Potential reduction in hydropower
Loss of winter recreation
Agricultural Impacts
Increasing temperature
Increasing threats from pests and pathogens
Expanded ranges of agricultural weeds
Declining productivity
Irregular blooms and harvests
Coastal Sea Level Impacts
Accelerated sea level rise
Increasing coastal floods
Shrinking beaches
Worsened impacts on infrastructure
Forest and Biological Resource Impacts
Increased risk and severity of wildfires
Lengthening of the wildfire season
Movement of forest areas
Conversion of forest to grassland
Declining forest productivity
Increasing threats from pest and pathogens
Shifting vegetation and species distribution
Altered timing of migration and mating habits
Loss of sensitive or slow-moving species
Source: California Energy Commission. 2006a. Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California. 2006 Biennial Report, California Climate Change Center. CEC-500-2006-077; California Energy Commission. 2009, May. The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response Options for California. CEC-500-2008-0077; California Climate Change Center. 2012, July. Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability and Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California; California Natural Resources Agency. 2014, July. Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk, An Update to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy.

Specific climate change impacts that could affect the project include:
 Water Resources Impacts. By late this century, all projections show drying, and half of the projections suggest 30-year average precipitation will decline by more than 10 percent below the historical average. This drying trend is caused by an apparent decline in the frequency of rain and snowfall. Even

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-7
in projections with relatively small or no declines in precipitation, central and southern parts of the State can be expected to be drier from the warming effects alone—the spring snowpack will melt sooner, and the moisture in soils will evaporate during long dry summer months.16  Wildfire Risks. Earlier snowmelt, higher temperatures, and longer dry periods over a longer fire season will directly increase wildfire risk. Indirectly, wildfire risk will also be influenced by potential climaterelated changes in vegetation and ignition potential from lightning. Human activities will continue to be the biggest factor in ignition risk. The number of large fires Statewide is estimated to increase from 58 percent to 128 percent above historical levels by 2085. Under the same emissions scenario, estimated burned area will increase by 57 percent to 169 percent, depending on location.17  Health Impacts. Many of the gravest threats to public health in California stem from the increase of extreme conditions, principally more frequent, more intense, and longer heat waves. Particular concern centers on the increasing tendency for multiple hot days in succession and heat waves occurring simultaneously in several regions throughout the State. Public health could also be affected by climate change impacts on air quality, food production, the amount and quality of water supplies, energy pricing and availability, and the spread of infectious diseases. Higher temperatures also increase ground-level ozone levels. Furthermore, wildfires can increase particulate air pollution in the major air basins of California.18
 Increase Energy Demand. Increases in average temperature and higher frequency of extreme heat events combined with new residential development across the State will drive up the demand for cooling in the increasingly hot and longer summer season and decrease demand for heating in the cooler season. Warmer, drier summers also increase system losses at natural gas plants (reduced efficiency in the electricity generation process at higher temperatures) and hydropower plants (lower reservoir levels). Transmission of electricity will also be affected by climate change. Transmission lines lose 7 percent to 8 percent of transmitting capacity in high temperatures while needing to transport greater loads. This means that more electricity needs to be produced to make up for the loss in capacity and the growing demand.19
16 California Climate Change Center, 2012. Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability and Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California. 17 California Climate Change Center, 2012. Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability and Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California. 18 California Climate Change Center, 2012. Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability and Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California. 19 California Climate Change Center, 2012. Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability and Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-8 AUGUST 2017

4.7.1.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section describes the federal, State, and local regulations applicable to GHG emissions.

Federal Regulations
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat. The EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings did not themselves impose any emission reduction requirements, but allowed the EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed in 2009 for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation.20
To regulate GHGs from passenger vehicles, EPA was required to issue an endangerment finding. The finding identifies emissions of six key GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and SF6—that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world. The first three are applicable to the project’s GHG emissions inventory because they constitute the majority of GHG emissions and, per San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) guidance, are the GHG emissions that should be evaluated as part of a project’s GHG emissions inventory.

US Mandatory Report Rule for GHGs (2009)
In response to the endangerment finding, the EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule that requires substantial emitters of GHG emissions (large stationary sources, etc.) to report GHG emissions data. Facilities that emit 25,000 MT or more of CO2e per year are required to submit an annual report.

Update to Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (2010/2012) The current Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards (for model years 2011 to 2016) incorporate stricter fuel economy requirements promulgated by the federal government and California into one uniform standard. Additionally, automakers are required to cut GHG emissions in new vehicles by roughly 25 percent by 2016 (resulting in a fleet average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016). Rulemaking to adopt these new standards was completed in 2010. California agreed to allow automakers who show compliance with the national program to also be deemed in compliance with State requirements. The federal government issued new standards in 2012 for model years 2017–2025 that will require a fleet average of 54.5 miles per gallon in 2025. However, the EPA is reexamining the 2017–2025 emissions standards.
20 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2009. EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment:

Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity. https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-9
EPA Regulation of Stationary Sources under the Clean Air Act (Ongoing) Pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has been developing regulations for new stationary sources such as power plants, refineries, and other large sources of emissions. Pursuant to former President Obama’s 2013 Climate Action Plan, the EPA was directed to develop regulations for existing stationary sources also. However, the EPA is reviewing the Clean Power Plan under President Trump’s Energy Independence Executive Order.

State Regulations
Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in Executive Order S-03-05 and B-30-15, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), and SB 375.

Executive Order S-03-05
Executive Order S-03-05, signed June 1, 2005, set the following GHG reduction targets for the State:
 2000 levels by 2010
 1990 levels by 2020
 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act (2006) Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 was passed by the California State legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the State on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction targets established in Executive Order S-03-05.

CARB 2008 Scoping Plan
The final Scoping Plan was adopted by CARB on December 11, 2008. The 2008 Scoping Plan identified that GHG emissions in California are anticipated to be approximately 596 MMTCO2e in 2020. In December 2007, CARB approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 MMTCO2e (471 million tons) for the State. 21 In order
to effectively implement the emissions cap, AB 32 directed CARB to establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor GHG emissions levels for large stationary sources that generate more than 25,000 MTCO2e per year, prepare a plan demonstrating how the 2020 deadline can be met, and develop appropriate regulations and programs to implement the plan by 2012.

First Update to the Scoping Plan
CARB completed a five-year update to the 2008 Scoping Plan, as required by AB 32. The First Update to the Scoping Plan was adopted at the May 22, 2014, board hearing. The update highlights California’s progress toward meeting the near-term 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original 2008 21 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2008. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-10 AUGUST 2017
Scoping Plan. As part of the update, CARB recalculated the 1990 GHG emission levels with the updated AR4 GWPs, and the 427 MMTCO2e 1990 emissions level and 2020 GHG emissions limit, established in response to AB 32, is slightly higher at 431 MMTCO2e.22 As identified in the Update to the Scoping Plan, California is on track to meeting the goals of AB 32.

However, the update also addresses the State’s longer-term GHG goals within a post-2020 element. The post-2020 element provides a high level view of a long-term strategy for meeting the 2050 GHG goals, including a recommendation for the State to adopt a midterm target. According to the Update to the Scoping Plan, local government reduction targets should chart a reduction trajectory that is consistent with or exceeds the trajectory created by Statewide goals.23 CARB identified that reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels will require a fundamental shift to efficient, clean energy in every sector of the economy. Progressing toward California’s 2050 climate targets will require significant acceleration of GHG reduction rates. Emissions from 2020 to 2050 will have to decline several times faster than the rate needed to reach the 2020 emissions limit.24
Executive Order B-30-15
Executive Order B-30-15, signed April 29, 2015, sets a goal of reducing GHG emissions within the State to 40 percent of 1990 levels by year 2030. Executive Order B-30-15 also directs CARB to update the Scoping Plan to quantify the 2030 GHG reduction goal for the State and requires State agencies to implement measures to meet the interim 2030 goal as well as the long-term goal for 2050 in Executive Order S-03-

05. It also requires the Natural Resources Agency to conduct triennial updates of the California adaption strategy, Safeguarding California, in order to ensure climate change is accounted for in State planning and investment decisions.

Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197
In September 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197 into law, making the Executive Order goal for year 2030 into a Statewide mandated legislative target. AB 197 established a joint legislative committee on climate change policies and requires the CARB to prioritize direction emissions reductions rather than the market-based cap-and-trade program for large stationary, mobile, and other sources.
2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update
Executive Order B-30-15 and SB 32 required CARB to prepare another update to the Scoping Plan to address the 2030 target for the State. On January 20, 2017, CARB released the Draft 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update with adoption hearings planned for summer of 2017. The Draft 2017 Climate Change 22 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm. 23 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm. 24 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-11
Scoping Plan Update includes the potential regulations and programs, including strategies consistent with AB 197 requirements to achieve the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan establishes a new emissions limit of 260 MMTCO2e for the year 2030, which corresponds to a 40 percent decrease in 1990 levels by 2030.25 California’s climate strategy will require contributions from all sectors of the economy, including the land base, and will include enhanced focus on zero- and near-zero emission (ZE/NZE) vehicle technologies; continued investment in renewables, including solar roofs, wind, and other distributed generation; greater use of low carbon fuels; integrated land conservation and development strategies; coordinated efforts to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases); and an increased focus on integrated land use planning to support livable, transit-connected communities and conserve agricultural and other lands. Requirements for direct GHG reductions at refineries will further support air quality co-benefits in neighborhoods, including in disadvantaged communities historically located adjacent to these large stationary sources, as well as efforts with California’s local air pollution control and air quality management districts (air districts) to tighten emission limits on a broad spectrum of industrial sources. Major elements of the 2017 Scoping Plan framework include:
 Implementing and/or increasing the standards of the Mobile Source Strategy, which include increasing ZEV buses and trucks.
 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with an increased stringency (18 percent by 2030).  Implementation of SB 350, which expands the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 50 percent RPS and doubles energy efficiency savings by 2030.
 California Sustainable Freight Action Plan, which improves freight system efficiency, utilizes near-zero emissions technology, and deployment of ZEV trucks.
 Implementing the proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy (SLPS), which focuses on reducing methane and hydroflurocarbon emissions by 40 percent and anthropogenic black carbon emissions by 50 percent by year 2030.
 Continued implementation of SB 375.
 Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program that includes declining caps.  20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from refineries by 2030.26  Development of a Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink.

In addition to the statewide strategies listed above, the 2017 Scoping Plan also identified local governments as essential partners in achieving the State’s long-term GHG reduction goals and identified local actions to reduce GHG emissions. As part of the recommended actions, CARB recommends that local 25 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update: The Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf. 26 The plan includes policies to require direct GHG reductions at some of the state’s largest stationary sources and mobile sources in accordance with AB 197. These policies include the use of lower GHG fuels, efficiency regulations, and the Cap-andTrade Program, which constrains and reduces emissions at covered sources.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-12 AUGUST 2017
governments achieve a communitywide goal to achieve emissions of no more than 6 MTCO2e or less per capita by 2030 and 2 MTCO2e or less per capita by 2050. For CEQA projects, CARB States that lead agencies may develop evidenced-based bright-line numeric thresholds—consistent with the Scoping Plan and the State’s long-term GHG goals—and projects with emissions over that amount may be required to incorporate on-site design features and mitigation measures that avoid or minimize project emissions to the degree feasible, or a performance-based metric using a climate action plan or other plan to reduce GHG emissions as appropriate.

The Scoping Plan scenario is set against what is called the business-as-usual (BAU) yardstick—that is, what the GHG emissions would look like if the State did nothing at all beyond the existing policies that are required and already in place to achieve the 2020 limit, as shown in Table 4.7-3. It includes the existing renewables requirements, advanced clean cars, the “10 percent” Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), and the SB 375 program for more vibrant communities, among others. However, it does not include a range of new policies or measures that have been developed or put into statute over the past two years, Also shown in the table, the known commitments are expected to result in emissions that are 50 MMTCO2e above the target in 2030. In order to make up the difference, a new Post- 2020 Cap-and-Trade Program and refinery measure are key components of the 2017 Scoping Plan.

TABLE 4.7-3 2017 CLIMATE CHANGE SCOPING PLAN EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS GAP TO ACHIEVE THE 2030 GHG TARGET Modeling Scenario 2030 GHG Emissions MMTCO2e
Reference Scenario (Business-as-Usual) 392
With Known Contaminants 310
2030 GHG Target 260
Source: California Air Resources Board. 2017, January 20. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update: The Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.

Table 4.7-4 provides estimated GHG emissions by sector at 1990 levels, and the range of emissions for each sector estimated for 2030.

Senate Bill 1383
On September 19, 2016, the Governor signed SB 1383 to supplement the GHG reduction strategies in the Scoping Plan to consider short-lived climate pollutants, including black carbon and CH4. Black carbon is the light-absorbing component of fine particulate matter produced during incomplete combustion of fuels.

SB 1383 requires the State board, no later than January 1, 2018, to approve and begin implementing that comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants to achieve a reduction in methane by 40 percent, hydrofluorocarbon gases by 40 percent, and anthropogenic black carbon by 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030, as specified. The bill also establishes targets for reducing organic waste in landfill. On March 14, 2017, CARB adopted the “Final Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-13
TABLE 4.7-4 2017 CLIMATE CHANGE SCOPING PLAN EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS CHANGE BY SECTOR TO ACHIEVE THE 2030 TARGET
Scoping Plan Sector
1990
MMTCO2e
2030 Proposed Plan
Ranges MMTCO2e
Percent Change
from 1990
Agricultural 26 24-25 -4% to -8%
Residential and Commercial 44 38–40 -9% to -14%
Electric Power 108 42–62 -43% to -61%
High GWP 3 8–11 167% to 267%
Industrial 98 77–87 -11% to -21%
Recycling and Waste 7 8–9 14% to 29%
Transportation (including TCU) 152 103–111 -27% to -32% Net Sinka -7 TBD TBD
Sub Total 431 300–345 -20% to -30%
Cap-and-Trade Program NA 40–85 NA
Total 431 260 -40%
Notes: TCU = Transportation, Communications, and Utilities; TBD: To Be Determined. a.Work is underway through 2017 to estimate the range of potential sequestration benefits from the natural and working lands sector.

Source: California Air Resources Board. 2017, January 20. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update: The Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.

Strategy,” which identifies the State’s approach to reducing anthropogenic and biogenic sources of shortlived climate pollutants. Anthropogenic sources of black carbon include on- and off-road transportation, residential wood burning, fuel combustion (charbroiling), and industrial processes. According to CARB, ambient levels of black carbon in California are 90 percent lower than in the early 1960s despite the tripling of diesel fuel use.27 In-use on-road rules are expected to reduce black carbon emissions from onroad sources by 80 percent between 2000 and 2020.

Senate Bill 375
In 2008, SB 375 was adopted to achieve the GHG reduction targets in the Scoping Plan for the transportation sector through local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Implementation is intended to reduce VMT and GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations with local land use planning. Specifically, SB 375 requires CARB to establish GHG 27 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017, March 14. Final Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-14 AUGUST 2017
emissions reduction targets for each of the 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPO). Pursuant to the recommendations of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee, CARB adopted per capita reduction targets for each of the MPOs rather than a total magnitude reduction target. SB 375 requires CARB to periodically update the targets, no later than every 8 years. CARB plans to propose updated targets for consideration in 2016, with the intent to make them effective in 2018. Sustainable communities strategies (SCS) adopted in 2018 would be subject to the updated targets.28 The Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) is the MPO for the County of Fresno and the City of Fresno. In September 2010, CARB set per capita GHG emissions reduction targets for 2020 and 2035 for the MPOs, except the MPOs in the San Joaquin Valley region (which includes Fresno COG). CARB identified a provisional target for the entire San Joaquin Valley region because the eight MPOs in the San Joaquin Valley region are anticipated to absorb 22 percent of California’s population growth. On December 14, 2012, CARB adopted a target recommendation for the eight MPOs in the San Joaquin Valley on an aggregate, valleywide basis—5 percent per capita GHG reduction in 2020 from 2005 levels and a 10 percent per capita GHG reduction in 2035 from 2005 levels. Therefore, an individual target is not proposed for Fresno COG.29
The 2020 targets are smaller than the 2035 targets because a significant portion of the built environment in 2020 has been defined by decisions that have already been made. In general, the 2020 scenarios reflect that more time is needed for large land use and transportation infrastructure changes. Most of the reductions in the interim are anticipated to come from improving the efficiency of the region's existing transportation network. The targets would result in 3 MMTCO2e of GHG reductions Statewide by 2020 and 15 MMTCO2e of GHG reductions by 2035. Based on these reductions, the passenger vehicle target in CARB's Scoping Plan (for AB 32) would be met.30
CARB is currently in the process of updating the next round of targets and methodology to comply with the requirement that targets are updated every eight years. Considerations for the next round of targets include whether to change the nature or magnitude of the emissions reduction targets for each of the MPOs. Additionally, CARB is also considering whether the target setting methodology should account for advances in technology that reduces emissions. The latter change in methodology would permit cities to account for emissions reductions from advances in cleaner fuels and vehicles and not only from land use and transportation planning strategies. In March 2017, CARB held a series of workshops regarding the SB 375 target update process, and updated targets adopted in 2017 are intended to become effective in 2018. Sustainable communities strategies (SCS) adopted in 2018 would be subject to the updated targets.31
28 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2015. ARB Process and Schedule for SB 375 Target Update. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm. 29 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2013. Staff Report Update on Senate Bill 375 Implementation in the San Joaquin Valley. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/finalstaffreport_011513.pdf. 30 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2010. Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375. Staff Report. 31 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2015. ARB Process and Schedule for SB 375 Target Update. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-15
Fresno COG 2014–2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy SB 375 requires the MPOs to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in their regional transportation plan. The SCS establishes a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement). The SCS provides growth strategies to achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets. It does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives for consistency. The eight counties of the San Joaquin Valley are coordinating on development of their SCS to maximize resources through the Valley Vision SCS process. However, each MPO is developing a separate SCS. The Fresno COG adopted its 2014-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS) on June 26, 2014, and CARB approved it on January 15, 2016.32 It is based on the current planning assumptions in the county.

Assembly Bill 1493
California vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 (Pavley I). Pavley I is a clean-car standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty vehicles) from 2009 through 2016 and is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles by 30 percent in 2016. California implements the Pavley I standards through a waiver granted to California by the EPA. In 2012, the EPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for model year 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles (see also the discussion on the update to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards under Federal Laws, above). In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single package of standards. Under California’s Advanced Clean Car program, by 2025, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions.

Executive Order S-01-07
On January 18, 2007, the State set a new low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels sold within the State. Executive Order S-01-07 sets a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in carbon dioxide equivalent gram per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The LCFS requires a reduction of

2.5 percent in the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2015 and a reduction of at least 10 percent by 2020. The standard applies to refiners, blenders, producers, and importers of transportation fuels, and would use market-based mechanisms to allow these providers to choose how they reduce emissions during the “fuel cycle” using the most economically feasible methods. 32 Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG), 2014. 2014-2040 Regional Transportation Plan & Sustainable Communities Strategy. http://www.fresnocog.org/sites/default/files/publications/RTP/Final_RTP/Fresno_COG_2014_RTP-SCS_Final.pdf.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-16 AUGUST 2017
Senate Bills 1078, 107, X1-2, and Executive Order S-14-08 A major component of California’s Renewable Energy Program is the RPS established under Senate Bills 1078 (Sher) and 107 (Simitian). Under the RPS, certain retail sellers of electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in order to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. Executive Order S-14-08 was signed in November 2008, which expanded the State’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was adopted by the legislature in 2011 (SBX1-2). Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The increase in renewable sources for electricity production will decrease indirect GHG emissions from development projects, because electricity production from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral.

Senate Bill 350
Senate Bill 350 (de Leon), was signed into law September 2015. SB 350 establishes tiered increases to the RPS of 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also set a new goal to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures.

Executive Order B-16-2012
On March 23, 2012, the State identified that CARB, the California Energy Commission (CEC), the Public Utilities Commission, and other relevant agencies worked with the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative and the California Fuel Cell Partnership to establish benchmarks to accommodate zero-emissions vehicles in major metropolitan areas, including infrastructure to support them (e.g., electric vehicle charging stations). The executive order also directs the number of zero-emission vehicles in California’s State vehicle fleet to increase through the normal course of fleet replacement so that at least 10 percent of fleet purchases of light-duty vehicles are zero-emission by 2015 and at least 25 percent by 2020. The executive order also establishes a target for the transportation sector of reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector 80 percent below 1990 levels.

California Building Code: Building Energy Efficiency Standards Energy conservation standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2016 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On June 10, 2015, the CEC adopted the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2017.

The 2016 Standards continues to improve upon the previous 2013 Standards for new construction of and additions and alterations to residential and nonresidential buildings. Under the 2016 Standards,

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-17
residential and nonresidential buildings are 28 and 5 percent more energy efficient than the 2013 Standards, respectively.33 Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (nonresidential) more energy efficient than the prior 2008 standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features. While the 2016 standards do not achieve zero net energy, they do get very close to the State’s goal and make important steps toward changing residential building practices in California. The 2019 standards will take the final step to achieve zero net energy for newly constructed residential buildings throughout California.34
California Building Code: CALGreen
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code. CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants.35 The mandatory provisions of the California Green Building Code Standards became effective January 1, 2011, and were last updated in 2016. The 2016 Standards became effective on January 1, 2017. 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (20 CCR §§ 1601–1608) were adopted by the CEC on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006.

The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non–federally regulated appliances. Though these regulations are now often viewed as “business as usual,” they exceed the standards imposed by all other States, and they reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy demand.

Solid Waste Regulations
California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939, Public Resources Code §§ 40050 et seq.) set a requirement for cities and counties throughout the State to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting. In 2008, the requirements were modified to reflect a per capita requirement rather than tonnage. To help achieve this, the act requires that each city and county prepare and submit a source reduction and recycling element.

AB 939 also established the goal for all California counties to provide at least 15 years of ongoing landfill capacity.

AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increased the statewide goal for waste diversion to 75 percent by 2020 and requires recycling of waste from commercial and multifamily residential land uses. 33 California Energy Commission (CEC), 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Adoption Hearing Presentation. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/documents/ June 10. 34 California Energy Commission (CEC), 2015. 2016 Building Energy and Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/rulemaking/documents/2016_Building_Energy_Efficiency_Standards_FAQ.pdf. 35 The green building standards became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the code.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-18 AUGUST 2017
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act (AB 1327, Public Resources Code §§ 42900 et seq.) requires areas to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects. The act required the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency requiring adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials as part of development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model or an ordinance of their own.

Section 5.408 of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code also requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse.

In October of 2014 Governor Brown signed AB 1826, requiring businesses to recycle their organic waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also requires that on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the State implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses and multifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units. Organic waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste.

Water Efficiency Regulations
The 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan was issued by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in 2010 pursuant to Senate Bill 7, which was adopted during the 7th Extraordinary Session of 2009–2010 and therefore dubbed “SBX7-7.” SBX7-7 mandated urban water conservation and authorized the DWR to prepare a plan implementing urban water conservation requirements (20x2020 Water Conservation Plan).

In addition, it required agricultural water providers to prepare agricultural water management plans, measure water deliveries to customers, and implement other efficiency measures. SBX7-7 requires urban water providers to adopt a water conservation target of 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020 compared to 2005 baseline use.

The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) requires local agencies to adopt the updated DWR model ordinance or equivalent. AB 1881 also requires the CEC to consult with the DWR to adopt, by regulation, performance standards and labeling requirements for landscape irrigation equipment, including irrigation controllers, moisture sensors, emission devices, and valves to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or water.

Local Regulations
The following discusses the City of Fresno’s applicable plans and regulations that would contribute in reducing GHG emissions.

City of Fresno
City of Fresno General Plan
Similar for air quality, the Fresno General Plan includes objectives and policies within the its Resource Conservation and Resilience Element that pertain directly to GHG emissions. As previously discussed in

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-19
Section 4.3, Air Quality, objectives and policies included in the other General Plan Elements related to land use development patterns (e.g., infill and mixed-use development), transportation and transit, and urban form in addition to water and energy usage and conservation would also contribute in reducing GHG emissions within the proposed Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Area and SJVAB. The policies and objectives shown in Table 4.3-2 would also contribute in not only improving air quality, but also in reducing GHG emissions. Table 4.7-5 includes additional examples of General Plan objectives and policies that would contribute to reducing GHG emissions.

City of Fresno Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
The City’s General Plan includes the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHG Plan) which outlines the strategies to reduce GHG emissions to achieve the AB 32 year 2020 reduction target. The GHG Plan also contains strategies for reducing emissions beyond year 2020 towards meeting the State’s long-term reduction goal set under Executive Order S-03-05. The GHG Plan indicates that the City will achieve a total reduction of 26.8 percent from BAU by 2020 through State and regional regulations, which exceeds the

21.7 percent reduction target required to meet AB 32 targets. Additionally, with implementation of local measures, the City will achieve a reduction of 29.8 percent from BAU by year 2020. To achieve the reductions, the GHG Plan identifies various strategies across the following areas:
 Land Use and Transportation
 Transportation Facilities Strategies
 Transportation Demand Strategies
 Energy Conservation Strategies for New and Existing Buildings  Waste Diversion and Recycling and Energy Recovery
 Strategies for Exiting Development
 Municipal Strategies.

The GHG Plan outlines several scenarios in providing streamlining for individual development projects.

The scenarios include 1) projects requiring discretionary approval, 2) new discretionary projects requiring a general plan amendment, and 3) discretionary projects within the Downtown Plan, BRT Station Area, SCS Plan Area. Overall, development projects consistent with the parameters outlined for the applicable scenario would be considered to have a less than significant GHG impact.

4.7.1.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The proposed Plan Area currently include existing residential and non-residential land uses. These existing land uses currently generates direct and indirect GHG emissions from vehicle trips, energy use (indirectly from purchased electricity use and directly through fuel consumed for building heating), area sources (e.g., equipment used on-site, consumer products, coatings), water/wastewater generation, and waste disposal.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-20 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.7-5 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO GHG EMISSIONS Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Resource Conservation and Resiliency Element
Objective RC-2 Promote land uses that conserve resources.

Policy RC-2-a
Link Land Use to Transportation. Promote mixed‐use, higher density infill development in multi‐modal corridors. Support land use patterns that make more efficient use of the transportation system and plan future transportation investments in areas of higher‐intensity development. Discourage investment in infrastructure that would not meet these criteria.

Objective RC-5
In cooperation with other jurisdictions and agencies in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, take timely, necessary, and the most cost-effective actions to achieve and maintain reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and all strategies that reduce the causes of climate change in order to limit and prevent the related potential detrimental effects upon public health and welfare of present and future residents of the Fresno community.

Policy RC-5-a
Support State Goal to Reduce Statewide GHG Emissions. As is consistent with State law, strive to meet AB 32 goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and strive to meet a reduction of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 as Stated in Executive Order S-03-05. As new Statewide GHG reduction targets and dates are set by the State, update the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan to include a comprehensive strategy to achieve consistency with those targets by the dates established.

Policy RC-5-bGreenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. As is consistent with State law, prepare and adopt a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan as part of the Master Environmental Impact Report to be concurrently approved with the Fresno General Plan in order to achieve compliance with State mandates, assist development by streamlining the approval process, and focus on feasible actions the City can take to minimize the adverse impacts of growth and development on global climate change. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan shall include, but not be limited to:
 A baseline inventory of all known or reasonably discoverable sources of GHGs that currently exist in the city and sources that existed in 1990.
 A projected inventory of the GHGs that can reasonably be expected to be emitted from those sources in the year 2035 with the implementation of this General Plan and foreseeable communitywide and municipal operations.
 A target for the reduction of emissions from those identified sources.  A list of feasible GHG reduction measures to meet the education target, including energy conservation and “green building” requirements in municipal buildings and private development.  Periodically update municipal and community‐wide GHG emissions inventories to determine the efficacy of adopted measures and to guide future policy formulation needed to achieve and maintain GHG emissions reduction targets.

Policy RC-5-c
Increase efforts to incorporate requirements for GHG emission reductions in land use entitlement decisions, facility design, and operational measures subject to City regulation through the following measures and strategies:
 Promote the expansion of incentive‐based programs that involve certification of projects for energy and water efficiency and resiliency. These certification programs and scoring systems may include public agency “Green” and conservation criteria, Energy Star™ certification, CALGreen Tier 1 or Tier 2, Leadership in Energy Efficient Design (LEED™) certification, etc.
 Promote appropriate energy and water conservation standards and facilitate mixed‐use projects, new incentives for infill development, and the incorporation of mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian amenities into public and private projects.
 Require energy and water audits and upgrades for water conservation, energy efficiency, and mass transit, pedestrian, and bicycle amenities at the time of renovation, change in use, change in occupancy, and change in ownership for major projects meeting review thresholds specified in an implementing ordinance.  Incorporate the City’s “Guidelines for Ponding Basin/Pond Construction and Management to Control Mosquito Breeding” as conditions of approval for any project using an on‐site stormwater basin to prevent possible increases in vector‐borne illnesses associated with global climate change.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-21
TABLE 4.7-5 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO GHG EMISSIONS Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
 Periodically evaluate the City’s facility maintenance practices to determine whether there are additional opportunities to reduce GHGs through facility cleaning and painting, parks maintenance, road maintenance, and utility system maintenance.
 Periodically evaluate standards and mitigation strategies for highly vehicle‐dependent land uses and facilities, such as drive‐through facilities and auto‐oriented development.

Policy RC-5-d
SCS and CAP Conformity Analysis. Ensure that the City includes analysis of a project’s conformity to an adopted regional Sustainable Community Strategy or Alternative Planning Strategy (APS), an adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP), and any other applicable City and regional greenhouse gas reduction strategies in affect at the time of project review.

Policy RC-5-e
Ensure Compliance. Ensure ongoing compliance with GHG emissions reduction plans and programs by requiring that air quality measures are incorporated into projects’ design, conditions of approval, and mitigation measures.

Policy RC-5-f Toolkit. Provide residents and project applicants with a “toolkit” of feasible measures that can be used to reduce GHG emissions, including educational materials on energy‐efficient and “climate‐friendly” products.

Policy RC-5-g Evaluate Impacts with Models. Continue to use computer models such as those used by SJVACPD to evaluate greenhouse gas impacts of plans and projects that require such review.

Policy RC-6-d Recycled Water. Prepare, Adopt, and implement a City of Fresno Recycled Water Master Plan.

Objective RC-7 Promote water conservation through standards, incentives, and capital investments.

Policy RC-7-a
Water Conservation Program Target. Maintain a comprehensive conservation program to help reduce per capita water usage in the City’s water service area to 243 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) by 2020 and 190 gpcd by 2035, by adopting conservation standards and implementing a program of incentives, design and operation standards, and user fees.
 Support programs that result in decreased water demand, such as landscaping standards that require drought-tolerant plants, rebates for water conserving devices and systems, turf replacement, xeriscape landscape for new homes, irrigation controllers, commercial/industrial/institutional water conserving programs, prioritized leak detection program, complete water system audit, landscape water audit and budget program, and retrofit upon resale ordinance.
 Implement the US Bureau of Reclamation Best Management Practices for water consideration as necessary to maintain the City’s surface water entitlements.
 Adopt and implement policies in the event that an artificial lake is proposed for development.  Work cooperatively toward effective uniform water conservation measures that would apply throughout the Planning Area.
 Expand efforts to educate the public about water supply issues and water conservation techniques.

Policy RC-7-b
Water Pricing and Metering. Develop a tiered water cost structure for both residential and commercial users that will properly price water based on its true cost; require all new development to be metered for water use; and charge all customers the true, full cost of their water supply, including costs of acquisition, initial treatment, conveyance, wastewater treatment, operations, maintenance, and remediation.

Policy RC-7-c Best Practices for Conservation. Require all City facilities and all new private development to follow US Bureau of Reclamation Best Management Practices for water conservation, as warranted and appropriate.

Policy RC-7-d Update Standards for New Development. Continue to refine water saving and conservation standards for new development.

Policy RC-7-h
Landscape Water Conservation Standards. Refine landscape water conservation standards that will apply to new development installed landscapes, building on the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and other State regulations.
 Evaluate and apply, as appropriate, augmented xeriscape, “water wise,” and “green gardening” practices to be implemented in public and private landscaping design and maintenance.  Facilitate implementation of the State’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by developing alternative

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-22 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.7-5 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO GHG EMISSIONS Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
compliance measures that are easy to understand and observe.

Objective RC-8 Reduce the consumption of non-renewable energy resources by requiring and encouraging conservation measures and the use of alternative energy sources.

Policy RC-8-a Existing Standards and Programs. Continue existing beneficial energy conservation programs, including adhering to the California Energy Code in new construction and major renovations.

Policy RC-8-b
Energy Reduction Targets. Strive to reduce per capita residential electricity use to 1,800 kWh per year and non-residential electricity use to 2,700 kWh per year per capita by developing and implementing incentives, design and operation standards, promoting alternative energy sources, and cost-effective savings.

Policy RC-8-c Energy Conservation in New Development. Consider providing an incentive program for new buildings that exceed California Energy Code requirements by fifteen percent.

Policy RC-8-d Incentives. Establish an incentive program for residential developers who commit to building all of their homes to ENERGY STAR performance guidelines.

Policy RC-8-h
Solar Assistance. Identify and publicize information about financial mechanisms for private solar installations and provide over‐the‐counter permitting for solar installations meeting specified standards, which may include maximum size (in kV) of units that can be so approved.

Policy RC-8-i Renewable Target. Adopt and implement a program to increase the use of renewable energy to meet a given percentage of the city’s peak electrical load within a given time frame.

4.7.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

4.7.2.1 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. The SJVAPCD adopted Guidance Methodology for addressing GHG emissions under CEQA on December 17, 2009.36 In addition, SJVAPCD adopted a Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) to identify strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the SJVAPCD.37 SJVAPCD’s methodology includes a tiered approach:
36 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), 2009. Guidance for Valley Land-Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emissions for New Projects. 37 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), 2009. Climate Change Action Plan, Final Staff Report, Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-23
 If a project is exempt from CEQA, individual-level and cumulative GHG emissions are treated as less than significant.
 If the project complies with a GHG emissions reduction plan or mitigation programs that avoid or substantially reduce GHG emissions in the geographic area where the project is located (i.e., city or county), individual-level and cumulative GHG emissions are treated as less than significant.  SJVAPCD does not have thresholds of significance for construction-related GHG emissions.

Construction emissions are one-time, nonrecurring emissions. Therefore, construction emissions are amortized over a 30-year duration (20 to 40 years average building lifetime) and included in the operational emissions analysis for informational purposes.38 GHG emissions from construction activity are therefore not assumed to significantly contribute to cumulative GHG emissions impacts of the proposed Plan.

Performance Metric – Newhall Ranch Case Court Ruling
SJVAPCD’s methodology for evaluating GHG emissions impacts also included methodology to evaluate whether or not a project would comply with AB 32 by conducting an analysis of whether the project would reduce GHG emissions by 29 percent from business as usual (BAU) through implementation of Best Performance Standards. The November 30, 2015, Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Newhall Ranch) ruling effectively limits use of this performance metric. The 29 percent below BAU established in the CARB Scoping Plan is derived from the statewide reduction target set by AB 32 for year 2020. The court held that the 29 percent is the statewide goal, but there is no substantial evidence that establishes a nexus between the Statewide goal and the percent reduction a specific land use project would need to achieve to be consistent with the goals of AB 32. Projects must determine the reduction target specific to the land use type being proposed. Because SJVAPCD’s significance criteria does not establish a nexus that connects the Statewide GHG emissions reductions identified in the Scoping Plan to reductions needed for new development projects, an alternative approach to use of the performance metric is being used by the District until SJVAPCD revises their Guidance Methodology to address the Newhall Ranch ruling.

Bright-Line and Efficiency GHG Emissions Significance Thresholds SJVAPCD has not formally provided guidance on how to analyze GHG emissions impacts for projects that are within their district. Until SJVAPCD provides formal guidance, the following approach which is based on alternative metrics used by air districts in California to assess GHG emissions impacts is identified:

Bright-Line Threshold
The bright-line significance threshold is a numeric, mass emissions threshold. In general, the bright-line threshold identifies the point at which additional analysis of project-related GHG emissions impacts is 38 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAAMD), 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqasignificance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-6/ghg-meeting-6-guidance-document-discussion.pdf.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-24 AUGUST 2017
necessary. Projects below the established bright-line significance criteria have a de minimus contribution the local, regional, and/or statewide GHG emissions inventory and have less than significant impacts.

Projects above this threshold may result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions.

The bright-line threshold is based on the methodology identified in the 2008 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) white paper (CAPCOA 2008).39 It is based on the market capture approach and reflects the amount of emissions that 90 percent of development projects surveyed in four cities within California would generate. CAPCOA identified that a bright-line threshold set at 900 MTCO2e per year would capture 90 percent of projects. In general, 900 MTCO2e per year corresponds to (1) a residential development of 50 dwelling units; (2) 35,000 square feet of office space; (3) 11,000 square feet of retail space; and (4) 6,300 square feet of supermarket space.40 The 900 MTCO2e per year is used as it is the most conservative bright-line threshold. Exceeding the brightline significance criteria does not necessarily indicate that the project generates a significant unavoidable impact. Typically, based on how the bright-line threshold is applied in other air districts, the bright-line thresholds are utilized as a screening criterion to identify whether a full analysis of GHG emissions is warranted. Furthermore, if a project exceeds the screening threshold, the second level of analysis would compare the project to the efficiency metric discussed below for informational purposes. However, for purposes of this analysis, if project-related net emissions exceed 900 MTCO2e per year, GHG emissions would be considered potentially significant in the absence of mitigation measures.

Efficiency Metric
The efficiency metric identified by some air districts in California in the absence of a countywide GHG reduction plan is derived from CARB’s Scoping Plan and is based on the projected year 2020 statewide emissions inventory for the land use sector and Statewide population and employment, as follows:
 2020 Land Use Sector Emissions = 295,530,000 MTCO2e per year  2020 Statewide employment for the land use sector = 17,064,489  2020 Statewide population = 44,135,92341
Based on the inventory and statewide service population for the land use sector in 2020, the land use sector project-level efficiency threshold is estimated at 4.8 MTCO2e service population per year. This efficiency metric represents the target per service population emission rate for land use development 39 California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association, 2008. CEQA and Climate Change. 40 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) have also established bright-line screening thresholds of 1,100 MTCO2e and 3,000 MTCO2e per year, respectively, for development projects based on similar market capture methodologies utilized by CAPCOA. SCAQMD based their bright-line screening threshold on review of 711 CEQA projects and determined that 90 percent of the projects reviewed would exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per year (South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2009, November 19. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #14. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases- %28ghg%29-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-14/ghg-meeting-14-main-presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2).

Similarly, the bright-line screening threshold established by BAAQMD captures approximately 59 percent of all development projects (Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines). 41 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2008. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-25
projects that would be consistent in meeting the AB 32 Year 2020 reduction target. For projects with a buildout that would occur in 2040 and beyond year 2020, the applicable threshold is based on the trajectory needed as shown in Table 4.7-6 to achieve the year 2030 GHG reduction target of SB 32 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030) and Executive Order S-03-05 (80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050) for the horizon year of the projects.

TABLE 4.7-6 FORECASTED GHG REDUCTION TARGET
GHG Sectiona Scoping Plan Scenario GHG Emissions MMTCO2e 2017 Scoping Plan End Use Sector 2030 – Land Use Only Sectors Residential – residential energy consumption 38.4
Commercial – commercial energy consumption 26.8
Transportation – transportation energy consumption 104.1 Transportation Communications and Utilities – energy that supports public infrastructure like street lightning and waste treatment facilities

4.3 Non-Energy Solid Waste – methane emissions from solid waste disposal 9.17
Total 2017 Scoping Plan Land Use Sector Target 182.8
2030 Project-Level Efficiency Target
2030 Populationb 44,085,600
2030 Employmentc 17,394,580
2030 Service Population 61,480,180
2030 Efficiency Target 3.0 MTCO2e/SP
2040 Project-Level Efficiency Targetd
2040 Land Use Sector Target Estimate 120,100,000
2040 Population Estimate 47,233,240
2040 Employment Estimate 18,992,870
2040 Service Population Estimate 66,226,110
2040 Efficiency Target 1.8 MTCO2e/SP
a. California Air Resources Boards. 2017, January 20. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update: The Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf. b. California Department of Finance. 2014, December. Report P-1 (County): State and County Total Population Projections, 2010-2060 (5 -year increments). http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Projections/ c. California Department of Transportation. 2016. Long-Term Socio-Economic Forecasts by County. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/socio_economic.html; Without industrial and agricultural sectors d. The 2035 Efficiency target is based on interpolating the 2030 land use emissions target of 182.8 MMTCO2e (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030) and the 2050 land use emissions target of 57.4 MMTCO2e (80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050), which equates to approximately 47 percent below 1990 levels by 2035. The population and employment estimates are based on a similar forecast to estimate the service population in California in 2035.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-26 AUGUST 2017
As shown in the table, the 2040 GHG estimated efficiency target would be 1.8 MTCO2e per service population per year, to be on a trajectory to achieve the GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05.

4.7.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This GHG evaluation was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA to determine if significant GHG impacts are likely to occur in conjunction with future development that would be accommodated by the proposed Plan. The City’s criteria air pollutant emissions inventory includes the following sectors:
 Transportation. Based on the annual average trip generation and vehicle miles traveled data provided by Fehr and Peers (see Appendix G of this Draft EIR). An average trip distance of 8.04 miles per trip is utilized for the project buildout scenario. Based on the estimated 182,853 average daily trips (ADT) generated associated with the new proposed land uses, approximately 1,470,179 additional vehicle miles per day would be generated.
 Area Sources. Area and stationary sources are based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) defaults for emissions generated from use of consumer products and cleaning supplies.  Energy. GHG emissions from energy use (electricity usage and natural gas used for cooking, heating, etc.) are based on the CalEEMod defaults for electricity and natural gas usage by residential and nonresidential land uses. New buildings are assumed to comply with the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which are 28 percent more energy efficient for residential buildings and 5 percent more energy efficient for nonresidential buildings and residential buildings of four stories or more compared to the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.  Construction. It is assumed that development of the proposed Plan would generally commence beginning of 2018. For purposes of this analysis, the construction phasing utilizes the CalEEMod default schedule based on the anticipated new land uses and the duration of each activity is normalized to an 25-year building period. In addition, while the specific timeline in how the land uses accommodated in the proposed Specific Plan would be developed is unknown, this analysis assumes that the various construction activities (e.g., site preparation, demolition, building construction) would overlap. Furthermore, it is assumed that all of the existing residential and non-residential land uses within the Plan Area remain under the proposed future buildout scenario. Construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults such as construction equipment mix and worker, vendor, and haul trips. Table 4.7-7 shows the assumed construction activities, the start and end dates (based on 25-year buildout), and equipment mix for each of the activities.

GHG-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions at buildout compared to existing conditions.

Development under the proposed Plan would contribute to global climate change through direct and indirect emissions of GHG from land uses within the Plan Area. The proposed Plan would result in a net increase of 7,131 dwelling units and 4,512,586 million non-residential square feet in the Plan Area.

Buildout of the proposed Plan is not linked to a specific development time frame. Development that would be accommodated by the proposed Plan would generate a net increase of 182,853 weekday

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-27
TABLE 4.7-7 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, PHASING, AND EQUIPMENT Activities Start/End Datesa Equipmentb
Demolition 1/1/2018 – 3/19/2019 1 concrete/industrial saw; 3 excavators; 2 rubber tired dozers; 1 water truck
Site Preparation 1/1/2018 – 9/21/2018 3 rubber tired dozers; 4 tractors/loaders/backhoes; 1 water truck Grading 1/1/2018 – 11/18/2019 2 excavators; 1 grader; 1 rubber tired dozer; 2 scrapers; 2 tractors/loaders/backhoes; 1 water truck
Building Construction 1/1/2018 – 10/20/2036 1 crane; 3 forklifts; 1 generator set; 3 tractors/loaders/backhoes; 1 welder Asphalt Paving 1/1/2018 – 5/1/2019 2 pavers; 2 paving equipment; 2 rollers Architectural Coating 1/1/2018 – 3/14/2024 1 air compressor a. Based on CalEEMod defaults and normalized to an 25-year buildout duration. b. Based on CalEEMod defaults.
average daily trips ends, resulting in 1,470,179 additional daily VMT at project buildout (see Appendix G).

For the purpose of this Draft EIR, buildout is assumed over an 25-year project horizon. GHG emissions from construction activities are amortized into the operational phase GHG emissions inventory to account for one-time emissions from construction in accordance with SCAQMD methodology.42 The community GHG emissions inventory for the proposed Plan at buildout compared to existing conditions is in Table 4.7-8.

As shown in Table 4.7-8, the net increase in GHG emissions of 332,705 MTCO2e annually from operational activities of development projects accommodated by the proposed Plan would exceed the bright-line screening threshold of 900 MTCO2e for all land use types. The planned improvements, design guidelines, objectives, and policies under the proposed Plan would generally support a sustainable development pattern for the Plan area by creating more complete neighborhoods and improving transit options. For example, the proposed Plan includes plans for improving active transit infrastructure and amenities such as the inclusion of Class II bike lanes that follows the arterial and collector streets and Class I bike paths along marks, Jensen, and North Avenues and implementation of Complete Streets Design Guidelines for various corridors throughout the Plan Area that would contribute to reducing vehicle trips and VMT.

However, the increase in overall land use intensity and associated population and employment growth within the Plan Area are the primary factors for the increase in GHG emissions. In addition, although applicable future individual development projects would be processed under their own separate CEQA evaluation and may be consistent with the City’s GHG Reduction Plan development checklist resulting in a less than significant GHG emissions impact, cumulatively, development of projects accommodated by the proposed Plan would generate substantial GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed Plan’s cumulative contribution to the long-term GHG emissions in the State would be considered significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.
42 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2008, October. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases- (ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-6/ghg-meeting-6-guidance-document-discussion.pdf.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-28 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.7-8 NET ANNUAL GHG FORECAST
Source
GHG Emissions
MTCO2e Percent Change
Area 3,196 1%
Energya 37,983 11%
Mobileb 265,312 80%
Solid Waste 18,554 6%
Water 1,849 1%
Construction-Amortizedc 5,809 6%
Total All Sectors 332,705 100%
Bright-Line Screening Threshold 900 NA
Exceeds Threshold? Yes NA
Note: Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding
a. Buildings constructed after January 1, 2017 are required to meet the 2016 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2016 Standards are 5 percent more energy efficient for non-residential buildings and 28 percent more energy efficiency for residential than the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. Includes applicable water efficiency improvements required under CALGreen. b. As CalEEMod does not provide year 2041 emission rates, year 2040 emission rates are utilized for purposes of this analysis. c. Construction emissions are amortized over a 30-year project lifetime based on recommended SCAQMD methodology.

Source: PlaceWorks, 2017
Impact GHG-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-2b as follows:

Mitigation Measure AQ-2b: During construction activities, for projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt projects), the construction contractors shall ensure that the equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations; and, that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9.

Significance With Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. Implementation of the proposed Plan’s roadway and bicycle and trail network improvements, policies (e.g., Policies LU-1.1, LU-4.4, T-10.1, and T-11.3), and Complete Streets Design Guidelines would reduce operation-related criteria air pollutants generated from energy, stationary, and mobile sources to the extent feasible. In addition, Mitigation Measure AQ-2b would contribute in minimizing GHG emissions from construction activities. Furthermore, advancement of General Plan policies pertaining to GHG emissions (e.g., Policies RC-5-a through RC-5-g), urban form, transit, water and energy conservation (e.g., Policies RC7-h and RC-8-c) would also contribute in minimizing GHG emissions overall. However, due to the magnitude of growth associated with the proposed Plan, it is anticipated that an increase in GHG emissions would remain substantial. While adherence to the City of Fresno’s GHG Plan would also contribute in reducing GHG emissions associated with implementing the proposed Plan and progress

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-29
in meeting the year 2020 AB 32 reduction target, additional federal, State, and local measures would be necessary to reduce GHG emissions under the proposed Plan to meet the long-term GHG reduction goals under Executive Order S-03-05 and SB 32. At this time, there is no plan past 2030 that achieves the long-term GHG reduction goal established under Executive Order S-03-05. As identified by the California Council on Science and Technology, the State cannot meet the 2050 goal without major advancements in technology.43 Since no additional statewide measures are currently available, Impact GHG-1 would be significant and unavoidable.

GHG-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB’s Scoping Plan, Fresno COG’s 2014-2040 RTP/SCS, and the City of Fresno’s GHG Plan. A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below.

CARB Scoping Plan
In accordance with AB 32, CARB 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 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 CARB to prepare another update to the Scoping Plan to address the 2030 target for the State. On January 20, 2017, CARB released the draft 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan to address the new interim GHG emissions target under Senate Bill 32. The CARB 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 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan has adoption hearings planned for summer 2017, and provides the strategies for the State to meet the 2030 GHG reduction target as established under SB 32. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan include implementing Senate Bill 350, which expands the Renewables Portfolio Standard to 50 percent by 2030 and doubles energy efficiency savings; expanding the Low Carbon Fuel Standard to 18 percent by 2030; implementing the Mobile Source Strategy to deploy zero-electric vehicle buses and trucks; implementing the Sustainable Freight Action Plan; implementing the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which reduces methane and hydrofluorocarbons 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030 and black carbon emissions 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030; continuing to implement Senate Bill 375; creating a post-2020 Capand-Trade Program; establishing a new regulation to reduce GHG emissions from the refinery sector by 20 44 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update: The Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target, January 20. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-30 AUGUST 2017
percent; and developing an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink.44
The project GHG emissions shown in Table 4.7-8 include reductions associated with Statewide strategies that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32. The proposed Plan would comply with these GHG emissions reduction measures since they are Statewide strategies. In addition, future buildings constructed over the lifetime of the proposed Plan would be subject to the future triannual updates to the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, which will ultimately require zero net energy (ZNE) construction. However, the Scoping Plan itself is not directly applicable to the proposed Plan. Therefore, the proposed Plan would not obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Fresno COG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
The Fresno COG 2014–2040 RPT/SCS is a regional growth management strategy that targets per capita GHG reduction from passenger vehicles and light duty trucks in the Fresno COG region. The 2014–2040 RTP/SCS incorporates local land use projections and circulation networks from the local general plans. The projected regional development pattern—including location of land uses and residential densities in local general plans—when integrated with the proposed regional transportation network in the 2014–2040 RTP/SCS, would reduce per capita vehicular travel-related GHG emissions and achieve the regional GHG reduction per capita targets for the Fresno COG region. The per capita targets for the region are 5 percent below the 2005 baseline by year 2020 and 10 percent by year 2035. The 2014–2040 RTP/SCS identifies that the Fresno COG region will meet its per capita targets for both 2020 and 2035 at 9 percent and 11 percent, respectively. Strategies identified in the 2014–2040 RTP/SCS are listed in Table 4.7-9. As shown in the table, the proposed Plan would be consistent with strategies in the 2014–2040 RTP/SCS. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

City of Fresno GHG Reduction Plan
A consistency analysis with the proposed Plan to the applicable measures in the City’s GHG Plan is shown in Table 4.7-10. As identified in the table, overall, the proposed Plan would generally be consistent with the strategies in the GHG Plan. Therefore, the proposed Plan would not conflict with the GHG Plan and impacts are considered less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant. 44 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update: The Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target, January 20. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-31
TABLE 4.7-9 FRESNO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 2014-2040 RTP/SCS CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Sustainability
Strategies Description of Strategy Principle
Southwest Fresno
Specific Plan Compliance
Transportation
Demand
Management
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs
are designed to reduce automobile usage by changing
travel behavior and encouraging the use of
transportation modes other than single occupant
vehicles. TDM strategies in Fresno County include, but
are not limited to:
 Measure C Carpool Incentive program, which
provides incentives to commuters who share a ride
to work or school with at least one other person.
 Measure C Commuter and Farmworker Vanpool
Subsidy programs, which provide subsidies and
reimbursements to new and existing commuter
vanpools.
 CalVans is a Joint Powers Public Transportation
Agency comprised of a number of Local
Transportation Planning Agencies who run a
multicounty vanpool program for commuters and
agricultural workers.
 Fresno COG’s Valleyrides.com website and Carpool
App offer commuters free ride matching, and houses
the information needed to participate in the
Measure C Carpool and Vanpool Programs.
 Flex-time work schedules with employers to reduce
congestion at peak times.
 Other trip reduction programs
Consistent: The Southwest Fresno Specific
Plan includes Transit Policy T-11.3 which
pertains to supporting TDM programs.

Additionally, future individual projects
would be subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9410,
which requires qualifying businesses to
implement an Employer Trip Reduction
Implementation Plan.

Transportation
Systems
Management
The Transportation Systems Management (TSM)
approach to congestion mitigation and GHG emission
reduction seeks to identify improvements to enhance
and optimize the existing transportation systems.

Through better management and operation of existing
transportation facilities, these techniques are designed to improve traffic flow, air quality, and movement of
vehicles and goods, as well as enhance safety. TSM
measures include, but are not limited to:
 Intersection operational improvements, including
traffic signal synchronization
 Geometric changes and bottleneck alleviation
 Arterial access management
 Traffic/Freeway management system.
 Special events management strategies.
 Incident Management/emergency services
Consistent: The Southwest Fresno Specific
Plan contains various goals (e.g., Goals T-1,
T-3, T-4, and T-8) and plans (See Figure 5-5
of the Specific Plan) in addition to inclusion
of Complete Streets Design Guidelines that
are intended to improve safety and
optimize transportation systems ranging
from pedestrian and bicycle facilities to
maintenance of existing roadways (e.g.,
Policy T-8.3) and rerouting of truck routes
away from sensitive areas (see Figure 5-6 of
the Specific Plan).

Public Transit
The 2014–2040 RTP/SCS calls for an expansion and
improvement of the public transit network and transit
service on new and existing routes, resulting in greater transit accessibility and connectivity throughout the
region. Transit expansion and improvement include the
addition of new corridors and improving the service of
existing ones, first bus rapid transit (BRT) system, and implementation of the California High-Speed Train (HST) project. The BRT corridors are planned for Shaw Avenue
from Highway City on the west to Fowler Avenue in the
City of Clovis on the east.

Consistent: A guiding principle of the
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan is to
connect and expand access to regional
transportation networks such as BRT,
Fresno Area Express, and high-speed rail.

Transit Goals T-6 and T-7 which focus on
improving the public transit network are
included in the Southwest Fresno Specific
Plan. Additionally, the planned Mixed-Use
Corridor would align with a future BRT line.

Furthermore, the Specific Plan includes
plans for implementation of more BRT

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-32 AUGUST 2017
Sustainability
Strategies Description of Strategy Principle
Southwest Fresno
Specific Plan Compliance
corridors as shown on Figure 5-4 of the
Plan.

Bike and Pedestrian
Facilities
The 2014–2040 RTP/SCS also includes a notable
increase in the regional active transportation network
for walking and bicycling. Active transportation is an
essential part of the Fresno COG transportation system, is low cost, does not emit GHGs, can help reduce
roadway congestion, and increases health and the
quality of life of residents. This emphasis signifies an important opportunity to advance the goals of SB 375
by increasing nonmotorized modes of transportation,
thereby expanding access to a variety of land uses and
transit and improving public health and air quality. A
total of $94 million is proposed in the 2014–2040
RTP/SCS to fund bike and pedestrian projects.

Consistent: A guiding principle of the
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan is to
accommodate both motorized and nonmotorized modes of travel and people of all ages and abilities to improve
mobility/transportation within Southwest
Fresno. The Specific Plan incorporates the
Complete Streets Design Guidelines and
includes various goals (see Goals T-1
through T-5) to support this guiding
principle that would improve the pedestrian
and bicycle network within the plan area.

Additionally, goals and policies related to
higher density and mixed-use development
would also encourage active transit. Figure
5-2 of the Specific Plans shows the planned
bicycle and trail network which would
include increasing bike lanes and multi-use
trails.

Source: Fresno Council of Governments, 2014. 2014-2040 Regional Transportation Plan & Sustainable Communities Strategy. http://www.fresnocog.org/ sites/default/files/publications/RTP/Final_RTP/Fresno_COG_2014_RTP-SCS_Final.pdf.

4.7.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
GHG-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to GHG emissions.

As described above, GHG emissions related to the proposed Plan are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide. Therefore, the analysis of impacts in Section 4.7.3, Impact Discussion, above, also addresses cumulative impacts. A project that exceeds the SJVAPD’s significance criteria in the context of emissions from all other development projected within the entire SJVAB would cumulative contribute to impacts. As identified in impact discussion GHG-1, Table 4.7-8 shows that implementation of the proposed Plan would exceed the bright-line threshold. Consequently, GHG emissions impacts of the proposed Plan would be significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-33
TABLE 4.7-10 CITY OF FRESNO GHG REDUCTION PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Sustainability Strategies Strategy Policies and Objectives Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Compliance
Land Use Strategies: Strategies
under this category focus on
development of more dense
and compact communities to
move people closer to
destinations that can be
accessed by walking or
bicycling, and transit.

Compact and Infill Development: Higher-density
development tends to produce fewer vehicle trips per
dwelling unit and more intense commercial development
increases opportunities for walking, bicycling, and transit use for some trips.
 Objective UF-12 and Policies UF-1-c, UF-12-b, LU-2-a, LU-2-b, LU-3-b, LU-3-c, LU-5-f, and RC-2-a
Mixed-Use Development: Mixed-use projects provide
opportunities for walking between uses for some trips.

Trips are reduced when visitors can park once at the
development and obtain services, shopping, or go to a
restaurant during a single trip.
 Policies RC-2-a, RC-2-b, UF-12-d, and UF-12-f
Pedestrian Oriented Development: Providing pedestrianfriendly infrastructure such as sidewalks, paths, and direct connections to neighboring uses such as shopping,
schools, libraries, and parks increase the potential for people to make trips on foot instead of making a car trip.

This strategy is consistent with the Complete Streets
concept that aims to make streets safe for walking and
bicycling.
 Objective UF-14 and Policies UF-12-e, UF-12-f, UF-14-a, UF-14-b, UF-14-c, D-3-c, D-4-b, and MT-1-h
Transit Oriented Development: Higher densities when
combined with pedestrian orientation encourage transit
use. A key factor is that both ends of the transit trip must be walkable and have the potential to service reasonably large numbers of transit riders. The City’s proposed BRT system combined with plans to increase development
densities at BRT stations and along the corridor are
critical elements of the City’s transit oriented
development strategy.
 Objective UF-12 and Policies UF-12-a and UF-12-b
Consistent: The Southwest Fresno
Specific Plan’s land use map
envisions the interplay of
“complete neighborhoods,”
“corridors,” and “magnet cores” to
create a vibrant and desirable
community that is accessible to and
abundant with neighborhood
amenities and services, supported
by local and neighboring residents.

The planned Mixed-Use Corridor
would be aligned with the future
BRT line. Additionally, as shown in
Figure 3-1 of the Specific Plan, the
land use plan accommodates
higher density, mixed-use, and
pedestrian/transit oriented
development land uses.

Furthermore, the Specific Plan
incorporates Complete Streets
Design Guidelines and includes
various goals and policies focused
on pedestrian, bicycling, and transit
network improvements (e.g., Goals
T-1 through T-7).

Transportation Facilities
Strategies: Strategies under this
strategy are related to
transportation infrastructure
and facilities that encourage the
use of alternative modes of
transportation such as walking,
bicycling, and transit use. This
strategy would be implemented
through support for and
funding of transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian connections,
through transit and trail
planning, and with regional
cooperation among relevant
agencies.

Transit Facilities: Includes bus stops, bus turnouts,
multimodal transfer centers, and information kiosks.
 Objectives MT-8 and MT-9 and Policies MT-8-a, MT-8-
b, MT-8-g
Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure: All new
development is required to comply with the Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plan.
 Objectives MT-4 through MT-6 and Policies MT-4-a,
MT-4-b, MT-4-c, MT-5-a, MT-6-a, MT-6-g, and POSS7-h
Consistent: The Southwest Fresno
Specific Plan includes guiding
principles that pertain to improving
public transit in addition to nonmotorized modes of travel. Transit Goals T-6 and T-7 which focus on
improving the public transit
network are included in the
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan.

Additionally, the planned MixedUse Corridor would align with a future BRT line. Furthermore, the
Specific Plan includes plans for
implementation of more BRT
corridors as shown on Figure 5-4 of
the Plan.

The Specific Plan also incorporates
the Complete Streets Design
Guidelines and includes various

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-34 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.7-10 CITY OF FRESNO GHG REDUCTION PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Sustainability Strategies Strategy Policies and Objectives Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Compliance
goals (see Goals T-1 through T-5)
that would improve the pedestrian
and bicycle network within the plan
area. Additionally, goals and
policies related to higher density
and mixed-use development would
also encourage active transit.

Figure 5-2 of the Specific Plans
shows the planned bicycle and trail
network which would include
increasing bike lanes and multi-use
trails.

Transportation Demand
Strategies: These strategies
provide programs and facilities
that encourage employees to
use alternative modes for
commute trips.

Transportation Demand Management: Measures are
designed to reduce the demand for transportation
facilities that are usually implemented at employment
sites and event centers and includes programs that target employee commute trips at the worksite such as
vanpools, and incentives for alternative transportation and government-operated programs such as rideshare
matching and outreach and incentives.
 Policy MT-10-c
Parking Measures: Providing limited parking is one of the most effective transportation measures. Use of parking
structures and paid parking provide strong incentive to use alternative modes and to take advantage of carpools and vanpools. This measure would only apply in higherdensity development areas, downtown, and mixed-use projects specific designed for this strategy.
 Policies MT-10-a, MT-10-b, MT-10-d, and MT-10-f
Consistent: The Southwest Fresno
Specific Plan includes Transit Policy
T-11.3 which pertains to supporting
TDM programs.

Energy Conservation Strategies
for New and Existing Buildings:

Improving energy efficiency in
new and existing buildings and
facilities provides one of the
most cost‐effective strategies
for reducing greenhouse gases.

The energy savings from
improved energy efficiency can
often pay for the cost of the
upgrades and retrofits over
time. These strategies are
implemented through the
promotion of energy‐ and
water‐efficient buildings (e.g.,
LEED buildings and/or
exceeding Title 24 standards)
through green building
ordinances, project timing,
prioritization, and other
implementing tools.

Energy Efficiency in New Buildings: New projects can
exceed Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for new
residential and non-residential buildings. The amount of reductions in energy use can be related to voluntary tier levels contained in Title 24 or through use of outside
certifying programs such as LEED, EnergyStar, or
Greenpoint rating systems.
 Objective RC-8 and Policies RC-8-a through RC-8-e
Energy Efficiency in Existing Buildings: Older buildings that were constructed prior to the adoption of Title 24 or that were constructed when early versions of Title 24 were in place provide significant opportunities for cost-effective energy retrofits.
 Policy RC-7-i
Self Generation Using Solar Panels and Solar Hot Water
Systems: The City of Fresno’s location and climate is
excellent for solar electric generation and hot water
systems with an average of 262 sunny days per year.

Residential and commercial projects can include solarready roofs to allow future installation of solar panels or provide solar panels at the time of construction.
 Policy RC-8-h
Water Conservation Strategies: Water pumping and
Consistent: The Southwest Fresno
Specific Plan includes integration of
recycled water infrastructure into
the plan area as shown in Figure 7-
3 of the Specific Plan. Furthermore,
new development projects
accommodated by the Specific Plan
would adhere to the latest Title 24
Energy Efficiency Standards in
addition to the CalGreen Standards
which would contribute in reducing
energy and water demand and use.

Furthermore, new qualifying
residential and non-residential
buildings would be built to adhere
to the Title 24 solar ready
requirements.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-35
TABLE 4.7-10 CITY OF FRESNO GHG REDUCTION PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Sustainability Strategies Strategy Policies and Objectives Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Compliance
transport consumes approximately 20 percent of all
energy used in California. Measures to reduce water
consumption through improved efficiency in plumbing
fixtures and landscaping can result in substantial savings compared to past practices. Water reuse and recycling
through non-potable “purple pipe” systems may reduce
energy consumption for water transport. The use of
recycled water should focus on new and existing large
green spaces, industrial uses, and new development.
 Objective RC-7 and Policies RC-6-d, RC-7-a, RC-7-d, RC7-f, and RC-7-h Waste Diversion and Recycling
and Energy Recovery: Programs
and actions that promote
recycling and diversion of waste
from landfills can reduce energy
consumed in the transport and
handling of the waste material
and can reduce the GHGs that
are emitted during the
decomposition of organic
waste.

The State of California has adopted increasingly stringent mandates for the percentage of solid waste that can be
disposed in landfills. Programs that require or encourage further reductions in waste beyond mandates will result in GHG reductions from this source.
 Policies PU-9-a, PU-9-b, RC-4-I, RC-11-a, and RC-11-b Wastewater: Wastewater treatment can produce
methane emissions that are powerful GHG, but it also
provides a valuable renewable energy source when
scrubbed of harmful components. Fresno currently
operates a major regional secondary treatment plant and reuses water primarily for agricultural purposes.

Wastewater treatment plants such as the Fresno/Clovis
RWRF with anaerobic digesters capture the methane
produced during the treatment process for productive
use such as generation of electricity or process heat to offset some of the plant’s power consumption.
 Objective PU-7 and Policies PU-7-a and PU-7-d
Consistent: Future projects
accommodated by the Southwest
Fresno Specific Plan would comply
with State mandates and future
local programs and requirements
that may be in place at the time of
project implementation.

Municipal Strategies: The City of
Fresno has a comprehensive set
of strategies specifically
targeted at GHG emissions
generated at city-owned
facilities and from city
operations. The strategies
identified by the City include
various measures to improve
energy efficiency in buildings
and equipment owned by the
City, alternative fuels for city
vehicles and equipment, and
water conservation.

Municipal Strategies Policies
 Policies RC-7-c, RC-7-e, RC-8-f, and RC-8-g
Regional Urban Forestry Program: Trees provide shade
that can reduce the urban heat island effect caused when pavement and other open surfaces absorb solar radiation and re-radiate heat to the surrounding environment. The City maintains trees in parks and other public owned
landscapes.
 Policy POSS-1-g
Other Municipal Strategies
 Energy Savings from Traffic and Street Lighting
 Low-Emission City Fleet Vehicles
 Green Purchasing
 Municipal Water Conservation
Not applicable: These policies,
objections, and programs are
implemented at the City level.

However, the Southwest Fresno
Specific Plan includes various
design guidelines that pertain to
tree planting.

Source: City of Fresno. 2014, July. Draft Fresno General Plan Update Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, City of Fresno, California. https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/F-2-Greenhouse-Gas-Reduction-Plan.pdf.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-36 AUGUST 2017
Impact GHG-3: GHG emissions associated with implementation of the proposed Plan would substantially cumulatively contribute to climate change impacts.

Mitigation Measure GHG-3: Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-2b.

Significance With Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. Implementation of the proposed Plan’s policies (e.g., Policies LU-1.1, LU-4.4, T-10.1, and T-11.3) and complete streets design guidelines would reduce operation-related criteria air pollutants generated from energy, stationary, and mobile sources to the extent feasible. In addition, Mitigation Measure AQ-2a would also contribute in reducing construction-related GHG emissions. However, due to the magnitude of growth associated with the proposed Plan, it is anticipated that an increase in GHG emissions would remain substantial.

While adherence to the City of Fresno’s GHG Plan would also contribute in reducing GHG emissions associated with implementing the proposed Specific Plan and progress in meeting the year 2020 AB 32 reduction target, additional federal, State, and local measures would be necessary to reduce GHG emissions under the proposed Plan to meet the long-term GHG reduction goals under Executive Order S-03-05 and SB 32. As Stated, there is no plan at this time past 2030 that achieves the longterm GHG reduction goal established under Executive Order S-03-05. As identified by the California Council on Science and Technology, the State cannot meet the 2050 goal without major advancements in technology.45 Since no additional statewide measures are currently available, Impact GHG-3 would be significant and unavoidable.
45 California Council on Science and Technology (CCST), 2012. California’s Energy Future: Portraits of Energy Systems for Meeting Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets. http://www.ccst.us/publications/2012/2012ghg.pdf.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-1

4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This chapter describes the environmental setting, including regulatory framework and existing conditions in the Plan Area related to, and potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed Plan on hazards and hazardous materials.

The analysis in this chapter is based in part on the following databases and reports:
 GeoTracker, 2017. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) database of hazardous materials sites that could affect groundwater quality, searched July 5, 2017  EnviroStor, 2017. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) database of sites with known contamination or sites for which there may be reasons to investigate further, searched July 5, 2017  Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), 2017. Data Map Environmental Atlas, Custom Area Database Report, Southwest Fresno Specific Plan, June 28, 2017  City of Fresno General Plan (and the associated Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR)), December 18, 2014
 City of Fresno Downtown Neighborhood Community Plan (and the associated EIR), 2016  Phase I ESA prepared for the DNCP, 2011. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Draft) Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan Area, prepared by Krazan & Associates (2011)  Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2014 The above-referenced EDR database report is included in this Draft EIR as Appendix E, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Data.

4.8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

4.8.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Hazardous materials refer generally to hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and other materials that exhibit corrosive, poisonous, flammable, and/or reactive properties and have the potential to harm human health and/or the environment. Hazardous materials are used in products (e.g., household cleaners, industrial solvents, paint, pesticides, etc.) and in the manufacturing of products (e.g., electronics, newspapers, plastic products, etc.). Hazardous materials can include petroleum, natural gas, synthetic gas, acutely toxic chemicals, and other toxic chemicals that are used in agriculture, commercial, and industrial uses; businesses; hospitals; and households. Accidental releases of hazardous materials have a variety of causes, including highway incidents, warehouse fires, train derailments, shipping accidents, and industrial incidents.

The term “hazardous materials” as used in this section includes all materials defined in the California Health and Safety Code (H&SC):

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-2 AUGUST 2017
“A material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. ‘Hazardous materials’ include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the unified program agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.”
The term includes chemicals regulated by the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES), and other agencies, as hazardous materials, wastes, or substances. “Hazardous waste” is any hazardous material that has been discarded, except those materials specifically excluded by regulation. Hazardous materials that have been intentionally disposed of or inadvertently released, fall within the definition of “discarded” materials and can result in the creation of hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes are broadly characterized by their ignitability, toxicity, corrosivity, reactivity, radioactivity, or bioactivity. Federal and State hazardous waste definitions are similar, but contain enough distinctions that separate classifications are in place for federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous wastes and State non-RCRA hazardous wastes.

Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal because of their potential to impact public health and the environment. Some materials are designated “acutely” or “extremely” hazardous under relevant statutes and regulations.

Hazardous materials and wastes can pose a significant actual or potential hazard to human health and the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Many federal, State, and local programs that regulate the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste are in place to prevent these unwanted consequences. These regulatory programs are designed to reduce the danger that hazardous substances may pose to people and businesses under normal daily circumstances and as a result of emergencies and disasters.

Potential hazards and the use and transportation of hazardous substances are regulated by an overlapping set of adopted City, County, State, and federal plans, policies and regulations. In general, federal and State legislation empowers regulation by local agencies; however, both State and federal agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA [airports]) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) that regulate ground and surface water contamination retain a substantial direct regulatory role. The City addresses these issues primarily in its Municipal Code and to a lesser extent in its 2025 General Plan.

Hazardous materials are also regulated by the City of Fresno Fire Department, the Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

The Fresno Council of Governments Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) maintains the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), and the City Municipal Code contains the Airport Zoning Ordinance that addresses land use and safety regulations in the airport zone.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-3
Federal Agencies and Regulations
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The US EPA laws and regulations ensure the safe production, handling, disposal, and transportation of hazardous materials. Laws and regulations established by the US EPA are enforced in Fresno County by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and by various regional and local agencies, as discussed below.

United States Department of Transportation
The USDOT has the regulatory responsibility for the safe transportation of hazardous materials between states and to foreign countries. The USDOT regulations govern all means of transportation, except for those packages shipped by mail, which are covered by United States Postal Service regulations. The federal RCRA of 1976 imposes additional standards for the transport of hazardous wastes.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) oversees the administration of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which requires specific training for hazardous materials handlers, provision of information to employees who may be exposed to hazardous materials, and acquisition of material safety data sheets (MSDS) from materials manufacturers. The MSDS describe the risks, as well as proper handling and procedures, related to particular hazardous materials. Employee training must include response and remediation procedures for hazardous materials releases and exposures.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
With respect to emergency planning, FEMA is responsible for ensuring the establishment and development of policies and programs for emergency management at the federal, state, and local levels.

Enforcement of these laws and regulations is delegated to state and local environmental regulatory agencies.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA; 14 CFR Part 77)
The FAA is charged with the review of construction or alterations that occur in the vicinity of airports. Its role in reviewing these activities is to identify potential aeronautical hazards and prevent or minimize adverse impacts to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace. The regulations in 14 CFR Part 77 (FAR Part 77) are designed to ensure that no permanent or temporary obstructions are allowed to exist in the navigable air space that would endanger the public or limit the efficient use of airspace. Proposed structures are also evaluated against Terminal En Route Procedures, which ensure that an object does not adversely impact flight procedures. Tall structures, including buildings, construction cranes, and cell towers in the vicinity of an airport can be hazardous to the navigation of airplanes. FAR Part 77 identifies the maximum height at which a structure would be considered an obstruction based on its proximity to the airport. All objects over 200 feet above ground level (AGL) are impacted by these regulations and any object less than 200 feet AGL within 20,000 feet of an airport must be evaluated based on height and location relative to the airport.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-4 AUGUST 2017
Toxic Substances Control Act
Established in 1976 and amended on December 31, 2002, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 United States Code [USC] Section 2601-2692) grants the EPA power to require proper reporting, recordkeeping, and testing requirements related to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Specifically, the TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals, including PCBs, asbestos, radon, and LBPs. The TSCA establishes the EPA’s authority to require the notification of the use of chemicals, require testing, maintain a TSCA inventory, and require those importing chemicals under Sections 12(b) and 13 to comply with certification and/or other reporting requirements. This federal legislation also phased out the use of asbestos-containing materials in new building materials and sets requirements for the use, handling, and disposal of asbestos containing materials. Disposal standards for LBP wastes are also detailed in the TSCA.

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (also known as Title III of the Federal Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, or “SARA III”) (42 United States Code 11001, et seq.), was established by the EPA to allow for emergency planning at the state and local level regarding chemical emergencies, to provide notification of emergency release of chemicals, and to address community rightto-know regarding hazardous and toxic chemicals. SARA III was designed to increase community access and knowledge about chemical hazards as well as facilitate the creation and implementation of state/Native American tribe emergency response commissions, responsible for coordinating certain emergency response activities and for appointing local emergency planning committees. Section 1910.1200(c) Title 29 of the CFR defines “chemicals or hazardous materials” for the purposes of SARA III.

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 United States Code 136, et seq.) was originally passed in 1947. It has been amended several times, most extensively in 1972, and most recently by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. The purpose of FIFRA is to establish federal jurisdiction over the distribution, sale, and use of pesticides. It also gives EPA the authority to study the effects of pesticide use. Other key provisions of FIFRA require pesticide applicators to pass a licensing examination for status as “qualified applicators,” create a review and registration process for new pesticide products, and ensure thorough and understandable labeling that includes instructions for use.

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA)—Safe Transport of Hazardous Materials The United States Department of Transportation regulates hazardous materials transportation between states under Title 49, Chapter 1, Part 100-185 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Within California, Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol enforce federal law related to the transport of hazardous materials. Together, these agencies determine driver training requirements, load labeling procedures, and specifications for container types to be used.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-5
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The 1976 Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the 1984 RCRA Amendments regulate the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. The legislation mandated that hazardous wastes be tracked from the point of generation to their ultimate fate in the environment. This includes detailed tracking of hazardous materials during transport and permitting of hazardous material handling facilities.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 introduced active federal involvement to emergency response, site remediation, and spill prevention, most notably the Superfund program. The act was intended to be comprehensive in encompassing both the prevention of, and response to uncontrolled hazardous substances releases. The act deals with environmental response, providing mechanisms for reacting to emergencies and chronic hazardous material releases. In addition to establishing procedures to prevent and remedy problems, it establishes a system for compensating appropriate individuals and assigning appropriate liability. It is designed to plan for and respond to failure in other regulatory programs and to remedy problems resulting from action taken before the era of comprehensive regulatory protection.

State Agencies and Regulations
California Health and Safety Code and Code of Regulations California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 and California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Section 2729, set out the minimum requirements for business emergency plans and chemical inventory reporting. These regulations require businesses to provide emergency response plans and procedures, training program information, and a hazardous material chemical inventory disclosing hazardous materials stored, used, or handled on-site. A business which uses hazardous materials or a mixture containing hazardous materials must establish and implement a business plan if the hazardous material is handled in certain quantities.

California Environmental Protection Agency
One of the primary agencies that regulate hazardous materials is the CalEPA. The State, through CalEPA, is authorized by the US EPA to enforce and implement certain federal hazardous materials laws and regulations. The California DTSC, a department of the CalEPA, protects California and Californians from exposure to hazardous waste, primarily under the authority of the RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code.1 The DTSC requirements include the need for written programs and response plans, such as Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBPs). The DTSC programs include dealing with aftermath cleanups of improper hazardous waste management, evaluation of samples taken from sites, enforcement of 1 Hazardous Substance Account, Chapter 6.5 (Section 25100 et seq.) and the Hazardous Waste Control Law, Chapter 6.8 (Section 25300 et seq.) of the Health and Safety Code.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-6 AUGUST 2017
regulations regarding use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, and encouragement of pollution prevention.

California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
Like OSHA at the federal level, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA) is the responsible state-level agency for ensuring workplace safety. The CalOSHA assumes primary responsibility for the adoption and enforcement of standards regarding workplace safety and safety practices. In the event that a site is contaminated, a Site Safety Plan must be crafted and implemented to protect the safety of workers. Site Safety Plans establish policies, practices, and procedures to prevent the exposure of workers and members of the public to hazardous materials originating from contaminated sites or buildings.

California Building Code
The California Building Standards Code (CBC), contained in Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), identifies building design standards, including those for fire safety. The CBC is based on the International Building Code but has been amended for California conditions. The CBC is updated every 3 years and the current 2016 CBC went into effect January 1, 2017. It is effective state-wide but a local jurisdiction may adopt more restrictive standards based on local conditions under specific amendment rules prescribed by the State Building Standards Commission. Commercial and residential buildings are plan-checked by local city and county building officials for compliance with the CBC. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include the installation of fire sprinklers in all new residential, high rise, and hazardous materials buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.

California Emergency Management Agency
The California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA) was established as part of the Governor’s Office on January 1, 2009—created by Assembly Bill (AB) 38 (Nava), which merged the duties, powers, purposes, and responsibilities of the former Governor’s Office of Emergency Services with those of the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security. The CalEMA is responsible for the coordination of overall State agency response to major disasters in support of local government. The agency is responsible for assuring the State’s readiness to respond to and recover from all hazards—natural, manmade, emergencies, and disasters—and for assisting local governments in their emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and hazard mitigation efforts.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-7
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped fire threat potential throughout California.2 CAL FIRE ranks fire threat based on the availability of fuel and the likelihood of an area burning (based on topography, fire history, and climate). The rankings include no fire threat, moderate, high, and very high fire threat. Additionally, the CAL FIRE produced the 2012 Strategic Fire Plan for California, which contains goals, objectives, and policies to prepare for and mitigate for the effects of fire on California’s natural and built environments.3
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC), contained in Part 9 of CCR Title 24, incorporates by adoption the International Fire Code of the International Code Council, with California amendments. The CFC is updated every 3 years and the current 2016 CFC went into effect January 1, 2017. It is effective state-wide but a local jurisdiction may adopt more restrictive standards based on local conditions under specific amendment rules prescribed by the State Building Standards Commission. The California Fire Code regulates building standards set forth in the CBC, fire department access, fire protection systems and devices, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, and standards for building inspection.

California Department of Transportation and California Highway Patrol Two State agencies have primary responsibility for enforcing federal and State regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies: the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Caltrans manages more than 50,000 miles of California’s highway and freeway lanes, provides intercity rail services, permits more than 400 public-use airports and special-use hospital heliports, and works with local agencies. Caltrans is also the first responder for hazardous material spills and releases that occur on those highway and freeway lanes and intercity rail services.

The CHP enforces hazardous materials and hazardous waste labeling and packing regulations designed to prevent leakage and spills of materials in transit and to provide detailed information to cleanup crews in the event of an accident. Vehicle and equipment inspection, shipment preparation, container identification, and shipping documentation are all part of the responsibility of the CHP, which conducts regular inspections of licensed transporters to assure regulatory compliance. In addition, the State regulates the transportation of hazardous waste originating or passing through the State.

Common carriers are licensed by the CHP, pursuant to the California Vehicle Code, Section 32000. This section requires licensing every motor (common) carrier who transports, for a fee, in excess of 500 2 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/ fire_prevention_wildland_zones_development.php, accessed December 2, 2014. 3 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), 2010 Strategic Fire Plan for California, http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/pub/fireplan/fpupload/fpppdf668.pdf , accessed June 26, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-8 AUGUST 2017
pounds of hazardous materials at one time and every carrier, if not for hire, who carries more than 1,000 pounds of hazardous material of the type requiring placards. Common carriers conduct a large portion of the business in the delivery of hazardous materials.

Federal and State Hazardous Materials-Specific Programs and Regulations Asbestos-Containing Materials Regulations
Asbestos-containing materials (ACM) are materials that contain asbestos, a naturally occurring fibrous mineral that has been mined for its useful thermal properties and tensile strength. ACM is generally defined as either friable or non-friable. Friable ACM is defined as any material containing more than one percent asbestos. Friable ACM is more likely to produce airborne fibers than non-friable ACM, and can be crumpled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. Non-friable ACM is defined as any material containing one percent or less asbestos. Non-friable ACM cannot be crumpled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. When left intact and undisturbed, ACM does not pose a health risk to building occupants. Potential for human exposure occurs when ACM becomes damaged to the extent that asbestos fibers become airborne and are inhaled. Inhalation of asbestos airborne fibers can lead to various health problems, the most serious of which includes lung disease.

State-level agencies, in conjunction with the US EPA and OSHA, regulate removal, abatement, and transport procedures for ACMs. Releases of asbestos from industrial, demolition, or construction activities are prohibited by these regulations and medical evaluation and monitoring is required for employees performing activities that could expose them to asbestos. Additionally, the regulations include warnings that must be heeded and practices that must be followed to reduce the risk for asbestos emissions and exposure. Finally, federal, State, and local agencies must be notified prior to the onset of demolition or construction activities with the potential to release asbestos.

Lead-Based Paint
Lead-based paint (LBP), which can result in lead poisoning when consumed or inhaled, was widely used in the past to coat and decorate buildings. Lead poisoning can cause anemia and damage to the brain and nervous system, particularly in children. Like ACM, LBP generally does not pose a health risk to building occupants when left undisturbed; however, deterioration, damage, or disturbance will result in hazardous exposure. In 1978, the use of LBP was federally banned by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Therefore, only buildings built before 1978 are presumed to contain LBP, as well as buildings built shortly thereafter, as the phase-out of LBP was gradual.

CalOSHA’s Lead in Construction Standard is contained in Title 8, Section 1532.1 of the California Code of Regulations. The regulations address all of the following areas: permissible exposure limits (PELs); exposure assessment; compliance methods; respiratory protection; protective clothing and equipment; housekeeping; medical surveillance; medical removal protection (MRP); employee information, training, and certification; signage; record keeping; monitoring; and agency notification.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-9
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
The US EPA prohibited the use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the majority of new electrical equipment starting in 1979, and initiated a phase-out for much of the existing PCB-containing equipment.

The inclusion of PCBs in electrical equipment and the handling of those PCBs are regulated by the provisions of the TSCA, 15 United States Code Section 2601 et seq. Relevant regulations include labeling and periodic inspection requirements for certain types of PCB-containing equipment and outline highly specific safety procedures for their disposal. The State likewise regulates PCB-laden electrical equipment and materials contaminated above a certain threshold as hazardous waste; these regulations require that such materials be treated, transported, and disposed accordingly. At lower concentrations for non-liquids, regional water quality control boards may exercise discretion over the classification of such wastes.

Regional Agencies and Regulations
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act4 established the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and divided the state into nine regional basins, each under the jurisdiction of a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Central Valley Region (Region 5) is the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB), which regulates water quality in the Plan Area. The Central Valley RWQCB has the authority to require groundwater investigations when the quality of groundwater or surface waters of the state is threatened, and to require remediation actions, if necessary.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has primary responsibility for control of air pollution from sources other than motor vehicles and consumer products (which are the responsibility of CalEPA and California Air Resources Board [CARB]). The SJVAPCD is responsible for preparing attainment plans for non-attainment criteria pollutants, control of stationary air pollutant sources, and the issuance of permits for activities involving air emissions, including demolition and renovation activities.

The SJVAPCD has regulations that require compliance with the asbestos demolition and renovation requirements developed by the US EPA in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulation, 40 CFR, Part 61, Subpart M5 (San Joaquin Valley Pollution Control District Asbestos Bulletin 2012).
4 California Water Code Sections 13000 et seq.
5 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), 2015. Asbestos Requirements for Demolition and Renovations, revised July 2015. https://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/AssistanceDocuments/CAB_asbestos_july2006.pdf , accessed June 26, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-10 AUGUST 2017
Fresno County Environmental Health Division
The FCEHD is the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA)6 . A local CUPA is responsible for
administering/overseeing compliance with the following programs, as required by State and federal regulations:
 Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Area Plans)  California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program  Underground Storage Tank Program (UST)
 Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Requirements for Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans (AST)
 Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment (tiered permitting) Programs  California Fire Code: Hazardous Material Management Plans and Hazardous Material Inventory Statements
Facilities that store, use or handle hazardous materials above reportable amounts are required to prepare and file a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the safe storage and use of chemicals. In the event of an emergency firefighters, health officials, planners, public safety officers, health care providers and others rely on the Business Plan. Implementation of the Business Plan should prevent or reduce damage to the health and safety of people and the environment when a hazardous material is released.

A Business Plan must be submitted by businesses that handle a hazardous material, or a mixture containing a hazardous material, in quantities equal to or greater than:
 500 pounds of a solid
 55 gallons of a liquid
 200 cubic feet of a compressed gas at standard temperature and pressure  The federal Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ) for Extremely Hazardous Substances  Radioactive materials in quantities for which an Emergency Plan is required as per Parts 30, 40, or 70, Chapter 1 of Title 10 of Code of Federal Regulations
The Business Plan must include (1) the type and quantity of hazardous materials; (2) a site map; (3) the risks of using these materials; (4) spill prevention; (5) emergency response; (6) employee training, and (7) emergency contacts.

Businesses, such as photographic, chrome plating, or service stations, which generate small amount of hazardous waste or require underground storage of hazardous materials, require a permit from the division.
6 Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD), 2017. Fresno County Department of Environmental Health Website: http://www.co.fresno.ca.us/DivisionPage.aspx?id=2974 Accessed June 26, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-11
Fresno County Office of Emergency Services
The Fresno County Office of Emergency Services (OES) is a program located within the Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division. Fresno County OES coordinates planning, preparedness, response and recovery efforts for disasters occurring within the unincorporated area of the County.

Fresno County OES coordinates the development and maintenance of the Fresno County Operational Area Master Emergency Services Plan. This Plan serves as a guide for the County's response to emergencies/disasters in the unincorporated areas of the County. The purpose of this plan is to ensure the most effective and economical use of all resources, material and manpower, for the maximum benefit and protection of effected populations in an emergency/disaster.7 Each of the fifteen incorporated cities in the County of Fresno maintains an Office of Emergency Services function for their incorporated areas and coordinates with the County Office of Emergency Services regarding disaster preparedness, response and recovery activities.

The county Emergency Response Team (ERT) provides assistance to the public and other agencies by responding to hazardous materials spills and accidents, and to non-business hours emergencies.

Situations may occur in all Environmental Health program areas. Examples include:
 Food and water borne illness investigations
 Hazardous materials spills and accidents
 Clandestine drug labs
 Pesticide exposures
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans
Requirements for creation of airport land use commissions were first established under the California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670, et seq.) in 1967. The fundamental purpose of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC or Commission) is to promote land use compatibility around airports and is expressed in the statute as:
“… to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.”
The statutes give ALUC’s the following powers and duties, subject to limitations, by which to accommodate the following:
 Assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of airports to the extent that land in the vicinity of the airport is not already devoted to incompatible uses. 7 Fresno County OES, 2016. Website: http://www.co.fresno.ca.us/DivisionPage.aspx?id=70251 , accessed June 26, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-12 AUGUST 2017
 Coordinate planning at the State, regional and local level, so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation, while at the same time protect public health, safety and welfare.  Prepare and adopt airport land use compatibility plans.

The City of Fresno developed a Compatibility Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport (FCH), which is located adjacent to (and northwest of) the Plan Area. The FCH Airport Influence Area (AIA) encompasses portions of the Plan Area. The CLUP was most recently revised September 15, 2014.

Local Regulations
Citywide Development Code (Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code) Like most cities, Fresno has a Citywide Development Code (CDC), also known as the Zoning Ordinance.

The Code is the constitution of the City. It provides rules for development which ensure that Fresno’s growth will take place in an attractive, orderly manner. On December 3, 2015 the City of Fresno adopted a new Development Code8
. This code is known as Chapter 15 of the Fresno Municipal Code and replaced the former code in its entirety. It establishes new zone districts, permitted uses, development standards, and procedures in a contemporary, well-organized, and comprehensive manner. The new code reflects contemporary planning and business practices and sets clear criteria for new development. Proposals that conform to the new vision will have a streamlined approval process designed to boost economic development. In addition, infill development will be more feasible in Fresno under the new Development Code, designed for balanced growth in the future.

Article 25 (Performance Standards) of the CDC has the following purposes: 1) Establish permissible limits and allow objective measurement of nuisances, hazards, and objectionable conditions; and 2) Ensure that all uses will provide necessary control measures to protect the community from nuisances, hazards, and objectionable conditions. The General Standard of Article 25 is stated as follows: “Land or buildings shall not be used or occupied in a manner creating any dangerous, injurious, or noxious conditions, chemical fires, explosive, blight, or other hazards that could adversely affect the surrounding area.” Article 27 (Standards for Specific Uses and Activities) of the CDC states: “The purpose of this article is to establish standards for specific uses and activities that are permitted or conditionally permitted in some or all districts. These provisions are supplemental standards and requirements to minimize the impacts of these uses and activities on surrounding properties and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their occupants and of the general public.” This article specifies regulation governing the operation of various typed of facilities and activities, including hazardous waste management facilities, recycling facilities, and hazardous materials storage activities.
8 Fresno Municipal Code Chapter 15, Citywide Development Code, December 2016, https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wpcontent/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/Complete_Code_March_2017.pdf.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-13
Section 15-2727, Development of Former Landfill Sites and Hazardous Sites, states “A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for the development of all former Landfill Sites and other sites deemed hazardous, regardless of the proposed use. As part of the application, the applicant shall at a minimum, provide a geotechnical report that provides a complete analysis of on-site soil conditions, fault hazards, underground water conditions, and recommendations as well as a post-closure plan that outlines remediation measures. Applicants shall comply with all State and federal regulations related to operation, post-closure remediation, and monitoring.”
City of Fresno Municipal Code
In addition to Chapter 15 described above, various other provisions of the City of Fresno Municipal Code are relevant to hazards and hazardous materials.

Chapter 10, Regulations Regarding Public Nuisances and Real Property Conduct and Use, includes Article 14, Hazardous Spills Expense Recovery. The intent of Article 14 is stated as follows: “Surface waters, groundwater, soils, vegetation, and atmosphere inside the City of Fresno are susceptible to damage from the handling, storage, use, processing and disposal of hazardous material and the expense incurred by the taxpayers as a result of the City of Fresno or its Designee having to respond in an emergency to protect life, property and the environment when there has been a release of hazardous materials should be recovered from the person responsible for the emergency.” In conjunction with Chapter 15, Article 27 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code, Article 14 pertains to the recovery of expenses associated with hazardous spills. Specifically, the code states that “Any person causing a release or threatened release which results in an emergency action shall be liable to the City of Fresno for the recoverable costs resulting from the emergency action.”
Chapter 11, Building Permits and Regulations, includes Article 2, Section 11-218, Debris and Excavations, which requires of demolition projects that the permit holder properly cap the sanitary sewer house connection, and to properly fill or otherwise protect all basements, cellars, septic tanks, wells, and other excavations, and said lot or parcel shall be left level and in a condition to be disked for control of weeds.

Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan works in tandem with the Citywide Development Code and outlines various goals, objectives, and implementing policies relevant to hazards and hazardous materials in the Safety and Noise Element. This element addresses the risks posed by geologic hazards, wildland fire, hazardous materials, and flooding. It also discusses emergency response, safety service response standards, and evacuation routes. The objectives and policies relevant to the proposed Plan are listed in Table 4.8-1.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-14 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.8-1 FRESNO GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Objective/
Policy Number Objective/Policy Text
Noise and Safety (NS) Element – Hazardous Materials
Objective NS-4 Minimize the risk of loss of life, injury, serious illness, and damage to property resulting from the use, transport, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes.

Policy NS-4-a Processing and Storage. Require safe processing and storage of hazardous materials, consistent with the California Building Code and Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by the City.

Policy NS-4-b
Coordination. Maintain a close liaison with the Fresno County Environmental Health Department, Cal-EPA Division of Toxics, and the State Office of Emergency Services to assist in developing and maintaining hazardous material business plans, inventory statements, risk management prevention plans, and contingency/emergency response action plans.

Policy NS-4-c
Soil and Groundwater Contamination Reports. Require an investigation of potential soil or groundwater contamination whenever justified by past site uses. Require appropriate mitigation as a condition of project approval in the event soil or groundwater contamination is identified or could be encountered during site development.

Policy NS-4-d
Site Identification. Continue to aid federal, State, and County agencies in the identification and mapping of waste disposal sites (including abandoned waste sites), and to assist in the survey of the kinds, amounts, and locations of hazardous wastes.

Policy NS-4-e
Compliance with County Program. Require that the production, use, storage, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials conform to the standards and procedures established by the County Division of Environmental Health. Require compliance with the County’s Hazardous Waste Generator Program, including the submittal and implementation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, when applicable.

Policy NS-4-f Hazardous Materials Facilities. Require facilities that handle hazardous materials or hazardous wastes to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable materials and waste management laws and regulations.

Policy NS-4-g
Hazmat Response. Include policies and procedures appropriate to hazardous materials in the City’s disaster and emergency response preparedness and planning, coordinating with implementation of Fresno County’s Hazardous Materials Incident Response Plan.

Policy NS-4-h Household Collection. Continue to support and assist with Fresno County’s special household hazardous waste collection activities, to reduce the amount of this material being improperly discarded.

Policy NS-4-i Public Information. Continue to assist in providing information to the public on hazardous materials.

Noise and Safety (NS) Element – Airport Safety
Objective NS-5 Protect the safety, health, and welfare of persons and property on the ground and in aircraft by minimizing exposure to airport-related hazards.

Policy NS-5-a
Land Use and Height. Incorporate and enforce all applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCPs) through land use designations, zoning, and development standards to support the continued viability and flight operations of Fresno’s airports and to protect public safety, health, and general welfare.  Limit land uses in airport safety zones to those uses listed in the applicable ALUCPs as compatible uses, and regulate compatibility in terms of location, height, and noise.  Ensure that development, including public infrastructure projects, within the airport approach and departure zones complies with Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations (Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace), particularly in terms of height.

Policy NS-5-b
Airport Safety Hazards. Ensure that new development, including public infrastructure projects, does not create safety hazards such as glare from direct or reflective sources, smoke, electrical interference, hazardous chemicals, fuel storage, or from wildlife, in violation of adopted safety standards.

Policy NS-5-c
Avigation Easements. Employ avigation easements in order to secure and protect airspace required for unimpeded operation of publicly owned airports. [Commentary: Avigation easements are established in the form of land use covenants and are binding upon present and subsequent property owners.]

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-15
TABLE 4.8-1 FRESNO GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Objective/
Policy Number Objective/Policy Text
Policy NS-5-d
Disclosure. As a condition of approval for residential development projects, require sellers to prepare and provide State Department of Real Estate Disclosure statements to property buyers notifying of noise and safety issues related to airport operations.

Policy NS-5-e
Planned Expansion. Allow for the orderly expansion and improvement of publicly-owned airports, while minimizing adverse environmental impacts associated with these facilities.  Periodically update airport facility master plans in accordance with FAA regulations.  Require land use within the boundaries of the Fresno-Yosemite International Airport and Chandler Downtown Airport to conform to designations and policies specified in adopted City of Fresno compatible land use plans.
 Provide local jurisdictions surrounding the City's publicly owned airports with specific guidelines for effectively dealing with the presence and operation of these airports.

Noise and Safety (NS) Element – Emergency Response
Objective NS-6 Foster an efficient and coordinated response to emergencies and natural disasters.

Policy NS-6-a
County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan. Adopt and implement the Fresno County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan and City of Fresno Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex. [Commentary: The federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires that cities, counties, and special districts have a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to be eligible to receive FEMA hazard mitigation funds. Cities and counties can adopt and use all or part of a regional multi-jurisdictional plan, such as the one prepared by Fresno County, in lieu of preparing all or part of a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.] Policy NS-6-b Disaster Response Coordination. Maintain coordination with other local, State, and Federal agencies to provide coordinated disaster response.

Policy NS-6-c
Emergency Operations Plan. Update the City’s Emergency Operations Plan periodically, using a whole community approach which integrates considerations for People with access and functional needs in all aspects of planning.

Policy NS-6-d
Evacuation Planning. Maintain an emergency evacuation plan in consultation with the Police and Fire Departments and other emergency service providers, which shows potential evacuation routes and a list of emergency shelters to be used in case of catastrophic emergencies. [Commentary: The evacuation plan will be flexible in order to consider many scenarios and multiple modes of transportation beyond private automobiles. It will provide special provisions for disadvantaged populations, such as those with physical disabilities or those with low or very low incomes, and for areas with fewer resources through neighborhood emergency preparedness programs.]
Policy NS-6-e
Critical Use Facilities. Ensure critical use facilities (e.g., City Hall, police and fire stations, schools, hospitals, public assembly facilities, transportation services) and other structures that are important to protecting health and safety in the community remain operational during an emergency.  Site and design these facilities to minimize their exposure and susceptibility to flooding, seismic and geological effects, fire, and explosions.
 Work with the owners and operators of critical use facilities to ensure they can provide alternate sources of electricity, water, and sewerage in the event that regular utilities are interrupted in a disaster.

Policy NS-6-f Emergency Vehicle Access. Require adequate access for emergency vehicles in all new development, including adequate widths, turning radii, hard standing areas, and vertical clearance.

Policy NS-6-g
Emergency Preparedness Public Awareness Programs. Continue to conduct programs to inform the general public, including people with access and functional needs, of the City’s emergency preparedness and disaster response procedures.

Source: City of Fresno General Plan 2014-2024, adopted 2014.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-16 AUGUST 2017

4.8.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes existing conditions in the Plan Area related to hazardous materials, schools, airport hazards, and wildland fires.

Plan Area Land Uses
The Plan Area is roughly 3,255 acres in size and lies within the southwestern most part of the City of Fresno, within Fresno County (see Figure 3-1). The Plan Area is bounded by Highway 180 in the north and by Highway 41 in the east (see Figure 3-2). The Plan Area does not include the Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan Area, nor does it include the land currently in Fresno County that is considered within the Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City’s General Plan. The county land in the SOI is anticipated to become part of the City of Fresno in the future. However, as shown in Figure 3-2 there is one area in the SOI that is part of the Plan Area: the Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard (MLK) Activity Center, identified as one of the “Magnet Cores” in the proposed Plan. Although the MLK Activity Center is currently located on SOI land, it was included into the Plan Area because it was surrounded by the Plan Area and its role in providing retail and services to the Southwest Fresno community.

Initially agricultural land, Southwest Fresno has gradually transitioned with more residential, industrial, and commercial uses dispersed throughout. Today, Southwest Fresno is made up of a patchwork of land uses that abut each other, such as existing subdivisions, industry, and farmland. Many pockets of residential land uses are adjacent to vacant land, agriculture, and/or industrial uses. Incompatible land uses are located near one another, including truck routes, noise or odor-producing industrial facilities, and land with hazardous materials. The area within the City’s SOI contains a significant amount of vacant land that is residentially designated, but the area has not yet exhibited much market demand to develop typical suburban neighborhoods with desired commercial and retail services.

Hazardous Materials Sites
California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the CalEPA to compile, maintain, and update specified lists of hazardous material release sites. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code Section 21092.6) requires the lead agency to consult the lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 to determine whether the project and any alternatives are identified on any of the following lists:
 EPA NPL: The US EPA’s National Priorities List includes all sites under the US EPA’s Superfund program, which was established to fund cleanup of contaminated sites that pose risk to human health and the environment.
 EPA CERCLIS and Archived Sites: The US EPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), includes a list of 15,000 sites nationally identified as hazardous sites. This would also involve a review for archived sites that have been removed from CERCLIS due to No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) status.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-17
 EPA RCRIS (RCRA Info): The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRIS or RCRA Info) is a national inventory system about hazardous waste handlers. Generators, transporters, handlers, and disposers of hazardous waste are required to provide information for this database.  DTSC Cortese List: The DTSC maintains the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) list as a planning document for use by the State and local agencies to comply with the CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. This list includes the Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database (CalSites).  DTSC HazNet: The DTSC uses this database to track hazardous waste shipments.  SWRCB LUSTIS: This stands for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System (LUST or LUSTIS) and the SWRCB maintains an inventory of USTs and leaking USTs, which tracks unauthorized releases.

The required list of hazardous material release sites are commonly referred to as the “Cortese List” after the legislator who authorized the legislation. Because the statute was enacted more than 20 years ago, some of the provisions refer to agency activities that were conducted many years ago and are no longer being implemented and, in some cases the information required in the Cortese List does not exist. Those requesting a copy of the Cortese List are now referred directly to the appropriate information resources contained on internet websites hosted by the boards or departments referenced in the statute, including DTSC’s online EnviroStor9 database and the SWRCB’s online GeoTracker database.10 These two databases include hazardous material release sites, along with other categories of sites or facilities specific to each agency’s jurisdiction.

EnviroStor
The EnviroStor database, maintained by the DTSC, identifies sites that have known contamination or sites for which there may be reasons to investigate further. The database includes federal Superfund sites (from the National Priorities List); State response sites, voluntary cleanup sites; school investigation and cleanup sites; corrective action sites; and tiered California permit sites. It also includes sites that are being investigated for suspected but unconfirmed contamination. A search of this database, on July 5, 2017, found eight listed facilities within the Plan Area, as listed in Table 4.8-2, and as shown on Figure 4.8-1.

GeoTracker
The GeoTracker database, maintained by the SWRCB, lists a range of types of hazardous materials sites that could affect groundwater quality, including leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites, cleanup program sites, land disposal sites, and military sites. A search of this database on July 5, 2017 for the Plan Area found the facilities listed in Table 4.8-3, and as shown on Figure 4.8-1. 9 DTSC Envirostor, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. 10 SWRCB GeoTracker, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. 1-4 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan

WEST AVE

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C A L IFORN I A CT

DIVISADERO ST

TEILMAN AVE

MARKS AVE

MERCED ST

VAGEDES AV E
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

ATCHISON ST

MONTER EY ST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

OLEANDER AVE

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

ARTHUR AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

KEARNEY BLVD

NIELSEN AVE

BLACKSTONE AVE

BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE
H ST

BLOSSER AVE

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTA CLARA ST

HA B ITAT A VE

STROTHER AVE

GEORGE AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

ILA AVE

FAIRVIEW AVE

CALWA AVE
B ST

LORENA AVE

BURNS AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

ARTHUR AVE

BELG RAV IAAVE

DELNOAVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

DAN RONQU IL LO D R

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST
E

LEMON AVE

ONE IL AVE

GENEVA AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

CHINA ALY
F ST

EUNICE AVE

HOME RUN ALY
L ST

COLLINS AVE
S ST

A/B ALY

FAGAN ALY
Q ST

HAWESAVE

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

WAYTE LN

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

CHURCH AVE

GARRETT AVE

NAPA AVE

FLORENCE AVE

LOTUS AVE

VALENTINE AVE

T E IL M A N I C R

FARRIS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

PLEASANT AVE

MADISON AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

AIRPORT RD

LAFAYETTE AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

SAMSON AVE

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

VAN NESS AVE

HUGHES AVE

TRINITY ST

THORNE AVE

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

BARDELL ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE

LA S IERRA DR
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

M ADDY DR

PALM AVE

COL LEGE V/ A N NESS ALY

KIRK ST

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

ROEDING DR
41 41
180
99 99
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
FIGURE 1-2 Plan Area Map
Sphere of Influence
City Limit
Plan Area
Source: City of Fresno

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD
H

FRUIT AVE

WALNUT AVE

ELM AVE

UGHES AVE

HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

VALENTINE AVE ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE
FIGURE 1-2 Plan Area Map

WEST AVE
G
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C A L IFORN I A CT

TEILMAN AVE

MERCED ST

VAGEDES AV E
C ST

ATCHISON ST

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

STANISLAUS ST

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

BLOSSER AVE

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

HA B ITAT A VE

STROTHER AVE

GEORGE AVE

ILA AVE

FAIRVIEW AVE

CALWA AVE
B ST

LORENA AVE

BURNS AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

BELG RAV IAAVE

DELNOAVE

TUPMAN ST
E

LEMON AVE

ONE IL AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST
F ST

COLLINS AVE

A/B ALY
FAGAN

HAWESAVE

WELLER ST

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

CHURCH AVE

GARRETT AVE

FLORENCE AVE

T E IL M A N I C R

FARRIS AVE

MADISON AVE

AIRPORT RD

LAFAYETTE AVE

SAMSON AVE

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

HUGHES AVE

TRINITY ST

THORNE AVE

MODOC ST

CHANNING
WAY

BARDELL ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE

LA S IERRA DR

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

NORTH AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

STEPHENS AVE

ROEDING DR
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
FIGURE 1-2 Plan Area Map
Sphere of Influence
City Limit
Plan Area

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD
H

FRUIT AVE

WALNUT AVE
U
G
HES A
VE
WEST A
VE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS A
VE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE
Specific Plan Boundary Envirostor (DTSC) Hazardous Material Site City Boundary GeoTracker (RWQCB) Hazardous Material Site

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
GeoTracker-and Envirostor-Listed Hazardous Material Sites in Plan Area Figure 4.7-1 0 Miles 0.75
N
Source: City of Fresno
Envirostor (DTSC) and GeoTracker (RWQCB) Hazardous Material Site

VALENTINE AVE

MARKS AVE
City of Fresno
Unincorporated
Fresno County
Sphere of Influence
G1
E1
G2, E3
E5
E6
G7
E7
G8
G9
G10
G11 G12
G13
G14
G1
E1 G2
E2
G3
E4 G5 G4
G6
E8
E3 G15
1-4 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan

WEST AVE

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C A L IFORN I A CT

DIVISADERO ST

TEILMAN AVE

MARKS AVE

MERCED ST

VAGEDES AV E
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

ATCHISON ST

MONTER EY ST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

OLEANDER AVE

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

ARTHUR AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

KEARNEY BLVD

NIELSEN AVE

BLACKSTONE AVE

BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE
H ST

BLOSSER AVE

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTA CLARA ST

HA B ITAT A VE

STROTHER AVE

GEORGE AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

ILA AVE

FAIRVIEW AVE

CALWA AVE
B ST

LORENA AVE

BURNS AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

ARTHUR AVE

BELG RAV IAAVE

DELNOAVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

DAN RONQU IL LO D R

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST
E

LEMON AVE

ONE IL AVE

GENEVA AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

CHINA ALY
F ST

EUNICE AVE

HOME RUN ALY
L ST

COLLINS AVE
S ST

A/B ALY

FAGAN ALY
Q ST

HAWESAVE

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

WAYTE LN

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

CHURCH AVE

GARRETT AVE

NAPA AVE

FLORENCE AVE

LOTUS AVE

VALENTINE AVE

T E IL M A N I C R

FARRIS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

PLEASANT AVE

MADISON AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

AIRPORT RD

LAFAYETTE AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

SAMSON AVE

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

VAN NESS AVE

HUGHES AVE

TRINITY ST

THORNE AVE

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

BARDELL ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE

LA S IERRA DR
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

M ADDY DR

PALM AVE

COL LEGE V/ A N NESS ALY

KIRK ST

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

ROEDING DR
41 41
180
99 99
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
FIGURE 1-2 Plan Area Map
Sphere of Influence
City Limit
Plan Area
Source: City of Fresno

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD
H

FRUIT AVE

WALNUT AVE

ELM AVE

UGHES AVE

HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

VALENTINE AVE ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE
FIGURE 1-2 Plan Area Map

WEST AVE

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C A L IFORN I A CT

TEILMAN AVE

MERCED ST

VAGEDES AV E

ATCHISON ST
A ST

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

BLOSSER AVE

WATERMAN AVE
M

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

HA B ITAT A VE

STROTHER AVE

ILA AVE

FAIRVIEW AVE
B ST

LORENA AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

BELG RAV IAAVE

DELNOAVE
E

LEMON AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST
CO

HAWESAVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

CHURCH AVE

FLORENCE AVE

T E IL M A N I C R

FARRIS AVE

MADISON AVE

AIRPORT RD

LAFAYETTE AVE

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

HUGHES AVE

TRINITY ST

THORNE AVE

MODOC ST

CHANNING
WAY

POTTLE AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE

LA S IERRA DR

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

STEPHENS AVE

DING DR
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
FIGURE 1-2 Plan Area Map
Sphere of Influence
City Limit
Plan Area

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD
H

FRUIT AVE

WALNUT AVE
U
G
HES A
VE
WEST A
VE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS A
VE

CALIFORNIA AVE
MLK JR

BLVD FIG AVE
Specific Plan Boundary Envirostor (DTSC) Hazardous Material Site City Boundary GeoTracker (RWQCB) Hazardous Material Site

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
GeoTracker-and Envirostor-Listed Hazardous Material Sites in Plan Area Figure 4.7-1 0 Miles 0.75
N
Source: City of Fresno
Envirostor (DTSC) and GeoTracker (RWQCB) Hazardous Material Site

VALENTINE AVE

MARKS AVE
City of Fresno
Unincorporated
Fresno County
Sphere of Influence
G1
E1
G2, E3
E5
E6
G7
E7
G8
G9
G10
G11 G12
G13
G14
G1
E1 G2
E2
G3
E4 G5 G4
G6
E8
E3 G15
0 Scale (Miles)
.75 Source: PlaceWorks, 2017.

Figure 4.8-1
Hazardous Materials Sites

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

PLACEWORKS

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-19
TABLE 4.8-2 ENVIROSTOR SITES IN THE PLAN AREAa
Site
No. Site Name; Address Site Description; Size
Contaminants of
Concern (COCS) Cleanup Status
E1 Commercial
Electroplaters; 2940 Elm
Ave
Former electroplating
operation; 2.28 acres.

Chrome, cadmium,
cyanide, etc.

Active. Seeking remedial action
work plan approval from DTSC
E2 West Fresno Middle
School Site; Corner of
Annadale and MLK Blvd
Former school site on
former agricultural land;

23.8 acres.

Arsenic, pesticides,
(DDT, etc.)
Inactive. No Further Action as of
6/23/2000
E3 Fresno Sanitary Landfill;
SW corner of Jensen and
West Avenues
Federal NPL (“Superfund”)
site (former sanitary and
hazardous waste landfill);
~129 acres.

VOCsb, (PCEc, etc.),
metals, etc.

Active. Landfill gas control, surface
water management and
groundwater remediation ongoing.

Land Use Covenant (3/23/2012)
between DTSC and city of Fresno
established future land use
restrictions.

E4 Fresno Battery Exchange;
1403 Jensen Ave
Former battery recycler; ~
1 acre of contaminated
land
Lead. Certified (6/29/2012). Site has
been remediated to residential
cleanup standards. DTSC asserts a
lien ($1,451,922) on property.

E5 Church and Fruit
Junkyard; NE corner
Church and Fruit Avenues
Abandoned salvage yard
and landfill; 2.6 acres
Lead, other heavy
metals, PCBs
Certified (12/1/2009). Remediation
completed; cap installed. Covenant
between DTSC and city of Fresno
established land use restrictions,
originally in place as of 3/1/1994,
and reaffirmed 5/29/2014 without
the groundwater monitoring
requirement.

E6 Fresno Drum; 700 and 733
South Hughes Avenue
Former chemical storage
and sales business; ~ 1.6
acres
Potential
contaminants:

VOCs, metals, PCBs,
etc.

Inactive. A 9/13/2013 RWQCB
letter indicates site contaminants
do not appear to pose a threat to
human health or groundwater for
the western portion (700 Hughes).

However, DTSC lists the overall site
as “Needs evaluation as of
10/19/2011”. DTSC indicates Site
Screening is due 07/17/2017.

E7 Westside Auto
Dismantler, AKA SR 180
Realignment; 2640 West
Whitesbridge Road
Auto dismantling
operation, a portion of
which Caltrans is acquiring ;
~4 acres
Lead Certified O&M (9/14/2011). Land
Use restrictions as of 6/19/2009;
commercial/industrial land uses
allowed. Voluntary Caltrans
cleanup.

E8 Southwest Fresno Middle
School Site; SE corner of
Church Ave and MLK Blvd
Proposed school site on
former agricultural land;

23.8 acres.

Arsenic, pesticides,
(DDT, etc.)
Certified. No Further Action as of
12/19/2012
a. See Figure 4.8-1 or EnviroStor ( https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ ) for Site locations b. VOCs = Volatile Organic Compounds
c. PCE = Tetrachloroethylene
Source: DTSC Envirostor.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-20 AUGUST 2017
EDR Database of Hazardous Materials Sites
A proprietary database report was obtained from EDR® that identified federal, State and local agencylisted sites of potential environmental interest within the Plan Area. The EDR database report identifies a wide range of hazardous materials use and contamination cleanup sites, including a federal “Superfund” site, various leaking underground storage tanks (LUST sites), and numerous small and large quantity generators of hazardous waste, etc.

The search boundary of the EDR report was consistent with the search boundaries established in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (E 1527-13), approved November 1, 2013. Thus, the EDR report includes federal, State, and local environmental database information within the Plan Area, as well as within ASTM-specified distances (up to one mile) from the Plan Area. The EDR report is reproduced in Appendix E.

The EDR report in Appendix E includes a “Key Map” figure (Key Map, EDR DataMap – Environmental Atlas, Southwest Fresno Specific Plan) showing the location of each listed site of environmental interest in the Plan Area, and within the ASTM search boundaries (up to one mile) around the Plan Area. Because the size of the Plan Area results in a relatively large-scale Key Map, the EDR report also includes 22 “focus maps” (Focus Map 1 through Focus Map 22), each one square-mile, showing the listed sites of environmental interest in each Focus Map area. Following each Focus Map in the EDR report is a summary description (“Focus Map Summary”) of the number of each type of environmental site (e.g., LUST, small quantity hazardous waste generator, etc.) plotted on each map. The environmental sites plotted on each Focus Map (and on the Key Map) are number coded with a Map ID. Following each Focus Map Summary in the EDR report is a detailed array of database information (“Map Findings”) for each environmental site of interest on that Focus Map, keyed to and presented sequentially by the Map ID number.

Hundreds of environmental sites are plotted within the Plan Area and within the ASTM search area boundaries, as shown in the EDR report (Appendix E). Many of the listed sites are for relatively innocuous categories, such as the 133 HAZNET sites (which are identified based on information extracted from the copies of hazardous waste transportation manifests received each year by the DTSC) and the 31 RCRA small quantity generators (SQG) of hazardous waste (the RCRA-SQG database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA]). Other EDR-listed sites represent relatively greater potential environmental concern, such as the Fresno Sanitary Landfill (a Federal National Priorities List [NPL] “Superfund” cleanup site) and Commercial Electroplaters (an active/open DTSC cleanup site); both of these sites are also identified in the GeoTracker and EnviroStor databases. In general, the Geotracker and EnviroStor data bases (as summarized above in Tables 4.8-2 and 4.8-3) comprise the environmental sites of greatest potential concern in the EDR database.

Summary
As outlined above, the Plan Area encompasses various contaminated sites that have released hazardous materials and required remediation and involvement by local, State and federal agencies. The Fresno Sanitary Landfill is a federal Superfund site. Fresno Battery, Fresno Drum, and Commercial Electroplaters

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-21
TABLE 4.8-3 GEOTRACKER SITES IN THE PLAN AREAa
Site
No. Site Name; Address Site Description; Size
Contaminants of
Concern (COCS) Cleanup Status
G1 North and Elm Excavation;
corner of North and Elm
Avenues
Construction workers
became ill after chemical
vapor exposure; NA
Benzene Completed. Case Closed
(8/6/2003). Remediation by
excavation of contaminated soil
(2/23/2003)
G2 Commercial Electroplaters; 2940
Elm Ave
Former electroplating
operation; 2.28 acres.

Chrome, cadmium,
cyanide, etc.

Open. Site Assessment. Active
DTSC lead site. Seeking remedial
action work plan approval from
DTSC
G3 Myrtle Harper; 2632 Elm Ave LUST cleanup site. Gasoline Completed. Case Closed (3/26/2002). Local agency lead:

Fresno County
G4 Jantz Trucking; 2006 Jensen Ave
W. LUST cleanup site Diesel
Completed. Case Closed
(6/23/1993). Local agency lead:

Fresno County
G5 Former Fresno Battery Exchange
Facility; 1403 Jensen Ave
Former battery recycler; ~ 1
acre of contaminated land
Lead. Certified (6/29/2012) by DTSC;
lead agency. Site has been
remediated to residential
cleanup standards. DTSC asserts
a lien ($1,451,922) on property.

RWQCB lists site as Open-site
Assessment (as of 10/31/2001)
G6 J & C Food and Gas; 2394 Elm
Ave
LUST cleanup site Gasoline Completed. Case Closed
(10/13/2014).

G7 Church and Fruit Junkyard; NE
corner of Church and Fruit
Avenues
Abandoned salvage yard
and landfill; 2.6 acres
Lead, other heavy
metals, PCBs
Completed. Case Closed
(5/9/1989) DTSC certified
cleanup complete (12/1/2009).

Covenant between DTSC and city
of Fresno established land use
restrictions, originally in place as
of 3/1/1994, and reaffirmed
5/29/2014 without the
groundwater monitoring
requirement.

G8 Auto Dismantler (former); 317
California Ave
Auto dismantling operation
(former; 1950 – 1967); 1.8
acres
Copper, Lead, PCBs Completed. Case Closed
(10/25/2011).

G9 Vacant Lot (ABD S/S); 437
California Ave LUST cleanup site Gasoline Completed. Case Closed (4/29/2010).

G10
Hydratech; 1331 West Ave
LUST cleanup site Gasoline Completed. Case Closed
(8/7/1996). Local agency lead:

Fresno County
G11 Fresno Drum (eastern parcel);
733 Hughes Avenue
Former chemical storage
and sales business;
Potential
contaminants: lead,
other metals, etc.

Open – Inactive (4/28/2016).

DTSC lists the site as “Needs
evaluation as of 10/19/2011”.

DTSC indicates Site Screening is
due 07/17/2017.

G12 Fresno Drum (western parcel);
700 Hughes Avenue
Former chemical storage
and sales business;
Potential
contaminants: lead,
other metals, etc.

Completed. Case Closed
(12/9/2013). A 9/13/2013
RWQCB letter indicates site
contaminants do not appear to
pose a threat to human health or

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-22 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.8-3 GEOTRACKER SITES IN THE PLAN AREAa
Site
No. Site Name; Address Site Description; Size
Contaminants of
Concern (COCS) Cleanup Status
groundwater. DTSC indicates Site
Screening is due 07/17/2017 for
the overall site.

G13 Art’s Merchantile; 2082 Whites
Bridge Road
LUST cleanup site Gasoline Completed. Case Closed
(3/27/2006).

G14 Kemmer Residence; 511 Hughes
Ave
LUST cleanup site Gasoline Completed. Case Closed
(8/26/2007).

G15 Fresno Sanitary Landfill; SW
corner of Jensen and West
Avenues
Federal NPL (“Superfund”)
site (former sanitary and
hazardous waste landfill);
~129 acres.

VOCsb, (PCEc, etc.),
metals, etc.

Open. Assessment and Interim
Remedial Action (4/12/2006).

USEPA Lead Agency. Active DTSC
site. . Landfill gas control, surface
water management and
groundwater remediation
ongoing. Land Use Covenant
(3/23/2012) between DTSC and
city of Fresno established future
land use restrictions.
a. See Figure 4.8-1, or GeoTracker ( https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/), for Site locations b. VOCs = Volatile Organic Compounds
c. PCE = Tetrachloroethylene
Source: SWRCB GeoTracker.
are also the sites of contamination and under remediation plans. These sites have caused significant underground water pollution requiring State and federal response. In addition, the Plan Area has had numerous leaking underground storage tanks, but cleanup activities have been completed for the vast majority of the sites. A search of GeoTracker and EnviroStor databases on July 5, 2017 in the Plan Area found the facilities listed in Tables 4.8-2 and 4.8-3, and as shown on Figure 4.8-1. The Plan Area also includes numerous sites that generate (and transport) hazardous materials and wastes, but that do not have hazardous releases that require remedial cleanup actions.

Hazardous Materials Incidents Emergency Response
The unauthorized releases of hazardous materials into the environment could create environmental impacts to properties, natural environment, and human health. The significance of these impacts could vary according to the release location and the quantity and nature of the substance released. Hazardous releases can occur in areas that treat, store, transport and use hazardous materials; however, certain areas are at higher risk for releases. In the event of an unauthorized release of hazardous materials/substances, emergency response measures must be implemented to mitigate potential risks and ensure the protection of human health and the natural environment.

Fresno includes a developed urban area with industrial uses concentrated in the southern portion of the city. There are also agricultural uses located within the city’s SOI. There are historical and existing agricultural uses located within the Plan Area. It is possible that existing or historical agricultural land in the Plan Area could contain residual pesticides or other hazardous materials. More recently, the City has promoted a transition to community gardens and urban agricultural uses, which could potentially include

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-23
the use of pesticides and other hazardous materials. Thus, the potential for hazardous materials incidents is heightened. Accidental releases of pesticides, fertilizers, and other agricultural chemical may be harmful to the public’s health, safety, and the environment. In addition, the Plan Area is bounded by major transportation routes, such as SR-180, and SR-41.

The Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport is located adjacent to the Plan Area. This facility, along with the transportation routes and industrial uses referenced above, transports large quantities of hazardous materials adjacent, through and into the Plan Area and SOI each year. Because of the mix of land uses nature of the Plan Area and its location among several routes that regularly transport hazardous materials through and around the Plan Area, the area faces potential risks associated with the possibility for hazardous materials emergencies.

The City of Fresno Fire Department recognizes the potential for a large chemical release to occur which could expose thousands of people to hazardous or toxic vapors. The City of Fresno Fire Department Hazardous Materials Response Team (HMRT) has embraced an all-hazards approach to emergency response to ensure that the city receives effective protection from the risk of hazardous materials releases.

The Fire Department HMRT currently is comprised of 40 personnel trained to the Hazardous Materials Technician and/or Specialist requirements. Starting October 2017, 24 new HMRT members will be begin training to the Specialist level. A minimum of five HMRT members are on duty each shift spilt between fire stations 1 and 16.

The Fresno City HMRT’s have partnered with the State OES to deploy regionally or statewide to support any jurisdiction through the State Master Mutual Aid System. The HMRT utilizes two OES Type 1 Hazmat response apparatus strategically located at Fire Station 1 (1264 Jackson) and Fire Station 16 (2510 Polk).

The deployment plan requires the dispatch of the closest response fire company in conjunction with the HMRT to hazardous materials emergencies11.

Emergency Response
In addition to emergency response to hazardous materials incidents, both the City of Fresno and the County of Fresno implement programs to facilitate emergency preparedness for other types of incidents within the Plan Area. Specifically, the City of Fresno has an Emergency Operations Plan12 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 of Fresno. The plan also identifies the policies, responsibilities, and procedures required to protect the health and safety 11 City of Fresno Fire Department, Fire Suppression, HMRT web site, https://www.fresno.gov/fire/fire-suppression/ , accessed June 28, 2017. 12 City of Fresno Emergency Operations Plan, 2008, city council adoption, https://webapp.fresno.gov/ citycouncilarchive/agenda9.23.2008/1l.pdf , accessed June 28, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-24 AUGUST 2017
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 Emergency Operations Center 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-Hazard Mitigation Plan, a multi-jurisdictional plan that aims to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people or property from natural disasters and their effects, applicable to the City and areas outside of the City but within the Plan Area and SOI.

Existing Schools
The Plan Area is made up of three school districts, but predominantly Fresno Unified in the northern half and Washington Unified in the southern half. The Central Unified School District is located to the west of the Plan Area, but overlaps a minimal number of existing residential properties within the Plan Area. The Plan Area consists of two elementary schools (Sunset and West Fresno), two middle schools (Gaston and West Fresno), and no high schools. The remaining schools (Bethune Elementary and W.E.B Dubois) are charter schools. W.E.B Dubois Charter School serves students from kindergarten to twelfth grade.

Edison High School is located outside, but very proximate, to the Plan Area. Edison High School is spatially located within two districts, but belongs to Fresno Unified School District. Washington Union High School serves the Washington Unified District, but is located outside of the Plan Area and approximately four miles south of the Plan Area’s southern edge. Near the freeway intersection of Highway 41 and Highway 99, the school district boundaries of Fresno Unified and Washington Unified alternate in the east-west and north-south directions. It is likely that many of the Plan Area’s residents may live in close proximity of each other, but are assigned to different school districts, and thus attend different schools.

Airport Hazards
Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport (FCH) is located adjacent to the Plan Area, directly north across Kearney Boulevard. The FCH Airport Influence Area (AIA) encompasses northern portions of the Plan Area.

Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport is owned and operated by the City of Fresno. The single runway (12-30) is 3,626 feet long and 75 feet wide with a full-length parallel taxiway. The airport elevation is 279.7 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL).

The FCH’s revised CLUP, dated September 15, 2014, establishes review authority of the ALUC for certain categories of new land use plans within the AIA. For example, review is mandatory for proposed adoption or amendment of general plans, specific plans, rezone applications, text amendments to the zoning ordinance, and building regulations affecting land within an AIA. Submittal of individual projects for ALUC review is voluntary.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-25
According to the CLUP, the mix of aircraft based at the airport consists of 237 single engine aircraft, six multi-engine aircraft, one turbine-powered aircraft and 3 helicopters. There are nine general aviation related businesses at FCH, offering services such as fueling, aircraft maintenance and restoration, flight instruction, charter services and rentals.

The FCH serves as a critical reliever airport to Fresno Yosemite International Airport (FAT), located on the eastern side of Fresno, approximately 7 miles from the Plan Area. FCH plays a significant role in accommodating business and corporate connectivity to the region and throughout California.

Wildland Fire Hazard
There are no wildlands located within or adjacent to the Plan Area. CAL FIRE evaluates fire hazard severity risks according to areas of responsibility (i.e., federal, State, and local). According to CAL FIRE, 13 there are
no very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ) within the Local Responsibility Area on or in near proximity to the Plan Area. One area in the southwestern portion of the Plan Area (Regional Sports Complex) is designated as LRA Moderate Fire Hazard severity Zone on the CAL FIRE Fresno County Very High Fire Hazard Severity in LRA map. The Plan Area is not within a wildland State Responsibility Area.14

4.8.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed Plan would have a significant impact regarding hazards and hazardous materials if it would:

1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

2. 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.

3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼-mile of an existing or proposed school.

4. 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, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

5. Be 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, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Plan Area.

6. Be within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Plan Area.
13 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007. Fresno County Very High Fire Hazard Severity in LRA map, http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/fresno/fhszl06_1_map.10.pdf, accessed June 28, 2017. 14 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007. Fire Hazards and Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas, http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/fresno/fhszs_map.10.pdf, accessed June 28, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-26 AUGUST 2017

7. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

8. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.

With regard to Standards of Significance 6 and 8, as previously discussed in Section 4.8.1.2, Existing Conditions, there are no private airstrips or heliports listed by FAA within or in proximity to the Plan Area, and there are no wildlands or areas with a VHFHSZ designation located within or adjacent to the Plan Area. Therefore, no further discussion of the proposed Plan’s impacts related to airport safety operations and to people residing or living in the Plan Area in close proximity to private airstrips or wildlands is warranted in this Draft EIR.

4.8.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
HAZ-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Hazardous materials are routinely used, stored, and transported within the Plan Area, and are associated with industrial and commercial/retail businesses, as well as in educational facilities, health care facilities and households.

Hazardous waste generators in the Plan Area include industries, businesses, public and private institutions, and households. Federal, state, and local agencies maintain comprehensive databases that identify the location of facilities using large quantities of hazardous materials, as well as facilities generating hazardous waste. Some of these facilities use certain classes of hazardous materials that require risk management plans to protect surrounding land uses.

Facilities that store, use or handle hazardous materials above reportable amounts are required to prepare and file a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (Business Plan) for the safe storage and use of chemicals. In the event of an emergency, firefighters, health officials, planners, public safety officers, health care providers and others rely on the Business Plan. Implementation of the Business Plan should prevent or reduce damage to the health and safety of people and the environment when a hazardous material is released.

The FCEHD is the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) responsible for administering/overseeing compliance with the Hazardous Materials Business Plan requirements, as well as other related regulatory programs such as those involving USTs, hazardous waste generation, hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility permitting, and hazardous materials releases.

Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in the continued use and storage of hazardous materials, including common cleaning products, building maintenance products, paints and solvents, and other similar items. Routinely used hazardous materials, however, would not be of the type or occur in

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-27
sufficient quantities to pose a significant hazard to public health and safety or to the environment. Some of these facilities use certain classes of hazardous materials that require risk management plans to protect surrounding land uses. Future development also would result in continued generation of hazardous waste by certain facilities. Several properties within the Plan Area have residual soil, and in some cases groundwater, contamination that may require remediation. Also, potentially hazardous building materials (e.g., asbestos containing materials, lead-based paint, etc.) could be encountered during demolition of existing structures to accommodate new development. Therefore, the transport of hazardous materials could occur during future operational, remediation and construction activities.

Transport of hazardous materials, however, would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations, such as the following:
 DOT Hazardous Materials Transport Act-Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 49  US EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
 US EPA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)  Toxic Substance Control Act
 CAL/OSHA
 California Health and Safety Code (Chapters 6.95 and 19)  California Code of Regulations (Section 2729)
 City of Fresno General Plan (see below)
 City of Fresno Municipal Code (Chapter 10, Article 14; Chapter 11, Article 2; Chapter 15, Articles 25 and Article 27)
The proposed Plan identifies new truck routes away from existing and planned residential neighborhoods and it prohibits new industrial uses from being developed or located within the Plan Area. In addition, to reduce potential project-specific impacts regarding routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials in the City of Fresno, including the Plan Area, the General Plan includes the following objective and policies:

Objective NS‐4: Minimize the risk of loss of life, injury, serious illness, and damage to property resulting from the use, transport, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes.

Policy NS‐4‐a Processing and Storage. Require safe processing and storage of hazardous materials, consistent with the California Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by the City.

Policy NS‐4‐b Coordination. Maintain a close liaison with the Fresno County Environmental Health Department, Cal‐EPA Division of Toxics, and the State Office of Emergency Services to assist in developing and maintaining hazardous material business plans, inventory statements, risk management prevention plans, and contingency/emergency response action plans.

Policy NS‐4‐c Soil and Groundwater Contamination Reports. Require an investigation of potential soil or groundwater contamination whenever justified by past site uses. Require appropriate mitigation as a condition of project approval in the event soil or

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-28 AUGUST 2017
groundwater contamination is identified or could be encountered during site development.

Policy NS‐4‐d Site Identification. Continue to aid federal, State, and County agencies in the identification and mapping of waste disposal sites (including abandoned waste sites), and to assist in the survey of the kinds, amounts, and locations of hazardous wastes.

Policy NS‐4‐e Compliance with County Program. Require that the production, use, storage, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials conform to the standards and procedures established by the County Division of Environmental Health. Require compliance with the County’s Hazardous Waste Generator Program, including the submittal and implementation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, when applicable.

Policy NS‐4‐f Hazardous Materials Facilities. Require facilities that handle hazardous materials or hazardous wastes be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable hazardous materials and waste management laws and regulations.

Policy NS‐4‐g Hazmat Response. Include policies and procedures appropriate to hazardous materials in the City’s disaster and emergency response preparedness and planning, coordinating with implementation of Fresno County’s Hazardous Materials Incident Response Plan.

Policy NS‐4‐I Public Information. Continue to assist in providing information to the public on hazardous materials.

Policy NS‐4‐h Household Collection. Continue to support and assist with the County’s special household hazardous waste collection activities, to reduce the amount of this material being improperly discarded.

Regulatory programs overseen/administered by the local CUPA, as well as compliance with thee abovelisted laws, regulations and policies, would ensure hazardous impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials are less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HAZ-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not 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.

Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in the continued use and storage of hazardous materials, including common cleaning products, building maintenance products, paints and solvents, as well as continued generation of regulated hazardous wastes. Also, several properties within the Plan Area have residual soil, and in some cases groundwater, contamination that may require remediation. Locations of specific properties are shown on Figure 4.8-1, as well as on the Key Map and Focus Maps in Appendix E.

In addition, potentially hazardous building materials (e.g., asbestos containing materials, lead-based paint,

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-29
etc.) could be encountered during demolition of existing structures to accommodate new development.

Releases of hazardous materials could occur during future remediation and construction activities, as well as during future operational activities within the Plan Area.

The City of Fresno Fire Department (FFD) recognizes the potential for a large chemical release to occur— anywhere in the city—which could expose thousands of people to hazardous materials via air, soil or water media. Similarly, a variety of chemicals would continue to be transported via the highways, surface streets, and airport which serve the Plan Area. The FFD Hazardous Materials Response Team has embraced an all hazards approach to emergency response to ensure that the community receives a robust, competent level of service to all hazardous materials events (City of Fresno Hazardous Materials Team 2012). In addition, all new development under the proposed plan that would handle, store, generate or dispose of hazardous materials must comply with City of Fresno regulations/laws regarding hazardous materials as well as State and federal laws regarding hazardous materials, as outlined above in the Regulatory Setting (Section 4.8.1.1).

The proposed Plan identifies new truck routes away from existing and planned residential neighborhoods and it prohibits new industrial uses from being developed or located within the Plan Area. To reduce potential project-specific impacts regarding potential to 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 in the City of Fresno, including the Plan Area, the General Plan includes the following objective and policies:

Objective NS‐4: Minimize the risk of loss of life, injury, serious illness, and damage to property resulting from the use, transport, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes.

Policy NS‐4‐a Processing and Storage. Require safe processing and storage of hazardous materials, consistent with the California Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by the City.

Policy NS‐4‐b Coordination. Maintain a close liaison with the Fresno County Environmental Health Department, Cal‐EPA Division of Toxics, and the State Office of Emergency Services to assist in developing and maintaining hazardous material business plans, inventory statements, risk management prevention plans, and contingency/emergency response action plans.

Policy NS‐4‐c Soil and Groundwater Contamination Reports. Require an investigation of potential soil or groundwater contamination whenever justified by past site uses. Require appropriate mitigation as a condition of project approval in the event soil or groundwater contamination is identified or could be encountered during site development.

Policy NS‐4‐d Site Identification. Continue to aid federal, State, and County agencies in the identification and mapping of waste disposal sites (including abandoned waste sites), and to assist in the survey of the kinds, amounts, and locations of hazardous wastes.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-30 AUGUST 2017
Policy NS‐4‐e Compliance with County Program. Require that the production, use, storage, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials conform to the standards and procedures established by the County Division of Environmental Health. Require compliance with the County’s Hazardous Waste Generator Program, including the submittal and implementation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, when applicable.

Policy NS‐4‐f Hazardous Materials Facilities. Require facilities that handle hazardous materials or hazardous wastes be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable hazardous materials and waste management laws and regulations.

Policy NS‐4‐g Hazmat Response. Include policies and procedures appropriate to hazardous materials in the City’s disaster and emergency response preparedness and planning, coordinating with implementation of Fresno County’s Hazardous Materials Incident Response Plan.

Policy NS‐4‐I Public Information. Continue to assist in providing information to the public on hazardous materials.

Policy NS‐4‐h Household Collection. Continue to support and assist with the County’s special household hazardous waste collection activities, to reduce the amount of this material being improperly discarded.

Objective NS-6: Foster an efficient and coordinated response to emergencies and natural disasters.

Policy NS-6-a: County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan. Adopt and implement the Fresno County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan and City of Fresno Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex. [Commentary: The federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires that cities, counties, and special districts have a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to be eligible to receive FEMA hazard mitigation funds. Cities and counties can adopt and use all or part of a regional multi-jurisdictional plan, such as the one prepared by Fresno County, in lieu of preparing all or part of a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.] Policy NS-6-b Disaster Response Coordination. Maintain coordination with other local, State, and Federal agencies to provide coordinated disaster response.

Policy NS-6-c Emergency Operations Plan. Update the City’s Emergency Operations Plan periodically, using a whole community approach which integrates considerations for People with access and functional needs in all aspects of planning.

Policy NS-6-d Evacuation Planning. Maintain an emergency evacuation plan in consultation with the Police and Fire Departments and other emergency service providers, which shows potential evacuation routes and a list of emergency shelters to be used in case of catastrophic emergencies. [Commentary: The evacuation plan will be flexible in order to consider many scenarios and multiple modes of transportation beyond private automobiles. It will provide special provisions for disadvantaged populations, such as those with physical disabilities or those with low or very low incomes, and for areas with fewer resources through neighborhood emergency preparedness programs.]

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-31
Policy NS-6-e Critical Use Facilities. Ensure critical use facilities (e.g., City Hall, police and fire stations, schools, hospitals, public assembly facilities, transportation services) and other structures that are important to protecting health and safety in the community remain operational during an emergency.
 Site and design these facilities to minimize their exposure and susceptibility to flooding, seismic and geological effects, fire, and explosions.  Work with the owners and operators of critical use facilities to ensure they can provide alternate sources of electricity, water, and sewerage in the event that regular utilities are interrupted in a disaster.

Policy NS-6-f Emergency Vehicle Access. Require adequate access for emergency vehicles in all new development, including adequate widths, turning radii, hard standing areas, and vertical clearance.

Policy NS-6-g Emergency Preparedness Public Awareness Programs. Continue to conduct programs to inform the general public, including people with access and functional needs, of the City’s emergency preparedness and disaster response procedures.

The following project-specific mitigation measures regarding hazardous materials (described later in this section under Impact HAZ-4) would reduce potential impacts regarding the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving release of hazardous materials into the environment: Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a, HAZ-4b, HAZ-4c, HAZ-4d, HAZ-4e, HAZ-4f, HAZ-4g, and HAZ-1h.

In addition to the above reference Mitigation Measures, regulatory programs overseen/administered by the local CUPA, as well as compliance with the laws and regulations referenced above under Impact HAZ-1, would ensure hazardous impacts from development of the proposed Plan related to the creation of a possible hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment are anticipated to be less than significant.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

HAZ-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼-mile of an existing or proposed school.

The Plan Area encompasses portions of three school districts, but predominantly Fresno Unified in the northern half and Washington Unified in the southern half. The Central Unified School District is located to the west of the Plan Area, but overlaps a minimal number of existing residential properties within the Plan Area. The existing Plan Area includes two elementary schools (Sunset and West Fresno), two middle schools (Gaston and West Fresno), and no high schools. The remaining schools (Bethune Elementary and W.E.B Dubois) are charter schools. W.E.B Dubois Charter School serves students from kindergarten to twelfth grade.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-32 AUGUST 2017
Although the future projects and their exact locations under implementation of the proposed Plan are unknown, the proposed Plan could result in the construction of new schools that would serve “complete neighborhoods.”
Development under the proposed Plan could include land uses, or could include disturbance of existing hazardous cleanup sites, that have the potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials and substances, although it prohibits new industrial uses from being developed or located within the Plan Area. It is anticipated that future development under the proposed Plan could occur within ¼-mile of an existing or future school. However, all generation, transport, and treatment of hazardous materials would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local requirements (see HAZ-1 impact analysis). 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.

Likewise, new/proposed schools would be subject to environmental site assessment in accordance with state laws, regulations and policies.
15 As addressed in the discussion of HAZ-1, construction and operation of future development allowed by the proposed Plan could involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials to, from, and on development sites; although, the proposed Plan identifies new truck routes away from existing and planned residential neighborhoods. As stated in the discussion of HAZ-2, several properties within the Plan Area have residual soil, and in some cases groundwater, contamination that are subject to ongoing remediation programs. In addition, potentially hazardous building materials (e.g., asbestos containing materials, lead-based paint, etc.) could be encountered during demolition of existing structures to accommodate new development. Thus, releases of hazardous materials could occur during future remediation and construction activities, as well as during future operational activities within the Plan Area. However, hazardous chemicals and materials that would be involved in the implementation of the proposed Plan would be subject to existing government regulations.

Impact HAZ-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan could emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼-mile of an existing or proposed school.

Significance Without Mitigation: Potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a through HAZ-4h, described later in the section under Impact HAZ-4, would reduce potential impacts to schools.

In addition, as stated in the discussions of Impacts HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations, procedures, and policies would avoid potential impacts associated with hazardous materials handling, use, and storage in the Plan Area. Compliance with these regulations, procedures, and policies would ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, thereby reducing potential risks to nearby schools.
15 California Department of Education (CDE). 2017. School Site Selection and Approval Guide, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/schoolsiteguide.asp#emissions, accessed July 9, 2017

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-33
Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

HAZ-4 The proposed Plan would 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, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

As discussed previously, and as summarized in Tables 4.8-2 and 4.8-3, there are properties within the Plan Area that are known to have contaminated groundwater and soils. Substances identified on these properties include VOCs, diesel, gasoline, various metals, pesticides, PCBs, and other chemicals. For most of these properties, soil and/or water testing has been performed and documented in accordance with regulatory agency oversight. For many of these sites, remedial action programs to mitigate potential impacts are recommended, planned, ongoing, or complete. Remediation programs are designed to clean up sites such that residual contamination is below specific numerical concentrations corresponding to acceptable human health risk thresholds for chemical contaminants of concern. Thus, development can occur only after appropriate property remediation has occurred and the regulatory agency with jurisdictional oversight has affirmed the site is cleaned up to safe levels. It should be noted that soils, groundwater, and/or property decontamination and remediation are currently being managed for each individual property with residual contamination in accordance with applicable Federal, State (e.g., RWQCB and DTSC), and local (e.g., FCEHD) procedures, protocols, and standards.

The Plan Area includes contaminated properties owned by multiple property owners. Contaminated properties within the Plan Area would be remediated and developed in accordance with regulatory requirements. However, the cleanup process also would be subject to case-by-case considerations, with regulatory actions and oversight subject to agency-owner interactions and negotiations. While compliance with applicable federal, State, and local standards (including the hazardous materials policies under General Plan Objective NS-4) requires sites contaminated with hazardous materials to be cleaned up, the redevelopment of these or other future sites where hazardous materials are unknown could create a significant impacts to future occupants of the Plan Area and/or construction workers.

Impact HAZ-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan would occur 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, create a potentially significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Significance Without Mitigation: Potentially significant.

The following mitigation measures were not included in the MEIR for the Fresno General Plan and are applicable to reduce impacts related to Impact HAZ-4 under the proposed Plan:

Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that a Phase I ESA (performed in accordance with the current ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process [E 1527]) shall be conducted for each individual property prior to development or redevelopment to ascertain the presence or absence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs),

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-34 AUGUST 2017
Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HRECs), and Potential Environmental Concerns (PECs) relevant to the property under consideration. The findings and conclusions of the Phase I ESA shall become the basis for potential recommendations for follow-up investigation, if found to be warranted.

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

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

Mitigation Measure HAZ-4c: In the event the findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA reveal the presence of significant concentrations of hazardous materials warranting further investigation, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that site characterization shall be conducted in the form of additional Phase II ESAs in order to characterize the source and maximum extent of impacts from constituents of concern. The findings and conclusions of the site characterization shall become the basis for formation of a remedial action plan and/or risk assessment.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-4d: If the findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA(s), site characterization and/or risk assessment demonstrate the presence of concentrations of hazardous materials exceeding regulatory threshold levels, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, property owners and/or developers of properties shall complete site remediation and potential risk assessment with oversight from the applicable regulatory agency including, but not limited to, the CalEPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD). Potential remediation could include the removal or treatment of water and/or soil. If removal occurs, hazardous materials shall be transported and disposed at a hazardous materials permitted facility.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-4e: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an individual property within the Plan Area with residual environmental contamination, the agency with primary regulatory oversight of environmental conditions at such property ("Oversight Agency") shall have determined that the proposed land use for that property, including proposed development features and design, does not present an unacceptable risk to human health, if applicable, through the use of an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) that could include institutional controls, site-specific mitigation measures, a risk management plan, and deed restrictions based upon applicable risk-based

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-35
cleanup standards. Remedial action plans, risk management plans and health and safety plans shall be required as determined by the Oversight Agency for a given property under applicable environmental laws, if not already completed, to prevent an unacceptable risk to human health, including workers during and after construction, from exposure to residual contamination in soil and groundwater in connection with remediation and site development activities and the proposed land use.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-4f: For those sites with potential residual volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil, soil gas, or groundwater that are planned for redevelopment with an overlying occupied building, a vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed by a licensed environmental professional. If the results of the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the potential for significant vapor intrusion into the proposed building, the project design shall include vapor controls or source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or the Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) requirements. Soil vapor mitigations or controls could include passive venting and/or active venting.

The vapor intrusion assessment as associated vapor controls or source removal can be incorporated into the ESMP (Mitigation Measure HAZ4-4e).

Mitigation Measure HAZ-4g: In the event of planned renovation or demolition of residential and/or commercial structures on the subject site, prior to the issuance of demolition permits, asbestos and lead based paint (LBP) surveys shall be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and/or LBP. Removal of friable ACM, and non-friable ACMs that have the potential to become friable, during demolition and/or renovation shall conform to the standards set forth by the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).

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

Mitigation Measure HAZ-4h: Prior to the import of a soil to a particular property within the Plan Area as part of that property’s site development, such soils shall be sampled for toxic or hazardous materials to determine if concentrations exceed applicable Environmental Screening Levels for the proposed land use at such a property, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or the Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD)requirements, prior to importing to such a property.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a through HAZ-4h would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-36 AUGUST 2017
HAZ-5 The proposed Plan would be located within an airport land use plan and is within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, but does not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Plan Area.

As discussed in Section 4.8.1.2, Existing Conditions, Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport (FCH) is located adjacent to the Plan Area, directly north across Kearney Boulevard. The FCH Airport Influence Area (AIA) encompasses northern portions of the Plan Area. This portion of the Plan Area has been identified as a “clear zone” that would not allow any new development.

The FCH’s revised CLUP, dated September 15, 2014, establishes review authority of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for certain categories of new land use plans within the AIA. For example, review is mandatory for proposed adoption or amendment of general plans, specific plans, rezone applications, text amendments to the zoning ordinance, and building regulations affecting land within an AIA. Submittal of individual projects for ALUC review is voluntary.

The Fresno County ALUC is mandated to “protect the public interest in aeronautics and aeronautical progress”, and although the ALUC does not have local land use authority, it exists to advise local land use authorities by evaluating risk of locations around an airport that pose noise, safety and airspace protection hazards. This public safety function of ALUCs, when applied effectively, minimizes the risks both on and off airports; associated with potential aircraft accidents, flight hazards and aircraft navigation.

While the Plan Area is located within the FCH’s AIA, the FCH’s CLUP establishes review authority of the ALUC for the proposed Plan as well as building regulations and zoning ordinances affecting land within an AIA. This review authority is intended to limit the types of development that can occur in the Plan Area to prevent hazards to users of the Plan Area. The types of mixed-use development projects proposed under the proposed Plan are not considered incompatible land use for the AIA.

In addition, the following objective and policies from the proposed General Plan would reduce potential airport safety impact associated with the Fresno Yosemite International Airport:

Objective NS‐5: Protect the safety, health, and welfare of persons and property on the ground and in aircraft by minimizing exposure to airport‐related hazards.

Policy NS‐5‐a Land Use and Height. Incorporate and enforce all applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCPs) through land use designations, zoning, and development standards to support the continued viability and flight operations of Fresno’s airports and to protect public safety, health, and general welfare.  Limit land uses in airport safety zones to those uses listed in the applicable ALUCPs as compatible uses, and regulate compatibility in terms of location, height, and noise.
 Ensure that development, including public infrastructure projects, within the airport approach and departure zones complies with Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations (Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace), particularly in terms of height.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-37
Policy NS‐5‐b Airport Safety Hazards. Ensure that new development, including public infrastructure projects, does not create safety hazards such as glare from direct or reflective sources, smoke, electrical interference, hazardous chemicals, fuel storage, or from wildlife, in violation of adopted safety standards.

Policy NS‐5‐c Aviation Easements. Employ avigation easements in order to secure and protect airspace required for unimpeded operation of publicly owned airports.

Policy NS-5-d Disclosure. As a condition of approval for residential development projects, require sellers to prepare and provide State Department of Real Estate Disclosure statements to property buyers notifying of noise and safety issues related to airport operations.

Policy NS-5-e Planned Expansion. Allow for the orderly expansion and improvement of publicly owned airports, while minimizing adverse environmental impacts associated with these facilities.
 Periodically update airport facility master plans in accordance with FAA regulations.  Require land use within the boundaries of the Fresno-Yosemite International Airport and Chandler Downtown Airport to conform to designations and policies specified in adopted City of Fresno compatible land use plans.
 Provide local jurisdictions surrounding the City's publicly owned airports with specific guidelines for effectively dealing with the presence and operation of these airports.

With the implementation of the objective and policies identified above, the proposed Plan would not subject people or structures to substantial airport related hazards, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HAZ-6 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, implementation of the proposed Plan would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Plan Area.

Sierra Sky Park is a privately owned—but public use—general aviation airport located about ten miles north of the Plan area. There are no other private airstrips located in the City of Fresno. 16 Additionally, the
Safety Element of the General Plan does not identify any private airstrips in the City. Development under the proposed Plan does not include private airstrips. Therefore, there would be no impacts.

Significance Without Mitigation: No Impact.
16 Airnav.com, 2017. Search airports for Fresno, California, https://www.airnav.com/airports/get , accessed July 10, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-38 AUGUST 2017
HAZ-7 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

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.
17 Development of the Plan Area would increase the development of residential, office, retail, , and open conservation land uses within the Plan Area. Because of the nature of the types of land uses proposed under the proposed Plan, it is not anticipated that the Plan will impair implementation nor physically interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans of the City of Fresno.

The proposed Plan provides measures to improve the safety of the transportation system, as described below.

The proposed Plan includes Goal T-8: Invest in developing, improving, and maintaining a roadway network that provides safety and adequate capacity for automobiles and for walking, bicycling, and transit mobility. Also, Policy T-8.9: Maintain the existing roadway network and expand its capacity as necessary to ensure safe and convenient vehicular circulation; require new development to provide safe and convenient vehicular circulation and to contribute to capacity improvements on arterials and regional roadways.

Development under the proposed Plan is not expected to physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. Additionally, future specific development in the Plan Area will be reviewed by the City’s police and fire departments to ensure that projects do not conflict with the City’s emergency response/evacuation plans. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HAZ-8 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.

Although portions of the city are close 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.

Some small areas along the San Joaquin River Bluff area in northern Fresno are prone to wildfires because of relatively steep terrain/vegetation and are classified as high fire hazard areas. The Plan Area is located 17 City of Fresno. 2017. Emergency Preparedness (Mayor’s Office), https://www.fresno.gov/mayor/emergencypreparedness/, accessed July 10, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-39
about 7 miles south of the San Joaquin River Bluffs area and as such is not subject to wildland fires posed by vegetation in the bluffs area.

There are no wildlands located within or adjacent to the Plan Area. CAL FIRE evaluates fire hazard severity risks according to areas of responsibility (i.e., federal, state, and local). According to CAL FIRE, there are no very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ) within the Local Responsibility Area (LRA) on or in near proximity to the Plan Area. One area in the southwestern portion of the Plan area (Regional Sports Complex) is designated as LRA Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone on the CAL FIRE Fresno County Very High Fire Hazard Severity in LRA map. The Plan Area is not within a wildland State Responsibility Area.

Thus, no impact is anticipated with respect to wildland fire.

Significance Without Mitigation: No Impact.

4.8.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
HAZ-9 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials.

The proposed Plan would have a significant cumulative impact if it would, in combination with cumulative projects, expose people, structures, or schools to risks or hazards associated with hazardous materials, airport hazards, emergency response and evacuation, or wildland fires.

As discussed in Section 4.8.3, impacts associated with the proposed Plan would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a through HAZ-4h because the proposed Plan would not create a public or environmental hazard through the routine transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials; emit or handle hazardous materials within proximity of a school; impede emergency response or evacuation; or expose people and structures to wildland fires. In addition, like in the Plan Area, cumulative development sites located within the City of Fresno and SOI boundary would be required to comply with the same policies and regulations as the proposed Plan. Furthermore, the proposed Plan is not near a private airstrip, so there would be no cumulative impact related to airport or airstrip hazards. In addition, the Plan Area is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

Like development allowed by the proposed Plan, the development of cumulative projects would likely involve the transport and use of hazardous materials, such as chemicals and solvents used for construction activities and routine cleaning and maintenance. Similarly, cumulative development located in proximity to schools and sites tracked by the RWQCB’s GeoTracker and DTSC’s EnviroStor databases would be required to comply with applicable federal, regional, and local standards and requirements that address hazards and hazardous materials impacts in the same manner as the proposed Plan. These regulations, procedures, and policies promote and require the proper handling, use, transport, and disposal of hazardous wastes and materials; facilitate implementation of emergency response plans and evacuation routes; and protect development from wildland fires, as described further in Section 4.8.3.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-40 AUGUST 2017
Therefore, the proposed Plan’s contribution to cumulative impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials are considered to be less than significant.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-1

4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This chapter describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions on the Plan Area related to, and the potential impacts of the project on, hydrology and water quality in and near the City of Fresno.

4.9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

4.9.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section summarizes key Federal, State and City regulations and programs related to the proposed Plan.

Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977, as administered by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), seeks to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. The CWA employs a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. The CWA authorizes the USEPA to implement water-quality regulations. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under Section 402(p) of the CWA controls water pollution by regulating stormwater discharges into the waters of the United States. California has an approved State NPDES program. The USEPA has delegated authority for water permitting to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that each state identify water bodies or segments of water bodies that are “impaired” (i.e., not meeting one or more of the water-quality standards established by the State).

These waters are identified in the Section 303(d) list as waters that are polluted and need further attention to support their beneficial uses. Once the water body or segment is listed, the State is required to establish Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the pollutant causing the conditions of impairment.

TMDL is the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water-quality standards. Typically, TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and non-point sources. The intent of the 303(d) list is to identify water bodies that require future development of a TMDL to maintain water quality.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The CWA-established NPDES permit program regulates municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States from their municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Under the NPDES program, all facilities that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States are required to obtain a NPDES permit. Requirements for stormwater discharges are also regulated under this program.

The NPDES has a variety of measures designed to minimize and reduce pollutant discharges. All counties with storm drain systems that serve a population of 100,000 or more, as well as construction sites 1 acre

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-2 AUGUST 2017
or more in size, must file for and obtain an NPDES permit. Another measure for minimizing and reducing pollutant discharges to a publicly owned conveyance or system of conveyances (including roadways, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels and storm drains, designed or used for collecting and conveying stormwater) is the EPA’s Storm Water Phase I Final Rule. The Phase I Final Rule requires an operator (such as a City) of a regulated municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) to develop, implement, and enforce a program (e.g., Best Management Plans [BMPs], ordinances, or other regulatory mechanisms) to reduce pollutants in post-construction runoff to the City’s storm drain system from new development and redevelopment projects that result in the land disturbance of greater than or equal to 1 acre.

MS4 Permit for Fresno Metropolitan Area (2013)
The MS4 Permit in effect in the Fresno metropolitan area, including the Plan Area, is Order No. R5-2013- 0080 issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in 2013. The Permit covers an approximately 400-square-mile area extending from metropolitan Fresno northeast into the Sierra Nevada foothills. The cities of Fresno and Clovis, Fresno County, the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), and California State University Fresno are co-permittees on the Permit. The FMFCD is the local enforcing agency of the MS4 NPDES permit.

Discharges of stormwater to the storm drainage system within FMFCDs Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan area must meet the requirements of FMFCDs Fresno-Clovis Storm Water Quality Master Plan (SWQMP) issued in 2013 pursuant to the MS4 permit. Land development in the FMFCD Master Plan area is exempt from further water quality requirements provided that the FMFCDs SWQMP is implemented.

The MS4 Permit expires on May 30, 2018; permittees on the Permit shall then enroll in an MS4 Permit issued by the Central Valley RWQCB in 2016 (Order No. R5-2016-0040) discussed below. FMFCD is required to update its SWQMP by December 23, 2017.1 Therefore, requirements of the 2013 MS4 Permit are not discussed further here.

Fresno Area Urban Flood Control System
Water quality treatment for post-construction discharges to stormwater in the FMFCD Master Plan Area is provided by detention and retention basins (henceforth referred to as retention basins) that are parts of FMFCDs stormwater drainage system. The urban flood control system is mapped on Figure 4.9-1 and Figure 4.9-2 maps the urban flood control system in and surrounding the Plan Area in more detail. The FMFCD manages urban stormwater runoff in the Fresno-Clovis Area. The City of Fresno Public Works Department maintains streets and gutters that convey stormwater to storm drain inlets.2 1 Rourke, Daniel (Environmental Programs manager, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District). Email, June 26, 2017. 2 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), 2013. Storm Water Facts: Urban Storm Drain Service, http://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/flood_control_system/urban%20system/urban%20storm%20drain%20service.pdf, accessed June 23, 2017.

Figure 4.9-1
FMFCD Urban Flood Control System Area
Source: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, 2014. 5 5
8 17
29 32
20 GARFIELDGRANTLANDBRYANHAYESPOLKCORNELIABLYTHEBRAWLEYVALENTINEMARKSVAN NESSWESTFRUITPALMMAROABLACKSTONEFRESNOFIRSTMILLBROOKCEDARMAPLECHESTNUTWILLOWPEACHMINNEWAWACLOVISSUNNYSIDEFOWLERARMSTRONGTEMPERANCELOCANDEWOLFLEONARDHIGHLANDTHOMPSONMC CALL

DOCKERY

DEL REYINDIANOLABETHELGREENWOODACADEMYMENDOCINOMADSENNEWMARKZEDIKERRIVERBENDSMITHMAC DONOUGH RNDON
RRA
LLARD
RSTOW
AW

TTYSBURG
HLAN
KOTA
ELDS
NTON
KINLEY
VE
MONT
LSEN

TESBRIDGE

ARNEY BLVD

LIFORNIA
URCH
SEN
NADALE
RTH
SCAT
NTRAL
LAGA
UVIAL
ES
AGUE
EPHERD
RRIN
HYMER

ERNATIONAL
PPER
ERICAN
C-11

GARFIELD
C-12

GRANTLAND
C-13
BRYAN
C-14
HAYES
C-15
POLK
C-16

CORNELIA
C-17
BLYTHE
C-18

BRAWLEY
C-19

VALENTINE
C-20
MARKS
C-21
HUGHES
C-22
WEST
C-23
FRUIT
C-24
WALNUT
C-25
FIG
C-26
ELM
C-27
CHERRY
C-28
EAST
C-29
ORANGE
C-30
CEDAR
C-31
MAPLE
C-32

CHESTNUT
C-33
WILLOW
C-34
PEACH
C-35

MINNEWAWA
C-36
CLOVIS
C-37

SUNNYSIDE
C-38
FOWLER
C-39

ARMSTRONG
C-40

TEMPERANCE
C-41
LOCAN
C-42
DEWOLF
C-43

LEONARD
C-44

HIGHLAND
C-45

THOMPSON
C-46

MC CALL
C-47

DOCKERY
C-48

DEL REY
C-49

INDIANOLA
C-50
BETHEL
C-51

GREENWOOD
C-52

ACADEMY
C-53

MENDOCINO
C-54
MADSEN
C-55

NEWMARK
C-56

ZEDIKER
C-57

RIVERBEND
C-58
SMITH
C-59

MAC DONOUGH
C-60
R 19E R 20E R 20E R 21E R 21E R 22E R 22E R 23E
C-11 C-12 C-13 C-14 C-15 C-16 C-17 C-18 C-19 C-20 C-21 C-22 C-23 C-24 C-25 C-26 C-27 C-28 C-29 C-30 C-31 C-32 C-33 C-34 C-35 C-36 C-37 C-38 C-39 C-40 C-41 C-42 C-43 C-44 C-45 C-46 C-47 C-48 C-49 C-50 C-51 C-52 C-53 C-54 C-55 C-56 C-57 C-58 C-59 C-60 R 19E R 20E R 20E R 21E R 21E R 22E R 22E R 23E
T 11S T 12S T 14S T 13S T 13S T 12S T 15S T 14S
T 12S T 11S T 13S T 14S T 13S T 12S T 15S T 14S
E-40
E-39
E-38
E-37
E-36
E-35
E-34
E-41
E-33
E-32
E-31
E-30
E-29
E-28
E-27
E-26
E-25
E-24
E-23
E-22
E-21
E-20
E-19
E-18
E-17
E-16
E-15
E-14
E-13
E-12
E-11
E-10
E-42

HERNDON
SIERRA

BULLARD

BARSTOW
SHAW

GETTYSBURG
ASHLAN
DAKOTA

SHIELDS

CLINTON

MC KINLEY
OLIVE

BELMONT
TULARE

KINGS CANYON
BUTLER

CALIFORNIA
CHURCH
JENSEN

ANNADALE
NORTH
MUSCAT

CENTRAL
MALAGA

ALLUVIAL
NEES
TEAGUE

SHEPHERD
PERRIN

BEHYMER

INTERNATIONAL
COPPER

HERNDON
SIERRA

BULLARD

BARSTOW
SHAW

GETTYSBURG
ASHLAN
DAKOTA

SHIELDS

CLINTON

MC KINLEY
OLIVE

BELMONT

NIELSEN

WHITESBRIDGE

KEARNEY BLVD

CALIFORNIA
CHURCH
JENSEN

ANNADALE
NORTH
MUSCAT

CENTRAL
MALAGA

ALLUVIAL
NEES
TEAGUE

SHEPHERD
PERRIN

BEHYMER

INTERNATIONAL
COPPER

AMERICAN
E-40
E-39
E-38
E-37
E-36
E-35
E-34
E-41
E-33
E-32
E-31
E-30
E-29
E-28
E-27
E-26
E-25
E-24
E-23
E-22
E-21
E-20
E-19
E-18
E-17
E-16
E-15
E-14
E-13
E-12
E-11
E-10
E-42
T 11S T 12S T 14S T 13S T 13S T 12S T 15S T 14S

FANCHER GOULD
BASIN
ÄÆ
Å41
ÄÆ
Å41
ÄÆ
Å99
ÄÆ
Å99
ÄÆ
Å180
ÄÆ
Å180
ÄÆ
Å168
ÄÆ
Å168
DS
HOG
DOG
DOG
DOG
MUD
DOG
DOG
DOG
PUP
PUP
PUP
MUD
KERN
WOLF
MILL
TRIB
TRIB
TRIB
TRIB
MILL
CREEK
CANAL
DRA NI
CREEK
LAKES
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
DITCH
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
LAKES
DRAIN

NORTH CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK

KINGS RIVER
VERNON
GREY'S
CLOVIS
TRIB #1

FANCHER
TRIB #4

FANCHER
TRIB #3
TRIB #2
TRIB #5

REDBANK

REDBANK
TRIB #3

REDBANK

REDBANK
TR BI #2

FANCHER
TRIB #4

REDBANK

FANCHER

FANCHER

FANCHER

FANCHER
TRIB #2
TRIB #3
TRIB #1

REDBANK
TRIB #1

CHANNEL
TRIB #1
TRIB #2
TRIB #21

ALLUVIAL
RIVER

JOAQUIN
SAN
CANAL
CREEK
DOG
KERN
FRIANT
CANAL

ENTERPRISE
CREEK

REDBANK

CREEKFANCHER

DRY CREEK CANAL

CENTRAL CANAL

FRESNO COLONY

CENTRAL CANAL

HOUGHTON CANAL
GOULD
CANAL

BRIGGS CANAL
EK
EH
EG
AI
AC
EN
AE
AH
EJ
DF
EI
EM
AF
AD
EL
EF I
DD
L
K
J
F
N
CN
AB
H
O
CW
D
AA
DG DH
CO1 CO2
CZ
BT
4E
M
P CL
7C
CM
CY
4C
3D
6D
5B/5C
3A
4B 4D
BY
BX
R
BC
3G
7H
DM
AQ
3F
7D
DL
5F
DK
DE
DN
CX
BZ
DI
EE
JJ
RR
BB
AK
AL
B
CC
CJ
C
CD
CH
CG
MM
E
UU3
AG
EO
CK AO
AN CI
AJ
XX
UU2
II4
UU1
WW VV
AH
V
S
Q
T
X
W
BS
G
U
1E
BQ
BW
2D
BR
BP
BU
Z
II1 BM
Y
DO
CS
BH
A
II2
HH
TT
AR
BL
NN
1G
BG
CF
AZ
BV
AS
AV
GG
SS
CE
BD
PP
BE
LL
BO
AY
ZZ
KK
BF
AU
CQ
AM
BJ
CV
OO
CU
CP
BK
AX
AW2
AW1
DP
FF
II3

BIG DRY CREEK

RESERVOIR

FANCHER CREEK

RESERVOIR

REDBANK

RESERVOIR

REDBANK
BASIN

FANCHER CREEK
BASIN

ALLUVIAL DRAIN
BASIN

PUP CREEK
BASIN

DRY CREEK

EXTENSION BASIN

PUP CREEK ENTERPRISE

DETENTION BASIN
1 2
9 5
7 8
5 5 6
7 3
8 9
8 1
6 4
8 8 9 9
2 2
5 7
5 8
2 3
8 7
6 9
9 1 5 1
1 4
4 1
4 4
6 7
4 2
6 1
4 6
5 3
3 8
3 2
2 5
4 4
3 6
9 7 9
5 6
7 7 9 9
4 3
6 7
2 1 3
1 2
8 6 3 5
3 4 2 1 65 4 1
2 30
18 29
30 19
31 35
20 17
19 11
18 31
31 28
31 11
11 32
30 14
24 32
23 24
13 14
13 29 28
32 26
31 10
29 30 27
23 23 22
26 25
34 14
17 24
14 12
25 35
35 36
36 26
33 16
23 33
33 35
32 10
17 12
33 36
17 17
23 24
15 26
22 19
11 32
18 22
35 23
34 35
16 25
34 15
20 36
19 22
11 23
32 14
21 27
16 15
20 20
14 14
11 16
15 33
11 34
10 26
17 25
28 36
32 16
25 31
11 20
29 12
28 10
12 34
15 20
27 10
33 34
36 22 21
26 34
16 21
33 22
13 22
34 33
17 12
29 35
16 19
32 21
28 24
29 11
26 21
21 13
35 15
32 27
28 27
23 20
10 34
24 15
11 29
25 20
34 13
12 21
33 12
26 13
30 23
17 30
19 25
18 14
16 18
28 22
29 30 28
35 27
14 13
27 26
36 33
24 36
24 28
19 24
36 27
27 31
21 14
36 16
28 18 15
16 12
10 31
28 15
15 25
10 21 22
17 10
25 29
19 35
18 21
13 19
31 18
30 20
30 18
12 32 31 33
10 32
21 29
13 3
3 4
10 27
22 34
15 e
CLOVIS
FRESNO
e

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
FRESNO

WOODWARD
PARK

FRESNO - YOSEMITE

INTERNATIONAL

ROEDING
PARK

LEAKY ACRES
119°26'0"W
119°26'0"W
119°27'0"W
119°27'0"W
119°28'0"W
119°28'0"W
119°29'0"W
119°29'0"W
119°30'0"W
119°30'0"W
119°31'0"W
119°31'0"W
119°32'0"W
119°32'0"W
119°33'0"W
119°33'0"W
119°34'0"W
119°34'0"W
119°35'0"W
119°35'0"W
119°36'0"W
119°36'0"W
119°37'0"W
119°37'0"W
119°38'0"W
119°38'0"W
119°39'0"W
119°39'0"W
119°40'0"W
119°40'0"W
119°41'0"W
119°41'0"W
119°42'0"W
119°42'0"W
119°43'0"W
119°43'0"W
119°44'0"W
119°44'0"W
119°45'0"W
119°45'0"W
119°46'0"W
119°46'0"W
119°47'0"W
119°47'0"W
119°48'0"W
119°48'0"W
119°49'0"W
119°49'0"W
119°50'0"W
119°50'0"W
119°51'0"W
119°51'0"W
119°52'0"W
119°52'0"W
119°53'0"W
119°53'0"W
119°54'0"W
119°54'0"W
119°55'0"W
119°55'0"W
119°56'0"W
119°56'0"W
119°57'0"W
119°57'0"W
36°56'0"N
36°56'0"N
36°55'0"N
36°55'0"N
36°54'0"N
36°54'0"N
36°53'0"N
36°53'0"N
36°52'0"N
36°52'0"N
36°51'0"N
36°51'0"N
36°50'0"N
36°50'0"N
36°49'0"N
36°49'0"N
36°48'0"N
36°48'0"N
36°47'0"N
36°47'0"N
36°46'0"N
36°46'0"N
36°45'0"N
36°45'0"N
36°44'0"N
36°44'0"N
36°43'0"N
36°43'0"N
36°42'0"N
36°42'0"N
36°41'0"N
36°41'0"N
36°40'0"N
36°40'0"N
36°39'0"N
5 5
8 17
29 32
20 GARFIELDGRANTLANDBRYANHAYESPOLKCORNELIABLYTHEBRAWLEYVALENTINEMARKSVAN NESSWESTFRUITPALMMAROABLACKSTONEFRESNOFIRSTMILLBROOKCEDARMAPLECHESTNUTWILLOWPEACHMINNEWAWACLOVISSUNNYSIDEFOWLERARMSTRONGTEMPERANCELOCANDEWOLFLEONARDHIGHLANDTHOMPSONMC CALL

DOCKERY

DEL REYINDIANOLABETHELGREENWOODACADEMYMENDOCINOMADSENNEWMARKZEDIKERRIVERBENDSMITHMAC DONOUGH RNDON
RRA
LLARD
RSTOW
AW

TTYSBURG
HLAN
KOTA
ELDS
NTON
KINLEY
VE
MONT
LSEN

TESBRIDGE

ARNEY BLVD

LIFORNIA
URCH
SEN
NADALE
RTH
SCAT
NTRAL
LAGA
UVIAL
ES
AGUE
EPHERD
RRIN
HYMER

ERNATIONAL
PPER
ERICAN
C-11

GARFIELD
C-12

GRANTLAND
C-13
BRYAN
C-14
HAYES
C-15
POLK
C-16

CORNELIA
C-17
BLYTHE
C-18

BRAWLEY
C-19

VALENTINE
C-20
MARKS
C-21
HUGHES
C-22
WEST
C-23
FRUIT
C-24
WALNUT
C-25
FIG
C-26
ELM
C-27
CHERRY
C-28
EAST
C-29
ORANGE
C-30
CEDAR
C-31
MAPLE
C-32

CHESTNUT
C-33
WILLOW
C-34
PEACH
C-35

MINNEWAWA
C-36
CLOVIS
C-37

SUNNYSIDE
C-38
FOWLER
C-39

ARMSTRONG
C-40

TEMPERANCE
C-41
LOCAN
C-42
DEWOLF
C-43

LEONARD
C-44

HIGHLAND
C-45

THOMPSON
C-46

MC CALL
C-47

DOCKERY
C-48

DEL REY
C-49

INDIANOLA
C-50
BETHEL
C-51

GREENWOOD
C-52

ACADEMY
C-53

MENDOCINO
C-54
MADSEN
C-55

NEWMARK
C-56

ZEDIKER
C-57

RIVERBEND
C-58
SMITH
C-59

MAC DONOUGH
C-60
R 19E R 20E R 20E R 21E R 21E R 22E R 22E R 23E
C-11 C-12 C-13 C-14 C-15 C-16 C-17 C-18 C-19 C-20 C-21 C-22 C-23 C-24 C-25 C-26 C-27 C-28 C-29 C-30 C-31 C-32 C-33 C-34 C-35 C-36 C-37 C-38 C-39 C-40 C-41 C-42 C-43 C-44 C-45 C-46 C-47 C-48 C-49 C-50 C-51 C-52 C-53 C-54 C-55 C-56 C-57 C-58 C-59 C-60 R 19E R 20E R 20E R 21E R 21E R 22E R 22E R 23E
T 11S T 12S T 14S T 13S T 13S T 12S T 15S T 14S
T 12S T 11S T 13S T 14S T 13S T 12S T 15S T 14S
E-40
E-39
E-38
E-37
E-36
E-35
E-34
E-41
E-33
E-32
E-31
E-30
E-29
E-28
E-27
E-26
E-25
E-24
E-23
E-22
E-21
E-20
E-19
E-18
E-17
E-16
E-15
E-14
E-13
E-12
E-11
E-10
E-42

HERNDON
SIERRA

BULLARD

BARSTOW
SHAW

GETTYSBURG
ASHLAN
DAKOTA

SHIELDS

CLINTON

MC KINLEY
OLIVE

BELMONT
TULARE

KINGS CANYON
BUTLER

CALIFORNIA
CHURCH
JENSEN

ANNADALE
NORTH
MUSCAT

CENTRAL
MALAGA

ALLUVIAL
NEES
TEAGUE

SHEPHERD
PERRIN

BEHYMER

INTERNATIONAL
COPPER

HERNDON
SIERRA

BULLARD

BARSTOW
SHAW

GETTYSBURG
ASHLAN
DAKOTA

SHIELDS

CLINTON

MC KINLEY
OLIVE

BELMONT

NIELSEN

WHITESBRIDGE

KEARNEY BLVD

CALIFORNIA
CHURCH
JENSEN

ANNADALE
NORTH
MUSCAT

CENTRAL
MALAGA

ALLUVIAL
NEES
TEAGUE

SHEPHERD
PERRIN

BEHYMER

INTERNATIONAL
COPPER

AMERICAN
E-40
E-39
E-38
E-37
E-36
E-35
E-34
E-41
E-33
E-32
E-31
E-30
E-29
E-28
E-27
E-26
E-25
E-24
E-23
E-22
E-21
E-20
E-19
E-18
E-17
E-16
E-15
E-14
E-13
E-12
E-11
E-10
E-42
T 11S T 12S T 14S T 13S T 13S T 12S T 15S T 14S

FANCHER GOULD
BASIN
ÄÆ
Å41
ÄÆ
Å41
ÄÆ
Å99
ÄÆ
Å99
ÄÆ
Å180
ÄÆ
Å180
ÄÆ
Å168
ÄÆ
Å168
DS
HOG
DOG
DOG
DOG
MUD
DOG
DOG
DOG
PUP
PUP
PUP
MUD
KERN

WOLF MILL
TRIB
TRIB
TRIB
TRIB
MILL
CREEK
CANAL
DRAIN
CREEK
LAKES
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
DITCH
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
LAKES
DRAIN

NORTH CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK

KINGS RIVER
VERNON
GREY'S
CLOVIS
TRIB #1

FANCHER
TRIB #4

FANCHER
TRIB #3
TRIB #2
TRIB #5

REDBANK

REDBANK
TRIB #3

REDBANK

REDBANK
TR BI #2

FANCHER
TRIB #4

REDBANK

FANCHER

FANCHER

FANCHER

FANCHER
TRIB #2
TRIB #3
TRIB #1

REDBANK
TRIB #1

CHANNEL
TRIB #1
TRIB #2
TRIB #21

ALLUVIAL
RIVER

JOAQUIN
SAN
CANAL
CREEK
DOG
KERN
FRIANT
CANAL

ENTERPRISE
CREEK

REDBANK

CREEKFANCHER

DRY CREEK CANAL

CENTRAL CANAL

FRESNO COLONY

CENTRAL CANAL

HOUGHTON CANAL
GOULD
CANAL

BRIGGS CANAL
EK
EH
EG
AI
AC
EN
AE
AH
EJ
DF
EI
EM
AF
AD
EL
EF I
DD
L
K
J
F
N
CN
AB
H
O
CW
D
AA
DG DH
CO1 CO2
CZ
BT
4E
M
P CL
7C
CM
CY
4C
3D
6D
5B/5C
3A
4B 4D
BY
BX
R
BC
3G
7H
DM
AQ
3F
7D
DL
5F
DK
DE
DN
CX
BZ
DI
EE
JJ
RR
BB
AK
AL
B
CC
CJ
C
CD
CH
CG
MM
E
UU3
AG
EO
CK AO
AN CI
AJ
XX
UU2
II4
UU1
WW VV
AH
V
S
Q
T
X
W
BS
G
U
1E
BQ
BW
2D
BR
BP
BU
Z
II1 BM
Y
DO
CS
BH
A
II2
HH
TT
AR
BL
NN
1G
BG
CF
AZ
BV
AS
AV
GG
SS
CE
BD
PP
BE
LL
BO
AY
ZZ
KK
BF
AU
CQ
AM
BJ
CV
OO
CU
CP
BK
AX
AW2
AW1
DP
FF
II3

BIG DRY CREEK

RESERVOIR

FANCHER CREEK

RESERVOIR

REDBANK

RESERVOIR

REDBANK
BASIN

FANCHER CREEK
BASIN

ALLUVIAL DRAIN
BASIN

PUP CREEK
BASIN

DRY CREEK

EXTENSION BASIN

PUP CREEK ENTERPRISE

DETENTION BASIN
1 2
9 5
7 8
5 5 6
7 3
8 9
8 1
6 4
8 8 9 9
2 2
5 7
5 8
2 3
8 7
6 9
9 1 5 1
1 4
4 1
4 4
6 7
4 2
6 1
4 6
5 3
3 8
3 2
2 5
4 4
3 6
9 7 9
5 6
7 7 9 9
4 3
6 7
2 1 3
1 2
8 6 3 5
3 4 2 1 65 4 1
2 30
18 29
30 19
31 35
20 17
19 11
18 31
31 28
31 11
11 32
30 14
24 32
23 24
13 14
13 29 28
32 26
31 10
29 30 27
23 23 22
26 25
34 14
17 24
14 12
25 35
35 36
36 26
33 16
23 33
33 35
32 10
17 12
33 36
17 17
23 24
15 26
22 19
11 32
18 22
35 23
34 35
16 25
34 15
20 36
19 22
11 23
32 14
21 27
16 15
20 20
14 14
11 16
15 33
11 34
10 26
17 25
28 36
32 16
25 31
11 20
29 12
28 10
12 34
15 20
27 10
33 34
36 22 21
26 34
16 21
33 22
13 22
34 33
17 12
29 35
16 19
32 21
28 24
29 11
26 21
21 13
35 15
32 27
28 27
23 20
10 34
24 15
11 29
25 20
34 13
12 21
33 12
26 13
30 23
17 30
19 25
18 14
16 18
28 22
29 30 28
35 27
14 13
27 26
36 33
24 36
24 28
19 24
36 27
27 31
21 14
36 16
28 18 15
16 12
10 31
28 15
15 25
10 21 22
17 10
25 29
19 35
18 21
13 19
31 18
30 20
30 18
12 32 31 33
10 32
21 29
13 3
3 4
10 27
22 34
15 e
CLOVIS
FRESNO
e

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
FRESNO

WOODWARD
PARK

FRESNO - YOSEMITE

INTERNATIONAL

ROEDING
PARK

LEAKY ACRES
119°26'0"W
119°26'0"W
119°27'0"W
119°27'0"W
119°28'0"W
119°28'0"W
119°29'0"W
119°29'0"W
119°30'0"W
119°30'0"W
119°31'0"W
119°31'0"W
119°32'0"W
119°32'0"W
119°33'0"W
119°33'0"W
119°34'0"W
119°34'0"W
119°35'0"W
119°35'0"W
119°36'0"W
119°36'0"W
119°37'0"W
119°37'0"W
119°38'0"W
119°38'0"W
119°39'0"W
119°39'0"W
119°40'0"W
119°40'0"W
119°41'0"W
119°41'0"W
119°42'0"W
119°42'0"W
119°43'0"W
119°43'0"W
119°44'0"W
119°44'0"W
119°45'0"W
119°45'0"W
119°46'0"W
119°46'0"W
119°47'0"W
119°47'0"W
119°48'0"W
119°48'0"W
119°49'0"W
119°49'0"W
119°50'0"W
119°50'0"W
119°51'0"W
119°51'0"W
119°52'0"W
119°52'0"W
119°53'0"W
119°53'0"W
119°54'0"W
119°54'0"W
119°55'0"W
119°55'0"W
119°56'0"W
119°56'0"W
119°57'0"W
119°57'0"W
36°56'0"N
36°56'0"N
36°55'0"N
36°55'0"N
36°54'0"N
36°54'0"N
36°53'0"N
36°53'0"N
36°52'0"N
36°52'0"N
36°51'0"N
36°51'0"N
36°50'0"N
36°50'0"N
36°49'0"N
36°49'0"N
36°48'0"N
36°48'0"N
36°47'0"N
36°47'0"N
36°46'0"N
36°46'0"N
36°45'0"N
36°45'0"N
36°44'0"N
36°44'0"N
36°43'0"N
36°43'0"N
36°42'0"N
36°42'0"N
36°41'0"N
36°41'0"N
36°40'0"N
36°40'0"N
36°39'0"N
N
Prepared by: kyles
Date: 10/30/2014
Path: N:\GIS\projects\wallmap\2014\exhibit A.mxd

L E G E N D

PROPOSED PIPELINES
BQ

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY

CHANNELS AND CANALS

DESIGN PIPELINES
F.M.F.C.D. BOUNDARY

DRAINAGE AREA DESIGNATION

EXISTING PIPELINES

AG USE FEE EXEMPTION

PROPOSED BASIN FACILITY

CITY SPHERE

NON-PLANNED AREAS

ACQUIRED BASIN FACILITY

LANDSCAPED BASIN FACILITY

STORM DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL MASTER PLAN

FRESNO METROPOLITAN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT

FRESNO COUNTY CALIFORNIA
C-32

CHESTNUT
C-33
WILLOW
C-34
PEACH
C-35

MINNEWAWA
C-36
CLOVIS
C-37

SUNNYSIDE
C-38
FOWLER
C-39

ARMSTRONG
C-40

TEMPERANCE
C-41
LOCAN
C-42
DEWOLF
C-43

LEONARD
C-44

HIGHLAND
C-45

THOMPSON
C-46

MC CALL
C-47

DOCKERY
C-48

DEL REY
C-49

INDIANOLA
C-50
BETHEL
C-51

GREENWOOD
C-52

ACADEMY
C-53

MENDOCINO
C-54
MADSEN
C-55

NEWMARK
C-56

ZEDIKER
C-57

RIVERBEND
C-58
SMITH
C-59

MAC DONOUGH
C-60
R 20E R 21E R 21E R 22E R 22E R 23E
T 13S T 14S
T 15S T 14S
E-32
E-31
E-30
E-29
E-28
E-27
E-26
E-25
E-24
E-23
E-22
E-21
E-20
E-19
E-18
E-17
E-16
E-15
E-14
E-13
E-12
E-11
E-10

BULLARD

BARSTOW
SHAW

GETTYSBURG
ASHLAN
DAKOTA

SHIELDS

CLINTON

MC KINLEY
OLIVE

BELMONT
TULARE

KINGS CANYON
BUTLER

CALIFORNIA
CHURCH
JENSEN

ANNADALE
NORTH
MUSCAT

CENTRAL
MALAGA

FANCHER GOULD
BASIN
ÄÆ
ÅÄ180
DS
HOG
DOG
MUD
DOG
DOG
DOG
MUD
WOLF
MILL
TRIB
TRIB
TRIB
MILL
CREEK
DRA NI
CREEK
LAKES
CREEK
CREEK
DITCH
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
LAKES
CREEK

KINGS RIVER
VERNON
GREY'S
CLOVIS
TRIB #1

FANCHER
TRIB #4

FANCHER
TRIB #3
TRIB #2
FANCHE

REDBANK

FANCHER

FANCHER

FANCHER

FANCHER
TRIB #2
TRIB #3
TRIB #1
TRIB #21
CANAL

ENTERPRISE
CREEK

REDBANK

CREEKFANCHER
GOULD
CANAL

BRIGGS CANAL
4E
4C
3D
3A
4B 4D
3G
3F
C
V
S
Q
T
X
W
BS
G
U
1E
BQ
BW
2D
BR
BP
BU
Z
BM
Y
DO
CS
BH
A
BL
1G
BG
CF
AZ
BV
CE
BD
PP
BE
BO
BF
AM
BJ
CV
CU
BK
DP

REDBANK

RESERVOIR

REDBANK
BASIN

FANCHER CREEK
BASIN

PUP CREEK
BASIN
1 5
6 7
8 9
1 8 9 9
5 8
7 6
4 7
4 6
5 3
2 4
9 7
1 2
8 3
3029
31 20
17 11
28 4
3 32
31 34
24 14
35 36
33 33
32 10
17 12
19 18
35 16
20 19
32 14
27 14
11 11
34 26
17 28
25 31
20 29
10 15
20 36
21 16
21 22
17 2
29 16
19 32
29 26
21 13
15 27
23 10
25 13
12 21
33 13
30 23
30 25
18 16 18
28 22
30 36
33 24
24 28
19 31
18 15
12 3
10 27
22 34
15 CLOVIS
e

NIA STATE UNIVERSITY
FRESNO

FRESNO - YOSEMITE

INTERNATIONAL

LEAKY ACRES
36°49'0"N
36°48'0"N
36°47'0"N
36°46'0"N
36°45'0"N
36°44'0"N
36°43'0"N
36°42'0"N
36°41'0"N
36°40'0"N
C-32

CHESTNUT
C-33
WILLOW
C-34
PEACH
C-35

MINNEWAWA
C-36
CLOVIS
C-37

SUNNYSIDE
C-38
FOWLER
C-39

ARMSTRONG
C-40

TEMPERANCE
C-41
LOCAN
C-42
DEWOLF
C-43

LEONARD
C-44

HIGHLAND
C-45

THOMPSON
C-46

MC CALL
C-47

DOCKERY
C-48

DEL REY
C-49

INDIANOLA
C-50
BETHEL
C-51

GREENWOOD
C-52

ACADEMY
C-53

MENDOCINO
C-54
MADSEN
C-55

NEWMARK
C-56

ZEDIKER
C-57

RIVERBEND
C-58
SMITH
C-59

MAC DONOUGH
C-60
R 20E R 21E R 21E R 22E R 22E R 23E
T 13S T 14S
T 15S T 14S
E-32
E-31
E-30
E-29
E-28
E-27
E-26
E-25
E-24
E-23
E-22
E-21
E-20
E-19
E-18
E-17
E-16
E-15
E-14
E-13
E-12
E-11
E-10

BULLARD

BARSTOW
SHAW

GETTYSBURG
ASHLAN
DAKOTA

SHIELDS

CLINTON

MC KINLEY
OLIVE

BELMONT
TULARE

KINGS CANYON
BUTLER

CALIFORNIA
CHURCH
JENSEN

ANNADALE
NORTH
MUSCAT

CENTRAL
MALAGA

FANCHER GOULD
BASIN
ÄÆ
ÅÄ180
DS
HOG
DOG
MUD
DOG
DOG
DOG
MUD

WOLF MILL
TRIB
TRIB
TRIB
MILL
CREEK
DRAIN
CREEK
LAKES
CREEK
CREEK
DITCH
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
LAKES
CREEK

KINGS RIVER
VERNON
GREY'S
CLOVIS
TRIB #1

FANCHER
TRIB #4

FANCHER
TRIB #3
TRIB #2
FANCHE

REDBANK

FANCHER

FANCHER

FANCHER

FANCHER
TRIB #2
TRIB #3
TRIB #1
TRIB #21
CANAL

ENTERPRISE
CREEK

REDBANK

CREEKFANCHER
GOULD
CANAL

BRIGGS CANAL
4E
4C
3D
3A
4B 4D
3G
3F
C
V
S
Q
T
X
W
BS
G
U
1E
BQ
BW
2D
BR
BP
BU
Z
BM
Y
DO
CS
BH
A
BL
1G
BG
CF
AZ
BV
CE
BD
PP
BE
BO
BF
AM
BJ
CV
CU
BK
DP

REDBANK

RESERVOIR

REDBANK
BASIN

FANCHER CREEK
BASIN

PUP CREEK
BASIN
1 5
6 7
8 9
1 8 9 9
5 8
7 6
4 7
4 6
5 3
2 4
9 7
1 2
8 3
3029
31 20
17 11
28 4
3 32
31 34
24 14
35 36
33 33
32 10
17 12
19 18
35 16
20 19
32 14
27 14
11 11
34 26
17 28
25 31
20 29
10 15
20 36
21 16
21 22
17 2
29 16
19 32
29 26
21 13
15 27
23 10
25 13
12 21
33 13
30 23
30 25
18 16 18
28 22
30 36
33 24
24 28
19 31
18 15
12 3
10 27
22 34
15 CLOVIS
e

NIA STATE UNIVERSITY
FRESNO

FRESNO - YOSEMITE

INTERNATIONAL

LEAKY ACRES
36°49'0"N
36°48'0"N
36°47'0"N
36°46'0"N
36°45'0"N
36°44'0"N
36°43'0"N
36°42'0"N
36°41'0"N
36°40'0"N
Prepared by: kyles

L E G E N D

PROPOSED PIPELINES
BQ

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY

CHANNELS AND CANALS

DESIGN PIPELINES
F.M.F.C.D. BOUNDARY

DRAINAGE AREA DESIGNATION

EXISTING PIPELINES

AG USE FEE EXEMPTION

PROPOSED BASIN FACILITY

CITY SPHERE

NON-PLANNED AREAS

ACQUIRED BASIN FACILITY

LANDSCAPED BASIN FACILITY

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

PLACEWORKS

Figure 4.9-2
Existing Urban Flood Control System In and Near the Project Site Source: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2017.

CITY OF FRESNO

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
G St
E Divisadero St
E Kearney Blvd
E California Ave
W North Ave
W California Ave
W Whitesbridge Ave
E Jensen Ave
W Kearney Blvd
W Nielsen Ave
0 0.275 0.55 1.1
Miles

PLACEWORKS
Existing Pipe
Future Pipe
Design Pipe
Drainage Areas
Existing Basin
Future Basin
Southwest Fresno SP Boundary
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
NN
CP
!
AU
CQ
AV
SS
KK
II1

SS TT TT
FF
!
OO
ZZ
!
! RR
ZZ
Source: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2017.

Figure 4.9-2
Existing Urban Flood Control System In and Near the Plan Area

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

PLACEWORKS

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-6 AUGUST 2017
Storm drainage improvements are funded by local drainage fees paid by developments and are built by the FMFCD, by developers, or both. Basins are highly effective at reducing average concentrations of a broad range of contaminants, including several polyaromatic hydrocarbons, total suspended solids, and most metals. Pollutants are removed by filtration through soil, and thus don’t reach the groundwater aquifer. Basins are built to design criteria exceeding Statewide Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) standards.3 The urban flood control system provides treatment for all types of development.

Only developments outside of the Master Plan Area are required to infiltrate or treat stormwater pursuant to the MS4 Permit.4
The entire Plan Area is in areas served by FMFCD retention basins.5 Regionwide MS4 Permit (2016)
The Central Valley RWQCB issued a region-wide MS4 Permit (Order No. R5-2016-0040) covering the entire Central Valley RWQCB Region, and covering storm drainage systems in cities as small as 10,000 population, in June 2016.
6 The MS4 Permit for the Fresno region, Order No. R5-2013-0080, expires May 30, 2018. The permittees of the latter Permit shall enroll in the Region-Wide Permit after expiration of Permit No. R5-2013-0080.7
FMFCD is required to update its SWQMP within 18 months after issuance of Order R5-2016-0040; that is, by December 23, 2017.8
Permittees must develop and implement a Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) including the following elements:
 Illegal Connection and Illicit Discharge Elimination Program  Construction Storm Water Runoff Control Program
 Industrial/Commercial Storm Water Runoff Control Program  Municipal Operations Storm Water Runoff Control Program (Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping)
 Public Involvement and Participation Program
3 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), December 2013. Fresno-Clovis Stormwater Quality Management Program, http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb5/board_decisions/adopted_orders/fresno/2013_fresno_swqmp.pdf, accessed June 20, 2017. 4 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), 2017. Pollutant Removal, http://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/ water_resources/pollutant_removal.html, accessed June 22, 2017. 5 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), 2014. Fact Sheet: Post-Development Standards Technical Manual for Projects That Do Not Drain to the Regional Stormwater Management Basin System, http://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/Fact-sheet-FMFCD-Post-development-standards-6-10-14.pdf, accessed June 26, 2017. 6 The region-wide MS4 permit covers the entire Central Valley region, about 60,000 square miles, extending from some of the north edges of Ventura and Los Angeles counties in the south to the Oregon border in Modoc County to the north. 7 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB). 2017. Storm Water - MS4 Municipal Program, http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/storm_water/municipal_permits/#phaseims4, accessed June 21, 2017. 8 Rourke, Daniel, Environmental Programs Manager, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District. Email to PlaceWorks, June 26, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-7
 Planning and Land Development/Post Construction Storm Water Management Program:
9  Priority development projects, identified below, are required to incorporate storm water mitigation measures:
• Single-family hillside residences.
• Residential subdivisions of ten or more units.
• 100,000-square-foot industrial/commercial development. • Automotive repair shops.
• Restaurants.
• Parking lots with 5,000 square feet or more or with 25 or more parking spaces. • Redevelopment projects that are within one of above categories and that add or create at least 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface.
 Stormwater management strategies include:
• Site Design Measures: Emphasize conservation and use of existing natural site features integrated with distributed, small-scale storm water controls to mimic natural drainage. • Source Control Measures: Intended to keep pollutants from mixing with runoff, and thus minimize the transport of urban runoff and pollutants off-site and into storm drains. Source control measures include standards for design and operation of outdoor areas where substances that could contaminate stormwater are used, such as fueling areas, loading areas, material storage areas, and work areas.
• Treatment Control Measures: remove pollutants from site runoff; measures include bioretention planters, vegetated swales, and infiltration trenches and basins. • Low Impact Development (LID) Measures: emphasize conservation and use of existing natural site features integrated with distributed, small-scale storm water controls to mimic natural drainage. LID measures include stream setbacks and buffers, soil amendments, tree planting and preservation, rooftop and impervious area disconnection, porous pavement, eco roofs, bioretention planters, and rain barrels or cisterns.
 Monitoring Program.
10 National Flood Insurance Program
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 mandate the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to evaluate flood hazards. FEMA provides Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for local and regional planners to promote sound land use and floodplain development and identify potential flood areas based on current conditions. To delineate a FIRM, FEMA conducts engineering studies called Flood Insurance Studies. Using information gathered in these studies, 9 The Planning and Land Development/Post Construction Storm Water Management Program requirements listed here are not expected to apply to projects within the FMFCD’s Master Plan area after the FMFCD issues its updated SWQMP by December 2017; such projects are exempt from further operational water quality requirements provided that the SWQMP is implemented. 10 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB), 2016. Order No. R5-2016-0040. General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems [MS4s], http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/ board_decisions/adopted_orders/general_orders/r5-2016-0040_ms4.pdf, accessed June 22, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-8 AUGUST 2017
FEMA engineers and cartographers delineate Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) on FIRMs. The Plan Area is on FIRMs 06019C2105H and 06019C2110H, both dated February 18, 2009 (FEMA 2017).

State Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act is the basic water-quality control law for California. Under this Act, the SWRCB has ultimate control over State water rights and water-quality policy. In California, the California EPA has delegated authority to issue NPDES permits to the SWRCB. The SWRCB, through its nine RWQCBs, carries out the regulation, protection, and administration of water quality in each region. Each regional board is required to adopt a Water Quality Control Plan, or Basin Plan, that recognizes and reflects the regional differences in existing water quality, the beneficial uses of the region’s ground and surface water, and local water-quality conditions and problems. The City of Fresno is within the Tulare Lake Basin and is under the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB (Region 5). The Central Valley RWQCB Region is divided into three basins, the Sacramento River Basin, San Joaquin River Basin, and Tulare Lake Basin in which the Plan Area is located.

The Central Valley RWQCB monitors surface water quality through implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin (Basin Plan) and designates beneficial uses for surface water bodies and groundwater in the Basin. The Basin Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin was last revised in 2016. This Basin Plan describes the water quality that must be maintained to support the designated beneficial uses and provides programs, projects, and other actions necessary to achieve the standards established in the Basin Plan. The Basin Plan also contains water quality criteria for groundwater.

Statewide General Construction Permit
Construction projects of 1 acre or more are regulated under the General Construction Permit (GCP), Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ, issued by the SWRCB. Under the terms of the permit, applicants must file Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) with the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. The PRDs include a Notice of Intent (NOI), risk assessment, site map, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and a signed certification statement. The PRDs are submitted electronically to the SWRCB via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) website.

The SWPPP must demonstrate conformance with applicable BMPs, including a site map that shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the Plan Area. The SWPPP must list BMPs that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction-related pollutants that could contaminate nearby water resources. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for nonvisible pollutants if there is a failure of the BMPs, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Categories of BMPs used in SWPPPs are described below in Table 4.9-1. Some sites may require implementation of a Rain Event Action Plan (REAP). The GCP also requires applicants to comply with post-construction runoff reduction requirements. Projects in the SWQMP Area over 1 acre in size are subject to these requirements.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-9
TABLE 4.9-1 CONSTRUCTION BMPS
Category Purpose Examples
Erosion Controls and Wind Erosion
Controls
Cover and/or bind soil surface, to
prevent soil particles from being
detached and transported by water
or wind.

Mulch, geotextiles, mats, hydroseeding,
earth dikes, swales.

Sediment Controls Filter out soil particles that have
been detached and transported in
water.

Barriers such as straw bales, sandbags, fiber
rolls, and gravel bag berms; desilting basin;
cleaning measures such as street sweeping.

Tracking Controls Minimize the tracking of soil off-site by vehicles.

Stabilized construction roadways and
construction entrances/exits;
entrance/outlet tire wash.

Non-Storm Water Management Controls Prohibit discharge of materials other than stormwater, such as discharges
from the cleaning, maintenance, and
fueling of vehicles and equipment.

Conduct various construction
operations, including paving, grinding,
and concrete curing and finishing, in
ways that minimize non-stormwater
discharges and contamination of any
such discharges.

BMPs specifying methods for: paving and
grinding operations; cleaning, fueling, and
maintenance of vehicles and equipment;
concrete curing; concrete finishing.

Waste Management and Controls (i.e.
good-housekeeping practices)
Management of materials and
wastes to avoid contamination of
stormwater.

Spill prevention and control, stockpile
management, and management of solid
wastes and hazardous wastes.

Source: CASQA 2003.

Local and Regional Regulations
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
The two relevant MS4 permits issued by the Central Valley RWQCB are described above under Federal Regulations.

Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
The Fresno-Clovis SWQMP and the Fresno area urban flood control system are described above under Federal Regulations.

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-10 AUGUST 2017
Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno General Plan contains goals, objectives, and policies that address hydrology and water quality. The following General Plan goals, objectives, and policies are applicable to the proposed Plan (Table 4.9-2).

4.9.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Surface Water and Drainage
Regional Drainage
The Plan Area is in the Tulare-Buena Vista Lakes Watershed, which spans about 16,414 square miles including approximately the southern half of the San Joaquin Valley, extending east into the Sierra Nevada, west into the Coast Ranges, and south into the Tehachapi Mountains11 (see Figure 4.9-3). The primary direction of water flow in most of the Tulare-Buena Vista Lakes Watershed is northeast to southwest from the Sierra Nevada into the San Joaquin Valley. Rivers in the watershed usually terminate into Tulare Lake and Buena Vista Lake in the western San Joaquin Valley; in years of extreme rainfall some water will flow north into the San Joaquin River.12
The Tulare-Buena Vista Lakes watershed is divided into several subbasins. The Plan Area is in the Upper Dry Subbasin, which spans about 2,126 square miles, extending from the foothills of the Sierra Nevada west across the San Joaquin Valley to the eastern Coast Ranges. The Upper Dry Subbasin encompasses much of western Fresno County and small portions of Kings and San Benito counties (CDFW 2017; see Figure 4.9-3).
13 Streams in the eastern (Sierra Nevada Foothills) portion of the Upper Dry Subbasin include, from north to south, Dry Creek, Dog Creek, and Fancher Creek.14 Drainage in much of the Upper Dry Subbasin has been engineered into agricultural irrigation canals.

The San Joaquin River passes just north of the watershed and forms a small part of the northern boundary of the watershed. The Kings River passes south of the watershed, forming a small part of the southern boundary of the watershed. The James Bypass canal in western Fresno County connects the Kings and San Joaquin Rivers.
11 US Geological Survey (USGS), 2017. The National Map Advanced Viewer, https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/ advanced-viewer/ accessed June 19, 2017. 12 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB), 2015. Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin, Second Edition, http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/tlbp.pdf, accessed July 3, 2017.
13 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2017. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS, accessed June 19, 2017. 14 US Geological Survey (USGS), 2017. The National Map Advanced Viewer, https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/ advanced-viewer/, accessed June 19, 2017.

Figure 4.9-3
Source: USGS, 2017; PlaceWorks, 2017.

CITY OF FRESNO

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Madera
Clovis
Fresno
Sanger
Selma Dinuba
Visalia
Tulare
Corcoran Porterville
Delano
Wasco
Oildale
Bakersfield
Lamont
0 5 10 20
Miles

PLACEWORKS
Southwest Fresno SP Boundary
Upper Dry Subbasin
Tulare-Buena Vista Lakes Watershed
Sa n Joaquin River
Fresno Sloug h Ki n gs River
%&'(5
·|}þ99
·|}þ46
Æþ101
%&'(5
·|}þ152
·|}þ41
·|}þ58
Æþ395
Sierra Nevada
San Joaquin Valley
Tehachapi Mountains
Coast Ranges
Source: USGS, 2017; PlaceWorks, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRE
Madera
Clovis
Fresno
Sanger
Selma Dinuba
Visalia
Tulare
Corcoran Porterville
Delano
Wasco
Oildale
Bakersfield
Lamont
0 5 10 20
Miles

PLACEWORKS
Southwest Fresno SP Boundary
Upper Dry Subbasin
Tulare-Buena Vista Lakes Watershed
Sa n Joaquin River
Fresno Sloug h Ki n gs River
%&'(5
·|}þ99
·|}þ46
Æþ101
%&'(5
·|}þ152
·|}þ41
·|}þ58
Sierra Nevada
San Joaquin Valley
Tehachapi Mountain
Coast Ranges
Source: USGS, 2017; PlaceWorks, 2017.

Figure 4.9-3
Tulare-Buena Vista Lakes Watershed and Upper Dry Subbasin

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

PLACEWORKS

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-12 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.9-2 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Noise and Safety Element
Objective NS-2 Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic risks.

Policy NS-2-b
Soil Analysis Requirement. Identify areas with potential geologic and/or soils hazards, and require development in these areas to conduct a soil analysis and mitigation plan by a registered civil engineer (or engineering geologist specializing in soil geology) prior to allowing on-site drainage or disposal for wastewater, stormwater runoff, or swimming pool/spa water.

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

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

Policy NS-3-b
Curb and Gutter Installation. Coordinate with Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) to install curbing, gutters, and other drainage facilities with priority to existing neighborhoods with the greatest deficiencies and consistent with the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan.

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

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

Policy NS-3-f
Flooding Emergency Response Plans. Work with responsible agencies to update emergency dam failure inundation plans, evacuation plans and other emergency response plans for designated flood-prone areas, including the San Joaquin riverbottom.

Policy NS-3-g
Essential Facilities Siting Outside of Floodplains. Avoid siting emergency response and essential public facilities, such as fire and police stations, within a 100-year floodplain, unless it can be demonstrated that the facility can be safely operated and accessed during flood events.

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

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

Policy NS-3-k
100-Year Floodplain Policy. Require developers of residential subdivisions to preserve those portions of development sites as open space that may be subject to 100-year flood events, unless the flood hazard can be substantially mitigated by development project design.

Policy NS-3-l
200-Year Floodplain Protection. Promote flood control measures that maintain natural conditions within the 200-year floodplain of rivers and streams and, to the extent possible, combine flood control, recreation, water quality, and open space functions. Discourage construction of permanent improvements that would be adversely affected by periodic floods within the 200-year floodplain, particularly in the San Joaquin riverbottom.

Policy NS-3-m Flood Risk Public Awareness. Continue public awareness programs to inform the general public and potentially affected property owners of flood hazards and potential dam failure inundation. Remind households and

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-13
TABLE 4.9-2 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
businesses located in flood-prone areas of opportunities to purchase flood insurance.

Resource Conservation and Resilience Element
Objective RC-6 Ensure that Fresno has a reliable, long-range source of drinkable water.

Policy RC-6-a Regional Efforts. Support cooperative, multi-agency regional water resource planning efforts and activities on developing and implementing the Upper Kings Basin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan.

Policy RC-6-b
Water Plans. Adopt and implement ordinances, standards, and policies to achieve the intent of the City of Fresno Urban Water Management Plan, Fresno-Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan, and City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan to ensure a dependable supply of water.

Policy RC-6-c
Land Use and Development Compliance. Ensure that land use and development projects adhere to the objective of the Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plant provide sustainable and reliable water supplies to meet the demand of existing and future customers through 2025.

Policy RC-6-d Recycled Water. Prepare, Adopt, and implement a City of Fresno Recycled Water Master Plan.

Policy RC-6-e
Protect Aquifer. Oppose urban development in unincorporated areas that are not served by a wastewater treatment/management system capable of preventing the buildup of compounds that would degrade the aquifer.

Policy RC-6-f
Regulate Sewage Disposal Facilities. Oppose development of new sewage disposal facilities either within the Planning Area or upgradient (north and east) of the Planning Area, unless the treatment facilities produce effluent that:
• Will not degrade the aquifer in the long term;
• Will not introduce contaminants into surface water that would negatively affect its potential economic use for drinking water;
• Will not deleteriously affect downstream agricultural and urban uses; and • Will not degrade sensitive riparian habitat.

Policy RC-6-g Protect Recharge Areas. Continue to protect areas of beneficial natural groundwater recharge by preventing uses that can contaminate soil or groundwater.

Policy RC-6-h
Conditions of Approval. Include in the Development Code standards for imposing conditions of approval for development projects to ensure long-term maintenance of adequate clean water resources. Require findings that adequate water supply must exist prior to any discretionary project approval for residential and commercial development requiring annexation, as required by law.

Policy PRC-6-i Natural Recharge. Support removal of concrete from existing canals and change the practice of lining new and existing canals with concrete to allow for natural recharge.

Objective RC-7 Promote water conservation through standards, incentives and capital investments.

Policy RC-7-a
Water Conservation Program Target. Maintain a comprehensive conservation program to help reduce per capita water usage in the city’s water service area to 243 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) by 2020 and 190 gpcd by 2035, by adopting conservation standards and implementing a program of incentives, design and operation standards, and user fees.
• Support programs that result in decreased water demand, such as landscaping standards that require drought-tolerant plants, rebates for water conserving devices and systems, turf replacement, xeriscape landscape for new homes, irrigation controllers, commercial/industrial/institutional water conserving programs, prioritized leak detection program, complete water system audit, landscape water audit and budget program, and retrofit upon resale ordinance.
• Implement the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Best Management Practices for water conservation as necessary to maintain the City’s surface water entitlements. • Adopt and implement policies in the event that an artificial lake is proposed for development. • Work cooperatively toward effective uniform water conservation measures that would apply throughout the Plan Area.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-14 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.9-2 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
• Expand efforts to educate the public about water supply issues and water conservation techniques.

Policy RC-7-c Best Practices for Conservation. Require all City facilities and all new private development to follow U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation Best Management Practices for water conservation, as warranted and appropriate.

Policy RC-7-d Update Standards for New Development. Continue to refine water saving and conservation standards for new development.

Policy RC-7-e
Retrofit City Facilities, and Consider Incentives Programs to Encourage Retrofitting of Other Existing Public and Private Residential and Non-Residential Facilities and Sites. Reduce water use in municipal buildings and City operations by developing a schedule and budget for the retrofit of existing municipal buildings with water conservation features, such as auto shut-off faucets and water saving irrigation systems. Prepare a comprehensive incentive program for other existing public and private residential and non-residential buildings and irrigation systems.

Policy RC-7-f
Implementation and Update Conservation Program. Continue to implement the City of Fresno Water Conservation Program, as may be updated, and periodically update restrictions on water uses, such as lawn and landscape watering and the filling of fountains and swimming pools, and penalties for violations. Evaluate the feasibility of a 2035 conservation target of 190 gpcd in the next comprehensive update of the City of Fresno Water Conservation Program.

Policy RC-7-g Educate on State Requirements. Educate the residents and businesses of Fresno on the requirements of the California Water Conservation Act of 2009.

Policy RC-7-h
Landscape Water Conservation Standards. Refine landscape water conservation standards that will apply to new development installed landscapes, building on the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and other State regulations.
• Evaluate and apply, as appropriate, augmented xeriscape, “waterwise,” and “green gardening” practices to be implemented in public and private landscaping design and maintenance. • Facilitate implementation of the State’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by developing alternative compliance measures that are easy to understand and observe.

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

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

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

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

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 Friant Dam is about 19 miles north of the Plan Area, upstream from the Plan Area; while the Mendota Dam is approximately 31 miles west and downstream from the Plan Area. Millerton Lake is impounded behind Friant Dam. The Pine Flat Dam is a flood control dam on the Kings River about 28 miles east, and upstream, from the Plan Area.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-15
Other flood control reservoirs and detention basins in the Upper Dry Subbasin include the Redbank Dam and the Redbank-Fancher Creeks Flood Control Project, which consists of two dams (Big Dry Creek Dam and Fancher Creek Dam); three detention basins (Redbank Creek, Pup Creek, and Alluvial Drain Detention Basins); and canals to convey discharges in and around the City of Fresno. These facilities were designed to protect developed areas from a 200-year storm event. 15 Nearly the entire Plan Area is within the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s urban flood control system consisting of 158 drainage areas, each 1 to 2 square miles in area; all but five of the drainage areas are served by a detention or retention basin.16
Local Surface Waters and Drainage
Stormwater collection in the Plan areas begins in the street gutters that convey runoff to storm drain inlets. The gutters, as well as all public streets and sidewalks, are maintained by the City of Fresno Street Maintenance Division. The runoff is then collected in drop inlets and conveyed to the District’s pipe networks, pump stations, and infiltration basins that recharge stormwater to the groundwater aquifer. 17 Typically, all the runoff from the Plan areas is recharged to the groundwater table. However, when storms generate larger volumes of runoff than these basins can handle, it overflows into a network of relief channels that discharge to the San Joaquin River, its tributary streams, or local agricultural canals.

The Plan Area encompasses all or part of each of the following drainage areas: AS, NN, ZZ, FF, OO, TT, SS, KK, CQ, and AV. Drainage area acreages and retention basin capacities in acre-feet are listed below in Table 4.9-3. Note that the drainage area studied for the proposed Plan spans 5,859 acres including areas upstream and downstream of the Plan Area; the whole area studied is addressed in Table 4.9-3. FMFCD basins have capacity for a two-year storm and for at least 60 percent of average annual rainfall. When necessary, FMFCD can move water from a basin in one such drainage area to a second such basin by pumping water into a street and letting water flow in curb and gutter to a storm drain inlet in an adjoining drainage area.
18 FMFCD has based planning for the drainage areas using the General Plan land use classifications for each drainage area. Beyond planning, the basins have been located, sized and in most cases basin property acquisition has been completed. FMFCD guidelines allow a 20 percent change in required volume before FMFCD is required to resize the basin and either enlarge or change the location of the affected basin.19
15 City of Fresno, 2016a. DRAFT Environmental Impact Report City of Fresno Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan, Fulton Corridor Specific Plan, and Downtown Development Code City of Fresno, Fresno County, California, https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/The-Environment-Impact-Report.pdf, accessed June 20, 2017.16 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), 2017. Urban System, http://www.fresnoflood control.org/new-urban-system-layout/, accessed June 23, 2017. 17 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), 2017. Urban System. 18 Rourke, Daniel, Environmental Resources Manager, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District. Phone call with PlaceWorks, April 11, 2014. 19 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), 2013. Storm Water Facts: Urban Storm Drain Service, http://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/flood_control_system/urban%20system/urban%20storm%20drain%20service.pdf, accessed June 23, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-16 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.9-3 DRAINAGE AREAS AND RETENTION BASIN CAPACITIES Drainage Area Acres
GP Required
Basin Volume
(Acre-Feet)
Basin AR 0.5 0.23
Basin AS 637 126.06
Basin AU 376 70.76
Basin AV 526 178.00
Basin CE 0 0.0
Basin CP 311 61.97
Basin CQ 220 46.76
Basin FF 273 62.68
Basin II1 168 39.88
Basin KK 250 79.83
Basin NN 789 170.92
Basin OO 113 33.49
Basin RR 12.4 1.41
Basin SS 520 117.44
Basin TT 563 140.39
Basin ZZ 225 57.59
Exempt 101 43.86
Out of Drainage Area 774 115.03
Total 5,859 1,346.3
In addition to the above-described FMFCD urban flood control system, several Fresno Irrigation District canals and pipelines cross the Plan Area: from northwest to southeast, the Dry Creek Canal, Fanning Ditch, and Fresno Colony Canal.

Surface Water Uses
Municipal Use
The City began to use surface water as a source of potable water supply in 2004, when the Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (NESWTF) became operational and began delivering approximately 20 million gallons per day (mgd) of potable water to residents of northeast Fresno. In 2015, the facility produced 25 percent of the City’s potable water supply. Surface water starts as snow melt in the Sierra Nevada before traveling down the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers via Millerton Lake and Pine Flat Reservoir.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-17
These locations serve as temporary storage locations before the surface water is delivered via the Enterprise Canal to the NESWTF, where the water is treated to drinking water standards.

The NESWTF has 30 mgd capacity. The City plans to expand the facility to 60 mgd capacity by about 2035; the schedule will be adjusted as needed based on water demands. A pipeline from the Friant-Kern Canal to the NESWTF is under construction, with completion anticipated in October 2017.20 Once the pipeline is complete, the NESWTF will be capable of year-round operation.

The City of Fresno has also started construction of a Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (SESWTF) in southeast Fresno, which will have 54 mgd capacity after its scheduled opening in 2018 with an ultimate capacity of 80 mgd.
21 Agricultural Irrigation
The Fresno Irrigation District (FID) serves a 383-square-mile area in Fresno County, centered on metropolitan Fresno, with surface water from the Kings and San Joaquin rivers.22 Total FID water diversions from the two rivers in normal years are estimated to average about 426,000 acre-feet per year (afy).
23 Millerton Lake is a component of the Central Valley Project that conveys water to farmland and cities in the Central Valley.

Surface Water Quality
The portion of the San Joaquin River in the City of Fresno’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) is listed on the State Water Resources Control Board’s 2010 Impaired Water Bodies/303(d) List for invasive fish species. No surface water bodies in or near the Plan Area are listed on the 303(d) List.24 Groundwater
The Plan Area is underlain by the Kings Groundwater Subbasin that spans 1,530 square miles of central Fresno County and small areas of northern Kings and Tulare counties. Figure 4.9-4 shows that the basin is bounded on the north by the San Joaquin River, on the west by the Delta-Mendota and Westside Subbasins, on the south by the Kings River South Fork and the Empire West Side Irrigation District, and on the east by the Sierra Nevada foothills.
20 City of Fresno, 2017. Friant-Kern Canal Pipeline, http://www.rechargefresno.com/fkc/, accessed June 20, 2017. 21 City of Fresno, 2016b. City of Fresno 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/ public/uwmp_attachments/2174955070/City%20of%20Fresno%202015%20UWMP%5Fadopted%2Epdf, accessed June 20 2017. 22 Fresno Irrigation District (FID), 2017. History of the District, http://www.fresnoirrigation.com/index.php?id=5, accessed June 20, 2017. 23 City of Fresno, 2016b. City of Fresno 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. 24 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2017. Impaired Water Bodies, http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2012.shtml, accessed June 20, 2017.

Figure 4.9-4
Kings Groundwater Subbasin
Source: California Department of Water Resources, 2017; PlaceWorks, 2017.

CITY OF FRESNO

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
Madera
Clovis
Fresno
Sanger
Reedley
Selma
Dinuba
0 5 2.5 10
Miles

PLACEWORKS
Southwest Fresno SP Boundary Kings Groundwater Subbasin Sa n Joaquin River
Fresno Sloug h
Ki n gs River
%&'(5
·|}þ99
·|}þ152
·|}þ41
Sierra Nevada
San Joaquin Valley
Kings Gr
Source: California Department of Water Resources, 2017; PlaceWorks, 2017.

Madera
Clovis
Fresno
Sanger
Reed
Selma
0 2.5 5 10
Miles

PLACEWORKS
Southwest Fresno SP Boundary Kings Groundwater Subbasin Sa n Joaquin River
Fresno Sloug h
Ki n gs River
%&'(5
·|}þ99
·|}þ152
·|}þ41
San Joaquin Valley
Source: California Department of Water Resources, 2017; PlaceWorks, 2017.

Figure 4.9-4
Kings Groundwater Subbasin

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

PLACEWORKS

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-19
Groundwater Supplies and Uses
The Kings Subbasin has been identified as critically overdrafted—that is, groundwater has been pumped out of the Subbasin faster than water is recharged into the Subbasin. 25 The groundwater level under
Fresno has dropped at a historic rate of 1.6 feet per year. In the past 80 years, the water level has decreased from 30 feet below ground surface (bgs) to more than 128 feet bgs. 26 The depth to
groundwater under the Plan Area in Spring 2017 ranged from approximately 90 to 100 feet bgs.27 Groundwater varies annually from 88 to 81 percent of the City’s water supplies. Average annual pumping is about 100 mgd.28 Groundwater is expected to decline to about 41 percent of the City’s water supplies by 2040 as additional surface water becomes available from the two Surface Water Treatment Facilities and as recycled water use increases. Recycled water use for agricultural and landscape irrigation and industrial uses is forecast to expand from 8,762 afy in 2015 to 38,600 afy in 2040. 29 Groundwater currently comprises the entire municipal water supply within the Plan Area. 30 When the
SESWTF begins operation in 2018, Plan Area water supplies will consist of both groundwater and treated surface water.

Groundwater Recharge
Groundwater used by the City of Fresno is recharged through natural recharge from rainfall and surface water; subsurface inflow from surrounding areas; and intentional recharge.

Natural recharge in the Fresno Metropolitan Area was about 25,400 afy in 2015. Subsurface inflow into the aquifer below the City was estimated as about 47,100 afy in 2015.31 Groundwater is intentionally recharged in the Fresno metropolitan area through Leaky Acres, the City’s main recharge facility; FMFCD retention basins throughout the region; the Alluvial Groundwater Recharge System owned and operated by the City of Clovis; and percolation basins recharging treated wastewater from the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility. Average intentional recharge between 2000 and 2013 was about 50,000 afy. Total estimated groundwater yield in 2015 was 125,600 acre-feet. 32 25 City of Fresno, 2016b. City of Fresno 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. 26 City of Fresno, 2016a. DRAFT Environmental Impact Report City of Fresno Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan, Fulton Corridor Specific Plan, and Downtown Development Code City of Fresno, Fresno County, California. 27 Department of Water Resources, 2017. Groundwater Information Center Map Interactive Map Application, https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/gicima/, accessed July 11, 2017. 28 City of Fresno, 2016a. DRAFT Environmental Impact Report City of Fresno Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan, Fulton Corridor Specific Plan, and Downtown Development Code City of Fresno, Fresno County, California. 29 City of Fresno, 2016b. City of Fresno 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. 30 City of Fresno, 2015. Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Existing Conditions Profile. Chapter 7: Infrastructure. 31 City of Fresno, 2016b. City of Fresno 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. 32 City of Fresno, 2016b. City of Fresno 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-20 AUGUST 2017
Groundwater Quality
City of Fresno
Citywide groundwater currently meets the primary and secondary drinking water standards for municipal use. Known contaminants include dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), ethylene dibromide (EDB), trichloropropane (TCP), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE), nitrate, manganese, radon, chloride, and iron. 33 Most of the groundwater
contaminants in the Fresno area are being addressed by responsible parties through assessment and remediation, and some are in advanced stages of mitigation. The responsible parties of many of the point source contaminants (i.e., hydrocarbons and VOCs) are working with State (Regional Water quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control) and local (Fresno County Environmental Health Department) agencies to remediate the contaminants. Area wide contaminants are being addressed via wellhead treatment (DBCP) and plans are underway to address others, such as nitrate.34 Plan Area
Nitrate is a contaminant in wells within the Plan Area, ranging from 20 to 40 milligrams per liter (mg/L) concentrations. Concentrations greater than 10 mg/L exceed US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Drinking Water Standards. Wellhead treatment has been installed at wells that require treatment to meet drinking water standards.
35 Flood Control
Flood Zones
The Dry Creek Canal is mapped as a 100-year flood zone, as is an approximately 11.3-acre area is in Retention Basin ZZ next to the north side of the Dry Creek Canal and east of Hughes Avenue. The mapped flood zone there does not pose a flood hazard to developed land uses. The balance of the Plan Area is outside of 100-year flood zones.36
Levees
The Plan Area is not mapped in an area protected from 100-year floods by levees.37 33 City of Fresno, 2015. Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Existing Conditions Profile. Chapter 7: Infrastructure. 34 Fresno Irrigation District, 2006. Fresno Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan, http://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/water_resources/Fresno%20Area%20Regional%20GWMP%20Final.pdf, accessed July 25, 2017.35 City of Fresno, 2015. Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Existing Conditions Profile. Chapter 7: Infrastructure. 36 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2017. FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer (Official), https://msc.fema.gov/portal, accessed June 23, 2017. 37 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2017. FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer (Official).

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-21
Dam Inundation
The Plan Area is in the dam inundation area for Big Dry Creek Dam, on Big Dry Creek about 12.5 miles northeast of the Plan Area.
38 Big Dry Creek Dam is an earth-fill flood-control dam built by the US Army Corps of Engineers in 1948 and owned and operated by the FMFCD. The dam controls up to 230-year floods on Big Dry and Dog creeks and can impound up to 30,200 acre-feet of water.39 An expanded drain was installed at the base of the downstream side of the dam in 2014 to prevent potential damage to the dam from seepage under the dam.40 In addition to recent improvement to the dam, the dam is inspected annually by the California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams.

Seiche
A seiche is a surface wave created when an inland water body is shaken, usually by an earthquake. The nearest water body to the Plan Area capable of generating a seiche is Big Dry Creek Reservoir about 13 miles to the northeast.41 The potential for failure of Big Dry Creek Dam is addressed above under Dam Inundation.

Tsunami
A tsunami is an ocean wave caused by a sudden displacement of the ocean floor, most often due to earthquakes. The Plan Area is about 107 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and is at elevation ranging from about 283 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the east boundary to 263 feet amsl at the southwest corner of the Plan Area. There is no tsunami flood hazard on-site.

Mudflow
A mudflow is a landslide composed of saturated rock debris and soil with a consistency of wet cement.

The Plan Area is flat; most of the Plan Area has a southwest slope of about 0.1 percent grade. There are no slopes on or near the Plan Area capable of generating a mudflow.

4.9.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed Plan would result in a significant aesthetic impact if it would:

1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. 38 Takemoto, Jarrod, Rural Streams Program Manager, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District. Email to PlaceWorks, July 5, 2017. 39 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), 2017. Flood Control Program, http://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/ flood_control_system/rural%20system/flood%20control%20pgrm.pdf, accessed July 5, 2017. 40 Takemoto, Jarrod, Rural Streams Program Manager, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District. Email to PlaceWorks, July 5, 2017. 41 City of Fresno, 2016a. DRAFT Environmental Impact Report City of Fresno Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan, Fulton Corridor Specific Plan, and Downtown Development Code City of Fresno, Fresno County, California.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-22 AUGUST 2017

2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted.

3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site.

4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site.

5. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.

7. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.

8. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.

9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.

10. Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

4.9.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
HYD-1 Buildout of the proposed Plan would not violate any water quality standards or discharge requirements.

Construction Impacts
Clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities could impact water quality through soil erosion and increased silt and debris discharged into runoff. Additionally, the use of construction materials such as fuels, solvents, and paints may present a risk to surface water quality. Temporary storage of construction materials and equipment in work areas or staging areas could involve a release of hazardous materials, trash, or sediment to the storm drain system.

The proposed Plan would permit total development intensity on-site of up to 5,923 residential units; about 1.547 million square feet of commercial (retail and mixed use) uses; about 749,000 square feet of employment (office) uses; 75 acres of parks; and 118 acres or 1.44 million square feet of public facilities.

Pollutants of Concern from Construction Projects
Contaminants that can be released by construction projects and can contaminate stormwater include sediment, nutrients, bacteria and viruses, oil and grease, metals, organic (carbon-based) compounds,

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-23
oxygen-demanding substances, pesticides, and trash and debris. Organic compounds are found in pesticides, solvents, and hydrocarbons. Oxygen-demanding substances include proteins, carbohydrates, and fats; microbial degradation of such substances increases oxygen demand in water.42 Construction Water Quality Requirements
Construction projects of 1 acre or more would be required to comply with the General Construction Permit, Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ, issued by the SWRCB in 2012. Projects obtain coverage by developing and implementing a SWPPP estimating sediment risk from construction activities to receiving waters, and specifying BMPs that would be used by the project to minimize pollution of stormwater. Categories of BMPs used in SWPPPs are described above in Table 4.9-1. Construction-related impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Impacts
The entire Plan Area is in areas served by FMFCD retention basins. Operation of projects developed under the proposed Plan could generate the same categories of pollutants that construction could. Water quality treatment for post-construction discharges to stormwater in the FMFCD urban flood control system area is provided by retention basins. Land development in the FMFCD Master Plan area is exempt from further water quality requirements provided that the FMFCDs Storm Water Quality Management Plan is implemented.

Storm drainage improvements are funded by local drainage fees paid by developments and are built by the FMFCD, by developers, or both. Basins are highly effective at reducing average concentrations of a broad range of contaminants, including several polyaromatic hydrocarbons, total suspended solids, and most metals. Pollutants are removed by filtration through soil, and thus don’t reach the groundwater aquifer. Basins are built to design criteria exceeding Statewide Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan standards.
43 The urban flood control system provides treatment for all types of development. Operational impacts would be less than significant.

Specific Plan Goals and Policies
The proposed Plan sets forth the following goals and policies applicable to drainage and water quality:

Goal T-12: Improve storm water quality through transportation infrastructure improvements.

Policy T12.1 Coordinate with the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) Master Plan to incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) storm water management techniques with curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements.
42 California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), 2003. Stormwater Best Management Practice: Construction Handbook, January. 43 City of Fresno, 2016a. DRAFT Environmental Impact Report City of Fresno Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan, Fulton Corridor Specific Plan, and Downtown Development Code City of Fresno, Fresno County, California.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-24 AUGUST 2017
Policy T12.2 Manage stormwater on-site to cleanse, diffuse, and absorb rainwater where it falls by creating rain gardens, swales, infiltration areas, and other attractive areas that bring nature and beauty into developed areas.

Policy T12.3 Work with FMFCD to reduce or waive development impact fees if LID development is implemented on-site.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HYD-2.1 Buildout of the Specific Plan would increase water demands in the City, thus increasing demands for groundwater.

At buildout of the proposed Plan water demands on-site are estimated at 7.35 million gallons per day (mgpd), an increase of about 0.22 mgpd—or 3 percent—compared to General Plan buildout conditions.

The City of Fresno Water Division (FWD) supplies water to the Plan Area. Groundwater comprises the entire municipal water supply on-site. For FWDs entire service area—encompassing most of the City of Fresno—groundwater comprises about 81 to 88 percent of municipal water supplies; and is forecast to constitute about 41 percent of supplies in 2040.44
The City of Fresno forecasts that it will have sufficient water supplies for demands in its service area over the 2020-2040 period in normal, single-dry-year, and multiple-dry-year conditions. The smallest forecast water supply surplus during that period is 6,100 afy, which would occur in 2035 in single-dry-year and multiple-dry-year conditions. The estimated net increase in water demands due to buildout of the proposed Plan compared to General Plan Horizon buildout on-site—about 0.22 mgpd—is within the estimated Citywide water surplus in the two dry-condition scenarios analyzed during the 2020-2040 period.45 Therefore, impacts on groundwater supplies would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: less than significant.

HYD-2.2 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge.

Runoff from proposed land uses would be directed to retention basins where it would infiltrate into soil.

The retention basins have capacity for a two-year storm and for at least 60 percent of average annual rainfall. Retention basin capacities required at buildout of the proposed Plan are listed below in Table

4.9-4. While buildout would require additional capacity in 6 of the 14 basins in the area studied, the increase would be less than 20 percent for each of the six basins. FMFCD guidelines allow a 20 percent change in required volume before FMFCD is required to resize the basin and either enlarge or change the 44 City of Fresno, 2016b. City of Fresno 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. 45 Water supplies and demands on-site and in FWD’s entire service area are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.15, Utility Systems, of this Draft EIR.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-25
TABLE 4.9-4 RETENTION BASIN CAPACITIES
Drainage Area Acres
GP Required Basin
Volume
(Acre-Feet)
Specific Plan
Required Basin
Volume
(Acre-Feet)
Difference,
Percent
Basin AR 0.5 0.23 .23 0.0%
Basin AS 637 126.06 130.79 3.8%
Basin AU 376 70.76 81.07 14.6%
Basin AV 526 178.00 148.92 -16.3%
Basin CE 0 0.0 0.0% 0.0%
Basin CP 311 61.97 53.82 -13.2%
Basin CQ 220 46.76 52.25 11.8%
Basin FF 273 62.68 62.68 0.0%
Basin II1 168 39.88 41.51 4.1%
Basin KK 250 79.83 73.61 -7.8%
Basin NN 789 170.92 163.35 -4.4%
Basin OO 113 33.49 33.46 0.0%
Basin RR 12.4 1.41 1.41 0.0%
Basin SS 520 117.44 119.28 1.6%
Basin TT 563 140.39 138.85 -3.9%
Basin ZZ 225 57.59 61.34 6.5%
Exempt 101 43.86 43.74 -.3%
Out of Drainage Area 774 115.03 144.97 26.0%
Total 5,859 1,346.3 1347.3 0.1%
location of the affected basin.46 Therefore, no construction of new or expanded basins would be required to accommodate runoff from buildout, and the impact would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HYD-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not substantially change the drainage pattern on and surrounding the project site, and would not cause substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. 46 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD), 2013. Storm Water Facts: Urban Storm Drain Service.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-26 AUGUST 2017
Drainage Pattern
The drainage pattern in the Plan Area would remain similar to current conditions through buildout of the proposed Plan. Runoff from developed properties would be conveyed in curb and gutter to storm drain inlets, and then through storm drains to FMFCD retention basins where the runoff would be infiltrated into soil. Retention basin capacities required for buildout of the proposed Plan are listed in Table 4.9-4.

Existing retention basins have been sized for General Plan Buildout. As shown above under Impact HYD2.2, implementation of the proposed Plan would not require construction of new or expanded basins.

Proposed Storm Drains
The FMFCD Urban Storm Drainage Master Plan includes several proposed storm drains on-site shown on Figure 4.9-2.

Erosion and Siltation
Erosion is the movement of soil from place to place, and is a natural process. The main natural agents of erosion in the region are wind and flowing water. Erosion can be accelerated dramatically by grounddisturbing activities if effective erosion control measures are not used. Soil can be tracked off construction sites by vehicles, as well as carried off sites by wind and water. Siltation is the settling of sediment to the bed of a stream or lake. Sediments can increase the turbidity (cloudiness) of water, clog fish gills, reduc spawning habitat, lower survival rates of young aquatic organisms, smother bottom-dwelling organisms, and suppress aquatic vegetation growth.47
Portions of the Plan Area are currently in agricultural use. At buildout of the proposed Plan these areas would be developed with land uses consisting of buildings, paved areas, and ornamental and recreational landscaping. Bare soil on farmland (such as between rows or trees) is more susceptible to erosion than developed urban land. Thus, buildout of the proposed Plan is expected to cause some reduction in erosion on-site. FMFCD retention basins are highly effective at removing total suspended solids including sediment. Implementation of proposed Plan policies T12.1, T12.2, and T12.3 would reduce erosion and siltation impacts. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Plan would not substantially change the drainage pattern on and surrounding the project site, and would not cause substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, and the impact would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HYD-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not substantially change the drainage pattern on and surrounding the project site and would not cause flooding on- or off-site.
47 California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), 2003. Stormwater Best Management Practice: Construction Handbook, January.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-27
Impacts on the drainage pattern are addressed above under Impact HYD-3.

Implementation of the proposed Plan would increase the amount of impermeable land surfaces on-site and thus increase runoff from the Plan Area.

FMFCD basins have capacity for a two-year storm and for at least 60 percent of average annual rainfall.

When necessary, FMFCD can move water from a basin in one such drainage area to a second such basin by pumping water into a street and letting water flow in curb and gutter to a storm drain inlet in an adjoining drainage area.48 FMFCD guidelines allow a 20 percent change in required volume before FMFCD is required to resize the basin and either enlarge or change the location of the affected basin. As shown above in Table 4.9-3, buildout of the proposed Plan would not require an increase in volume of 20 percent or more in any of the basins serving the Plan Area; and thus would not require construction of any new or expanded basins. The FMFCD Urban Storm Drainage Master Plan includes several proposed storm drains on-site.

Minimum finish floor elevations in all developments under the proposed Plan would be above flood pool elevations at the affected sites; and such projects would be designed and graded so as not to impede the flow of flood waters through or around their sites. These requirements are set forth in Fresno General Plan Noise and Safety Element PolicyNS-3-h (see Table 4.9-2 above). Therefore, implementation of the proposed Plan would not substantially change the drainage pattern on and surrounding the project site and would not cause flooding on- or off-site, and the impact would be less than significant.

Specific Plan Policies
Implementation of Specific Plan policies T12.1, T12.2, and T12.3 would reduce flooding impacts.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HYD-5 Buildout of the proposed Plan would not generate runoff exceeding the capacity of existing or planned storm drainage systems, or generate a substantial increase in polluted runoff
Runoff and Storm Drainage Capacity
Impacts on runoff and storm drainage capacity would be less than significant, as substantiated above under Impact HYD-4.

Polluted Runoff
Water quality impacts would be less than significant, as substantiated above under Impact HYD-1. 48 Rourke, Daniel, Environmental Resources Manager, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District. Phone call with PlaceWorks, April 11, 2014.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-28 AUGUST 2017
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HYD-6 Buildout of the proposed Plan would not substantially degrade water quality.

Water quality impacts would be less than significant, as substantiated above under Impact HYD-1.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HYD-7 Buildout of the proposed Plan would not place housing in a 100-year flood hazard area.

The Dry Creek Canal and an approximately 11.3-acre area in Retention Basin ZZ are mapped in 100-year flood zones; the balance of the Plan Area is outside of such zones. Dry Creek Canal is owned and operated by FID for conveyance of agricultural irrigation water; Basin ZZ is owned and operated by FMFCD as a retention and flood control basin. Neither area is available for development with other land uses, or is designated for such development under the proposed Plan. Implementation of the proposed Plan would not place housing in a 100-year flood zone, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HYD-8 Buildout of the proposed Plan would not place structures which would redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood zone.

The two areas within the Plan Area within 100-year flood zones are the Dry Creek Canal and part of FMFCD Basin ZZ. Implementation of the proposed Plan would not place structures in a 100-year flood zone that would redirect flood flows, and impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HYD-9 The Plan Area is not in dam inundation areas or mapped as protected from 100-year floods by levees. Buildout of the proposed Plan would not expose people or structures to flood hazard due to dam inundation.

Dam Inundation
The Plan Area is in the dam inundation area for Big Dry Creek Dam, on Big Dry Creek about 12.5 miles northeast of the Plan Area.
49 An expanded drain was installed at the base of the downstream side of the 49 Takemoto, Jarrod, Rural Streams Program Manager, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District. Email to PlaceWorks, July 5, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-29
dam in 2014 to prevent potential damage to the dam from seepage under the dam.50 In addition, the dam is inspected annually by the California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams.

Considering recent improvements to, and periodic inspections of the dam, the potential for dam failure is considered slight, and buildout of the proposed Plan would not exacerbate flood hazards due to dam inundation, and impacts would be less than significant.

Levee Failure
No areas within the Plan Area are mapped as protected from 100-year floods by levees.51 Buildout of the proposed Plan would not place people or structures at risk from flooding due to levee failure.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HYD-10 The Plan Area is not susceptible to flooding due to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Buildout of the proposed Plan would not subject people or structures to such flood hazards.

Seiche
A seiche is a surface wave created when an inland water body is shaken, usually by an earthquake. The nearest water body to the Plan Area capable of generating a seiche is Big Dry Creek Reservoir about 13 miles to the northeast.
52 The Plan Area is not in the dam inundation area for Big Dry Creek Dam.

Tsunami
A tsunami is an ocean wave caused by a sudden displacement of the ocean floor, most often due to earthquakes. The Plan Area is about 107 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and is at elevation ranging from about 283 feet amsl at the east boundary to 263 feet amsl at the southwest corner of the Plan Area.

There is no tsunami flood hazard within the Plan Area.

Mudflow
A mudflow is a landslide composed of saturated rock debris and soil with a consistency of wet cement.

The Plan Area is flat; most of the Plan Area has a southwest slope of about 0.1 percent grade. There are no slopes on or near the Plan Area capable of generating a mudflow.

Buildout of the proposed Plan would not subject people or structures to any of the above three types of flood hazards, and impacts would be less than significant. 50 Takemoto, Jarrod, Rural Streams Program Manager, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District. Email to PlaceWorks, July 5, 2017.
51 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2017. FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer (Official). 52 City of Fresno, 2016a. DRAFT Environmental Impact Report City of Fresno Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan, Fulton Corridor Specific Plan, and Downtown Development Code City of Fresno, Fresno County, California.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-30 AUGUST 2017
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.9.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
HYD-11 Buildout of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not cause significant cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality.

Surface Water, Drainage, and Flooding
The area considered for cumulative impacts to surface water, drainage, and flooding is the Upper Dry Subbasin, which spans about 2,126 square miles in much of western Fresno County and small portions of Kings and San Benito counties (see Figure 4.9-3).

Other projects in the watershed would develop increased impermeable surfaces, thus increasing runoff to surface waters and storm drainage systems.

Other projects would be required to comply with the FMFCD Storm Water Quality Management Program (in FMFCDs Master Plan Area), or with the region-wide MS4 permit (Order No. R5-2016-0040 issued by the Central Valley RWQCB in 2016). Projects outside the FMFCDs urban flood control system would be required to infiltrate or treat stormwater pursuant to the MS4 permit.

The City and County of Fresno each have policies limiting and regulating development in 100-year flood zones.

Cumulative hydrology and flooding impacts would be less than significant after compliance with the SWQMP and MS4 permit, and project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Groundwater Supply and Recharge
Cumulative groundwater impacts are analyzed in the Kings River Subbasin spanning about 1,530 square miles of central Fresno County and small areas of northern Kings and Tulare counties (see Figure 4.9-4).

Other projects would develop impervious areas and would thus generate increased runoff. Most runoff within the FMFCD urban flood control system area is recharged into the groundwater basin via retention basins. Projects outside the FMFCDs urban flood control system would be required to infiltrate or treat stormwater. Cumulative groundwater impacts would be less than significant after compliance with the SWQMP and/or MS4 permit, and project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Water Quality
The area considered for cumulative water quality impacts is the approximately 400-square-mile FMFCD Master Plan Area, including metropolitan Fresno and extending northeast into the Sierra Nevada

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-31
foothills.
53 Projects within the FMFCD Master Plan area are exempt from further operational water quality requirements provided that the FMFCD Storm Water Quality Management Plan is implemented. Projects outside the Master Plan area would be required to infiltrate or treat stormwater. Construction projects 1 acre or larger would be required to prepare and implement Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans pursuant to the Statewide General Construction Permit. Cumulative water quality impacts would be less than significant after compliance with the SWQMP, and project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant. 53 The entire Central Valley RWQCB region is about 60,000 square miles—stretching from the north edges of Los Angeles and Ventura counties to the Oregon border; thus, cumulative analysis of water quality impacts is focused on the smaller FMFCD Master Plan area.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-1

4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This chapter describes the existing land use character of the Plan Area and evaluates the potential land use and policy consistency impacts of future development that could occur by adopting and implementing the proposed Plan, with regard to potentially significant direct and indirect environmental impacts related to land use and planning.

4.10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

4.10.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section describes land use plans and policies relevant to the Plan Area. As described below, plans and policies related to air quality, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, public services and recreation, and transportation and traffic are described in the respective topical chapters of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

State Regulations
Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) allows local governments to enter into voluntary contracts with private landowners to restrict specific parcels of land to agricultural uses. In return, restricted parcel property taxes are assessed at a rate consistent with their actual use rather than potential market value. The minimum length of a Williamson Act contract is ten years. Because the contract term automatically renews on each anniversary date of the contract, the actual contract length is essentially indefinite.

Quimby Act
The Quimby Act of 1965 is a State law that allows local legislative bodies to adopt requirements for the dedication of land for parks or recreational purposes, payment of fees in-lieu-of land dedication, or a combination of both, as a condition of approval for a subdivision. The requirements must be adopted by an ordinance, with definite standards for determining the amount of land dedicated, or fees paid, and the requirement must have a clear nexus to the use of the facilities by the future inhabitants of the subdivision. Project consistency with polices related to recreation is discussed in Chapter 4.14, Public Services, of this Draft EIR.

California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the primary State agency responsible for transportation issues. One of its duties is construction and maintenance of the State highway system.

Caltrans approves the planning, design, and construction of improvements for all State-controlled facilities. Caltrans has established standards for roadway traffic flow and developed procedures to determine if State-controlled facilities require improvements. For projects that may physically affect facilities under its administration, Caltrans requires encroachment permits before any construction work

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.10-2 AUGUST 2017
may be undertaken. For projects that would not physically affect facilities, but may influence traffic flow and levels of services at such facilities, Caltrans may recommend measures to mitigate traffic impacts of such projects. Consistency with the applicable policies and procedures set forth by Caltrans is discussed in Chapter 4.15, Transportation and Traffic, of this Draft EIR.

Local Regulations
This section describes City regulations and policies that pertain to land use in the City of Fresno.

Fresno General Plan
Table 4.10-1, located under Impact LU-2, contains a list of objectives that relate to land use in the Fresno General Plan.

Fresno Municipal Code
The City of Fresno Municipal Code was most recently updated on December 3, 2015. The Development Code is contained within Chapter 15 of the City’s Municipal Code and provides regulations of land and structures in order to protect and promote health, safety, and welfare of the public, and to ensure the orderly development of the city.

4.10.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
See Section 3.2.1 of Chapter 3, Project Description of this EIR for a description of the existing conditions and surrounding land use for the Plan Area.

4.10.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed Plan would result in a significant impact if it would:

1. Physically divide an established community.

2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

4.10.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
LU-1 Implementation of The proposed Plan would not physically divide an established community.

Implementation of the proposed Plan would have a significant environmental impact if it were sufficiently large enough or otherwise configured in such a way as to create a physical barrier or other physical division within an established community. A typical example would be a project which involved a

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-3
continuous right-of-way, such as a roadway, which would divide a community and impede access between parts of the community.

As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the existing land use pattern within the Plan Area consists of a patchwork of land uses that abut each other, including subdivisions, industry, and farmland. Many pockets of residential land uses are adjacent to vacant land, agriculture, and/or industrial uses. The implementation of the proposed Plan would enhance the connectivity from the existing uses within the Plan Area to adjacent land uses through improved vehicular roadways and pedestrian and bicycle paths and lanes, and develop a cohesive network of land uses that would result in greater connectivity within the Plan Area. Goal LU-2 seeks to revitalize existing key corridors in Southwest Fresno, building off the existing character and potential of the streets, to strengthen neighborhood identity and appeal, to attract new development, and to connect neighborhoods and magnets. Further, Policies LU-2.5, -2.6, and -2.7 encourage future development to be sited in a manner that connects the Plan Area to other areas of the city, such as Downtown.

Because the overall purpose of the proposed Plan is to refine the vision for the Plan Area established in the General Plan, as well as other infrastructure improvements required to accommodate new development, implementation of the proposed Plan would not adversely impact community connectivity nor divide the physical arrangement of the community. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

LU-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

The General Plan Guidelines published by the State Office of Planning and Research define consistency as follows: “An action, program, or project is consistent with the General Plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment.” Therefore, the standard for analysis used in this Draft EIR is based on general agreement with the policy language and furtherance of the policy intent (as determined by a review of the policy context). A comparison of the proposed Plan’s characteristics with all applicable objectives outlined in the General Plan as they relate to land use issues are presented in Table 4.10-1; as shown, the proposed Plan is consistent with these objectives. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would result in this respect.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.10-4 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.10-1 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Element General Plan Objective Consistency Summary
Economic
Development
ED‐1. Support economic development by maintaining a strong working relationship with the business community and improving the business climate for current and future businesses.

Consistent. The proposed Plan includes a guiding principle that supports economic development and improves the business climate in the City of Fresno by providing appropriate services, programs, and facilities to Southwest Fresno residents, including youth, with the goal of becoming better qualified for existing and future employment within Southwest Fresno.

Goal PF-7 encourages future job opportunities to shift from unskilled, lowwage jobs to skilled, higher-education jobs.

ED‐2. Support local business start‐ups and encourage innovation by improving access to resources and capital and help overcome obstacles hampering economic development.

Consistent. The proposed Plan includes policies to locate employment uses so that they do not conflict with residential areas and are conveniently accessible by multiple modes of transportation; policies also seek to attract desirable employment to Southwest Fresno by locating them near retail and regional access points.

ED‐3. Attract and recruit businesses and offer incentives for economic development.

Consistent. The proposed Plan land use vision seeksto guide the redevelopment of the Southwest Fresno area to create a vibrant community with a mix of new retail, office, and residential uses. Specifically, the Plan would create two higher intensity cores near major highway interchanges, each with a primary magnet use. These magnet cores would be ringed with smaller complete neighborhoods that support the core. Each complete neighborhood includes housing and a node with community-serving uses.

Neighborhoods would be linked by well-defined corridors lined with higher intensity uses. The Plan identifies desired commercial end uses and, in this sense, promotes Fresno as a potential location for these types of businesses.

ED‐4. Cultivate a skilled, educated, and well‐ trained workforce by increasing educational attainment and the relevant job skill levels in order to appeal to local and non‐local businesses.

Consistent. The proposed Plan identifies strategies to attracting, creating, and retaining jobs within Southwest Fresno, including:
 Preparing, mentoring, and training Southwest Fresno residents, including youth, to become better qualified for existing and future employment within Southwest Fresno by providing appropriate services, programs, and facilities.
 Encouraging future job opportunities to shift from unskilled, low-wage jobs to skilled, higher-education jobs.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-5
TABLE 4.10-1 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Element General Plan Objective Consistency Summary
Urban Form,
Land Use,
and Design
UF‐1. Emphasize the opportunity for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, and housing types.

Consistent. The proposed Plan seeks to implement the concept of a complete neighborhood, adopted from the General Plan. As such, the proposed Plan would create an urban form comprised of walkable, interconnected and selfsufficient neighborhoods. Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in the creation of a mix of high quality housing types, with an emphasis on single-family housing, that is affordable to low, moderate, and high-income households.

UF‐12. Locate roughly one‐half of future residential development in infill areas— defined as being within the City on December 31, 2012—including the Downtown core area and surrounding neighborhoods, mixed‐use centers and transit‐oriented development along major BRT corridors, and other non‐ corridor infill areas, and vacant land.

Consistent. The proposed Plan concentrates residential development within a series of small, complete neighborhoods, consistent with the General Plan concept of complete neighborhoods.

UF‐13. Locate roughly one‐half of future residential development in the Growth Areas—defined as unincorporated land as of December 31, 2012 SOI—which are to be developed with Complete Neighborhoods that include housing, services, and recreation; mixed‐use centers; or along future BRT corridors.

Consistent. The proposed Plan concentrates residential development within a series of small, complete neighborhoods, consistent with the General Plan concept of complete neighborhoods,
UF‐14. Create an urban form that facilitates multi‐modal connectivity. Consistent. The proposed Plan seeks to create an urban form that facilitates multi‐ modal connectivity throughout the City of Fresno and surrounding region.

LU‐2. Plan for infill development that includes a range of housing types, building forms, and land uses to meet the needs of both current and future residents.

Consistent. The proposed Plan provides for the development of a range of housing types, building forms, and land uses to meet the needs of both existing and future residents.

LU‐4. Enhance existing residential neighborhoods through regulations, code enforcement, and compatible infill development.

Consistent. The proposed Plan would allow for the enhancement of existing residential neighborhoods through regulations, code enforcement, and infill development.

LU‐5. Plan for a diverse housing stock that will support balanced urban growth, and make efficient use of resources and public facilities.

Consistent. The proposed Plan creates a diversity of housing types that will support balanced urban growth and the efficient use of resources and public facilities.

LU‐6. Retain and enhance existing commercial areas to strengthen Fresno’s economic base and site new office, retail, and lodging use districts to serve neighborhoods and regional visitors.

Consistent. Goal LU-2 of the proposed Plan revitalizes existing corridors in Southwest Fresno, including attracting and encouraging commercial development. Goal LU-7 promotes Southwest Fresno as an employment center with a mix of employment opportunities and types for residents and commuters.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.10-6 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.10-1 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Element General Plan Objective Consistency Summary
LU‐7. Plan and support industrial development to promote job growth. Consistent. Goal LU-8 of the proposed Plan supports long term sustainability of industrial uses by directing them outside the plan area, where they will not conflict with existing neighborhoods.

LU‐8. Provide for the development of civic and institutional land uses to meet the educational, medical, social, economic, cultural, and religious needs of the community.

Consistent. The proposed Plan includes land use designations for community commercial and public facilities uses. Goal LU-1 seeks to establish Southwest Fresno as an attractive and desirable community through the creation of activity centers that provide a variety of housing types and a compatible mix of non-residential uses such as recreation uses to Southwest Fresno residents and visitors.

LU‐9. Plan land uses, design, and development intensities to supplement and support, and not compete with, the Downtown.

Consistent. Policy LU-2.1 of the proposed Plan seeks to promote transitoriented development along corridors in a way that is supportive of the Downtown High-Speed Rail (HSR) station, while LU-2.5 seeks to attract and encourage higher-density mixed-use development along California Avenue, connecting to and supporting Downtown.

D‐1. Provide and maintain an urban image that creates a “sense of place” throughout Fresno.

Consistent. Goal LU-3 of the proposed Plan seeks to create a diversity of new complete neighborhoods that are safe, healthy, self-sufficient, walkable, and interconnected ,and strengthen existing neighborhoods so that they become a complete neighborhood.

D‐3. Create unified plans for Green Streets, using distinctive features reflecting Fresno’s landscape heritage.

Consistent. The proposed Plan includes development and design standards for the creation of green streets.

D‐4. Preserve and strengthen Fresno’s overall image through design review and create a safe, walkable and attractive urban environment for the current and future generations of residents.

Consistent. The proposed Plan seeks to create a diversity of new complete neighborhoods that are safe, healthy, self-sufficient, walkable, and interconnected, and strengthen existing neighborhoods so that they become a complete neighborhood. All future development within the Plan Area will be required to comply with the design regulations and policies of the proposed Plan and the Development Code.

D‐5. Maintain and improve community appearance through programs that prevent and abate blighting influences
Consistent. Goal LU-4 of the proposed Plan includes remediation of Southwest Fresno’s blighting conditions to improve the community’s image, attract private investment, and create a pleasant living environment.

D‐6. Encourage design that celebrates and supports the cultural and ethnic diversity of Fresno.

Consistent. The proposed Plan encourages design that celebrates and supports the cultural and ethnic diversity of Fresno.

D‐7. Continue applying local urban form, land use, and design policies to specific neighborhoods and locations.

Consistent. The proposed Plan seeks to create a diversity of new complete neighborhoods that are safe, healthy, self-sufficient, walkable, and interconnected, and strengthen existing neighborhoods so that they become a complete neighborhood. All future development within the Plan Area will be required to comply with the design regulations and policies of the

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-7
TABLE 4.10-1 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Element General Plan Objective Consistency Summary
proposed Plan and the Development Code
Mobility and
Transportation
MT‐1. Create and maintain a transportation system that is safe, efficient, provides access in an equitable manner, and optimizes travel by all modes.

Consistent. Goal T-6 of the proposed Plan seeks to develop the Southwest Fresno transit network into a viable transportation alternative to singleoccupancy vehicles, and provide equitable transit options to all residents.

MT‐2. Make efficient use of the City’s existing and proposed transportation system and strive to ensure the planning and provision of adequate resources to operate and maintain it.

Consistent. Goals T-6 and T-7 of the proposed Plan seek to make efficient use of the City’s existing transportation system and well as capitalizing on proposed improvements, such as Downtown’s proximity to the future High‐ Speed Rail Station.

MT‐4. Establish and maintain a continuous, safe, and easily accessible bikeways system throughout the metropolitan area to reduce vehicle use, improve air quality and the quality of life, and provide public health benefits.

Consistent. Goal T-8 of the proposed Plan seeks to invest in developing, improving, and maintaining a roadway network that provides safety and adequate capacity for automobiles and for walking, bicycling, and transit mobility. In addition, the plan includes a bicycle network that was adopted as part of the Active Transportation Plan
MT‐5. Establish a well‐integrated network of pedestrian facilities to accommodate safe, convenient, practical, and inviting travel by walking, including for those with physical mobility and vision impairments.

Consistent. Goal T-8 of the proposed Plan seeks to invest in developing, improving, and maintaining a roadway network that provides safety and adequate capacity for automobiles and for walking, bicycling, and transit mobility.

MT‐6. Establish a network of multi‐purpose pedestrian and bicycle paths, as well as limited access trails, to link residential areas to local and regional open spaces and recreation areas and urban Activity Centers in order to enhance Fresno’s recreational amenities and alternative transportation options.

Consistent. Goal T-5 of the proposed Plan seeks to create a separated, scenic, and well-connected multi-use trails network that provides Southwest Fresnans convenient access to nature and active recreational opportunities.

MT‐10. Establish parking standards that are strategically tuned to support neighborhoods, shopping districts and employment centers that have a complete range of transportation choices.

Consistent. Policy LU-9.2 of the proposed Plan seeks to encourage parking to be consolidated into parking structures, discourage large areas to be dominated by surface parking visible from the street, and screen parking lots with buildings and/or vegetation and tree planning.

Parks, Open Space,
and Schools
POSS‐1. Provide an expanded, high quality and diversified park system, allowing for varied recreational opportunities for the entire Fresno community.

Consistent. Goal PF-2 of the proposed Plan seeks to increase the overall amount of usable parkland within Southwest Fresno allowing varied recreational opportunities for the entire Southwest Fresno community.

POSS‐2. Ensure that adequate land, in appropriate locations, is designated and acquired for park and recreation uses in infill and growth areas.

Consistent. Goal PF-2 of the proposed Plan seeks to increase the overall amount of usable parkland within Southwest Fresno, allowing varied recreational opportunities for the entire Southwest Fresno community. This includes joint‐use agreements to provide a wider range of recreation programs and maximize the efficient use, maintenance, and supervision of public facilities. Expanding access to these facilities can increase the amount of park land available to residents while utilizing existing facilities. Further, the

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.10-8 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.10-1 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Element General Plan Objective Consistency Summary
proposed Plan calls for 78 new acres of parkland, ensuring that both existing and new residents are able to access a park within 1.2 mile of their residence.

POSS‐8. Work cooperatively with school districts to find appropriate locations for schools to meet the needs of students and neighborhoods.

Consistent. Goal PF-5 of the proposed Plan seeks to ensure that the amount of existing and new schools within the Plan Area adequately supports the number of existing and new residents. Further, impacts to schools were evaluated by this Draft EIR and determined to be less than significant. Refer to Section 4.13, Public Services, for further discussion.

Public Utilities
and Services
PU‐1. Provide the level of law enforcement and crime prevention services necessary to maintain a safe, secure, and stable urban living environment through a Police Department that is dedicated to providing professional, ethical, efficient and innovative service with integrity, consistency and pride.

Consistent. Impacts to law enforcement and crime prevention services are evaluated in this Draft EIR and determined to be less than significant with mitigation. Refer to Section 4.13, Public Services, for further discussion.

PU‐2. Ensure that the Fire Department’s staffing and equipment resources are sufficient to meet all fire and emergency service level objectives and are provided in an efficient and cost effective manner.

Consistent. Impacts to fire protection services are evaluated in this Draft EIR and determined to be less than significant with mitigation. Refer to Section

4.13, Public Services, for further discussion.

PU‐4. Ensure provision of adequate trunk sewer and collector main capacities to serve existing and planned urban development, consistent with the Wastewater Master Plan.

Consistent. Policy U-1.3 of the proposed Plan requires developers to build or contribute towards the design and construction of expanded and upgraded utilities to serve new development projects, including sewer collection systems. Further, impacts to trunk sewer capacity were evaluated by this Draft EIR and determined to be less than significant. Refer to Section 4.15, Utilities, for further discussion.

PU‐6. Ensure the provision of adequate sewage treatment and disposal by utilizing the Fresno‐Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility as the primary facility, when economically feasible, for all existing and new development within the Metropolitan Area.

Consistent. Policy U-1.5 of the proposed Plan requires all existing and new development within the Plan Area to provide adequate sewage treatment and disposal by utilizing the City of Fresno’s regional wastewater treatment plant. Further, impacts to sewage treatment and disposal were evaluated by this Draft EIR and determined to be less than significant. Refer to Section

4.15, Utilities, for further discussion.

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

Consistent. Policy U-1.5 of the proposed Plan requires all existing and new development within the Plan Area to provide adequate sewage treatment and disposal by utilizing the City of Fresno’s regional wastewater treatment plant. Further, impacts to sewage treatment and disposal were evaluated by this Draft EIR and determined to be less than significant. Refer to Section

4.15, Utilities, for further discussion.

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

Consistent. Impacts to solid waste facilities were evaluated by this Draft EIR and determined to be less than significant. Refer to Section 4.15, Utilities, for further discussion.

Historic and HCR‐2. Identify and preserve Fresno’s historic and cultural resources that Consistent. Policy LU-2.4 of the proposed Plan encourages preservation of

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-9
TABLE 4.10-1 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Element General Plan Objective Consistency Summary
Cultural Resources reflect important cultural, social, economic, and architectural features so that residents will have a foundation upon which to measure and direct physical change.

Kearney Boulevard to support a Historic Corridor, including preserving its scenic quality. Refer to Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, for further discussion of historic and cultural resources.

Noise and Safety
NS‐1. Protect the citizens of the City from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise.

Consistent. This Draft EIR evaluates potential noise impacts and sets forth mitigation measures to ensure that sensitive receptors (such as residential uses) are not exposed to excessive noise levels. Refer to Section 4.11, Noise, for further discussion.

NS‐2. Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic risks.

Consistent. This Draft EIR evaluates potential impacts related to geologic and seismic hazards. Refer to Section 4.6, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, for further discussion.

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

Consistent. This Draft EIR requires construction stormwater quality control measures to prevent flooding due to stormwater runoff. Refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, for further discussion,
NS‐4. Minimize the risk of loss of life, injury, serious illness, and damage to property resulting from the use, transport, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes.

Consistent. Policy LU-8.6 of the proposed Plan restricts residential development on or near toxic and/or hazardous sites without proper evaluation and mitigation as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Healthy
Communities
HC‐1. Work with neighborhood associations of local residents, businesses, and institutions on neighborhood and community health initiatives.

Consistent. Goal LU-8 of the proposed Plan seeks to protect the health and wellness of Southwest Fresno residents through regulating and reducing the negative impacts of industrial businesses and other sources of pollution, including collaboration with other organizations on health initiatives.

HC‐2. Create complete, well‐structured, and healthy neighborhoods and transportation systems.

Consistent. Goal LU-3 of the proposed Plan seeks to create a diversity of new complete neighborhoods that are safe, healthy, self-sufficient, walkable, and interconnected and strengthen existing neighborhoods so that they become a complete neighborhood.

HC‐3. Create healthy, safe, and affordable housing. Consistent. Policy LU-5.3 of the proposed Plan encourages new affordable single-family housing through the provision of smaller housing types on smaller lots.

HC‐5. Promote access to healthy and affordable food. Consistent. Policy LU-6.3 of the proposed Plan encourages increasing access to fresh, affordable, and nutritious food sources with an emphasis on attracting and encouraging small and large food retailers such as grocery stores, farmers’ markets, nutrition programs, community gardens, and food stands to provide fresh, affordable, and nutritious foods.

Source: City of Fresno, General Plan, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.10-10 AUGUST 2017
LU-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, the Plan Area overlaps with areas that are covered by Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E’s) San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
1 The HCP covers PG&E’s routine operations and
maintenance activities, as well as minor new construction, on any PG&E gas and electrical transmission and distribution facilities, easements, private access routes, or lands owned by PG&E. The proposed Plan would not be expected to conflict or interfere with the HCP activities. The proposed Plan, however, would likely result in a need for PG&E gas and electrical transmission and distribution facilities to support new residential and industrial land uses not covered by the HCP, but these activities in the Plan Area would be addressed by General Plan Policies POSS-5-a through POSS-5-f, and both the General Plan and specific plan mitigation measures described in Section 4.4 of this Draft EIR.

The proposed Plan is also located in the planning area of the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, which addresses recovery needs and goals for the San Joaquin kit fox, among other species. Project-level implementation of the General Plan Policies POSS-5-a through POSS-5-f and Mitigation Measures BIO-1 to BIO-3, and Specific Plan Mitigation Measure BIO-1.3, will reduce potential project impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox and other wildlife covered by the Recovery Plan and their associated habitat, and require consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), if take of federally-listed species would occur. Thus, with implementation of these measures, the proposed Plan would not be expected to conflict with the goals of the Recovery Plan.

There are no other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans that would conflict with the proposed Plan. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.10.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
LU-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to land use and planning.

As discussed in Impact LU-1, the proposed Plan would not physically divide an established community.

Considering that the proposed Plan is anticipated to create a vibrant mixed use district and the Policies contained in the proposed Plan would serve to minimize impacts on adjacent communities, the proposed Plan is not expected to contribute to any cumulative division of an established community. 1 Jones & Stokes, 2006. Pacific Gas & Electric Company San Joaquin Valley Operations and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (includes updated Chapter 4 and Tables 5-3, 5-4 and 5-5, December 2007), Sacramento, CA.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-11
As demonstrated in Impact LU-2, the proposed Plan is consistent with Fresno’s General Plan and thus would not contribute to cumulative impacts on land use policies and regulations.

Impact LU-3 states that implementation of the proposed Plan would not conflict with an HCP or the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley Area due to implementation of General Plan policies and mitigation measures proposed in this Draft EIR.

Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant cumulative impact with regard to land use and planning as a result of implementing the proposed Plan.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.10-12 AUGUST 2017

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-1

4.11 NOISE
This section discusses the fundamentals of sound and vibration; describes the existing noise and vibration settings/conditions; examines federal, State, and local noise guidelines, policies, and standards; reviews noise levels at existing receptor locations; evaluates potential noise impacts associated with the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan (proposed Plan); and provides mitigation to reduce noise impacts at sensitive residential locations. This evaluation uses procedures and methodologies as specified by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the proposed Plan to result in noise impacts in the Plan Area.

4.11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

4.11.1.1 TECHNICAL TERMINOLOGY
Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.” The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this chapter:
 Sound. A vibratory disturbance that, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone.  Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.  Hertz (Hz). A unit of frequency of change in state or cycle in a sound wave. The nearly universal usage is one (complete) cycle in one second. The unit ‘Hertz’, named after the German physicist Heinrich Hertz (1857-1894) replaces the previous ‘cycles per second (cps)’ nomenclature.  Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale, which indicates the squared ratio of sound pressure amplitude to a reference sound pressure amplitude. The reference pressure is 20 micropascals (20 µPa).
 Vibration Decibel (VdB). A unitless measure of vibration, expressed on a logarithmic scale and with respect to a defined reference vibration velocity. In the U.S., the standard reference velocity is 1 micro-inch per second (1x10-6 in/sec).
 A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels which approximates the frequency response of the human ear.
 Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq); also called the Energy-Equivalent Noise Level. The value of an equivalent, steady sound level which, in a stated time period (often over an hour) and at a stated location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound. Thus, the Leq metric is a single numerical value that represents the equivalent amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor over the specified duration.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-2 AUGUST 2017
 Statistical Sound Level (Ln). The sound level that is exceeded “n” percent of time during a given sample period. For example, the L50 level is the statistical indicator of the time-varying noise signal that is exceeded 50 percent of the time (during each sampling period); that is, half of the sampling time, the changing noise levels are above this value and half of the time they are below it. This is called the “median sound level.” The L10 level, likewise, is the value that is exceeded 10 percent of the time (i.e., near the maximum) and this is often known as the “intrusive sound level.” The L90 is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is often considered the “effective background level” or “residual noise level.”
 Day-Night Level (Ldn or DNL). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. For general community/environmental noise, CNEL and Ldn values rarely differ by more than 1 dB. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are interchangeable and are treated as being equivalent in this assessment.  Sensitive Receptor. Noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors include land uses where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment and public health and safety. Residences, schools, motels and hotels, libraries, religious institutions, hospitals, and nursing homes are examples.

4.11.1.2 FUNDAMENTALS OF SOUND
When an object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy in the form of a pressure wave. Sound is that pressure wave transmitted through the air. Technically, airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation or oscillation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure that creates sound waves. Sound is described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in dB), frequency or pitch (measured in Hertz [Hz] or cycles per second), and duration or time variations (measured in seconds or minutes).

Amplitude
The range of pressures that causes airborne vibrations (i.e., sound) is quite large and would be cumbersome to measure lineally. Therefore, noise is measured on a logarithmic scale, which has a more manageable range of numbers, and a decibel is the standard unit for measuring sound pressure amplitude.1 All noise levels in this study—reported in terms of dB—are relative to the industry-standard reference sound pressure of 20 micropascals.

On a logarithmic scale, an increase of 10 dB is 10 times more intense than 1 dB, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 1 The commonly held threshold of audibility is 20 micropascals, and the threshold of pain is around 200 million micropascals, a ratio of one to 10 million. By converting these pressures to a logarithmic scale (i.e., decibels), the range becomes a more convenient 0 dB to 140 dB.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-3
10 times greater than 0 dB. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Changes of 1 to 3 dB are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions, and changes of less than 1 dB are usually not discernible (even under ideal conditions). A 3 dB change in noise levels is considered the minimum change that is detectable with human hearing in outside environments. A change of 5 dB is readily discernible to most people in an exterior environment, and a 10 dB change is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the sound. These relationships are summarized in Table 4.11-1.

TABLE 4.11-1 NOISE PERCEPTIBILITY
± 3 dB Threshold of human perceptibility
± 5 dB Clearly noticeable change in noise level
± 10 dB Half or twice as loud
± 20 dB Much quieter or louder
Source: Bies, David A. and Colin H. Hansen. 2009. Engineering Noise Control: Theory and Practice. 4th edition. New York: Spoon Press.

Frequency
The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all, but are “felt” more as a vibration. Similarly, though people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz.

When describing sound and its effect on a human population, A-weighted (dBA) sound levels are typically used to approximate the response of the human ear. The term "A-weighted" refers to a filtering of the noise signal in a manner corresponding to the way the human ear perceives sound. The A-weighted noise level has been found to correlate well with people’s judgments of the “noisiness” of different sounds and has been used for many years as a measure of community and industrial noise.

Since most people do not routinely work with decibels or A-weighted sound levels, it is often difficult to appreciate what a given sound pressure level number means. To help relate noise level values to common experience, Table 4.11-2 shows typical noise levels from common noise sources.

Although the A-weighted scale and the energy-equivalent metric are commonly used to quantify the range of human response to individual events or general community sound levels, the degree of annoyance or other response also depends on several other perceptibility factors, including:
 Ambient (background) sound level.
 General nature of the existing conditions (e.g., quiet rural or busy urban).  Difference between the magnitude of the sound event level and the ambient condition.  Duration of the sound event.
 Number of event occurrences and their repetitiveness.  Time of day that the event occurs.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-4 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.11-2 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
Onset of physical discomfort 120+
110 Rock Band (near amplification system)
Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet
100
Gas Lawn Mower at three feet
90 Diesel Truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet
Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet
Commercial Area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60
Large Business Office
Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime
30 Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) 20 Extremely Remote Area Broadcast/Recording Studio
10 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2009. Technical Noise Supplement (“TeNS”). Prepared by ICF International, November.

Temporal Effects
Time variation in noise exposure is typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called Leq), or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. For example, the L50 noise level represents the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time; half the time the noise level

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-5
exceeds this level and half the time the noise level is less than this level. This level is also representative of the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L2, L8, and L25 values represent the noise levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour, respectively.

These “n” values are typically used to demonstrate compliance for stationary noise sources with many cities’ noise ordinances. Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the Lmin and Lmax. These values represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over the measurement period, respectively.

Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law and many local jurisdictions use an adjusted 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn). The CNEL descriptor requires that an artificial increment (or “penalty”) of 5 dBA be added to the actual noise level for the hours from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 10 dBA for the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The Ldn descriptor uses the same methodology except that there is no artificial increment added to the hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Both descriptors give roughly the same 24-hour level, with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive (i.e., higher). The CNEL or Ldn metrics are commonly applied to the assessment of roadway and airport-related noise sources.

Propagation
Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. This phenomenon is known as “spreading loss.” For a single-point source, sound levels decrease by approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source (conservatively neglecting ground attenuation effects, air absorption factors, and barrier shielding). For example, if a backhoe at 50 feet generates 84 dBA, at 100 feet the noise level would be 79 dBA, and at 200 feet it would be 73 dBA. This drop-off rate is conservative and is appropriate for noise generated by onsite operations from stationary equipment/activities at a project site. This approach is commonly used for construction equipment noise evaluations. For more detailed assessments, if ground-level absorptive vegetation or other “soft site” conditions are considered, the distance attenuation (drop-off) rate would be increased by 1.5 dB per distance doubling; for a total of 7.5 dB per propagation distance doubling.

If noise is produced by a line source, such as highway traffic, the sound decreases by 3 dB for each doubling of distance over a reflective (“hard site”) surface such as concrete or asphalt. Line source noise in a relatively flat environment with ground-level absorptive vegetation decreases by 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance.

Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA.

Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system. Extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage, which is the main driver for employee hearing protection regulations in the workplace. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, an unpleasant ‘tickling’ sensation occurs in the human ear; even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-6 AUGUST 2017
sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear. This is called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 160 to 165 dBA will result in dizziness or loss of equilibrium. In comparison, for community environments, the ambient or background noise problem is widespread, though generally worse in urban areas than in outlying, less-developed areas. Elevated ambient noise levels can result in noise interference (e.g., speech interruption/masking, sleep disturbance, disturbance of concentration) and cause annoyance.

Loud noise can be annoying and it can have negative health effects. 2,3,4
The effects of noise on people can
be listed in three general categories:
 Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction.  Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning.  Physiological effects such as startling and hearing loss (both temporary and permanent).

In most cases, environmental noise produces effects in the first two categories only. However, unprotected workers in some industrial work settings may experience noise effects in the last category.

4.11.1.3 FUNDAMENTALS OF VIBRATION
Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration is normally associated with activities stemming from operations of railroads or vibration-intensive stationary sources, but can also be associated with construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers.

Like noise, vibration is transmitted in waves, but through the earth or solid objects. Unlike noise, vibration is typically of a frequency that is felt rather than heard. Vibration can be either natural as in the form of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides, or man-made as from explosions, the action of heavy machinery or heavy vehicles such as trains. Both natural and man-made vibration may be continuous such as from operating machinery, or transient as from an explosion. As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude may be characterized in three ways:
displacement, velocity, and acceleration.

Vibration displacement is the distance that a point on a surface moves away from its original static position. The instantaneous speed that a point on a surface moves is the velocity, and the rate of change of the speed is the acceleration. Each of these descriptors can be used to correlate vibration to human response, building damage, and acceptable equipment vibration levels. During construction, the operation of construction equipment can cause groundborne vibration. During the operational phase of a project, receptors may be subject to levels of vibration that can cause annoyance due to noise generated from vibration of a structure or items within a structure. 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1978. Protective Noise Levels, November. EPA 550/9-79-100. (Condensed version of 1971 and 1974 documents.) 3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, March. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control. 4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, December. Prepared by Bolt Beranek and Newman (Cambridge, MA) for the U.S. EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Washington, D.C.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-7
Vibration amplitudes are usually described in terms of either the peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity. PPV is the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal, and RMS is the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. PPV is more appropriate for evaluating potential building damage, and RMS is typically more suitable for evaluating human response.

The units for PPV and RMS velocity are normally inches per second (in/sec). However, vibration is often presented and discussed in dB units in order to compress the range of numbers (in a similar fashion as for sound energy). In this study, PPV and RMS velocities are in in/sec, and vibration levels are in dB relative to 1 micro-inch per second (abbreviated as VdB). Typically, groundborne vibration generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Man-made vibration problems are therefore usually confined to relatively short distances from the source (500 to 600 feet or less).

Vibrations also vary in frequency and this affects perception. Typical construction vibrations fall in the 10 to 30 Hz range and usually occur around 15 Hz. Traffic vibrations exhibit a similar range of frequencies; however, due to their suspension systems, buses often generate frequencies around 3 Hz at high vehicle speeds. It is less common, but possible, to measure traffic frequencies above 30 Hz.

The way in which vibration is transmitted through the earth is called propagation. Propagation of groundborne vibrations is complicated and difficult to predict because of the endless variations in the soil and rock through which waves travel. There are three main types of vibration propagation: surface, compression and shear waves. Surface waves, or Raleigh waves, travel along the ground’s surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wave front, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water. Compression waves, or P-waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a “push-pull” fashion). P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. Shear waves, or S-waves, are also body waves that carry energy along an expanding spherical wave front. However, unlike P-waves, the particle motion is transverse or “side-to-side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation.” As vibration waves propagate from a source, the energy is spread over an ever-increasing area such that the energy level striking a given point is reduced with the distance from the energy source. This geometric spreading loss is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Wave energy is also reduced with distance as a result of material damping in the form of internal friction, soil layering, and void spaces. The amount of attenuation provided by material damping varies with soil type and condition as well as the frequency of the wave.

As with airborne sound, annoyance with vibrational energy is a subjective measure, depending on the level of activity and the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Persons accustomed to elevated ambient vibration levels, such as in an urban environment, may tolerate higher vibration levels. Table 4.11-3 displays the human response and the effects on buildings resulting from continuous vibration (in terms of various levels of PPV).

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-8 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.11-3 HUMAN REACTION TO TYPICAL VIBRATION LEVELS Vibration Level,
PPV (in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings

0.006–0.019 Threshold of perception, possibility of intrusion Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type

0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level of vibration to which
ruins and ancient monuments should be
subjected

0.10 Level at which continuous vibration begins to
annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural” (i.e., not
structural) damage to normal buildings

0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in buildings
Threshold at which there is a risk to
“architectural” damage to normal dwelling –
houses with plastered walls and ceilings

0.4–0.6
Vibrations considered unpleasant by people
subjected to continuous vibrations and
unacceptable to some people walking on
bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than normally
expected from traffic, but would cause
“architectural” damage and possibly minor
structural damage
Source: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Department of Transportation, Noise, Vibration, and Hazardous Waste Management Office. 2004, June. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. Prepared by ICF International.

Human response to ground vibration has been correlated best with the velocity of the ground, typically expressed in terms of the vibration decibel of VdB.5 The U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has developed rational vibration limits that can be used to evaluate human annoyance to groundborne vibration. These criteria are primarily based on experience with rapid transit and commuter rail systems.6 Railroad and transit operations are potential sources of substantial ground vibration depending on distance, the type and the speed of trains, and the type of track. Trains generate substantial vibration due to their engines, steel wheels, heavy loads, and wheel-rail interactions.

Similarly, construction operations generally include a wide range of activities that can generate groundborne vibration, which varies in intensity. In general, blasting and demolition as well as pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment generate the highest vibrations. Because of the impulsive nature of such activities, PPV is used to measure and assess groundborne vibration and assess the potential of vibration to induce structural damage and annoyance for humans. Vibratory compactors or rollers, pile drivers, and pavement breakers can generate perceptible amounts of vibration at up to 200 feet. Heavy trucks can also generate groundborne vibrations, which can vary, depending on vehicle type, weight, and pavement conditions. Potholes, pavement joints, discontinuities, differential settlement of pavement, all increase the vibration levels from vehicles passing over a road surface. Construction vibration is normally of greater concern than vibration from normal traffic flows on streets and freeways with smooth pavement conditions.7
5 The reference velocity is 1 x 10-6 in/sec RMS, which equals 0 VdB, and 1 in/sec equals 120 VdB. 6 Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT). FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May. 7 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Department of Transportation, Noise, Vibration, and Hazardous Waste Management Office, 2004. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, June. Prepared by ICF International.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-9

4.11.1.4 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
In addition to FHWA standards, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified the relationship between noise levels and human response. The EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control was originally established to coordinate federal noise-control activities. The office issued the Federal Noise Control Act of 1972, which set programs and guidelines to identify and address the effects of noise on public health and welfare, and the environment. Although the primary responsibility of regulating noise was transferred to state and local governments in 1982, the EPA provided guidelines for noise levels that would be considered safe for community exposure without the risk of adverse health or welfare effects.

The EPA found that to prevent hearing loss over the lifetime of a receptor, the yearly average Leq should not exceed 70 dBA. Interference with activity and annoyance will not occur if exterior levels are maintained at an Leq of 55 dBA and interior levels at or below 45 dBA. While these levels are relevant for planning and design and useful for informational purposes, they are not land use planning criteria because they do not consider economic cost, technical feasibility, or the needs of the community.

The EPA also set 55 dBA Ldn as the basic goal for exterior residential noise intrusion. However, other federal agencies, in consideration of their own program requirements and goals, as well as difficulty of actually achieving a goal of 55 dBA Ldn, have settled on the 65 dBA Ldn level as their standard. At 65 dBA Ldn, activity interference is kept to a minimum, and annoyance levels are still low. It is also a level that can realistically be achieved.

Occupational Health and Safety Administration
The federal government regulates occupational noise exposure common in the workplace through the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) under the EPA. Such limitations would apply to the operation of construction equipment and could also apply to any proposed industrial land uses. Noise exposure of this type is dependent on work conditions and is addressed through a facility’s Health and Safety Plan, as required under OSHA, and is therefore not addressed further in this analysis.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has set a goal of 65 dBA Ldn as a desirable maximum exterior standard for residential units developed under HUD funding.8 (This level is also generally accepted within the State of California.) While HUD does not specify acceptable interior noise levels, standard construction of residential dwellings constructed under Title 24 standards typically provides in excess of 20 dBA of attenuation with the windows closed. Based on this premise, the interior Ldn should not exceed 45 dBA.
8 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 1985. Noise Guidebook: A Reference Document for Implementing the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Noise Policy, March.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-10 AUGUST 2017
California Regulations
Land Use Planning
The California Department of Health Services’ Office of Noise Control (ONC) has studied the correlation of noise levels and their effects on various land uses. As a result, a set of generalized exterior and interior noise standards was generated for residential, commercial, institutional/public, and open space land uses.9 These noise standards, in terms of the CNEL noise metric, are summarized in Appendix F.

The ONC also prepared a land use compatibility chart for community noise which is intended to provide urban planners with a tool to gauge the compatibility of land uses relative to existing and future noise levels. The table identifies ‘normally acceptable’, ‘conditionally acceptable’, ‘normally unacceptable’ and ‘clearly unacceptable’ noise levels for various land use types. A ‘conditionally acceptable’ or ‘normally unacceptable’ designation implies new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. By comparison, a ‘normally acceptable’ designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements. These noise compatibility guidelines, also in terms of the CNEL noise metric, are shown in Table 4.11-4.

Building Code Requirements
The California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1, Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Section 1207.11.2, Allowable Interior Noise Levels, requires that residences’ interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. The noise metric is evaluated as either the day-night average sound level (Ldn) or the community noise equivalent level (CNEL); using the noise metric that is consistent with the noise element of the particular local general plan.

The California Green Building Standards Code (CalGREEN), Chapter 5, Division 5.5, has additional requirements for insulation that affect exterior-interior noise transmission for non-residential structures (which include multi-family structures 4-stories or greater). Pursuant to section 5.507.4.1, Exterior Noise Transmission, Prescriptive Method, wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source making up the building or addition envelope or altered envelope shall meet:
 A composite sound transmission class (STC) rating of at least 50, or  A composite outdoor-indoor transmission class (OITC) rating of no less than 40 with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40, or

9 Residential’ includes single and multi-family, duplex, and mobile homes; ‘Commercial’ includes hotel, motel, transient housing, commercial retail, bank, restaurant, office building, research and development, professional offices, amphitheater, concert hall, auditorium, movie theater, gymnasium (multipurpose), sports club, manufacturing, warehouse, wholesale, utilities, and movie theaters uses; ‘Institutional / Public’ includes, hospital, school classrooms/playground, church, and library uses; and ‘Open Space’ includes parks.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-11
TABLE 4.11-4 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY NOISE GUIDELINES
Land Uses
CNEL (dBA)
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential-Low Density Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes Residential- Multiple Family
Transient Lodging: Hotels and Motels
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports
Playground, Neighborhood Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Businesses, Commercial and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agricultural
Explanatory Notes
Normally Acceptable:

With no special noise reduction requirements
assuming standard construction.

Normally Unacceptable:

New construction is discouraged. If new
construction does not proceed, a detailed
analysis of the noise reduction requirements
must be made and needed noise insulation
features included in the design.

Conditionally Acceptable:

New construction or development should be
undertaken only after a detailed analysis of
the noise reduction requirement is made and
needed noise insulation features included in
the design.

Clearly Unacceptable:

New construction or development should
generally not be undertaken.

Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2003. State of California General Plan Guidelines, October.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-12 AUGUST 2017
 OITC of 30 if the project location is within the 65 dBA CNEL or Ldn noise contour of an airport (military, public, private, or heliport), freeway, expressway, railroad, industrial source, or fixed-guideway source (as determined by the noise element of the general plan). Where noise contours are not readily available, projects exposed to a noise level of 65 dBA Leq-1 hr during any hour of operation shall have building, addition or alteration exterior wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source meeting a composite STC rating of at least 45 (or OITC 35), with exterior windows of a minimum of STC 40 (or OITC 30).

Residential structures within the noise contours identified above require an acoustical analysis showing that the structure has been designed to limit intruding noise in the prescribed allowable levels. To comply with these regulations, applicants for new residential projects are required to submit an acoustical analysis report. The report is required to show topographical relationship of noise sources and dwelling site, identification of noise sources and their characteristics, predicted noise spectra at the exterior of the proposed dwelling structure considering present and future land usage, basis for the prediction (measured or obtained from published data), noise attenuation measures to be applied, and an analysis of the noise insulation effectiveness of the proposed construction showing that the prescribed interior noise level requirements are met. If interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be unopenable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify the means that will be employed to provide ventilation and cooling, if necessary, to provide a habitable interior environment.

Local Noise Standards
While the Plan Area is located within the boundaries of the City of Fresno, some land uses adjacent to the Plan Area lie outside the City boundary, on unincorporated land within the County of Fresno. As such, noise generated by implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to result in impacts at receptors under County jurisdiction. The County of Fresno Ordinance Code applies only to noise sources located within unincorporated areas of the County, and developments due to buildout of the proposed Plan are not subject to these restrictions. Regardless, Chapter 8.40, Noise Control, of the County Code of Ordinances and the County of Fresno General Plan Health and Safety Element are included in Appendix F of this Draft EIR for reference.

Fresno General Plan
The Noise and Safety element of the City of Fresno General Plan (2014) establishes noise-related policies and guides their implementation for the City. The purpose of the noise section of the Element is to identify and quantify potential noise problems and to provide effective policies for noise control and mitigation. The noise section discusses sources of noise within the City, existing and projected future noise levels throughout the City, and noise control through the standards in the municipal code. The section also includes noise contour maps for noise levels generated by traffic and rail activity throughout the city and by each of the three airports within the city (see Table 4.11-5).

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-13
TABLE 4.11-5 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO NOISE Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Noise and Safety Element
Policy NS-1-a
Establishes the following “Desirable and Generally Acceptable Exterior Noise Environment” noise levels by receiving land use:
 Desirable noise level of 60 dBA Ldn or CNEL at residential or noise-sensitive uses  Maximum average noise level of 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL at residential or noise-sensitive uses  Maximum average noise level of 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL at non-sensitive commercial uses  Maximum average noise level of 70 dBA Ldn or CNEL at industrial uses Policy NS-1-j Establishes the significance threshold for a significant increase generated by a project as an increase of 3 dB Ldn or CNEL or more above the ambient noise limits established in the General Plan.

Policy NS-1-p
Requires implementation of the land use and noise exposure compatibility provisions of the adopted Fresno Yosemite International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport Master and Environs Specific Plan, and the Sierra Sky Park Land Use Policy Plan to assess noise compatibility of proposed uses and improvements within airport influence and environs areas.

Municipal Code
The City regulates noise through Article 10-1 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code. The City’s noise ordinance is designed to protect people from non-transportation noise sources such as construction activity, machinery, air conditioners, maintenance, and landscaping activities.

General Stationary Noise Sources
Section 10-102 establishes that the following criteria (in Table 4.11-6) will be used as a base (ambient noise level) from which noise levels can be compared.

TABLE 4.11-6 AMBIENT BASE NOISE LEVEL CRITERIA
Zone Time
Sound Level A (Decibels) Community
Environment Classification
Residential
10 pm to 7 am 50
7 pm to 10 pm 55
7 am to 7 pm 60
Commercial
10 pm to 7 am 60
7 am to 10 pm 65
Industrial Anytime 70
Source: City of Fresno Municipal Code, Section 10-102.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-14 AUGUST 2017
Section 10-106 prohibits any noise that exceeds the ambient noise level at receiving residential properties by more than 5 dB, while Section 10-107 prohibits any noise which “disturbs or unduly annoys” people within schools, hospitals, or churches.

Construction Noise
The Municipal Code makes exceptions to the noise level limits for construction activity that occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and has obtained a permit issued by the City.

Project-Applicable Vibration Standards
The City of Fresno Municipal Code does not include quantitative thresholds for vibration. In lieu of such quantified thresholds, it is common practice to rely on published information from the FTA. The FTA provides criteria for acceptable levels of ground-borne vibration for various types of special buildings that are sensitive to vibration. The FTA criteria are often used to evaluate vibration impacts during construction and are used herein for impact assessment thresholds.

FTA Noise and Vibration Impact Guidelines for construction impact identifies that an impact would occur if construction activities generate vibration that is strong enough to (a) physically damage buildings or (b) cause undue annoyance at sensitive receptors. The threshold for human annoyance at residential receptors during the daytime is 78 VdB. The threshold for vibration-induced architectural damage is 0.2 peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec) for typical wood-framed buildings.10 Vibration-Related Annoyance
The human reaction to various levels of vibration is highly subjective and varies from person to person. The FTA criteria for annoyance are shown below in Table 4.11-7. These criteria are based on the work of many researchers that suggested that humans are sensitive to vibration velocities in the range of 8-80 Hz.

TABLE 4.11-7 GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION CRITERIA: HUMAN ANNOYANCE Land Use Category Max Lv (VdB)a Description
Workshop 90 Distinctly felt vibration. Appropriate to workshops and non-sensitive areas Office 84 Felt vibration. Appropriate to offices and non-sensitive areas.

Residential – Daytime 78 Barely felt vibration. Adequate for computer equipment.

Residential – Nighttime 72 Vibration not felt, but groundborne noise may be audible inside quiet rooms.
a. Lv is the velocity level in decibels, as measured in 1/3-octave bands of frequency over the frequency ranges of 8 to 80 Hz.

Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May. US Department of Transportation (DoT), FTAVA-90-1003-06. 10 Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May. U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT). FTA-VA-90-1003-06.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-15
Vibration-Related Architectural Damage
Structures amplify groundborne vibration and wood-frame buildings, such as typical residential structures, are more affected by ground vibration than heavier buildings. The level at which groundborne vibration is strong enough to cause architectural damage has not been determined conclusively. The most conservative estimates are reflected in the FTA standards, shown in Table 4.11-8.

TABLE 4.11-8 GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION CRITERIA: ARCHITECTURAL DAMAGE Building Category
PPV
(in/sec)
Lv
(VdB)a
I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 a. RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of one microinch/second.

Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May. U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT).

FTA-VA-90-1003-06.

4.11.1.5 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
Ambient Noise Measurements
Ambient noise monitoring was conducted by PlaceWorks in May of 2017, during normal weekday periods.

Three long-term (24-hour) measurements, and eight short-term (15-minute) measurements were conducted within the Plan Area. Long-term measurements were conducted from Tuesday May 16th to Wednesday May 17, and short-term measurements were conducted on Wednesday, May 17th.

The general noise environment around the Plan Area is a combination of local and distant roadway noise, general community noise, aircraft flyovers, chirping birds, rustling vegetation, and various neighborhood activities (e.g., people talking, lawnmowers, etc.). Meteorological conditions during the measurement periods were favorable for outdoor sound measurements and were noted to be representative of typical conditions for the season. Generally, conditions included clear skies, daytime temperatures of approximately 75 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and winds of less than 7 miles per hour.

Long-term noise monitoring was performed using Larson-Davis Model 814 Sound Level Meters, and Shortterm noise monitoring was performed using a Larson-Davis Model 820 integrating/logging Sound Level Meter. All sound level meters used for noise monitoring satisfy the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard S1.3 for Type 1 general environmental noise measurement instrumentation. The sound level meters were programmed to acquire noise levels with the “slow” time constant and using the “A” weighting filter network. The meters were field calibrated immediately prior to the first set of readings.

The calibration was rechecked immediately after the conclusion of the readings and no notable meter “drift” was noted (i.e., less than ½ dB deviation).

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-16 AUGUST 2017
This work effort included three long-term (24-hour) measurements and eight short-term (15-minute) measurements. For the long-term measurements, the microphone was mounted to a fence or tree approximately 5 to 7 feet above the ground. For the short-term samples, the sound level meter and microphone were mounted on a tripod, 5 feet above the ground. All sound level meters were equipped with a windscreen during measurements. Noise measurement locations are described below and shown in Figure 4.11-1.

The following describes the noise level measurement locations:
 Long-Term Location 1 (LT-1): Long-term noise monitoring Location 1 was located within a residential neighborhood on Eden Avenue, between Arthur Avenue and Thorne Avenue. The noise monitor was attached to a tree, approximately 7 feet above the ground. The noise monitor was located approximately 10 feet from Eden Avenue. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken beginning at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 16, at which time the air temperature was 74°F with 36 percent Relative Humidity (RH), and winds were light (2-3 mph). The noise environment of this site was characterized primarily by roadway noise along Thorne Ave, and by nearby residential collectors. Neighborhood operations (i.e., people talking, property maintenance, music), and aircraft noise from the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport were also experienced at this monitoring location. Weather conditions during pickup were approximately the same as drop-off.
 Long-Term Location 2 (LT-2): Long-term noise monitoring Location 2 was located within a residential neighborhood in a cul-de-sac at the end of Vagedes Avenue. This residential area is generally surrounded by open space agricultural land. The noise monitor was attached to a light pole on the sidewalk, approximately 7 feet above the ground. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken beginning at 3:46 p.m. on Tuesday, May 16, at which time the air temperature was 79°F with 36 percent RH, and winds were calm (0-1 mph). The noise environment of this site was characterized primarily by roadway noise along nearby residential streets, and by normal neighborhood operations (i.e., people talking, property maintenance, music). Weather conditions during pickup were approximately the same as drop-off.
 Long-Term Location 3 (LT-3): Long-term noise monitoring Location 3 was located within an industrial area along Annadale Avenue, approximately 375 feet east of Elm Avenue. The noise monitor was attached to a tree, approximately 6 feet above the ground. The noise monitor was located approximately 10 feet from Annadale Avenue. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken beginning at 3:23 p.m. on Tuesday, May 16, at which time the air temperature was 78°F with 34 percent RH, and winds were light (1-2 mph). The noise environment of this site was characterized primarily by roadway noise along Highway SR-41, Elm Avenue, and other nearby collector streets. Industrial operations (i.e., truck movements, maintenance, loading/unloading), and aircraft noise from sporadic flyovers were also experienced at this monitoring location. Weather conditions during pickup were approximately the same as drop-off.
 Short-Term Location 1 (ST-1): Short-term noise monitoring Location 1 was located within the Fresno Regional Sports Complex, within a parking lot on the east side of the property. Fifteen minutes of noise measurements were taken beginning at 2:53 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17, at which time the air temperature was 80°F with 36 percent RH, and winds were light, at approximately 2-4 mph. There were no sports activities occurring at the time of the measurement. The noise environment was W Madison Ave
W California Ave
W Jensen Ave
W Church Ave
W North Ave
W Annadale Ave
99 180
41 Whites Bridge Ave
W Nelson Ave
S West Ave
S Fruit Ave
S Hughes Ave
S Marks Ave
S Cherry Ave
S Fig Ave
S Elm Ave
S Walnut Ave
Tulolumne St
Broadway St
W Belmont Ave
N Abby St
Fresno Chandler
Executive
Airport
Specific Plan Boundary Short-Term Noise Measurement Locations (8) Long-Term Noise Measurement Locations (3)
ST-1
LT-1

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN

CITY OF FRESNO
Noise Monitoring Locations
Figure 1 0 Feet 3,500
N
Source: Google Earth Pro, 2017
LT-1
ST-7
LT-2
ST-8
LT-3
ST-4
ST-5
ST-6
ST-2 ST-3
ST-1
W Madison Ave
W California Ave
W Jensen Ave
W Church Ave
W North Ave
W Annadale Ave
99 180
41 Whites Bridge Ave
W Nelson Ave
S West Ave
S Fruit Ave
S Hughes Ave
S Marks Ave
S Cherry Ave
S Fig Ave
S Elm Ave
S Walnut Ave
Tulolumne St
Broadway St
W Belmont Ave
N Abby St
Fresno Chandler
Executive
Airport
Specific Plan Boundary Short-Term Noise Measurement Locations (8) Long-Term Noise Measurement Locations (3)
ST-1
LT-1
Noise Monitoring Locations
Figure 1 0 Feet 3,500
N
Source: Google Earth Pro, 2017
LT-1
ST-7
LT-2
ST-8
LT-3
ST-4
ST-5
ST-6
ST-2 ST-3
ST-1
0 Scale (Feet)
3,500 Source: PlaceWorks, 2017.

Figure 4.11-1
Ambient Noise Measurement Locations

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

PLACEWORKS

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-18 AUGUST 2017
comprised of distant traffic noise, property maintenance, rustling leaves/vegetation, bugs/birds, and aircraft noise from sporadic flyovers.
 Short-Term Location 2 (ST-2): Short-term noise monitoring Location 2 was located in a residential neighborhood in close proximity to Highway State Route 41 (SR-41). This monitoring location was located on Kirk Avenue, between Burns Avenue and Church Avenue, approximately 130 feet west of SR-41. Fifteen minutes of noise measurements were taken at 12:20 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17, at which time the air temperature was 68°F with 48 percent RH, and winds were light, at approximately 2-4 mph. The noise environment of this site was dominated by roadway noise along SR-41.

Neighborhood activities (i.e., people talking, property maintenance) were also noted at the monitoring location, but were secondary to the traffic flow noise.  Short-Term Location 3 (ST-3): Short-term noise monitoring Location 3 was located at the southern edge of the Rutherford B. Gaston Middle School campus, on the sidewalk near the baseball diamond.

This monitoring location was positioned along Grove Avenue, approximately 125 feet east of Martian Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Fifteen minutes of noise measurements were taken beginning at 1:35 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at which time the air temperature was 80°F with 38 percent RH, and winds were calm, at approximately 1-2 mph. The noise environment of this site was primarily controlled by roadway noise along Martian Luther King Jr. Boulevard and other residential collectors.

Residential neighborhood noise (i.e., people talking, property maintenance) and aircraft noise from sporadic flyovers were also experienced at this monitoring location.  Short-Term Location 4 (ST-4): Short-term noise monitoring Location 4 was located on the property of Foster Poultry Farms, along Teilman Avenue approximately 375 feet north of Church Avenue. Fifteen minutes of noise measurements were taken beginning at 4:10 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at which time the air temperature was 79°F with 26 percent RH, and winds were light, at approximately 3-5 mph. The noise environment of this site was primarily controlled by industrial noise (i.e., workpiece noise, machinery ‘hum’, truck movements), parking lot noise, and by roadway noise along Church Avenue.
 Short-Term Location 5 (ST-5): Short-term noise monitoring Location 5 was located in a residential neighborhood near open space and agricultural land. This monitoring location was located at the southwest corner of La Sierra Drive and Hulbert Avenue. Fifteen minutes of noise measurements were taken at 3:47 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17, at which time the air temperature was 77°F with 30 percent RH, and winds were light, at approximately 2-4 mph. The noise environment of this site was comprised of primarily Neighborhood operations (i.e., people talking, property maintenance, dogs barking), and roadway noise along residential collectors. No noise sources beyond the immediate vicinity were noted during the measurement period.  Short-Term Location 6 (ST-6): Short-term noise monitoring Location 6 was located on the property of the Veteran’s Home of California, a residential complex surrounded by agricultural open space. Fifteen minutes of noise measurements were taken at 3:22 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17, at which time the air temperature was 77°F with 30 percent RH, and winds were light, at approximately 3-6 mph. The noise environment of this site was comprised of primarily residential operations (i.e., people talking, property maintenance), parking lot noise, and roadway noise along California Avenue and Marks Avenue. Rustling trees/vegetation and aircraft noise from sporadic flyovers were also noted at the monitoring location.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-19
 Short-Term Location 7 (ST-7): Short-term noise monitoring Location 7 was located in a residential neighborhood near the southern end of the Plan Area. This monitoring location was located on Weller Street, between Edgar Avenue and Chester Avenue. Fifteen minutes of noise measurements were taken at 2:23 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17, at which time the air temperature was 85°F with 85 percent RH, and winds were calm. The noise environment of this site was dominated by roadway noise along Martian Luther King Boulevard and other residential collectors. Neighborhood operations (i.e., people talking, property maintenance) were also noted at the monitoring location.  Short-Term Location 8 (ST-8): Short-term noise monitoring Location 8 was located within a residential area at the southeast corner of Drummond Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Across Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard is W.E.B. DuBois Academy. Fifteen minutes of noise measurements were taken beginning at 1:56 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at which time the air temperature was 76°F with 40 percent RH, and winds were light, between 4 to 7 mph. The noise environment of this site was primarily controlled by roadway noise along Martian Luther King Jr. Boulevard and other residential collectors. Residential neighborhood noise (i.e., people talking, property maintenance) and dogs barking were also experienced at this monitoring location.

Long-Term Monitoring Results
During the ambient noise survey, the daytime, energy-average (Leq) noise levels within the areas surrounding the Plan Area, as measured during the long-term noise measurements, ranged from 33 to 94 dBA Leq. The short-term noise measurement results are summarized in Table 4.11-9 and are included in the Appendix F of this technical report.

TABLE 4.11-9 LONG-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENTS SUMMARY, 24+ HOUR DURATIONS Monitoring
Location Description Lmin Leq Lmax
LT-1 Residential Area, along Eden Avenue 42 58 94
LT-2 Residential Area, Vagedes Avenue cul-de-sac 39 53 87 LT-3 Industrial Area, along Annadale Avenue 33 53 89
Note: 24-hour noise measurements were conducted by PlaceWorks staff on May 16-17, 2017, at each site with a Larson Davis 814 sound level meter.

Short-Term Monitoring Results
During the ambient noise survey, the daytime, energy-average (Leq) noise levels within the areas surrounding the Plan Area, as measured during the short-term noise measurements, ranged from 41 to 76 dBA Leq. The short-term noise measurement results are summarized in Table 4.11-10 and are included in the Appendix F of this Draft EIR.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-20 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.11-10 SHORT-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENTS SUMMARY, 15-MINUTE DURATIONS Monitoring
Location Description Lmin Leq Lmax
ST-1 Fresno Regional Sports Complex 43 49 59
ST-2 Residential Area near SR-41 55 60 71
ST-3 Residential Area near Rutherford B. Gaston MS 43 56 69 ST-4 Foster Poultry Farms 54 60 76
ST-5 Residential Area near Agricultural Open Space 46 56 73 ST-6 Veteran’s Home of California 49 58 74
ST-7 Residential Area along Weller Street 41 47 56
ST-8 Residential Area near W.E.B. DuBois Academy 45 58 71 Note: Noise sampling conducted by PlaceWorks staff on May 17, 2017, for a minimum of 15 minutes at each site with a Larson Davis 820 sound level meter.

Summary of Ambient Noise Measurement
The noise environment around the Plan Area is considered to be generally louder than a typical urban residential area, due to the amount of transportation sources proximate to the monitoring locations. The time-averaged sound level in the vicinity of the Plan Area was in the range of 33 to 94 dBA Leq-24-hr. For receivers that were directly exposed to roadway noise (i.e., ST-2), the noise level ranged from 55 to 71 dBA.

On-Road Vehicles
Noise from motor vehicles is generated by engine vibrations, the interaction between tires and the road, and the exhaust system. Reducing the average motor vehicle speed reduces the noise exposure of receptors adjacent to the road. Each reduction of five miles per hour reduces noise by about 1.3 dBA. 11 Given the preponderance of mobile-source noise in the vicinity of the Plan Area, it is necessary to determine the noise currently generated by vehicles traveling through the Plan Area. The traffic noise levels for this proposed Plan were estimated using a version of the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. The FHWA model determines a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to a reference sound level. These adjustments account for traffic flows, speed, truck mix, varying distances from the roadway, length of exposed roadway, and noise shielding. Average daily traffic volumes, lane 11 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (Department of Transportation, Noise, Vibration, and Hazardous Waste Management Office), 2004. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. Prepared by ICF International, June.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-21
configurations, and speed limits were provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis, which is included as Appendix H of this Draft EIR.
12,13
The results of this modeling indicate that average noise levels along arterial segments currently range from approximately 54 dBA to 70 dBA CNEL (as calculated at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road). Noise levels for existing conditions along analyzed roadways are presented in Table 4.11-11.

Aircraft Noise
Fresno Chandler Executive Airport (FCH) lies adjacent to the northeastern boundary of the Plan Area.

According to Figure NS-514 in the City of Fresno General Plan, a portion of the Plan Area falls within the Airport Influence Area (AIA), including some land that lies within the airport’s 60 dBA CNEL and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours. Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in future development that would increase and/or intensify development within the Plan Area.. The FCH Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan establishes policies for planning developments for land within the AIA.

Other nearby airports include Fresno Yosemite International Airport (located 6.4 miles to the northeast of the Plan Area boundary) and Sierra Sky Park (7.3 miles to the northwest).15 The 65 dBA CNEL noise contours for these airports (shown in Figures NS-4 and NS-6 of the General Plan,16 respectively) lie outside of the Plan Area. While aircraft that utilize these airports could fly over the Plan Area and generate noise levels that may be momentarily audible or noticeable, these aircraft operations do not significantly contribute to the Plan Area’s community noise environment.

There are no heliports within the Plan Area. However, there is a heliport located at the Community Regional Medical Center (1.8 miles to the northeast). Given the distance to the Plan Area and that flights are sporadic and limited for medical use, heliport contributions to community noise levels within the Plan Area are negligible.

Stationary Source Noise
Stationary sources of noises may occur from all types of land uses. Residential uses would generate noise from landscaping, maintenance activities, and air conditioning systems. Office and commercial uses would generate noise from ventilation systems, loading docks, parking lot activities, and other sources. Industrial uses may generate noise from Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems, loading docks, and possibly machinery. Farmland uses may generate noise from operation of farm equipment or HVAC and other machinery at farm facility buildings. Noise generated by residential, office, or commercial uses 12 The traffic model used by Fehr and Peers does not have the ability to force trucks to use specific roadways, and therefore does not account for variations in fleet mix that may accompany the designated truck routes shown in Figure 5-7, Existing and Potential Truck Routes. As such, traffic noise modeling by PlaceWorks also does not include truck-related these variations. 13 Fehr and Peers, 2017. Draft Transportation Impact Study for the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan, June. 14 “Figure NS-5” refers to the figure within the General Plan, and is not to be confused with figures within this EIR. The General Plan Noise and Safety Element is included in Appendix F. 15 Airnav.com, 2017. 16 “Figures NS-4 and NS-6” refers to the figures within the General Plan, and is not to be confused with figures within this EIR. The General Plan Noise and Safety Element is included in Appendix F.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-22 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.11-11 EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment
Daily
Traffic
Volumes
Noise Level
at 50 Feet
(dBA CNEL)
Distance to Noise Contour
(Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
Whitesbridge Ave Marks Ave to Roeding Dr 2,800 64.8 22 48 104 Whitesbridge Ave Roeding Dr to Thorne Ave 2,300 61.7 14 30 65 Kearney Blvd Marks Ave to West Ave 2,400 61.9 14 31 66
Kearney Blvd West Ave to Thorne Ave 2,000 61.1 13 27 59 California Ave Marks Ave to West Ave 2,000 63.3 18 39 83 California Ave West Ave to Fresno St 4,300 61.9 14 31 67 California Ave Fresno St to MLK Jr. Blvd 6,600 63.6 19 40 87 Ventura St MLK Jr. Blvd to B Street 9,900 65.5 25 54 116 Church Ave Marks Ave to West Ave 1,200 60.0 11 23 50
Church Ave West Ave to Walnut Ave 2,600 60.9 12 27 58
Church Ave Walnut Ave to Elm Ave 4,300 63.1 17 37 81
Jensen Ave Marks Ave to West Ave 5,200 67.5 34 73 157
Jensen Ave West Ave to Walnut Ave 8,700 69.7 48 103 221 Jensen Ave Walnut Ave to Elm Ave 12,000 69.0 43 93 200
North Ave Walnut Ave to Elm Ave 5,200 63.9 20 42 92
Marks Ave Whitesbridge Ave to California Ave 6,900 68.7 41 89 191 Marks Ave California Ave to Jensen Ave 2,300 63.9 20 42 91 Hughes Ave/Roeding Dr Belmont Ave to Whitesbridge Ave 2,600 61.0 13 27 59 Hughes Ave Whitesbridge Ave to California Ave 400 56.3 6 13 28 Hughes Ave California Ave to Church Ave 200 53.3 4 8 18 Roeding Dr/West Ave Whitesbridge Ave to California Ave 900 56.3 6 13 28 West Ave California Ave to Jensen Ave 900 59.8 11 23 49 Fruit Ave California Ave to Jensen Ave 2,400 60.6 12 25 55 Thorne Ave Whitesbridge Ave to California Ave 2,900 61.4 13 29 62 Walnut Ave California Ave to Jensen Ave 3,600 62.3 15 33 72 Walnut Ave Jensen Ave to North Ave 600 58.1 8 17 37
Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd California Ave to Jensen Ave 6,300 63.4 18 39 84 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd Jensen Ave to North Ave 3,300 63.2 18 38 82 Elm Ave Ventura St to Jensen Ave 7,100 65.5 25 54 116
Elm Ave Jensen Ave to North Ave 4,800 63.8 19 41 89
Source: FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model based on traffic volumes provided by Fehr and Peers in 2017. Calculations included in Appendix F.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-23
are generally short and intermittent. Industrial and farmland uses may generate noise on a more continual basis due to the nature of their activities.

Project and Nearby Sensitive Receptors
Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration such as residences, schools, hospital facilities, houses of worship, and open space/recreation areas where quiet environments are necessary for the enjoyment, public health, and safety of the community. Commercial and industrial uses are not considered noise- or vibration-sensitive uses.

The Plan Area currently contains residential, farmland, commercial, and industrial uses, with nominally incompatible land uses located near one another. Sensitive receptors within the Plan Area include schools, churches, community centers, museums, and medical uses. For more information related to land use, please see the Land Use chapter of this Draft EIR.

4.10.1 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed Plan would result in a significant impact if it would:

1. Expose people to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan or the Municipal Code, and/or the applicable standards of other agencies.

2. Expose people to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

3. Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Plan Area above levels existing without the Project.

4. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Plan Area above levels existing without the Project.

5. Expose people residing or working in the vicinity of the Project site to excessive aircraft noise levels, for a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport.

6. Expose people residing or working in the Plan Area to excessive noise levels, for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip.

4.11.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NOISE-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan would cause exposure of people to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan or the Municipal Code, and/or the applicable standards of other agencies.

Implementation of the proposed Plan would have a significant impact if it would expose new and existing receptors to incompatible levels of noise from both the operations and increased traffic resulting from future development of the proposed Plan.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-24 AUGUST 2017
Policy NS-1-a of the Fresno General Plan establishes the following “Desirable and Generally Acceptable Exterior Noise Environment” noise levels by receiving land use:
 Desirable noise level of 60 dBA Ldn or CNEL at residential or noise-sensitive uses  Maximum average noise level of 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL at residential or noise-sensitive uses  Maximum average noise level of 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL at non-sensitive commercial uses  Maximum average noise level of 70 dBA Ldn or CNEL at industrial uses As discussed above, Policy NS-1-j establishes the significance threshold for a significant increase generated by a project as an increase of 3 dB Ldn or CNEL or more above the ambient noise limits established in the General Plan.

Traffic Noise
Future development in accordance with the proposed Plan would cause increases in traffic along local roadways. A substantial increase is defined as a noise increase greater than 3 dBA over existing conditions.

Sensitive land uses include residential, schools, churches, nursing homes, hospitals, and open space/recreation areas. Commercial, farmland, and industrial areas are not considered noise sensitive and generally have higher tolerances for exterior and interior noise levels.

The traffic noise levels were estimated using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. Table

4.11-12 presents the noise level increases on roadways over existing conditions at 50 feet from the centerline of each roadway segment due to the proposed Plan. The “Cumulative” traffic noise levels include effects of future regional ambient growth and growth due to the project.17,18 “Project Contribution” represents the effect the proposed Plan would have on traffic noise levels by comparing the difference between “Existing-Plus-Project” noise levels and existing noise levels. Appendix F of this Draft EIR includes tables showing traffic noise levels for all three scenarios: Existing, Existing-Plus-Project, and Cumulative, as well as the calculated distances to the 70, 65, and 60 CNEL contours for selected roadway segments in the Plan Area.

Table 4.11-12 shows that traffic noise increases resulting from the project contribution would range from -

0.9 to 9.8 dBA CNEL, and overall increases due to both the proposed Plan and regional growth would range from 2.6 to 12.5 dBA CNEL. Of the 30 segments analyzed, 21 segments would experience substantial noise increases greater than 3 dBA attributable to buildout of the proposed Plan, with future noise levels that exceed 65 dB CNEL. Therefore, increases in traffic noise levels due to the proposed Plan would result in a potentially significant impact.

Significance Without Mitigation (Traffic Noise): Significant Impact NOISE-1: Development in accordance with the proposed Plan would cause increases in traffic along local roadways of more than 3 dBA over existing conditions. 17 As noted above, the traffic noise modeling does not include variations in fleet mix that may be associated with the existing or recommended (future) designated truck routes (as shown in Figure 5-7, Existing and Potential Truck Routes). 18 Fehr and Peers, 2017. Draft Transportation Impact Study for the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan, June.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-25
TABLE 4.11-12 SPECIFIC PLAN BUILDOUT TRAFFIC NOISE INCREASES Roadway Segment
dBA CNEL @ 50 Feet
Existing Cumulative
Overall
Increase
Project
Contribution
Whitesbridge Ave Marks Ave to Roeding Dr 64.8 71.1 6.4 6.3 Whitesbridge Ave Roeding Dr to Thorne Ave 61.7 68.3 6.6 4.3 Kearney Blvd Marks Ave to West Ave 61.9 67.9 6.1 5.4
Kearney Blvd West Ave to Thorne Ave 61.1 68.0 6.9 5.5
California Ave Marks Ave to West Ave 63.3 67.5 4.2 2.0
California Ave West Ave to Fresno St 61.9 69.7 7.8 6.0
California Ave Fresno St to MLK Jr. Blvd 63.6 66.2 2.6 1.3 Ventura St MLK Jr. Blvd to B Street 65.5 71.0 5.5 3.9
Church Ave Marks Ave to West Ave1 60.0 65.0 5.0 5.7
Church Ave West Ave to Walnut Ave 60.9 68.3 7.4 5.7
Church Ave Walnut Ave to Elm Ave 63.1 69.8 6.7 4.5
Jensen Ave Marks Ave to West Ave 67.5 71.2 3.7 -0.9
Jensen Ave West Ave to Walnut Ave 69.7 73.2 3.5 1.5
Jensen Ave Walnut Ave to Elm Ave 69.0 74.1 5.1 4.3
North Ave Walnut Ave to Elm Ave 63.9 69.2 5.3 3.3
Marks Ave Whitesbridge Ave to California Ave 68.7 73.3 4.6 2.6 Marks Ave California Ave to Jensen Ave 63.9 69.6 5.7 3.0 Hughes Ave/Roeding Dr Belmont Ave to Whitesbridge Ave 61.0 69.7 8.7 4.9 Hughes Ave Whitesbridge Ave to California Ave 56.3 67.1 10.8 9.8 Hughes Ave California Ave to Church Ave 53.3 65.8 12.5 9.7 Roeding Dr/West Ave Whitesbridge Ave to California Ave 56.3 67.2 10.9 7.3 West Ave California Ave to Jensen Ave 59.8 69.8 10.0 6.5 Fruit Ave California Ave to Jensen Ave 60.6 67.7 7.1 6.2 Thorne Ave Whitesbridge Ave to California Avea 61.4 64.5 3.1 3.4 Walnut Ave California Ave to Jensen Ave 62.3 67.5 5.2 5.2 Walnut Ave Jensen Ave to North Ave 58.1 69.7 11.6 9.7
Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd California Ave to Jensen Ave 63.4 68.2 4.9 4.4 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd Jensen Ave to North Ave 63.2 70.1 6.8 6.9 Elm Ave Ventura St to Jensen Ave 65.5 69.8 4.3 1.8
Elm Ave Jensen Ave to North Ave 63.8 68.9 5.1 5.0
Note: Bold text indicates segments for which the project contribution constitutes a significant impact. a. While the increase in noise levels due to the proposed Plan along these segments exceeds 3 dB, the future noise levels would not exceed the maximum acceptable ambient noise level of 65 dB CNEL and the increase from the proposed Plan would not constitute a significant impact.

Source: FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model based on traffic volumes provided by Fehr & Peers, 2017. Calculations in Appendix F.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-26 AUGUST 2017
In compliance with CEQA, “each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so” (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1(b)). The term “feasible” is defined in CEQA to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors” (Public Resources Code Section 21061.1).

A number of measures were considered for mitigating or avoiding the noise impacts from traffic generated by the proposed Plan; however, no feasible mitigation measures are available that would reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. The following is a brief discussion of the mitigation measures considered.

Sound Barrier Walls
The primary method for addressing excessive roadway noise is sound barrier walls. Several factors make potential implementation of sound walls impractical, infeasible, or economically unrealistic:

Along many impacted segments, houses or other sensitive uses face the roadway and access to the properties is via driveways. Sound walls between the roadway and the house would cut off the access to the property.

Due to the wide distribution of scattered residences, the cost per receptor of effective sound walls would be unreasonable.

The City does not have control over all roadway rights-of-way or the private property that walls would have to be constructed on.

Therefore, roadway sound barrier walls are impractical and infeasible along the impacted segments.

Special Roadway Paving
Notable reductions in tire noise have been achieved with special paving materials, such as rubberized asphalt or open-grade asphalt concrete overlays. For example, Caltrans performed a 12-year study of pavement noise along I-8019 and found improvements in the range of 6 to 7 dB (compared to the baseline conditions using aged, dense-graded asphalt concrete).

However, such reductions would not provide sufficient noise reduction to preclude substantial increases to segments that would experience project-generated increases of over 7 dB CNEL. Another serious failing of this noise reduction approach is the long-term degradation of benefits as the material ages, wears, and is compacted by years of passing vehicles. Thus, the noise reduction from this method may not be adequate for all receptors along the impacted segment, either initially or over time. In consideration of the shortcomings of this potential mitigation measure, it was determined that this approach would be 19 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2001. I-80 Davis OGAC Pavement Noise Study, Traffic Levels Associated with Aging Open Grade Asphalt Concrete Overlay, May. Prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/Davis_12Yr_QPR_Study_May11.pdf.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-27
inadequate for reducing the noise impacts to less than significant levels and it was rejected from additional consideration.

Traffic Noise Summary
No individual measure and no set of feasible or practical mitigation measures are available to reduce Plangenerated traffic noise to less than significant levels. Thus, traffic noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Significance With Mitigation (Traffic Noise): Significant and unavoidable.

Stationary-Source Noise
Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an increase in residential, mixed use, office, and commercial development within the Plan Area. The primary noise sources from these land uses are landscaping and maintenance activities, HVAC systems, mechanical equipment, and loading docks. Noise generated by residential, office, or commercial uses are generally short-term and intermittent, are generally localized, and are not a substantial source of community noise.

The City’s Municipal Code prohibits any noise that exceeds the ambient noise level (shown in Table

4.11-6) at receiving residential properties by more than 5 dB, and any noise which “disturbs or unduly annoys” people within schools, hospitals, or churches. Consequently, since developments would be subject to the restrictions in the municipal code, stationary-source noise from these types of proposed land uses would not substantially increase the noise environment. Therefore, Plan-related noise impacts from stationary sources would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation (Stationary Noise): Less than significant.

NOISE-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan could potentially cause exposure of people to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

The potential vibration impacts resulting from development of the proposed Plan are addressed in this impact. Construction vibration effects and operational vibration effects are discussed separately.

Construction-Related Vibration Impacts
Construction operations can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the construction site depends on soil type, ground strata, and receptor-building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Thus, vibration effects are commonly assessed relative to ‘annoyance’ and ‘architectural damage’ (the former is typically in terms of vibration decibels, VdB, while the latter is typically in terms of peak particle velocities,

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-28 AUGUST 2017
PPV). Vibration from construction activities rarely reaches levels that can damage structures, but can achieve the audible and perceptible ranges in buildings close to the construction site. Table 4.11-13 lists vibration levels for common construction equipment items.

TABLE 4.11-13 VIBRATION LEVELS FOR COMMON CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ITEMS Equipment
Approximate Velocity
Level at 25 Feet
(VdB)
Approximate RMSa
Velocity at 25 Feet
(in/sec)
Pile Driver (impact) Upper Range 112 1.518
Pile Driver (impact) Lower Range 104 0.644
Pile Driver (sonic) Upper Range 105 0.734
Pile Driver (sonic) Lower Range 93 0.170
Large Bulldozer 87 0.089
Caisson Drilling 87 0.089
Jackhammer 79 0.035
Small Bulldozer 58 0.003
Loaded Trucks 86 0.076
FTA Criteria: Human Annoyance (Daytime/Nighttime) 78/72 — FTA Criteria: Structural Damage — 0.200
a. RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of 1 microinch/second.

Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May. U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT).

FTA-VA-90-1003-06.

As shown in Table 4.11-13, vibration generated by construction equipment has the potential to be substantial, since it has the potential to exceed the FTA criteria of 78 VdB for human annoyance and 0.200 in/sec for structural damage. However, groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors, so it is usually evaluated in terms of indoor receivers.20 Construction details and equipment for individual development projects that could be implemented through the proposed Plan are not known at this time. As such, vibration impacts may occur from construction equipment associated with development in accordance with the implementation of the proposed Plan. Therefore, construction vibration impacts are considered potentially significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Potentially significant.

Impact NOISE-2:Construction activities could result in vibration-induced architectural damage at nearby structures or hardscape features, or could result in vibration-induced annoyance at nearby sensitive receptors.
20 Fresno General Plan MEIR, 2014.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-29
Mitigation Measure NOISE-2a: Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, applicants for individual development projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities—such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers—within 50 feet of off-site structures, shall prepare and submit to the City of Fresno an acoustical study to evaluate potential construction-related vibration damage impacts. The vibration assessment shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and be based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) vibration-induced architectural damage criterion. If the acoustical study determines a potential exceedance of the FTA thresholds, measures shall be identified that ensure vibration levels are reduced to below the thresholds. Measures to reduce vibration levels can include use of less-vibration-intensive equipment (e.g., drilled piles and static rollers) and/or construction techniques (e.g., non-explosive rock blasting and use of hand tools) and preparation of a pre-construction survey report to assess the condition of the affected sensitive structure. Identified measures shall be included on all construction and building documents and submitted for verification to the City.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-2b: Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, applicants for individual development projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities—such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers—within 100 feet of sensitive receptors (e.g., residences and schools) shall prepare and submit to the City of Fresno an acoustical study to evaluate potential construction-related vibration annoyance impacts. The study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and shall identify measures to reduce impacts to habitable structures to below the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) vibration-induced annoyance criterion. If construction-related vibration is determined in the acoustical study to be perceptible at vibration-sensitive uses, additional requirements, such as use of less-vibration-intensive equipment or construction techniques, shall be implemented during construction (e.g., drilled piles, static rollers, and non-explosive rock blasting).

Identified measures shall be included on all construction and building documents and submitted for verification to the City.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures N1 and N-2, which would place limitations on certain equipment and/or their use at certain distances, construction-generated vibration impacts would be reduced to less than significant after mitigation.

Roadway-Related Vibration Impacts
Operation of new commercial land uses could generate additional truck trips over existing conditions, which could potentially generate various levels of vibration along the traveled roadways. Additionally, truck trips could also be generated during construction of new development projects in the Plan Area.

Caltrans has studied the effects of vehicle vibration on sensitive land uses and notes that “heavy trucks, and quite frequently buses, generate the highest earthborne vibrations of normal traffic.” Caltrans further notes that the highest traffic-generated vibration is along freeways and state routes and finds that “vibrations measured on freeway shoulders (five meters from the centerline of the nearest lane) have never exceeded 0.08 inches per second, with the worst combinations of heavy trucks. This level coincides with the maximum recommended safe level for ruins and ancient monuments (and historic buildings).” Typically, trucks do not generate high levels of vibration because they travel on rubber wheels and do not

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-30 AUGUST 2017
have vertical movement, which generates ground vibration.21 Given these results and long-term observations by Caltrans, roadways in the proposed Plan area are not expected to generate excessive vibration. Therefore, there would be no impact due to roadway-related vibration.

Significance Without Mitigation: No impact.

Operations-Related Vibration Impacts
The use of heavy equipment associated with industrial operations can create elevated vibration levels in its immediate proximity. Such equipment-generated vibrations would spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the vibration source varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor-building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels.

While no new industrial uses would be developed within the Plan Area, new sensitive land uses could potentially experience perceptible vibration levels if they are placed in close proximity of existing industrial uses. Specific project-level information is not available at this time for individual development projects that could be implemented through the proposed Plan. However, Policy NS-1-c of the Noise and Safety Element of the General Plan requires that a site-specific acoustical analysis be performed for projects involving sensitive uses that would be located in areas with exterior noise levels of greater than 65 dB Ldn or CNEL. Since areas zoned for industrial uses typically have noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL, new projects that would be potentially affected by vibration levels due to nearby industrial activities would require an acoustical analysis for noise compatibility prior to approval. It is expected that such future acoustical analyses would also include an evaluation of vibration levels. Thus, with the expectation that future development within the Plan Area would follow established approval procedures within the City and would comply with standard conditions of approval – including, but not limited to, fulfillment of applicable policies within the City’s Noise and Safety Element – implementation of the proposed Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact due to operations-related vibration.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

NOISE-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan would cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Plan Area above levels existing without the proposed Plan.

As presented in Impact NOISE-1 above, project-generated operational noise, stationary noise sources (i.e., mechanical systems), and operational activities would not exceed the standards of the General Plan or the Municipal Code and would not result in a substantial permanent increase in community ambient noise levels.
21 Fresno General Plan MEIR, 2014.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-31
However, 21 roadway segments would experience substantial noise increases greater than 3 dBA attributable to buildout of the proposed Plan, with future noise levels that exceed 65 dB CNEL. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed Plan would result in a substantial permanent increase in noise levels, and impacts would be significant.

Significance Without Mitigation (Traffic Noise): Significant As discussed above, no individual measure and no set of feasible or practical mitigation measures are available to reduce project-generated traffic noise to less than significant levels. Thus, traffic noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Significance With Mitigation (Traffic Noise): Significant and unavoidable.

NOISE-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan could potentially cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Plan Area above levels existing without the proposed Plan.

This impact discusses the potential construction-related noise impacts resulting from land use developments accommodated by the proposed Plan. The proposed Plan would increase residential, mixed-use, office, and commercial uses, as compared to existing conditions. Two types of temporary noise impacts could occur during construction activities associated with development that would be accommodated by the proposed Plan. First, the transport of workers and movement of materials to and from the site could incrementally increase noise levels along local access roads. The second type of temporary noise impact is related to demolition, site preparation, grading, and/or physical construction.

The City of Fresno recognizes that the control of construction noise is difficult at best and provides an exemption for this type of noise when the work is performed between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and has obtained a permit issued by the City. Compliance with the municipal code is mandatory, and as such, does not constitute mitigation under CEQA.

Given the lack of specific details about the future developments at the site, a generalized, program-level set of assumed construction activities were used for the construction noise assessment. Noise generated during construction is based on the type of equipment used, the location of the equipment relative to sensitive receptors, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. Sensitivity to noise is based on the location of the equipment relative to sensitive receptors, the time of day, and the duration of noise-generating activities.

Construction is performed in distinct steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and noise characteristics. Table 4.11-14 lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noiseimpact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and noise receptor.

As shown in Table 4.11-14, construction equipment generates high levels of noise, with maximums ranging from 71 dBA to 101 dBA. Construction of individual development projects associated with the proposed Plan would temporarily increase the ambient noise environment and would have the potential to affect noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of that Plan Area.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-32 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.11-14 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE EMISSION LEVELS Construction
Equipment
Typical Max Noise Level
(dBA Lmax)a
Construction
Equipment
Typical Max Noise Level
(dBA Lmax) a
Air Compressor 81 Pile-Driver (Impact) 101
Backhoe 80 Pile-Driver (Sonic) 96
Ballast Equalizer 82 Pneumatic Tool 85
Ballast Tamper 83 Pump 76
Compactor 82 Rail Saw 90
Concrete Mixer 85 Rock Drill 98
Concrete Pump 71 Roller 74
Concrete Vibrator 76 Saw 76
Crane, Derrick 88 Scarifier 83
Crane, Mobile 83 Scraper 89
Dozer 85 Shovel 82
Generator 81 Spike Driver 77
Grader 85 Tie Cutter 84
Impact Wrench 85 Tie Handler 80
Jack Hammer 88 Tie Inserter 85
Loader 85 Truck 88
Paver 89
a. Measured at 50 feet from the source.

Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May. U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT). FTAVA-90-1003-06.

Significant noise impacts may occur from operation of heavy earthmoving equipment and truck hauling that would occur with construction of individual development projects. Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an increase in development intensity throughout the plan area. However, construction noise levels depend on the specific locations, site plans, and construction details of individual development projects, which are not known at this time. Additionally, construction-related noise would be localized and would occur intermittently for varying periods of time.

Because specific project-level information is not available at this time, it is not possible to quantify the construction noise impacts at specific off-site or on-site sensitive receptors. Construction of individual development projects associated with the proposed Plan would temporarily increase the ambient noise environment in the vicinity of each development project, potentially affecting existing and future sensitive uses in the localized vicinity. Because these construction activities may occur near noise-sensitive receptors and because noise disturbances may occur for prolonged periods of time (depending on the project type), construction noise impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Plan are considered potentially significant.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-33
Significance Without Mitigation: Potentially significant Impact NOISE-4:Construction activities would result in temporary noise increases in the vicinity of the Plan Area.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-4a: As required by the City of Fresno Municipal Code, construction activity shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, and shall require a permit issued by the City.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-4b: Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading, and/or construction permits, applicants for individual development projects within 500 feet of noise-sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, hospitals, schools) shall conduct a project-level construction noise analysis to evaluate potential impacts on sensitive receptors. The analysis shall be conducted once the final construction equipment list that will be used for demolition and grading activities is determined. The project-level noise analysis shall be prepared, reviewed, and approved by the City of Fresno Community Development Director. If the analysis determines that demolition and construction activities would result in an impact to identified noise-sensitive receptors, then specific measures to attenuate the noise impact shall be outlined in the analysis and reviewed and approved by the City of Fresno Community Development Director. Specific measures may include, but are not limited to, the following best management practices:
 Post a construction site notice near the construction site access point or in an area that is clearly visible to the public. The notice shall include the following: job site address; permit number, name, and phone number of the contractor and owner; dates and duration of construction activities; construction hours allowed; and the City of Fresno Community Development Director and construction contractor phone numbers where noise complaints can be reported and logged.  Consider the installation of temporary sound barriers for construction activities immediately adjacent to occupied noise-sensitive structures.
 Restrict haul routes and construction-related traffic to the least noise-sensitive times of the day.  Reduce non-essential idling of construction equipment to no more than five minutes.  Ensure that all construction equipment is monitored and properly maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to minimize noise.
 Fit all construction equipment with properly-operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds, no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer, to minimize noise emissions.
 If construction equipment is equipped with back-up alarm shut offs, switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters, as feasible.
 Stationary equipment (such as generators and air compressors) and equipment maintenance and staging areas shall be located as far from existing noise-sensitive land uses, as feasible.  To the extent feasible, use acoustic enclosures, shields, or shrouds for stationary equipment such as compressors and pumps.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-34 AUGUST 2017
 Shut off generators when generators are not needed.
 Coordinate deliveries to reduce the potential of trucks waiting to unload and idling for long periods of time.
 Grade surface irregularities on construction sites to prevent potholes from causing vehicular noise.
 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.

Significance With Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. With implementation of Mitigation Measures N-3 and N-4, construction noise impacts due to construction activities would be reduced to the extent feasible. However, given that details of individual development projects in the vicinity of the Plan Area are currently unknown, it is not possible to quantify the construction noise impacts at specific off-site or on-site sensitive receptors. Because these construction activities may occur near noise-sensitive receptors and because noise disturbances may occur for prolonged periods of time, construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

NOISE-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not cause exposure of people residing or working in the vicinity of the study area to excessive aircraft noise levels, for a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport.

Fresno Chandler Executive Airport lies adjacent to the northeastern boundary of the Plan Area. Other nearby public airports include Fresno Yosemite International Airport (located 6.4 miles to the northeast of the Plan Area boundary) and Sierra Sky Park (7.3 miles to the northwest).22 The 65 dBA CNEL noise contours for Fresno Yosemite International Airport and Sierra Sky Park (shown in Figures NS-4 and NS-6 of the General Plan, respectively) lie outside of the Plan Area. While aircraft that utilize these airports could fly over the Plan Area and generate noise levels that may be momentarily audible or noticeable, these aircraft operations do not significantly contribute to the Plan Area’s noise environment. Figure NS-5 of the City of Fresno General Plan shows that a portion of the Plan Area falls within the Airport Influence Area of Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, including some land that lies 22 Airnav.com, 2017.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-35
within the airport’s 60 dBA CNEL and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours. Land uses that fall within these contours include “Open Space” (“Ponding Basin” and “Clear Zone”) and “Residential.” It is possible that future increases in airport traffic could result in the noise contours encompassing a larger area, which could affect existing uses within the Plan Area. However, no potential changes to airport traffic would be due to implementation of the proposed Plan. As such, no determination of impacts under CEQA is applicable to airport-related noise level increases at existing uses. However, CEQA is applicable to future development in accordance with the proposed Plan, which may increase or intensify development in the area within the Airport Influence Area and the noise contours. The Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) establishes policies for planning new developments on land within the Airport Influence Area.

Table 1 of the ALUCP provides guidance for the compatibility of land uses within the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. ALUCP Policy 3.1 (5) establishes that new residential development and new schools shall be prohibited within the 65 CNEL contour unless it is determined that there is no feasible alternative to such development and provided that the property owner grants an avigation easement to the City. Additionally, ALUCP Policy 3.1 (6) requires an acoustical analysis for any new sensitive use located within a 65 or greater CNEL contour. The acoustical analysis must demonstrate that new structures for sensitive uses shall incorporate noise insulation such that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB CNEL. In accordance with ALUCP Policy 3.1 (7), development of new sensitive uses is prohibited within the 70 CNEL contour.

Since noise from individual aircraft can be intrusive and annoying in locations beyond the limits of the mapped noise contours, the ALUCP also requires an avigation easement to the City of Fresno as a condition for approval of any residential development proposal (i.e., zone change, subdivision map, conditional use permit, site plan review) within the Airport Influence Area (AIA), and for all development proposals (commercial, industrial or residential) within the 65 CNEL contour. The full text of the ALUCP is included in Appendix F.

Although implementation of the proposed Plan may result in development of new uses within the AIA and although noise contours of Fresno Chandler Executive Airport could potentially expand, the developments within the Plan Area would be required to comply with the policies set by the ALUCP and the City’s Noise and Safety Element. Thus, with the expectation that future development within the Plan Area would follow established approval procedures and would fulfill applicable policies, implementation of the proposed Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts due to aircraft-related noise from public airports.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

NOISE-6 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not cause exposure of people residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels, for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip.

There are no heliports or private airports within the Plan Area. The nearest heliport is located at the Community Regional Medical Center (1.8 miles to the northeast), and there are no private airports within five miles of the Plan Area. Given the distance to the Plan Area and that flights would be sporadic and

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-36 AUGUST 2017
limited for medical use, heliport contributions to community noise levels within the Plan Area would be negligible. Therefore, development in accordance with the proposed Plan would not expose people to excessive noise levels, and noise impacts due to private airports and heliports would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.11.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
NOISE-7 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to noise.

Operational Noise – Traffic Sources
Project-related cumulative noise impacts would occur if the proposed Plan’s contribution to cumulative noise increases results in a substantial noise increase in comparison to existing conditions. As previously discussed under Impact NOISE-1, 21 of the 30 segments analyzed would experience substantial noise increases greater than 3 dBA attributable to buildout of the proposed Plan, with future noise levels that exceed 65 dB CNEL. The substantially increased ADT flows resulting from implementation of the proposed Plan would create, by itself, a project-related traffic noise increase that would be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts due to traffic-generated noise would be significant.

Significance Without Mitigation (Traffic Noise): Significant As discussed above, no individual measure and no set of feasible or practical mitigation measures are available to reduce project-generated traffic noise to less than significant levels. Thus, traffic noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Significance With Mitigation (Traffic Noise): Significant and unavoidable.

Operational Noise – Stationary Sources
As discussed under Impact NOISE-1, potential new stationary sources due to the proposed Plan would not be expected to contribute any notable, future sound energy within or outside of the Plan Area.

Additionally, onsite ventilation units and associated equipment at a project site would be acoustically engineered with appropriate procurement specifications, sound enclosures, and parapet walls to minimize noise—all in accordance with City of Fresno stationary noise requirements—to ensure that such equipment does not exceed allowable noise limits. Other stationary sources for residential, office, and commercial uses include landscaping, maintenance, truck deliveries, trash pickup, and parking lot activity, and any other sources of stationary noise at a project site would also be subject to the restrictions of the municipal code.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-37
Of particular note with all existing and future stationary sources associated with the proposed Plan is that they are generally localized in nature (as opposed to more area-wide sources such as roadways and freeways). For example, a single, roof-top ventilation unit or a single lawn-mower will only potentially affect listeners in the immediate vicinity; say within 100 feet (for discussion purposes). Given this relatively limited sphere of influence for any given, single stationary source, coupled with the dispersed placement of such sources across the Plan Area, the aggregation of stationary sources would not be expected to be cumulatively considerable. Thus, cumulative impacts from project-related stationary noise sources would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Construction Noise
Construction activities may occur simultaneously and in close proximity to sensitive receptors, resulting in significant impacts. Additionally, it cannot be determined whether other, close-proximity projects will be conducted simultaneously or to what extent their potential noise emissions might be, since details of individual development projects in the vicinity of the Plan Area are currently unknown. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to construction noise could be potentially significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Potentially significant.

Significance With Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. Even after implementation of Mitigation Measures N-3 and N-4 listed above, construction noise impacts due to buildout of the proposed Plan may remain significant.

Construction Vibration
Construction activities may occur simultaneously and in close proximity to sensitive receptors. However, given the distances between potential construction zones of individual projects within and outside of the Plan Area, these cumulative projects would not be expected to cause a cumulatively significant construction vibration impact. Additionally, Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2 listed below would reduce the impacts to offsite receptors for each individual project to a less than significant level. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts related to construction vibration are anticipated.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-38 AUGUST 2017

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

POPULATION AND HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.12-1

4.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
This chapter describes the population and housing characteristics in the City of Fresno and evaluates the potential environmental consequences from future development that could occur by adopting and implementing the proposed Plan. A summary of the relevant regulatory setting and existing conditions is followed by a discussion of specific and cumulative impacts from future development permitted under the proposed Plan.

4.12.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

4.12.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section summarizes existing State and local laws and policies pertaining to population and housing in Fresno. There are no federal regulations applicable to population and housing in relation to the proposed Plan.

State Regulations
California Housing Element Law
California Housing Element Law includes provisions related to the requirements for housing elements of local government General Plans. Among these requirements, some of the necessary parts include an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. Additionally, in order to assure that counties and cities recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the State housing goals, this section of the Government Code calls for local jurisdictions to plan for, and allow the construction of, a share of the region’s projected housing needs.

Regional Regulations
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
State Housing Element Law, Government Code Chapter 1143, Article 10.6, Sections 65580 and 65589, requires development of a Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan (RHNA). The RHNA, which was adopted by the Council of Fresno County Governments (FCOG) in July 2014, defines local housing market areas. Each jurisdiction within a market area is then assigned and is responsible for, a proportional share of the area’s non-market rate housing needs. According to the 2013 Fresno County RHNA Plan, the City of Fresno falls into the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Market Area (FCMA) and receives an allocation of units based on the City’s share of the housing need within that boundary. The FCMA also includes the City of Clovis, the unincorporated communities of Easton and Friant, and several unincorporated neighborhoods such as Calwa, Fig Garden, Malaga, and Sunnyside.

Adopted in April 2016, the Fresno County RHNA Plan covers an 8-year planning period that is between December 21, 2015 and December 31, 2023. The Plan includes housing at four different income levels, including very-low, low, moderate, and above-moderate. As determined by FCOG, the City of Fresno’s total

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

POPULATION AND HOUSING

4.12-2 A UGUST 2017
housing unit capacity allocation is 23,565.1 This allocation translates into sites that could accommodate housing affordable to households that fall within the various income categories as follows:
 Extremely and Very Low Income: 5,666 dwelling units
 Low Income: 3289 dwelling units
 Moderate Income: 3571 dwelling units
 Above-Moderate: 11,0392
Local Regulations
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan is the City’s primary policy planning document, providing the framework for management and utilization of the City’s physical, economic, and human resources. Adopted on December 18, 2014, the Plan includes ten separate Elements, including a Housing Element chapter. Each Element of the General Plan contains goals, objectives, and implementing policies that guide development within the city. The City’s Policies related to population and housing in the city are listed below in Table

4.12-1.

TABLE 4.12-1 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO POPULATION AND HOUSING Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Urban Form Element
Objective UF-12 Emphasize the opportunity for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, and housing types.

Policy UF-1-a Diverse Neighborhoods. Support development projects that provide Fresno with a diversity of urban and suburban neighborhood opportunities.

Policy UF-1-d
Range of Housing Types. Provide for diversity and variation of building types, densities, and scales of development in order to reinforce the identity of individual neighborhoods, foster a variety of market-based options for living and working to suit a large range of income levels, and further affordable housing opportunities throughout the city.

Policy UF-1-e
Unique Neighborhoods. Promote and protect unique neighborhoods and mixed use areas throughout Fresno that respect and support various ethnic, cultural and historic enclaves; provide a range of housing options, including furthering affordable housing opportunities; and convey a unique character and lifestyle attractive to Fresnans. Support unique areas through more specific planning processes that directly engage community members in creative and innovative design efforts.

Policy UF-1-f
Complete Neighborhoods, Densities, and Development Standards. Use Complete Neighborhood design concepts and development standards to achieve the development of Complete Neighborhoods and the residential density targets of the General Plan.

Objective UF-13
Locate roughly one-half of future residential development in infill areas—defined as being within the City on December 31, 2012— including the Downtown core area and surrounding neighborhoods, mixed-use centers and transit-oriented development along major BRT corridors, and other non-corridor infill areas, and vacant land.
1 The total housing unit capacity allowance is adjusted to account for “credits”, which are existing affordable housing units, and “debits,” which are additional units that have been carried over from the previous Housing Element. 2 Fresno Council of Governments Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element, Adopted April 2016.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

POPULATION AND HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.12-3
Fresno Housing Element
The 2015-2023 Fresno Housing Element was adopted on April 28, 2016 and amended on April 13, 2017; the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has certified that it meets State requirements. The 2015-2023 Housing Element includes a housing needs assessment that identifies current and projected housing needs, as well as policies to accommodate housing development that will be affordable to a range of household types and income ranges. The City’s Policies related to population and housing in the city are listed below in Table 4.12-2. In addition, the City of Fresno 2015-2023 General Plan Housing Element includes an Unaccommodated Regional Housing Needs Allocation from 2008 for additional housing sites (before credits) as follows:
 Extremely and Very Low Income: 3,172 dwelling units
 Low Income: 3,304 dwelling units3
TABLE 4.12-2 HOUSING ELEMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO POPULATION AND HOUSING Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Objective H‐1 Provide adequate sites for housing development to accommodate a range of housing by type, size, location, price, and tenure.

Policy H‐1‐a Implement land use policies and standards that allow for a range of residential densities and products that will enable households of all types and income levels the opportunity to find suitable ownership or rental housing.

Policy H‐1‐b Encourage development of residential uses in strategic proximity to employment, recreational facilities, schools, neighborhood commercial areas, and transportation routes.

Policy H‐1‐c Promote the development of affordable and special needs housing near transit and/or smart growth areas.

Policy H‐5‐g
Create equitable and affordable housing options throughout the City that provide incentives to residents for finding housing in high opportunity areas and to developers for building affordable housing in high opportunity areas.

Objective H-3 Address, and where possible, remove any potential governmental constraints to housing production and affordability.

Policy H-3-a
Review and adjust as appropriate residential development standards, regulations, ordinances, departmental processing procedures, and residential fees related to rehabilitation and construction that are determined to be a constraint on the development of housing.

Objective H-5 Continue to promote equal housing opportunity in the City’s housing market regardless of age, disability/medical condition, race, sex, marital status, ethnic background, source of income, and other factors.

Policy H-5-a
Prohibit discrimination in the sale, rental, or financing of housing based on race, color, ancestry, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, disability/medical condition, familial status, marital status, source of income, or any other arbitrary factor.

Policy H-5-b
Assist in the enforcement of fair housing laws by providing support to organizations that can receive and investigate fair housing allegations, monitor compliance with fair housing laws, and refer possible violations to enforcing agencies.

Policy H-5-c Provide equal access to housing for special needs residents such as people experiencing homelessness, elderly individuals, and persons with disabilities.

Policy H-5-d Promote the provisions of disabled-accessible units and housing for persons with mental and physical disabilities.

Policy H-5-e Ensure that all development applications are considered, reviewed, and approved without prejudice to the proposed residents, contingent on the development application’s compliance with all entitlement 3 City of Fresno General Plan, 2015-2023 Housing Element, adopted April 28, 2016, amended April 13, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

POPULATION AND HOUSING

4.12-4 A UGUST 2017
TABLE 4.12-2 HOUSING ELEMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO POPULATION AND HOUSING Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
requirements.

Policy H-5-f Accommodate persons with disabilities who seek reasonable waiver or modification of land use controls and/or development standards pursuant to procedures and criteria set forth in the Development Code.

Policy H-5-g
Create equitable and affordable housing options throughout the City that provide incentives to residents for finding housing in high opportunity areas and to developers for building affordable housing in high opportunity areas.

Policy H-5-h Consult with a wide range of groups throughout the community and consider environmental justice issues in the development and update of regulations, guidelines and other local programs.

Policy H-5-i Increase or maintain resources to establish and support outreach, public education and community development activities through community- based and neighborhood organizations.

4.12.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes the existing population and housing conditions within the Plan Area, as well as in the City of Fresno as a whole, to provide context for the analysis of the proposed Plan.

As depicted in Figure 3-2, land within the Plan Area is not clearly organized into distinct uses or patterns.

Instead, there is a mixture of industrial, agricultural, commercial, and residential land uses throughout the Plan Area. Properties located at the eastern end of the Plan Area carry over the largely residential land use pattern found in Downtown, west of Highway 99. The pattern transitions into agricultural uses towards the western end of the Plan Area, closer to land outside the City limit within the City’s Sphere of Influence and County-owned land. Pockets of commercial uses are scattered through the Plan Area. Industrial uses, such as Foster Poultry Farms and Cargill Meat Solutions, are located immediately adjacent to, or enclosed by, residential neighborhoods. Additionally, there are vacant lands across the Plan Area.

Population
As of 2015, it is estimated that the Plan Area includes 3,043 households and has a total population of 12,649.
4 Between the years 2010 and 2015, there was a slight decline in the number of households, an annual rate of decline of 0.8 percent. However, there was a 0.6 percent per year increase in the number of households in both the city and county during this time period. If the existing trend continues, the Plan Area would see a 0.05 percent per year decline in the number of households between the years 2015 and 2020, whereas the city would increase by 0.6 percent per year, and the county would increase by 0.7 percent per year.
4 Esri, 2015. Community Profile for Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Area. Prepared by PlaceWorks on July 23, 2015.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

POPULATION AND HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.12-5
Housing
In 2015, the average household size in the Plan Area was 4.1 persons per unit, about 31 percent higher than the citywide average of 3.1. The difference has been increasing from 24 percent in 2000 to 30 percent in 2010. The higher average household size in the Plan Area reflects the types of households residing there. In the Plan Area, about 57 percent of households include one or more children living with the householder, compared to 43 percent in the city as a whole. In addition, 14 percent of the households in the Plan Area are considered multi-generational, consisting of three or more generations that live together in one house, compared to 7 percent in the city as a whole.

Employment
As of 2011, a total 2,935 people work in the Plan Area. About 212 people, or 4.8 percent, of the Plan Area’s 4,443 employed residents work within the Plan Area. The remaining 4,231 employed Plan Area residents, or 95.2 percent, out-commute to another location for work. Conversely, 2,723 workers living outside of the Plan Area commute into the Plan Area for work.

4.12.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed Plan would result in a significant impact if it would:

1. Induce substantial 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).

2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

3. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

POPULATION AND HOUSING

4.12-6 A UGUST 2017

4.12.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
POP-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not induce substantial 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).

The proposed Plan would result in a significant impact related to population growth if it would lead to substantial unplanned growth, either directly or indirectly.

Housing and Population
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, buildout of the proposed Plan under the Dual Designation Scenario could generate a maximum of approximately 7,131 new housing units, 2,489,065 square feet of office space, and 1,698,040 square feet of retail space (based on the dual land use designation in Figure 3-3 of the proposed Plan) during implementation of the proposed Plan through the 25-year planning horizon.. This anticipated future development would result in approximately 27,7755 new residents. The projected occupied housing is based on an average occupancy of total units throughout Fresno County between the year 2000 and 2010. The average occupancy was approximately 95 percent and approximately 5 percent vacancy.6 The residential population for the Plan Area, as well as citywide, is shown in Table 4.12-3. The population potential for the Plan Area is within the population growth contemplated by the Fresno General Plan, which anticipates growth of up to 226,000 additional residents, as shown in Table 4.12‐3, consistent with the proposed Plan. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Plan would not exceed the City’s projection.

TABLE 4.12-3 RESIDENTIAL POPULATION POTENTIAL
Land Use Proposed Plan City of Fresno General Plan
Population Estimate Under
Horizonb
Existing Population 12,649a 545,000c
New Population 27,775 226,000
Total Residential Population 40,424 771,000
a. As of the year 2015, obtained from Esri Business Analyst. b. City of Fresno General Plan, Table 1-5: Population Estimate under Horizon and Buildout. The Horizon year is 2035
c. Existing population includes the entire SOI area population from 2010 Census Data.

Source: PlaceWorks, 2015, using data from Esri business analyst; City of Fresno General Plan.

As noted above, the proposed Plan could generate up to 7,131 new housing units in the Plan Area under the Dual Designation Scenario.
5 ((7,131 housing units * .95 occupancy rate )*4.1 people per unit )) = 27,775.24. 6 Fresno General Plan MEIR, Population and Housing, page 5.12-11.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

POPULATION AND HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.12-7
As described Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the General Plan anticipates that the Plan Area would result in 6,723 new housing units as the General Plan is implemented.7 As noted above, the proposed Plan could result in 7,131 new housing units under the Dual Designation Scenario (based on the dual land use designation), which is greater than the estimated buildout of the General Plan.

Employment
New jobs in the Plan Area would be created by development of commercial, office, and other employment-generating uses. New industrial jobs could occur in existing industrial businesses; however, the proposed Plan redirects new industrial uses to locations outside of the Plan Area to remove land use conflicts with nearby residential and other sensitive uses. As shown in Table 4.12-4, the Fresno General Plan MEIR projects an increase of 183,940 jobs for a total of 393,200 jobs in Fresno in 2056. As described in the Project Description in this Draft EIR, buildout of the proposed Plan could result in as many as 8,671 additional jobs in 2042.
8 These new jobs would not exceed the citywide job projections. Although job growth usually does not directly induce population growth, this calculation takes into account the fact that an increase in employment could accompany population growth, as workers and their family members are likely to live close to their workplaces.

TABLE 4.12-4 EMPLOYMENT POPULATION POTENTIAL
Land Use Proposed Plan City of Fresno Planning Area
General Plan Employment
Estimate
Existing Jobs 2,935a 209,260b
New Jobs 8,671 183,940
Total Jobs 11,606 393,200c
a. As of the year 2011, obtained from Esri Business Analyst b. As of the year 2010, obtained from Table 5.12-5 of the Fresno General Plan MEIR c. As of the year 2056, obtained from Table 5.12-5 of the Fresno General Plan MEIR Source: PlaceWorks, 2015, using data from Esri business analyst; Fresno County General Plan MEIR.

Although the number of residents generated under the proposed Plan could exceed the number projected by the General Plan under the Dual Designation Scenario, growth under the proposed Plan would occur incrementally over a period of approximately 25 years and would be guided by a policy framework in the proposed Plan that is generally consistent with many of the principal goals and objectives established in the Fresno General Plan and 2015-2023 Housing Element. As discussed in Chapter 4.10, Land Use and Planning, the proposed Plan is consistent with Economic Development Goals ED-1, -2, -3 and -4 that seek to promote employment growth. As the goals and vision of the proposed Plan are to facilitate infill growth in magnet cores and along corridors, as well as to plan for and zone employment areas for “healthy” businesses, implementation of the proposed Plan would support 7 Development capacity numbers for the General Plan were calculated using the planned land uses shown in the General Plan Land Use map approved February 29, 2016. 8 ((7,131 housing units *.95 occupancy rate)*1.28 employees per occupied housing unit)) = 8,671.30.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

POPULATION AND HOUSING

4.12-8 A UGUST 2017
citywide planning efforts. Therefore, this additional growth would be consistent with the citywide planning objectives. As a result, impacts to population growth associated with potential future development under the proposed Plan would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

POP-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

The proposed Plan would have a significant impact if it would displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the proposed Plan would allow for an increase in the total number of housing units in the Plan Area (up to a total of 7,131 net new housing units under the Dual Designation Scenario) through the 25-year planning horizon. Since implementation of the proposed Plan would result in a net increase in housing, it would not require replacement housing outside the Plan Area. Furthermore, no housing is proposed to be demolished under the proposed Plan, and the availability of vacant land within the Plan Area would not require the demolition of existing housing units to produce new units. Development under the proposed Plan would be required to comply with the City’s Housing Element Objective H-5 and associates policies, as shown in Table 4.12-2 above, which promotes equal housing opportunity in the City’s housing market. Therefore, impacts related to the displacement of housing would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

POP-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

The proposed Plan would have a significant environmental impact if it would displace a substantial number of people, thereby requiring construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an increase in the total number of housing units within the Plan Area. As described under impact POP-2 above, because there is ample vacant land available to locate new units within the Plan Area, production of these new units would not require the demolition of existing housing. As a result, substantial numbers of people would not be displaced, and construction of replacement housing would not be required. Therefore, impacts associated with the displacement of substantial numbers of people would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

POPULATION AND HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.12-9

4.12.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
POP-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to population and housing.

As discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Evaluation, of this Draft EIR, this EIR takes into account growth projected by the proposed Plan within the Fresno City boundary and Sphere of Influence, in combination with impacts from projected growth in the rest of Fresno County and the surrounding region. Impacts from cumulative growth are considered in the context of their consistency with regional planning policies.

As described above, the proposed Plan would not induce a substantial amount of growth that has not been adequately planned for or require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Although the number of new residents generated under the proposed Plan could exceed the number analyzed under the General Plan MEIR under the Dual Designation Scenario, cumulative growth would be consistent with regional planning targets. Thus, when considered along with the proposed Plan, which, as described in the above sections, would not exceed regional growth projections, cumulative growth would not displace substantial numbers of people or housing or exceed planned levels of growth. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-1

4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
The following information is provided in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125. The environmental setting discussion examines the existing conditions within the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan (Plan) Area. This chapter describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions within the Plan Area and evaluates the potential environmental consequences on public services and recreation from future development that could occur by adopting and implementing the proposed Plan. The public services and recreation facilities analyzed in this chapter include fire and police protection services, schools, libraries, and parks and recreation. For each service, a summary of the relevant regulatory setting and existing conditions is followed by a discussion of potential impacts from future development permitted under the proposed Specific Plan.

4.13.1 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES
This section describes the current fire protection regulations, resources, and response times for fire protection services within the Plan Area, as well as the proposed Plan’s potential impacts to fire protection services.

4.13.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes key State and local regulations related to fire protection services. There are no federal regulations pertaining to fire protection that apply to the proposed Plan.

State Regulations
California Building Standards Code
The California Building Standards Code (CBC), contained in Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), identifies building design standards, including those for fire safety. The CBC is based on the International Building Code but has been amended for California conditions. The CBC is updated every 3 years and the current 2016 CBC went into effect January 1, 2017. It is effective statewide but a local jurisdiction may adopt more restrictive standards based on local conditions under specific amendment rules prescribed by the State Building Standards Commission. Commercial and residential buildings are plan-checked by local City and County building officials for compliance with the CBC. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include the installation of fire sprinklers in all new residential, high rise, and hazardous materials buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-2 AUGUST 2017
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC), contained in Part 9 of CCR Title 24, incorporates by adoption the International Fire Code of the International Code Council, with California amendments. The CFC is updated every 3 years and the current 2016 CFC went into effect January 1, 2017. It is effective state-wide but a local jurisdiction may adopt more restrictive standards based on local conditions under specific amendment rules prescribed by the State Building Standards Commission. The California Fire Code regulates building standards set forth in the CBC, fire department access, fire protection systems and devices, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, and standards for building inspection.

Local Regulations
Fresno Municipal Code
The Fresno Municipal Code (FMC), organized by Title, Chapter, and Section, contains all ordinances for the City. The City’s Fire Code, which is in Chapter 10, Article 5 of the FMC, regulates permit processes, emergency access, hazardous material handling, and fire protection systems, including automatic sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, and fire alarms. Chapter 11, Article 1 of the FMC, sets forth the standards for building and construction in the city. The City has adopted by reference the most recent CBC, subject to additions and amendments as outlined in Section 11-101 (Building Code).

Fresno General Plan
The City’s General Plan contains the following policies and objectives relevant to the provision of fire protection services shown in Table 4.13-1.

Existing Conditions
The Fresno Fire Department (FFD) provides the following services within the City limit: fire prevention, fire suppression, hazardous material mitigation, rescue, and emergency medical services. The City has instant aid agreements with surrounding agencies and districts whereby the nearest fire station responds to an emergency regardless of the jurisdiction within which it is located. These agreements, in addition to the services offered by the FFD, provide high quality fire suppression and emergency medical care services.

Emergency medical service is provided to all city residents by the Fire Department; however, emergency transport is provided by private carriers (such as private ambulance companies).1

1 City of Fresno Fire Department. Available at https://www.fresno.gov/fire/, accessed July 3, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-3
TABLE 4.13-1 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Objective PU‐2 Ensure that the Fire Department’s staffing and equipment resources are sufficient to meet all fire and emergency service level objectives and are provided in an efficient and cost effective manner.

Policy PU‐2‐b
Maintain Ability. Strive to continually maintain the Fire Department’s ability to provide staffing and equipment resources to effectively prevent and mitigate emergencies in existing and new high‐rise buildings and in other high‐density residential and commercial development throughout the city.

Policy PU‐2‐c
Station Siting. Use the General Plan, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, and Concept Plans, the City’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database, and a fire station location program to achieve optimum siting of future fire stations.

Objective PU‐3 Enhance the level of fire protection to meet the increasing demand for services from an increasing population.

Policy PU‐3‐a
Fire Prevention Strategies. Develop strategies to enable the performance of annual fire and life safety inspection of all industrial, commercial, institutional, and multifamily residential buildings, in accordance with nationally recognized standards for the level of service necessary for a large Metropolitan Area, including a self‐certification program. Develop strategies to provide a more systematic and broad based Public Education Outreach.

Policy PU‐3‐d
Review Development Applications. Continue Fire Department review of development applications, provide comments and recommend conditions of approval that will ensure adequate on‐site and off‐site fire protection systems and features are provided.

Policy PU‐3‐e
Building Codes. Adopt and enforce amendments to construction and fire codes, as determined appropriate, to systematically reduce the level of risk to life and property from fire, commensurate with the City’s fire suppression capabilities.

Policy PU‐3‐f Adequate Infrastructure. Continue to pursue the provision of adequate water supplies, hydrants, and appropriate property access to allow for adequate fire suppression throughout the City.

Policy PU‐3‐g
Cost Recovery. Continue to evaluate appropriate codes, policies, and methods to generate fees or other sources of revenue to offset the ongoing personnel and maintenance costs of providing fire prevention and response services.

Policy PU‐3‐I
New Fire Station Locations. Consideration will be given to co‐locating new Fire Station facilities with other public property including, but not limited to, police substations, schools, parks, playgrounds, and community centers to create a synergy of participation in the neighborhood with the potential result of less vandalism and promotion of a better sense of security for the citizens using these facilities.

Equipment and Staffing
The FFD employs 321 uniformed firefighters, 17 sworn non-safety Fire Prevention staff, and 44 civilian members, serving a population of more than 525,000 in the City of Fresno, the North Central Fire Protection District, the Fig Garden Fire Protection District, and the unincorporated County lands located within the City limit. The FFD operates a total of 24 fire stations/companies that serve a 336-square-mile area; 19 fire stations, including the Airport Rescue Fire Fighting Station (ARFF), are located within the City of Fresno and four are located in the contract areas served by FFD. The companies are divided into four battalions: three serve the City of Fresno and one serves the North Central Fire Protection District; each battalion is supervised by a battalion chief. Daily staffing consists of 89 firefighters and one 24-hour arson investigator. The Fire Department has 23 engine companies and 6 truck companies. Additionally, the FFD also has hazardous materials, swift water rescue, heavy rescue, water tenders, and specialized grassland firefighting apparatus, which are staffed as needed by engine and truck company personnel.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-4 AUGUST 2017
Average Response Times
The FMC requires that all new residential development (with up to 4 units per building) must be located within a 5-mile “running distance” of an existing fire station.2 All residential buildings with more than four units and all other development must be located within 3 miles of an existing fire station. With the exception of the Regional Sports Complex at Jensen Avenue, all new development within the proposed Plan Area would be located within a 3-mile running distance of an existing fire station. Table 4.13-2 shows the fire stations that are located either within the Plan Area boundary or within a 3-mile running distance of the boundary.

TABLE 4.13-2 EXISTING CITY OF FRESNO FIRE STATIONS IN THE PLAN AREA Station
No. Address (Fresno) Equipment/Personnel
3 1406 Fresno
Street
Engine 3 —The engine is operated by a crew of four.

Water Tender 3 —The water tender holds 3,000 gallons of water and is staffed as needed by the crew off Engine 3
The block occupied by Station 3 is also home to the FFD’s Training Drill Tower, as well as the Repair and Maintenance section that is responsible for maintaining fire department apparatus.
4 3065 East Iowa
Avenue
Engine 4 —The engine is operated by a crew of three.

Truck 4—The truck is operated by a crew of four.
7 2571 South Cherry Avenue Engine 7 — The engine is operated by a crew of three.

Patrol 7 —The unit is staffed by the crew of Engine 7 as needed. 8 1428 South Cedar
Avenue
Engine 8—The engine is operated by a crew of four.
9 2340 North Vagedes Avenue
Engine 9 — The engine is operated by a crew of three.

Truck 9 — The truck is operated by a crew of four.

Battalion 4
16 2510 North Polk Avenue Engine 16 — The engine is operated by a crew of three.

HazMat 16 — The unit is staffed by the crew of Engine 16 as needed. 19 3187 West Belmont Avenue
Truck 19 — The engine is operated by a crew of three.

Brush 19 — Staffed by the crew of Tuck 19 as needed
Battalion 2
22 806 South Garfield Avenue (North
Central Fire Protection District) Engine 22 — Staffed by a crew of three.

Source: City of Fresno Fire Department Station Locations, 2012. Website: http://www.fresno.gov/Government/DepartmentDirectory/ Fire/AboutFresnoFire/StationLocations/default.htm.

The Fire Department’s target response travel time for the first arriving fire company upon notification of an emergency is 4 minutes 90 percent of the time. In 2016, on a citywide basis, the 4-minute goal was reached 68 percent of the time. Industry standards define an Effective Firefighting Force (EFF) as having 15 firefighters on a residential fire ground within 8 minutes, 90 percent of the time and 21 firefighters on 2 City of Fresno Municipal Code, Section 12-4.508-E-1.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-5
a commercial fire ground within 8 minutes 90 percent of the time. In 2016, the 8-minute EFF goal was reached 81 percent of the time for residential fires and 82 percent for commercial fires. The Fire Department has been unable to meet target response times with the current staffing and fire station locations due to the increasing number of emergency calls for service (which totaled 44,000 incidents in 2016), fire station location density, and unit availability. This issue is not unique to the Plan Area, but is rather a citywide Department statistic. The Fire Department has a staffing level of 0.44 firefighters per 1,000 people; the State average is 0.81, and the national standard is 1 to 1.5 per 1,000 residents. The National Fire Protection Association Standard (NFPA) 1710 provides recommendations of minimum workforce standards to accomplish provisions of fire suppression and emergency medical services. FFD uses NFPA 1710 as a guidance document to establish its own minimum staffing standards to ensure that sufficient workforce is present in emergencies. FFD’s long-term planning target is to match daily staffing levels to service level demands.

Impact Fees
The City has implemented the following impact fees that address fire protection services:

Fire Facilities Fee: Section 12-4.901 of the FMC, which states:

In order to implement the goals and objectives of the City’s General Plan, and to mitigate the impacts caused by future development in the City, certain fire department facilities must be constructed. The City Council has determined that a Fire Facilities Fee is needed in order to finance these public facilities and to pay for each development’s fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements. In establishing the fee described in the following sections, the City Council has found the fee to be consistent with its general plan, and pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.2, has considered the effects of the fee with respect to the city's housing needs as established in the housing element of the general plan.

Street Facilities Fees: Section 12-4.1001 of the FMC states:

In order to implement the goals and objectives of the City’s General Plan, and to mitigate the impacts caused by future development in the City, certain street facilities must be constructed. The City Council has determined that street facilities fees are needed in order to finance these public facilities and to pay for each development’s fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements. Based on this determination, Council adopted, by resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule, a Citywide Regional Street Impact Fee (“Citywide Street Fee”) and a New Growth Area Major Street Fee (“Growth Area Street Fee”). Council adopts this Article to require the imposition of these street facilities fees on new development in the city.

4.13.1.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Plan would have a significant impact related to fire protection and emergency services if it would:

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-6 AUGUST 2017

1. In order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire services, result in the provision of or need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction or operation of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

2. Contribute to cumulative fire protection and emergency medical service impacts in the area.

4.13.1.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes potential Plan-specific and cumulative impacts to fire protection services.

PS-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

As described above in Section 4.13.1.1, the Fire Department’s level of emergency response service is below average compared with metropolitan cities of similar size. The expected level of fire prevention services in a city the size of Fresno is the ability to provide annual fire and life safety inspections of all commercial, industrial, institutional, and multi-family buildings, and to provide proactive systematic fire safety public education programs to all pre-adult school levels, senior citizens, the disabled, and the nonEnglish speaking population. Due to current staffing levels and new construction inspection demands, many buildings that are susceptible to low and moderate fire and life safety hazards are being inspected at intervals of 2 to 4 years. Public education outreach is currently limited to attendance requested for community events and the Burn Aware school education program focused on grades 1 to 3.

Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an additional 4,035,143 square feet of nonresidential building space, along with 7,131 housing units, which would generate an increase of up to 27,775 residents; this increase is greater than the population growth contemplated by the General Plan.

Increased population densities of the Plan Area and planned creation of new mixed-use corridors and centers will require commensurate increases in firefighter staffing and facilities and equipment. Fire station location will become more dependent on density and availability than “running distances” between fire stations. Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an increased demand for fire protection services, commensurate with the increase in resident population and daytime population.

However, this increase in demand can be met with additional staffing requirements at the existing fire stations that service the Plan Area, and would not result in the need to construct additional government facilities. Additionally, future development within the Plan Area would be required to comply with Section 12-4.901 of the FMC, which requires each development to pay a Fire Facilities Fee in order to mitigate the impacts on fire protection facilities caused by future development within the city. Payment of the appropriate development impact fees would offset the construction and acquisition costs of required fire facility improvements.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-7
Implementation of the proposed Plan would also be required to comply with General Plan Policies listed below that seek to minimize potential impacts to response times and physical impacts to the environment from future construction of facilities that may result from development proposed under the Plan.

Objective PU-2: Ensure that the Fire Department’s staffing and equipment resources are sufficient to meet all fire- and emergency service-level objectives and are provided in an efficient and cost effective manner.

Policy PU-3-d Review Development Application. Continue Fire Department review of development applications, provide comments and recommend conditions of approval that will ensure adequate on-site and off-site fire protection systems and features are provided.

Policy PU-3-e Building Codes. Adopt and enforce amendments to construction and fire codes, as determined appropriate, to systematically reduce the level of risk to life and property from fire, commensurate with the City’s fire suppression capabilities.

Policy PU-3-f Adequate Infrastructure. Continue to pursue the provision of adequate water supplies, hydrants, and appropriate property access to allow for adequate fire suppression throughout the City.

Additionally, development projects within the proposed Plan Area would be required to comply with Section 12-4.901 of the FMC, which requires each development to pay a Fire Facilities Fee in order to mitigate the impacts on fire protection facilities caused by future development in the city. Payment of the appropriate development impact fees would offset the construction and acquisition costs of required fire facility improvements. Further, the Master EIR for the City’s General Plan has analyzed and accounted for the anticipated improvements to the City’s fire protection facilities and services, and the development regulations in the proposed Plan include an objective to site new fire stations adjacent to parks, trails, and schools. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.13.1.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
PS-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to fire protection service.

Future growth would result in an increased demand for fire services and facilities throughout the Plan Area, as well as areas that are outside the Plan Area. The Master EIR for the City’s General Plan has analyzed and accounted for this increased demand and the associated facility improvements. Because the proposed Plan population increase is within the population increase contemplated by the General Plan, the project impacts are not deemed cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-8 AUGUST 2017
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.13.2 POLICE PROTECTION SERVICES
This section describes the current police protection regulations, resources, and response times in Fresno, as well as the proposed Plan’s potential impacts to police protection services.

4.13.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes local policies related to police services in Fresno. There are no federal or State regulations pertaining to law enforcement that apply to the Plan Area.

Local Regulations
Fresno General Plan
The City’s General Plan contains the following goals, policies, and objectives relevant to the provision of police services as shown in Table 4.13-3:

TABLE 4.13-3 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO POLICE SERVICES Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Objective PU‐1
Provide the level of law enforcement and crime prevention services necessary to maintain a safe, secure, and stable urban living environment through a Police Department that is dedicated to providing professional, ethical, efficient and innovative service with integrity, consistency and pride.

Policy PU‐1‐c
Safety Considerations in Development Approval. Continue to identify and apply appropriate safety, design and operational measures as conditions of development approval, including, but not limited to, street access control measures, lighting and visibility of access points and common areas, functional and secure on‐site recreational and open space improvements within residential developments, and use of State licensed, uniformed security.

Policy PU‐1‐d
New Police Station Locations. Consideration will be given to co‐locating new police station facilities with other public property including, but not limited to, schools, parks, playgrounds, and community centers to create a synergy of participation in the neighborhood with the potential result of less vandalism and promotion of a better sense of security for the citizens using these facilities.

Policy PU‐1‐j Lighting and Safety. Ensure adequate lighting at off‐sale liquor stores to help deter crime and to promote a more inviting and safe atmosphere around them.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-9
Existing Conditions
Equipment and Staffing
The City of Fresno Police Department (FPD) provides the following police protection services within the City limit: uniformed patrol response to calls for service, crime prevention, tactical crime enforcement (such as gang/violent crime suppression), and traffic enforcement/accident prevention. The FPD also contains the Investigative Services Division, which investigates crimes against persons/property, collects intelligence information, and deals with vice/narcotics control and enforcement. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) provides law enforcement services for the State highway system and assists the City of Fresno by providing enforcement within the city under special programs. 3 Patrol services are divided into five policing districts. The Southwest Policing District is located south of McKinley Avenue, and west of East Avenue and State Route 99 (SR 99). The Northwest Policing District is located north of McKinley Avenue to the San Joaquin River and west of Blackstone Avenue/Abby Street to the western City limit. 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 SR 99 (south of Church Avenue) to the southern City limit. The Northeast Policing District is located north of McKinley Avenue to the San Joaquin River and east of Blackstone Avenue to the City of Clovis. The Central District is located south of McKinley Avenue to Belmont Avenue, west of Second Street to Parkway Drive.4 The Plan Area falls entirely within the Southwest Policing District (District 1). In addition to the Fresno Police Headquarters, located at 2323 Mariposa Mall, the FPD operates five police stations within the city:
 Southwest: 1211 Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93706
 Southeast: 1617 S. Cedar Avenue, Fresno, CA 93702
 Northeast: 1450 E. Teague Avenue, Fresno, CA 93720
 Northwest: 3781 N. Hughes Avenue, Fresno, CA 93705
 Central: 3502 N. Blackstone, Suite 201, Fresno, CA 93726 Calls for Service
According to the 2015 Fresno Police Department Annual Report, a total of 427,407 calls for service were made in 2015, with an average daily call for service of 1,171. The average delay time was 6.24 seconds, less than the statewide average of 10 seconds.

Impact Fees
The City has implemented the following impact fees that are applicable to the provision of police protection services:
3 City of Fresno Police Department, https://www.fresno.gov/police/, accessed on July 3, 2017. 4 City of Fresno, Police Department Annual Report, 2015.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-10 AUGUST 2017
Police Facilities Fee: Section 12-4.801 of the FMC states:

In order to implement the goals and objectives of the City’s General Plan, and to mitigate the impacts caused by future development in the City, certain police facilities must be constructed. The City Council has determined that a Police Facilities Fee is needed in order to finance these public facilities and to pay for each development’s fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements. In establishing the fee described in the following sections, the City Council has found the fee to be consistent with its general plan, and pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.2, has considered the effects of the fee with respect to the city's housing needs as established in the housing element of the general plan.

Street Facilities Fees: Section 12-4.1001 of the FMC states:

In order to implement the goals and objectives of the City’s General Plan, and to mitigate the impacts caused by future development in the City, certain street facilities must be constructed. The City Council has determined that street facilities fees are needed in order to finance these public facilities and to pay for each development’s fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements. Based on this determination, Council adopted, by resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule, a Citywide Regional Street Impact Fee (“Citywide Street Fee”) and a New Growth Area Major Street Fee (“Growth Area Street Fee”). Council adopts this Article to require the imposition of these street facilities fees on new development in the city.

Fresno County Sheriff’s Department
The Fresno County Sheriff’s Department provides law enforcement/crime prevention to the unincorporated portions of the metropolitan area and Fresno County. These unincorporated communities include Calwa, Malaga, Mayfair, Sunnyside, Fig Garden, and Tarpey. The proposed Plan Area is located within Patrol Area 2 of the County of Fresno Sherriff’s Department. Area 2 extends from the San Joaquin River south to American Avenue and from McCall Avenue west to Chateau Fresno which is immediately west of the Plan Area. The proposed Plan Area is served by Area 2; the Sheriff’s Department office is located at 5717 E. Shields Avenue, approximately 11 miles northeast of the proposed Plan Area.

4.13.2.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Plan would have a significant impact related to police protection services if it would:

1. In order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police services, result in the provision of or need for new or physically altered police facilities, the construction or operation of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

2. Contribute to cumulative police protection service impacts in the area.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-11

4.13.2.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes the proposed Plan’s potential impacts to police protection services.

PS-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.