Exhibit N-2 – Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Public Review Draft EIR — Fresno City Council, March 21, 2024 (part 3 of 12)

Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an additional 4,035,143 square feet of nonresidential building space and an increase of up to 27,775 residents, which is greater than the population growth contemplated by the General Plan, as shown in Table 3-1 of Chapter 3, Project Description.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an increased demand for police protection services, commensurate with the increase in resident population and daytime population.

The City of Fresno uses a minimum level of service of two officers per 1,000 residents. Using the current City of Fresno staffing goal, at full buildout of the proposed Plan, approximately 565 additional officers would be required for law enforcement services in order for the City to meet its goal of two officers per 1,000 residents.

The proposed Plan includes development regulations, such as an objective to site new fire stations adjacent to parks, trails, and schools. The proposed Plan does not include policies related to police protection services.

As growth occurs within the Plan Area, the FPD may require additional personnel and additional facilities to provide adequate police protection services. Development projects within the Plan Area would be required to comply with the following General Plan policies:
 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. 5 (27,775 new residents/1,000) *2) = 55.55

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-12 AUGUST 2017
 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.

In addition, future development would be required to comply with Section 12-4.801 of the FMC, which requires each development to pay a Police Facilities Fee in order to mitigate the impacts on police 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 police facility improvements.

However, the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities could result in adverse environmental impacts. The projected population increase under implementation of the proposed Plan is less than the population growth contemplated by the General Plan, and the General Plan EIR has already addressed impacts related to the provision of new or altered police protection facilities, impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.13.2.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
PS-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to police protection services.

Future development anticipated with implementation of the proposed Plan, together with projected growth in neighboring communities, would result in additional residential and non-residential development by 2035. This cumulative development would generate additional residents, contributing to an increase in demand for police services.

The Master EIR for the City’s General Plan has already analyzed and accounted for this increased demand and the associated facility improvements. The population increase projected under the proposed Plan is within the population growth contemplated by the General Plan. Further, all cumulative development would be assessed police facilities fees in accordance with FMC Section 12-4.801, and implementation of the proposed Plan would be required to comply with the General Plan Policies listed above that seek to minimize potential impacts to the level of service. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to the provision of police protection services could 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 4.13-13

4.13.3 SCHOOLS
This section describes the existing regulations and conditions regarding public schools in Fresno, as well as the proposed Plan’s potential impacts to schools.

4.13.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes key State and local regulations related to schools. There are no federal regulations pertaining to schools that apply to the proposed Plan.

State Regulations
Senate Bill 50
SB 50 (funded by Proposition 1A, approved in 1998) limits the power of cities and counties to require mitigation of school facilities impacts as a condition of approving new development and provides instead for a standardized developer fee. SB 50 generally provides for a 50/50 State and local school facilities funding match. SB 50 also provides for three levels of statutory impact fees. The application level depends on whether State funding is available, whether the school district is eligible for State funding, and whether the school district meets certain additional criteria involving bonding capacity, year-round school, and the percentage of moveable classrooms in use.

California Government Code, Section 65995(b) and Education Code, Section 17620 SB 50 amended Section 65995 of the California Government Code, which contains limitations on Section 17620 of the Education Code, the statute that authorizes school districts to assess development fees within school district boundaries. Section 65995(b)(3) of the Government Code requires the maximum square footage assessment for development to be increased every 2 years, according to inflation adjustments. On January 22, 2014, the State Allocation Board (SAB) approved increasing the allowable amount of statutory school facilities fees (Level I School Fees) from $3.20 to $3.36 per square foot of assessable space for residential development of 500 square feet or more, and from $0.51 to $0.54 per square foot of chargeable covered and enclosed space for commercial/industrial development. School districts may levy higher fees if they apply to the SAB and meet certain conditions.

Mitigation Fee Act
Enacted as AB 1600 on January 1, 1989, the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code 66000- 66008) requires a local agency that is establishing, increasing, or imposing an impact fee as a condition of development to identify the purpose of the fee and the use to which the fee is to be put. The agency also must demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged, and between the fee and the type of development project on which it is to be levied.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-14 AUGUST 2017
Local Regulations
Fresno General Plan
The City’s General Plan contains the following objectives and policies relevant to the provision of school services within the City as shown in Table 4.13-4.

TABLE 4.13-4 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO SCHOOLS Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Objective POSS‐8 Work cooperatively with school districts to find appropriate locations for schools to meet the needs of students and neighborhoods.

Policy POSS‐8‐b
Appropriate School Locations. Support school locations that facilitate safe and convenient access by pedestrian and bicycle routes, are compatible with surrounding land uses, and contribute to a positive neighborhood identity and Complete Neighborhoods.

Policy POSS‐8‐c
Park and School Park and School Site Coordination. Pursue the cooperative development and use of school sites with adjacent neighborhood parks for both school activities and non‐school related recreational activities.

Fresno Unified School District Facilities Master Plan
The Fresno Unified School District (FUSD) Facilities Master Plan—Final Report was approved by the Board of Education on April 29, 2009. The Master Plan assists the FUSD in achieving a common equitable base for district facilities and anticipating future needs. The plan addresses current facility conditions and suitability and identifies facility improvements to support student engagement and academic achievement. In order to relieve overcrowding/capacity issues, the Master Plan identifies the construction of a new high school and elementary school and boundary solutions to be implemented by 2025. Effective August 1, 2016, the FUSD assesses a development fee of $0.56 per square foot for commercial development, and $3.48 per square foot for residential development. The fees are subject to review and adjustment on a biannual basis, subject to approval by the Board of Education. The fee amount is calculated pursuant to rates effective at the time of payment.6

Central Unified School District Facilities Master Plan
The Central Unified School District (CUSD) Facilities Master Plan was completed in 2016. The Master Plan assists the CUSD to define and prioritize projects to be done on a site-by-site basis, in order to maximize matching funding and use the taxpayer’s money in the best way possible. The Plan provides a framework for the development improvements over the course of 10 years. As identified in the demographic study, District enrollment is projected in increase by 11.84 percent by the 2012/22 school year, assuming that 6 Clayton, Deana. Project Manager, Facilities Management and Planning, Fresno Unified School District. Personal communication with Ashley James, PlaceWorks. July 10, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-15
2,420 housing units will be constructed. In order to accommodate enrollment growth, the Plan identifies construction of a new high school and elementary school to be implemented by 2019.7 Existing Conditions
The proposed Plan Area is served by three School Districts: Fresno Unified (FUSD), Washington Unified (WUSD), and CUSD, that provide kindergarten through twelfth grade classes. As shown in Table 4.13-5, existing schools located within the proposed Plan are served by either the FUSD or WUSD. The far western portion of the proposed Plan area falls within the CUSD. There are no existing schools located within the proposed Plan area that are served by the CUSD; however the CUSD has plans for future expansion within the Plan Area.

TABLE 4.13-5 SCHOOLS WITHIN THE PLAN AREA
School Name Address (Fresno)
Fresno Unified School District
 Sunset Elementary School 1755 South Crystal Avenue
 Bethune Elementary School 1616 South Fruit Avenue
 Rutherford B. Gaston Middle School 1210 East Church Avenue Washington Unified School District
 WEB Dubois Public Charter School 1313 P Street
 West Fresno Middle School 2888 South Ivy Avenue
 West Fresno Elementary School 2910 South Ivy Avenue
Source: Fresno General Plan Master EIR, 2014.

The FUSD is a consolidated district that serves the north eastern portion of the Plan Area. FUSD has an enrollment of 72,357 students dispersed among 95 existing schools. A District Master Plan was completed in 2009 that includes strategies to alleviate existing enrollment that exceeds the capacity of its schools.

The Master Plan calls for a new high school in the southern edge of the City of Fresno, which would accommodate new growth and decrease overcrowding at existing high schools in the city. In addition, there are planned or potential projects for schools near the Plan Area that would occur within the next two the three years that include: portable replacement, new construction projects, and new portables on an existing site or sites.

The CUSD serves the far western portion of the Plan Area. Past and future projected increases in enrollment due to new residents within the District’s service area have resulted in the need to construct 7 Martinez, Joseph. Facilities Planning Manager, Central Unified School District. Personal communication with Ashley James, PlaceWorks, July 5, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-16 AUGUST 2017
new schools and modernize existing facilities. According to the Facilities Master Plan, a new elementary school and high school are planned for construction to accommodate projected enrollment. The southwest portion of the city was served by the West Fresno School District, which contains an elementary school and a middle school; however in July 2011, West Fresno USD merged into and became a part of the WUSD. The WUSD serves the southern portion of the Plan Area.

Enrollment
Table 4.13-6 shows the current enrollment capacities of each school district, including enrollment for private and charter schools. As shown in the Table 4.13-6 below, combined, the school districts can serve up to 108,526 school aged children in kindergarten through twelfth grades.

TABLE 4.13-6 CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENT FIGURES FOR FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Grade Level Elementary School Middle School High School Various Grades Total School District Maximum Currenta
Maximum Current Maximum Current Maximum Current Maximum Current Fresno Unified 41,210 37,057 11,271 16,508 20,807 19,773 5,360 3,977 78,648 77,315 Fresno Unified
(Charter) (all grades and school districts combined) 2,247 2,981 2,247 2,981 Central Unified 10,736 8,879 2,670 2,478 5,198 4,290 N/A 400 18,604 16,047 West Fresno
Elementary
School Districtb
744 765 350 300 1,063 1,063 430 313 2,587 2,441
Privatec (all grades and school districts combined) 4,244 1,274 Other Charter
(Eastern Sierra;
Mendota USD;
Parlier USD; Sierra
USD; West Fresno
Charter)
(all grades and school districts combined) 2,196 0
Total 52,690 47,058 14,291 19,532 27,068 25,393 5,360 3,977 108,526 100,265 a. Given that school boundaries do not mirror city boundaries, students may attend schools outside of the city while students that live outside of the city may attend schools within the city. Enrollment figures are as of 2011. b. In July 2011, West Fresno Elementary School District and Washington Unified School Unified merged. Enrollment figures for the Washington Union High were obtained from the 2016-17 California Department of Education located at website: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/. The maximum capacity at the high school is not known and therefore was assumed to be the same as the current enrollment. c. Information obtained from: http://statisticalatlas.com/place/California/Fresno/School-Enrollment for the City of Fresno.

Source: City of Fresno, 2011; California Department of Education, DataQuest, 2016-17 Enrollment by grade General Plan Map Atlas and updated by PlaceWorks, 2017. Enrollment updated for Fresno, Central and Private school attendance based on available information.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-17
Student Generation Rates
Table 4.13-7 shows the student generation rate for
grades Kindergarten through 12th. This generation
rate is based on information provided by the FUSD,
which serves a large portion of the Plan Area. The
student generation rate is a sum of the rate for both
single-family and multi-family residential
development. Using the generation rates provided by
the FUSD, implementation of the proposed Plan
would result in approximately 3,622 students.

School Impact Fees
The City has implemented the following impact fee
applicable to schools:

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.

4.13.3.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Plan would have a significant impact related to schools if it would:

1. In order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for schools, result in the provision of or need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction or operation of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

2. Contribute to cumulative school facility impacts in the area.

4.13.3.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes potential project-specific and cumulative impacts to school services.

TABLE 4.13-7 STUDENT GENERATION RATES
FOR K-12A
Residential Type Units
Student
Generation
Rates
Students
Generated
Single-Family 4,307 .650 2,800
Multi-Family 1,840 .447 822
Total 6,147 n/a 3,622
a. The student generation rate was derived based on a review of the student generation rate provided by the Fresno Unified School District.

Source: Fresno Unified School District, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-18 AUGUST 2017
PS-5 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 schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

Using student generation rates provided by FUSD, as shown in Table 4.13-7, the proposed Plan would generate approximately 3,622 students in grades K-12. As identified in Chapter 3, Project Description, at full buildout, the proposed Plan would include an additional 6,148 residential units, consisting of 4,307 single-family and 1,840 multi-family units. Based on the existing capacities of FUSD, WUSD, and CUSD, including the charter schools, students generated by the project would exceed FUSD and WUSD’s maximum enrollment capacity.

The projected increase in student population within the proposed Plan area would result in the need for additional elementary, middle, and high schools to serve the future projected student population.8 The proposed Plan includes areas that are designated for school facilities. As future development occurs throughout the Plan Area, the school districts would continually monitor capacities of existing schools and forecast the timing of the construction of new schools or expansion of existing schools so that new student populations can be provided with adequate school facilities. As new schools or expansion of existing schools are proposed, there could be significant adverse environmental impacts from the construction and operation of the schools. Typical impacts associated with schools include: noise and traffic for most of the schools and potentially lighting if there are high school stadiums proposed.

Recognizing that there would be an increased demand for schools, the Plan includes the following goals and policies related to school facilities:

Policy LU-3.1 Encourage the development of centers, or nodes, within walking and biking distance of residents and surrounded by residences. Nodes should consist of a park, a school, and quality neighborhood retail and services.

Goal PF-5: Ensure that the amount of existing and new schools within the Plan Area adequately support the number of existing and new residents.

Policy PF-5.1 Work with school districts and public charter schools in siting new schools for anticipated potential increases in the Southwest Fresno residential population and the resulting impacts on school capacity and enrollment.
8 Clayton, Deana. Project Manager, Facilities Management and Planning, Fresno Unified School District. Personal communication with Ashley James, PlaceWorks. July 10, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-19
Policy T-6.2 Work with FAX and other transit providers to increase transit service, access, and connections throughout Southwest Fresno, connecting existing and future residential areas to key destinations, including schools, retail, employment, and recreation.

Goal PF-8: Locate parks, schools, and other public facilities equitably.

In accordance with Senate Bill 50, the City collects Development Impact Fees for the provision of school facilities that would accommodate the projected increase in student population within the Plan Area.

Implementation of the Fresno General Plan Update Policies POSS-8-a through POSS-8-c, policies in the proposed Plan, and development impact fees would assist the school districts who serve residents within the Plan Area to provide adequate school facilities. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.13.3.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
PS-6 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to schools.

Future development anticipated with implementation of the proposed Plan, together with projected areawide growth in surrounding communities, would result in additional residential and non-residential development by 2042. This cumulative development would generate additional students who would attend schools within the FUSD, WUSD, and CUSD. Cumulative development would be assessed Statemandated development impact fees in compliance with SB 50 requirements. In addition, future school facilities construction would require its own environmental review in accordance with CEQA. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.13.4 PARKS AND RECREATION
This section summarizes key State and local regulations related to park and recreation services, concerning the proposed Plan. There are no federal regulations pertaining to park and recreation services that apply to the proposed Plan.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-20 AUGUST 2017

4.13.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
State Regulations
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act sets a standard park space to population ratio of up to 3 acres of park space per 1,000 persons. Cities with a ratio of higher than 3 acres per 1,000 persons can set a standard of up to 5 acres per 1,000 persons for new development. The calculation of a City’s park space to population ratio is based on a comparison of the population count of the last federal census to the amount of City-owned parkland.

A 1982 amendment (Assembly Bill [AB] 1600) requires agencies to clearly show a reasonable relationship between the public need for a recreation facility or parkland and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.

Local Regulations
Fresno General Plan
The City’s General Plan contains policies and objectives relevant to the provision of parks and recreation areas, which are shown in Table 4.13-8 below.

TABLE 4.13-8 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO PARKS AND RECREATION Objective/
Policy
Number
Objective/Policy Text
Objective POSS-1 Provide an expanded, high quality and diversified park system, allowing for varied recreational opportunities for the entire Fresno community.

Policy POSS-1-a
Parkland Standard. Implement a standard of at least three acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents for Pocket, Neighborhood, and Community parks throughout the city, while striving for five acres per 1,000 residents for all parks throughout the city, subject to identifying additional funding for regional parks and trails.

Policy POSS-1-b
Parks Implementation Planning. Conduct ongoing planning to implement park policies established in this General Plan and continue to strive for well-maintained and fully accessible playgrounds, with accessible amenities, throughout the city.
 Keep an up-to-date inventory of existing and planned parks, including locations mapped on the Parks and Open Space Diagram;
 Plan for acquiring new parkland designated in the General Plan, as shown in Figure POSS-1;  Establish a standard protocol for working with new development to arrange for parkland acquisition and dedication;
 Establish a protocol for working with established neighborhoods to provide needed parks, including the fostering of neighborhood and district associations to help plan, acquire, improve and care for public parks, and coordinating new City service facilities to provide new open space;  Establish detailed design, construction, and maintenance standards;  Prepare an assessment of the recreation needs of existing and future residents;

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-21
TABLE 4.13-8 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO PARKS AND RECREATION Objective/
Policy
Number
Objective/Policy Text
 Create an action plan defining priorities, timeframes, and responsibilities;  Adopt and implement a comprehensive financing strategy for land acquisition, park development, operations, and maintenance;
 Identify opportunities for using existing or planned park space as passive stormwater storage, treatment, and conservation areas that also provide scenic and/or recreational opportunities;  Identify opportunities for siting and using existing or planned park space as passive “purple pipe” waste water storage, treatment, and conservation areas that also provide scenic and/or recreational opportunities; and
 Update the Parks Master Plan.

Policy POSS-1-c Public Input in Park Planning. Continue to provide opportunities for public participation in the planning and development of park facilities and in creation of social, cultural, and recreational activities in the community.

Policy POSS-1-d
Additional parkland in certain areas. Strive to obtain additional parkland of sufficient size to adequately serve underserved neighborhood areas and along BRT corridors in support of new and intense residential and mixed use infill development.
 Identify, where appropriate, joint use opportunities in siting parks with other City service facility needs.

Policy POSS-1-e
Criteria for Parks in Development Areas. Continue to use park size and service area criteria for siting new parks and planning for parks in Development Areas:

Park Type Size Range (Acreage) Population Served Service Area Radius Neighborhood 2.01 to 10 10,000 – 15,000 Up to 1 mile
Community 10.01 to 40 50,000 – 80,000 Up to 4 miles
Regional More than 40a 100,000 100,000 residents
a, Or when amenities provide regional service.

Policy POSS-1-f
Parks and Open Space Diagram. Require parks to be sited and sized as shown on the Parks and Open Space Diagram (Figure POSS-1) of the General Plan, subject to the following:
 All new park designations carry dual land use designations, so that if a park is not needed, private development consistent with zoning and development standards may be approved. (See Figure LU-2: Dual Designation Diagram in the Urban Form, Land Use, and Design Element);  Revised and/or additional park sites will be identified through subsequent implementation and planning in established neighborhoods and Development Areas;
 Locations for future park sites as shown on Figure POSS-1 are schematic to the extent that park sites may be relocated as necessity and opportunity dictate, and a General Plan amendment is not required if the park continues to serve the target areas as determined by the Planning Director; and  A park may be located on any suitable land in the general vicinity of the sites depicted. However, the zoning of potential park sites must be made consistent with the General Plan.

Policy POSS-1-g
Regional Urban Forest. Maintain and implement incrementally, through new development projects, additions to Fresno’s urban forest to delineate corridors and the boundaries of urban areas, and to provide tree canopy for bike lanes, sidewalks, parking lots, and trails.

Objective POSS‐2 Ensure that adequate land, in appropriate locations, is designated and acquired for park and recreation uses in infill and growth areas.

Policy POSS‐2‐a
Identify opportunities to site, develop and co‐locate Fire and Police stations with needed parks and open space as joint‐use facilities.
 Capital Improvement Plans should be updated to reflect this policy.

Policy POSS-2-b
Park and Recreation Priorities. Use the following priorities and guidelines in acquiring and developing parks and recreation facilities:
 Acquire and develop neighborhood park space in existing developed neighborhoods that are deficient of such space and in areas along BRT corridors that are designated as priorities for encouraging new mixed-

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-22 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.13-8 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO PARKS AND RECREATION Objective/
Policy
Number
Objective/Policy Text
use transit-oriented development;
 Provide accessible recreation facilities in established neighborhoods with emphasis on those neighborhoods currently underserved by recreation facilities;  Improve established neighborhood parks with emphasis on those neighborhoods with the greatest need;  Acquire and develop neighborhood and community parks in new Development Areas;  Recognize community parks as a special need in areas that lack these facilities or are planned for transit supportive urban densities, and explore all potential sources of revenue to secure and develop appropriate sites including joint use facilities;
 Develop new special purpose parks, such as outdoor gym equipment, natural resource based trail parks, equestrian centers, dog parks, and amphitheaters, as well as alternative recreation facilities, such as community recreation centers, passive wildlife observation park, cultural heritage and diversity park, military veterans memorial park, and universal access open space park; and  Acquire and develop park and open space in established neighborhoods and Development Areas, prioritizing existing neighborhoods with the greatest deficiencies, so that all residents have access to park or open space within one-half mile of their residence. Develop these facilities to be fully accessible to individuals with disabilities as required by law.

Policy POSS‐2‐c
Review of Development Applications. Coordinate review of all development applications (i.e., site plans, conditional use permits, and subdivision maps) in order to implement the parks and open space standards of this Plan.
 Assure the provision of adequate active and passive open spaces and facilities as appropriate within residential subdivisions through Citywide Development Code requirements for mandatory dedication and improvement of land and/or development fees.
 Require the provision of appropriate outdoor living areas or private open space in multifamily residential developments not subject to the Subdivision Map Act.
 Request open space easements where feasible and warranted to secure appropriate public use of sensitive areas with scenic or recreation values, and for buffering space for sensitive areas.  Require provision of appropriate open space areas in private projects, in the form of trails, enhanced landscaped setbacks, parks, and water features.
 Evaluate the merits of establishing a development bonus entitlement program in which development incentives (i.e., bonus densities, bonus floor area square footage) are provided for contributions to public recreational facilities on‐site or in the vicinity of the development project.

Policy POSS‐2‐e
Open Space Dedication for Residential Development. Ensure new residential developments provide adequate land for parks, open space, landscaping, and trails through the dedication of land or otherwise providing for Pocket Parks, planned trails, and other recreational space, maintained by an HOA, CFD, or other such entity.

Objective POSS‐3
Ensure that park and recreational facilities make the most efficient use of land; that they are designed and managed to provide for the entire Fresno community; and that they represent positive examples of design and energy conservation.

Policy POSS‐3‐a Centralized Park Locations. Site parks central and accessible to the population served, while preserving the integrity of the surrounding neighborhood.

Policy POSS‐3‐b Park Location and Walking Distance. Site Pocket and Neighborhood Parks within a half‐mile walking distance of new residential development.

Policy POSS‐3‐c
Link Parks with Walkways. Link public open space to adjacent, schools, and residential uses and Activity Centers through a series of landscaped linear walkways and bikeways that enhance and encourage pedestrian use
Policy POSS-3-d Sidewalks to Connect Neighborhoods. Sidewalks should be designed for internal neighborhood circulation, and to connect neighborhoods to other residential areas, parks, community trails, shopping, and major streets.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-23
TABLE 4.13-8 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO PARKS AND RECREATION Objective/
Policy
Number
Objective/Policy Text
Policy POSS-3-e
Minimum Park Size for Active Recreation. Minimize City acquisition or acceptance of dedication of park sites less than two acres in size for active recreational uses, except where maintenance costs are secured through a CFD, HOA, or other such mechanism.

Policy POSS-3-f
Park Design Guidelines. Create, maintain, and apply park design guidelines, with provisions for appropriate amenities for each park type, which may include:
 Minimum and maximum shade.
 Protections from shading by adjacent buildings.
 Accessibility to persons with disabilities.
 Street trees and landscaped median strips in adjacent arterial roads.  Art and points of attraction.
 Landscape and hardscape features.
 Street furniture, signage, and lighting.
 Food sales and entertainment.
 Restroom facilities play structures, and picnic shelters.  Landscape design synthesis with input from civil engineers and hydrologists, educators and daycare providers, fitness trainers and coaches, police officers and experts in crime prevention through environmental design, as appropriate.
 Solar panels, new LED lighting, and water efficiency improvements. Sports field areas designed to allow periodic changes in field locations to minimize wear areas and provide sufficient fields to host regional, state, or national tournaments.
 Using topography to create interesting and visually appealing spaces and forms.  Use of waterways as a key design influence, a focus of restoration, and an opportunity to provide for public enjoyment of views.
 Reflecting the agricultural and horticultural heritage of the site or area.  Connecting with surrounding areas in a way that encourages expanded pedestrian activity.  Creating individual places within a park that respond to the needs of a broad range of park users, from youth to the elderly.
 Creating places of delight that engage the senses.
 Creating places that engage the mind, by treating park features as opportunities for interpretation and questioning.
 Using sustainable design practices, and highlighting these as opportunities for learning.

Policy POSS-3-g
Park Security and Design. Promote safety, attractiveness, and compatibility between parks and adjacent residential areas through design, maintenance, and enforcement of park regulations  Require the installation of security lighting for parking, points of access, and building areas at all public recreation and park sites.
 Keep neighborhood eyes on parks to increase security.

Policy POSS-3-h
Coordination with School Districts. Continue to coordinate with school districts to explore opportunities for joint use of both outdoor and indoor recreation facilities, such as playgrounds, play fields, and gymnasiums, for City recreation programs.

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

Objective POSS‐4 Pursue sufficient and dedicated funding for parks acquisition, operations, and maintenance.

Policy POSS‐4‐a Supplemental Revenue. Seek revenue sources to supplement General Fund support for basic park maintenance and basic recreational services.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-24 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.13-8 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO PARKS AND RECREATION Objective/
Policy
Number
Objective/Policy Text
Policy POSS‐4‐b
Operation and Maintenance Financing. Continue to require new residential development to form lighting and landscaping maintenance districts or community facility districts or ensure other means of financing to pay for park operations and maintenance.

Policy POSS‐4‐c Improvements in Established Neighborhoods. Seek agreements with formal neighborhood associations and institutions for improvements and ongoing maintenance of parks in established neighborhoods.

Policy POSS‐4‐d Maintain Adopt-A-Park Program. Continue promoting the City’s Adopt-A-Park program that utilizes partnerships with local organizations to preserve, beautify and maintain Fresno's neighborhood parks..

General Plan—Parks
The City provides Fresno residents with several types of parks and facilities.9 Parks are defined as land owned, leased, or provided to the City and used for public recreational purposes. Among these are several FMFCD stormwater retention and detention basins which serve as passive and active parks (from April to November). The City’s General Plan defines various classes of park space and sets standards for the amount of park acreage that should be provided per thousand population. Table 4.13-9 below shows the desirable park facility standards within the city.

TABLE 4.13- 9 DESIRABLE PARK FACILITY STANDARDS
Park Type
Size Range
(Acreage)
Service Area
Radius
Pocket 0.5 to 2 Up to 0.5 mile
Neighborhood 2.01 to 10 Up to 1 mile
Community 10.01 to 40 Up to 4 miles
Regional More than 40a 100,000 residents
Trail/Greenway/Parkway Varies Entire city
a. Some parks with less than 40 acres may be classified as Regional if they provide a unique opportunity such as river access.

Source: City of Fresno General Plan, 2014. Chapter 5, Parks and Open Space, Table 5-1.

Park types in the General Plan are classified as follows:
 Pocket Park. A Pocket Park is a park up to 0.5 to 2.0 acres in size, and is intended to serve the needs of a smaller, specific neighborhood located within a 0.5-mile radius of the pocket park. Pocket Parks should include amenities to draw neighbors to the park such as a tot lot, picnic bench, or shade structure. New Pocket Parks developed within new subdivisions are maintained as part of a Home Owners Association (HOA) or Community Facilities District (CFD). 9 General Plan park standards and types may differ from PARCS Department operational classifications for existing facilities with various passive and active recreational facilities and features.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-25
 Neighborhood Park. A park of more than 2.0 acres and up to 10 acres in size, which provides basic recreational activities for neighborhoods located generally within a 0.5-mile radius. There are two types of Neighborhood Parks, active and passive. These parks contribute to neighborhood identity and accommodate a range of facilities, such as play fields and courts, children’s play structures, picnic tables, restrooms, and may include a small center with a multi-purpose room, but also passive recreational features such as walking trails, community gardens, or nature areas.  Community Park. A park of more than 10 acres and up to 40 acres in size (typically at least 20 acres), which helps define a community or district and is intended to serve the more active recreational needs of persons who live or work up to a 2- to 4-mile radius. These parks typically include facilities such as lighted sport fields and a community center building with a gym, meeting rooms, and restrooms. Other features may include swimming pools, tennis courts, concession stands, community defining public art, courtyard or plaza.
 Regional Park. A large park of more than 40 acres in size, which is meant to serve a large number of residents across a broad area of the city, or around 100,000 residents. Regional parks typically include community park features that allow for a variety of sports and active recreation. Some are large enough to enable Fresno to host local and regional tournaments or events that bring revenue to the City and local businesses in the form of additional patrons and tax revenue generated. Regional parks also provide unique public facilities, such as the Shinzen Japanese Garden, the Chaffee Zoological Gardens, or natural areas with hiking trails, fishing opportunities, and access to the San Joaquin River.

Parks that provide unique opportunities, such as river access, have been categorized as a regional park, even though they are less than 40 acres in size.
 Trail/Greenway/Parkway. A network of linear open space of varying size, typically intended to accommodate walking and bicycling opportunities for leisure, exercise and commuting purposes.

These parkways typically include paved surfaces for bicyclists and walkers, and in appropriate locations may include equestrian trails.

The current citywide standard for parks is a ratio of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents for Pocket, Neighborhood, and Community parks; this was established under the City’s previous Urban Growth Management Program and current General Plan. The Parks Master Plan is being developed and will refine and adjust as necessary General Plan policies, figures, tables, narrative, open space land use designations, and trail alignments.

Existing Conditions
Existing Parks and Recreational Facilities
This section describes the park space within the Plan Area which are made up of community centers, neighborhood parks, pocket parks [including a Community Facility District (CFD) park], and dual-use ponding basin/parks. Table 4.13-10 below identifies the various parks and community facilities located within the Plan Area that are maintained by the City of Fresno.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-26 AUGUST 2017
The western portion of the Plan Area contains Chandler Park , CFD11_TR5549_04, Habitat Park , Neilson Neighborhood Park, Sunset Community Center, and the dual-use Ponding Basin/Park FF. In this portion of the Plan Area, the majority of residents are located within 0.5 mile of a usable public park or open space area with the exception of the residents located in the subdivision northwest of Kearney Boulevard and Madison Avenue. The eastern portion of the Plan Area contains Almy Park, dual-use Ponding Basin/Park TT2, and the Mary Ella Brown Community Center. In this portion of the Plan Area, the majority of the residents are located further than 0.5 mile from a usable public park or open space area.

TABLE 4.13-10 CITY OF FRESNO EXISTING POCKET, NEIGHBORHOOD, AND COMMUNITY PARKS WITHIN THE PLAN AREA Facility Name
Existing
Acreage Park Type Amenities
Chandler 2.00 Pocket Barbecues, Basketball Court, Children’s Play Structures, Picnic Tables, Drinking Fountain
CFD11_TR5549_04 0.35 Pocket Benches, Walking Course
Habitat 1.30 Pocket None
Sunset 0.98 Community
Center
Children’s Play Structures, Community Center, Computer Lab, Kitchen, Picnic Table, Restrooms, Social Hall, Wading Pool, Parking Lot
Mary Ella Brown 4.25 Community
Center
Children’s Play Structure, Community Center, Computer Lab, , Kitchen, Parking Lot, Restrooms, Social Hall, Swimming Pool, Wading Pool, Community Garden, Basketball Courts
Neilson 4.15 Neighborhood Barbecue, Baseball/Softball Fields, Basketball Courts, Children’s Play Structure, Picnic Table, Restrooms, Benches, Drinking Fountain Almy 0.41 Pocket Benches, Shade Structures, Children’s Play Structures, Walking Course, Drinking Fountain
Ponding Basin/Park FF 1.47 Pocket Barbeque, Benches, Shade Structure, Drinking Fountains, Picnic Tables, Picnic Shelter, Children’s Play Structures
Ponding Basin/Park TT2 4.00 Neighborhood Benches, Shade Structures, Children’s Play Structures TOTAL ACREAGE 18.91 acres
Parkland-to-Residents
Ratioab

1.49 acres per
1,000 residents

a. Assumes population of Plan Area to be 12,649, per Public Review Draft Plan, Chapter 6. b. Ratio does not include the 116-acre Regional Sports Complex, as it is designated a regional park.

Sources: City of Fresno Public Review Draft Southwest Fresno Specific Plan; City of Fresno Parks, Parks and Recreation Facilities Finder. http://gis4u.fresno.gov/parks/, accessed July 3, 2017.

The Plan Area currently has approximately 18.91 acres of parks (community, neighborhood, and pocket parks) for its 12,649 residents which to 1.49 acres per 1,000 residents. In 2014, the city as a whole provided 1.27 acres of parks (pocket, neighborhood and community) per 1,000 population. 10 10 City of Fresno General Plan, 2014. Chapter 5 Parks and Open Space, Table 5-2: City Park Space and Ration Per 1,000 Residents by Park Category.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-27
Service Standards
Park and recreation service standards that apply to the Plan Area are provided in the following General Plan policies:

Policy POSS-1-a Parkland Standard. Implement a standard of at least three acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents for Pocket, Neighborhood, and Community parks throughout the city, while striving for five acres per 1,000 residents for all parks throughout the city, subject to identifying additional funding for regional parks and trails.

Impact Fees
The following impact fees apply to parks and recreational services in Fresno:

Park Facilities Fee: Section 12-4.701 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 park facilities must be constructed. The City Council has determined that a park 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:

4.13.4.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Plan would have a significant impact related to parks and recreation if it would:

1. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered parks or recreation facilities, the construction or operation of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-28 AUGUST 2017

2. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

3. Include recreation facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

4. Contribute to cumulative parks and recreation impacts in the area.

4.13.4.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes the proposed Plan’s potential impacts to parks and recreation services.

PS-7 Implementation of the proposed Plan could 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 parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in a population increase of approximately 27,775 residents under the Dual Designation Scenario for a total of 40, 424 residents. This additional residential growth would result in an increase in demand for parks and recreation facilities. Based on the General Plan standard of 3 acres of public parkland per 1,000 residents, the proposed Plan would require the dedication of approximately 12111 acres of useable parkland to meet the 3-acre per 1,000 residents ratio standard. Assuming the Standard Development Scenario presented in Table 3-1 of Chapter 3, Project Description, the Plan proposes 70 acres of new parkland and combined with the approximately 19 acres of existing parkland within the Plan Area (see Table 4.13-10) implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an total of 91 acres of parkland being located within the Plan Area This is 30 acres less than the total acreage needed to meet the citywide parks and open space standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents.

Development under the proposed Plan would be required to comply with City of Fresno General Plan objectives and policies related to parks, as shown in Table 4.13-8. Future development under the proposed Plan would be required to comply with Policy POSS-2-c, which requires review of development applications in order to implement the parks and open space standard, and Policy POSS-2-e, which ensures that new residential developments provide adequate land for parks and open space, along with other recreational space. Additional parks and open space could be developed or implemented through these policies as the proposed Plan is being implemented in order to meet the citywide standard. Further, the proposed Plan includes the following policies related to parks that would not conflict with adopted City policies and support the development of new parks and open space within the Plan Area:
11 (12,649 existing residents + 27,775 new residents) = 40,424 total residents. (40,424 total residents*3 acres/1,000 residents) = 121.27 acres.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-29
Goal PF-1: Improve existing parks as the highest priority to create high quality outdoor spaces that Southwest Fresno residents care about in order to foster a healthy and active community.

Policy PF-1.1 Upgrade the amenities in existing parks, including ponding basin parks, by first improving the conditions of existing amenities and then renovating parks to provide new amenities. All parks should have well-maintained and fully accessible essential and desired amenities, including park infrastructure, activities, landscaping, and seating.

Goal PF-2: Increase the overall amount of usable parkland within Southwest Fresno allowing varied recreational opportunities for the entire Southwest Fresno community.

Policy PF-2.1 Develop new parks, tot lots, and playing fields within a half-mile walking distance (a ten-minute walk) from existing and new residential areas, prioritizing existing developed neighborhoods that are deficient of such amenities and in areas along transit-priority corridors such as California Avenue, Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, and Elm Avenue.

Policy PF-2.3 Utilize vacant and/or underutilized land for park uses. The transformation of vacant and/or underutilized land into parks can be phased over time with temporary or transitional park activity.

Policy PF-2.4 Meet the General Plan’s parkland standard for at least three acres of parkland to be provided per 1,000 residents for all parkland less than 40 acres in size owned and/or maintained by the City of Fresno, San Joaquin River Parkway, FMFCD ponding basin/parks, owned and maintained by an HOA and publically accessible (no gate), and where there is little likelihood that the use or access will change, while striving for five acres of parkland to be provided per 1,000 residents which includes all parkland counted toward three acres per 1,000 residents, all parkland 40 acres or greater in size, and all trails of any size.

Policy PF-2.5 Promote joint-use public facilities, such as community centers, libraries, parks, school fields, playgrounds, gyms, auditoriums, and aquatic facilities, which can augment and provide a wider range of recreation activities and park amenities to the public.

Policy PF-3.2 Provide a network of multi-use trails, including along the Fresno Irrigation District (FID) canal right-of-ways, to provide an off-street trail system that is integrated into the transportation network while also providing opportunities for recreation and access to nature and parks.

Goal PF-8: Locate parks, schools, and other public facilities equitably.

Policy PF-8.1 Work with school districts and public charter schools to establish joint-use agreements to share school facilities, such as fields, playgrounds, gyms, auditoriums, and aquatic

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-30 AUGUST 2017
facilities, in order to provide a wider range of recreation programs and maximize the efficient use, maintenance, and supervision of public facilities.

Policy PF-8.2 Identify, where appropriate, joint-use opportunities to site parks near other City service facilities.

In addition, future development within the Plan Area would be required to comply with Sections 12-4.701 through 12-4.706 of the FMC, which requires each development to pay a Park Facilities Fee in order to mitigate the impacts on park facilities caused by future development in the city. Payment of the appropriate development impact fees would offset the construction and acquisition costs of required park facility improvements. The population increase projected under the proposed Plan is within the population growth contemplated by the General Plan, and the General Plan MEIR has already addressed impacts related to the provision of new or altered park facilities. However, the proposed Plan would result in the creation of 30 acres less than the total parkland acreage needed to meet the citywide parks and open space standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents. Therefore, impacts related to the provision of parks and recreation services could be significant.

Impact PS-7: The total number of acres of park land developed under the proposed Plan would be less than the amount needed to meet the City’s parks and open space standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents.

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

Mitigation Measure PS-7: As new development occurs in the Plan Area, the City shall periodically (every 5 years) monitor residential population growth compared to development of new parklands for the purpose of evaluating the strength of this Plan to meet the ratio of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. If the ratio is not met, the City shall explore additional ways to increase the amount of dedicated parkland in the Plan Area, including but not limited to designating additional lands for parkland development.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.13.4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
PS-8 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not contribute to cumulative parks and recreation impacts in the area.

As stated above, implementation of the proposed Plan is projected to generate an increase in the population of approximately 27,775 people, requiring the dedication of approximately 121 acres of useable parkland. Parkland refers to pocket, neighborhood, and community parks. The Plan Area currently has approximately 19 acres of parkland, while the City of Fresno Sphere of Influence (the cumulative

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-31
setting for impacts to park facilities) has 632 acres of parks.12 The General Plan identified the need for nearly 2,313 acres of new pocket, neighborhood, and community parks by the General Plan Horizon year of 2035 in the Fresno Sphere of Influence.13 Although neither the Plan Area nor the cumulative setting would meet the 3 acre per 1,000 residents ratio parkland standard, an additional 70 acres of new parkland within the cumulative setting would be created as a result of implementation of the proposed Plan, which represents an increase over existing conditions. 14 Future development under the proposed Plan would result in the development of new parks and recreational facilities. Individual development projects would be required to comply with the Park Facilities Impact Fee, and therefore would allow new parks to be constructed at appropriate sites within the cumulative setting and adequately maintained.

However, cumulative impacts could be significant, as the proposed Plan would result in the creation of 30 acres less than the total parkland acreage needed to meet the citywide parks and open space standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents.

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

Mitigation Measure PS-8: Implement Mitigation Measure PS-7.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

PS-9 The proposed Plan would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in the development of residential, office, retail, industrial, parks/open space and public facilities land uses, and would increase the residential population of the city by up to 27,775people, which is within the population growth contemplated by the General Plan.

In order to meet the increased demand for neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities, the proposed Plan would introduce approximately 8 new public parks and open spaces throughout the Plan Area. Proposed locations of new public parks and open spaces include:
 A park adjacent to the proposed college within the Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard (MLK) Activity center west of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and south of Church Avenue;  A community park to the north of Church Avenue and west of Farris Avenue;  A larger neighborhood park to the south of Florence Avenue and east of Fruit Avenue; 12 Fresno General Plan MEIR, Impact PS-4. 13 Fresno General Plan, Chapter 5 Parks, Open Space and Schools, Table 5-5: Total Existing And Future Park Needs Scenarios. 14 Assumes Standard Development Scenario, Chapter 3, Project Description, Table 3-1: Development Capacities for the Proposed Plan and General Plan in the Plan Area.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-32 AUGUST 2017
 Six smaller neighborhood parks/park surrounded by existing and/or new housing throughout the Plan Area;
Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in the creation of 70 acres of new parkland. When combined with the existing approximately 19 acres of parkland within the Plan Area, implementation of the proposed Plan would result in approximately 89 acres of parks being located within the Plan Area. 15 The development of new parks would offer additional facilities for use by new residents within the Plan Area, reducing the impact on existing facilities. In addition to the new parks that would be developed under the proposed Plan, Goal PF-1 seeks to improve existing parks as the highest priority. Policy PF-1.1 encourages the City to upgrade amenities in existing parks, and ensure that all parks have well-maintained and fully accessible essential and desired amenities. Policy PF-1.2 encourages park safety and security through enforcement and community design, while Policy PF-1.3 encourages remediation of toxic sites on and/or directly adjacent to existing parkland to improve the environmental health of the community.

Therefore, existing recreational facilities would not experience substantial physical deterioration or experience an acceleration of physical deterioration. Development within the Plan Area would also be required to comply with FMC Section 12-4.701 through 12-4.706, which requires payment of park facilities fees to finance park facility improvements. As a result, impacts are considered less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.13.5 LIBRARIES
This section describes the existing regulations and conditions regarding library services in Fresno, as well as the proposed Plan’s potential impacts to libraries.

4.13.5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes key local regulations related to libraries. There are no federal or State regulations pertaining to libraries that apply to the proposed Plan.

Local Regulations
Fresno County Library Strategic Plan
The Fresno County Library strategic plan, entitled “The Heart of a Community: Its Public Library, Meeting Library Needs for Fresno County Residents: 2002-2020,” was adopted by the Fresno County Board of Supervisors on February 25, 2003. The purpose of the Plan is to assess the deficiencies and long term 15 Assumes Standard Development Scenario, Table 3-1, Project Description.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-33
needs of library facilities (e.g., size and condition), and develop principles for selection of future projects for Library facility improvement through the year 2020. The Report concluded that ten communities will need new facilities because there is or will be no library located in that community. As of the preparation of the Plan, the West Fresno branch had not been constructed, and was identified as a new project to serve projected increase in residents.

Measure B
Measure B is a one-eighth of 1 percent sales tax intended to provide funds for the improvement of library services throughout Fresno County. Voters passed Measure B in November 1998 and again in 2004. As of June 2007, Measure B had provided more than $76 million in funds to provide more library hours, more library materials, and more library services for Fresno County residents. Measure B has also contributed to new building and renovation projects in Kerman, Caruthers, Laton, Fowler, Orange Cove, Tranquility, Mendota, and the Woodward Park area. The Fresno County Measure B library tax has been extended for 16 years until 2029.

Existing Conditions
The Fresno County Public Library provides services through its Central Resource Library and 34 branches.

The Fresno County Library is part of the San Joaquin Valley Library System, a cooperative network of nine public library jurisdictions in the counties of Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, and Tulare. The Library System provides services such as computer classes, job and career services, story hours for preschoolers and toddlers, teen outreach programs that encourage reading, senior services including large print books, and a literacy program that offers tutoring services for non-English-speaking adults.

There are 12 library branches in the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan area. There are no libraries within the Plan Area. The nearest branch to the Plan Area, the West Fresno Branch Library at 188 East California Avenue, is located approximately 0.25-mile east of the Plan Area.

In 1998, over two-thirds of Fresno County voters approved Measure B, a local one-eighth of one percent sales tax measure, to improve library services throughout Fresno County. It was renewed by voters in 2012, extending the sales tax for an additional 7 years. Measure B funds currently provides 55 percent of the operating revenue and a significant portion of its capital revenue.

According to the most recent Organizational Assessment report, per capita expenditures made by the County library system are less than the state per capita expenditure average. For example, the average per capita amount at the State level for Fiscal Year 2007 was $31.74, whereas the Fresno County Library expenditure per capita was $23.37. In addition, materials expenditure per capita is less than the state average; Fresno County Library spends an average of $2.88 per capita, while the state spends an average of $3.41. The Facilities Development Plan 2002–2020, adopted by the Fresno County Supervisors in 2003, identified a list of potential projects that would expand existing and/or construct new library facilities within the County. The Plan determined that the existing capacity of several facilities within the system would be inadequate to serve projected population growth, including anticipated buildout of new residential units in areas not currently served by the system. Since adoption of the Plan, several projects have been implemented; however, several projects remain unfunded. Therefore, although Measure B

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-34 AUGUST 2017
provides one source of capital to expand capacity of the system, additional sources of revenue will be required to maintain adequate service levels as identified in the Facilities Development Plan.

4.13.5.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in significant impacts if it would:

1. Result in the provision of or need for new or physically altered library facilities, the construction or operation of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

2. Contribute to cumulative library facilities impacts in the area

4.13.5.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes the proposed Plan’s potential impacts and cumulative impacts to library services.

PS-10 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 libraries, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

There are no libraries within the Plan Area. The nearest branch to the Plan Area, the West Fresno Branch Library at 188 East California Avenue, is located approximately 0.25-mile east of the Plan Area. The West Fresno Branch Library currently has 1.5 total materials available per capita.16 Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an increased demand for library services, due to an increase in residential population. Implementation of the proposed Plan would directly add an estimated 27,775 people within the Plan Area, which could result in greater use of local libraries. Since 1998, the County of Fresno has expanded its library services, due in part to the success of Measure B. The measure is a one-eighth of one percent sales tax, providing funds for improvement of library services throughout the County. The County has a funding resource available for facility improvements through March 2024, when Measure B is set to expire.

The Fresno County Library has projected a deficiency in the system’s capacity to serve population growth and has an adopted Facilities Development Plan. The population growth attributable to the project would not be sufficient to trigger the need for additional library facilities on its own; however, in conjunction with overall population growth, additional facilities or expansion of current facilities will be required.

Given the current economic conditions, additional public financing is unlikely. While residents within the Plan Area would contribute to the provision of library services through payment of sales taxes as part of 16 Fresno County Librarian, correspondence on July 6, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-35
Measure B, this revenue source may not be sufficient to fund all new facilities required to meet the system’s demand for services.

New library facilities would be required to comply with the existing facilities development plan, “The Heart of a Community: Its Public Library—Meeting Library Needs for Fresno County Residents: 2002– 2020,” which requires that construction of new facilities occur within existing developed areas to serve existing populations. The location of new library facilities, their design and services provided is unknown at this time. However, a number of locations would be available within the proposed Plan Area that meet siting guidelines as stated in the “Heart of a Community” report. Therefore, it is not reasonably foreseeable at this time that construction of new library facilities within the Plan area, which is an urban use consistent with many other uses in the city, would cause significant impacts to the environment. As a result, impacts related to the provision of library services would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.13.5.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
PS-11 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not contribute to cumulative library impacts in the area.

Development that would occur with implementation of the proposed Plan, together with projected areawide growth, would result in additional residential and non-residential development by the year 2042.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed Plan, together with anticipated development in the vicinity of the proposed Plan area, would result in an increased demand for library services. The revenue source provided by passage of Measure B would result in adequate funding for library improvements to meet this increased demand for services. Further, the Master EIR for the City’s General Plan has analyzed and accounted for this increased demand and the associated facility improvements, and concluded that cumulative impacts related to the provision of school services would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-1

4.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
This section describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions in the vicinity of the Plan Area related to transportation and traffic, and the potential impacts of the proposed Plan on transportation and traffic. Fehr & Peers prepared the analysis contained in this section.

4.14.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

4.14.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
State Regulations
California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for operating and maintaining the State highway system. In the proposed Plan’s vicinity, State Routes (SR-)41, 99, and 180, along with all the freeway ramps and ramp terminal intersections, fall under Caltrans jurisdiction. Caltrans provides administrative support for transportation programming decisions made by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for state funding programs. The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is a multi-year capital improvement program that sets priorities and funds transportation projects envisioned in long-range transportation plans.

Corridor System Management Plans and Transportation Concept Reports A Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) is a long-range comprehensive planning document that identifies the current traffic level of service (LOS) on a facility and the anticipated future LOS when considering feasible long-term projects. Similarly, a Transportation Concept Report (TCR) is a long-range system-planning document that establishes a planning concept for state facilities. Both documents identify a concept LOS, or “target” LOS, for the applicable highway facility. A deficiency or need for improvement is triggered when the actual LOS falls below the concept LOS.

In July 2013, Caltrans released the SR-41 TCR.
1 The SR-41 TCR shows that SR-41 is anticipated to operate at LOS D south of SR-99 and LOS F north of SR-99 in 2035 within the Plan Area. The SR-41 TCR identifies LOS D as the route concept LOS within the Plan Area.

In April 2009, Caltrans released the Fresno/Madera Urban Route 99 CSMP. 2 Based on this CSMP for SR-99,
the segments of this facility located within the Plan Area are anticipated to operate at LOS F conditions in 2030 with the 2030 concept facility (six-lane freeway with auxiliary lanes). However, the CSMP identifies LOS D as the concept LOS.
1 Caltrans, 2013. State Route 41 Transportation Concept Report. Caltrans District 6 Office of System Planning. 2 Caltrans, 2009. Fresno/Madera Urban Route 99 Corridor System Management Plan. Caltrans District 6 Planning Division.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-2 AUGUST 2017
In February 2014, Caltrans released the SR-180 TCR.
3 The SR-180 TCR shows that SR-180 is anticipated to
operate at LOS C west of SR-99 and LOS E east of SR-99 in 2035 within the Plan Area. The SR-180 TCR identifies LOS D as the route concept LOS within the Plan Area.

Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies
Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies 4provides general guidance regarding the preparation of traffic impacts studies for projects that may have an impact on the State Highway System.

The guidance includes when a traffic study should be prepared and the methodology to usewhen evaluating operating conditions on the State highway system.

The Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies states that “Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on state highway facilities; however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS.”Based on previous studies and consultation with Caltrans, the concept LOS identified in the TCR and CSMP documents are used as the target LOS.

The Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies also states that where “an existing State highway facility is operating at less than the appropriate target LOS, the existing measure of effectiveness (MOE) should be maintained.”
Senate Bill 743
On September 27, 2013, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), which made several changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for projects located in areas served by transit. The changes direct the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop a new approach for analyzing the transportation impacts under CEQA, which may eliminate vehicle delay and level of service as CEQA impacts for many parts of California. SB 743 also creates a new exemption for certain projects that are consistent with a proposed Plan, and eliminates the need to evaluate aesthetic and parking impacts of a project, in some circumstances. OPR is in the process of developing new CEQA guidelines in response to SB 743. The guidelines will require certification and adoption by the Secretary for Resources before they go into effect.

California High Speed Rail
The California High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) is proposing to construct, operate, and maintain an electric-powered high-speed train system in California. On May 7, 2014, the Authority Board of Directors certified the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the Fresno to Bakersfield project section of the high-speed rail program and approved the rail alignment. The alignment passes through Downtown Fresno in close proximity to Southwest Fresno, but does not pass through the Plan Area.
3 Caltrans, 2014. State Route 180 Transportation Concept Report. Caltrans District 6 Office of System Planning. 4 Caltrans, 2002. Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. State of California Department of Transportation.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-3
Regional Regulations
Fresno Council of Governments
The Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) is an association of local governments in Fresno County.

Fresno COG is the State-designated regional transportation planning agency (RTPA) and federallydesignated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for Fresno County. Fresno COG’s primary functions are regional transportation planning and programming. Fresno COG also serves as a forum for the study and resolution of regional issues.
2014 Fresno COG Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy The 2014 Fresno COG Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)5is a federally mandated, long-range transportation plan for Fresno County. It is a fiscally constrained plan that includes only those projects which can be delivered with funds expected to be available and that will help attain and maintain air quality standards. The RTP/SCS also includes an integrated land use and transportation plan to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets set forth by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). To receive federal funding, transportation projects nominated by cities, counties, and agencies must be consistent with the RTP/SCS. The 2014 RTP/SCS provides a comprehensive assessment of all forms of transportation available in Fresno County and of the needs for travel and goods movement through 2040.

The 2014 Fresno COG RTP/SCS includes the following relevant policies:
 Develop a regional streets and highways system that has a balanced mix of high speed and local corridors which are functional and flexible for intermodal use, providing connectivity to the region, state, and nation.
 Pursue development of strategies and methods to enhance the efficient movement of freight through the multimodal network.
 Integrate transportation modes through a coordinated transportation systems management process.  Develop bicycle and pedestrian facilities as viable alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle use.  Manage the transportation system in a manner designed to increase operational efficiency, conserve energy and space, reduce air pollution and noise, and provide for effective goods movement, safety, personal mobility, and accessibility.
 Maintain stringent safety requirements for all transportation modes, identify problem (hazardous) locations, and implement counter measures for anticipated problems wherever possible. 5 Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG), 2014. 2014 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy. Fresno Council of Governments.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-4 AUGUST 2017
 Seek to ensure fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of transportation projects, and seek to address the transportation needs of the disadvantaged communities through SCS Implementation Programs.
 Encourage infill development in areas that take advantage of remaining capacity in existing transportation facilities.
 Coordinate with other public agencies to ensure that the overall social, health, economic, energy, and environmental effects of transportation decisions are understood, and have the opportunity to provide input to the general public and groups that have been traditionally underrepresented in planning processes.
 Monitor levels of service on the streets and highways network within Fresno County to ensure safe and efficient movement of people and goods.
 Manage the highways, streets and roads network in a manner designed to increase operational efficiency, reduce air pollution, and provide adequate mobility for both people and goods.

Regional Transportation Improvement Program
The Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)is a list of transportation projects and programs to be funded and implemented over the next three years. Fresno COG submits this document to Caltrans and amends the program on a quarterly cycle.

Fresno Bus Rapid Transit Master Plan
The Fresno COG Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Master Plan6studies the introduction of BRT service in the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area. The BRT Master Plan identifies potential BRT corridors and recommends the first phase of BRT service along the Ventura Avenue/Kings Canyon Road corridor and the Blackstone Avenue/Abby Street corridor connecting to Downtown. California Avenue, which runs through the Plan Area, has been identified in the BRT Master Plan as a future BRT route.

Fresno COG Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee
In addition to the City of Fresno’s traffic impact fees, Fresno COG administers the Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (RTMF), which was developed to mitigate new development’s indirect regional impacts on State highway facilities in Fresno County. The fee helps fund improvements needed to maintain the target LOS in light of higher traffic volumes generated by new developments. 6 Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG), 2008. Bus Rapid Transit Master Plan. Fresno Council of Governments.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-5
Local Regulations
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan,
7 adopted in 2014, is an update to the previous 2025 Fresno General Plan. The Fresno General Plan serves as the community’s guide for the continued development, enhancement, and revitalization of the Fresno metropolitan area.

The Fresno General Plan includes the following policies related to transportation and circulation that are relevant to this analysis(Table 4.14-1).

City of Fresno Traffic Impact Study Report Guidelines
The City of Fresno’s Traffic Impact Study Report Guidelines 8 establish general procedures and
requirements for the preparation of traffic impact studies associated with development within the City of Fresno. The guidelines are intended to be a checklist to ensure regular study items are not missed, but are not intended to be prescriptive to the point of eliminating professional judgment.

The guidelines include the preferred traffic analysis methodologies, significance criteria, and documentation requirements. This study is conducted using the preferred analysis methodologies and significance criteria as outlined in the City’s guidelines.

City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan
The Fresno Active Transportation Plan9
is a comprehensive guide outlining the vision for active transportation in the City of Fresno. The Active Transportation Plan (ATP) identifies the following goals for biking and walking in Fresno:
 Equitably improve the safety and perceived safety of walking and bicycling in Fresno.  Increase walking and bicycling trips in Fresno by creating user-friendly facilities.  Improve the geographic equity of access to walking and bicycling facilities in Fresno.  Fill key gaps in Fresno’s walking and bicycling networks.

The ATP identifies the proposed citywide bikeway, trails, and sidewalk network, as well as a priority network of connected bikeways and priority pedestrian areas on which the City will focus its efforts in the near-term.

7 City of Fresno, 2014. Fresno General Plan. City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department. 8 City of Fresno, 2017. Active Transportation Plan. City of Fresno Department of Public Works. 9 City of Fresno, 2009. Traffic Impact Study Report Guidelines. City of Fresno Department of Public Works.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-6 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.14-1 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES RELEVANT TO TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Policy
Number Policy Text
Policy MT-1-d
Integrate Land Use and Transportation Planning. Plan for and maintain a coordinated and well integrated land use pattern, local circulation network and transportation system that accommodates planned growth, reduces impacts on adjacent land uses, and preserves the integrity of established neighborhoods.

Policy MT-1-f
Match Travel Demand with Transportation Facilities. Designate the types and intensities of land uses at locations such that related travel demands can be accommodated by a variety of viable transportation modes and support Complete Neighborhoods while avoiding the rerouting of excessive or incompatible traffic through local residential streets.

Policy MT-1-g
Com plete Streets Concept Implementation. Provide transportation facilities based upon a Complete Streets concept that facilitates the balanced use of all viable travel modes (pedestrians, bicyclists, motor vehicle and transit users), meeting the transportation needs of all ages, income groups, and abilities and providing mobility for a variety of trip purposes, while also supporting other City goals.

Policy MT-1-k
Multi-Modal Level of Service Standards. Develop and use a tiered system of flexible, multi-modal Level of Service standards for streets designated by the Circulation Diagram (Figure MT-1 of the General Plan). Strive to accommodate a peak hour vehicle LOS of D or better on street segments and at intersections, except where Policies MT-1-m through MT-1-p provide greater specificity. Establish minimum acceptable service levels for other modes and use them in the development and environmental review process.

Policy MT-1-l
Level of Service in the Downtown Area. Within the Downtown Planning Area accept vehicle LOS F conditions during peak hours for street segments and intersections specified in community and Specific Plans as may be adopted by the City. Where there is an overlap in policies regarding LOS in the Downtown Planning Area, this policy shall supersede.

Policy MT-1-m
Standards for Planned Bus Rapid Transit Corridors and Activity Centers. Independent of the Traffic Impact Zones identified in MT-2-I and Figure MT-4, strive to maintain the following vehicle LOS standards on major roadway segments and intersections along Bus Rapid Transit Corridors and in Activity Centers:
 LOS E or better at all times, including peak travel times, unless the City Traffic Engineer determines that mitigation to maintain this LOS would be infeasible and/or conflict with the achievement of other General Plan policies.
 Accept LOS F conditions in Activity Centers and Bus Rapid Transit Corridors only if provisions are made to improve the overall system and/or promote non-vehicular transportation and transit as part of a development project or a City-initiated project. In accepting LOS F conditions, the City Traffic Engineer may request limited analyses of operational issues at locations near Activity Centers and along Bus Rapid Transit Corridors, such as queuing or left-turn movements.
 Give priority to maintaining pedestrian service first, followed by transit service and then by vehicle LOS, where conflicts between objectives for service capacity between different transportation modes occur.  Identify pedestrian-priority and transit-priority streets where these modes would have priority in order to apply a multi-modal priority system, as part of the General Plan implementation.

Policy MT-1-n
Peak Hour Vehicle LOS. Maintain a peak-hour vehicle LOS standard of D or better for all roadway areas outside of identified Activity Center and Bus Rapid Transit Corridor districts, unless the City Traffic Engineer determines that mitigation to maintain this LOS would be infeasible and/or conflict with the achievement of other General Plan policies.

Policy MT-1-o
LOS Deviations Outside of Activity Centers and Areas Designated for Mixed-Use. Accept vehicle LOS E or F conditions outside of identified multi-modal districts only if provisions commensurate with the level of impact and approved by the City Traffic Engineer are made to sufficiently improve the overall transportation system and/or promote non-vehicular transportation as part of a development project or City initiated project.

Policy MT-2-b
Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and Trips. Partner with major employers and other responsible agencies, such the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and the Fresno Council of Governments, to implement trip reduction strategies, such as eTRIP, to reduce total vehicle miles traveled and the total number of daily and peak hour vehicle trips, thereby making better use of the existing transportation system.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-7
TABLE 4.14-1 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES RELEVANT TO TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Policy
Number Policy Text
Policy MT-2-c
Reduce VMT through Infill Development. Provide incentives for infill development that would provide jobs and services closer to housing and multi-modal transportations corridors in order to reduce citywide vehicle miles travelled (VMT).

Policy MT-2-d
Street Redesign where Excess Capacity Exists. Evaluate opportunities to reduce right of way and/or redesign streets to support non-automobile travel modes along streets with excess roadway capacity where adjacent land use is not expected to change over the planning period.

Policy MT-2-e
Driveway and Access Consolidation. Take advantage of opportunities to consolidate driveways, access points, and curb cuts along designated major roadways when a change in development or a change in intensity occurs or when traffic operation or safety warrants.

Policy MT-2-f
Optimization of Roadway Operations. Optimize roadway operations by continuing to expand the use of techniques such as the City’s intelligent transportation system (ITS) to manage traffic signal timing coordination in order to improve traffic operations and increase traffic-carrying capacity, while reducing unnecessary congestion and decreasing air pollution emissions. In order to facilitate roadway optimization and as a potential revenue source for the optimization, the following strategies need to be implemented:
 Dig Once Policy. Install conduit for telecommunications use when trenching or construction occurs.  Telecommunications Strategy. Develop a costing mechanism for allowing the use of excess conduit within the City for use by communication carriers. The Policy shall follow regulations of the California Public Utilities Commission.
 Grant Funding. Pursue grant funding to assist in construction and/or implementation of fiber-optic or other telecommunication infrastructure for additional public services such as education, economic development, reaching underserved populations, and public safety communications.

Policy MT-2-g
Transportation Demand Management and Transportation System Management. Pursue implementation of Transportation Demand Management and Transportation System Management strategies to reduce peak hour vehicle traffic and supplement the capacity of the transportation system.

Policy MT-2-i
Transportation Impact Studies. Require a Transportation Impact Study (currently named Traffic Impact Study) to assess the impacts of new development projects on existing and planned streets for projects meeting one or more of the following criteria, unless it is determined by the City Traffic Engineer that the project site and surrounding area already has appropriate multi-modal infrastructure improvements.  When a project includes a General Plan amendment that changes the General Plan Land Use Designation.  When the project will substantially change the off-site transportation system (auto, transit, bike or pedestrian) or connection to the system, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer.  Transportation impact criteria are tiered based on a project’s location within the City’s Sphere of Influence.

This is to assist with areas being incentivized for development. The four zones, as defined on Figure MT-4, are listed below. The following criteria apply:
- Traffic Impact Zone I (TIZ-I): TIZ-I represents the Downtown Planning Area. Maintain a peak hour LOS standard of F or better for all intersections and roadway segments. A TIS will be required for all development projected to generate 200 or more peak hour new vehicle trips. - Traffic Impact Zone II (TIZ-II): TIZ-II generally represents areas of the City currently built up and wanting to encourage infill development. Maintain a peak hour LOS standard of E or better for all intersections and roadway segments. A TIS will be required for all development projected to generate 200 or more peak hour new vehicle trips.
- Traffic Impact Zone III (TIZ-III): TIZ-III generally represents areas near or outside the City Limits but within the SOI as of December 31, 2012. Maintain a peak hour LOS standard of D or better for all intersections and roadway segments. A TIS will be required for all development projected to generate 100 or more peak hour new vehicle trips.
- Traffic Impact Zone IV (TIZ-IV): TIZ-IV represents the southern employment areas within and planned by the City. Maintain a peak hour LOS standard of E or better for all intersections and roadway segments. A TIZ will be required for all development projected to generate 200 or more peak hour new vehicle trips.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-8 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.14-1 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES RELEVANT TO TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Policy
Number Policy Text
Policy MT-2-l
Region-Wide Transportation Impact Fees. Continue to support the implementation of metropolitan-wide and region-wide transportation impact fees sufficient to cover the proportional share of a development's impacts and need for a comprehensive multi-modal transportation system that is not funded by other sources. Work with the Council of Fresno County Governments, transportation agencies (e.g., Caltrans, Federal Transportation Agency) and other jurisdictions in the region to develop a method for determining:
 Regional transportation impacts of new development;
 Regional highways, streets, rail, trails, public transportation, and goods movement system components, consistent with the General Plan, necessary to mitigate those impacts and serve projected demands;  Projected full lifetime costs of the regional transportation system components, including construction, operation, and maintenance; and
 Costs covered by established funding sources.

Policy MT-4-b
Bikeway Improvements. Establish and implement property development standards to assure that projects adjacent to designated bikeways provide adequate right-of-way and that necessary improvements are constructed to implement the planned bikeway system shown on Figure MT-2 to provide for bikeways, to the extent feasible, when existing roadways are reconstructed; and alternative bikeway alignments or routes where inadequate right-of-way is available.

Policy MT-4-d
Prioritization of Bikeway Improvements. Prioritize bikeway components that link existing separated sections of the system, or that are likely to serve the highest concentration of existing or potential cyclists, particularly in those neighborhoods with low vehicle ownership rates, or that are likely to serve destination areas with the highest demand such as schools, shopping areas, recreational and park areas, and employment centers.

Policy MT-5-a
Sidewalk Development. Pursue funding and implement standards for development of sidewalks on public streets, with priority given to meeting the needs of persons with physical and vision limitations; providing safe routes to school; completing pedestrian improvements in established neighborhoods with lower vehicle ownership rates; or providing pedestrian access to public transportation routes.

Policy MT-5-b
Sidewalk Requirements. Assure adequate access for pedestrians and people with disabilities in new residential developments per adopted City policies, consistent with the California Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Policy MT-5-d
Pedestrian Safety. Minimize vehicular and pedestrian conflicts on both major and non-roadways through implementation of traffic access design and control standards addressing street intersections, median island openings and access driveways to facilitate accessibility while reducing congestion and increasing safety.

Increase safety and accessibility for pedestrians with vision disabilities through the installation of Accessible Pedestrian Signals at signalized intersections.

Policy MT-5-e
Traffic Management in Established Neighborhoods. Establish acceptable design and improvement standards and provide traffic planning assistance to established neighborhoods to identify practical traffic management and calming methods to enhance the pedestrian environment with costs equitably assigned to properties receiving the benefits or generating excessive vehicle traffic.

Policy MT-6-g
Path and Trail Development. Require all projects to incorporate planned multi-purpose path and trail development standards and corridor linkages consistent with the General Plan, applicable law and case-bycase determinations as a condition of project approval.

Policy MT-8-a
Street Design Coordinated with Transit. Coordinate the planning, design, and construction of the major roadway network with transit operators to facilitate efficient direct transit routing throughout the Planning Area.

Commentary: Neighborhoods with circuitous and discontinuous streets are more difficult for public transit to serve efficiently than those with consistently spaced linear or semi-grid patterns.

Policy MT-8-c
New Development Facilitating Transit. Continue to review development proposals in transportation corridors to ensure they are designed to facilitate transit. Coordinate all projects that have residential or employment densities suitable for transit services, so they are located along existing or planned transit corridors or that otherwise have the potential for transit orientation to FAX, and consider FAX’s comments in decision-making.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-9
TABLE 4.14-1 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES RELEVANT TO TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Policy
Number Policy Text
Policy MT-11-c
Truck Route Designations. Continue to plan and designate truck routes within the Metropolitan Area to facilitate access to and from goods production and processing areas while minimizing conflicts with other transportation priorities.

Fresno Area Express
The City of Fresno provides public transit service through its Fresno Area Express(FAX) public transportation service. FAX offers two principal services throughout the City of Fresno: 16 fixed-routebus lines and Handy Ride demand-response service for people with disabilities.

FAX’s 2014-2018 Short-Range Transit Plan10 is the five-year plan for transit operations and capital improvementsfor 2014-2018. The Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP)proposes specific recommendations for implementing the long-range objectives of the Fresno COG RTP/SCS and guides the provision of transit service in the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area for its five-year timeframe.

The Long-Range Transit Plan11identifies transit system improvements over a 20-year period. The LongRange Transit Plan (LRTP) recommends increases in transit service (decreased headways) on highly utilized routes. California Avenue is identified as a future Bus Rapid Transit route within the Plan Area.

4.14.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes the existing travel characteristics and the condition of the roadway, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and goods movement systems in the Plan Area. Figure 4.14-1 shows the regional context of the Plan Area within the Fresno-Clovis metropolitan area.

Roadway Network
The roadway network within the Plan Area is generally a traditional grid-based network of north-south and east-west streets. Major streets are generally spaced at half-mile intervals. East of Thorne Avenue and north of California Avenue, the traditional north-south and east-west grid meets Downtown Fresno’s diagonal grid-based roadway network, which creates several atypical intersections where the two grid networks meet.

Since the Plan Area follows the city limits, several roadways transition into and out of the Plan Area multiple times as they travel into and out of the City of Fresno. The existing roadway network in the Plan Area includes a mix of arterials, collectors, local residential streets, rural roadways, and industrial roadways. SR-41, 99, and 180 are located immediately east, northeast, and north of the Plan Area 10 City of Fresno, 2013. Short Range Transit Plan - 2014-2018. City of Fresno - Fresno Area Express. 11 City of Fresno, 2002. 2001 Transit Long Range Master Plan. City of Fresno - Fresno Area Express.

F
igure4.14-1Regional Context Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-1
Regional Context

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-11
respectively, and provide regional access to the Plan Area via interchanges at Jensen Avenue, North Avenue, Ventura Street, Fresno Street, and Marks Avenue.

Figure 4.14-2 provides existing roadway functional classifications from the Fresno General Plan and shows the existing roadway number of lanes in the Plan Area.

Freeways
Freeways are high-speed, multi-lane facilities that are designed to carry interregional and crosstown traffic. Access to freeways is restricted to interchanges at expressways, arterials, and other freeways, with no access to abutting properties and no at-grade intersections. Freeways are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and are outside of the control of the City of Fresno.

The following describes the freeway facilities in the Plan Area (and shown in Figure 4.14-3):
 SR-41 is a north-south freeway that connects Fresno to Yosemite National Park to the north and the Central Coast towns of Atascadero and Morro Bay to the south. It is located on the eastern edge of the Plan Area, where it is a four-lane freeway from Central Avenue to SR-99with interchanges at North Avenue and Jensen Avenue. North of SR-99, SR-41 widens to a six-lane freeway. South of Central Avenue, SR-41 is a four-lane divided expressway.  SR-99 is a north-south freeway that originates south of Bakersfield, traverses through the San Joaquin Valley as it heads north towards Sacramento. It travels along a northwest-southeast orientation to the east of the Plan Area as a six-lane freeway. Access to SR-99 is provided via interchanges at North Avenue, Jensen Avenue, Ventura Street, and Fresno Street.  SR-180 is an east-west state highway that originates on the west in Mendota and ends on the east in Kings Canyon National Park. It is located on the northern edge of the Plan Area, where it is a four-lane freeway west of Marks Avenue and widens to a six-lane freeway east of Marks Avenue. West of Brawley Avenue, SR-180 becomes a two-lane conventional highway. Access to SR-180 in the Plan Area is provided via an interchange at Marks Avenue.

Local Roadways
Arterial Streets
Arterial roadways have the primary purpose of moving traffic within and between neighborhoods, and to and from freeways and expressways. When built out to City standards, arterials typically feature raised landscaped medians that control cross-traffic and left-turn movements to and from the arterial streets, as well as somewhat limit motor vehicle access to abutting properties.

Figure 4.14-2 Roadway Classification
Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-2
Roadway Classification

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS
Figure 4.14-3 Existing Roadway Network
Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-3
Existing Roadway Network

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-14 AUGUST 2017
The following describes the key arterial roadways within the Plan Area:
 Marks Avenueis a north-south arterialroad on the western edge of the Plan Area. South of Kearney Boulevard, it is generally a two-lane undivided rural roadway with no curb, gutter, or sidewalk treatments. From Kearney Boulevard to Whites Bridge Avenue, Marks Avenue is generally a divided two-lane roadway with a raised landscaped median, and has curb, gutter, and sidewalk treatments adjacent to recent residential development at the northwest quadrant of Kearney Boulevard. North of Whites Bridge Avenue, it transitions to a four-lane divided arterial as it meets the SR-180 interchange.  Elm Avenue is a north-south, four-lanedivided roadway thatis the primary arterial street in the eastern part of the Plan Area. Elm Avenue was formerly SR-41 prior to the construction of the SR-41 freeway, which runs parallel to Elm Avenue approximately ¼-mile to the east. North of California Avenue, Elm Avenue turns northwest and becomes B Street connecting to Ventura Avenue, which provides access toDowntown Fresno and SR-99.
 Fresno Street is a northeast-southwest four-lane divided roadway that connects the Plan Area to Downtown Fresno. Fresno Street is just outside the Plan Area and currently terminates at California Avenue just east of Thorne Avenue.
 California Avenueis an east-west arterial roadway that travels into and out of the northwestern section of the Plan Area. West of West Avenue, it is generally a two-lane, undivided,rural roadway without curb, gutter, and sidewalk treatments. East of West Avenue, California Avenue has multiple transitions between a four-lane divided arterial, a three-lane just east and west of Walnut Avenue, and a two-lane section with a center two-way left turn lane. East of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, California Avenue becomes Ventura Street as it travels eastward into Downtown Fresno.  Jensen Avenue is an east-west arterial road that provides access to both SR-41 and SR-99.West of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Jensen Avenue is generally a two-lane undivided roadway. East of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, it is generally a four-lane divided roadway.  North Avenueis an east-west,two-lane undivided roadwith sparse curb, gutter, and sidewalk treatments. North Avenue provides access to SR-41 and SR-99 east of the Plan Area.

Collector Streets
Collector roadways primarily connect local streets and neighborhoods to arterials and expressways. When built out to City standards, collector streets typically have a center two-way left-turn lane and generally allow motor vehicle access to abutting properties, consistent with the City’s engineering standards and accepted traffic engineering practices.

The following are north-south two-lane collectors in the Plan Area:
 Hughes Avenue
 West Avenue
 Roeding Drive
 Fruit Avenue
 Walnut Avenue
 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (Fig Avenue)

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-15
The following are east-west two-lane collectors in the Plan Area:
 Whites Bridge Avenue
 Kearney Boulevard
 Church Avenue
 Annadale Avenue
Traffic Volumes and Roadway Operations
Figure 4.14-4 shows the Plan Area and the 30 roadway segments and eight intersections analyzed in this report. These locations were selected for analysis through consultation with the City of Fresno Public Works staff and Caltrans District 6 staff. The 30 roadway segments include all arterial and collector streets in the Plan Area. The eight study intersections consist of Caltrans off-ramp intersections at four freeway interchanges near the Plan Area.

The traffic count data for the 30 roadway segments used in this analysis was collected by the City of Fresno over a three-year period between June 2014 and May 2017.

Figure 4.14-5 presents the existing daily traffic volumes for the 30 study roadway segments, as obtained through these traffic counts.

Morning (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and evening (4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) peak period intersection turning movement counts at the eight study intersections were collected in April 2017 (refer to Appendix H for traffic count data).

Roadway Segment Operations
The existing conditions roadway segment analysis is based on the traffic count data collected by the City of Fresno described above. Note that this analysis is based on traffic counts taken at a single location or link, which was considered representative of the entire segment. A link connects two intersections while a segment is a series of links. The segments used in this analysis were developed based on a series of links that had common physical and traffic conditions.

Table 4.14-2 presents the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes and automobile level of service (LOS) for each study roadway segment under existing conditions. AutomobileLOS is a qualitativedescription of traffic flow from the perspective of motorists. The Highway Capacity Manual(HCM) defines six levels of service from LOS A representing the least congested traffic conditions to LOS F representing the most congested traffic conditions. The peak hour LOS for study roadway segments is determined by comparing peak hour traffic volumes on the roadway with peak hour traffic volume thresholds.

Table 4.14-6 in the Methodology section of this chapter, presents the peak hour traffic volume thresholds used for this analysis. As described in the Methodology section, the Fresno General Plan’s traffic operations policies are focused on peak hour vehicle LOS when traffic conditions are at their most congested. Therefore, this study analyzes traffic conditions during the AM and PM peak hours.

Figure 4.14-4 Study Roadway Segments and Intersections
Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-4
Study Roadway Segments and Intersections

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS
Figure 4.14-5 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-5
Existing Daily Traffic Volumes

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-18 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.14-2 PEAK HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS – EXISTING CONDITIONS Roadway Segment Classificationa
Peak
Hour Volum e V/Cb LOSc

1. Whitesbridge Ave.: Marks Ave. to Roeding Dr. 2-lane Undivided Collector AM 180 0.12 C
PM 260 0.18 C

2. Whitesbridge Ave.: Roeding Dr. to Thorne Ave. 2-lane Undivided Collector AM 110 0.08 C
PM 210 0.14 C

3. Kearney Blvd.: Marks Ave. to West Ave. 2-lane Undivided Collector AM 290 0.19 C
PM 210 0.14 C

4. Kearney Blvd.: West Ave. to Thorne Ave. 2-lane Undivided Collector AM 240 0.16 C
PM 170 0.12 C

5. California Ave.: Marks Ave. to West Ave. 2-lane Undivided Collector AM 180 0.12 C
PM 170 0.12 C

6. California Ave.: West Ave. to Fresno St. 2-lane Divided Arterial AM 350 0.19 C
PM 430 0.23 C

7. California Ave.: Fresno St. to MLK Jr. Blvd. 2-lane Arterial with TWLTL AM 590 0.34 D
PM 550 0.31 D

8. Ventura St: MLK Jr. Blvd. to B Street 4-lane Divided Arterial AM 930 0.25 C
PM 840 0.22 C

9. Church Ave.: Marks Ave. to West Ave. 2-lane Undivided Collector AM 80 0.05 C
PM 120 0.08 C

10. Church Ave.: West Ave. to Walnut Ave. 2-lane Undivided Collector AM 150 0.10 C
PM 170 0.11 C

11. Church Ave.: Walnut Ave. to Elm Ave. 2-lane Collector with TWLTL AM 390 0.22 C
PM 370 0.21 C

12. Jensen Ave.: Marks Ave. to West Ave. 2-lane Undivided Arterial AM 320 0.22 C
PM 410 0.28 D

13. Jensen Ave.: West Ave. to Walnut Ave. 2-lane Undivided Arterial AM 420 0.28 D
PM 560 0.38 D

14. Jensen Ave.: Walnut Ave. to Elm Ave. 4-lane Divided Arterial AM 730 0.20 C
PM 920 0.25 C

15. North Ave.: Walnut Ave. to Elm Ave. 2-lane Undivided Arterial AM 380 0.26 D
PM 340 0.23 D

16. Marks Ave.: Whitesbridge Ave. to California Ave. 2-lane Divided Arterial AM 620 0.34 D
PM 670 0.36 D

17. Marks Ave.: California Ave. to Jensen Ave. 2-lane Undivided Arterial AM 140 0.10 C
PM 210 0.14 C

18. Hughes Ave./Roeding Dr.: Nielsen Ave. to
Whitesbridge Ave.
4-lane Divided Collector
AM 200 0.05 C
PM 230 0.06 C

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-19
TABLE 4.14-2 PEAK HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS – EXISTING CONDITIONS Roadway Segment Classificationa
Peak
Hour Volum e V/Cb LOSc

19. Hughes Ave.: Whitesbridge Ave. to California Ave. 2-lane Undivided Collector AM 20 0.02 C
PM 50 0.03 C

20. Hughes Ave.: California Ave. to Church Ave. 2-lane Undivided Collector AM 20 0.01 C
PM 30 0.02 C

21. Roeding Dr./West Ave.: Whitesbridge Ave. to
California Ave.
2-lane Undivided Collector
AM 80 0.06 C
PM 80 0.05 C

22. West Ave.: California Ave. to Jensen Ave. 2-lane Undivided Collector AM 70 0.05 C
PM 80 0.05 C

23. Fruit Ave.: California Ave. to Jensen Ave. 2-lane Undivided Collector AM 140 0.09 C
PM 180 0.12 C

24. Thorne Ave.: Whitesbridge Ave. to California Ave. 2-lane Collector with TWLTL AM 240 0.14 C
PM 270 0.15 C

25. Walnut Ave.: California Ave. to Jensen Ave. 2-lane Undivided Collector AM 380 0.26 D
PM 350 0.24 D

26. Walnut Ave.: Jensen Ave. to North Ave. 2-lane Undivided Collector AM 20 0.01 C
PM 50 0.04 C

27. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.: California Ave. to
Jensen Ave.
2-lane Collector with TWLTL
AM 500 0.28 D
PM 520 0.29 D

28. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.: Jensen Ave. to
North Ave. 2-lane Undivided Collector
AM 330 0.22 C
PM 290 0.20 C

29. Elm Ave.: Ventura St to Jensen Ave. 4-lane Divided Arterial AM 290 0.08 C
PM 600 0.16 C

30. Elm Ave.: Jensen Ave. to North Ave. 4-lane Divided Arterial AM 240 0.06 C
PM 420 0.11 C
a. Roadway classifications described in Local Roadway section:

Undivided = roadways without physical separation between opposing directions of travel TWLTL = two-way left-turn lane: a center lane exclusively for left-turning vehicles from either direction, which also provides space between opposing directions of travel
Divided = roadways with physical separation between opposing directions of travel, such as a raised median b. Volume-to-capacity ratio; capacity defined as the LOS E/F threshold as presented in Table 4.14-6. c. Level of service based on volume thresholds presented in Table 4.14-6.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

As shown in Table 4.14-2, all study roadway segments operate at LOS C or LOS D under existing conditions.

Per the volume thresholds presented in Table 4.14-6, LOS A and LOS B are not achievable on arterial or collector streets per the HCM methodology; therefore, LOS C is the best achievable operation. Figure

4.14-6 presents the AM peak hour roadway LOS, while Figure 4.14-7 presents the PM peak hour roadway LOS.

Figure 4.14-6 Existing AM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-6
Existing AM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS
Figure 4.14-7 Existing PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-7
Existing PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-22 AUGUST 2017
Intersection Operations
The existing conditions intersection operations analysis uses the morning and evening peak period turning movement counts collected in April 2017. Intersection LOS is based on the control delay experienced by motorists traveling through the intersection. Table 4.14-6 in the Methodology section of this chapter, presents the control delay thresholds for each LOS level, as defined by the HCM.

Table 4.14-3 presents the AM and PM peak hour LOS at each study intersection under existing conditions (refer to Appendix H for calculations). As shown in Table 4.14-3, all intersections operate at LOS D or better under existing conditions with the exception of the following location:
 SR-99 Southbound Ramps/East Ave./Jensen Ave. during the AM peak hour TABLE 4.14-3 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS – EXISTING CONDITIONS Intersection Traffic Control Peak Hour Delaya LOSb

1. SR-41 Southbound Ramps/Jensen Ave. Signal
AM 9 A
PM 7 A

2. SR-41 Northbound Ramps/Jensen Ave. Signal
AM 4 A
PM 4 A

3. SR-99 Southbound Ramps/East Ave./Jensen Ave. Signal
AM 61 E
PM 29 C

4. SR-99 Northbound Ramps/East Ave./Jensen Ave. Signal
AM 53 D
PM 46 D

5. SR-41 Southbound Ramps/North Ave. Signal
AM 23 C
PM 13 B

6. SR-41 Northbound Ramps/North Ave. Signal
AM 9 A
PM 12 B

7. SR-99 Southbound Ramps/Fresno St. Signal
AM 24 C
PM 18 B

8. SR-99 Northbound Ramps/Fresno St. Signal
AM 15 B
PM 19 B
Note: BO LD text indicates the intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS based on Caltrans concept LOS. a. The overall average intersection control delay is reported in seconds per vehicle. b. Level of service based on Transportation Research Board, 2010. Highway Capacity Manual 2010, Washington, D.C.:

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-23
Queuing
During consultation for scoping the analysis for this report, Caltrans requested that queuing at freeway off-ramps be analyzed. The Methodology section of this chapter, describes the process used to estimate queues on freeway off-ramps. Table 4.14-4 presents the AM and PM peak hour queues on freeway offramps; all study freeway off-ramps currently have sufficient storage for existing queues.

TABLE 4.14-4 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING – EXISTING CONDITIONS Freeway Off-Ramp Ramp Lengtha Peak Hour
95th Percentile
Queue b

1. SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,380 ft.

AM 75 ft.

PM 75 ft.

2. SR-41 Northbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,470 ft.

AM 50 ft.

PM 50 ft.

3. SR-99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,440 ft.

AM 625 ft.*
PM 450 ft.*

4. SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,050 ft.

AM 225 ft.*
PM 250 ft.*

5. SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp at North Ave. 1,575 ft.

AM 250 ft.

PM 75 ft.

6. SR-41 Northbound Off-Ramp at North Ave. 1,700 ft.

AM 25 ft.

PM 50 ft.

7. SR-99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Fresno St. 1,030 ft.

AM 100 ft.

PM 150 ft.

8. SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp at Fresno St. 1,070 ft.

AM 75 ft.

PM 100 ft.

Notes: * = 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity; the actual queue may be longer than reported. a. The ramp length is estimated by measuring the distance from the gore point where the off-ramp departs from the mainline to the limit line at the ramp terminal intersection with the local street, as measured from aerial imagery. Distance is reported in feet. b. 95th Percentile Queue calculated using Synchro software. Queue is reported in feet and rounded up to the nearest 25-foot interval.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

Vehicle Miles of Travel
This study uses the base year of travel demand forecasting (TDF) model that was developed for the Fresno General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) to estimate the existing vehicle miles of travel (VMT) in the Plan Area. VMT is a measure of transportation network use that is directly related to fuel consumption, and is routinely used as an input for estimating air pollution emissions, greenhouse gases (GHGs), and energy consumption for environmental impact purposes. Further information regarding VMT and the methodology used to develop the VMT estimates in this study are presented in the Methodology section of this chapter.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-24 AUGUST 2017
Based on outputs from the Fresno General Plan MEIR base year TDF model, the average weekday VMT generated by existing uses in the Plan Area is 285,232 miles.

Transit Facilities
Fresno Area Express (FAX) is the primary provider of bus transit service within the City of Fresno. FAX currently operates the following four fixed-route bus lines in the Plan Area:
 Route 30 – Pinedale/Blackstone/W. Fresno
 Route 32 – Fresno St/Manchester/SW Fresno
 Route 34 – NE Fresno/First/SW Fresno
 Route 38 – Chukchansi Park/River Park/SW Fresno
Figure 4.14-8 shows the existing fixed-route transit service in the Plan Area. The areas on the western portion of the Plan Area are less developed and are not directly served by existing fixed-route bus service.

In addition to its fixed-route service, FAX Handy Ride provides paratransit service for people with disabilities and those who cannot functionally use the FAX fixed-route bus system.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Existing Bicycle Facilities
Bikeways are classified in Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual (Caltrans, 2015), which identifies four primary types of bikeways:
 Class I bike paths, often referred to as shared-use paths or trails, bike paths are off-street facilities that provide exclusive use for non-motorized travel, including bicyclists and pedestrians. Bike paths have minimal cross flow with motorists and are typically located along landscaped corridors.  Class II bike lanes are on-street facilities that use striping, stencils, and signage to denote preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists. Bikes lanes are located adjacent to motor vehicle traffic, and are intended to alert drivers about the predictable movements of bicyclists, as well as provide adequate space for comfortable riding.
 Class III bike routes are on-street bikeways identified by on-street pavement markings or signage. Bike routes are often identified on roadways that do not provide enough space for dedicated lanes, or on low-speed, low-volume streets to create logical connections within the bicycle network.  Class IV separated bikeways, also known as “cycle tracks,” are physically separated bicycle facilities that are distinct from the sidewalk and designed for exclusive use by bicyclists. They are located within the street right-of-way, but provide similar comfort when compared to Class I shared-use paths. The key feature of a separated bikeway is a vertical element that provides further separation from motor vehicle traffic. Common vertical elements used for separation include a vertical curb, a painted buffer with flexible posts, parked cars, a landscaped area, or a fixed barrier. Separated bikeways may also be constructed by creating a bike lane at a height above the vehicular lanes, with a continuous sloped transition. Separated bikeways can be either one-way or two-way, accommodating a single direction of travel or both.

Figure 4.14-8 Existing Fixed Route Transit Service
Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-8
Existing Fixed Route Transit Service

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-26 AUGUST 2017
Within the Plan Area, Class II bike lanes are present on the following roadways:
 Kearney Boulevard: east of West Avenue
 California Avenue: West Avenue to Fruit Avenue
 Church Avenue: east of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard  Jensen Avenue: Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to Elm Avenue  Thorne Avenue: north of California Avenue
 Marks Avenue: north of Whites Bridge Avenue
 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: adjacent to Gaston Middle School (south of Church Avenue)  Elm Avenue: north of North Avenue
Figure 4.14-9 presents the existing bicycle facilities in the Plan Area; the bicycle network consists of only Class II bike lanes present on a small fraction of the existing roadway network.

Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Within the Plan Area, sidewalks are generally found on most local residential streets in the built-out northeast portion of the Plan Area. However, there also several gaps in the sidewalk network throughout the Plan Area, most notably along many of the arterials and collectors, including most of Marks Avenue, Hughes Avenue, West Avenue, Roeding Drive, Whites Bridge Avenue, Kearney Boulevard, Church Avenue, Jensen Avenue, and North Avenue. Most of these gaps in sidewalk coverage are located in the more rural areas of the Plan Area.

The patchwork development patterns in the Plan Area have also left some developed areas isolated without any pedestrian connections to adjacent developed areas. For example, the neighborhood north of Jensen Avenue between Fruit and Walnut avenues generally has decent sidewalk coverage on the local streets within the neighborhood, but does not have any sidewalks along the collector or arterial streets that connect the neighborhood to the developed areas to its north and east.

Investigation of pedestrian-involved vehicle collisions from January 2010 to December 2014 based on Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) data found seven pedestrian collisions and no fatalities within the Plan Area over the four-year time period. These recorded instances do not show any key hot-spots; however, additional collisions not reported in the SWITRS database may have occurred.

Figure 4.14-10shows the existing presence of sidewalks in the Plan Area.

Figure 4.14-9 Existing Bicycle Facilities
Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-9
Existing Bicycle Facilities

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS
Figure 4.14-10 Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-10
Existing Pedestrian Facilities

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-29

4.14.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed Planwould result in a significant impact with regard to transportation and traffic if it would:

1. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.

2. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.

3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.

4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

5. Result in inadequate emergency access.

6. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.

Methodology
This section presents a topic-by-topic discussion of the key methods that this analysis applies to estimate the proposed Plan’s travel characteristics and to assess the proposed Plan’s impacts on transportation and traffic using the standards of significance presented above. This includes the methodology for developing traffic forecasts and analysis methods to quantify and evaluate traffic conditions.

For bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities, emergency vehicle access, air traffic patterns, and roadway design features, this analysis relies upon City of Fresno standards, components of the proposed Plan, and engineering judgment to determine whether the project would cause an impact.

Travel Demand Forecasting
This study uses the travel demand forecasting (TDF) model that was developed for the Fresno General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR)to forecast plus project and cumulative traffic volumes.

The TDF model uses the following four-step process to assign traffic to the transportation network:

1. Trip Generation: estimates the amount of traffic generated by the proposed Plan based on the planned land uses

2. Trip Distribution: distributes proposed Plan’strips based on origins and destinations in the region

3. Mode Choice: determines mode of travel (walk, bike, transit, auto, etc.); auto and transit trips are identified for assignment to the roadway network

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-30 AUGUST 2017

4. Trip Assignment: assigns proposed Plan trips to the roadway network based on the proposed Plan’s trip generation, trip distribution, and travel mode
The proposed Plan’s land use and roadway network inputs were entered into the base year TDF model to forecast traffic volumes with the project. The proposed Plan’s land use and roadway network inputs replaced the future year TDF model inputs within the Plan Area to forecast cumulative traffic volumes with the proposed Plan.

Traffic Operations
This study analyzes traffic operations using level of service (LOS) as the primary measure of performance.

Automobile LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow from the perspectiveof motorists. The Highway Capacity Manual(HCM)12 defines six levels of service from LOS A representing the least congested traffic conditions to LOS F representing the most congested traffic conditions. These grades represent the perspective of drivers and are an indication of the comfort and convenience associated with driving, as well as speed, travel time, traffic interruptions, and freedom to maneuver. The LOS grades are generally defined as follows:
 LOS A:represents free-flow travel with an excellent level of comfort and convenience for drivers.  LOS B: has stable operating conditions, but the presence of other drivers causes a noticeable, though slight, reduction in comfort.
 LOS C: has stable operating conditions, but the operation of individual users is substantially affected by the interaction with others in the traffic stream.
 LOS D:represents high-density, but stable flow. Users experience severe restriction in speed and freedom to maneuver. At signalized intersections, many vehicles stop with individual cycle failures (i.e., one or more queued vehicles are not able to depart because of insufficient capacity during the cycle) becoming noticeable.
 LOS E:represents operating conditions at or near capacity. Speeds are reduced to a low but relatively uniform value. At signalized intersections, individual cycle failures become frequent.  LOS F:represents breakdown conditions where the volume of traffic exceeds the capacity of the roadway. Long queues can form behind these bottleneck points with queued traffic traveling in a stopand-go fashion.

This study uses methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual13 to analyze traffic operations.

Both the City of Fresno Traffic Impact Study Report Guidelines14 and Caltrans’s Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies 15 recommend using the HCM methodology. The HCM methodology is the prevailing methodology standard used throughout the United States. 12 Transportation Research Board, 2010. Highway Capacity Manual 2010, Washington, DC. 13 Transportation Research Board. (2010). Highway Capacity Manual 2010. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. 14 City of Fresno. (2009). Traffic Impact Study Report Guidelines. City of Fresno Department of Public Works. 15 Caltrans, 2002. Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. State of California Department of Transportation.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-31
While the HCM methodology is the industry standard for analyzing traffic operations, it should be noted that this conventional method used to analyze the roadway system does not consider the performance of the transportation system as it relates to walking, bicycling, and transit. Pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders are all users of the roadway system, but the effectiveness of the roadway system in serving these modes are not considered in the traffic operations analysis and the calculation of LOS. The LOS thresholds used in this study (presented in Table 4.14-6)are based on driver comfort and convenience. Identifying the need for roadway improvements based on the resulting roadway LOS can have unintended impacts to other modes such as increasing the walking time for pedestrians. The Fresno General Plan acknowledges this and establishes goals and policies to create a system of complete streets that serve all modes of transportation. General Plan policies MT-1-g, MT-1-k, MT-1-m, and MT-1-o support this goal by creating context-sensitive LOS standards for transit corridors, activity centers, varying the LOS standard based on the adjacent development patterns, and allowing exceptions to the LOS standard if provisions are made to improve the overall transportation system and/or promote non-vehicular transportation. As a result, the LOS standard varies throughout the city, and within the Plan Area. These General Plan policies are generally focused on peak hour vehicle LOS when traffic conditions are at their most congested.

Therefore, this study analyzes traffic conditions during the AM and PM peak hours to be consistent with Fresno General Plan policies and the analysis conducted for the Fresno General Plan MEIR.

Table 4.14-5 presents the LOS standard for each study roadway facility based on General Plan policies MT-1-k, MT-1-l, MT-1-m, MT-1-n, and MT-2-i.

Roadway Segments
This study uses peak hour traffic volume LOS capacity thresholds developed for the Fresno General Plan MEIR for analyzing operations on roadway segments. These thresholds shown in Table 4.14-6 were calculated based on the HCM methodology. As noted above, these thresholds do not consider the performance of the transportation system as it relates to walking, bicycling, and transit; and the traffic operations analysis is primarily focused on driver comfort and convenience.

Based on the LOS standards presented in Table 4.14-5 as established in the Fresno General Plan and the City of Fresno Traffic Impact Study Report Guidelines, the proposed Planwould cause a significant impact to traffic if it would:
 Cause a roadway segment operating at or better than the LOS standard identified in Table 4.14-4 to operate worse than the LOS standard (e.g., cause a roadway operating at LOS D or better to operate at LOS E or worse if the LOS standard is LOS D) during the AM or PM peak hour.

Increase the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio by 0.01 for a roadway segment operating worse than the LOS standard without the project during the AM or PM peak hour.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-32 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.14-5 STUDY ROADWAY SEGMENT LOS STANDARDS
Roadway Segment
Traffic Impact Zone
(TIZ) a
LOS
Standardb

1. Whitesbridge Ave.: Marks Ave. to Roeding Dr. III D

2. Whitesbridge Ave.: Roeding Dr. to Thorne Ave. I F

3. Kearney Blvd.: Marks Ave. to West Ave. III D

4. Kearney Blvd.: West Ave. to Thorne Ave. II E

5. California Ave.: Marks Ave. to West Ave. III D

6. California Ave.: West Ave. to Fresno St II E

7. California Ave.: Fresno St to MLK Jr. Blvd. I F

8. Ventura St: MLK Jr. Blvd. to B Street I F

9. Church Ave.: Marks Ave. to West Ave. III D

10. Church Ave.: West Ave. to Walnut Ave. III D

11. Church Ave.: Walnut Ave. to Elm Ave. III D

12. Jensen Ave.: Marks Ave. to West Ave. III D

13. Jensen Ave.: West Ave. to Walnut Ave. III D

14. Jensen Ave.: Walnut Ave. to Elm Ave. III D

15. North Ave.: Walnut Ave. to Elm Ave. III D

16. Marks Ave.: Whitesbridge Ave. to California Ave. III D

17. Marks Ave.: California Ave. to Jensen Ave. III D

18. Hughes Ave./Roeding Dr.: Nielsen Ave. to Whitesbridge Ave. III D

19. Hughes Ave.: Whitesbridge Ave. to California Ave. III D

20. Hughes Ave.: California Ave. to Church Ave. III D

21. Roeding Dr./West Ave.: Whitesbridge Ave. to California Ave. II E

22. West Ave.: California Ave. to Jensen Ave. III D

23. Fruit Ave.: California Ave. to Jensen Ave. III D

24. Thorne Ave.: Whitesbridge Ave. to California Ave. I F

25. Walnut Ave.: California Ave. to Jensen Ave. I F

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-33
TABLE 4.14-5 STUDY ROADWAY SEGMENT LOS STANDARDS
Roadway Segment
Traffic Impact Zone
(TIZ) a
LOS
Standardb

26. Walnut Ave.: Jensen Ave. to North Ave. III D

27. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.: California Ave. to Jensen Ave. III D

28. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.: Jensen Ave. to North Ave. III D

29. Elm Ave.: Ventura St to Jensen Ave. II E

30. Elm Ave.: Jensen Ave. to North Ave. IV E
a. Traffic Impact Zone based on Figure MT-4 in the Fresno General Plan. b. Per General Plan policy MT-2-I, roadways in TIZ I have a LOS F standard, roadways in TIZ II and TIZ IV have a LOS E standard, and roadways in TIZ III have a LOS D standard. This is also consistent with General Plan policies MT-1-k, MT-1-l, MT-1-m, and MT-1-n.

Source: Fresno General Plan, 2014.

TABLE 4.14-6 ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION AND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME LOS THRESHOLDS F unctional
Classification Median Lanes
Peak Hour Traffic Volume LOS Threshold

A B C D E
Arterial
Raised Median
6 - - 1,560 5,270 5,610
4 - - 1,000 3,470 3,730
2 - - 440 1,640 1,860
TWLTLa 4 - - 940 3,290 3,550
2 - - 420 1,550 1,760
Undividedb 4 - - 770 2,740 2,980
2 - - 340 1,270 1,480
Collector
Raised Median
4 - - 1,000 3,470 3,730
2 - - 440 1,640 1,860
TWLTLa 4 - - 940 3,290 3,550
2 - - 420 1,550 1,760
Undividedb 4 - - 770 2,740 2,980
2 - - 340 1,270 1,480
Note: “-“ LOS is not achievable.
a. TWLTL = two-way left-turn lane: a center lane exclusively for left-turning vehicles from either direction, which also provides space between opposing directions of travel.
b, Undivided = roadways with physical separation between opposing directions of travel, such as a raised median.

Source: Fresno General Plan MEIR, 2014.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-34 AUGUST 2017
Intersections
Intersection LOS is based on the control delay experienced by motorists traveling through the intersection.

At signalized intersections, the LOS is determined by the average control delay per vehicle, as described in Chapter 18 of the 2010 HCM. Table 4.14-7 presents the delay range for each LOS for signalized intersections.

TABLE 4.14-7 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS – SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of
Service Description
Average
Control Delaya
A
Volume-to-capacity ratio is low and either progression is exceptionally favorable or cycle length is very short. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and travel through the intersection without stopping.
≤ 10
B Volume-to-capacity ratio is low and either progression is highly favorable or the cycle length is short. More vehicles stop than with LOS A. >10 to 20 C
Progression is favorable or the cycle length is moderate. Individual cycle failures (i.e., one or more queued vehicles are not able to depart as a result of insufficient capacity during the cycle) may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many vehicles still pass through the intersection without stopping. >20 to 35
D Volume-to-capacity ratio is high and either progression is ineffective or the cycle length is long. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. >35 to 55 E Volume-to-capacity ratio is high, progression is unfavorable, and the cycle length is long.

Individual cycle failures are frequent. >55 to 80
F Volume-to-capacity ratio is very high, progression is very poor, and the cycle length is long. Most cycles fail to clear the queue. >80
a. Average control delay presented in seconds per vehicle. Delay values are rounded to the nearest second and evaluated for LOS based on the above thresholds (i.e., 10 seconds per vehicle = LOS A)
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2010.

This study calculates control delay and LOS at each intersection using the Synchro 9 traffic operations analysis software, which applies the 2010 HCM procedures.

Since all of the intersections analyzed in this study are under Caltrans jurisdiction, this analysis uses the concept LOS established in Caltrans CSMP and TCR documents as the LOS standard. Both the SR-41 TCR and SR-99 CSMP identify LOS D as the concept LOS for these freeways. Consistent with this concept LOS and Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, 16 the proposed Planwould cause a
significant impact to traffic if it would:
 Cause an intersection operating at an acceptable LOS D or better to operate at LOS E or LOS F during the AM or PM peak hour.
 Result in an increase in the average delay for a study intersection that is already operating at an unacceptable LOS E or LOS F during the AM or PM peak hour. 16 Caltrans, 2002. Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. State of California Department of Transportation.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-35
Queuing
This study reports the 95th percentile queues at freeway off-ramps using the Synchro 9 traffic operations analysis software. The Synchro 9 queue report provides the 95th percentile queue length in feet. This report assumes that each vehicle in the queue uses approximately 25 feet. Since the Synchro 9 output does not round to the nearest vehicle length, this analysis rounds the Synchro 9 output up to the next highest 25-foot interval.

Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies does not specify a standard forqueuing.

However, queues that would back onto the freeway mainline would potentially cause a hazard for traffic traveling in adjacent through lanes. Therefore, the proposed Planwould cause a significant impact to queuing if it would:
 Cause an increase the queue length on a freeway off-ramp such that the 95th percentile queue extends back to the freeway mainline.
 Add traffic to a freeway off-ramp whose 95th percentile queue already extends back to the freeway mainline.

Vehicle Miles of Travel
VMT is a measure of transportation network use. It is directly related to fuel consumption, and is routinely used as an input for estimating air pollution emissions, GHGs, and energy consumption for environmental impact purposes. As part of implementing SB 743, the draft CEQA Guidelines being developed by OPR proposes to eliminate vehicle delay and LOS and replace it with VMT to evaluate transportation CEQA impacts. Since the guidelines will require certification and adoption by the Secretary for Resources before they go into effect, this study continues to use LOS for evaluating transportation impacts. However, this report also presents the anticipated VMT generated by the proposed Plan for informational purposes.

This study uses the TDF model described in the Travel Demand Forecasting section above to estimate VMT. The TDF model is divided into travel analysis zones (TAZs) to represent specific geographic areas in Fresno County. Thisstudy reports theVMT generated by the TAZs that correspond to the project. VMT is further disaggregated into the following three categories based on the origin and destination of the trip:
 Internal-to-Internal (I-I): trips that travel within the Plan Area.  Internal-to-External (I-X): trips that travel from the project to a location outside the Plan Area.  External-to-Internal (X-I): trips that travel to the project from a location outside the Plan Area.

The VMT presented in this report is a “full accounting” of the trips to and from the Plan Area, tracking the lengths of trips from their origin to their destination. It does not include any trips that only pass through the Plan Area or do not start or end in the Plan Area (external-to-external trips).

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-36 AUGUST 2017

4.14.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes potential proposed Plan-specific impacts to transportation and traffic.

TRANS-1 The proposed Plan would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit, non-motorized travel, and relevant components of the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.

Development associated with the proposed Plan would increase the amount of vehicle traffic, which would require the improvement and expansion of the roadway network in the Plan Area to serve the associated travel demand. The traffic generated by the proposed Plan will be caused by future development within the Plan Area. Figure 4.14-11 presents the land use map for the Plan Area.

Figure 4.14-12 shows the planned number of lanes on the roadway network in the Plan Area.

Project Traffic Forecasts
This study uses the TDF model developed for the Fresno General Plan MEIR to forecast the amount of traffic generated by the proposed Plan. For the existing plus proposed Plan scenario, the development potential associated with the proposed Planwas added to the Fresno General Plan MEIR TDF model baseline land uses. The proposed Plan’sland uses included residential units and retail, office, and industrial employment. In addition, the roadway network in the baseline TDF model was updated to match the roadway network presented in Figure 4.14-12.

The outputs of the proposed Plan’s TDF model were reviewed and compared to the baseline model outputs. The proposed Plan’straffic forecasts were developed using a process known as the “difference method,” which adjusts raw model volume forecasts based on expected incremental growth from existing conditions using the following formula:

Existing Plus Proposed Plan Traffic Forecasts = Existing Traffic Count + (Plus Proposed Plan Raw Model Volume–Baseline Raw Model Volume) Figure 4.14-13presents the resulting daily traffic volumes for the 30 study roadway segments under existing plus proposed Plan’s conditions.

Figure 4.14-11 Project Land Use Plan Figure 4.14-11 Project Land Use Plan Source: City of Fresno.

Figure 4.14-11
Proposed Land Use Plan

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS
Figure 4.14-12 Existing Plus Project Roadway Network
Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-12
Existing Plus Proposed Plan’s Roadway Network

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS
Figure 4.14-3 Existing Roadway Network
Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-3
Existing Roadway Network

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-40 AUGUST 2017
Vehicle Miles of Travel
The Fresno General Plan MEIR TDF model is also used to estimate and forecast VMT. Table 4.14-8 compares the VMT existing condition estimate with the forecasted VMT under existing plus proposed Plan conditions. As shown in Table 4.14-8, VMT is projected to increase from 285,232 milesto 1,670,638 miles per weekday with build-out of the proposed Plan, an increase of 1,385,406 miles over existing conditions.

TABLE 4.14-8 VMT COMPARISON – EXISTING CONDITIONS AND EXISTING PLUS PROPOSED PLAN Average Weekday VMT
Trip Type
Existing
Conditions
Existing Plus
Proposed Plan Conditions
Internal-to-Internal (I-I) 1,153 41,991
Internal-to-External (I-I) 141,973 815,020
External-to-Internal (I-I) 142,106 813,627
Total 285,232 1,670,638
Source: Fresno COG Countywide Travel Demand Forecasting Model as modified for the proposed Plan.

Traffic Operations
Roadway Segment Operations
Table 4.14-9 presents the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes and LOS for each study roadway segment under existing plus proposed Plan conditions. Figure 4.14-14 presents the AM peak hour roadway LOS under existing plus proposed Plan conditions, while Figure 4.14-15 presents the PM peak hour roadway LOS. As shown in Table 4.14-9, all study roadway segments operate at LOS C or LOS D under existing plus proposed Plan conditions. While many roadway segments go from LOS C under existing conditions to LOS D under existing plus proposed Plan conditions, all roadways continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (i.e., at or better than the LOS standard identified in Tale 4.14-4).Therefore, the proposed Plan has a less than significantimpact on roadway operations.

Intersection Operations
Table 4.14-10 presents the AM and PM peak hour LOS for each study intersection under existing plus proposed Plan conditions (refer to Appendix H for calculations). The results presented in Table 4.14-19 reflect signal timing changes that are anticipated to occur during routine maintenance of the traffic signals by Caltrans. This includes adjustments to cycle lengths and shifting green time to phases for movements that experience greater increases in traffic volume. These adjustments in one case (at the intersection of SR-99 Northbound Ramps/East Ave./Jensen Ave.) result in slightly better operations under existing plus proposed Plan conditions than existing conditions due to more efficient use of the traffic signal cycle.

Figure 4.14-14 Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-14
Existing Plus Proposed Plan AM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS
Figure 4.14-15 Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-15
Existing Plus Proposed Plan PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-43
TABLE 4.14-9 PEAK HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS – EXISTING PLUS PROPOSED PLAN CONDITIONS

Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions
Existing Plus Proposed
Plan
Roadway Segment Classificationa Volume V/Cb LOSv Volume V/Cb LOSv

1. Whitesbridge Ave.: Marks Ave. to
Roeding Dr.
4-lane Divided
Collector
AM 180 0.12 C 1,280 0.34 D
PM 260 0.18 C 1,650 0.44 D

2. Whitesbridge Ave.: Roeding Dr.
to Thorne Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 110 0.08 C 360 0.24 D
PM 210 0.14 C 560 0.38 D

3. Kearney Blvd.: Marks Ave. to
West Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 290 0.19 C 730 0.50 D
PM 210 0.14 C 710 0.48 D

4. Kearney Blvd.: West Ave. to
Thorne Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 240 0.16 C 620 0.42 D
PM 170 0.12 C 600 0.41 D

5. California Ave.: Marks Ave. to
West Ave.
2-lane Collector with
TWLTL
AM 180 0.12 C 440 0.25 D
PM 170 0.12 C 480 0.27 D

6. California Ave.: West Ave. to
Fresno St.
4-lane Divided Arterial
AM 350 0.19 C 1,350 0.36 D
PM 430 0.23 C 1,510 0.40 D

7. California Ave.: Fresno St. to
Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
2-lane Arterial with
TWLTL
AM 590 0.34 D 790 0.45 D
PM 550 0.31 D 790 0.45 D

8. Ventura St: Martin Luther King Jr.

Blvd. to B Street
4-lane Divided Arterial
AM 930 0.25 C 2,100 0.56 D
PM 840 0.22 C 2,130 0.57 D

9. Church Ave.: Marks Ave. to
West Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 80 0.05 C 570 0.39 D
PM 120 0.08 C 670 0.45 D

10. Church Ave.: West Ave. to
Walnut Ave.
2-lane Collector with
TWLTL
AM 150 0.10 C 690 0.39 D
PM 170 0.11 C 770 0.44 D

11. Church Ave.: Walnut Ave. to
Elm Ave.
2-lane Collector with
TWLTL
AM 390 0.22 C 870 0.49 D
PM 370 0.21 C 880 0.50 D

12. Jensen Ave.: Marks Ave. to
West Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Arterial
AM 320 0.22 C 390 0.27 D
PM 410 0.28 D 510 0.34 D

13. Jensen Ave.: West Ave. to
Walnut Ave. 4-lane Divided Arterial
AM 420 0.28 D 1,300 0.35 D
PM 560 0.38 D 1,520 0.41 D

14. Jensen Ave.: Walnut Ave. to
Elm Ave. 4-lane Divided Arterial
AM 730 0.20 C 2,110 0.56 D
PM 920 0.25 C 2,320 0.62 D

15. North Ave.: Walnut Ave. to
Elm Ave.
2-lane Arterial with
TWLTL
AM 380 0.26 D 1,060 0.60 D
PM 340 0.23 D 1,150 0.65 D

16. Marks Ave.: Whitesbridge Ave. to
California Ave. 4-lane Divided Arterial
AM 620 0.34 D 1,790 0.48 D
PM 670 0.36 D 2,050 0.55 D

17. Marks Ave.: California Ave. to
Jensen Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Arterial
AM 140 0.10 C 100 0.07 C
PM 210 0.14 C 170 0.12 C

18. Hughes Ave./Roeding Dr.:

Nielsen Ave. to Whitesbridge Ave.
4-lane Divided
Collector
AM 200 0.05 C 660 0.18 C
PM 230 0.06 C 760 0.20 C

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-44 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.14-9 PEAK HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS – EXISTING PLUS PROPOSED PLAN CONDITIONS

Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions
Existing Plus Proposed
Plan
Roadway Segment Classificationa Volume V/Cb LOSv Volume V/Cb LOSv

19. Hughes Ave.: Whitesbridge Ave.
to California Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 20 0.02 C 420 0.29 D
PM 50 0.03 C 530 0.36 D

20. Hughes Ave.: California Ave. to
Church Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 20 0.01 C 260 0.18 C
PM 30 0.02 C 320 0.22 C

21. Roeding Dr./West Ave.:

Whitesbridge Av. to California Av.
2-lane Divided
Collector
AM 80 0.06 C 410 0.22 C
PM 80 0.05 C 440 0.24 C

22. West Ave.: California Ave. to
Jensen Ave.
2-lane Collector with
TWLTL
AM 70 0.05 C 530 0.30 D
PM 80 0.05 C 580 0.33 D

23. Fruit Ave.: California Ave. to
Jensen Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 140 0.09 C 750 0.51 D
PM 180 0.12 C 810 0.55 D

24. Thorne Ave.: Whitesbridge Ave.
to California Ave.
2-lane Collector with
TWLTL
AM 240 0.14 C 510 0.29 D
PM 270 0.15 C 600 0.34 D

25. Walnut Ave.: California Ave. to
Jensen Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 380 0.26 D 1,030 0.70 D
PM 350 0.24 D 1,100 0.74 D

26. Walnut Ave.: Jensen Ave. to
North Ave.
2-lane Collector with
TWLTL
AM 20 0.01 C 730 0.41 D
PM 50 0.04 C 820 0.47 D

27. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.:

California Ave. to Jensen Ave.
2-lane Collector with
TWLTL
AM 500 0.28 D 1,370 0.78 D
PM 520 0.29 D 1,400 0.80 D

28. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.:

Jensen Ave. to North Ave.
2-lane Collector with
TWLTL
AM 330 0.22 C 1,050 0.60 D
PM 290 0.20 C 1,070 0.61 D

29. Elm Ave.: Ventura St to
Jensen Ave.
4-lane Divided Arterial
AM 290 0.08 C 580 0.16 C
PM 600 0.16 C 970 0.26 C

30. Elm Ave.: Jensen Ave. to
North Ave. 2-lane Divided Arterial
AM 240 0.06 C 670 0.36 D
PM 420 0.11 C 920 0.49 D
a. Roadway classifications reflect changes proposed by proposed Plan. Description of classifications are presented in the Local Roadways section:

Undivided = roadways without physical separation between opposing directions of travel TWLTL = two-way left-turn lane: a center lane exclusively for left-turning vehicles from either direction, which also provides space between opposing directions of travel
Divided = roadways with physical separation between opposing directions of travel, such as a raised median b. Volume-to-capacity ratio; capacity defined as the LOS E/F threshold as presented in Table 4.15-5. c. Level of service based on volume thresholds presented in Tale 4.15-5.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

As shown in Table 4.14-10, all intersections operate at LOS D or better under existing plus proposed Plan conditions with the exception of the following location:
 SR-99 Southbound Ramps/East Avenue/Jensen Avenueduring the AM peak hour

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-45
TABLE 4.14-10 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS – EXISTING PLUS PROPOSED PLAN CONDITIONS Intersection
Traffic
Control
Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions
Existing Plus
Proposed Plan
Delaya LOSb Delaya LOSb

1. SR-41 Southbound Ramps/Jensen Ave. Signal
AM 9 A 22 C
PM 7 A 22 C

2. SR-41 Northbound Ramps/Jensen Ave. Signal
AM 4 A 4 A
PM 4 A 5 A

3. SR-99 Southbound Ramps/East Ave./Jensen Ave. Signal
AM 61 E 61 E
PM 29 C 35 D

4. SR-99 Northbound Ramps/East Ave./Jensen Ave. Signal
AM 53 D 39 D
PM 46 D 31 C

5. SR-41 Southbound Ramps/North Ave. Signal
AM 23 C 53 D
PM 13 B 45 D

6. SR-41 Northbound Ramps/North Ave. Signal
AM 9 A 18 B
PM 12 B 28 C

7. SR-99 Southbound Ramps/Fresno St. Signal
AM 24 C 27 C
PM 18 B 25 C

8. SR-99 Northbound Ramps/Fresno St. Signal
AM 15 B 19 B
PM 19 B 32 C
Notes: BO LD text indicates the intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS based on Caltrans concept LOS.

UNDERLINED text indicates the proposed Plan would have a significant impact based on the significance criteria presented in the Methodology section. a. The overall average intersection control delay is reported in seconds per vehicle. b. Level of service based on Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010).

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

While the SR-99 Southbound Ramps/East Avenue/Jensen Avenue operates at an unacceptable LOS E under existing plus proposed Plan conditions, the proposed Plan does not increase the delay from existing conditions. Therefore, this is a less than significantimpact.

The remaining intersections continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better under existing plus proposed Plan conditions. Therefore, the proposed Plan has a less than significantimpact on intersection operations.

Queuing
As described above, the proposed Planwould have a less than significant effect on roadway operations, intersection operations, and freeway off-ramp queuing. While the proposed Planwould add trips to the roadway network, the resulting roadway, intersection, and freeway off-ramp conditions would not conflict with applicable plans, ordinances, or policies establishing measures of effectiveness (i.e., delay, LOS, and queue lengths) for the performance of the circulation system. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-46 AUGUST 2017
Table 4.14-11 presents the AM and PM peak hour queues on freeway off-ramps under existing plus proposed Plan conditions. As shown in Table 4.14-11, all study freeway off-ramps have sufficient storage for existing plus proposed Plan queues. While the proposed Plan causes increases in queue lengths on freeway off-ramps, all queues can be adequately stored on the off-ramp without backing onto the freeway mainline. Therefore, the proposed Plan has a less than significant impact on freeway off-ramp queuing.

TABLE 4.14-11 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING – EXISTING PLUS PROPOSED PLAN CONDITIONS F reeway Off-Ramp
Ramp
Lengtha
Peak
Hour
95th Percentile Queue b
Existing Conditions
Existing Plus
Proposed Plan

1. SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,380 ft.

AM 75 ft. 600 ft.*
PM 75 ft. 550 ft.*

2. SR-41 Northbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,470 ft.

AM 50 ft. 50 ft.

PM 50 ft. 50 ft.

3. SR-99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,440 ft.

AM 625 ft.* 650 ft.*
PM 450 ft.* 475 ft.*

4. SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,050 ft.

AM 225 ft.* 400 ft.*
PM 250 ft.* 475 ft.*

5. SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp at North Ave. 1,575 ft.

AM 250 ft. 400 ft.*
PM 75 ft. 100 ft.

6. SR-41 Northbound Off-Ramp at North Ave. 1,700 ft.

AM 25 ft. 50 ft.

PM 50 ft. 50 ft.

7. SR-99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Fresno St. 1,030 ft.

AM 100 ft. 400 ft.*
PM 150 ft. 225 ft.

8. SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp at Fresno St. 1,070 ft.

AM 75 ft. 100 ft.

PM 100 ft. 125 ft.

Note: * = 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity; the actual queue may be longer than reported. a. The ramp length is estimated by measuring the distance from the gore point where the off-ramp departs from the mainline to the limit line at the ramp terminal intersection with the local street, as measured from aerial imagery. Distance is reported in feet. b. 95th Percentile Queue calculated using Synchro software. Queue is reported in feet and rounded up to the nearest 25-foot interval.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

As described above, the Proposed Planwould have a less than significant effect on roadway operations, intersection operations, and freeway off-ramp queuing. While the Proposed Planwould add trips to the roadway network, the resulting roadway, intersection, and freeway off-ramp conditions would not conflict with applicable plans, ordinances, or policies establishing measures of effectiveness (i.e., delay, LOS, and queue lengths) for the performance of the circulation system. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-47
TRANS-2 The proposed Plan would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards, travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.

The passage of California Assembly Bill 2419 (Bowler) in 1996 allowed counties to “opt out” of the California Congestion Management Program, referenced above, if a majority of local governments elected to exempt themselves from California’s congestion management plans. On September 25, 1997, the Fresno COG Policy Board rescinded the Fresno County Congestion Management Program at the request of the local member agencies. Therefore, this impact criterion is not applicable and this impact is less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

TRANS-3 The proposed Plan would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.

The Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport is the only aviation facility near the proposed Plan. It is a general aviation airport owned and operated by the City of Fresno located immediately northwest of the Plan Area north of Kearney Boulevard and east of West Avenue. According to the Fresno-Chandler Downtown Airport Land Use Policy Plan, 17 approximately 180 general aviation aircraft were based at the Airport as of 2000. In addition, one small cargo carrier and nine general aviation-related businesses operated at the Airport in 2000. The Airport is the smaller of two airports operated by the City of Fresno, with the larger Fresno Yosemite International Airport handling commercial airline service, air cargo operators, charter operators, and United States military, in addition to general aviation.

The Fresno-Chandler Downtown Airport Land Use Policy Plan aims to minimize the exposure of the public to high noise levels and safety hazards through land use controls and policies for property in the vicinity of the Airport. The proposed Plan is consistent with the Fresno-Chandler Downtown Airport Land Use Policy Plan. The land uses proposed for opportunity sites in the proposed Plan do not conflict with policies or allowed uses identified in Fresno-Chandler Downtown Airport Land Use Policy Plan. Since the Airport is a general aviation facility not serving commercial airline service, the population and employment growth associated with the proposed Plan is not expected to result in an increased demand for air travel at the Airport. Therefore, the proposed Planwould not cause any changesto existing aviation activity. 17 Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission, 2000. Fresno-Chandler Downtown Airport Land Use Policy Plan. Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-48 AUGUST 2017
The proposed Plan does not propose changing the location of airports. The proposed Plan also will not cause a change in air traffic patterns that would result in a substantial safety risk. Therefore, the proposed Plan would have a less than significant impact on aviation activity.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

TRANS-4 The proposed Plan would not increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

A review of the proposed Plan revealed no potential internal policy inconsistencies or discrepancies related to hazards associatedwith design features or incompatible uses. Implementation of the proposed Plan would increase the amount of vehicle traffic, which would require the improvement and expansion of the roadway network in the Plan Area. The proposed Plan identifies a roadway system, bikeways, trails, and sidewalks that will be constructed along with policy direction for future transit service to facilitate transportation in the Plan Area. New transportation facilities will be designed according to applicable federal, State, and local design standards, which will minimize traffic hazards.

The proposed Plan includes the following goals and policies related to the implementation of the transportation system. These goals and policies are related to the implementation of complete streets, the design of transportation facilities to improve safety and reduce conflicts, and identifying alternative truck routes to reduce their impact on sensitive users. The policies also encourage reduced vehicle speeds on roadways, which have been shown to improve overall safety by reducing the severity of collisions and improve driver awareness.

Goal T-3: Reduce conflicts between pedestrians and drivers, especially on streets with high speeds and limited pedestrian crossings.

Policy T-3.2 Ensure that sidewalks and other facilities meet the principle of universal design and comply with the ADA standards to assure access for pedestrians and people with disabilities.

Goal T-5: Create a separated, scenic, and well-connected multi-use trails network that provides Southwest Fresnans convenient access to nature and active recreational opportunities.

Policy T-5.3 Where feasible, design the trails to have separated paths for travel by foot and by bicycle to prevent potential conflicts.

Policy T-5.4 Provide separation for trail users against vehicular traffic such as landscaping,railings, or grade separation.

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.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-49
Policy T-8.2: Reduce auto use and prioritize walking, bicycling, and transit mobility over increasing vehicle travel speeds when considering roadway improvements.

Policy T-8.3: 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.

Goal T-9: Create a healthy environment for Southwest Fresno residents by intentionally routing truck traffic away from sensitive areas such as residential areas, parks, and schools.

Policy T-9.1: Work with existing industrial and heavy commercial businesses to identify alternative truck routes that limit negative impacts on sensitive areas while maintaining an efficient movement of goods.

Policy T-9.3: Improve conditions of existing and rerouted truck routes for pedestrians and bicyclists by implementing pedestrian and bicycle facilities such as reduced corner radii at intersections to slow turning vehicular traffic, protected signal phasing for truck left-turns, enhanced high-visibility crossings, protected bikeways, and wide sidewalks.

Goal T-10: Create an accessible and well-connected “complete streets” transportation network that serves community members of all ages, income groups, and abilities, and balances travel by all modes of travel such as by car, bus, bicycle, foot, or wheelchair.

Policy T-10.2 Identify streets with excessive vehicular ROW that are opportunities to implement traffic calming and other improvements to slow traffic and provide options for multi-modal travel.

Policy T-10.3 Encourage lower vehicular travel speeds for collector and local streets in the Plan Area.

This could be accomplished through traffic calming measures, narrower travel lanes, reducing the number of travel lanes, neighborhood speed watch/traffic management programs, or speed enforcement programs.

Implementation of the proposed Planwould increase the amount of vehicle traffic, which will require improvement and expansion of the transportation systemin the Plan Area. However, new and upgraded roadways will be designed according to applicable federal, state, and local design standards. In addition, the selected policies outlined above from the proposed Plan support development of the transportation system based on complete street concepts that accommodate mobility of all system users and trip purposes. As a result, implementation of the proposed Planwould result in a less than significantimpact related to hazards due to roadway design features or incompatible uses.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-50 AUGUST 2017
TRANS-5 The proposed Plan would not result in inadequate emergency access.

A review of the proposed Plan revealed no potential internal policy inconsistencies or discrepancies related to emergency access. Implementation of the proposed Planwould increase the amount of vehicle traffic, which would require the improvement and expansion of the roadway network in the Plan Area to accommodate forecasted travel demand. The proposed Planwould expand the roadway network to serve forecasted travel demand and improve existing rural or substandard roadways to City standards. This enhanced roadway network that accommodates forecasted travel demand would also provide adequate emergency access. Therefore, the proposed Planwould have a less than significantimpact on emergency access.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

TRANS-6 The proposed Plan would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.

A review of the proposed Plan revealed no potential internal policy inconsistencies or conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or the performance or safety of those facilities. Implementation of the proposed Planwould increase the demand for public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian travel, which would require the improvement and expansion of facilities to support these travel modes. The proposed Plan identifies a system of planned bikeways, trails, and sidewalks that will be constructed to support bicycle and pedestrian travel. The proposed Plan also recommends enhanced transit service including recommended bus rapid transit (BRT) corridors along key corridors to serve future transit demand.

The proposed Plan includes the following goals and policies related to the implementation of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. These goals and policies support the development of pedestrian and bicycle friendly infrastructure,the implementation of complete streets, and the provision of a reliable and efficient transit service in the Plan Area.

Goal T-1: Create a well-connected pedestrian network that allows Southwest Fresnans to comfortably walk to key destinations such as schools, parks, services, retail, and transit.

Policy T-1.1 Implement the pedestrian recommendations from the City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan (ATP), focusing on the high priority areas first.

Policy T-1.2 Prioritize sidewalk improvements, including the priority sidewalk network identified in the Fresno ATP, on streets that generate higher pedestrian travel demand, especially along corridors, around magnet uses, and within ¼- mile of complete neighborhood nodes.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-51
Policy T-1.5 Fill sidewalk gaps on streets in areas where there are incomplete segments of sidewalk adjacent to existing sidewalks in order to provide a continuous walking experience, unless the area or development was intentionally planned without sidewalks. Prioritize the Plan Area’s high priority area identified in the Fresno ATP.

Goal T-2: Create a vibrant pedestrian experience to enhance the character and identity of Southwest Fresno, especially in commercial and employment areas.

Policy T-2.1 Enhance streetscape by providing pedestrian amenities where sidewalk widths allow, such as benches, lighting, outdoor seating, and planters.

Goal T-3: Reduce conflicts between pedestrians and drivers, especially on streets with high speeds and limited pedestrian crossings.

Policy T-3.2 Ensure that sidewalks and other facilities meet the principle of universal design and comply with the ADA standards to assure access for pedestrians and people with disabilities.

Policy T-3.4 Provide continuous sidewalks along public streets and encouragethe provision of sidewalks on both sides for all new development within the Plan Area.

Goal T-4: Create a comprehensive, well-connected, and continuous bicycle network that provides linkages between residential areas and local and regional key destinations such as schools, parks, services, retail, and transit, so that Southwest Fresnans may bicycle as a viable mode of transportation and as a means to improve health and increase physical activity.

Policy T-4.1 Implement the bicycle recommendations from the Fresno ATP.

Policy T-4.2 Prioritize the implementation of bicycle facilities, including the priority bicycle network identified in Fresno’s ATP, that fill a gap between existing separated sections of the bikeway system, will likely serve the highest concentration of existing or potential bicyclists, and provide access to high activity areas.

Policy T-4.4 Ensure that all roadway widening projects in Southwest Fresno include Class II or Class IV bicycle facilities.

Goal T-5: Create a separated, scenic, and well-connected multi-use trails network that provides Southwest Fresnans convenient access to nature and active recreational opportunities.

Policy T-5.1 Implement the Class I bikeway recommendations from the City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan and General Plan Figure MT-2.

Policy T-5.4 Provide separation for trail users against vehicular traffic such as landscaping, railings, or grade separation.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-52 AUGUST 2017
Goal T-6: Develop the Southwest Fresno transit network into a viable transportation alternative to singleoccupancy vehicles.

Policy T-6.1 Improve the reliability, quality, and efficiency of transit service within Southwest Fresno and to regional destinations.

Goal T-7: Focus transit improvements along corridors that have more intensive land uses to more effectively and efficiently provide transit service and promote non-automobile access to high activity uses.

Policy T-7.2 Design transit stops and bus stop platforms such that transit travel has a higher priority than through traffic on transit corridors.

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.

Policy T-8.2 Reduce auto use and prioritize walking, bicycling, and transit mobility over increasing vehicle travel speeds when considering roadway improvements.

Goal T-9: Create a healthy environment for Southwest Fresno residents by intentionally routing truck traffic away from sensitive areas such as residential areas, parks, and schools.

Policy T-9.3 Improve conditions of existing and rerouted truck routes for pedestrians and bicyclists by implementing pedestrian and bicycle facilities such as reduced corner radii at intersections to slow turning vehicular traffic, protected signal phasing for truck left-turns, enhanced high-visibility crossings, protected bikeways, and wide sidewalks.

Policy T-10.1 When feasible, design new roadways and retrofit existing roadways within magnet cores, complete neighborhoods, and along special corridors to prioritize travel by walking, bicycling, and riding transit, using the complete streets design guidelines contained in this chapter. For example, if adequate or excessive vehicle traffic capacity is available, create wide sidewalks, provide pedestrian amenities, and install bicycle facilities such as separated bikeways or bike lanes, bike parking, and signage. This could be in the form of a “road diet” to transform certain corridors into multi-modal streets.

Goal T-11: Foster a healthy lifestyle in Southwest Fresno through encouraging active forms of transportation such as walking and bicycling as an alternative to motorized modes of travel.

Policy T-11.1 Prioritize the implementation of facilities that encourage walking and biking, such as sidewalks, multi-use trails, and bikeways.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-53
Policy T-11.3 Support Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs to encourage alternative modes of travel to the single-occupancy vehicle such as transit use, car- or vanpool, rideshare, and telecommuting.

Goal T-13: Ensure that Southwest Fresno’s transportation infrastructure is in well-maintained conditions to provide a comfortable travel experience for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Policy T-13.2 Monitor the conditions of roadways to ensure the repair and resurfacing of cracked and uneven roadway surfaces to provide a smooth and even surface for bicycling.

The proposed Plan identifies a system of planned bikeways, trails, and sidewalks as well as recommended transit service improvements to support bicycling, walking, and transit use. In addition, the selected policies outlined above from the proposed Plan support development of the transportation system based on complete street concepts that accommodate mobility of all system users.

FAX seeks to provide the residents of Southwest Fresno with enhanced bus service in terms of increased frequencies, fixed-route transit lines, or both based on feedback provided by residents. The enhanced bus service seeks to connect people to activity centers (employment, housing, and retail), with a specific emphasis on California Avenue, Church Avenue, Elm Avenue, Jensen Avenue, and Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard, as identified by the proposed Plan.

As a result, implementation of the proposed Planwould result in a less than significantimpact related to adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.14.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
TRANS-7 The proposed Plan, in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to transportation and traffic.

In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, development associated with the proposed Plan would increase the amount of vehicle traffic, which would require the improvement and expansion of the roadway network to serve the associated travel demand. Cumulative impacts due to increases in peak hour traffic volumes are based on planned development in the Fresno metropolitan area consistent with the Fresno General Plan, Fresno County General Plan, and Fresno COG RTP/SCS. In addition, the cumulative analysis includes funded improvements to the regional roadway network, as identified in the Fresno COG RTP/SCS, Fresno Downtown Plans, and Fresno General Plan. This includes the following roadway projects in the cumulative setting:

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-54 AUGUST 2017
 Roadway network changes in Downtown Fresno associated with High Speed Rail, including:
 Closure of the Divisadero Street, Kern Street, and Mono Street Union Pacific Railroad at-grade crossings.
 Converting Tuolumne Street to two-way traffic with an overcrossing of the Union Pacific Railroad and High Speed Rail.
 Closure and removal of the Stanislaus Street overcrossing of the Union Pacific Railroad and High Speed Rail.
 New grade-separated crossings under the Union Pacific Railroad and High Speed Rail at Fresno Street, Tulare Street, and Ventura Street.
 Converting Whitesbridge Avenue and Amador Street to two-way traffic east of Tielman Avenue consistent with the Fresno Downtown Plan.
 Widening Marks Avenue to a four-lane divided arterial north of Jensen Avenue, and to a six-lane arterial between Whitesbridge Avenue and SR 180.
 Widening Jensen Avenueto a four-lane divided arterial east of Marks Avenue.  Widening California Avenue to a four-lane divided arterial from Fruit Avenue to Walnut Avenueas compared to Figure 4.14-3 above.
 Widening North Avenue to a four-lane divided arterial east of Elm Avenue.

Figure 4.14-16shows the planned number of lanes on the roadway network in the Plan Area under cumulative conditions.

Cumulative Traffic Forecasts
Consistent with the process for forecasting project traffic levels, this study uses the TDF model developed for the Fresno General Plan MEIR to forecast cumulative traffic levels with and without the proposed Plan.

For cumulative traffic levels without the proposed Plan, this study assumes development consistent with the Fresno General Plan would occur instead of the development and land uses proposed by the proposed Plan.

To forecast cumulative traffic levels with the proposed Plan, the development potential associated with the proposed Planwas included in the Fresno General Plan MEIR TDF model representing 2035 conditions with the Fresno General Plan. This model includes development consistent with the Fresno General Plan and Fresno Downtown Plans outside of the Plan Area, as well as the roadway projects identified above to match the roadway network presented in Figure 4.14-16.

Figure 4.14-16 Cumulative Roadway Network Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-16
Cumulative Roadway Network

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-56 AUGUST 2017
The outputs of the cumulativeTDF model were reviewed and compared to the baseline model outputs.

Cumulativetraffic forecasts were developed using a process known as the “difference method,” which adjusts raw model volume forecasts based on expected incremental growth from existing conditions using the following formula:

Cumulative Traffic Forecasts = Existing Traffic Count + (Cumulative Raw Model Volume–Baseline Raw Model Volume) Figure 4.14-17presents the resulting daily traffic volumes for the 30 study roadway segments under cumulative conditions.

Vehicle Miles of Travel
The Fresno General Plan MEIR TDF model is also used to estimate and forecast VMT. Table 4.14-12 compares the VMT existing condition estimate with the forecasted VMT for the proposed Plan under cumulative conditions. As shown in Table 4.14-12, VMT is projected to increase from 285,232 milesto 1,806,108 miles per weekday under cumulative conditions, an increase of 1,520,876 miles over existing conditions.

TABLE 4.14-12 VMT COMPARISON – EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Trip Type
Average Weekday VMT
Existing
Conditions
Existing
Plus Propos ed Plan
Cumulative
Conditions
Internal-to-Internal (I-I) 1,153 41,991 27,182
Internal-to-External (I-I) 141,973 815,020 890,302
External-to-Internal (I-I) 142,106 813,627 888,624
Total 285,232 1,670,638 1,806,108
Source: Fresno COG Countywide Travel Demand Forecasting Model as modified for the proposed Plan.

Traffic Operations
Roadway Segment Operations
Table 4.14-13 presents the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes and LOS for each study roadway segment under cumulative conditions. Figure 4.14-18presents the AM peak hour roadway LOS under cumulative conditions, while Figure 4.14-19 presents the PM peak hour roadway LOS. As shown in Table

4.14-13, all study roadway segments operate at LOS C or LOS D under cumulative conditions, with the exception of the following roadway segments.
 Church Avenue: Walnut Avenue to Elm Avenue (LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours)  North Avenue: Walnut Avenue to Elm Avenue (LOS E during the PM peak hour only)  Walnut Avenue: California Avenue to Jensen Avenue (LOS E during the PM peak hour only) Figure 4.14-17 Cumulative Daily Roadway Volumes
Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-17
Cumulative Daily Roadway Volumes

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS
Figure 4.14-18 Cumulative AM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-18
Cumulative AM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS
Figure 4.14-19 Cumulative PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-19
Cumulative PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-60 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.14-13 PEAK HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Roadway Segment Classificationa
Peak
Hour
Existing
Conditions
Existing
Plus Propos ed Plan
Cumulative
Conditions
Volume V/Cb LOSc Volume V/Cb LOSc Volume V/Cb LOSc

1. Whitesbridge Ave.:

Marks Av. to Roeding Dr.
4-lane Divided
Collector
AM 180 0.12 C 1,280 0.34 D 1,970 0.53 D
PM 260 0.18 C 1,650 0.44 D 2,310 0.62 D

2. Whitesbridge Ave.:

Roeding Dr. to Thorne Av.
2-lane Collector
with TWLTL
AM 110 0.08 C 360 0.24 D 1,120 0.63 D
PM 210 0.14 C 560 0.38 D 1,340 0.76 D

3. Kearney Blvd.: Marks Ave.
to West Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 290 0.19 C 730 0.50 D 970 0.65 D
PM 210 0.14 C 710 0.48 D 1,000 0.68 D

4. Kearney Blvd.: West Ave.
to Thorne Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 240 0.16 C 620 0.42 D 1,090 0.73 D
PM 170 0.12 C 600 0.41 D 1,150 0.78 D

5. California Ave.:

Marks Ave. to West Ave.
2-lane Collector
with TWLTL
AM 180 0.12 C 440 0.25 D 1,030 0.58 D
PM 170 0.12 C 480 0.27 D 1,140 0.65 D

6. California Ave.: West Ave.
to Fresno St.
4-lane Divided
Arterial
AM 350 0.19 C 1,350 0.36 D 2,280 0.61 D
PM 430 0.23 C 1,510 0.40 D 2,700 0.72 D

7. California Ave.: Fresno St.
to MLK Jr. Blvd.
2-lane Arterial
with TWLTL
AM 590 0.34 D 790 0.45 D 1,200 0.68 D
PM 550 0.31 D 790 0.45 D 1,340 0.76 D

8. Ventura St: MLK Jr. Blvd.
to B Street
4-lane Divided
Arterial
AM 930 0.25 C 2,100 0.56 D 2,570 0.69 D
PM 840 0.22 C 2,130 0.57 D 2,860 0.77 D

9. Church Ave.: Marks Ave.
to West Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 80 0.05 C 570 0.39 D 670 0.45 D
PM 120 0.08 C 670 0.45 D 740 0.50 D

10. Church Ave.: West Ave. to
Walnut Ave.
2-lane Collector
with TWLTL
AM 150 0.10 C 690 0.39 D 1,140 0.65 D
PM 170 0.11 C 770 0.44 D 1,240 0.71 D

11. Church Ave.: Walnut Ave.
to Elm Ave.
2-lane Collector
with TWLTL
AM 390 0.22 C 870 0.49 D 1,780 1.01 F
PM 370 0.21 C 880 0.50 D 1,830 1.04 F

12. Jensen Ave.: Marks Ave.
to West Ave.
4-lane Divided
Arterial
AM 320 0.22 C 390 0.27 D 1,790 0.48 D
PM 410 0.28 D 510 0.34 D 2,130 0.57 D

13. Jensen Ave.: West Ave.
to Walnut Ave.
4-lane Divided
Arterial
AM 420 0.28 D 1,300 0.35 D 2,080 0.56 D
PM 560 0.38 D 1,520 0.41 D 2,530 0.68 D

14. Jensen Ave.: Walnut Ave.
to Elm Ave.
4-lane Divided
Arterial
AM 730 0.20 C 2,110 0.56 D 2,870 0.77 D
PM 920 0.25 C 2,320 0.62 D 3,260 0.87 D

15. North Ave.: Walnut Ave.
to Elm Ave.
2-lane Arterial
with TWLTL
AM 380 0.26 D 1,060 0.60 D 1,500 0.85 D
PM 340 0.23 D 1,150 0.65 D 1,620 0.92 E

16. Marks Ave.: Whitesbridge
Ave. to California Ave.
4-lane Divided
Arterial
AM 620 0.34 D 1,790 0.48 D 2,400 0.64 D
PM 670 0.36 D 2,050 0.55 D 2,830 0.76 D

17. Marks Ave.: California Av.
to Jensen Av.
4-lane Divided
Arterial
AM 140 0.10 C 100 0.07 C 1,290 0.35 D
PM 210 0.14 C 170 0.12 C 1,500 0.40 D

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-61
TABLE 4.14-13 PEAK HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Roadway Segment Classificationa
Peak
Hour
Existing
Conditions
Existing
Plus Propos ed Plan
Cumulative
Conditions
Volume V/Cb LOSc Volume V/Cb LOSc Volume V/Cb LOSc

18. Hughes Ave./Roeding Dr.:

Nielsen Ave. to
Whitesbridge Ave.
4-lane Divided
Collector
AM 200 0.05 C 660 0.18 C 1,600 0.43 D
PM 230 0.06 C 760 0.20 C 1,890 0.51 D

19. Hughes Ave.:

Whitesbridge Ave. to
California Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 20 0.02 C 420 0.29 D 880 0.60 D
PM 50 0.03 C 530 0.36 D 920 0.62 D

20. Hughes Ave.: California
Ave. to Church Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 20 0.01 C 260 0.18 C 660 0.44 D
PM 30 0.02 C 320 0.22 C 750 0.51 D

21. Roeding Dr./West Ave.:

Whitesbridge Ave. to
California Ave.
2-lane Divided
Collector
AM 80 0.06 C 410 0.22 C 1,010 0.54 D
PM 80 0.05 C 440 0.24 C 1,140 0.61 D

22. West Ave.: California Ave.
to Jensen Ave.
2-lane Collector
with TWLTL
AM 70 0.05 C 530 0.30 D 1,270 0.72 D
PM 80 0.05 C 580 0.33 D 1,320 0.75 D

23. Fruit Ave.: California Ave.
to Jensen Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 140 0.09 C 750 0.51 D 870 0.59 D
PM 180 0.12 C 810 0.55 D 950 0.64 D

24. Thorne Ave.:

Whitesbridge Ave. to
California Ave.
2-lane Collector
with TWLTL
AM 240 0.14 C 510 0.29 D 700 0.39 D
PM 270 0.15 C 600 0.34 D 810 0.46 D

25. Walnut Ave.: California
Ave. to Jensen Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 380 0.26 D 1,030 0.70 D 1,200 0.81 D
PM 350 0.24 D 1,100 0.74 D 1,370 0.93 E

26. Walnut Ave.: Jensen Ave.
to North Ave.
2-lane Collector
with TWLTL
AM 20 0.01 C 730 0.41 D 1,160 0.66 D
PM 50 0.04 C 820 0.47 D 1,240 0.71 D

27. Martin Luther King Jr.

Blvd.: California Ave. to
Jensen Ave.
2-lane Collector
with TWLTL
AM 500 0.28 D 1,370 0.78 D 1,420 0.80 D
PM 520 0.29 D 1,400 0.80 D 1,520 0.86 D

28. Martin Luther King Jr.

Blvd.: Jensen Ave. to
North Ave.
2-lane Collector
with TWLTL
AM 330 0.22 C 1,050 0.60 D 1,090 0.62 D
PM 290 0.20 C 1,070 0.61 D 1,120 0.64 D

29. Elm Ave.: Ventura St to
Jensen Ave.
4-lane Divided
Arterial
AM 290 0.08 C 580 0.16 C 1,090 0.29 D
PM 600 0.16 C 970 0.26 C 1,630 0.44 D

30. Elm Ave.: Jensen Ave. to
North Ave.
2-lane Divided
Arterial
AM 240 0.06 C 670 0.36 D 770 0.41 D
PM 420 0.11 C 920 0.49 D 1,090 0.58 D
Notes: BO LD text indicates the roadway operates at an unacceptable LOS based on the LOS standards presented in Table 4.14-5.

UNDERLINED text indicates the proposed Plan would have a significant impact based on the significance criteria presented in the Methodology section. a. Roadway classifications reflect cumulative roadway configuration (see Figure 4.14-16). Description of classifications are presented in the Local Roadways section:

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-62 AUGUST 2017
Per Fresno General Plan policy MT-1-l and MT-2-I, Walnut Avenue from California Avenue to Jensen Avenueis located in the Downtown Planning Area (TIZ I) where LOS F conditions are considered acceptable (see Table 4.14-6). Therefore, the LOS E conditions on Walnut Avenue are acceptable.

The remaining two segments on North Avenue and Church Avenue have a LOS D standard as shown in Table 4.14-6. Therefore, the LOS E and LOS F conditions on these roadways are considered unacceptable.

Since the proposed Plan contributes to these unacceptable LOS conditions when analyzed in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, this is considered a significant impact.

Therefore, the proposed Plan has a significant impact on roadway operations for the following two roadway segments:
 Church Avenue: Walnut Avenue to Elm Avenue
 North Avenue: Walnut Avenue to Elm Avenue
This impact and associated mitigation is described in Impact TRANS-7.1 below.

Intersection Operations
Table 4.14-14 presents the AM and PM peak hour LOS for each study intersection under cumulative conditions (refer to Appendix H for calculations). As shown in Table 4.14-14, the following intersections would operate at LOS E or LOS F under cumulative conditions during the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, or both AM and PM peak hours:
 SR-99 Southbound Ramps/East Ave./Jensen Ave. (AM and PM peak hours)  SR-99 Northbound Ramps/East Ave./Jensen Ave. (AM peak hour only)  SR-41 Southbound Ramps/North Ave. (AM peak hour only)  SR-99 Southbound Ramps/Fresno St. (AM and PM peak hours)  SR-99 Northbound Ramps/Fresno St. (PM peak hour only) While the SR-99 Southbound Ramps/East Avenue/Jensen Avenueoperates at an unacceptable LOS E under existing conditions, the proposed Plan contributes to LOS F operations under cumulative conditions. This is considered a significant impact.

The remaining four intersections that operate at LOS E or LOS F under cumulative conditions were operating at LOS D or better under existing conditions. Since the proposed Plan contributes to these unacceptable LOS conditions when analyzed in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, this is considered a significant impact. Therefore, the proposed Plan has a significant impact on intersection operations at the following five intersections:
 SR-99 Southbound Ramps/East Ave./Jensen Ave.
 SR-99 Northbound Ramps/East Ave./Jensen Ave.
 SR-41 Southbound Ramps/North Ave.
 SR-99 Southbound Ramps/Fresno St.
 SR-99 Northbound Ramps/Fresno St.

This impact and associated mitigation is described in Impact TRANS-7.2 below.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-63
TABLE 4.14-14 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Intersection
Traffic
Control
Peak
Hour
Existing
Conditions
Existing Plus
Proposed Plan
Cumulative
Conditions
Delaya LOSb Delaya LOSb Delaya LOSb

1. SR-41 Southbound Ramps/Jensen Ave. Signal
AM 9 A 27 C 33 C
PM 7 A 22 C 35 D

2. SR-41 Northbound Ramps/Jensen Ave. Signal
AM 4 A 4 A 5 A
PM 4 A 5 A 5 A

3. SR-99 Southbound Ramps/East
Ave./Jensen Ave. Signal
AM 61 E 61 E 109 F
PM 29 C 35 D 119 F

4. SR-99 Northbound Ramps/East
Ave./Jensen Ave. Signal
AM 53 D 94 F 73 E
PM 46 D 74 E 50 D

5. SR-41 Southbound Ramps/North Ave. Signal
AM 23 C 94 F 100 F
PM 13 B 91 F 48 D

6. SR-41 Northbound Ramps/North Ave. Signal
AM 9 A 56 E 25 C
PM 12 B 104 F 45 D

7. SR-99 Southbound Ramps/Fresno St. Signal
AM 24 C 51 D 60 E
PM 18 B 51 D 59 E

8. SR-99 Northbound Ramps/Fresno St. Signal
AM 15 B 18 B 33 C
PM 19 B 54 D 75 E
Notes: BO LD text indicates the intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS based on Caltrans concept LOS.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

Queuing
Table 4.14-15 presents the AM and PM peak hour queues on freeway off-ramps under cumulative conditions. While Table 4.14-15 shows that all study freeway off-ramps have sufficient storage for cumulativequeues, several are serving over-capacity volumes. As a result, the queues reported for these over-capacity ramps may be underestimated by the Synchro 9 software.

To address this limitation, this study conservatively assumes that queues would extend back onto the mainline for movements that are over capacity and have a reported 95th percentile queues within 500 feet of the off-ramp length. Using this criteria, the following freeway off-rampswould have 95th percentile queues that would back onto to the freeway mainline under cumulative conditions during the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, or both AM and PM peak hours:
 SR-41 Southbound off-ramp at Jensen Avenue (AM and PM peak hours)  SR-99 Southbound off-ramp at Jensen Avenue (AM and PM peak hours)  SR-99 Northbound off-ramp at Jensen Avenue (AM and PM peak hours)  SR-41 Southbound off-ramp at North Avenue (AM and PM peak hours)  SR-99 Southbound off-ramp at Fresno Street (AM peak hour only)

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-64 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.14-15 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS 95th Percentile Queue b
F reeway Off-Ramp
Ramp
Lengtha
Peak
Hour
Existing
Conditions
Existing Plus
Proposed Plan
Cumulative
Conditions

1. SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,380 ft.

AM 75 ft. 600 ft.* 950 ft.*
PM 75 ft. 550 ft.* 1,125 ft.*

2. SR-41 Northbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,470 ft.

AM 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft.

PM 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft.

3. SR-99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,440 ft.

AM 625 ft.* 650 ft.* 1,175 ft.*
PM 450 ft.* 475 ft.* 1,100 ft.*

4. SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,050 ft.

AM 225 ft.* 400 ft.* 600 ft.*
PM 250 ft.* 500 ft.* 650 ft.*

5. SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp at North Ave. 1,575 ft.

AM 250 ft. 275 ft.* 1,100 ft.*
PM 75 ft. 75 ft. 875 ft.*

6. SR-41 Northbound Off-Ramp at North Ave. 1,700 ft.

AM 25 ft. 50 ft. 75 ft.

PM 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft.

7. SR-99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Fresno St. 1,030 ft.

AM 100 ft. 400 ft.* 750 ft.*
PM 150 ft. 150 ft. 500 ft.*

8. SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp at Fresno St. 1,070 ft.

AM 75 ft. 100 ft. 550 ft.*
PM 100 ft. 125 ft. 525 ft.*
Notes: BO LD text indicates the off-ramp queue is expected to extend back through the entire off-ramp and onto the freeway mainline.

UNDERLINED text indicates the proposed Plan would have a significant impact based on the significance criteria presented in the Methodology section. * = 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity; the actual queue may be longer than reported. a. The ramp length is estimated by measuring the distance from the gore point where the off-ramp departs from the mainline to the limit line at the ramp terminal intersection with the local street, as measured from aerial imagery. Distance is reported in feet. b. 95th Percentile Queue calculated using Synchro software. Queue is reported in feet and rounded up to the nearest 25-foot interval.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

All five of these freeway off-ramps that are forecasted to experience 95th percentile queues that extend back to the mainline under cumulative conditions are able to provide adequate storage for existing 95th percentile queues under existing conditions. Since the proposed Plan contributes to these unacceptable freeway off-ramp queues when analyzed in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, this is considered a significant impact. Therefore, the proposed Plan has a significant impact on freeway off-ramp queuing at the following five ramps:
 SR-41 Southbound off-ramp at Jensen Avenue
 SR-99 Southbound off-ramp at Jensen Avenue
 SR-99 Northbound off-ramp at Jensen Avenue
 SR-41 Southbound off-ramp at North Avenue
 SR-99 Southbound off-ramp at Fresno Street
This impact and associated mitigation is described in Impact TRANS-7.3 below.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-65
Impact TRANS-7.1: The addition of proposed Plan traffic to the roadway network, in combination with traffic generated by reasonably foreseeable projects, results in unacceptable roadway operations on City of Fresno study roadway segments under cumulative conditions.

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

Mitigation Measure TRANS-7.1: Provide transportation improvements consistent with General Plan Policy MT-1-j in the Plan Area that would encourage non-vehicular transportation and reduce auto traffic levels. These improvements shallbe consistent with the goals and policies in the proposed Plan, which require the implementation of complete streets, bikeways, trails, sidewalks, and enhanced transit service to support transit use, biking, and walking as viable modes of travel. By supporting and encouraging these non-auto modesin lieu of auto travel, future traffic levels would be reduced.

The City of Fresno shall also apply General Plan Policy MT-1-o, which allows LOS E or F conditions outside of identified multimodal districts if provisions are made to sufficiently improve the overall transportation system and promote non-vehicular transportation. With the application of General Plan policy MT-1-o, the LOS F conditions on Church Avenue and LOS E conditions on North Avenue would be considered acceptable. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

Both Church Avenue and North Avenue are planned to be two-lane roadways with a center two-way leftturn lane (TWLTL). The proposed Plan intentionally includes fewer travel lanes on these roadways to place a limit on vehicular traffic capacity and encourage walking and biking along these corridors.

In addition to providing access to Gaston Middle School, the segment of Church Avenue between Walnut Avenue and Elm Avenue that is projected to operate at LOS F will serve the planned Community College Magnet, which includes a community college, neighborhood mixed-use, community commercial, and medium-density residential uses. Given the nature of these uses, providing wide sidewalks, attractive bikeways, and transit facilities along this corridor in accordance with the Complete Streets Guidelines, and policies in the proposed Plan will encourage non-vehicular travel for this pedestrian activity center.

Furthermore, the Fresno ATP shows that a Class I bike path is planned along this segment of Church Avenue to further support walking and biking. As such, it is justified for the City to accept a lower LOS for this corridor and provide fewer travel lanes for vehicular traffic to maintain and prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes.

The 41 & North Corridor Complete Streets Plan18 recommends that North Avenue from Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to Elm Avenue include buffered bike lanes, wide sidewalks, high visibility crosswalks, and a pedestrian activated signal at North Avenue and Clara Avenue to facilitate pedestrian crossings of North Avenue. Given the existing neighborhood residential uses and nearby schools, parks, and planned corridor mixed use along Elm Avenue, North Avenue is expected to serve pedestrian and bicycle travel between 18 City of Fresno, 2016. 41 & North Corridor Complete Streeets Plan. City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-66 AUGUST 2017
the neighborhood and these nearby destinations. Therefore, it is justified for the City to accept a lower LOS for this corridor and provide fewer travel lanes for vehicular traffic to maintain and prioritize pedestrians and bicyclists.

Impact TRANS-7.2: The addition of project traffic to the roadway network, in combination with traffic generated by reasonably foreseeable projects, results in unacceptable intersection operations at Caltrans study intersections.

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

Mitigation Measure TRANS-7.2:Development within the proposed Plan shall pay its regional transportation mitigation fee (RTMF) towards funding improvements to the regional highways and streets system. The City of Fresno shall coordinate with Caltrans and the Fresno Council of Governments to recommend the following intersection and ramp improvements at the SR-99/Jensen Avenue interchange and SR-41/North Avenue interchange be incorporated into the RTMF program and any applicable future City of Fresno fee update applicable to roadway facilities and/or traffic signals:
 SR-99 Southbound Off-Ramp/Jensen Avenue intersection:
- Widen the SR-99 southbound off-ramp to add an additional left-turn pocket. - Restripe the existing shared through-left turn lane on the SR-99 southbound off-ramp as a dedicated through lane.
- The resulting lane configuration on the southbound off-ramp is: two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane.
- Add an overlap phase for the northbound right-turn movement. - Prohibit westbound U-turn movement to allow the northbound right-turn overlap. - Widen the eastbound approach to stripe a third through lane; add a third receiving lane on the east leg that traps into the SR-99 southbound on-ramp.  SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp/Jensen Avenue intersection:
- Change the lane configurations on the northbound off-ramp to a dedicated left-turn pocket and shared through-right turn lane.
- Add an overlap phase for the southbound right-turn movement. - Prohibit eastbound U-turn movement to allow the southbound right-turn overlap. - Widen the westbound approach to stripe a third through lane; add a third receiving lane on the west leg that traps into the SR-99 northbound on-ramp. - Change the phasing for the northbound and southbound approaches to protected left-turn movements and separate.
 SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp/North Avenue intersection:
- Widen the SR-41 southbound off-ramp to add a left-turn pocket. - Change the lane configurations on the southbound off-ramp to convert the existing shared through-left turn lane to a shared right turn-through-left turn lane.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-67
- Extend the right-turn pocket on the off-ramp to accommodate right-turn queue length shown in Table 4.14-16.
- The resulting lane configuration on the southbound off-ramp is: one left-turn lane, one shared right turn-through-left turn lane, and one right-turn lane. - Widen the eastbound approach to add a third through lane that traps into the eastbound leftturn onto the SR-41 northbound on-ramp.

In addition to addressing intersection operations, the changes identified above also address freeway off-ramp queuing impacts identified in Impact TRANS-7.3 below. With the implementation of the changeslisted above, the operations at these three intersections would be improved to LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours, as shown in Table 4.14-16 below (refer to Appendix H for calculations).

TABLE 4.14-16 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH MITIGATIONS

Traffic
Control
Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions
Cumulative
Conditions
Cum ulative with
Mitigation
Intersection Delaya LOSb Delaya LOSb Delaya LOSb

3. SR-99 Southbound Ramps/East
Ave./Jensen Ave. Signal
AM 61 E 109 F 46 D
PM 29 C 119 F 52 D

4. SR-99 Northbound Ramps/East
Ave./Jensen Ave. Signal
AM 53 D 73 E 27 C
PM 46 D 50 D 27 C

5. SR-41 Southbound Ramps/North Ave. Signal
AM 23 C 100 F 34 C
PM 13 B 48 D 22 C
Notes: BO LD text indicates the intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS based on Caltrans concept LOS.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

While these changes would improve traffic operations to an acceptable LOS, these improvements require alterations to signals operated by Caltrans as well as physical expansion of intersections and ramps that are under Caltrans jurisdiction. Since these improvements are not within the City of Fresno’s jurisdiction to control, it cannot be guaranteed that these improvements will be implemented.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-68 AUGUST 2017
- The resulting lane configuration on the southbound off-ramp is: oneleft-turn lane, one shared through left-turn lane, and two right-turn lanes.  SR-99 Northbound Ramps/Fresno Streetintersection:
- Add a through lane to the westbound approach on Fresno Street that traps into the left-turn onto the SR-99 southbound on-ramp.
- Adding the third through lane on Fresno Street would require removing the existing raised median and prohibiting eastbound left-turns at the Fresno Street/E Street intersection.

With the implementation of the changes listed above, the operations at these two intersections would be improved to LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours, as shown in Table

4.14-17 below (refer to Appendix H for calculations).

TABLE 4.14-17 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH MITIGATIONS

Traffic
Control
Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions
Cumulative
Conditions
Cum ulative with
Mitigation
Intersection Delaya LOSb Delaya LOSb Delaya LOSb

7. SR-99 Southbound Ramps/Fresno St. Signal
AM 24 C 60 E 46 D
PM 18 B 59 E 52 D

8. SR-99 Northbound Ramps/Fresno St. Signal
AM 15 B 33 C 27 C
PM 19 B 75 E 27 C
Notes: BO LD text indicates the intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS based on Caltrans concept LOS.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

While the intersection and ramp changes at the SR-99/Fresno Street interchange would improve intersection LOS, physical constraints on the SR-99 southbound frontage road would make the proposed widening of the southbound approach infeasible.

Significance with Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. The improvementsto the SR-99/Jensen Avenue and SR-41/North Avenue interchanges require changes to intersections and ramps under Caltransjurisdiction. Therefore, the City of Fresno cannot guarantee that these changes will be implemented. In addition, some of the improvements to the SR-99/Fresno Street interchange are physically infeasible. Therefore, the proposed Plan’s cumulative contribution to unacceptable operations at these intersections remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact TRANS-7.3: The addition of proposed Plan traffic to the roadway network in combination with traffic generated by reasonably foreseeable projects results in freeway off-ramp queues that extend back onto the freeway mainline.

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-69
Mitigation Measure TRANS-7.3:Development within the proposed Plan shall pay its regional transportation mitigation fee (RTMF) towards funding improvements to the regional highways and streets system. In addition to the recommended improvements listed in Mitigation Measure TRANS7.2, the City of Fresno shall coordinate with Caltrans and the Fresno Council of Governments to recommend the following intersection and ramp improvements at the SR-41/Jensen Avenue interchange be incorporated into the RTMF programand any applicable future City of Fresno fee update applicable to roadway facilities and/or traffic signals:
 SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp/Jensen Avenue intersection:
- Change the existing shared left-right turn lane on the SR-41 southbound off-ramp as a dedicated right-turn lane SR-99 southbound off-ramp
- The resulting lane configuration on the southbound off-ramp is: oneleft-turn lane and two right-turn lanes
- Add a southbound right-turn phase to run concurrently with the eastbound through phase by taking green time from the westbound through phase
The implementation of the changes to the SR-41 southbound off-ramp at Jensen Avenue listed above would reduce queuing on the SR-41 southbound off-ramp. These changes in combination with the improvements to the SR-99/Jensen Avenue, SR-41/North Avenue, and SR-99/Fresno Street interchange listed in Mitigation Measure TRANS-7.2, would reduce freeway off-ramp queuing under cumulative conditions.

Table 4.14-18 presents the estimated freeway off-ramp queues with the improvements presented in Mitigation Measure TRANS-7.2 and TRANS-7.3 (refer to Appendix H for calculations). While these changes would reduce the 95th percentile queues on freeway off-ramps to within the available storage on the off-ramp, these improvements require alterations to signals operated by Caltrans as well as physical expansion of intersections and ramps that are under Caltrans jurisdiction. Since these improvements are not within the City of Fresno’s jurisdiction to control, it cannot be guaranteed that these improvements will be implemented.

TABLE 4.14-18 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH MITIGATIONS F reeway Off-Ramp
Ramp
Lengtha
Peak
Hour
95th Percentile Queue b
Existing
Conditions
Cumulative
Conditions
Cum ulative with
Mitigation

1. SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,380 ft.

AM 75 ft. 950 ft.* 550 ft.

PM 75 ft. 1,125 ft.* 675 ft.*

3. SR-99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,440 ft.

AM 625 ft.* 1,175 ft.* 625 ft.*
PM 450 ft.* 1,100 ft.* 650 ft.*

4. SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,050 ft.

AM 225 ft.* 600 ft.* 250 ft.

PM 250 ft.* 650 ft.* 450 ft.*

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-70 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.14-18 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH MITIGATIONS F reeway Off-Ramp
Ramp
Lengtha
Peak
Hour
95th Percentile Queue b
Existing
Conditions
Cumulative
Conditions
Cum ulative with
Mitigation

5. SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp at North Ave. 1,575 ft.

AM 250 ft. 1,100 ft.* 550 ft.

PM 75 ft. 875 ft.* 275 ft.

7. SR-99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Fresno St. 1,030 ft.

AM 100 ft. 750 ft.* 500 ft.

PM 150 ft. 500 ft.* 475 ft.*
Notes: BO LD text indicates the off-ramp queue extends through the entire off-ramp and onto the freeway mainline.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. The improvements to the SR-99/Jensen Avenue, SR-41/North Avenue, and SR-41/Jensen Avenue interchanges require changes to intersections and ramps under Caltrans jurisdiction. Therefore, the City of Fresno cannot guarantee that these changes will be implemented. In addition, some of the improvements to the SR-99/Fresno Street interchange are physically infeasible. Therefore, the proposed Plan’s cumulative contribution to unacceptable freeway off-ramp queuing at these off-ramps remainssignificant and unavoidable.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-1

4.15 UTILITY SYSTEMS
This section describes the baseline utilities and service systems in the Plan Area and evaluates potential environmental consequences that could occur by adopting and implementing the proposed Plan.

Wastewater, water supply, reclaimed water, stormwater, and solid waste, are each addressed in separate subsections. Stormwater as it relates to both water quality and capacity is addressed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR. In each section, a summary of the relevant regulatory settings and baseline conditions is followed by a discussion of impacts and cumulative impacts from implementation of the proposed Plan.

4.15.1 WASTEWATER
This section outlines the regulatory setting, describes baseline conditions, and discusses potential impacts from buildout of the proposed Plan.

4.15.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
Federal Regulations
The federal government regulates wastewater treatment and planning through the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, more commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), as well as through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, both of which are discussed in further detail below.

Federal Clean Water Act
The CWA regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the nation. It is the primary federal law governing water pollution. Under the CWA, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implements pollution control programs and sets wastewater standards. The objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters by preventing point and nonpoint pollution sources, providing assistance to publicly owned treatment works for the improvement of wastewater treatment, and maintaining the integrity of wetlands.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was established in the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States. Federal NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges, including point-source municipal waste discharges and nonpoint-source storm water runoff. NPDES permits generally identify effluent and receiving water limits on allowable concentrations and/or mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge; prohibitions on discharges not specifically allowed under the permit; and provisions that describe required actions by the discharger, including industrial pretreatment, pollution

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-2 AUGUST 2017
prevention, self-monitoring, and other activities. Wastewater discharge is regulated under the NPDES permit program for direct discharges into receiving waters and by the National Pretreatment Program for indirect discharges to a sewage treatment plant.

State Regulations
Wastewater treatment and planning are regulated at the State level. Specific regulations relevant to the proposed Plan are described below.

State Water Resources Control Board
On May 2, 2006, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted a General Waste Discharge Requirement (Order No. 2006-0003) for all publicly owned sanitary sewer collection systems in California with more than 1 mile of sewer pipe. The order provides a consistent statewide approach to reducing sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) by requiring public sewer system operators to take all feasible steps to control the volume of waste discharged into the system, to prevent sanitary sewer waste from entering the storm sewer system, and to develop a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). The General Waste Discharge Requirement also requires that storm sewer overflows be reported to the SWRCB using an online reporting system.

The SWRCB has delegated authority to nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to enforce these requirements within their region. The Central Valley RWQCB issues and enforces NPDES permits in Fresno. NPDES permits allow the RWQCB to regulate where and how the waste is disposed, including the discharge volume and effluent limits of the waste and the monitoring and reporting responsibilities of the discharger. The RWQCB is also charged with conducting inspections of permitted discharges and monitoring permit compliance.

Sanitary District Act of 1923
The Sanitary District Act of 1923 (Health and Safety Code Section 6400 et seq.) authorizes the formation of sanitation districts and enforces the Districts to construct, operate, and maintain facilities for the collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater.1 The Act was amended in 1949 to allow the Districts to also provide solid waste management and disposal services, including refuse transfer and resource recovery.

Local Regulations
Fresno General Plan
The City's General Plan contains the following goals, policies, and objectives relevant to the provision of wastewater service and facilities (Table 4.15-1):

1 California Health and Safety Code, http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=hsc, accessed November 18, 2011.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-3
TABLE 4.15-1 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO UTILITY SYSTEMS Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Objective PU-4 Ensure provision of adequate trunk sewer and collector main capacities to serve baseline and planned urban development, consistent with the Wastewater Master Plan.

Policy PU-4-c
System Extension and Cost Recovery. Pursue enlargement or extension of the sewage collection system where necessary to serve planned urban development, with the capital costs and benefits allocated equitably and fairly between the baseline users and new users.

Objective PU-5 Preserve groundwater quality and ensure that the health and safety of the entire Fresno community is not impaired by use of private, on-site disposal systems.

Policy PU-5-b
Non-Regional Treatment. Discourage, and when determined appropriate, oppose the use of private wastewater (septic) disposal systems, community wastewater disposal systems, or other non-regional sewage treatment and disposal systems within or adjacent to the Metropolitan Area if these types of wastewater treatment facilities would cause discharges that could result in groundwater degradation.

Policy PU-5-c Satellite Facilities. Work with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure that approval of any satellite treatment and reclamation facility proposal is consistent with governing statutes and regulations.

Objective 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.

Policy PU-6-a
Treatment Capacity and Cost Recovery. Prepare for and consider the implementation of increased wastewater treatment and reclamation facility capacity in a timely manner to facilitate planned urban development within the Metropolitan Area consistent with this General Plan. Accommodate increase in flows and loadings from the existing community with the capital costs and benefits allocated equitably and fairly between existing users and new users, as authorized by law.

Policy PU-6-b
Treatment Capacity and Cost Recovery. Prepare for and consider the implementation of increased wastewater treatment and reclamation facility capacity in a timely manner to facilitate planned urban development within the Metropolitan Area consistent with this General Plan. Accommodate increase in flows and loadings from the existing community with the capital costs and benefits allocated equitably and fairly between existing users and new users, as authorized by law.

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

Policy PU-7-a Reduce Wastewater. Identify and consider implementing water conservation standards and other programs and policies, as determined appropriate, to reduce wastewater flows.

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

Policy PU-7-c Biosolid Disposal. Investigate and consider implementing economically effective and environmentally beneficial methods of biosolids handling and disposal.

Policy PU-7-d
Wastewater Recycling. Pursue the development of a recycled water system and the expansion of beneficial wastewater recycling opportunities, including a timely technical, practicable, and institutional evaluation of treatment, facility siting, and water exchange elements.

Policy PU-7-e Infiltration Basins. Continue to rehabilitate existing infiltration basins, and if determined appropriate, pursue acquiring additional sites for infiltration basins, as needed.

Policy PU-7-f
Food and Drink Industry. Ensure adequate provision of facilities for the appropriate management of wastewater from wineries and food processing and beverage facilities, including conformance with Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-4 AUGUST 2017
Baseline
Wastewater Collection
Since 1968, Fresno has administered a Mandatory Sewering Ordinance that requires discontinued use of on-site disposal and connection to the Regional Sewer System when it becomes available.2 In total, the City’s wastewater collection system consists of:
 Approximately 1,500 miles of gravity sewer pipes ranging from 6 inches to 84 inches in diameter;  More than 24,000 manholes;
 15 lift stations;
 54 junction structures; and
 Approximately 1 mile of force mains.

Existing Average Dry Weather Flows (ADWF) within the Plan Area were estimated by assigning each parcel in the proposed Plan to one of the land use classifications. The corresponding Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (WCSMP) wastewater generation rate for each classification was then multiplied by the measured parcel area to calculate an existing wastewater flow. These flows were summed by collection area to obtain the ADWF for each contributing sewer collection area, and the collection areas were summed to obtain a total for the entire proposed Plan. To estimate the peak flow rates that are used to determine the capacity needed for pipes and other collection facilities, the ADWF was multiplied by the WCSMP's peaking factor of 1.49 to account for fluctuations in wastewater flow over the course of a day, and then increased by 10,000 gallons per day (gpd) per acre to account for the combined effects of infiltration and inflow (jointly referred to as "I&I").

Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
As a condition of a Clean Water Grant issued by the federal government, the City of Fresno was designated the Regional Sewer Agency for the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area (FCMA) in 1966. The City operates the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) under a Joint Powers Agreement with Clovis and the County of Fresno. The 3,000-acre RWRF was originally constructed in 1947 and is located inside the City limit but within a non-contiguous area situated approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the Chandler Executive Airport at Jensen and Cornelia Avenues. Over the past 40 years, the RWRF has been expanded and rehabilitated several times, most recently in 2010 when process units were added to the facility to address high organic concentrations within incoming wastewater. The treatment plant includes a number of redundant facilities that allow for regular maintenance and provide backup capacity in the event of equipment failure. The RWRF currently provides secondary treatment and has an average annual rated capacity of 80 million gallons per day (mgpd), with equipment redundancy to accommodate maintenance schedules or equipment failures. Peak hour flow is 160 mgpd. Effluent disposal occurs primarily through a combination of infiltration beds located at the RWRF and agricultural irrigation (Sherwood Design Engineers 2011). Table 4.15-2 on the next page provides a detailed comparison of wastewater generation of the General Plan and proposed Plan projections by land use classification.
2 City of Fresno, Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, 2006.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-5
TABLE 4.15-2 COMPARISON OF BASELINE AND PROPOSED WASTEWATER GENERATION Land Use Classification
Land Use
Abbreviation
General Plan
Water Usage
(mgpd)
Proposed Plan
(mgpd)
Difference
(%)
Employment - Business Park cbp 0.136 0 -100%
Commercial - Community cc 0.048 0.088 83.50%
Corridor/Center Mixed Use cmx 0.249 0.263 5.80%
Employment - Office co 0.016 0.115 614%
Commercial - Regional cr 0.036 0.06 66.30%
Industrial - Heavy ih 0.042 0 -100%
Industrial - Light il 0.13 0 -100%
Neighborhood Mixed Use nmx 0 0.273 100%
Open Space - Ponding Basin obp 0.052 0.045 -11.90%
Open Space - Park orp 0.001 0.002 141%
Open Space - Community Park orpc 0.024 0.021 -14.70%
Open Space - Regional Park orpr 0.062 0.034 -45.30%
Public Facilities - Airport pa 0.001 0.001 0.00%
Public Facilities - College pc 0 0.033 100%
Public Facilities pf 0.018 0.113 526%
Public Facilities - Neighborhood Center pnc 0.002 0.002 0.00% Public Facilities - Church pqch 0.001 0 -100%
Public Facilities - PG&E Substation pqge 0.002 0.002 0.00% Public Facilities - Hospital pqmh 0.02 0.02 0.00%
Public Facilities - Elementary School pse 0.026 0.03 14.40% Public Facilities - Middle School psm 0.045 0.034 -23.40% Residential High Density rh 0.079 0 -100%
Residential Low Density rl 0.025 0.025 0.00%
Residential Medium Density rm 0.746 0.775 3.90%
Residential Medium High Density rmh 0.09 0.045 -49.80%
Residential Medium Low Density rml 0.912 0.857 -6.10%
Residential Urban Neighborhood run 0.365 0.373 2.20%
Totals 3.128 3.219 2.90%
Source: Blair, Church & Flynn, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-6 AUGUST 2017

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

1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB.

2. Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of baseline facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

3. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the proposed Plan that it has adequate capacity to serve the Plan’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s baseline commitments.

4.15.1.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
UTIL-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan could exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The proposed Plan proposes a modest transfer of density from the proposed Plan compared with the General Plan, which would modify the distribution of wastewater generation throughout the Plan Area.

Under both the proposed Plan and the General Plan, wastewater generation is projected to increase as growth occurs over the next 25 years. For the purposes of this wastewater analysis, it was assumed growth within the Plan Area will occur as described above, on currently vacant or underutilized parcels. As shown in detail in this Draft EIR, this will result in a maximum of new or reoccupied dwelling units and million square feet of new or repurposed commercial/industrial space within the Plan Area.

Under the proposed Plan, the Plan Area has capacity for over 6,000 dwelling units, over 1.5 million square feet of commercial space, nearly 750,000 square feet of office space, 78 acres of parks or open space, and

2.4 million square feet of public facilities.

As shown in Table 4.15-2, there would be an estimated increase of 2.9 percent in wastewater annually produced for the proposed Plan compared with the baseline General Plan. The Plan Area is currently forecast to produce an estimated 3.13 million gallons per day at buildout with masterplan land uses compared to 3.22 million gallons per day under the proposed Plan. A 2.9 percent increase is not considered significant, however, with implementation of the specific policies below, the implementation of the General Plan was found to have a potentially significant impact associated with wastewater treatment requirements and waste discharge requirements.

To reduce the potential impacts associated with wastewater discharge permits, the City would be required to increase wastewater treatment capacity as well as obtain revised and new waste discharge permits.

The policies included in the adopted General Plan would reduce the potential impacts associated with wastewater treatment requirements and waste discharge requirements, including those associated with the proposed Plan. The General Plan requirements that are applicable to the proposed Plan are listed in Table 4.15-1.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-7
Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

The following mitigation measures were included in the Master EIR (MEIR) and remain applicable to this proposed Plan:

Impact UTIL-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.

MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-1: The City shall develop and implement a wastewater master plan update.

MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-2: Prior to exceeding existing wastewater treatment capacity, the City shall evaluate the wastewater system and shall not approve additional development that contributes wastewater to the wastewater treatment facility that could exceed capacity until additional capacity is provided. By approximately the year 2025, the City shall construct the following improvements.  Construct an approximately 70 million gallons per day (mgd) expansion of the Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility and obtain revised waste discharge permits as the generation of wastewater is increased.
 Construct an approximately 0.49 mgd expansion of the North Facility and obtain revised waste discharge permits as the generation of wastewater is increased.

MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-3: Prior to exceeding existing wastewater treatment capacity, the City shall evaluate the wastewater system and shall not approve additional development that contributes wastewater to the wastewater treatment facility that could exceed capacity until additional capacity is provided. After approximately the year 2025, the City shall construct the following improvements.  Construct an approximately 24 mgd Wastewater Treatment Facility within the Southeast Development Area and obtain revised waste discharge permits as the generation of wastewater is increased.
 Construct an approximately 9.6 mgd expansion of the Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility and obtain revised waste discharge permits as the generation of wastewater is increased.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

UTIL-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan would require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of baseline facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Wastewater Treatment Facilities
As discussed in Impact UTIL-1, the implementation of the proposed Plan and Fresno General Plan will result in the need for expansion and new wastewater treatment facilities to serve future land uses and population. In addition, according to the City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-8 AUGUST 2017
Phase 2, the expansion and new surface water treatment facilities will be needed to increase water supplies within the Plan Area. Therefore, development in accordance with proposed Plan could result in a significant impact on the existing wastewater treatment facilities.

A summary of the wastewater treatment facilities that could require at least partial construction to accommodate future development associated with the proposed Plan includes the following.  Construct 70 mgd expansion at the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility, in accordance with the City of Fresno 2006 Wastewater Master Plan.  Construct 25,000 acre-feet per year recycled water expansion to the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility, in accordance with the January 2012 City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan.
 Construct a 0.49 mgd expansion of the North Facility.  Construct 24 mgd wastewater treatment facility within the Southeast Development Area, in accordance with the City of Fresno 2006 Wastewater Master Plan.  Construct 9.6 mgd expansion at the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility.

The estimated increase of 2.9 percent in wastewater annually produced for the proposed Plan compared with the baseline General Plan will not appreciably impact the wastewater system. The area is currently forecast to produce an estimated 3.13 million gallons per day at buildout with masterplan land uses compared to 3.22 million gallons per day for the Plan Area. A 2.9 percent increase is not significant, however, with implementation of the specific policies below, the implementation of the General Plan was found to result in potential significant effects associated with wastewater treatment requirements and waste discharge requirements.

To reduce the potential impacts associated with expansion of facilities, the City will need to increase wastewater treatment capacity as well as obtain revised and new waste discharge permits. The policies in the Fresno General Plan are designed to reduce the potential effect associated with expansion of wastewater treatment capacity including those associated with the proposed Plan. The measures required by the 2014 General Plan include the above listed improvements as well as surface water treatment facilities, additional wastewater collection system infrastructure, water conveyance facilities, and additional pipeline and storage facilities. Potential environmental impacts are identified in the 2014 Master Plan and mitigation measures will be required to minimize and mitigate impacts in the areas of:
 Traffic
 Air Emissions
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Noise
 Water Quality
 Aesthetics
 Agricultural Resources
 Biological Resources
 Cultural Resources

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-9
The following mitigation measures were included in the MEIR and remain applicable to this proposed Plan:

Impact UTIL-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan would require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-4: A Traffic Control/Traffic Management Plan to address traffic impacts during construction of water and sewer facilities shall be prepared and implemented subject to approval by the City prior to construction. The plan shall identify hours of construction and for deliveries, include haul routes, identify access and parking restrictions, plan for notifications, identify pavement markings and signage, and plan for coordination with emergency service providers and schools.

MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-5: Prior to exceeding existing water supply capacity, the City shall evaluate the water supply system and shall not approve additional development that demand additional water until additional capacity is provided. By approximately the year 2025, the following capacity improvements shall be provided.
 Construct an approximately 80 mgd surface water treatment facility near the intersection of Armstrong and Olive Avenues, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan Update Phase 2 Report, January 2012 (2012 Metro Plan Update).
 Construct an approximately 30 mgd expansion of the existing northeast surface water treatment facility for a total capacity of 60 mgd, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.
 Construct an approximately 20 mgd surface water treatment facility in the southwest portion of the City, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9- 1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.

MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-6: Prior to exceeding capacity within the existing wastewater collection system facilities, the City shall evaluate the wastewater collection system and shall not approve additional development that would generate additional wastewater and exceed the capacity of a facility until additional capacity is provided. By approximately the year 2025, the following capacity improvements shall be provided.
 Orange Avenue Trunk Sewer: This facility shall be improved between Dakota and Jensen Avenues.

Approximately 37,240 feet of new sewer main shall be installed and approximately 5,760 feet of existing sewer main shall be rehabilitated. The size of the new sewer main shall range from 27- inches to 42-inches in diameter. The associated project designations in the 2006 Wastewater Master Plan are RS03A, RL02, C01-REP, C02-REP, C03-REP, C04-REP, C05-REP, C06-REL and C07- REP.
 Marks Avenue Trunk Sewer: This facility shall be improved between Clinton Avenue and Kearney Boulevard. Approximately 12,150 feet of new sewer main shall be installed. The size of the new

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-10 AUGUST 2017
sewer main shall range from 33 inches to 60 inches in diameter. The associated project designations in the 2006 Wastewater Master Plan are CM1-REP and CM2-REP.  North Avenue Trunk Sewer: This facility shall be improved between Polk and Fruit Avenues and also between Orange and Maple Avenues. Approximately 25,700 feet of new sewer main shall be installed. The size of the new sewer main shall range from 48 inches to 66 inches in diameter. The associated project designations in the 2006 Wastewater Master Plan are CN1-REL1 and CN3-REL1.  Ashlan Avenue Trunk Sewer: This facility shall be improved between Hughes and West Avenues and also between Fruit and Blackstone Avenues. Approximately 9,260 feet of new sewer main shall be installed. The size of the new sewer main shall range from 24 inches to 36 inches in diameter. The associated project designations in the 2006 Wastewater Master Plan are CA1-REL and CA2-REP.

MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-7: Prior to exceeding capacity within the existing 28 pipeline segment shown on Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix J-1 of the Fresno General Plan MEIR, the City shall evaluate the wastewater collection system and shall not approve additional development that would generate additional wastewater and exceed the capacity of one of the 28 pipeline segments until additional capacity is provided.

MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-8: Prior to exceeding capacity within the existing water conveyance facilities, the City shall evaluate the water conveyance system and shall not approve additional development that would demand additional water and exceed the capacity of a facility until additional capacity is provided. The following capacity improvements shall be provided by approximately 2025.  Construct 65 new groundwater wells, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.
 Construct a 2.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T2) near the intersection of Clovis and California Avenues, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.
 Construct a 3.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T3) near the intersection of Temperance and Dakota Avenues, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.
 Construct a 3.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T4) in the Downtown Planning Area, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.  Construct a 4.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T5) near the intersection of Ashlan and Chestnut Avenues, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.
 Construct a 4.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T6) near the intersection of Ashlan Avenue and Highway 99, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.
 Construct 50.3 miles of regional water transmission mains ranging in size from 24-inch to 48-inch, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-11
 Construct 95.9 miles of 16-inch transmission grid mains, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.

MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-9: Prior to exceeding capacity within the existing water conveyance facilities, the City shall evaluate the water conveyance system and shall not approve additional development that would demand additional water and exceed the capacity of a facility until additional capacity is provided. The following capacity improvements shall be provided after approximately the year 2025 and additional water conveyance facilities shall be provided prior to exceedance of capacity within the water conveyance facilities to accommodate full buildout of the General Plan.  Construct a 4.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (SEDA Reservoir 1) within the northern part of the Southeast Development Area.
 Construct a 4.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (SEDA Reservoir 2) within the southern part of the Southeast Development Area. Additional water conveyance facilities shall be provided prior to exceedance of capacity within the water conveyance facilities to accommodate full buildout of the General Plan Update.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

UTIL-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the proposed Plan that it has adequate capacity to serve the proposed Plan’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s baseline commitments.

The potential long-term impacts related to wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal requirements of the baseline versus proposed Plan differ by 2.9 percent and are considered both nominal and less than significant for full implementation of the proposed Plan.

Public utility districts and other municipalities exist near or adjacent to the Plan Area and include the Malaga Utility District. These entities have wastewater treatment facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts. However, the operation of these treatment facilities would be required to comply with the same wastewater treatment requirements and RWQCB waste discharge requirements explained above. Since the proposed Plan would result in potential significant impacts associated with wastewater treatment requirements and waste discharge requirements, the proposed Plan’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts are considerable and would be a significant cumulative impact.

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

Mitigation Measure UTIL-3: Implement MEIR Mitigation Measures USS-1 through USS-3.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-12 AUGUST 2017

4.15.1.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
UTIL-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to wastewater.

The study area for cumulative impacts regarding wastewater is the City of Fresno Planning Area and the City of Clovis because the City of Fresno acts as the Regional Sewering Agency and is responsible for operating the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility. No significant adverse cumulative impacts are anticipated with the forecast increase in wastewater associated with the proposed Plan.

Wastewater service cumulative impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with regulatory requirements and proposed policies for full implementation of the proposed Plan.

Impact UTIL-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in a significant cumulative impacts with respect to wastewater.

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

Mitigation Measure UTIL-4: Implement MEIR Mitigation Measures USS-1 through USS-9.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.15.2 WATER SUPPLY

4.15.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
Federal Regulations
Federal Clean Water Act
The CWA establishes regulatory requirements for potable water supplies including raw and treated water quality criteria. The City of Fresno is required to monitor water quality and conform to the regulations and requirements of the CWA.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-13
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes the EPA to set national standards for drinking water, called the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, to protect against both naturally-occurring and man-made contaminants. These standards set enforceable maximum contaminant levels in drinking water and require all water providers in the United States to treat water to remove contaminants, except for private wells serving fewer than 25 people. In California, the Division of Drinking Water (DDW) within the SWRCB regulates public drinking water systems. If a water system does not meet standards, it is the water supplier’s responsibility to notify its customers.

State Regulations
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne), which was passed in California in 1969, the SWRCB has the ultimate authority over State water rights and water quality policy. PorterCologne also establishes nine RWQCBs to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis at the local and regional levels. RWQCBs engage in a number of water quality functions in their respective regions.

RWQCBs regulate all pollutant or nuisance discharges that may affect either surface water or groundwater.3 Fresno is overseen by the Central Valley RWQCB.

California Urban Water Management Planning Act
Through the Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983, the California Water Code requires all urban water suppliers within California to prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and update it every five years. This requirement applies to all suppliers providing water to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water per year (afy).4 This Act is intended to support conservation and efficient use of urban water supplies. The Act requires that total proposed Plan water use be compared to water supply sources over the next 20 years in five-year increments, that planning occur for single and multiple dry water years, and that plans include a water recycling analysis that incorporates a description of the wastewater collection and treatment system within the agency’s service area along with current and potential recycled water uses5 .

Senate Bills 610 and 221
Senate Bill (SB) 610 and SB 221 amended State law to ensure better coordination between local water supply and land use decisions and confirm that there is an adequate water supply for new development.

Both statutes require that detailed information regarding water availability be provided to City and County decision-makers prior to approval of large development projects. SB 610 requires the preparation of a 3 California Wetlands Information System, Summary of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, http://ceres.ca.gov/ wetlands/permitting/Porter_summary.html, accessed February 5, 2015. 4 One acre-foot is the amount of water required to cover 1 acre of ground (43,560 square feet) to a depth of 1 foot. 5 Department of Water Resources, About Urban Water Management, http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanwatermanagement/, accessed February 5, 2015.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-14 AUGUST 2017
WSA for certain types of projects, as defined by Water Code Section 10912, which are subject to CEQA.

Projects required to prepare a WSA are defined as follows:
 Residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.  Shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor area.
 Hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms.
 Industrial, manufacturing or processing plant, or industrial park planned to employ more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
 Mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified above.  Project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required for 500 dwelling units.

SB 221 establishes consultation and analysis requirements related to water supply planning for residential subdivisions including more than 500 dwelling units. Written verification by the water supplier that sufficient water is available for the proposed Plan is required before construction begins. The document used to determine compliance with both SB 610 and SB 221 is the UWMP.

California Groundwater Management Act of 1992
The Groundwater Management Act (Assembly Bill (AB) 3030) was signed into law in 1992 and provides guidance for applicable local agencies to develop voluntary Groundwater Management Plans (GMP) in State-designated groundwater basins. GMPs can allow agencies to raise revenue to pay for measures influencing the management of the basin, including extraction, recharge, conveyance, facilities’ maintenance, and water quality.6 The Groundwater Management Act and has since been modified by SB 1938 in 2002 and AB 359 in 2011.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014
On September 16, 2014, a three-bill legislative package was signed into law, composed of AB 1739, SB 1168, and SB 1319, collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.7 The Governor’s signing message states "a central feature of these bills is the recognition that groundwater management in California is best accomplished locally".
6 Department of Water Resources Planning and Local Assistance Central District, Groundwater, Groundwater Management, http://www.cd.water.ca.gov/groundwater/gwab3030.cfm, accessed February 5, 2015. 7 Department of Water Resources, Groundwater Information Center, http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/ groundwater_management/legislation.cfm, accessed February 5, 2015.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-15
The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7)8
SB X7-7, which was enacted in 2009, requires all water suppliers to increase water use efficiency. The legislation sets an overall goal of reducing per capita water by 20 percent by 2020, with an interim goal of a 10 percent reduction in per capita water use by 2015.

State Updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB 1881 [2006])9 The updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requires cities and counties to adopt landscape water conservation ordinances by January 31, 2010 or to adopt a different ordinance that is at least as effective in conserving water as the updated Model Ordinance (MO). See Fresno Municipal Code below for a discussion of local ordinances that are required to reduce water consumption and conserve water.

State Mandated Water Reductions
On April 1, 2015, as a result of severe drought conditions in California, the Governor issued an executive order directing the SWRCB to implement mandatory water reductions in cities and towns across California to reduce water usage by 8 percent to 36 percent. The water reductions vary depending on per capita water usage in each municipality and are based on the water usage for a three month period in 2014 (July through September). Cities that use more water will have to make larger cuts. Fresno will be subject to water reductions of 16 percent. The order also requires:
 Replacement of 50 million square feet of lawns throughout the State with drought tolerant landscaping.
 Creation of a temporary, statewide consumer rebate program to replace old appliances with more water and energy efficient models.
 Requirement that campuses, golf courses, cemeteries, and other large landscapes make significant cuts to water use.
 Prohibit new homes and development from irrigating with potable water unless water-efficient drip irrigation systems are used and ban the watering of ornamental grass on public street medians.

CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, including water 8 Department of Water Resources, Senate Bill SBX7-7 2009 Information, http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/sb7/, accessed February 5, 2015. 9 Department of Water Resources, Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/ landscapeordinance/, accessed February 5, 2015.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-16 AUGUST 2017
conservation, and requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent.10 The mandatory provisions of CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local building permit process.

The purpose of CALGreen is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts that would reduce a potential negative impact and/or contribute to a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories:
 Planning and design
 Energy efficiency
 Water efficiency and conservation
 Material conservation and resource efficiency
 Environmental quality
The provisions of this code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure, unless otherwise indicated in this code, throughout the State of California. Compliance with the CALGreen Code is not a substitution for meeting the certification requirements of any green building program. CALGreen requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent.

The California Plumbing Code
The 2010 California Plumbing Code (Part 5, Title 24, CCR) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code. The general purpose of the universal code is to prevent disorder in the industry as a result of widely divergent plumbing practices and the use of many different, often conflicting, plumbing codes by local jurisdictions. Among many topics covered in the code are water fixtures, potable and nonpotable water systems, and recycled water systems. Water supply and distribution shall comply will all applicable provisions of the current edition of the California Plumbing Code.

Local Regulations
Fresno General Plan
The City's General Plan contains the following goals, policies, and objectives relevant to the provision of water service and facilities (Table 4.15-3):

TABLE 4.15-3 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO WATER SERVICE AND FACILITIES Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
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. 10 The green building standards became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the code.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-17
TABLE 4.15-3 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO WATER SERVICE AND FACILITIES Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Policy PU-8-a
Forecast Need. Use available and innovative tools, such as computerized flow modeling to determine system capacity, as necessary to forecast demand on water production and distribution systems by urban development, and to determine appropriate facility needs.

Policy PU-8-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-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.

Fresno Municipal CodeModel Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance The Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance was adopted by the Office of Administrative Law in September 2009, and requires local agencies to implement water efficiency measures as part of its review of landscaping plans. Local agencies can either adopt the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or incorporate provisions of the ordinance into its own code requirements for landscaping. For new landscaping projects of 2,500 square feet or more that require a discretionary or ministerial approval, the applicant is required to submit a detailed "Landscape Documentation Package" that discusses water efficiency, soil management, and landscape design elements.

Baseline Conditions
This section describes existing water supply sources, water supply infrastructure, water treatment facilities, as well as projected demand and supply for the current General Plan. Baseline water usage is shown in Table 4.15-4.

Water Supply Sources and Infrastructure
The City of Fresno Water Division manages and operates the City of Fresno’s water system. The City delivers drinking water to over 500,000 urban residential, commercial, and industrial customers in over 114 square miles of the City. This area includes many County islands (unincorporated areas within the City) and areas within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). Fresno meets its demand for domestic water from a combination of groundwater, treated surface water, and reclaimed water sources.

The City of Fresno operates approximately 260 municipal supply wells that access groundwater from the Kings River Sub-basin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, as well as the Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (NESWTF), a 30 mgd surface water treatment facility. As growth within the City increases demands, this facility will be expanded by another 30 mgd for a total capacity of 60 mgd. The planned schedule for expansion to planned capacity is buildout by approximately 2035. The City will adjust the schedule for this proposed Plan as required to meet projected water system demands and maintain the sustainable use of available water resources. Groundwater quality generally meets primary and secondary drinking water standards for municipal use, although chemical contaminant plumes and

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-18 AUGUST 2017
nitrates are risks that require monitoring and adjustments to the groundwater supply. Water treatment or removal of specific wells from service are conducted as required to maintain drinking water supply quality.

The Surface Water Treatment Facility (SWTF) located in northeast Fresno receives supplies from the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Fresno Irrigation District (FID) contract for Kings River Water, and a wastewater recycle exchange agreement with the Fresno Irrigation District. The USBR would supply 60,000 afy in year 2010 through year 2025, the FID would supply an estimated 108,200 afy in year 2010 (125,543 afy actual) (increasing to 132,400 afy by 2035) for the Kings River contracted water, and the FID wastewater exchange agreement would supply 13,800 afy in year 2010 through year 2025.11 11 City of Fresno, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-19
TABLE 4.15-4 COMPARISON OF BASELINE AND PROPOSED WATER USAGE Land Use Classification
Land Use
Abbreviation
General Plan
Water Usage
(mgpd)
Proposed
Plan
Water Usage
(mgpd)
Increase or
Decrease
(%)
Employment – Business Park cbp 0.289 0.0 -100%
Commercial – Community cc 0.102 0.187 84%
Commercial – General cgh 0.001 0.001 0%
Corridor/Center Mixed-Use cmx 0.149 0.157 6%
Employment–Office co 0.027 0.196 614%
Commercial – Regional cr 0.065 0.108 66%
Clear Zone cz 0.000 0.003 100%
Industrial - Heavy ih 0.044 0.000 -100%
Industrial - Light il 0.195 0.000 -100%
Neighborhood Mixed Use nmx 0.000 0.409 100%
Open Space - Ponding Basin obp 0.052 0.045 -12%
Open Space - Park orp 0.005 0.013 141%
Open Space - Community Park orpc 0.072 0.062 -15%
Open Space - Neighborhood Park orpn 0.067 0.078 17%
Open Space - Regional Park orpr 0.369 0.202 -45%
Public Facilities - Airport pa 0.003 0.003 0%
Public Facilities - College pc 0.000 0.066 N/A
Public Facilities pf 0.051 0.319 526%
Public Facilities - Neighborhood Center pnc 0.007 0.007 0% Public Facilities - Church pqch 0.002 0.000 N/A
Public Facilities - PG&E Substation pqge 0.007 0.007 0% Public Facilities - Hospital pqmh 0.027 0.027 0%
Public Facilities - Elementary School pse 0.098 0.112 14% Public Facilities - Middle School psm 0.166 0.127 -23%
Residential High Density rh 0.079 0.000 -100%
Residential Low Density rl 0.066 0.066 0%
Residential Medium Density rm 3.109 3.231 4%
Residential Medium High Density rmh 0.143 0.072 -50%
Residential Medium Low Density rml 1.449 1.361 -6%
Residential Urban Neighborhood Density run 0.483 0.494 2% Total 7.126 7.351 3%
Source: Blair, Church & Flynn, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-20 AUGUST 2017
In 2004, the NESWTF, located at Chestnut and Behymer Avenues, began operation. The NESWTF has reduced the dependence on groundwater pumping by the City needed to meet water demand. Prior to NESWTF operation, 100 percent of the City’s water demand was met through groundwater pumping.

According to the 2015 UWMP, the City had a high in groundwater pumping of 165,540 afy in 2002. Since the NESWTF went online in 2004, groundwater production has dropped to half this value in 2015. In addition, the City has started construction on a new 54-mgd SWTF in southeast Fresno (SESWTF), a 13-mile, 72-inch-diameter raw water gravity main from the Fresno Irrigation District’s Fresno Canal to the proposed SESWTF, and approximately 13 miles of Regional Transmission Mains (RTM) throughout the City.

Production from this facility may ultimately reach 80 mgd, with the City demonstrating to DDW that the facility is capable of safely running at higher loading rates. All of these major water system improvements began construction in 2016 with completion planned in 2017 and 2018. Surface water use will help to alleviate groundwater demand.

The SWTF has an existing design capacity of 92.07 acre-feet per day (30 mgd). Based on this design capacity, and assuming the SWTF is inoperable for a total of 30 days throughout the year for maintenance activities, the SWTF can provide up to approximately 30,800 afy of treated surface water. Because of operational constraints, the SWTF has a current capacity of only 28,300 afy (27.5 mgd). Plans call for increasing total treatment capacity through correction of the operational constraints bringing the SWTF to its design capacity of 30,800 afy by year 2010. Additional proposed improvements at the facility would increase the capacity to 61,700 afy by year 2020. In addition to the SWTF improvements, the proposed Southeast Surface Water Treatment Plant with a design capacity of 61,700 afy, would bring the total supply to 123,400 afy.12
Groundwater is obtained from the Kings Sub-basin within the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater basin, a natural underground basin (i.e., aquifer). Using approximately 260 City-operated municipal groundwater supply wells, the estimated groundwater pumped in year 2011 was 119,8013 afy, with a steady decrease to 83,360 afy in 2015.

Because this groundwater replaces a similar volume of surface water that FID contractors would otherwise use for irrigation, the City receives a surface water credit from FID for 46 percent of the water it pumps into the canals under the terms of the Wastewater Recycle Exchange Agreement, up to a maximum of 13,800 afy. Surface water obtained under this agreement is treated at the City’s SWTF along with its other surface supplies, and pumped into the potable distribution system. To help reduce its use of limited potable water supplies and control groundwater contamination associated with percolation disposal, the City plans to begin using treated effluent from the City-operated Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) for landscape irrigation and other approved uses by 2030. Refer to the discussion below under the heading “Wastewater Collection” for a detailed discussion of the RWRF.

This would require upgrading at least a portion of the RWRF treatment facilities to produce the tertiary quality effluent required for unrestricted use on publicly accessible landscape. It is now estimated the use of recycled water will total 25,000 afy by 2025.
12 City of Fresno, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-21
Projected Water Supply and Demand
The existing average water use for the City of Fresno is 300 gallons per capita per day. Total water demand for all sectors (industrial, public landscape irrigation, commercial/institutional, multi-family residential, single-family residential) in 2015 was 132,843 afy, and is projected by the 2015 UWMP to reach 262,500 afy by the year 2040. This projection includes conservation savings that will be achieved by the year 2040.

Beginning late 2008 through January 2013, the City had initiated and completed the implementation of a residential water meter program through the installation of 113,000 water meters for single-family homes. From the period of 2008 through 2015, there has been a dramatic decline of water usage for all water use sectors.13
Water Supply Reliability
Aging infrastructure is one of the Plan Area’s deficits. Portions of the utility networks in the Plan Area are over 50 years old. These networks are either nearing or past their intended design life and are subject to capacity, reliability, and potential failure issues. The City of Fresno (particularly in areas developed more recently) has some of the highest water use per capita in the State and at the same time the lowest water rates of any major California city, which promotes the water demand. This water resource issue will only intensify if more stringent water conservation measures are not implemented and water rates are not raised to fund needed infrastructure improvements. In 2015, the City implemented new water rates, and currently, several infrastructure improvements funded by the new rates are in various stages of development.

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

1. Require or result in the construction of new water or water treatment facilities or expansion of baseline facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

2. Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from baseline entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed.

4.15.2.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
UTIL-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of baseline facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

The potential long-term impacts related to water supply, treatment and distribution requirements of the baseline versus proposed plans differ by 3 percent and are considered nominal and therefore, less than significant for full implementation of the proposed Plan. 13 City of Fresno, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-22 AUGUST 2017
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

UTIL-6 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the proposed Plan from baseline entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed.

Waste supply and water treatment impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with regulatory requirements and proposed policies for full implementation of the proposed Plan.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.15.2.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
UTIL-7 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would/would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to water supply.

The study area for cumulative impacts regarding water supply is the City of Fresno Planning Area and the groundwater basins from which the Plan Area derives water. Water supply and water treatment impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with regulatory requirements and proposed policies for full implementation of the proposed Plan.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.15.3 RECYCLED WATER SUPPLY

4.15.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
Federal Regulations
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes the EPA to set national standards for drinking water, called the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, to protect against both naturally-occurring and man-made contaminants. These standards set enforceable maximum contaminant levels in drinking water and require all water providers in the United States to treat water to remove contaminants, except for private wells serving fewer than 25 people. In California, the DDW within the SWRCB regulates public drinking water systems. If a water system does not meet standards, it is the water supplier’s responsibility to notify its customers.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-23
State Regulations
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under the Porter-Cologne, which was passed in California in 1969, the SWRCB has the ultimate authority over State water rights and water quality policy. Porter-Cologne also establishes nine RWQCBs to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis at the local and regional level. RWQCBs engage in a number of water quality functions in their respective regions. RWQCBs regulate all pollutant or nuisance discharges that may affect either surface water or groundwater.14 Fresno is overseen by the Central Valley RWQCB.

This requirement applies to all suppliers providing water to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 afy.
15 This Act is intended to support conservation and efficient use of urban water supplies.

The Act requires that total project water use be compared to water supply sources over the next 20 years in five-year increments, that planning occur for single and multiple dry water years, and that plans include a water recycling analysis that incorporates a description of the wastewater collection and treatment system within the agency’s service area along with current and potential recycled water uses16.

Senate Bills 610 and 221
SB 610 and SB 221 amended State law to ensure better coordination between local water supply and land use decisions and confirm that there is an adequate water supply for new development. Both statutes require that detailed information regarding water availability be provided to City and County decisionmakers prior to approval of large development projects. SB 610 requires the preparation of a WSA for certain types of projects, as defined by Water Code Section 10912, which are subject to CEQA. Projects required to prepare a WSA are defined as follows:
 Residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.  Shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor area.
 Hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms.
 Industrial, manufacturing or processing plant, or industrial park planned to employ more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
 Mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified above. 14 California Wetlands Information System, Summary of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, http://ceres.ca.gov/wetlands/permitting/Porter_summary.html, accessed February 5, 2015. 15 One acre-foot is the amount of water required to cover 1 acre of ground (43,560 square feet) to a depth of 1-foot. 16 Department of Water Resources, About Urban Water Management, http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanwatermanagement/, accessed February 5, 2015.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-24 AUGUST 2017
 Project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required for 500 dwelling units.

SB 221 establishes consultation and analysis requirements related to water supply planning for residential subdivisions including more than 500 dwelling units. Written verification by the water supplier that sufficient water is available for the project is required before construction begins. The document used to determine compliance with both SB 610 and SB 221 is the UWMP.

California Groundwater Management Act of 1992
The Groundwater Management Act (AB 3030) was signed into law in 1992 and provides guidance for applicable local agencies to develop voluntary GMP in State-designated groundwater basins. GMPs can allow agencies to raise revenue to pay for measures influencing the management of the basin, including extraction, recharge, conveyance, facilities’ maintenance, and water quality.17 The Groundwater Management Act and has since been modified by Senate Bill 1938 in 2002 and AB 359 in 2011.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014
On September 16, 2014, a three-bill legislative package was signed into law, composed of AB 1739, SB 1168, and SB 1319, collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.18 The Governor’s signing message states "a central feature of these bills is the recognition that groundwater management in California is best accomplished locally." The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7)19
SB X7-7, which was enacted in 2009, requires all water suppliers to increase water use efficiency. The legislation sets an overall goal of reducing per capita water by 20 percent by 2020, with an interim goal of a 10 percent reduction in per capita water use by 2015.

State Updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB 1881 [2006])20 The updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requires cities and counties to adopt landscape water conservation ordinances by January 31, 2010 or to adopt a different ordinance that is at least as effective in conserving water as the updated Model Ordinance (MO). See Fresno Municipal Code below for a discussion of local ordinances that are required to reduce water consumption and conserve water. 17 Department of Water Resources Planning and Local Assistance Central District, Groundwater, Groundwater Management, http://www.cd.water.ca.gov/groundwater/gwab3030.cfm, accessed February 5, 2015. 18 Department of Water Resources, Groundwater Information Center, http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/ groundwater_management/legislation.cfm, accessed February 5, 2015. 19 Department of Water Resources, Senate Bill SBX7-7 2009 Information, http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/sb7/, accessed February 5, 2015. 20 Department of Water Resources, Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/ landscapeordinance/, accessed February 5, 2015.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-25
State Mandated Water Reductions
On April 1, 2015, as a result of severe drought conditions in California, the Governor issued an executive order directing the SWRCB to implement mandatory water reductions in cities and towns across California to reduce water usage by 8 percent to 36 percent. The water reductions vary depending on per capita water usage in each municipality and are based on the water usage for a three month period in 2014 (July through September). Cities that use more water will have to make larger cuts. Fresno will be subject to water reductions of 16 percent. The order also requires:
 Replacement of 50 million square feet of lawns throughout the State with drought tolerant landscaping.
 Creation of a temporary, statewide consumer rebate program to replace old appliances with more water and energy efficient models.
 Requirement that campuses, golf courses, cemeteries, and other large landscapes make significant cuts to water use.
 Prohibit new homes and development from irrigating with potable water unless water-efficient drip irrigation systems are used and ban the watering of ornamental grass on public street medians.

CALGreen Building Code
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11, Title 24, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California CCR) to apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure, unless otherwise indicated in this code, throughout the State of California. CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development including water conservation and requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent.21 The mandatory provisions of the CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local building permit process.

The purpose of CALGreen is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories:
 Planning and design
 Energy efficiency
 Water efficiency and conservation
 Material conservation and resource efficiency
 Environmental quality
21 The green building standards became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the code.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-26 AUGUST 2017
The provisions of this code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure, unless otherwise indicated in this code, throughout the State of California. Compliance with the CALGreen Code is not a substitution for meeting the certification requirements of any green building program. CALGreen requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent.

Local Regulations
Fresno General Plan
The City's General Plan contains the following goals, policies, and objectives relevant to the provision of water service and facilities (Table 4.15-5):

TABLE 4.15-5 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO RECYCLED WATER SUPPLY Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
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-a
Forecast Need. Use available and innovative tools, such as computerized flow modeling to determine system capacity, as necessary to forecast demand on water production and distribution systems by urban development, and to determine appropriate facility needs.

Policy PU-8-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.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-27
applicant is required to submit a detailed "Landscape Documentation Package" that discusses water efficiency, soil management, and landscape design elements.

Baseline Conditions
This section describes water supply sources, water supply infrastructure, water treatment facilities, as well as projected demand and supply.

Recycled Water Supply Sources and Infrastructure
Recycled water, an important water source for the City of Fresno, is not yet utilized in the Plan Area. The proposed Plan presents an opportunity to integrate recycled water use into the associated improvements with buildout of the City of Fresno’s Recycled water system. Green field installation of a distribution system at the initial development stage provides opportunity to plan optimum recycled water utilization within the Plan Area.

Water Supply Reliability
Recycled water supply is not limited by the amount of recycled water available as it is possible and may be beneficial and economical to augment the supply of recycled water with higher grades of water if available. Untreated surface water or even potable water may be used to augment as available and required to meet demands of recycled water users.

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

1. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of baseline facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

2. Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the proposed Plan from baseline entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed.

4.15.3.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
UTIL-8 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not require or result in the construction of new reclaimed water treatment facilities or expansion of baseline facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Recycled water is a major contributor to the area’s water supply system. The principal impact of providing recycled water is the overall water supply rather than direct shortages for end users. This is due to the ability to trade off and supplement recycled water supply from other sources. Overall water impacts are covered in the water supply discussion and omitted here. Under Impacts UTIL-5 and UTIL-6, impacts were found to be less than significant. Therefore, impacts related to the construction of new reclaimed water treatment facilities or expansion of baseline facilities would be less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-28 AUGUST 2017
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

UTIL-9 Implementation of the proposed Plan would have sufficient reclaimed water supplies available to serve the proposed Plan from baseline entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed.

Recycled water supply shortage impacts would be significant both in real impacts but also in the cost of non-compliance with regulatory requirements and proposed policies. Mitigation measures are those identified in the wastewater supply discussion, under Impact UTIL-1. With implementation of MEIR Mitigation Measures USS-1 through USS-3, impacts related to the sufficient of reclaimed water supplies available to serve the proposed Plan would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.15.3.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
UTIL-10 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would/would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to reclaimed water supply.

The study area for cumulative impacts regarding recycled water supply is the City of Fresno Planning Area and the groundwater basins from which the Plan Area derives water. Recycled water supply cumulative impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with regulatory requirements and proposed policies for full implementation of the proposed Plan.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.15.4 STORMWATER
This section outlines the regulatory setting, describes baseline conditions, and discusses potential impacts from buildout of the proposed Plan.

The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) manages stormwater runoff in the Plan Area and the Fresno metropolitan area. The FMFCD is authorized to control stormwater within an approximately 400 square mile urban and rural foothill watershed (defined as the Fresno County Stream Group). The district's flood control program is comprised of eight major flood control facilities and related streams and channel features that control the flows from the Fresno County Stream Group. This area includes several low-elevation streams. The watershed drains a part of the west slope of the Sierra Nevada between the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers. The major structural elements of this flood control system include the following (Sherwood Design Engineers 2011):
 Dams and Reservoirs: Big Dry Creek, Fancher Creek, and Redbank Creek  Detention Basins: Pup Creek, Alluvial Drain, Redbank Creek, Fancher Creek, and Big Dry Creek

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-29
The FMFCD is responsible for flood control and stormwater planning and management. The District Services Plan (DSP) provides comprehensive policies and implementation actions for flood control, rural streams management, local storm water drainage, stormwater quality management, water conservation, recreation, and related wildlife management. Policy coordination among the FMFCD, cities, and the County of Fresno occurs through a framework provided by the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan, which is prepared by the district as a specific element within the general plan of each agency. The Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan identifies urban and rural drainage area boundaries, computes runoff flows based on planned land use, identifies facility size and location, establishes street grades necessary to accomplish drainage of the runoff from the point of origin to the nearest collector facility, and identifies natural channels requiring preservation.

The District is responsible for reviewing all land use proposals for drainage and flood control needs/impacts, including evaluation of the proximity of development to floodplains, the need for the application of floodplain management requirements, and acceptability of proposed floodplain modifications' compliance with and implementation of the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan and identification of stormwater quality best management practices.22

4.15.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
Federal Regulations
The federal government regulates storm water treatment and planning through the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, more commonly known as the CWA, as well as through the NPDES permit program, both of which are discussed in further detail below.

Clean Water Act
The CWA regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the nation. It is the primary federal law governing water pollution. Under the CWA, the EPA implements pollution control programs and sets storm water discharge standards. The objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters by preventing point and nonpoint pollution sources, providing assistance to publicly owned treatment works for the improvement of stormwater discharges, and maintaining the integrity of wetlands.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The NPDES permit program was established in the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States. Federal NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges, including point-source municipal storm water discharges and nonpoint-source storm water runoff. NPDES permits generally identify effluent and receiving water limits on allowable concentrations and/or mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge; prohibitions on discharges 22 City of Fresno General Plan, adopted 2014.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-30 AUGUST 2017
not specifically allowed under the permit; and provisions that describe required actions by the discharger, including industrial pretreatment, pollution prevention, self-monitoring, and other activities. Storm water discharge is regulated under the NPDES permit program for direct discharges into receiving waters and by the National Pretreatment Program for indirect discharges to a sewage treatment plant.

State Regulations
Wastewater treatment and planning is regulated at the State level. Specific regulations relevant to the proposed Plan are described below.

State Water Resources Control Board
The General Waste Discharge Requirement also requires that storm sewer overflows be reported to the SWRCB using an online reporting system. The SWRCB has delegated authority to nine RWQCBs to enforce these requirements within their region. The Central Valley RWQCB issues and enforces NPDES permits in Fresno. NPDES permits allow the RWQCB to regulate where and how the waste is disposed, including the discharge volume and effluent limits of the waste and the monitoring and reporting responsibilities of the discharger. The RWQCB is also charged with conducting inspections of permitted discharges and monitoring permit compliance.

Sanitary District Act of 1923
The Sanitary District Act of 1923 (Health and Safety Code Section 6400 et seq.) authorizes the formation of sanitation districts and enforces the Districts to construct, operate, and maintain facilities for the collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater.23 The Act was amended in 1949 to allow the Districts to also provide solid waste management and disposal services, including refuse transfer and resource recovery.

Local Regulations
Fresno General Plan
The City's General Plan contains the following goals, policies, and objectives relevant to the provision of wastewater service and facilities (Table 4.15-6).

Baseline
Stormwater Collection
Stormwater collection in the Plan Area generally begins in street gutters that convey runoff to existing storm drain inlets and underground storm drain conveyance infrastructure. In some cases, developed property collects stormwater in private collection systems that connect directly to a FMFCD line. Within the Plan Area and the City of Fresno, the City of Fresno Street Maintenance Division is responsible for 23 California Health and Safety Code, http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=hsc, accessed on November 18, 2011.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-31
TABLE 4.15-6 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO WASTEWATER SERVICE AND FACILITIES Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Objective PU-4 Ensure provision of adequate trunk sewer and collector main capacities to serve baseline and planned urban development, consistent with the Wastewater Master Plan.

Objective PU-5 Preserve groundwater quality and ensure that the health and safety of the entire Fresno community is not impaired by use of private, on-site disposal systems.

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

Policy PU-7-a Reduce Wastewater. Identify and consider implementing water conservation standards and other programs and policies, as determined appropriate, to reduce wastewater flows. maintaining the gutters, as well as all public streets and sidewalks and is responsible for keeping these surface storm drain facilities operating efficiently. The FMFCD storm water system begins at the storm drain inlets and includes all downstream drainage facilities, including the underground pipes and pump stations that convey runoff to District-owned infiltration basins.

Stormwater Management
Most annual runoff is managed through percolation into the underlying groundwater table. When storms generate larger volumes of runoff than these basins can handle water overflows into a network of relief channels that discharge to the San Joaquin River, its tributary streams, or local agricultural canals. The runoff from the Plan Area is routed to infiltration basins to the west of the Plan Area where it infiltrates into the groundwater table.

Within the City of Fresno, FMFCD's Storm Drain Master Plan divides the District into local drainage areas of one to two square miles. All inlets, pipes and pumping stations within each drainage area are maintained by the District. It is assumed that this maintenance arrangement will remain in place for the foreseeable future and the City will continue to maintain the gutter and surface portion of the Plan Area's storm drain infrastructure.

FMFCD has based planning for the 14 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. All of the basin sites except for Basin AV have been purchased by the FMFCD. Basins AS and CQ require additional improvements before they become operational. The Plan must be analyzed and evaluated for impacts on the aggregate area as well as for each of the 14 planned basin areas. 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. The analysis in

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-32 AUGUST 2017
Table 4.15-7 shows all of the fourteen FMFCD drainage basins are sized sufficiently for the Plan as compared to the current General Plan.

Irrigation System Integration
The Fresno Irrigation District (FID) currently serves portions of the Plan Area. Irrigation water is provided by six FID facilities including the Kearney Boulevard Basin No. 189 and five canal and/or pipeline facilities.

While no additional capacity is required with implementation of the Plan, the irrigation system remains a factor and in place for three important reasons.

1. Existing service is required throughout the development period. In-holdings and undeveloped parcels still require irrigation water.

2. Irrigation facilities serve as a water transmission function across the area. This transmission capacity will be required following full buildout of the Plan.

3. The FID irrigation system serves a dual function: a) delivery of irrigation water, and b) stormwater transmission during the wet season. The irrigation facilities serve a vital role in the stormwater system as that capacity for conveying irrigation water is utilized to convey storm water during the wet season.

Improvements in the irrigation system will be required with implementation of the proposed Plan.

Modifications will be required so that facilities are consistent with a developed urban context. These improvement costs are not controlled nor borne by the FID, but by developers which lead in determining both the scope and cost of the associated improvements. Those costs are included in general improvement budgets such as street construction and stormwater projects. This is appropriate as no primary irrigation benefit accrues to the utility owner. The requirements of the final design are principally a function of the property developer. As a rule, the FID easement generally remains but whether a canal is preserved as-is, improved, or replaced with a pipeline is determined by the developer of the project. FID is an interested participant and remains the facility owner involved in planning, design, and approving improvements, but scope and costs for these improvements are included in the development projects.

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

1. Exceed storm water discharge NPDES requirements and applicable RWQCB standards.

2. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater facilities or expansion of baseline facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

3. Result in a determination by the FMFCD or FEMA that the project will adversely impact flooding potential in the Plan Area or adjacent environments up or down stream.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-33
TABLE 4.15-7 DRAINAGE SYSTEM REQUIRED CAPACITY BY DRAINAGE AREA Drainage Area
Basin Size
(Acres)
General Plan
Required
Basin Volume
(Acre-Feet)
Proposed Plan
Required
Basin Volume
(Acre-Feet)
Difference
(%)
Basin AR 0.5 .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%
Source: Blair, Church & Flynn, 2017.

4.15.4.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
UTIL-11 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not exceed NPDES stormwater discharge requirements or applicable standards of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

As development occurs throughout the Plan Area in accordance with the General Plan and Development Code Update, new and expanded stormwater drainage facilities will be needed to adequately accommodate the increases in stormwater flow due to the addition of impervious surfaces. Therefore, implementation of the Fresno General Plan would result in a significant impact on existing storm water drainage facilities.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-34 AUGUST 2017
The proposed Plan proposes a modest transfer of density from the proposed Plan compared with the Fresno General Plan, which would modify the distribution of stormwater generation throughout the Plan Area. Under both the proposed Plan and the General Plan, storm water generation will increase as growth occurs over the next 25 years. For the purposes of this stormwater analysis, it was assumed growth within the Plan Area will occur as described above, on currently vacant or underutilized parcels. As shown in detail in this Draft EIR, this will result in a maximum of new dwelling units and million square feet of new commercial/industrial space within the Plan Area.

2.4 million square feet of public facilities.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

UTIL-12 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater treatment facilities or expansion of baseline facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

The Plan Area as a whole, as well as the 16 individual watershed areas associated with the Plan Area, have FMFCD-planned facilities, which are sufficient to handle the projected flows. The baseline facilities for the Plan Area are sufficient to provide drainage for the planned improvements without significant environmental impacts. Compliance with planning and regulatory requirements requires additions and adjustments to capacity are incorporated into planning and improvement buildout within the Plan Area.

FMFCD plans for drainage facilities but does not construct facilities until such time as development.

Therefore, impacts related to the construction of new stormwater treatment facilities or expansion of baseline facilities would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

UTIL-13 Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in a determination by the stormwater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s baseline commitments.

FMFCD has planned stormwater facilities for each of the planned watershed areas sufficient to accommodate planned storm water in the Plan Area. Stormwater and flood control system impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with regulatory requirements and proposed policies for full implementation of the proposed Plan.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant. Mitigation measures related to storm drain systems are established and required in the 2014 Master Plan and have nearly become standard operating practices. Stormwater collection and handling must adhere to the mitigation measures identified in the

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-35
2014 master Plan EIR as well as regulatory requirements which codify the same fundamental practices.

The practices from the Master Plan are summarized below:

Mitigation Measure

Description
MM-USS-10 Maintain operational intermittent flows during the dry season within define channel capacity and downstream capture capabilities for recharge.

MM-USS-11 FMFCD and Wetlands Requirements (Preliminary) MM-USS-12 FMFCD and Wetlands Requirements (Design Assessment) MM-USS-13 FMFCD and Wetlands Requirements (Design Survey) MM-USS-14 FMFCD and Wetlands Requirements (Special Survey) MM-USS-15 FMFCD and Wetlands Requirements (Nesting Bird Survey) MM-USS-16 FMFCD and Wetlands Requirements (Breeding Season Survey) MM-USS-17 FMFCD and Salmonoid Protection
MM-USS-18 Trail Protection
MM-USS-19 Air Quality Protection
MM-USS-20 Storm Drain Conveyance Capacity

4.15.4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
UTIL-14 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to stormwater.

The study area for cumulative impacts regarding storm water drainage is the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area because the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (District) includes an area of approximately 400 square miles and covers almost the entire portion of the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area.

Stormwater and flood control system impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with regulatory requirements and proposed policies for full implementation of the proposed Plan.

Mitigation measures USS-12 through USS-20, shown under UTIL-13 above, are required to mitigate and potentially significant impacts to the environment within the Plan Area and cumulative setting. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to stormwater would be less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-36 AUGUST 2017

4.15.5 SOLID WASTE

4.15.5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
State Regulations
California Integrated Waste Management Act
California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, AB 939, subsequently amended by SB 1016, set a requirement for cities and counties throughout the State to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills by January 1, 2000 though source reduction, recycling, and composting. To help achieve this, the Act required 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 on-going landfill capacity.

As part of the California Integrated Waste Management Board’s (CIWMB’s) Zero Waste Campaign, regulations affect what common household items can be placed in the trash. As of February 2006, household materials including fluorescent lamps and tubes, batteries, electronic devices, and thermostats that contain mercury are no longer permitted in the trash.24 In 2007, SB 1016 amended AB 939 to establish a per capita disposal measurement system. The per capita disposal measurement system is based on two factors: a jurisdiction’s reported total disposal of solid waste divided by a jurisdiction’s population. The California Integrated Waste Management Board was replaced by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) in 2010.

CalRecycle sets a target per capita disposal rate for each jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction must submit an annual report to CalRecycle with an update of its progress in implementing diversion programs and its current per capita disposal rate. In 2013, the statewide residential per capita disposal rate was 4.4 pounds per resident per day, and the statewide employee per capita disposal rate was 10.2 pound per employee per day.25
Assembly Bill 341
In 2011, AB 341 was passed that sets a State policy goal of not less than 75 percent of solid waste that is generated to be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. CalRecycle was required to submit a report to the legislature by January 1, 2014 outlining the strategy that will be used to achieve this policy goal. This bill affects local governments in that each jurisdiction is required to implement a commercial solid waste recycling program that consists of education, outreach, and monitoring of 24 California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (Cal Recycle), http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/homehazwaste, accessed February 26, 2015. 25 CalRecycle, California's Statewide Per Resident, Per Employee, and Total Disposal Since 1989, www.calrecycle.ca.gov/ lgcentral/GoalMeasure/DisposalRate/Graphs/Disposal.htm , accessed February 26, 2015.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-37
businesses. An annual report of the progress of such efforts is required by the law. CalRecycle is responsible for reviewing each jurisdiction’s commercial recycling program.

California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act requires areas in development projects to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials. The Act requires CalRecycle (formerly CIWMB) to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency relating to 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, providing for adequate areas in development projects for the collection and loading of recyclable materials.

Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, Scoping Plan26
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (also known as AB 32) Scoping Plan, which was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB), included a Mandatory Commercial Recycling Measure. The Mandatory Commercial Recycling Measure focuses on diverting commercial waste as a means to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e), consistent with the 2020 targets set by AB 32. To achieve the Measure’s objective, the commercial sector will need to recycle an additional 2 to 3 million tons of materials annually by the year 2020.

CalRecycle adopted this Measure at its January 17, 2012 Monthly Public Meeting. The regulation was approved by the Office of Administrative Law on May 7, 2012 and became effective immediately. On June 27, 2012, the Governor signed SB 1018, which included an amendment requiring both businesses that generate 4 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week and multi-family residences with five or more units to arrange for recycling services. This requirement became effective on July 1, 2012.

CALGreen Building Code
As previously stated in Section 4.15.1.1 under “Regulatory Framework,” the purpose of CALGreen is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices related to material conservation and resource efficiency. The provisions of this code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure, unless otherwise indicated in this code, throughout the State of California.

Section 4.408, Construction Waste Reduction Disposal and Recycling, mandates that, in the absence of a more stringent local ordinance, a minimum of 50 percent of non-hazardous construction and demolition debris must be recycled or salvaged. CALGreen requires the applicant to have a Waste Management Plan, for on-site sorting or construction debris, which is submitted to the City for approval. 26 CalRecycle, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Recycle/Commercial/, accessed February 26, 2015.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-38 AUGUST 2017
The Waste Management Plan does the following:
 Identifies the materials to be diverted from disposal by recycling, reuse on the project, or salvage for future use or sale.
 Specifies if materials will be sorted on-site or mixed for transportation to a diversion facility.  Identifies the diversion facility where the material collected can be taken.  Identifies construction methods employed to reduce the amount of waste generated.  Specifies that the amount of materials diverted shall be calculated by weight or volume, but not by both.

Baseline Conditions
Fresno diverts a majority of its solid waste away from landfills and into recycling and composting programs. Diversion conserves limited landfill space, keeps toxic chemicals and materials from contaminating landfills, and enhances the reuse of materials. In 2009, Fresno was ranked highest in the state among larger cities by the CIWMB for diverting 71 percent of its solid waste. A Council resolution commits the City to the goal of a 75 percent Waste Diversion Rate by the year 2012 and a Zero Waste goal by the year 2025. Recycling of construction & demolition is required for any City-issued building, relocation or demolition permitted project that generates at least 8 cubic yards of material by volume and all waste must be hauled to a City-approved facility.
27 The Solid Waste Division of the City of Fresno provides the following services: collection of residential and commercial solid waste, recyclables, and greenwaste throughout the community at least once a week; disposes of solid waste at the County of Fresno landfill; provides and maintains containers; responds to customer complaints/concerns and provides roll-off and compactor services to residential, multi-family and commercial customers.28
American Avenue Landfill is owned and operated by Fresno County and began operation in 1992 for public and commercial solid waste haulers. It is estimated that the landfill will be able to continue operation until 2031 when it will be full and will have to be closed. Fresno County has planned and is planning for an additional facility to be in place and in operation prior to closing the American Avenue Landfill.

American Avenue Landfill is considered a sanitary landfill. The EPA defines a sanitary landfill as a disposal site for non-hazardous solid waste spread in layers, compacted to the smallest practical volume, and covered by material applied at the end of each operating day. 27 City of Fresno, 2011. Working paper 5: Resource Conservation. 28 City of Fresno Public Utilities, 2012.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-39
The American Avenue Landfill (i.e., American Avenue Disposal Site 10-AA-0009) has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of August 31, 2031. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day.29 Other landfills within the County of Fresno include the Clovis Landfill with a maximum remaining permitted capacity of 7,740,000 cubic yards, a maximum permitted throughput of 2,000 tons per day, and an estimated closure date of 2047.30 There is also the Coalinga Landfill with a maximum remaining capacity of 1,930,062 cubic yards, a maximum permitted throughput of 200 tons per day, and an estimated closure date of 2029.31
The City of Fresno and Fresno County co-sponsor two household hazardous waste drop-off events each year, one in the spring and one in the fall. Additionally, the County of Fresno provides a Door-to-Door program that provides household hazardous waste pickup for individuals who, because of special circumstances, cannot participate in the household hazardous waste drop off events held twice a year.

The baseline forecast for solid waste generated in the Plan Area with existing General Plan build-out is

57.2 tons per day.

Projected Solid Waste Generation
The forecast for solid waste generated by the proposed Plan is 59.4 tons per day representing a 3.9 percent increase in the amount of solid waste generated at full build-out of the proposed Plan.

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

1. Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.

2. Not comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

4.15.5.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
UTIL-15 Future development under the proposed Plan would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed Plan’s solid waste disposal needs.

The 2014 Master Plan development was found to have potential for significant impact principally due to the planned closure of the American Avenue landfill scheduled for 2031. To reduce the potentially significant impacts associated with the solid waste disposal, the City will need to increase disposal 29 CalRecycle, 2014. 30 CalRecycle, 2014. 31 CalRecycle, 2014.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-40 AUGUST 2017
capacity. The policies the Fresno General Plan are designed to reduce the potential effect associated with solid waste disposal including those associated with the proposed Plan.

The following mitigation measures were included in the MEIR and remain applicable to this proposed Plan:

Impact UTIL-15: Future development under the proposed Plan would not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed Plan’s solid waste disposal needs.

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-22: Prior to exceeding landfill capacity, the City shall evaluate additional landfill locations and shall not approve additional development that could contribute solid waste to a landfill that is at capacity until additional capacity is provided.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

UTIL-16 Implementation of the proposed Plan would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Solid Waste disposal service impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with regulatory requirements and proposed policies for full implementation of the proposed Plan.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.15.5.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
UTIL-17 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to solid waste.

Shortage of waste disposal capacity can have significant impacts on adjacent areas. If refuse is exported to adjacent areas with existing spare capacity, significant impacts due to increased travel distances can result in additional transportation related impacts. If not mitigated, the project’s contribution to potential cumulative would be significant.

The following mitigation measures were included in the MEIR and remain applicable to this project:

Impact UTIL-17: Implementation of the proposed Plan in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed Plan’s solid waste disposal needs.

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-41
MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-22: Prior to exceeding landfill capacity, the City shall evaluate additional landfill locations and shall not approve additional development that could contribute solid waste to a landfill that is at capacity until additional capacity is provided.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.15.6 ENERGY CONSERVATION

4.15.6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
Federal Regulations
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
Signed into law in December 2007, this Act is an energy policy law that contains provisions designed to increase energy efficiency and the availability of renewable energy. The Act contains provisions for increasing fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks, while establishing new minimum efficiency standards for lighting as well as residential and commercial appliance equipment.

Energy Policy Act of 2005
Passed by Congress in July 2005, the Energy Policy Act includes a comprehensive set of provisions to address energy issues. The Act includes tax incentives for the following: energy conservation improvements in commercial and residential buildings; fossil fuel production and clean coal facilities; and construction and operation of nuclear power plants, among other things. Subsidies are also included for geothermal, wind energy, and other alternative energy producers.

National Energy Policy
Established in 2001 by the National Energy Policy Development Group, this policy is designed to help the private sector and state and local governments promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for the future. Key issues addressed by the energy policy are energy conservation, repair and expansion of energy infrastructure, and ways of increasing energy supplies while protecting the environment.

State Regulations
California Public Utilities Commission
In September 2008, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted the Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, which provides a framework for energy efficiency in California through the year 2020 and beyond. It articulates a long-term vision, as well as goals for each economic sector, identifying specific near-term, mid-term, and long-term strategies to assist in achieving these goals. The Long Term

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-42 AUGUST 2017
Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan sets forth the following four goals, known as Big Bold Energy Efficiency Strategies, to achieve significant reductions in energy demand:

1. All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2020;

2. All new commercial construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030;

3. Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) will be transformed to ensure that its energy performance is optimal for California’s climate; and

4. All eligible low-income customers will be given the opportunity to participate in the low-income energy efficiency program by 2020.

With respect to the commercial sector, the Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan notes that commercial buildings, which include schools, hospitals, and public buildings, consume more electricity than any other end-use sector in California. The commercial sector’s five billion-plus square feet of space accounts for 38 percent of the state’s power use and over 25 percent of natural gas consumption.

Lighting, cooling, refrigeration, and ventilation account for 75 percent of all commercial electric use, while space heating, water heating, and cooking account for over 90 percent of gas use. In 2006, schools and colleges were in the top five facility types for electricity and gas consumption, accounting for approximately 10 percent of state’s electricity and gas use.

The CPUC and the California Energy Commission (CEC) have adopted the following goals to achieve zero net energy (ZNE) levels by 2030 in the commercial sector:
 Goal 1: New construction will increasingly embrace zero net energy performance (including clean, distributed generation), reaching 100 percent penetration of new starts in 2030.  Goal 2: 50 percent of baseline buildings will be retrofit to zero net energy by 2030 through achievement of deep levels of energy efficiency and with the addition of clean distributed generation.  Goal 3: Transform the commercial lighting market through technological advancement and innovative utility initiatives.

California Building Code
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 2013 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California 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 May 31, 2012, the CEC adopted the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, which went into effect on July 1, 2014. Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (non-residential) more energy efficient than those constructed under the prior 2008 standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-43
CALGreen Building Code
As previously stated in Section 4.15.1.1 under “Regulatory Framework,” the purpose of CALGreen is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices related to energy efficiency. The provisions of this code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure, unless otherwise indicated in this code, throughout the State of California. Compliance with the CALGreen Code is not a substitution for meeting the certification requirements of any green building program. CALGreen requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent, divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting materials.
2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 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 widely accepted within the state as “business-asusual,” they exceed the standards imposed by all other states and they reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy demand.

State Greenhouse Gas Regulations
The Governor’s GHG Reduction Executive Order S-3-05 was signed on June 1, 2005, and set GHG reduction targets for the State. Soon after, 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. In response to AB 32, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) developed a Scoping Plan outlining California’s approach to achieving the goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The final Scoping Plan was adopted by CARB on December 11, 2008. CARB approved the first 5-year Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014, as required by AB 32. For a detailed discussion on these regulations, see Chapter 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EIR Senate Bill X1-2
Signed into law in 2011, SB X1-2 directs CPUC’s Renewable Energy Resources Program to increase the amount of electricity generated from eligible renewable energy resources per year to an amount that equals at least 20 percent of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2013, 25 percent by December 31, 2016, and 33 percent by December 31, 2020. SB X1-2 codifies the 33 percent by 2020 renewable portfolio standard (RPS) goal established pursuant to the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. This new RPS applies to all electricity retailers in the state including publicly owned utilities, investor-owned utilities, electricity service providers, and community choice aggregators. All of these entities must adopt the new RPS goals of 20 percent of retail sales from renewables by the end of 2013, 25 percent by the end of 2016, and the 33 percent requirement being met by the end of 2020

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-44 AUGUST 2017

4.15.6.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Appendix F, Energy Conservation, of the CEQA Guidelines, requires a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects; however, no specific thresholds of significance for potential energy impacts are suggested in the State CEQA Guidelines or are established by the City. Therefore, this EIR analysis determined that impacts would be significant if the proposed Plan, upon buildout, would result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demands that would require the new construction of energy supply facilities and transmission infrastructure, or capacity enhancing alterations to baseline facilities. This parallels the threshold determinations for other utility and service systems under Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, to further the intent of Appendix F, relevant potential impacts related to energy demand and energy conservation listed in Appendix F are also incorporated in the evaluation of impacts.

Appendix F lists the following impacts to energy conservation that may result from projects:

1. The project's energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials maybe discussed.

2. The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity.

3. The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.

4. The degree to which the project complies with baseline energy standards.

5. The effects of the project on energy resources.

6. The project's projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.

The Appendix F list of potential energy conservation impacts represents a range of impacts that might be applicable to a range of project types. When assessing the potential impacts of the proposed Plan, the analysis included in Section 4.15.4.3 below focuses on discussions related to item numbers 2, 4, 5, and 6 on the list. Focus was placed on these potential impacts because the proposed Plan does not represent a unique or energy-intensive use that would be substantially different than other similar development projects.

4.15.6.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
UTIL-18 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demands, would use appropriate energy conservation and efficiency measures, and would not require new energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to baseline facilities.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-45
New development under the proposed Plan would continue to be served by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) in accordance with Fresno Municipal Code, Chapter 15 as described in Section 4.15.4.1, Environmental Setting, above. New underground electrical and gas lines would be required to replace existing lines when realignment is required under future development. The proposed development would result in a long-term increase in energy demand associated with the operation of lighting and space heating/cooling in the added building space, and vehicle travel. In addition, construction activities associated with development require the use of energy (e.g., electricity and fuel) for various purposes such as the operation of construction equipment and tools, as well as excavation, grading, demolition, and construction vehicle travel.

Construction
Even with energy-saving practices in place (as discussed below), new electrical connections, switches and/or transformers might be required to serve new structures and/or carry additional loads within the Plan Area. Similarly, new gas distribution lines and connections may be necessary. These are anticipated infrastructure improvements and part of the proposed Plan. Most of the work would be in existing public rights-of-way or facilities. Although creation of new or re-located gas and electric lines could create shortterm construction-related environmental effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, temporary service interruption, etc.), the work would be subject to compliance with the City’s and PG&E’s regulations and standard conditions for new construction related to infrastructure improvements. For example, these regulations and conditions would require gas and electric line construction to include best management practices that require construction areas to minimize dust generation, limit construction noise to daytime hours to limit impacts to sensitive receptors, and use modern equipment to limit emissions. In addition, these types of infrastructure improvements are anticipated as part of the proposed Plan. Also, any such work would be subject to compliance with applicable regulations and standard conditions of approval for construction projects, including City permits/review for construction (e.g., grading permits, private development review, encroachment permits, etc.)
Construction vehicles would consume fuel. As discussed in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the EPA adopted the Heavy-Duty National Program to establish fuel efficiency and GHG emission standards in the heavy-duty highway vehicle sector, which includes combination tractors (semi-trucks), heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles (including buses and refuse or utility trucks). These standards include targets for gallons of fuel consumed per mile beginning in model year 2014. These standards are being extended through model year 2018 through current rulemaking by the EPA. While construction activities require a commitment of energy sources, these efficiency standards improve energy security and innovation in clean energy technology and further the goal of conserving energy in the context of project development. As a result, construction impacts for future development under the proposed Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Operational
Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in a total buildout of over 6,000 dwelling units, over

1.5 million square feet of commercial space, nearly 750,000 square feet of office space, 78 acres of parks or open space, and 2.4 million square feet of public facilities. The proposed increase in development would result in a long-term increase in energy demand, associated with the operation of lighting and

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-46 AUGUST 2017
space heating/cooling in the added building space, and vehicle travel. In addition, construction activities associated with development require the use of energy (e.g., electricity and fuel) for various purposes such as the operation of construction equipment and tools, as well as excavation, grading, demolition, and construction vehicle travel.

Development Energy Impacts
Proposed new development would be constructed using energy efficient modern building materials and construction practices, in accordance with CALGreen Building Code, CPUC’s Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (2008), and the Chapter 11 of the City’s Municipal Code, which contain the Green Building Ordinance and Energy Code, respectively. The new buildings also would use new modern appliances and equipment, in accordance with the 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608). Under these requirements, future development under the proposed Plan would use recycled construction materials, environmentally sustainable building materials, building designs that reduce the amount of energy used in building heating and cooling systems as compared to conventionally built structures, and landscaping that incorporates water efficient irrigation systems, all of which would conserve energy.

With its infill development effort, the proposed Plan inherently furthers objectives of energy conservation by focusing activities in areas of existing infrastructure and services. Land Use (LU), Public Facilities, (PF) and Transportation (T) policies of the proposed Plan incorporate energy efficiency principles. Also, there are several General Plan policies intended to ensure energy conservation is practiced in Fresno, as shown above in Table 4.15-3.

Therefore, with the implementation of these proposed Plan policies and compliance with the General Plan policies and CALGreen Building Code and the other applicable state and local energy efficiency measures, cited above, significant energy conservation and savings would be realized from future development under the proposed Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

Transportation Energy Impacts
As an infill development, the proposed Plan inherently furthers objectives of energy conservation related to transportation by focusing activities in areas of existing infrastructure and services. Transportation design features are incorporated in the proposed Plan which would benefit transportation efficiencies.

Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, provides an evaluation of the expected traffic and transit trips generated by the proposed Plan. As discussed, the proposed Plan would potentially generate an increase in typical weekday trips consisting of vehicular, transit and walk/bike trips that would vary between 2014 and 2040 due to region-wide transportation system improvements that are projected to alter travel patterns and modes of proposed Plan trips.

As discussed above, the EPA adopted standards that include targets for gallons of fuel consumed per mile beginning in model year 2014. These standards are being extended through model year 2018 through current rulemaking by the EPA. While future transportation would require a commitment of energy sources, these efficiency standards improve energy security and innovation in clean energy technology

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-47
further the goal of conserving energy in the context of project development. As with impacts of future development discussed above, implementation of proposed Plan policies and compliance with General Plan policies listed above, would ensure energy impacts from transportation would be less than significant.

Renewable Energy Impacts
The Plan Area would be within the 70,000-square-mile PG&E service territory for electricity and natural gas generation, transmission and distribution. Due to the Plan Area’s size and location within an urban development, buildout of the proposed Plan would not significantly increase energy demands within the service territory and would not require new energy supply facilities. Where new transportation/transmission infrastructure is required, as discussed above under Future Construction Energy Impacts, these projects would be subject to separate environmental review and would be required to comply with applicable regulations for construction projects, including construction permits/review for construction within public rights-of-way (e.g., grading permits, private development review, encroachment permits, etc.). In addition, developments such as the proposed Plan are anticipated in the energy projections of energy providers within the State. As a result, impacts from new energy supply facilities and transportation/transmission infrastructure, or capacity-enhancing alterations to baseline facilities, would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

UTIL-19 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 energy conservation.

The discussion under UTIL-18 described the proposed Plan’s impacts in relationship to the PG&E service territory and therefore includes a discussion of cumulative impacts. Under Impact UTIL-18, impacts were found to be less than significant. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to energy conservation would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

PLACEWORKS 5-1

5. Alternatives Analysis
The CEQA Guidelines set forth the intent and extent of alternatives analysis to be provided in an EIR.

Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that:

An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible.

The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.

The following discussion is intended to inform the public and decision makers of feasible alternatives to the proposed Plan that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the proposed Plan.

This chapter describes the purpose of the alternatives discussion; provides a summary of the reasonable range of alternatives, including a summary of potentially significant impacts and the relationship of each alternative to the Plan objectives; and identifies the environmentally superior alternative.

5.1 PURPOSE
The alternatives evaluated in this Draft EIR were developed consistent with Section 15126.6(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that:

Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.

5.2 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
A list of the potential impacts is provided in Table 2-1 in Chapter 2, Executive Summary, of this Draft EIR.

The choice of alternatives to the proposed Plan for analysis in this Draft EIR focused on those that would further reduce and avoid the impacts found to be significant and unavoidable and potentially significant, but less than significant with mitigation measures.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5-2 AUGUST 2017
The significant-but-mitigable impacts under the proposed Plan include the following:
 BIO-1.1: Potential development resulting from the proposed Plan could result in the loss of rare plant species.
 BIO-1.2: The proposed Plan could result in mortality of Swainson’s hawks.  BIO-1.3: The proposed Plan could result in mortality of San Joaquin kit fox.  BIO-1.4: The proposed Plan could result in impacts to roosting habitat or maternity colonies of special-status bats.
 BIO-1.5: Potential development resulting from the proposed Plan could result in disruption of denning badgers and mortality of badgers.
 BIO-1.6: The proposed Plan could result in mortality of, and loss of habitat for, burrowing owls.  BIO-1.7: The proposed Plan could result in impacts to Western pond turtle nests and mortality of pond turtles.
 BIO-1.8: The proposed Plan could result in take of birds or nests.  BIO-2: The proposed Plan could result in the loss of riparian habitat.  BIO-3: The proposed Plan could result in loss of federally protected wetlands or waters.  CUL-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.  CUL-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.  CUL-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan could directly or indirectly affect a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature.  CUL-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
 CUL-5: Implementation of the proposed Plan could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Sections, 21074, 5020.1(k), or 5024.1.
 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.  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.  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.
 PS-7: Implementation of the proposed Plan could result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities in order

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-3
to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.  TRANS-7.1: The addition of proposed Plan traffic to the roadway network, in combination with traffic generated by reasonably foreseeable projects, results in unacceptable roadway operations on City of Fresno study roadway segments under cumulative conditions.  UTIL-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan could exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.
 UTIL-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan would require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
 UTIL-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the proposed Plan that it has adequate capacity to serve the proposed Plan’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s baseline commitments.  UTIL-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in a significant cumulative impacts with respect to wastewater.  UTIL-15: Future development under the proposed Plan would not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed Plan’s solid waste disposal needs.  UTIL-17: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed Plan’s solid waste disposal needs.

5.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
As stated above, the range of potential alternatives to the proposed Plan shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the proposed Plan. The City has developed the following project objectives:
 Create a healthy community that offers a positive physical, social, natural and economic environment to support the health and wellbeing of all its members.  Attract high quality new development while protecting existing neighborhoods.  Provide a mix of high quality housing types, with an emphasis on single-family housing that is compatible with community character and located close to amenities such as parks, schools, transit, services, shopping and employment.
 Attract needed retail, such as department stores, restaurants, and grocery stores, in order to serve resident needs with fewer, shorter vehicle trips.
 Provide quality open space and recreational opportunities by improving existing parks and creating new parks within walking distance (1/2 mile) of all residences.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5-4 AUGUST 2017
 Increase economic and educational opportunity through programs, services and facilities to prepare, mentor and train Southwest Fresno residents to access high quality employment opportunities.  Enhance transportation connectivity both within Southwest Fresno and between Southwest Fresno and other Fresno neighborhoods in order to provide more access to economic, social and educational opportunities.
 Improve the quality of life in Southwest Fresno through high quality investment, compatible land uses, increased park and recreational opportunities and a multi-modal and connected transportation system.

5.4 SELECTION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES
Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines states:

The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

5.4.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED AS BEING

INFEASIBLE
As described above, Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process, and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Section 15126.6(c) provides that among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. The following is a discussion of alternatives that were considered and rejected, along with the reasons they were not included in the analysis.

As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, in April 2015, the City initiated a community planning process to identify opportunities for improving the Plan Area. The City formed a Steering Committee and a Technical Advisory Committee, met with key stakeholders, held three community workshops, and numerous topic groups to identify the community’s vision for the Plan Area.

Based on the feedback received, the City prepared three alternatives for land use and circulation in the Plan Area. The alternatives established a framework for land use planning, design, and development in the Plan Area and included three distinct development patterns. The first alternative, the Corridors and Neighborhoods Alternative, emphasized three neighborhoods―complete with housing, retail, parks, and

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-5
employment areas―linked by well-defined corridors lined with higher, more intensive development, and multimodal transportation improvements. The second alternative, the Many Smaller Neighborhood Alternative, emphasized a number of roughly one-square-mile neighborhoods; each would include housing and community-serving uses, such as a small neighborhood park, school, and local retail.

Multimodal transportation improvements would be dispersed along the existing grid of arterial roadways throughout the Plan Area. This alternative was lower in density and had more single-family residential development than the other two alternatives. The third alternative, the Neighborhoods around Magnet Uses Alternative, focused on three neighborhoods developed around higher intensity cores each with a primary magnet use: a new community college activity center, an improved regional sports complex, and a new regional retail center. Each neighborhood core would be ringed with housing and/or employment areas that support the core. The neighborhoods would be linked with pedestrian and bicycle connections that follow the existing water canals and roadways with less vehicular traffic.

With input from the Steering Committee, the City determined that merging components of the three alternatives to create a single land use and circulation concept alternative was preferred. This alternative is the proposed preferred alternative that is analyzed in this Draft EIR. Accordingly, the Corridors and Neighborhoods Alternative, the Many Small Neighborhoods Alternative, and the Neighborhoods around Magnet Uses Alternative were rejected because they did not meet the project objectives.

5.4.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, two alternatives are discussed below. As previously stated, the alternatives were selected because of their potential to reduce significant and unavoidable impacts as well as significant-but-mitigable impacts of the proposed Plan.

The alternatives to be analyzed in comparison to the proposed Plan include:
 No Project Alternative
 Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative
The first alternative discussed is the CEQA-required “No Project” Alternative. The second alternative, Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative, would focus growth along two corridors, one of which is currently designated for future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) development, while land use intensities in other portions of the Plan Area would be reduced to achieve an overall reduction by about one-third of the buildout projections of the proposed Plan.

5.4.3 ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY
The alternatives analysis is presented as a comparative analysis to the proposed Plan.

As described in Chapter 4.3 Air Quality, 4.4 Biological Resources, 4.5 Cultural Resources, 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 4.11 Noise, 4.14 Transportation and Traffic, and 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems, mitigation measures would be required to reduce impacts in these resource categories. For, this reason, this alternatives analysis assumes that all regulations and mitigation measures recommended for the proposed Plan and the MEIR would be implemented.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5-6 AUGUST 2017
The following analysis compares the potentially significant environmental impacts of the two alternatives with those of the Plan-related impacts for each of the environmental topics analyzed in detail in Sections

4.1 through 4.15 of this Draft EIR. The impacts of each alternative are classified as greater, fewer, or essentially similar to (or comparable to) the level of impacts associated with the proposed Plan. Table 5-1 summarizes the relative impacts of each of the alternatives compared to the proposed Plan.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-7
TABLE 5-1 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PLAN ALTERNATIVES
Topic Proposed Plan
No Project
Alternative
Mixed-Use Corridor
Alternative
Aesthetics SU = =
Agriculture SU = <
Air Quality SU < <
Biological Resources LTS/M = <
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources LTS/M = <
Geology and Soils LTS = =
Greenhouse Gas Emissions SU < <
Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS/M = =
Hydrology and Water Quality LTS = =
Land Use and Planning LTS = =
Noise SU = =
Population and Housing LTS < <
Public Services LTS = <
Transportation and Traffic SU < <
Utility Systems LTS/M < <
Notes: LTS = Less than Significant
LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
< Fewer impact in comparison to the proposed Plan
= Similar impacts in comparison to the proposed Plan
> Greater impact in comparison to the proposed Plan

5.5 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

5.5.1 DESCRIPTION
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(1), the No Project Alternative is required as part of the “reasonable range of alternatives” to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed Plan with the impacts of taking no action or not approving the proposed Plan. Under this alternative, the proposed Plan would not be implemented, and the Plan Area would remain in its current condition with future development occurring in accordance with the objectives and policies of the Fresno General Plan. Figure 5-1 shows land use designations under the Fresno General 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

EVA NAMLIET

MARKS AVE

MERCED ST

JENSEN AVE 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

WHITES BRIDGE AVE

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

JENSEN AVE

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

RAV IAAVE

DELNOAVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

DAN RONQU IL LO DR

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

EUNEVA GIF

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

ELM 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
Regional Sports
Complex
Hyde
Park
Carver
Park
Ivy
Park
Neilson
Park
41 41
180
99 99
Sphere of Influence City Limit

RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
Figure 3.9 Existing Land Use Map
Light
Vacant
Plan Area
Medium Density
Medium-high Density
Heavy
High Density
Medium-low Density
Mobile Home Park
Low Density
Office
Professional Services Office
Heavy/Regional
Neighborhood/Neighborhood Center
Community/Neighborhood Limited Agriculture
Open Space/Park
Airport
Utility
Parking
Community Services/Institutional
School
BELG

WEST AVE

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C A L IFORN I A CT

DIVISADERO ST

EVA NAMLIET

MARKS AVE

MERCED ST

JENSEN AVE 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

WHITES BRIDGE AVE

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

JENSEN AVE

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

RAV IAAVE

DELNOAVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

DAN RONQU IL LO DR

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

EUNEVA GIF

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

ELM 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
Regional Sports
Complex
Hyde
Park
Carver
Park
Ivy
Park
Neilson
Park
41 41
180
99 99
Sphere of Influence City Limit

Figure 4.2-1
Existing Land Use

SO UT H W ES T FR ES N O S P E C I F I C PLAN D RAFT EI R

C I TY O F FR ES N O

AGRICULTURE

P LAC E WO RK S

WEST AVE

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C A L IFORN I A CT

DIVISADERO ST

EVA NAMLIET

MARKS AVE

MERCED ST

JENSEN AVE 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

WHITES BRIDGE AVE

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

JENSEN AVE

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

RAV IAAVE

DELNOAVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

DAN RONQU IL LO DR

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

EUNEVA GIF

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

ELM 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
Regional Sports
Complex
Hyde
Park
Carver
Park
Ivy
Park
Neilson
Park
41 41
180
99 99
Sphere of Influence City Limit

WEST AVE

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C A L IFORN I A CT

DIVISADERO ST

EVA NAMLIET

MARKS AVE

MERCED ST

JENSEN AVE 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

WHITES BRIDGE AVE

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

JENSEN AVE

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

RAV IAAVE

DELNOAVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

DAN RONQU IL LO DR

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

EUNEVA GIF

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

ELM 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
Regional Sports
Complex
Hyde
Park
Carver
Park
Ivy
Park
Neilson
Park
41 41
180
99 99
Sphere of Influence City Limit

Figure 4.2-1
Existing Land Use

SO UT H W ES T FR ES N O S P E C I F I C PLAN D RAFT EI R

C I TY O F FR ES N O

AGRICULTURE

P LAC E WO RK S
Source: City of Fresno.

Figure 5-1
Existing Land Use

SO UT H W ES T FR ES N O S P E C I F I C PLAN D RAFT EI R

C I TY O F FR ES N O

ALTERNATIVES

P LAC E WO RK S

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-9
Table 5-2 below compares the projected development capacity of the Specific Plan compared to that of the General Plan. It should be noted that, like the General Plan, the development capacities pertain to new development within the identified opportunity sites in the Plan area, including parcels that are vacant, open agriculture, or rural residential (partially vacant). In order to provide a conservative analysis, this Draft EIR assumes the Dual Designation Scenario development capacity under the proposed Plan, unless specifically noted otherwise. The Dual Designation Scenario assumes dual land uses consistent with the dual land use designations presented in Section 3.2.4.1 of Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, and shown on Figure 3-3 of the May 2017 draft Specific Plan.1 The General Plan MEIR also analyzes the dual land use designation, as shown on Figure LU-2.

TABLE 5-2 DEVELOPMENT CAPACITIES FOR THE PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN IN THE PLAN AREA Single-Family
Housing
(DU)
Multi-Family
Housing
(DU)
Housing
Total
(DU)
Commercial
(Bldg. SF)
Employment
(Bldg. SF)
Parks/Open
Space
(Acre)c
Public
Facilities
(Acre)
Public
Facilities
(Bldg. SF)
Plan Area – Standard
Development Scenarioa 4,307 1,840 6,148 1,552,676 748,820 78 192 2,411,064 Plan Area –Dual
Designation Scenario 4,221 2,910 7,131 1,220,596 2,489,065 0 32 325,482 Specific Plan Area
included in General
Planb
4,108 2,616 6,723 1,330,831 1,780,080 184d 57 643,377
Notes: DU = dwelling units SF = square feet
a. Includes the MLK Activity Center. Development capacities consistent with February 2017 Draft Specific Plan. b. 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.
c. Excludes land uses designated as “clear zone, ““ponding basin,” and “ponding basin park.” d. Includes approximately 112 acres of landfill located directly east of the Regional Sports Complex. The Steering Committee does not consider this land to be parkland and therefore the Plan shows this acreage designated as “public facility.” The following discussion explains the differences between the No Project Alternative and the proposed Specific Plan under each of the major land use types:
 Housing. The total number of projected housing units in the proposed Specific Plan is lower than the General Plan’s total number of housing units. The General Plan’s ratio of single-family housing to multi-family housing within the Plan Area is 61 percent single-family housing to 39 percent multifamily housing. The proposed Plan’s ratio is 70 percent single-family housing to 30 percent multifamily housing in the Plan Area. Therefore, housing developed under the proposed Plan would result in 575 fewer dwelling units than the total number of dwelling units proposed within the Plan Area under the General Plan. However, under the Dual Designation Scenario, the ratio would be 59 percent single family housing to 41 percent multi-family housing, and would result in 408 more dwelling units developed within the Plan Area than under the General Plan.  Commercial. Under the Standard Development Scenario, the amount of commercial development in the Plan Area is greater under the proposed Specific Plan than in the General Plan by approximately 1 The dual land use designation was applied to all parcels within the Plan Area, except for the parcel designated to be developed as a college near the MLK activity center. This exception was made based on the decision that the college would be a more intensive land use designation than the dual land use designation.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5-10 AUGUST 2017
222,000 square feet. Several factors contribute to this increase, including new areas designated as corridor/center mixed-use, neighborhood mixed-use, regional commercial, and community commercial. However, under the Dual Designation Development Scenario, the amount of commercial development in the Plan Area would be 110,235 square feet less than the General Plan.  Employment. Under the Standard Development Scenario, the projected amount of employment space in the Plan Area (i.e., office, business park, regional business park, light industrial, and heavy industrial uses) under the proposed Specific Plan is less than in the General Plan by approximately 1 million square feet. The reason for this decrease is because of the change of business park and regional business park uses to other land uses such as residential, park, mixed use, and commercial. However, under the Dual Designation Development Scenario, the amount of employment space would be 708,985 square feet more than the General Plan.
 Parks/Open Space. The proposed Plan includes a refined definition of parkland compared to the definition in the adopted General Plan. As a result, the Plan Area’s total park acreage in the proposed Plan under the Standard Development Scenario is less than in the General Plan because the General Plan counts the 112 acres directly east of the Regional Sports Complex, as well as the 16-acre Hyde Park, as parkland. Since these areas do not provide locally-serving park facilities, they were removed from the inventory of park land in the Plan Area. With the exclusion of the 112-acre Regional Sports Complex from the General Plan’s parks/open space development capacity, the amount of parkland within the Plan Area under the proposed Plan is slightly less than the General Plan’s park acreage. In addition, the amount of parks/open space in the SOI increases more significantly in the proposed Plan by 55 acres, largely because of the new parkland located directly to the west of the Regional Sports Complex that is accessible to residents of the Plan Area. Under the Dual Designation Development Scenario, the dual land use pattern is assumed, which results in zero acres of parkland within the Plan Area.

Public Facilities. The amount of public facilities development in the proposed Plan under the Standard Development Scenario is larger than the amount in the General Plan (1,767,687 square feet; 135 acres). The primary reasons for this increase include the re-designation of the aforementioned 112- acre landfill from park to public facilities, the inclusion of a new college in the MLK Activity Center, and the re-designation of single-family housing to public facilities along North Avenue in an effort to create a buffer between residential areas and nearby industrial uses. However, under the Dual Designation Development Scenario, the amount of public facilities development is less than the amount in the General Plan (317,895 square feet; 25 acres).

In general, the development capacity in the proposed Specific Plan is higher due to the increased area of land designated for public facilities compared to the General Plan. While this is partially offset by the reduced area designated for employment uses, the overall development capacity would be higher.

5.5.2 IMPACT DISCUSSION
The potential environmental impacts associated with the No Project Alternative when compared to the proposed Plan are described below.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-11

5.5.2.1 AESTHETICS
Most impacts related to aesthetics under the proposed Plan incorporate MEIR mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. As with the proposed Specific Plan, future development under the No Project Alternative would not block views, and would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area. However, impacts related to nighttime sky illumination, would occur under the No Project Alternative and under the proposed Specific Plan, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts. Thus, overall impacts related to aesthetics would be similar when comparing the No Project Alternative to the proposed Plan.

5.5.2.2 AGRICULTURE
Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, the No Project Alternative would result in the conversion of prime farmland to non-agriculture use. Although the densities of development would differ between the No Project Alternative and the proposed Plan, both would result in development on prime farmland, thus resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. Thus, overall impacts related to agriculture would be similar when comparing the No Project Alternative to the proposed Plan.

5.5.2.3 AIR QUALITY
The proposed Specific Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality.

Because the development capacity is greater under the Dual Designation Development Scenario, compared to the No Project alternative, air quality impacts would be fewer under the No Project alternative.

5.5.2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The biological resources impacts under the proposed Plan are fully mitigable with implementation of MEIR mitigation measures as well as mitigation measures proposed in this Draft EIR.

Under the No Project Alternative the potential to modify habitat for any special-status species identified in the Draft EIR would be similar to that of the impacts potentially resulting from the proposed Plan. Given the areas of impact, any development occurring in the Plan Area would result in impacts to habitat and special status species. As a result, impacts to biological resources would be similar when comparing the No Project Alternative to the proposed Plan.

5.5.2.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The cultural and tribal cultural resources impacts under the proposed Plan are fully mitigable with implementation of MEIR mitigation measures. Under the proposed Plan, potential impacts to cultural resources would result on a site-by-site basis mostly from previously-unknown sites. Under the No Project Alternative, future development under the General Plan would be similar and would require the same mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. As a result, impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be similar when comparing the No Project Alternative to the proposed Plan.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5-12 AUGUST 2017

5.5.2.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The proposed Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts related to geology and soils primarily because of the Plan Area’s proximity to active faults, and potential impacts being addressed by regulatory compliance. Under the No Project Alternative, the conditions and the regulatory requirements do not change as development occurs under the General Plan. As a result, impacts related to geology and soils would be similar when comparing the No Project Alternative to the proposed Plan.

5.5.2.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The existing General Plan, which would be carried forward under the No Project Alternative, identified significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed Specific Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to greenhouse gas emissions. Because the development capacity is greater under the proposed Specific Plan, compared to the No Project alternative, greenhouse gas emissions impacts would be fewer under the No Project alternative.

5.5.2.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
As a result of the proposed Plan, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be fully mitigable with implementation of mitigation measures proposed in this Draft EIR. Implementation of the proposed Plan would occur on sites which contain hazardous materials and could create a potentially significant hazard to the public or the environment. Under the No Project Alternative, development would occur on the same sites; however additional site analysis would be required to ensure that potentiallyhazardous conditions would not adversely affect the public or the environment. As a result, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be similar under the No Project Alternative when compared to the proposed Plan.

5.5.2.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The hydrology and water quality impacts under the proposed Plan would be considered less-thansignificant with implementation of the General Plan. Similarly, as a result of buildout of the General Plan, the No Project Alternative would be required to implement policies of the General Plan. As a result, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be similar under the No Project Alternative when compared to the proposed Plan.

5.5.2.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impacts to land use and planning would be considered less than significant under the proposed Plan because the proposed Plan would be largely consistent with the Fresno General Plan. Because the No Project Alternative would result in the implementation of General Plan, the No Project Alternative and the proposed Plan would result in the similar impacts.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-13

5.5.2.11 NOISE
The proposed Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to noise generated by increased vehicle activity in the Plan Area. The No Project Alternative would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to increased ambient noise volumes. Given the increase in development to occur under the General Plan, as well as the development included under proposed Plan, the impacts related to noise would be considered similar.

5.5.2.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
The proposed Plan would result in an increase in population, housing and employment, but the impacts would be considered less than significant given that the projected growth under the General Plan would be less than the proposed Plan. Because the No Project Alternative would result in implementation of the General Plan, when compared to the proposed Plan, the No Project Alternative would result in fewer impacts with respect to population and housing.

5.5.2.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
As a result of the proposed Plan, impacts related to public services would be less than significant. As discussed in relation to population and housing, the General Plan would result in greater housing density when compared to the proposed Plan. The No Project Alternative would result in similar impacts with respect to public services.

5.5.2.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Under the No Project Alternative, improvements to the roadway network, transit and bicycle/pedestrian facilities would be required to accommodate growth under the General Plan. As a result of the proposed Plan, similar improvements would be required to accommodate growth within the Plan Area. However, because development under the proposed Plan, (Dual Designation Development Scenario), would be higher than under the No Project alternative, transportation impacts would be considered fewer under the No Project alternative. Utility Systems
As a result of the proposed Plan, impacts related to utility systems would be fully mitigable with implementation of mitigation measures proposed in this Draft EIR as well as MEIR mitigation measures.

The overall development capacity would be less under the No Project Alternative when compared to the proposed Plan. As a result, the No Project Alternative would result in fewer impacts when compared to the proposed Plan.

5.5.3 RELATIONSHIP OF THE ALTERNATIVE TO THE OBJECTIVES Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed Plan would not be implemented and therefore this alternative does not meet any of the project objectives.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5-14 AUGUST 2017

5.6 MIXED-USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE

5.6.1 DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative is to provide an alternative that could reduce potential impacts from future development when compared to the proposed Plan. This alternative would focus growth along California Avenue, which is currently designated for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Additional growth would be focused along the South Elm Avenue corridor, which could provide a transit connection to the California Avenue BRT project at a later date. Under this alternative, the CMX (Corridor/Center Mixed-Use) land use designation would be applied along the north side of the California Avenue corridor, and along the portions of the South Elm Avenue corridor currently proposed for C (Community Commercial), and NMX (Neighborhood Mixed-Use). The proposed land use intensities in other portions of the Planning Area would be reduced to achieve an overall reduction by about one-third of the development capacity projections of the proposed Plan. The policies in the proposed Plan would apply under this alternative; however, the overall development footprint would be lower under the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor alternative.

5.6.2 IMPACT DISCUSSION
The potential environmental impacts associated with the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor alternative when compared to the proposed Plan are described below.

5.6.2.1 AESTHETICS
Most impacts related to aesthetics under the proposed Plan are less than significant and incorporate MEIR mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts. Same as the proposed Plan, the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative would not block views, and would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. However, similar to the proposed Plan, the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative would also result in development that would increase illumination of the nighttime sky. Although most impacts under the proposed Plan and the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative are less than significant with mitigation, impacts to the nighttime sky cannot be fully mitigated and would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Thus, overall impacts related to aesthetics would be similar when comparing the Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative to the proposed Plan.

5.6.2.2 AGRICULTURE
Similar to the proposed Plan, the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative would result in the conversion of prime farmland to non-agriculture use. Although the densities of development would differ between the Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative and the proposed Plan, both would result in development on prime farmland, thus resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. However, the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor would focus future development along to corridors in the Plan Area, resulting in a smaller development footprint; Thus, overall impacts related to agriculture would be fewer when comparing the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative to the proposed Plan.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-15

5.6.2.3 AIR QUALITY
The proposed Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality generated by increased vehicle activity in the Plan Area. The Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative would result in a reduction of overall development by one-third compared to the proposed Plan, and focus growth along future BRT corridors, resulting in a reduction in vehicle miles travelled, and a reduction in construction and operational air quality impacts compared to the proposed Plan. These characteristics of the MixedUse Transit Corridor alternative would result in fewer impacts compared to the proposed Plan.

5.6.2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The biological resources impacts under the proposed Plan are fully mitigable with implementation of MEIR mitigation measures as well as mitigation measures proposed in this Draft EIR.

Under the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative the potential for adverse impacts on special-status species habitat identified in this Draft EIR would be lower t than the proposed Plan, as the development footprint would be less. As a result, impacts to biological resources would be fewer when comparing the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative to the proposed Plan.

5.6.2.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The cultural and tribal cultural resources impacts under the proposed Plan are fully mitigable with implementation of MEIR mitigation measures. Under the proposed Plan, potential impacts to cultural resources would result on a site-by-site basis mostly from previously-unknown sites. Under the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative, the development footprint would be lower and would require the same mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. As a result, impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be fewer when comparing the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative to the proposed Plan.

5.6.2.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The proposed Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts related to geology and soils primarily because of the Plan Area’s proximity to active faults, and potential impacts being addressed by regulatory compliance. Under the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative, the conditions and the regulatory requirements do not change as development occurs under the General Plan. As a result, impacts related to geology and soils would be similar when comparing the Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative to the proposed Plan.

5.6.2.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative would focus mixed-use development along two primary corridors, one of which is planned for BRT service. With mixed-use development providing residential and commercial development in a more walkable area, and with a reduction in overall development by one third, VMT would be less than that of the proposed Plan, resulting in fewer impacts than the proposed Plan.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5-16 AUGUST 2017

5.6.2.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
As a result of the proposed Plan, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be fully mitigable with implementation of mitigation measures proposed in this Draft EIR. Implementation of the proposed Plan would occur on sites which contain hazardous materials and could create a potentially significant hazard to the public or the environment. Under the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative, development would occur on the same sites, at a reduced density in some locations and higher density in corridors adjacent to future BRT corridors; however as with the proposed Plan, additional site analysis would be required to ensure that potentially-hazardous conditions would not adversely affect the public or the environment. As a result, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be similar under the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative when compared to the proposed Plan.

5.6.2.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The hydrology and water quality impacts under the proposed Plan would be considered less-thansignificant with implementation of regulations controlling stormwater runoff. Similarly, future development under the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative would be subject to the same regulations.

As a result, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be similar under the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative when compared to the proposed Plan.

5.6.2.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impacts to land use and planning would be considered less than significant under the proposed Plan because the proposed Plan would be largely consistent with the Fresno General Plan. Because the MixedUse Transit Corridor Alternative would similarly result in the implementation of General Plan, the MixedUse Corridor Alternative and the proposed Plan would result in similar impacts.

5.6.2.11 NOISE
The proposed Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to noise generated by increased vehicle activity in the Plan Area. The Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to increased ambient noise volumes. Although the development footprint of the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor alternative would be lower than the proposed Plan, the impacts related to noise would be considered similar, given the overall scale of development under this alternative.

5.6.2.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
The proposed Plan would result in an increase in population, housing and employment, but the impacts would be considered significant given that the projected growth under the Dual Designation Development Scenario would be greater than the General Plan. Because the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative would result in a reduction of overall development by one-third, and thus generate fewer residents and employees than under the proposed Plan, when compared to the proposed Plan, the Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative would result in fewer impacts with respect to population and housing.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-17

5.6.2.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
As a result of the proposed Plan, impacts related to public services would be less than significant. As discussed in relation to population and housing, the Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative would result in reduced development by one-third when compared to the proposed Plan. The Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative would result in fewer impacts with respect to public services.

5.6.2.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
As a result of the proposed Plan, significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts would occur in relation to the uncertainties of implementation of mitigation measures proposed in this Draft EIR. Increased traffic resulting from the proposed Plan would require improvements to intersections and ramps that are not under the jurisdiction of the City of Fresno. As a result, implementation of those mitigation measures is uncertain. The Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative would result in impacts to traffic; however, because this alternative focuses growth along future BRT corridors, and reduces overall development by one-third, impacts related to traffic may be reduced when compared to the proposed Plan. As a result, the MixedUse Corridor Alternative would result in fewer impacts when compared to the proposed Plan.

5.6.2.15 UTILITY SYSTEMS
As a result of the proposed Plan, impacts related to utility systems would be fully mitigable with implementation of mitigation measures proposed in this Draft EIR as well as MEIR mitigation measures.

The overall demand for utility infrastructure would be lower under the Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative when compared to the proposed Plan. As a result, the Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative would result in fewer impacts when compared to the proposed Plan.

5.6.3 RELATIONSHIP OF THE ALTERNATIVE TO THE OBJECTIVES The Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative would meet many of the objectives of the proposed Plan. However, this Alternative would conflict with Objective #3 (“Provide a mix of high quality housing types, with an emphasis on single-family housing…”) because of its emphasis on multi-family housing. In addition, the Alternative would not meet Objective #4 (“Attract needed retail…) as it would bring fewer new residents to the Plan Area, which could potentially affect the viability of retail. Similarly, this Alternative would conflict with Objective #8 (“Improve the quality of life in Southwest Fresno through high quality investment…) as the reduced area of development would bring fewer people to the Plan Area, thereby affecting the ability to achieve this Objective to the same extent that the proposed Plan would.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5-18 AUGUST 2017

5.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the project and the alternatives, Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an “environmentally superior” alternative be selected and the reasons for such a selection be disclosed. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that would be expected to generate the least environmental impact. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative selected may not be the alternative that best meets project objectives.

As shown in Table 5-1, the No Project Alternative would result in fewer impacts to air quality, GHG emissions, population and housing, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems when compared to the proposed Plan. Furthermore, this alternative would not meet any of the project objectives.

As shown in Table 5-1, the Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative would result in fewer impacts to agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, GHG emissions, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation and traffic, and utility and service systems.

Therefore, this Alternative would have the fewest environmental impacts as compared to the other two alternatives, and would be considered the environmentally superior alternative. However, this alternative would meet some, but not all, of the project objectives.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-19
PLACEWORKS 6-1

6. CEQA-Mandated Assessment
This chapter provides an overview of the impacts of the proposed Plan based on the analyses presented in Chapters 4 through 5 of this Draft EIR. The topics covered in this chapter include impacts found not to be significant, growth inducement, significant and unavoidable impacts, and significant irreversible changes. A more detailed analysis of the effects the proposed Plan would have on the environment and proposed mitigation measures to minimize significant impacts are provided in Chapters 4.1 through 4.15.

6.1 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15128 allows environmental issues, for which there is no likelihood of significant impact to be briefly discussed and not analyzed further in the EIR. This section explains the reasoning by which it was determined that impacts to agricultural and forestry resources, and mineral resources potentially resulting from buildout of the proposed Plan would be less than significant.
 Forestry Resources. According to 2006 mapping data from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the city of Fresno does not contain any woodland or forestland cover;1 therefore, the city does not contain land zoned for Timberland Production. Consequently, there would be no impacts to forestry resources under CEQA.
 Mineral Resources. The City of Fresno permits mining only within the Mining (M) Overlay District (Citywide Development Code). Moreover, the boundaries of the Southwest Fresno Plan Area are classified as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-3, which are defined as potential, but unproven mineral resource reserves (State of California, Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 99-02). MRZ-2 zones are those areas documented to have regionally significant mineral resources.

Because neither the State nor the City of Fresno identifies the Plan Area as containing known regional mineral resource reserves, implementation of the proposed Plan would not result in impacts to known mineral resources or locally important mineral resources.

6.2 GROWTH INDUCEMENT
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss the ways in which a proposed project or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, could foster economic or population growth in the surrounding environment. Typical growth inducing factors might include the 1 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Land Cover Map, http://frap.fire.ca.gov/data/frapgismaps/pdfs/fvegwhr13b_map.pdf, accessed May 26, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
6-2 AUGUST 2017
extension of urban services or transportation infrastructure to a previously unserved or under-served area, or the removal of major barriers to development. This section evaluates the proposed Plan’s potential to create such growth inducements. Not all aspects of growth inducement are negative; rather, negative impacts associated with growth inducement occur only where the growth associated with the proposed Plan would cause adverse environmental impacts. As described in Chapter 4.12, Population and Housing, implementation of the proposed Plan would not exceed the City’s projections for population growth in the Plan Area.

The proposed Plan is not expected to result in indirect growth inducement because the additional housing units and population resulting from implementation of the proposed Plan would not exceed projections of the City. Additional employment growth would occur incrementally over a period of approximately 25 years and would be consistent with the planning objectives of the City.

Development of the proposed Plan would involve demolition and construction activities that could generate some temporary employment opportunities; however, given the temporary nature of such opportunities, it is unlikely that construction workers would relocate to Fresno as a result of the proposed Plan. Thus, the proposed Plan would not be considered growth-inducing from an employment perspective.

6.3 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. This section lists the impacts for the proposed Plan that were found to be significant and unavoidable.

6.4 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss the extent to which the proposed Plan would commit nonrenewable resources to uses that future generations would probably be unable to reverse. The three CEQA-required categories of irreversible changes are discussed below.

6.4.1 CHANGES IN LAND USE THAT COMMIT FUTURE

GENERATIONS
The proposed Plan would guide future development in the Plan Area, and would also involve the redevelopment of previously developed sites. The Plan Area currently contains retail, industrial/non-retail, and residential uses. Because the Plan Area is already developed and is located in an urban area that already contains these uses, the proposed Plan is not expected to result in any land use changes that would commit future generations to uses that are not already prevalent in the vicinity of the Plan Area.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
PLACEWORKS 6-3
TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE (SU) IMPACTS Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation

AESTHETICS
AES-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan would create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

S AES‐1: Lighting systems for street and parking areas shall include shields to direct light to the roadway surfaces and parking areas. Vertical shields on the light fixtures shall also be used to direct light away from adjacent light sensitive land uses such as residences.

AES‐2: Lighting systems for public facilities such as active play areas shall provide adequate illumination for the activity; however, low‐intensity light fixtures and shields shall be used to minimize spillover light onto adjacent properties.

AES‐3: Lighting systems for non‐residential uses, not including public facilities, shall provide shields on the light fixtures and orient the lighting system away from adjacent properties.

Low‐intensity light fixtures shall also be used if excessive spillover light onto adjacent properties will occur.

AES‐4: Lighting systems for freestanding signs shall not exceed 100 foot‐Lamberts (FT‐L) when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of less than 2.0 horizontal footcandles and shall not exceed 500 FT‐L when adjacent to streets that have an average light intensity of 2.0 horizontal footcandles or greater.

AES‐5: Materials used on building façades shall be non‐reflective.

SU
AES-5: Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an increase in glare.

S AES-5: Implement Mitigation Measures AES-1 through AES-5 of the MEIR. SU

AGRICULTURE
AG-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use.

SU No mitigation measures available. SU
AG-4: 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 agriculture resources.

SU No mitigation measures available. SU

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
6-4 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE (SU) IMPACTS Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation

AIR QUALITY
AQ-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in the generation of substantial long-term criteria air pollutant emissions that would exceed the SJVAPCD regional
significance thresholds and would therefore not be
considered consistent with the existing AQMPs.

S N/A SU
AQ-2: Construction activities associated with
implementation of the proposed Plan would exceed the
SJVAPCD regional significance thresholds.

S AQ-2a: In order to contribute in minimizing exhaust emission from construction equipment, prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building permits whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall provide a list of all construction equipment proposed to be used on the project site for projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt projects). This list may be provided on the building plans. The construction equipment list shall state the make, model, and equipment identification number of all the equipment.

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.

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
PLACEWORKS 6-5
TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE (SU) IMPACTS Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
 The construction contractor shall also use precoated/natural colored building materials, where feasible.

AQ-3: Operation of development projects accommodated
under the proposed Plan would generate emissions that
would exceed the SJVAPCD regional significance thresholds for VOC, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

S  N/A SU
AQ-4: Development of land uses accommodated under the
proposed Plan could result in short- and long-term
emissions that could cause or contribute to a violation of the AAQS.

S AQ-4a: Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-2a through AQ-2e to further reduce construction-related criteria air pollutant emissions.

AQ-4b: In order to reduce fugitive dust particulate matter emissions during construction activities, prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building permits, whichever occurs first, for projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt projects), but that would be outside the purview of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) Regulation VIII the property owner/developer shall submit a dust control plan that includes, but not limited to the following measures during grounddisturbing activities to further reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions:
 Disturbed areas (including storage piles) that are not being actively utilized for construction purposes shall be effectively stabilized using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, or covered with a tarp or other suitable cover (e.g., revegetated).
 On-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
 Land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled utilizing application of water or by presoaking.
 Material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least 6 inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained when materials are transported off-site.
 Operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions.) (Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.) SU

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
6-6 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE (SU) IMPACTS Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
 Following the addition of materials to or the removal of materials from the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.  Within urban areas, trackout shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the site and at the end of each workday.
 Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and trackout.  Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
 Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent.  Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the project area.
 Adhere to Regulation VIII’s 20 percent opacity limitation, as applicable.

AQ-7: Construction activities associated with
implementation of the proposed Plan would exceed the
SJVAPCD regional significance thresholds for VOC and NOX.

S AQ-7: Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-2a through AQ-4b of the DEIR. SU

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions.

S 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.

SU
GHG-3: GHG emissions associated with implementation of
the proposed Plan would substantially cumulatively
contribute to climate change impacts.

S GHG-3: Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-2b . SU
NOISE
NOISE-1: Development in accordance with the proposed
Plan would cause increases in traffic along local roadways of

SU/LTS N/A SU/LTS

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
PLACEWORKS 6-7
TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE (SU) IMPACTS Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
more than 3 dBA over existing conditions.

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.

S N/A SU
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.

PS NOISE-4a: As required by the City of Fresno Municipal Code, construction activity shall be limited to the hours between 7 AM and 10 PM on weekdays and Saturdays, and shall require a permit issued by the City.

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 SU

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
6-8 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE (SU) IMPACTS Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.
 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.

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.

SU/LTS/PS N/A SU/LTS

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TRANS-7.2: The addition of project traffic to the roadway S TRANS-7.2: Development within the project shall pay its regional transportation mitigation SU

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
PLACEWORKS 6-9
TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE (SU) IMPACTS Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
network in combination with traffic generated by
reasonably foreseeable projects results in unacceptable intersection operations at Caltrans study intersections. fee (RTMF) towards funding improvements to the regional highways and streets system.

The City of Fresno shall coordinate with Caltrans and the Fresno Council of Governments to recommend the following intersection and ramp improvements at the SR-99/Jensen Avenue interchange and SR-41/North Avenue interchange be incorporated into the RTMF program:
 SR-99 Southbound Off-Ramp/Jensen Avenue intersection:
- Widen the SR-99 southbound off-ramp to add an additional left-turn pocket. - Restripe the existing shared through-left turn lane on the SR-99 southbound offramp as a dedicated through lane. - The resulting lane configuration on the southbound off-ramp is: two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane.
- Add an overlap phase for the northbound right-turn movement. - Prohibit westbound U-turn movement to allow the northbound right-turn overlap. - Widen the eastbound approach to stripe a third through lane; add a third receiving lane on the east leg that traps into the SR-99 southbound on-ramp.  SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp/Jensen Avenue intersection:
- Change the lane configurations on the northbound off-ramp to a dedicated left-turn pocket and shared through-right turn lane.
- Add an overlap phase for the southbound right-turn movement. - Prohibit eastbound U-turn movement to allow the southbound right-turn overlap. - Widen the westbound approach to stripe a third through lane; add a third receiving lane on the west leg that traps into the SR-99 northbound on-ramp. - Change the phasing for the northbound and southbound approaches to protected left-turn movements and separate.
 SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp/North Avenue intersection:
- Widen the SR-41 southbound off-ramp to add a left-turn pocket. - Change the lane configurations on the southbound off-ramp to convert the existing shared through-left turn lane to a shared right turn-through-left turn lane. - Extend the right-turn pocket on the off-ramp to accommodate right-turn queue length shown in Table 4.14-16.
- The resulting lane configuration on the southbound off-ramp is: one left-turn lane, one shared right turn-through-left turn lane, and one right-turn lane. - Widen the eastbound approach to add a third through lane that traps into the eastbound left-turn onto the SR-41 northbound on-ramp.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
6-10 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE (SU) IMPACTS Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
In addition to addressing intersection operations, the changes identified above also address freeway off-ramp queuing impacts identified in Impact TRANS-7.3 below. With the implementation of the changes listed above, the operations at these three intersections would be improved to LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours, as shown in Table 4.14-16 below (refer to Appendix H for calculations).

In addition to the three intersections at the SR-99/Jensen Avenue and SR-41/North Avenue interchanges that operate at LOS E or LOS F under cumulative conditions, the following improvements would address unacceptable LOS E operations at the SR-99/Fresno Street interchange:
 SR-99 Southbound Ramps/Fresno Street intersection:
- Widen the SR-99 southbound frontage road to add an additional right-turn pocket. - Restripe the existing through lane as a shared through-left turn lane on the SR-99 southbound off-ramp.
- The resulting lane configuration on the southbound off-ramp is: one left-turn lane, one shared through left-turn lane, and two right-turn lanes.  SR-99 Northbound Ramps/Fresno Street intersection:
- Add a through lane to the westbound approach on Fresno Street that traps into the left-turn onto the SR-99 southbound on-ramp.
- Adding the third through lane on Fresno Street would require removing the existing raised median and prohibiting eastbound left-turns at the Fresno Street/E Street intersection.

With the implementation of the changes listed above, the operations at these two intersections would be improved to LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours, as shown in Table 4.14-17 below (refer to Appendix H for calculations).

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
PLACEWORKS 6-11
TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE (SU) IMPACTS Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
TRANS-7.3: The addition of project traffic to the roadway network in combination with traffic generated by
reasonably foreseeable projects results in freeway off-ramp queues that extend back onto the freeway mainline.

S TRANS-7.3: Development within the project shall pay its regional transportation mitigation fee (RTMF) towards funding improvements to the regional highways and streets system. In addition to the recommended improvements listed in Mitigation Measure TRANS-7.2, the City of Fresno shall coordinate with Caltrans and the Fresno Council of Governments to recommend the following intersection and ramp improvements at the SR-41/Jensen Avenue interchange be incorporated into the RTMF program:
 SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp/Jensen Avenue intersection:
- Change the existing shared left-right turn lane on the SR-41 southbound off-ramp as a dedicated right-turn lane SR-99 southbound off-ramp
- The resulting lane configuration on the southbound off-ramp is: one left-turn lane and two right-turn lanes
- Add a southbound right-turn phase to run concurrently with the eastbound through phase by taking green time from the westbound through phase The implementation of the changes to the SR-41 southbound off-ramp at Jensen Avenue listed above would reduce queuing on the SR-41 southbound off-ramp. These changes in combination with the improvements to the SR-99/Jensen Avenue, SR-41/North Avenue, and SR-99/Fresno Street interchange listed in Mitigation Measure TRANS-7.2, would reduce freeway off-ramp queuing under cumulative conditions.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
6-12 AUGUST 2017

6.4.2 IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE FROM ENVIRONMENTAL

ACCIDENTS
Demolition and construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed Plan would involve some risk for environmental accidents. However, these activities, such as accidental spills and soil contamination, would be monitored by City, State, and federal agencies, and would follow professional industry standards for safety and construction. Additionally, the land uses proposed by the proposed Plan would not include any uses or activities that are likely to contribute to or be the cause of a significant environmental accident, such as industrial-related leaks. As a result, the proposed Plan would not pose a substantial risk of environmental accidents.

6.4.3 LARGE COMMITMENT OF NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES
Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes issues related to increased energy consumption, conversion of agricultural lands, and lost access to mining reserves. The proposed Plan would require water, electric, and gas service, as well as additional resources for construction. Additionally, the ongoing operation of uses within the Plan Area would involve the use of nonrenewable resources. Construction and ongoing maintenance would irreversibly commit some materials and nonrenewable energy resources.

Materials and resources used would include, but are not limited to, nonrenewable and limited resources such as oil, gasoline, sand, gravel, asphalt, and steel. These materials and energy resources would be used for infrastructure development, transportation of people and goods, and utilities. During the operational phase of the proposed Plan (post-construction), energy sources including oil and gasoline would be used for lighting, heating, and cooling of residences, as well as transportation of people to and from the Plan Area.

However, the proposed Plan would include several features that would offset or reduce the need for nonrenewable resources. The proposed Plan would be required to comply with all applicable building and design requirements, including those set forth in Title 24 relating to energy conservation. In compliance with CALGreen, the State’s Green Building Standards Code, the proposed Plan would be required to reduce water consumption by 20 percent, divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting materials. The landscaping plan for the proposed Plan would group plants with similar water, climatic, and soil requirements to conserve water and create a drought responsive landscape. In addition, the proposed Plan presents an opportunity to integrate recycled water use into Plan Area with buildout of the City of Fresno’s Recycled water system. Green field installation of a distribution system at the initial development stage provides opportunity to plan optimum recycled water utilization within the Plan Area.

Although the construction and ongoing operation of the proposed Plan would involve the use of nonrenewable resources, through the inclusion of energy-conserving Plan features and compliance with applicable standards and regulations, the proposed Plan would not represent a large commitment of nonrenewable resources.

PLACEWORKS 7-1

7. Persons and Organizations Consulted
This Draft EIR was prepared by the following consultants and individuals:

7.1 LEAD AGENCY

CITY OF FRESNO
Sophia Pagoulatos, Supervising Planner
Talia Kolluri, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Craig Agabashian, Admin Manager
Michelle Zumwalt, Architect
Ricky Caperton, Planner III

7.2 REPORT PREPARERS

LEAD EIR CONSULTANT

PLACEWORKS
Steve Noack, AICP, Principal
Kyle Simpson, Senior Associate, Project Manager
William Hass, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Manager
Bob Mantey, Noise, Vibration and Acoustics Manger
Karl Rodenbaugh, Senior Scientist
Michael Milroy, Associate Engineer
John Vang, Associate, AQ/GHG
Natalie Foley, Noise Specialist
Ashley James, Project Planner
Grant Reddy, Graphics Design Specialist

SUBCONSULTANTS

BLAIR, CHYRCH & FLYNN
Utilities and Service Systems
Karl Kienow, Principal Engineer
Cordie Qualle, Project Engineer
Jon Palsgaard, Project Engineer

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED/LIST OF PREPARERS
7-2 AUGUST 2017

FEHR & PEERS
Transportation and Traffic
Fred Cha, Principal-In-Charge
Robert (Rob) Hananouchi, Senior Transportation Planner
Jimmy Fong, Project Engineer
H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources
Brian Boroski, Principal, Wildlife Ecology
Daniel Duke, Associate, Regulatory Specialist
Doug Drynan, Senior Wildlife Ecologist

SIERRA VALLEY CULTURAL PLANNING
Cultural Resources
Kristina Roper, Archaeologist
Jon Brady, Architectural Historian

1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, California 94709
510.848.3815
www.placeworks.com
........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX A

N OTICE OF P REPARATION (NOP)

AND C OMMENTS ON THE NOP

........................................................................................................................

STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN Jr., Governor “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 6
1352 WEST OLIVE AVENUE
P.O. BOX 12616
FRESNO, CA 93778-2616
PHONE (559) 444-2493
FAX (559) 445-5875
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Serious drought.

Help save water!
April 14, 2017
06-FRE-GEN-GEN
City of Fresno
Southwest Specific Plan,
Notice of Preparation/
Environmental Impact Report
Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos
Planning Manager
City of Fresno, DARM Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3076
Fresno, California 93721
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:

We have completed our review of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Fresno’s Southwest Specific Plan. The Specific Plan Area is bounded by State Route (SR) 180 in the north and by SR 41 in the east. Caltrans has the following comments:

It is recognized that the EIR would include extensive evaluation of traffic and would recommend mitigation measures to both local and State facilities. Caltrans would request the opportunity to remain involved throughout this process. Caltrans will provide the traffic consultant with any traffic data available to us to assist them in the Transportation and Traffic section of the EIR. It is recommended that the traffic consultant provide a formal scope of work for our review and comment prior to conducting the traffic analysis. This information should include assumptions, modeling, forecasting, methodologies, etc.

If you have any further questions, please contact me at (559) 444-2493.

Sincerely,
DAVID PADILLA, Acting Chief
Planning South Branch
C: Michael Navarro, Caltrans, Planning North Chief

1 From: Keeza McCoy [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Southwestcomments
Subject: Draft Preferred Alternative
My name is Keeza McCoy & I'm a resident of West Fresno 93706. In regards to the plan

1. The dumps, meat facilities & any other contamination that has & is causing our environment to be toxic & polluted needs to be removed.

2. Redevelopment needs to happen around & in the neighborhoods/communities that already exist. We do not want eminent domain or the destruction of current homes to be destroyed/removed.

3. Funding should be allocated to homeowners to fix up their homes.

4. (Figure 6 map)A college in the area of Martin Luther King/Church to Mlk/Jensen is not needed in that area.

That will increase traffic & cause for the widening of the streets which will involve the removal of homes. This also goes against urban greening & adds more pollution due to the increase in traffic.

5. West Fresno is a farming area & that should remain.

6. Vacant & unoccupied lots need to be focused on in regards to wanting to build on the westside that will benefit the environment & its current residents.

7. Streets, sidewalks & bikelanes should be automatically maintained & made with our tax dollars not grant funding.

8. The steering committee Do Not Speak For The Community! There are those who aren't & never lived in our community & thats a conflict of interest.

9. My final thoughts on the Draft Alternative Southwest pacific plan is I DON'T AGREE WITH IT AT ALL! Also the community is not being adequately informed about meetings that are affecting us. If it takes the city going door to door to hand out fliers or put notices in the mailboxes so be it.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Attention: Sophia Pagoulatos
Planning Manager,City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department
Regarding: Environment Impact Report Scoping Comments
for the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
The public, particularly the citizens that reside within Southwest Fresno and the 93706 zip code, have the right to know and a chance to support or disagree with the final Southwest Specific Plan EIR before it is submitted to the state for approval. The EIR Scope needs to include not only the concerns of how the terrestrial and ecological environment will be impacted but must include how the people that currently live here will be affected by such changes.

Land Use and Planning:

It should be stated clearly in the Specific Plan when a citizen’s property has been rezoned differently than before the Plan existed. Each property owner should have the right to contest the zoning change.

Eminent Domain should not be allowed to be used to remove a citizen from his/her current property in any planning of the finalized Southwest Specific Plan.

Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Hazardous Materials The Darling Rendering Plant, the City’s Disposal sites and any other Major Industrial polluter must be Removed. It can no longer be ignored. These current polluters are creating more hazards than any planned incoming projects could ever create.

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Cultural and historical sites of Southwest Fresno should remain in place. For example, the Hinton Community Center, should be renovated but not removed as this has always been an important location for most African-American families who live in Southwest Fresno.

The churches, temples, synagogues should remain in place regardless of the changes in zoning.

Geology and Soils and Hydrology and Water Quality
Quality checks of the water and soil that will be used and built upon should be tested during all phases of construction so that we do not have any further poisoning of Southwest Fresno nor a “Flint, Michigan” situation.

Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The more trees and green spaces the better, however, the neglected and diseased state of all the trees and green spaces already within the residential neighborhoods are a severe hazard literally falling and luckily have not fatally fallen on a human. So, before spending resources on new green spaces, do not forget the needed resources for what is already in need of improvements.

A Tides Center Project
764 P Street, Suite 012, Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 369-2790
City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department Attn: Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
RE: Comments on the Scope of the Southwest Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on and suggestions for the scope and content of the Southwest Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”).

We appreciate the Department of Development and Resource Management’s receptiveness to the community’s and Steering Committee’s input as it relates to the Southwest Specific Plan (“SWSP”) and commend the City on adopting a SWSP Vision and Land Use Map that reflect the long-held desires of West Fresno residents for a healthy community with the infrastructure, services, and amenities necessary for residents to thrive. Through these comments, we aim to assist the City in developing an EIR that ensures that the SWSP’s vision for a thriving West Fresno is realized in a way that preserves and enhances environmental quality for current and future residents in accordance with the goals and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq. This letter therefore identifies potentially significant environmental impacts which may arise as a result of implementation of the Southwest Specific Plan and which residents have indicated should be addressed in the EIR.

1. Analyze and Mitigate Individually and Cumulatively Significant Impacts Arising from Existing Polluting Land Uses & New Development
The area encompassed by the SWSP is one of the most environmentally impacted communities in the entire state according to the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (“CalEnviroScreen” or “CES”) due to the concentrated location of numerous polluting and toxic land uses in and around the community coupled with the high vulnerability of the population to pollution. Decades of poor land use planning have left this community ridden with higher asthma rates, extraordinarily high infant mortality rates among the African American population, and a life expectancy 20 years less than other Fresno City zip codes, amongst other ails. The co-location of industrial facilities, agriculture, capped landfills, hazardous waste facilities, truck routes, and freeways with housing, schools, and parks have undermined residents’ and community development. The continued operation of existing polluting facilities as well as new development under that occurs under the SWSP will likely have individually and cumulatively significant impacts and must be analyzed and mitigated in the EIR. In particular, we recommend that the EIR include the following analysis and appropriate mitigation in order to comply with CEQA:

A Tides Center Project
764 P Street, Suite 012, Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 369-2790
• Toxic Air Contaminant emissions from existing land uses and with SWSP build out with an accompanying risk assessment to evaluate cancer risks and other health hazards
• Exposure of children, the elderly, and other sensitive receptors to objectionable odors resulting from existing land uses and associated vehicle traffic and SWSP build out that may be perceived beyond the property lines of the facilities generating the odors
• Exceedances of air quality plans resulting from existing land uses and with SWSP build out
• Air quality and noise impacts resulting from construction under the SWSP • Health impacts of existing and increased air quality emissions These analyses should examine the impacts not only of stationary sources of emissions but also vehicles and trucks associated with particular land uses. West Fresno is currently burdened by the passage of large trucks through the community that carry animal carcases and by-products, live animals, and other noxious materials. These trucks pass alongside homes, emitting horrendous odors, particulate matter 2.5, and other diesel emissions which put residents’ health and safety at risk and undermine the quality of life in West Fresno. Census tracts in West Fresno rank as high as the 97th percentile under CES 3.0 for diesel emissions as a result of the cumulative truck traffic in the community.

The EIR must consider and adopt appropriate mitigation for each individually and cumulatively significant environmental impact identified. Potential mitigation strategies which we recommend that the Plan consider include the following:
• Incentives and/or requirements for local hiring within the West Fresno community for construction projects and new employment opportunities in order to reduce air emissions resulting from commute traffic into West Fresno. • Adoption of proactive neighborhood greening measures in accordance with SWSP Guiding Policy 12.
• Completion of the Industrial Compatibility Assessment to identify a comprehensive strategy to mitigate pollution from existing industrial land use, including through pollution-reduction measures applicable to existing facilities, neighborhood greening, and selective amortization and relocation of noxious land uses.
• Enforcement of laws and regulations prohibiting vehicle idling • Expansion and improvement of public transit services in West Fresno, including BRT, route extensions and connection to the Downtown transit hub, fare reductions and waivers, as well as the availability of other innovative and costeffective transportation options, such as ride sharing, to reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled (“VMT”) and installations of electric charging stations to promote electric vehicle uses.

A Tides Center Project
764 P Street, Suite 012, Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 369-2790
• Expansion and improvement of active transportation options in West Fresno, such as sidewalks, street lights, stormwater drainage, and bike lanes, to improve connectivity between housing and key destinations and reduce VMTs. • Re-routing truck routes to avoid sensitive receptors (i.e., homes, schools, community spaces, etc.) and/or requiring or including incentives for trucks to meet clean emissions standards that pass through the plan area. • Ensure meaningful community engagement through the Transformative Climate Communities Program to have community-driven projects that could potentially mitigate environmental impacts

2. Analyze and Mitigate Potential Physical and Economic Displacement of Existing Residents
Housing is a critical factor in the assessment of the Project’s impacts on the environment. Having suitable sites and available affordable housing options throughout the Plan area will ensure that impacts such as VMT reductions, air quality improvement, reduction of greenhouse gases, traffic, and other environmental impacts will be mitigated. However, if proper precautions and proactive measures aren’t taken in this vulnerable community, displacement will happen preventing existing families to reap the benefits of this community-driven plan.

Physical and economic displacement will result in significant environmental impacts which require analysis and mitigation. C.C.R. § 15064(e). Residents forced to move from areas with planned high quality transit will be forced to rely on personal vehicles which have direct correlations to increased VMT, traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, and worsened air quality. Additionally, displacement will result in significant social and economic costs to already financially burdened populations. This will include, but not limited to increased transportation costs to lower income residents, decreased access to employment opportunities, and social and economic dislocation.

Feasible mitigation efforts can include, but not limited to requiring all new residential development to include at least 30% of residential units affordable to low, very-low, and extremely-low income populations. Additionally, adopting measures such as rent stabilization ordinance to prevent rent increases of more than 15% over a 3-year period, or just cause eviction policies. Require right of first refusal policies that provide current tenants the opportunity to buy a property before it’s sold to a third party. Lastly, the city could do an implementation of nexus study and mitigation fees to promote and secure adequate affordable housing development.

To conclude, hundreds of residents were involved in the basis of what the SWSP should result in, and being able to breathe clean air and live healthier lives is a prominent priority for them. This plan reflects just that, however, with existing industrial uses continuing to pollute the community, the EIR should thoroughly analyze those uses and identify proactive measures to mitigate them. We appreciate the opportunity to comment and look forward to continue working together. If you have any questions in respect to these comments, you can contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
A Tides Center Project
764 P Street, Suite 012, Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 369-2790
/s/
Grecia A. Elenes

A Tides Center Project
764 P Street, Suite 012, Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 369-2790

........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX B

S OUTHWEST F RESNO S PECIFIC

P LAN - P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
........................................................................................................................

SOUTHWEST FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • MAY 2017

CITY OF FRESNO

SOUTHWEST FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • MAY 2017
Alternate formats of this document will be provided by the City upon request.

To request alternate formats contact
Shannon M. Mulhall, Certified Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator at (559) 621-8716.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN

CITY OF FRESNO

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CITY COUNCIL
Oliver L. Baines III
Steve Brandau
Garry Bredefeld
Paul Caprioglio
Luis Chavez
Clint Olivier
Esmeralda Soria

PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairperson Serop Torossian
Vice Chair Rojelio Vasquez
Cary Catalano
Kathy Bray
Lawrence Garcia
Jaime Holt
Randy Reed
Tate Hill
Michaelynn Lewis
Maria Lizaldo
Donna Middleton
Eric Payne
John Pestorich
Jeffrey Roberts
Leoncio Vasquez Santos
Ashley Werner
Sharon Williams
Peng Yang

STEERING COMMITTEE
Thomas W. Beggs
Alex Belanger
Jane Carretero
Shaneece Childress
Esther Cuevas
Mary Curry
Debbie Darden
Juan Esquivel
Marta Frausto
Sylvesta M. Hall
Marina Harutyunyan

CITY MANAGEMENT
Jennifer Clark, Development and Resource
Management Director
Gregory Barfield, Chief of Staff of Oliver L.

Baines III - District 3

PROJECT STAFF
Sophia Pagoulatos, Project Manager
Talia Kolluri, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Drew Wilson, Planner
Michelle Zumwalt, Architect

CONSULTANT TEAM
Bruce Brubaker, PlaceWorks
Janet Chang, PlaceWorks
Rosemary Dudley, PlaceWorks
Steve Gunnells, PlaceWorks
Mark Hoffman, PlaceWorks
Peter Quintanilla, PlaceWorks
Steve Rasmussen Cancian, Shared Spaces
Lucio Avila, Centro La Familia
Margarita Rocha, Centro La Familia
Robert Mitchell
Fred Choa, Fehr & Peers
Jimmy Fong, Fehr & Peers
Robert Hananouchi, Fehr & Peers
Henry Delcore, Pop-Up Design & Development
Marci Lopez, Pop-Up Design & Development
Kiel Schmidt, Pop-Up Design & Development
William Cardinal, Blair, Church & Flynn
Jon Palsgaard, Blair, Church & Flynn
Cordie Qualle, Blair, Church & Flynn

Southwest Fresno Specific Plan | Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PLAN INTRODUCTION 1-1
A. Plan Area and Boundaries 1-2
B. Why Plan Southwest Fresno? 1-6
C. Community Environmental Health 1-9
D. Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Community Engagement 1-17 E. Plan Structure and Content 1-19

2. VISION 2-1
A. Introduction 2-1
B. Guiding Principles 2-2
C. Specific Plan Land Use Vision 2-5

3. LAND USE 3-1
A. Introduction 3-1
B. Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Land Uses 3-2
C. Development Capacity Analysis 3-10
D. Goals and Policies 3-12

4. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 4-1
A. Introduction 4-1
B. Use Regulations 4-2
C. Kearney Boulevard Historic Corridor Overlay 4-5
D. California Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor Overlay 4-8
E. Objectives for Special Corridors, Magnet Cores, and Complete Neighborhoods 4-9 F. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design 4-12

5. TRANSPORTATION 5-1
A. Introduction 5-1
B. Transportation Improvements 5-2
C. Complete Streets Design Guidelines 5-13
D. Goals and Policies 5-23

6. PUBLIC FACILITIES 6-1
A. Introduction 6-1
B. Parks and Open Space 6-1
C. Education 6-8
D. Other Public Facilities 6-10
E. Goals and Policies 6-11

7. UTILITIES 7-1
A. Introduction 7-1
B. Wet Utilities Needs Analysis and Improvements 7-3
C. Dry Utilities Needs Analysis and Improvements 7-12
D. Communications 7-12
E. Goals and Policies 7-13

8. IMPLEMENTATION 8-1
A. Introduction 8-1
B. General Implementation Strategy 8-2
C. Funding and Financing Tools 8-3
D. Economic Development Strategies 8-10
E. Implementation Action Plan 8-17
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan | Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1 Regional Location Map 1-3
FIGURE 1-2 Plan Area Map 1-4
FIGURE 1-3 Context Map 1-5
FIGURE 1-4 Healthy Community Framework 1-11
FIGURE 2-1 Conceptual Vision for Southwest Fresno 2-6
FIGURE 2-2 Conceptual Diagram of Development
within a Complete Neighborhood 2-7
FIGURE 2-3 Conceptual Diagram of Development along a Corridor 2-8 FIGURE 2-4 Conceptual Diagram of Development around a Magnet Core 2-11 FIGURE 3-1 Land Use Map with Conceptual Overlays, including SOI 3-3 FIGURE 3-2 Land Use Map for Plan Area 3-4
FIGURE 3-3 Dual Land Use Designation Map for Plan Area 3-5 FIGURE 3-4 Opportunity Sites in the Plan Area and Existing Development 3-11 FIGURE 4-1 Land Uses with Overlays, Special Corridors, Magnet Cores, & Neighborhood Nodes 4-7
FIGURE 5-1 Existing and Planned Sidewalk Network 5-3
FIGURE 5-2 Existing and Planned Bicycle and Trail Network 5-5 FIGURE 5-3 North Avenue Long-term Alternative Cross Section:

Class II Buffered Bike Lanes 5-6
FIGURE 5-4 Existing and Potential Transit Routes 5-7
FIGURE 5-5 Existing and Planned Number of Roadway Lanes 5-9 FIGURE 5-6 Existing, Planned, and Recommended Truck Routes 5-11 FIGURE 5-7 Zones on a Sidewalk 5-14
FIGURE 5-8 High-visibility Crosswalk Types 5-15
FIGURE 5-9 Bike Lockers 5-22
FIGURE 5-10 Bike Corral 5-22
FIGURE 5-11 Bike Rack Spacing 5-22
FIGURE 6-1 Residential Areas Served by Existing and New Parks 6-5 FIGURE 6-2 Schools and School Districts 6-9
FIGURE 7-1 Proposed Water Improvements 7-4
FIGURE 7-2 Proposed Wastewater Improvements 7-7
FIGURE 7-3 Proposed Recycled Water Improvements 7-9
FIGURE 7-4 Proposed Stormwater Improvements 7-10

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1-1 Health Profile of Southwest Fresno: Current Health Conditions of Adults 1-10 TABLE 1-2 Health Profile of Southwest Fresno: Current Health Conditions of Children 1-10 TABLE 1-3 Health Profile of Southwest Fresno: Risk Factors 1-10 TABLE 3-1 Development Capacities for the Plan Area 3-10 TABLE 4-1 Office Restricted (O-No Auto) Use Regulations in the Specific Plan vs. Base Zoning 4-4
TABLE 6-1 Existing Parkland Inventory Counted Toward the General Plan’s 3 Acres per 1,000 Residents Standard 6-3
TABLE 6-2 Essential and Recommended Park Amenities 6-7
TABLE 7-1 Total Acreage by Land Use Classification for General Plan (GP) and Specific Plan (SP) 7-2
TABLE 7-2 Comparison of General Plan (GP) and Specific Plan (SP) Anticipated Water Usage per Land Use Classification 7-5 TABLE 7-3 Comparison of General Plan (GP) and Specific Plan (SP) Anticipated Wastewater Usage per Land Use Classification 7-8 TABLE 7-4 Comparison of Existing and Required Basin Volumes for General Plan (GP) and Specific Plan (SP) 7-11
TABLE 8-1 Estimated Wet Infrastructure Costs 8-3
TABLE 8-2 Implementation Action Plan Matrix: Community Resources 8-18 TABLE 8-3 Implementation Action Plan Matrix: Economic Development 8-18 TABLE 8-4 Implementation Action Plan Matrix: Infrastructure 8-20 TABLE 8-5 Implementation Action Plan Matrix: Mobility 8-21 TABLE 8-6 Implementation Action Plan Matrix: Parks 8-24 Chapter 1 | Plan Introduction 1-1
PLAN

INTRODUCTION
The Southwest Fresno Specific Plan (the Plan)
marks a historic milestone for the Southwest
Fresno community. Southwest Fresno has a rich
history and culture and many residents have deep
ties to their community and are proud to call
Southwest Fresno their home. With ample land
available for development and a prime location
next to Fresno’s downtown, Southwest Fresno has
great potential.

For many years, however, Southwest Fresno has
been overlooked as a neighborhood suitable for
high quality development. The residents have long
advocated for equitable consideration in citywide
development and the implementation of improvements that will preserve the community’s assets as well as enhance the community’s image and
quality. The community’s determination and passion have fueled incremental changes and previous planning efforts, which have ultimately led to this
critical specific planning process. The Plan acts as a
key step for putting into motion positive change for
the community, guiding future public and private
development to transform Southwest Fresno into a
vibrant, attractive, and valuable area.

The purpose of a Specific Plan is to develop
policies, programs, regulations, and guidelines
to implement the jurisdiction’s adopted General
Plan. A Specific Plan effectively establishes a link
between implementing policies of the General
Plan and the individual development proposals
in a defined area. The Plan implements the goals
and policies set forth in the City of Fresno General
Plan (General Plan) by building upon its concepts
for the Southwest Development Area. The Plan
also includes ideas and measures that have been
extensively tailored and reviewed by the Southwest
Fresno community and stakeholders. The Plan
provides guiding principles, policies, development criteria, and implementation strategies 1 to coordinate private development and public
improvements given the unique opportunities and
characteristics of this important part of the city of
Fresno.
1-2 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
A. PLAN AREA AND

BOUNDARIES
The area addressed by the Plan lies within the
southwestern most part of the city of Fresno,
within Fresno County (see Figure 1-1). The Specific
Plan Area (Plan Area) is bounded by Highway 180
in the north and by Highway 41 in the east. It
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 General
Plan (see Figure 1-2). The county land in the SOI
is anticipated to become part of the city of Fresno
in the future. The following maps and graphics
show and consider the SOI as a matter of good
planning, but the scope of the project, including
the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), will focus
on the Plan Area only. However, as shown in Figure
1-2, there is one area in the SOI that is part of the
Plan Area: the Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard
(MLK) Activity Center. The MLK Activity Center was
identified in the Fresno General Plan as a higher
density neighborhood district that would serve
the Southwest Development Area, established
neighborhoods in Southwest Fresno, and areas
beyond Southwest Fresno and the city. Although
the MLK Activity Center is currently located on SOI
land, it was included into the Plan Area because of
its proximity to the Plan Area and its role in providing retail and services to the Southwest Fresno community.

Other plan areas are located within the larger Plan
Area (see Figure 1-3), including:
■ The Highway 41 + North Corridor Complete
Streets Plan, in which the plan area is
bounded by Elm Avenue, Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard/ Fig Avenue, Annadale Avenue, Roy
Avenue, and Clara Avenue.
■ A future planning process for the Elm Avenue
Areawide Brownfields Plan falls primarily within
the Plan Area.

Fresno Chandler Executive Airport located just outside
of the Plan Area along Whites Bridge Avenue.

Downtown Fresno seen from the Plan Area.

Undeveloped land make up a large amount of the
Plan Area and SOI.

Chapter 1 | Plan Introduction 1-3
FRESNO
CLOVIS
SANGER

PARLIER

REEDLEY
ORANGE
COVE
FOWLER
SELMA
SIERRA

NATIONAL
FOREST

PINE FLAT LAKE

MILLERTON LAKE
MADERA
COUNTY
TULARE
COUNTY
41 41
168
41 99
41 99
180
99 43
168
180
180
180
145
KERMAN

FRESNO-CLOVIS

REGIONAL

WASTEWATER

RECLAMATION

FACILITY
0 1.5mi 1.5mi
FIGURE 1-1 Regional Location Map
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Area
City Limit
Fresno County
Source: City of Fresno
FIGURE 1-1 Regional Location Map
FRESNO
CLOVIS
SANGER

PARLIER

REEDLEY
FOWLER
SELMA

MILLERTON LAKE
MADERA
COUNTY
TU
CO
41 41
168
41 99
41 99
180
99 43
168
180
145
KERMAN

FRESNO-CLOVIS

REGIONAL

WASTEWATER

RECLAMATION

FACILITY
0 1.5mi 1.5mi
FIGURE 1-1 Regional Location Map
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Area
City Limit
Fresno County
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

TUOLUMNE S
A ST

STANISL

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

BLOSSER AVE

AMADOR ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE
KERN

HA B ITAT A VE

STROTHER AVE
G

ILA AVE

FAIRVIEW AVE
CA
B ST

LORENA AVE
BURNS

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

BELG RAV IAAVE

DELNOAVE
E

LEMON AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

COLLINS AVE

HAWESAVE

WELLER ST

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE
BYRD

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

CHURCH AVE
GARR

FLORENCE AVE

T E IL M A N I C R

FARRIS AVE

MADISON AVE

AIRPORT RD

LAFAYETTE AVE
SAMS

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

HUGHES AVE

TRINITY ST

THORNE AVE

MODOC ST

CHANNING
WAY

BARDELL ST

POTTLE AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE

LA S IERRA DR

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE
NOR
ALM
RO

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
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE
Chapter 1 | Plan Introduction 1-5
41 41
168
41 99
41 99
180
99 43
168
180
180
CSU
Fresno
Fresno Yosemite
International
Airport
Fresno
Chaffee
Zoo
Fresno
Chandler
Executive
Airport

DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS COMMUNITY PLAN

FULTON CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN

ELM AVENUE AREAWIDE

BROWNFIELDS PLAN
HWY 41 + NORTH CORRIDOR

DOWNTOWN NEI

FULTON CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN

ELM AVENUE AREAWIDE

BROWNFIELDS PLAN
HWY 41 + NORTH CORRIDOR

COMPLETE STREETS PLAN
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
City Limit
Fulton Corridor Specific Plan Area
Elm Avenue Areawide
Brownfields Plan Area
Highway 41 + North Corridor
Complete Streets Plan Area Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan Area
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Area
FIGURE 1-3 Context Map
1-6 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
B. WHY PLAN SOUTHWEST
FRESNO?
Although Southwest Fresno is an area with strong
community identity and character, it is one of the
highest poverty and most environmentally-at-risk
areas in California. It ranks poorly statewide for
communities that are disproportionately burdened
by multiple sources of pollution, such as air
pollution, toxic sites, former landfills, and other
environmental pollutants, and with population
characteristics that make them more sensitive to
pollution.1
Many of these issues are related to
the disinvestment that the west part of Fresno
has suffered from since the early 1900s. Historically, racially discriminatory policies segregated ethnic communities to this part of Fresno. Quality
development in Southwest Fresno and some
other parts of Fresno was discouraged through
redlining. Redlining describes the process by which
financial institutions classified neighborhoods into
categories from most to least desirable, with red
colored areas indicating the areas that were least
desirable.2
As a result, west Fresno had difficulties
attracting quality development, and instead,
became a magnet for siting heavy industrial
facilities and low-cost housing.

Initially agricultural land, Southwest Fresno has
gradually transitioned with more residential, industrial, and commercial uses sprinkled throughout.

Today, Southwest Fresno is made up of a patchwork
of land uses that abut each other, including
subdivisions, industry, and farmland. For example,
many pockets of residential land uses are adjacent
to vacant land, agriculture, and/or industrial uses.

As a result, incompatible land uses are located near
one another, including noise or odor-producing
industrial facilities, land with hazardous materials,
as well as along truck routes. 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 suburban neighborhoods with desired
commercial and retail services.
1 CalEnviroScreen Version 3.0, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency. 2 Diana Aguilera, “Rare Maps Reveal Fresno’s Overlooked History of Segregation,” Valley Public Radio News, October 27, 2015, http://kvpr.org/post/rare-maps-reveal-fresnos-overlooked-historysegregation#stream/0 (accessed April 13, 2017).

Industrial businesses are located in close proximity to residential neighborhoods.

Southwest Fresno’s housing stock is predominantly
single-family.

Much of Southwest Fresno is used for agricultural
purposes.

Chapter 1 | Plan Introduction 1-7

OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS
This Plan serves as the first major planning effort
and environmental review to focus on major issues
such as land use planning, development and
design, parks and open space, transportation, and
utilities for the Southwest Fresno area. However,
Southwest Fresno residents and stakeholders have
expressed a long-time interest in improving the
conditions of Southwest Fresno. Many previous
planning efforts and programs have helped set the
stage for the initiation of the Plan as described.

Planning-related Documents Adopted by
the City
■ Southwest Fresno General Neighborhood
Renewal Area Redevelopment Plan (1969).

The Southwest Fresno General Neighborhood
Renewal Area Redevelopment Plan (GNRA) was
adopted in 1969 and amended several times,
most recently in 2010. The GNRA project area
partially overlaps the Plan Area, including the
areas located between the Fresno Chandler
Executive Airport and Church Avenue as well
as the Elm and North Avenue corridors. The
purpose of the GNRA is to eliminate blight,
improve economic conditions, and ensure
development potential and growth within the
project area.
■ Edison Community Plan (1977). The Edison
Community Plan was adopted by the Fresno
City Council in 1977. The plan primarily
focuses on the underutilized portion of the
planning area, which is generally located
to the west of Golden State Boulevard and
south of West Belmont Avenue, and bounded
on the north and east by large industrial
concentrations and on the south and west
by agricultural areas. Historically, Southwest
Fresno suffered from racially discriminatory
deed restrictions, which were also practiced
outside the Southwest Fresno. Given its age,
the Edison Community Plan may not seem
as relevant. Surprisingly, some conditions in
the area have not changed. Over the years,
the ethnic composition has varied. Given the
discrepancies between physical conditions and
socio-economic development in the area, the
Edison Community Plan aimed to stimulate the
long-term balanced growth of the community
based on three objectives related to public
facilities improvements, housing, and economic
and employment development. Key areas for
change include the intersection of California
Avenue and Fresno Street/Walnut Avenue for
a new community center area and expanded
local commercial services; Elm Avenue for land
use, aesthetic, and economic improvements;
and the northern section of Fresno Street from
the proposed community center for centralized
office and professional services. Other areas
recommended for change identified in the
plan’s elements include the intersection of B
Street and Ventura Avenue for senior facilities
and the intersection of B and Stanislaus Streets
for more commercial services.
■ Fresno General Plan (2014). The Fresno
General Plan, adopted in 2014, establishes a
vision for the city and creates a set of policies
and implementation actions to achieve the
community’s vision. The Plan Area is identified
as “Development Area 1-South (DA-1 South)”
and only includes land within the city’s limits,
with the exception of the SOI land defined as
the MLK Activity Center. DA-1 South is adjacent
to established neighborhoods such as the
Downtown Planning Area to the north, the
South Industrial Area to the east, and adjacent
to Development Area 1-West (DA-1 West) to
the north. The SOI adjacent to the Plan Area
is called “Growth Area 1.” The General Plan
envisions “complete neighborhoods,” which
are neighborhoods that connect housing, jobs,
retail, recreation, and services, replacing the
current hodgepodge of industrial, agricultural,
and residential land-use patterns with
neighborhood-scale development. An example
of a complete neighborhood envisioned by
the General Plan is located along the future
California Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
corridor, anchored by a regional shopping
center and community park between Church
and Jensen Avenues along Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard. In addition to the emphasis
on complete neighborhoods, the City of
Fresno has worked with the Building Healthy
1-8 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Communities (BHC) campaign, which is led
by the California Endowment and strives to
provide disadvantaged communities with
equitable access to resources that improve
health. To support healthy community
initiatives, the General Plan provides land use
and urban design policies to increase access to
physical exercise and fresh food.
■ Citywide Development Code Update (2015).

The City recently updated the Citywide
Development Code, which addresses
development in all areas of the city and serves
as a vehicle that helps implement the goals,
objectives, and policies of the General Plan and
other operative plans. It functions as a precise
guide for the physical development of the City
that is in concert with the arrangement of
land uses identified in the General Plan. The
Citywide Development Code provides direction
on eleven types of districts: Buffer District,
Residential Single-Family Districts, Residential
Multi-Family Districts, Mixed-Use Districts,
Commercial Districts, Employment Districts,
Public and Semi-Public Districts, Planned
Development District, Bluff Protection Overlay
District, and Expressway Area Overlay District.

The Plan references the Citywide Development
Code for its development regulations and
design guidelines for the Plan Area.

Other Plans and Programs
While the plans and programs described below are
not adopted land use plans, they reflect the desires
of the Southwest Fresno community.
■ West Fresno Community Vision Plan (2003).

The West Fresno Community Vision Plan was
prepared bythe Local Government Commission
and Fresno West Coalition for Economic
Development (FWCED), which included a
charrette to develop the plan. About 300
people participated in the charrette to create
a shared vision for an improved quality of life
in West Fresno, including ideas about a more
walkable, livable, and economically viable
community. The plan includes village centers
with mixed uses, infill of vacant lots, blight
remediation, and traffic calming.
■ California Avenue Neighborhood Plan
(2003). The California Avenue Neighborhood
Plan was prepared by the Fresno Housing
Authority and builds upon the 2003 West
Fresno Community Vision Plan, focusing
on future growth, development, and
investment in West Fresno, particularly around
California and Walnut Avenues. The plan’s
implementation recommendations are grouped
into four categories: continuing community
engagement, private development, public
agency development, and public investment.

The plan provides design guidelines for
developers and recommends specific land use
changes, such as introducing mixed use and
higher density along California Avenue, green
buffers between residential and industrial
uses, and the designation of an activity center.

The plan identifies four catalyst projects that
would transform the neighborhood and bring
private development to the area. The plan
recommends specific street, streetscape,
pedestrian, and bicycle improvements,
as well as recreational and public facility
improvements.
■ West Fresno Asset Map Project (2009). In
2009, the City of Fresno, West Fresno Coalition
for Economic Development and the California
Endowment worked together to assess West
Fresno’s assets and create a five-year plan of
action. At the end of the process, a list of 20
actions were identified, which included fasttracking and coordinating new development, balancing affordable and market rate housing
development, and increasing mixed-use, infill
development, particularly on abandoned
properties; attracting businesses to the area
and building relationships with the existing
business community; improving financial
literacy and promoting higher education/
training for residents; increasing funding for
area schools and developing a new middle
school; coordinating and promoting social and
faith-based services to share resources and
avoid duplication; developing a health clinic;
and hosting events that promote the area’s
cultural diversity. Actions completed thus far
include construction of Gaston Middle School
and construction of a new health care facility
(Clinic Sierra Vista).

Chapter 1 | Plan Introduction 1-9
■ Action and Change (2013). Action and Change/
Acción y Cambio is a resident leadership group
for Southwest Fresno that works to identify the
top-most community priorities and conducts
surveys to assess the existing status of these
priorities, such as neighborhood safety and
economic success for residents.
■ Highway 41 + North Corridor Complete
Streets Plan (2015). The City recently
completed a Complete Streets Plan within
the Plan Area. The effort involves improving
the infrastructure in the Highway 41 and
North Corridor area and addressing current
conflicts between truck traffic and the area’s
neighborhoods. It identifies opportunities for
pedestrian, bicycle, and open space amenities.

The land use and circulation recommendations
from the plan are integrated into the
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan.

Future Planning Efforts
■ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Brownfields Elm Avenue Areawide Plan. The
City is commencing a planning process for Elm
Avenue, which falls primarily within the Plan
Area, to address three brownfield sites which
can serve as catalysts for redevelopment.
■ Industrial Land Use Compatibility Study.

This assessment will address concerns about
incompatible industrial and heavy commercial
land uses and zoning, particularly in south
Fresno neighborhoods, and their negative
health and environmental impacts on the
community. The goals of the project include
identifying incompatible land uses and zoning
with nearby residential land uses, making
recommendations for rezoning and facilities
which should be phased out or relocated,
discussing appropriate locations for these uses,
and identifying feasible mitigation measures
and greening opportunities to reduce their
negative impacts. The Industrial Land Use
Compatibility Study has been directed to be
completed within a year of the adoption of the
Plan’s land use map (see Chapter 3, Land Use,
Section D, Policy LU-8.5).

C. COMMUNITY

ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH
This section describes the existing conditions
of community health related to physical health,
community design, and the natural environment
in Southwest Fresno, and is in keeping with the
Healthy Communities Element in the Fresno
General Plan. Many of the Plan’s chapters touch
upon community health issues and provide
recommendations for improvement; however, this
section highlights how the Plan’s topics such as
land use, transportation, and public facilities relate
to and ultimately influence the community health
and well-being of Southwest Fresno residents.

This section includes a snapshot of the regulatory
framework, existing health conditions, key issues
that impact health, and the Plan’s goals and
policies that can improve the health of Southwest
Fresno residents.

EXISTING HEALTH CONDITIONS
Southwest Fresno residents have long experienced
poorer health than other places in California.

However, information documenting the health and
service needs of Southwest Fresno residents is
generally limited. Hospital community health needs
assessments were available only for a four-county
area and therefore of limited applicability to Southwest Fresno. In addition, the Fresno County Public Health Department could provide only limited data
until access to the California Department of Public
Health records is provided. The California Endowment’s BHC Initiative had data for its project area (Central, Southeast, and Southwest Fresno), while
the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) had
limited information on a zip code basis. As such,
this assessment relies on a variety of sources to
provide a health portrait for Southwest Fresno.

Tables 1-1 to 1-3 provide a summary of key health
indicators. Generally, adults and children within
Southwest Fresno experience poorer health conditions than residents of Fresno County and State of California. Adults have significantly higher rates of
diabetes, asthma, fair to poor health conditions,
1-10 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan

SOUTHWEST
FRESNO

CITY OF
FRESNO
FRESNO
COUNTY

STATE OF

CALIFORNIA
Diabetes: Adults Ever Diagnosed with Diabetes1 10.8% 8.3% 8.7% 8.4% Health Status: Percentage of Adults 18-64 in Fair
to Poor Health1 26.3% 22.5% 22.1% 17.9%
Obesity: Percentage of Adults 18-64 Who are
Obese1 31.8% 28.5% 29.1% 24.8%
Asthma: Percent of Adults 18+ Diagnosed with
Asthma1 16,7% 18.3% 17.9% 13.7%
TABLE 1-1 Health Profile of Southwest Fresno: Current Health Conditions of Adults Sources for Tables 8-1 to 8-3:

1. Source: California Health Interview Survey, Neighborhood Edition.

2. Source: California Attorney General Office, 2014; City of Fresno Police Department, 2014.

3. Source: American Community Survey, 2009-2013.
“N/A” indicates data not available.

SOUTHWEST
FRESNO

CITY OF
FRESNO
FRESNO
COUNTY

STATE OF

CALIFORNIA
Diabetes: Percentage of Children Diagnosed
with Diabetes1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Health Status: Percentage of Children in Fair to
Poor Health1 N/A 7.6% 8.0% 6.0%
Overweight: Percentage of Children Ages 12-17
Who are Overweight/Obese1 N/A 38.1% 37.1% 32.4%
Asthma: Percent of Children Ages 0-17 Diagnosed with Asthma1 N/A 21.2% 19.8% 15.4% TABLE 1-2 Health Profile of Southwest Fresno: Current Health Conditions of Children

SOUTHWEST
FRESNO

CITY OF
FRESNO
FRESNO
COUNTY

STATE OF

CALIFORNIA
Poverty: Percentage of Adults Living in Poverty1 34.1% 22.3% 19.9% 13.0% Poverty: Percentage of Children Living in Poverty1 54.0% 38.1% 35.0% 20.9% Smoking: Percentage of Adults Ages 18+ Who
Currently Smoke1 16.6% 16.3% 15.5% 13.8%
Smoking Among Children: Percentage of Children Who Currently Smoke1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Adults: Percentage of Adults Ages 18-64 Who are
Not Insured1 27.1% 22.3% 22.4% 21.4%
Children: Percentage of Children Who are Not
Insured1 N/A 8.4% 8.5% 4.2%
Violent Crimes per 100,000 Residents2 696 463 476 394
Property Crimes per 100,000 Residents2 3.226 4,148 3,407 2,459 Adults Ages 18+ Who Did Not Graduate from
High School or Receive a GED3 43.7% 24.7% 26.3% 18.7%
Population Ages 16+ Who were Unemployed
(2009-2013)3 17.8% 15.7% 14.5% 11.5%
TABLE 1-3 Health Profile of Southwest Fresno: Risk Factors Chapter 1 | Plan Introduction 1-11
and obesity. Although relatively little data is
available for youth, anecdotal evidence and limited
surveys show that children also experience poorer
health outcomes than their peers in the county and
California.

ISSUES
The aforementioned studies provide evidence
that the City and County of Fresno, and the San
Joaquin Valley as a whole, are known for a number
of conditions that are less conducive to health
and wellness. The physical way communities are
designed, the presence of environmental hazards
(air, water, and soil), the availability of health
care facilities and services, and other features all
combine to present significant challenges to health
and well-being. In Southwest Fresno, many of
these environmental and social features converge,
making it impractical and ineffective to isolate and
focus on singular contributors to health.

Addressing the health of Southwest Fresno
involves more than medical care. In fact, achieving
community health must also address underlying
social, economic, and environmental factors (often
referred to as “upstream influences”) within
communities. While some of these influences can
have an immediate impact on community health
(such as air pollution), other factors are long-term
and shape the choices or behaviors of community
members (such as accessible parks).

In response to the health concerns affecting people
across the nation, many cities have developed a
local healthy community program or implemented
specific policies to improve health and wellbeing.

Generally, a healthy community is one that offers
a positive physical, social, natural, and economic
environment that supports the health and wellbeing of all its members and enables them to live to their fullest potential.

A comprehensive healthy community framework
should include at least the following four areas, as
they each directly affect community environmental
health, described below and shown in Figure 1-4.
§ Natural Environment—where clean air, clean
water, and soil free from hazards provide a
healthful environment for residents of all ages
and the environment.
§ Community Design—where the type, location,
and quality of land uses, parks, housing,
and transportation are mutually designed to
support health.
§ Social Environment—where schools, homes,
workplaces, and communities support healthy
choices and the underlying conditions that
support health.
§ Health Care Access—where quality health
services and facilities are affordable, accessible,
and culturally appropriate for residents.

The following subsections describe Southwest
Fresno’s community health issues related to each
of the fields above. The Plan strives to address
these issues through specific goals and policies
and other regulations or guidelines in its chapters,
which are referenced after each sub-issue below
in orange. These goals and policies below work in
tandem with the Healthy Communities Element
in the Fresno General Plan and are intended to
help Southwest Fresno work towards becoming a
healthy community.

FIGURE 1-4 Healthy Community Framework
1-12 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Natural Environment
Environmental conditions are clearly linked to a
community’s health and well-being. This includes
the levels of air pollution, water pollutants,
hazardous wastes, pesticides released, waste
disposal sites, and other sources of pollution. The
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA), on behalf of the California Environmental
Protection Agency (CalEPA) has created the
CalEnviroScreen tool. This tool is designed to help
identify communities disproportionately burdened
by environmental pollution.

The Plan Area ranks as one of the most polluted
areas in California, scoring in the 90th to 99th
percentile statewide for communities statewide
that are disproportionately burdened by multiple
sources of pollution and with population characteristics that make them more sensitive to pollution.

Air pollution, toxic sites, former landfills, and
other environmental pollutants contribute to this
poor ranking. The Plan’s EIR will further document
environmental hazards and suggest remediation
in the Plan Area. A review of City documents,
“Cortese List,” and available databases revealed the
following concerns:
■ Air Pollution. According to the American Lung
Association, the Fresno-Madera region is one
of the more polluted regions in California,
and received a grade of “F” for air quality.

Although improvements have been made due
to regulations on diesel particulate matter and
other pollutants, Southwest Fresno ranks as
an area with some of the highest levels of air
pollution (ozone, particulate matter, and diesel
particulate matter among others) throughout
California. Air pollution is particularly a concern
for children, seniors, and people with poor
health.
■ Toxic Emissions. CalEnviroScreen ranks census
tracts according to the level and toxicity of
pollutants emitted by stationary sources
(industrial sources) throughout California. US
EPA uses a computer-based screening tool
called Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
(RSEI) that analyzes these releases to the air
and models potential toxic exposures. The RSEI
does not model actual exposures to residents
or sensitive receptors, only the presence
of chemical releases that are considered
unhealthful.
■ Groundwater Quality. The Fresno water
system is complex, with multiple sources,
treatment, and delivery methods. While
city drinking water meets the primary and
secondary standards for municipal use,
contaminants are present that must be
treated or removed prior to consumption. Of
the City’s 272 groundwater wells, 96 wells
are impacted by one contaminant plume,
33 wells are impacted by two contaminant
plumes, and five wells are impacted by three
contaminant plumes. Eight wells supply water
to Southwest Fresno. Nitrate contamination
is the most prevalent, but all eight wells meet
municipal water standards as noted above.

Nitrate contamination is caused by septic
tanks, wineries, major farming operations,
and agricultural chemical formulating plants.

Several areas in Southwest Fresno remain
unsewered.
■ Hazardous Sites. In Southwest Fresno, several
contaminated sites have released hazardous
materials that required remediation and
involvement by State and federal agencies. The
Fresno Sanitary Landfill is a federal Superfund
site. Hyde Park, Fresno Battery, Fresno Drum,
and Commercial Electroplaters 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
Southwest Fresno area has had numerous
leaking underground storage tanks, but
cleanup activities have been completed to the
vast majority of the sites.

The Plan addresses Southwest Fresno’s polluted
natural environment through regulating incompatible land uses in Chapter 3, Land Use.

Chapter 1 | Plan Introduction 1-13
Community Design
Southwest Fresno is a neighborhood in transition.

Initially agricultural, this area is transitioning to
a greater number of residential uses, and as a
result, is abutting previously existing industrial and
commercial uses. The area contains a significant
amount of vacant residentially designated land
within the City’s SOI, but the area has not yet
exhibited much market demand to develop typical
suburban neighborhoods with desired commercial
and retail services. The area is characterized by a
patchwork of existing subdivisions, industry, and
farmland. Significant incompatible land uses are
located near one another, and truck routes bring
noise and diesel emissions to adjoining neighborhoods and cause conflicts between heavy vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists.

Some community design features that lead to
unhealthy outcomes are listed below:
■ Housing and Blighting Conditions. Stable,
healthy housing is a fundamental need and
is known to affect the health and well-being
of families and their children, including
educational outcomes and respiratory health,
among others. In Southwest Fresno, housing
was built primarily in the 1950s and 1960s,
prior to the phasing out of lead-based paint.

Four zip codes (93706, 93701, 93702, and
93706) were found to have significant leadbased paint hazards. In 2009, substandard homes and code enforcement have been
cited as critical issues. Finally, as part of the
citywide 2015-2019 consolidated plan process,
a need for effective code enforcement,
including code enforcement services and
code violations, was cited as a critical issue.

Southwest Fresno also experiences high levels
of blighting property conditions such as vacant,
boarded up buildings, poorly maintained
lots, and crumbling infrastructure. Blighting
property conditions are often related to poor
economic conditions within a community or
neighborhood that lead to disinvestment,
poorer social conditions and community
cohesion, lack of jobs and economic
opportunity, and public safety concerns
that affect the health, safety, and welfare of
residents or business.
■ Transportation. Transportation for many
Southwest Fresno residents is a significant
challenge. Approximately one in five
households do not own a car and depend on
transit, walking, or bicycling to travel to work
or run daily errands. However, much of the
area has limited sidewalks and bicycle facilities,
particularly on streets in or transitioning to
undeveloped or unincorporated areas. Most
collector streets also serve as truck routes,
and are generally not conducive to walking
or bicycling. Transit service is limited or not
available. Coupled with lack of trees and other
walking amenities, streets are not conducive to
active transportation. While there are limited
traffic accidents (e.g., about a dozen per year
with the majority resulting in minor injuries),
the overall condition of the transportation
infrastructure and transit services are likely an
impediment to active living. More information
about Southwest Fresno’s transportation
conditions can be found in Chapter 5,
Transportation.

Multi-modal street with sidewalks and a protected
bike lane.
1-14 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
education and job training, to secure employment
with living wages that allow self-sufficiency, and
to feel safe within a neighborhood. The lack of
any of these choices can diminish the potential for
individuals and families to enjoy healthy lives. The
following factors can impede healthy lifestyles:
■ Limited Food and Beverage Choices. Poor
health is often due to the inability to afford
or access healthy food. Poor diet can lead
to poor mental health, chronic disease, and
premature death. Approximately 21 percent
of Southwest Fresno adults are food insecure,
which is significantly above the state average
(8.4 percent) and that of Fresno County (14.7
percent). Poor diet is also in part due to poor
access to healthy foods. Southwest Fresno is
considered a food desert, defined as a large
or isolated area in which grocery stores are
absent or distant. Only one large discount
grocer, supplemented by neighborhood
convenience and liquor stores, serve
Southwest Fresno. Although the area has a few
community gardens, these gardens can only
provide limited amounts of fresh food.
■ Low Education Attainment, Household
Income, and Poverty. Educational levels are
a significant predictor of income and the
ability to make healthier choices, including
diet, exercise, medical care, and other choices
that support health. In Southwest Fresno, 45
percent of residents age 25 and older have not
completed high school. Only seven percent
have earned a college degree. At the local
school level, Edison High’s three-year average
Academic Performance Index is approximately
760, which is below the state standard of 800.

Several elementary schools score in the high
600s, well below the statewide standard of
800. These elementary and secondary school
academic indicators indicate a need for greater
academic achievement among children and
youth living in Southwest Fresno. Education is
often correlated with income. Higher income
levels enable families to make healthy choices.

These include living in safer and wellmaintained housing, affording higher levels of health insurance, purchasing healthier foods,
Neighborhood park as community gathering space.
■ Park and Recreational Facilities. Southwest
Fresno has significant park acreage in total.

However, when the 123-acre fee-based
Regional Sports Complex is excluded, the
acreage of free local parks is significantly
smaller. The lack of sidewalks, bicycle lanes,
trees, and proximity to industry make some
parks inaccessible. Several elementary schools
in Southwest Fresno provide structured
after-school programs that address recreational
needs. In aggregate, there is still a need for
parks. More information about Southwest
Fresno’s parks conditions can be found in
Chapter 6, Public Facilities.

In response to these conditions, the Plan addresses housing quality and blight remediation in Chapter 3, Land Use. The Plan promotes active
transportation in Chapter 5, Transportation.

Chapter 5, Transportation, also addresses rerouting truck traffic, promotes complete streets, and addresses pedestrian and vehicle conflicts. The
Plan addresses park conditions and amenities
in Chapter 6, Public Facilities. Chapter 6, Public
Facilities, also addresses access to parks and
their proximity to residential neighborhoods, and
addresses natural landscape.

Social Environment
Lifestyle choices have an important role in healthy
outcomes. These choices include the ability and
means to choose healthy foods, to obtain quality
Chapter 1 | Plan Introduction 1-15
and making other choices that promote better
health and well-being. Southwest Fresno has
long been a low-income area. More than one
in three adults live in poverty and the median
household income is $26,711. More than
40 percent of households are estimated to
depend on Cal-Fresh food subsidies. Compared
to county and state averages, Southwest
Fresno is considered severely disadvantaged
based on household income and criteria under
Senate Bill 535 for disadvantaged communities.

With high unemployment rates, economic
development and job opportunities remain
important goals.
■ Crime and Safety. One significant investment
disincentive that community leaders point to in
Southwest Fresno is the presence of crime and
violence, particularly gang and drug-related
crime. In 2014, Fresno recorded a crime rate of
463 violent crimes and 4,148 property crimes
per 100,000 people. In Southwest Fresno, the
violent crime rate was 50 percent higher (696
violent crimes per 100,000 residents) while
property crime was 22 percent lower (3,226
crimes per 100,000 people) than in Fresno.

Compared to the 15 other incorporated places
in Fresno County, six cities in the county have
violent crime rates higher than Southwest
Fresno. Southwest Fresno residents also
mentioned that drug possession and sales
were commonplace; however, no statistics are
available that would accurately represent the
relative level of drug possessions and sales
within the community.

In response to these social factors, Chapter 3,
Land Use, addresses access to fresh, affordable,
and nutritious foods. Specific development
regulations contained in Chapter 4, Development
Regulations, allow healthy food grocers throughout the Plan Area. Chapter 6, Public Facilities, addresses educational, vocational, and youth
support. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles are contained in Chapter 4, Development Regulations, and provide
guidance on property design and effective use of
the built environment that can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime.

Community garden.

Farmers’ market stands with fresh and local produce.

Small pop-up grocer offering local fruits, juices, and
other fresh goods.
1-16 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Health Care Access
Access to medical facilities and services is essential
for obtaining preventive health care. Historically,
Southwest Fresno residents have had few options
for accessing medical facilities. The area had a
shortage of services, including mental health, nursing, and primary care for its medically underserved population.

Today, the situation has changed with improvements in services, although barriers still exist to obtaining appropriate care. The following summarizes the current availability and accessibility of health care facilities and services:
■ Hospital Access. No public hospitals are in
Fresno that offer low-cost health care services
to the indigent. Community Regional Medical
Center, located two miles northeast from
Southwest Fresno, is the closest for-profit
hospital. This medical facility continues to
expand in its service capacity and the range
of medical services provided. However, the
facility is still a private hospital facility, and not
a public hospital geared for serving the needs
of lower income and/or immigrant populations
living in Southwest Fresno.
■ Access to Low-Cost Clinics. Access to
community health clinics has significantly
improved in recent years. Southwest Fresnans
have multiple choices to access medical
care: Easton Community Health Center, Elm
Community Health Center (Clinic Sierra Vista),
and West Fresno Community Health Center,
among others. Gaston Middle School also has
an on-site health clinic. These facilities have
significantly improved access to preventive
health care.
■ Health Organizations. Southwest Fresno
residents are served by other health and
social service organizations. One such group
is the West Fresno Family Resource Center.

Its mission is to empower and support the
community in achieving optimal health and
well-being through outreach, education,
engagement, counseling and advocacy, and
health and social service programs. Centro La
Familia and other similar service agencies serve
the health and welfare needs of low income
residents in Southwest Fresno.

Despite improvements in the number and breadth
of health services in Southwest Fresno, the need
for preventive care is still great. Southwest Fresno
residents still experience high levels of preventive
chronic and episodic health conditions. One in four
residents and nearly half of all noncitizens lack basic health insurance. The lack of insurance is often related to delayed medical care and emergency
room visits. Many residents still experience poorer
health outcomes, underscoring the importance of
not only providing health facilities and services, but
also addressing the upstream influences of health.

Chapter 6, Public Facilities, addresses health care
access.

Community Regional Medical Center at Illinois Avenue
and Clark Street in Fresno.

Elm Community Health Center (Clinic Sierra Vista)
provides services to Southwest Fresnans.

Chapter 1 | Plan Introduction 1-17
D. SOUTHWEST FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN

COMMUNITY

ENGAGEMENT
The outreach and participation for the planning
process has been multifaceted and extensive. As of
February 25, 2017, there have been fourteen Steering Committee meetings, approximately ten topic group meetings, and four community workshops.

All meetings were open to the public and noticed
accordingly in English and Spanish. The last three
Steering Committee meetings and workshop have
been a part of a supplementary phase of engagement. A community office was established in a vacant storefront in the Marcus Center at Martin
Luther King Jr. Boulevard and California Avenue as
a convenient venue for community members to
meet and provide input on the Plan. The various
components of the outreach process are described
as follows.

STEERING COMMITTEE
A 21-member Steering Committee made up of
neighborhood residents, business owners, developers, youth, and other stakeholders appointed by City Councilmember Oliver Baines at the beginning
of the planning process, played a crucial advisory
role for the Plan’s development. Community
organizations were represented on the Committee,
including Habitat for Humanity, Action and Change,
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability,
the Fresno Housing Authority, Centro Binacional
para el Desarrollo Indígena Oaxaqueño, the
Economic Development Corporation, Caltrans, and
the Fresno Metro Black Chamber of Commerce.

Washington Union School District as well as the
State Center Community College District were
also represented. The Committee’s task was to
understand the desires of the community (as
expressed at the community workshops and topic
group meetings) and apply their own knowledge
as stakeholders to the development of the Plan’s
land use map. Every Steering Committee meeting
was publicly noticed and attendance by community
members welcomed. Steering Committee and project team after the Planning Commission’s approval of the Plan’s land use map.

The Steering Committee was represented by members
from different organizations.

Steering Committee members working together in
small groups.
1-18 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan

COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS
The initial phase of the planning process included
three community workshops, held on September
15 and October 13, 2015, and on February 16,
2016. They were attended by approximately 125,
70, and 60 people, respectively. The tasks at the
workshops were to identify the community’s vision
and issues and ultimately select a land use concept
that would guide the development of the Plan’s
land use map, which forms the basis of the Plan.

TOPIC GROUPS
Topic groups were organized by Steering Committee members. Members of the public were invited to provide input on the issues that surfaced at the
first community workshop. The majority of topic
group meetings were held at the community office
during the period between the first and third community workshops. The topic groups established were the following, and several of them met more
than once:
■ Housing
■ Neighborhood-serving Retail
■ Parks and Open Space
■ Jobs and Economic Development
■ Community Environmental Health
■ Transportation
■ Industrial Compatibility

COMMUNITY OFFICE
A community office was established in a vacant
storefront in the Marcus Center at 858 E. California
Avenue at Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and
California Avenue to facilitate community input
of various forms. In addition to the topic group
meetings held in the office, a youth art-making
workshop and a produce market event were also
held.

OUTREACH METHODS
Prior to the first community workshop, a bilingual
flyer was mailed to all property owners and
residents in and beyond the Plan Area, including
those within SOI boundary, inviting recipients to all
three community workshops. Postcard reminders
were mailed prior to each workshop. A webpage
was established at www.fresno.gov/southwestplan,
providing public access to public meeting materials
such as agendas, presentations, summaries, and
other important documents. An email list was
created with all interested stakeholders, including
all workshop attendees and anyone else who
requested to be added to the list.

Steering Committee members facilitated conversations
on different topics related to Southwest Fresno.

Community workshop at Gaston Middle School.

Community members working together to help identify
preferred land uses for Southwest Fresno.

Chapter 1 | Plan Introduction 1-19
E. PLAN STRUCTURE AND

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

1. Introduction. This chapter defines a Specific
Plan and explains its purpose, provides a
brief narrative about Southwest Fresno’s
history and its context, explains the Specific
Plan’s relationship to previous and future
planning efforts, and provides a summary of
the planning process and outreach efforts.

This chapter also describes the existing
conditions of community environmental
health related to physical health, community
design, and the natural environment in
Southwest Fresno, providing a snapshot of
the regulatory framework, existing health
conditions, and key issues that impact
health. The community environmental
health section also calls out specific chapters
in the Plan that address and strive to
improve these existing health issues.

2. Vision. This chapter describes the
visioning process that culminated into the
development of the Plan’s conceptual vision
and land use map. Guiding principles for
various topics, including housing, retail,
parks and open space, jobs and economic
development, transportation, and industrial
compatibility, helped shape the Plan’s vision.

3. Land Use. This chapter describes the land
uses that make up the Plan Area. It also
provides the anticipated development
capacity from these land uses over the
25-year horizon of the Plan for new singlefamily and higher-density housing units, retail, office, parks, schools, and other public
facilities.

4. Development Regulations. This chapter
notes where zoning in the Plan Area differs
from the Citywide Development Code. It
provides development and design standards
for the Kearney Boulevard Historic Overlay
and the California Avenue Mixed-Use
Corridor Overlay. It describes the objectives
of three special corridors, two magnet cores,
and complete neighborhood nodes. And
finally, it includes a section on CPTED.

5. Transportation. This chapter describes
improvements for pedestrian, transit, auto,
truck, and bicycle circulation throughout
the area and to adjacent neighborhoods,
including Downtown, the Fresno Area
Express (FAX) bus terminal, and the future
High-Speed Rail (HSR) station. The chapter
also provides complete streets design
standards that will promote walkability and
livability in the Plan Area.

6. Public Facilities. This chapter describes the
existing context for public facilities within
the Plan Area and identifies the Plan’s
proposed public facility improvements.

Public facilities include existing parks, new
parks, new K to 12 schools within complete
neighborhoods, and a new community
college within the MLK Activity Center.

7. Utilities. This chapter summarizes utility
infrastructure needs in the Plan Area for wet
utilities such as water supply, wastewater,
storm system, and recycled water use, as
well as dry utilities such as electrical, fiber
optic and gas systems.

8. Implementation. The final chapter outlines
a strategy to implement the Plan’s vision,
which includes identifying the public
improvements, responsible parties, and
funding sources necessary to implement the
Plan. The chapter also addresses specific
strategies for economic development,
including homeownership, business
development, education, training, and retail
anchor tenant recruitment.
1-20 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Youth recorded down their desires for Southwest
Fresno on paper.

The community office acted as a space for youth to
share their ideas about Southwest Fresno.

Art created by youth at the community office.

Ideas from topic groups were recorded on maps and
worksheets.

Topic groups met at a local community office to
continue their discussions from the community workshop.

Community members sharing thoughts about the
incompatibility of industrial uses in Southwest Fresno.

Chapter 2 | Vision 2-1
VISION
A. INTRODUCTION
Southwest Fresno is an area with a great amount
of potential that has yet to be tapped. The
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Area (Plan Area)
is made up of large swaths of developable land
and the surrounding Sphere of Influence (SOI)
contains miles of green fields. The Southwest
Fresno Specific Plan’s (the Plan) long-term vision
for Southwest Fresno imagines all of these areas
to become places where people live, play, work,
and learn. Southwest Fresno would become its
own vibrant set of communities and be wellconnected to Downtown, strengthening the overall image and livability of the city.

The vision behind the Plan was developed in
collaboration with the community in Southwest
Fresno and the Steering Committee. After com-
munity members shared initial input about the
issues and opportunities for Southwest Fresno
during the first workshop, many of the workshop
attendees participated in follow-up meetings
to continue their discussion on specific topics
in the form of “topic groups.” Through these
topic group meetings, ideas and themes about
each topic emerged and were refined by the
Steering Committee. These themes culminated
into guiding principles that were used for the
development of the Plan and the Plan’s land use
map. The vision defines all physical-, program-,
and policy-related aspects of the Plan described
in this chapter and for all following chapters. 2
2-2 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
B. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The guiding principles below are categorized by
each of the community’s initial working topic
groups and were used to develop the Plan’s
recommendations. The topic of “community
environmental health” is an overarching theme
that is relevant throughout the six topics below.

The purpose of these guiding principles is to
provide the Plan direction on how it can best
benefit the built environment of the community
and promote physical, social, and mental wellness for Southwest Fresnans.

HOUSING
■ Provide a mix of high quality housing types,
with an emphasis on single-family housing,
that is affordable to a mix of low, moderate,
and high-income households.
■ Encourage new housing that is compatible
with the community character and historic
architecture of Southwest Fresno.
■ Locate housing close to amenities such as
parks, schools, transit, services, retail, and
employment.

RETAIL
■ Attract desired and needed retail to serve
Southwest Fresno residents, such as clothing
and department stores, restaurants, healthy
grocers, and services.
■ Discourage the expansion of potentially
controversial retail establishments such as
liquor stores, tobacco shops, and short-term
loan shops, without consideration of unique
impacts to the community and imposition of
any appropriate conditions.
■ Provide both large-scale, regional-serving
retail and smaller-scale, neighborhoodserving retail at appropriate locations in Southwest Fresno.

High quality single-family housing in walkable
neighborhoods.

Park and landscaped open space in close proximity
to housing.

Mixed-use retail.

Chapter 2 | Vision 2-3

PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
■ Refine the standard for what is defined as
“parkland” to include truly usable parks, as
opposed to standards that include unusable
spaces in ponding basins or parkland located
on landfill or toxic sites.
■ Prioritize improving existing parks with better
and more amenities.
■ Create parks that are safe, healthy, social,
and active spaces for residents, especially
families and youth, to visit.
■ Locate new parks within walking distance of
all residences.

JOBS AND ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT
■ Prepare, mentor, and train Southwest Fresno
residents, including youth, to become better
qualified for existing and future employment
within Southwest Fresno by providing
appropriate services, programs, and facilities.
■ Locate employment uses so that they do not
conflict with residential areas, but are still
conveniently accessible by various modes of
transportation.
■ Attract desirable employment to Southwest
Fresno by locating them near retail and
regional access points.
■ Encourage future job opportunities to shift
from unskilled, low-wage jobs to skilled,
higher-education jobs.

Improvements to the public realm with pedestrian
amenities.

Plazas and open space with special amenity areas.

Offices with tree-lined parking areas and internal
pedestrian pathways.
2-4 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan

TRANSPORTATION
■ Accommodate both motorized and nonmotorized modes of travel and people of all ages and abilities to improve mobility/
transportation within Southwest Fresno.
■ Locate transit on routes near residential
areas and provide access to desired
destinations.
■ Include opportunities for recreational
walking and biking.
■ Provide visible, complete, safe, and regularly
maintained transportation infrastructure,
such as roads, crosswalks, sidewalks, and
traffic lights.
■ Connect to and expand access to regional
transportation networks such as Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT), Fresno Area Express (FAX), and
High-speed Rail (HSR).

INDUSTRIAL COMPATIBILITY
■ Monitor and mitigate negative impacts of
industrial uses from becoming a nuisance
and hazard to residents.
■ Restrict the proximity of industrial
development and truck routes near
residential areas.
■ Locate new industrial development
away from Southwest Fresno residential
neighborhoods.
■ Increase transparency and communication
between government staff, government and
elected officials, residents, and stakeholders
regarding proposed industrial uses and/or
improvements.

Bicycle Improvements along a residential street.

Pedestrian-friendly, community-serving retail with
pedestrian crossing.

Landscaped sidewalks and outdoor seating at
building frontages.

Chapter 2 | Vision 2-5
C. SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE VISION
“The Southwest Fresno community is supported by two higher intensity cores near major highway interchanges, each with a primary magnet use.

These magnet cores are ringed with smaller complete neighborhoods that support the core. Each complete neighborhood includes housing and a node with community-serving uses. Neighborhoods are linked by welldefined corridors lined with higher intensity uses.” The guiding principles described in the previous
section, Section B, helped shape the conceptual
vision for the Plan and the Plan’s land use map. A
conceptual vision diagram of the Plan is shown in
Figure 2-1. The 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 Plan sets aside the majority of
land for single-family residential uses and locates
higher density residential uses at some neighborhood nodes, near magnet uses, and along corridors. This will allow walkable access for greater numbers of residents to shopping, schools, parks,
and transit, such as buses and BRT.

Additionally, the Plan envisions that the most
optimal locations for large-scale, regional-serving
retail are those that have good proximity, visibility, and access from the greatest number of people, while having enough distance away from
other similar retail to avoid competition. In the
Plan, regional retail is shown in two locations:
with access from Highway 180 at Marks and
Whites Bridge Avenues and from Highway 41
near Jensen Avenue and MLK Jr. Boulevard. These
locations would allow new retail businesses to
draw customers from areas beyond Southwest
Fresno. On the other hand, smaller scale
neighborhood retail shops can be more dispersed
as long as they are located along well-traveled
streets. In the Plan, smaller neighborhood retail
locations are shown in each of the complete
neighborhood nodes and along corridors with
mixed use.

Larger scale employment uses such as offices,
colleges, and medical facilities are concentrated
in higher-intensity corridors, while opportunities
for smaller scale offices are allowed along a less
intensive corridor (the Mixed-Use/Jobs Corridor).

While more jobs in Southwest Fresno are desirable, the businesses that provide them must be healthy, safe, and good neighbors to nearby
residents to avoid potential conflicts between
residents and employment uses. To assure this
good neighbor policy, new employment areas
would be planned and zoned Office and all previously Light Industrial, Heavy Industrial, Business Park, and Regional Business Park areas would be
planned and zoned Office.

The concepts of complete neighborhoods,
corridors, and magnet cores are described in
further detail starting on page 2-7. Chapter 4,
Development Regulations, provides guidance on
how to implement these concepts.
2-6 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Neilson
Park
Ponding
Basin/
Park FF
Ponding
Basin/
Park TT2
41 180
41 180
99 99
Regional
Sports
Complex
Hyde
Park
Neilson
Park
Mary Ella
Brown Community Center
Chandler
Park
West
Fresno
Middle
School
West
Fresno
Elementary
School
WEB Dubois Public Charter School
Rutherford B. Gaston Middle School
Kirk Elementary Anchor Academy School Charter School
Edison
High
School
King Elementary
School
Lincoln
Elementary
School
Bethune
Elementary
School
Sunset
Elementary
School
Pershing
Continuation
High School
Big Picture
High School
Columbia
Elementary
School
Elm Community Health
Center
Community
Regional
Medical Center
Veteran’s
Housing
Complex
e
Fresno Chandler
Executive Airport

DOWNTOWN

KEARNEY BLVD

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD

FRESNO ST

WEST AVE

CHURCH AVE

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

FIG AVENUE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

VALENTINE AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ELM AVENUE

NORTH AVE

CHERRY AVENUE

HUGHES AVE

CENTRAL AVE

0.25mi 0 0.25mi
City limit
Sphere of Influence
Plan Area
County Land
Magnet Core
Complete
Neighborhood
Bus Rapid Transit Line
MAGNET
FIGURE 2-1 Conceptual Vision for Southwest Fresno
Regional Retail Corridor
Regionally-serving retail with
higher-density housing
Historic Corridor
Larger single-family
houses with small-scaled
commercial
Mixed-Use Corridor
Ground-floor retail with
higher-density housing
above and around
Jobs Corridor
Offices and business parks with
higher-density housing and
commercial
Mixed-Use and Jobs
Corridor
Office uses and ground-floor retail
with higher-density housing above

CORRIDORS
HSR
FAX
MAGNET
MAGNET
BRT
S.F. HOUSING

REGIONAL
RETAIL

COMMUNITY

COLLEGE

ACTIVITY CENTER
JOBS H.D. HOUSING
NEW
PARK
NBHD.

RETAIL

EXPANDED
PARK
NBHD.

RETAIL
H.D.

HOUSING
NBHD.

PARK
SUPER
MARKET
H.D. HOUSING
NBHD.

PARK
NBHD.

RETAIL H.D. HOUSING
S.F.

HOUSING

NEW SCHOOL
NBHD.

RETAIL
H.D. HOUSING
S.F.

HOUSING
NBHD.

PARK
NBHD.

RETAIL
H.D. HOUSING

REGIONAL

RETAIL JOBS
SUPER

MARKET MEDICAL
FACILITY H.D. HOUSING
S.F.

HOUSING

NEW SCHOOL
NBHD.

RETAIL EXPANDED
PARK
JOBS
NEW NBHD. SCHOOL
PARK
H.D. HOUSING
NBHD.

RETAIL
S.F.

HOUSING
S.F.

HOUSING
JOBS
JOBS
NBHD.

RETAIL NEW SCHOOL
NBHD.

PARK
H.D. S.F. HOUSING

HOUSING
NBHD.

PARK
NBHD.

PARK
FIGURE 2-1 Conceptual Vision for Southwest Fresno
Chapter 2 | Vision 2-7
Complete neighborhoods are self-sufficient with
housing and parkland nearby.

COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS
The concept of a complete neighborhood is
adopted from the General Plan. The General Plan
introduced the concept of complete neighborhoods to break away from Fresno’s typical development pattern of separating residential
and retail areas, and instead, to create neighborhoods that are interconnected and self-sufficient.

Complete neighborhoods foster communities
that have housing, services, employment, and
recreation all within walking distance (see Figure
2-2). Each complete neighborhood should
uniquely reflect its community’s values and
character, and serve the particular needs of its
residents.

A series of small, complete neighborhoods will
make up the Southwest Fresno area. Each of
the complete neighborhoods should contain a
center, or node, made up of community-serving
uses, including retail, a range of housing types,
a school, and a park. Existing or new singlefamily residences should surround the node and be within a reasonable walking distance of a
quarter-mile of the node.

FIGURE 2-2 Conceptual Diagram of Development within a Complete Neighborhood 1/4 Mile
a range of housing
types in each
neighborhood, with a
preference for
single-family housing
joint-use park facilities
with schools for public use
neighborhood
services and
amenities, clustered
at neighborhood
center
neighborhoods
centered around
the intersection
of two major
streets
Retail
Housing
School
Park
1/4 Mile
a range of housing
types in each
neighborhood, with a
preference for
single-family housing
joint-use park facilities
with schools for public use
neighborhood
services and
amenities, clustered
at neighborhood
center
neighborhoods
centered around
the intersection
of two major
streets
Retail
Housing
School
Park
2-8 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan

CORRIDORS
Corridors are key streets that are lined with higher, more intensive development and have multimodal improvements such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities (see Figure 2-3). Development located further away from the corridor would be less intensive, such as single-family housing. Due to each corridor’s surrounding context and physical characteristics, not all corridors are lined with the same type of higher intensity development or have the same types of improvements. Some corridors are retail-focused, while others are employment- or residential-focused. Additionally, the Mixed-Use Corridor along the future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line, California Avenue, would also have BRT facilities in order to improve BRT connectivity from Southwest Fresno to Downtown.
single-family housing
located outside of
corridors
1/4 Mile
higher-intensity uses such
as higher-density housing
and mixed use clustered
along and around corridor
neighborhoods
can contain
multiple
corridors
Retail
Higher-density housing
Single-family housing
Corridor
Park
School
Mixed use
FIGURE 2-3 Conceptual Diagram of Development along a Corridor Chapter 2 | Vision 2-9
There are several existing major corridors in
Southwest Fresno that should be enhanced to
become locations for vehicular access and bus
service in the future so that new development
along these corridors will benefit from these
transportation connections. The corridors identified in the Plan each have a different emphasis based on the existing character of the street,
including:

Historic Corridor
The historic Kearney Boulevard will be
enhanced with landscaping and lined with
larger-scale single-family residential development as well as lower-intensity office uses.

Regional Retail Corridor
This corridor will be along Whites Bridge
Avenue with regional-serving, big box retail,
housing, and parks.

Mixed-Use Corridor
California Avenue will become a mixed-use
corridor with active ground-floor communityserving stores and services below housing or office and connected to Downtown Fresno
with a future BRT line.

Jobs Corridor
This corridor will be home to office uses and
housing along Jensen Avenue and connect
the magnet core west of Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard to Highway 41.

Mixed-Use/Jobs Corridor
Elm Avenue will feature community-serving
shops and a diverse mix of office, jobs,
housing, and commercial services and could
potentially have enhanced transit service
improvements in the future to connect
the southern portion of the Plan Area to
Downtown.

Pedestrian-oriented entries along a mixed-use corridor.

Office space along a jobs corridor.
2-10 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan

MAGNET CORES
Magnet cores each contain a high intensity
magnet use that attracts other supportive higher
intensity uses. Examples of magnet uses include
regional retail development, a medical facility, or
a community college. Higher intensity uses such
as higher-density housing, community parks,
offices, and retail cluster around magnets, forming a magnet center or “core” (see Figure 2-4).

The magnet core’s high intensity uses create an
activity center that not only serves residents, but
also attracts visitors. Development further away
from the magnet core is at a lower intensity, such
as single-family housing, but still surrounds the
magnet core for convenient accessibility. The
proposed locations for magnet cores in the Plan
will serve different parts of Southwest Fresno and
would be accessible to regional travelers.

The southern magnet core is proposed between
Jensen and Church Avenues, west of MLK Jr.

Boulevard. This area is identified as the “MLK
Activity Center” in the General Plan and proposes
a regional shopping center and higher density
neighborhood district. The community-preferred
magnet use for the MLK Activity Center is a community college campus. While it is not certain that a community college campus in Southwest
Fresno will be funded and built, there has been
discussion about this possibility with the State
Center Community College District’s Board. Other
uses could also serve as magnet uses to attract
development, including large-scale retail, medical
clinics, or campuses. The Plan proposes a set of
flexible uses at this location to accommodate any
of these uses.

The northern magnet core is located at Marks
and Whites Bridge Avenues where there is both
access from Highway 180 and from existing and
new residential development in the western part
of the Plan Area. This magnet core is anticipated
to be developed with regional retail uses and
medical facilities accessible to both travelers on
Highway 180 and residents of the Southwest
neighborhood.

College magnet use.

Supermarket anchor in a regional retail center.

Chapter 2 | Vision 2-11
magnet core with
higher-intensity uses
such as a community
college, park,
employment, and
regional retail
magnet core ringed
with primarily
single-family housing
1/ 4 Mile
existing
residential
housing
existing
school
Retail
Employment
Higher-density housing
Single-family housing
Park
School
College
Mixed Use
FIGURE 2-4 Conceptual Diagram of Development around a Magnet Core 2-12 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Chapter 3 | Land Use 3-1

LAND USE
A. INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes the land use elements
and describes the urban form of the Southwest
Fresno Specific Plan (the Plan), which reflects the
Steering Committee’s and community’s preferred
land use alternative for future development in the
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Area (Plan Area).

The locations of the various land uses were selected and refined by the Steering Committee in order to support the type of community described in the
Plan’s vision (see Chapter 2, Vision). The Plan’s land
use map should be considered the physical “vision”
for the area and the underlying foundation for the
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan.

The Chapter is organized into the following
sections:

A. Introduction
B. Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Land
Uses
C. Development Capacity Analysis
D. Goals and Policies
3 3-2 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
B. SOUTHWEST FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN LAND
USES
Figure 3-1 shows the overall planned land uses for
the Southwest Fresno area, including the Sphere
of Influence (SOI) outside of the Plan Area as well
as the conceptual overlays from Chapter 2’s Figure
2-1. The conceptual overlays show how the Plan’s
vision of corridors, magnet cores, and complete
neighborhoods relates to Southwest Fresno’s land
uses. The land uses in the SOI that are shown
Figure 3-1 are for reference and future planning
purposes since the Plan only affects the land within
the Plan Area. Figure 3-2 shows the Plan’s land use
map, which contains only lands within the Plan
Area. Consistent with the Fresno General Plan
(General Plan), new parks, open space, and public
facilities carry dual land use designations, so if that facility is not needed, alternative private or public
development consistent with zoning and development standards may be approved. These dual land use designations are shown in Figure 3-3.

LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS
The following land uses make up the Plan Area
and are categorized by residential, employment,
commercial, public facilities, and open space uses.

Many of the following land use classifications’
descriptions, including their floor area ratio (FAR)
and dwelling units per acre densities, are cited
from the General Plan’s land use classifications. The
Plan introduces a few new land use designations
that provide more specific conditions for existing
land use classifications, which are described in
further detail below.

Residential
Residential land uses provide for a wide range of
neighborhoods and housing types.

Low Density
This designation is intended to provide for large-lot
residential development. Low Density Residential
allows one to 3.5 housing units per acre. The
resulting land use pattern is large-lot residential
in nature, such as rural residential, ranchettes, or
estate homes.

Medium Low Density housing as single-family detached
housing.

Medium Density housing includes duplexes and
townhouses as well as single-family homes.

Medium High Density housing includes townhomes that
can accommodate multi-generational living.

Chapter 3 | Land Use 3-3
41 41
180
99 99
MAGNET
MAGNET

WEST AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C ALIFORNIA CT TEILMAN AVE

JENSEN AVE VAGEDESAVE ATCHISON ST

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

NIELSEN AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE

BLOSSER AVE

GEORGEAVE

ILA AVE

CALWA AVE

LORENA AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

BELG RAVIAAVE

DELNOAVE

HAWESAVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

GARRETT AVE

FLORENCEAVE

TE ILMAN I C R

PLEASANT AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

LAFAYETTE AVE

SAMSON AVE

FRUIT AVE

THORNE AVE

BARDELL ST

LA SIERRADR

ELM AVE

KIRK ST

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

ROEDING DR

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

DIVISADERO ST

MERCED ST
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

MONTEREYST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

BLACKSTONE AVE BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE
H ST

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTACLARA ST

STROTHER AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

FAIRVIEW AVE
B ST

ARTHUR AVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST

LEMON AVE

ONEILAVE

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

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

WAYTE LN

NAPA AVE

LOTUS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

AIRPORT RD

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

WALNUT AVE

VAN NESS AVE

TRINITY ST

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

MADDY DR

PALM AVE

OC LL GE E V/ ANNESSALY

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

FARRIS AVE

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

VALENTINE AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

ELM AVE

HUGHES AVE HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

VALENTINE AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

CENTRAL AVE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE

RESIDENTIAL EMPLOYMENT

MIXED-USE

PUBLIC FACILITIES OPEN SPACE

COMMERCIAL
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
O Office
Office Restricted
Automobile /Vehicle Sales and
Services are are not permitted
O No Auto
P Park
CZ Clear Zone
NP Neighborhood Park
CP Community Park
RP Regional Park
PB Ponding Basin
PBP Ponding Basin Park
NP* Neighborhood Park*
CMX Corridor/Center Mixed-Use
NMX Neighborhood Mixed-Use
SS Special School
C College
Elementary School E
PF Public Facility
M Middle School
A Airport
HOSP Hospital
NC Neighborhood Center
PG&E PG&E Station
Water Recharge
Basin
WR
R Regional
G General
FIGURE 3-1 Land Use Map with Conceptual Overlays, including SOI CH Church
C Community
*The exact location of the parks within the Mission Ranch development will be determined in a future planning process.

Medium Density (5 - 12 du/ac)
Medium High Density (12 - 16 du/ac)
Urban Neighborhood (16 - 30 du/ac)
Medium Low Density (3.5 - 6 du/ac)
Low Density (1 - 3.5 du/ac)
Office*
After 85% of the land in Fresno’s “Reverse
Triangle” is occupied with heavy industrial
uses, light industrial uses are permitted
O*
Corridor
Sphere of Influence
City Limit
Plan Area
Magnet Core
Complete
Neighborhood
MAGNET
Note: Dual Land Use designations for proposed public facilities and open space are shown on a supplemental map.

OS Open Space
NMX
NMX
O
O
O
O
R O
G
CMX

CMX CMX
C C
C
PB
PB
PB
PB

PB PBP PB
PB
PB
P
OS
CP
NP
NP
NP
CZ
RP
A
PG&E
HOSP
E
E
M
PB
PB
C
E
R C
NP*
NP*
E
C
NP
NP
E
M
NC
WR
NC
O*
O*
O*
PBP
E or M PF SS
(M/HS) E or M
PF
E
E
PF
C
NMX
C C
P
R
O
No Auto
O
No Auto
R
CZ
CMX
CMX
CMX
CMX
CMX
NMX

PF PF PF
CMX
PB
PB
PB
PB
CP
OS
NP
Source: City of Fresno
O
FIGURE 3-1 Land Use Map with Conceptual Overlays, including SOI 41 41
180
99 99
MAGNET
MAGNET

WEST AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C ALIFORNIA CT TEILMAN AVE

JENSEN AVE VAGEDESAVE ATCHISON ST

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

NIELSEN AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE

BLOSSER AVE

GEORGEAVE

ILA AVE

CALWA AVE

LORENA AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

BELG RAVIAAVE

DELNOAVE

HAWESAVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

GARRETT AVE

FLORENCEAVE

TE ILMAN I C R

PLEASANT AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

LAFAYETTE AVE

SAMSON AVE

FRUIT AVE

THORNE AVE

BARDELL ST

LA SIERRADR

ELM AVE

KIRK ST

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

ROEDING DR

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

DIVISADERO ST

MERCED ST
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

MONTEREYST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

BLACKSTONE AVE BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE
H ST

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTACLARA ST

STROTHER AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

FAIRVIEW AVE
B ST

ARTHUR AVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST

LEMON AVE

ONEILAVE

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

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

WAYTE LN

NAPA AVE

LOTUS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

AIRPORT RD

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

WALNUT AVE

VAN NESS AVE

TRINITY ST

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

MADDY DR

PALM AVE

OC LL GE E V/ ANNESSALY

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

FARRIS AVE

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

VALENTINE AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

ELM AVE

HUGHES AVE HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

VALENTINE AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

CENTRAL AVE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE

RESIDENTIAL EMPLOYMENT

MIXED-USE

PUBLIC FACILITIES OPEN SPACE

OS Open Space
NMX
NMX
O
O
O
O
R O
G
CMX

CMX CMX
C C
C
PB
PB
PB
PB

PF PF PF
CMX
PB
PB
PB
PB
CP
OS
NP
Source: City of Fresno
O
3-4 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
41 41
180
99 99
NMX
NMX
O
O
O
O
R O
G
CMX

CMX CMX
C C
C
PB
PB
PB
PB

PB PBP PB
PB
PB
P
CP
CP
NP
NP
NP
CZ
RP
A
PG&E
HOSP
E
M
PB
PB
C
E
R C
NP*
NP*
E
C
NP
NP
E
M
NC
WR
NC
PBP
PF
PF
PF
C
NMX
C C
P
R
CZ
CMX
CMX
CMX
NMX
PF
OS OS
NP

WEST AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C ALIFORNIA CT TEILMAN AVE

JENSEN AVE VAGEDESAVE ATCHISON ST

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

NIELSEN AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE

BLOSSER AVE

GEORGEAVE

ILA AVE

CALWA AVE

LORENA AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

BELG RAVIAAVE

DELNOAVE

HAWESAVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

GARRETT AVE

FLORENCEAVE

TE ILMAN I C R

PLEASANT AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

LAFAYETTE AVE

SAMSON AVE

FRUIT AVE

THORNE AVE

BARDELL ST

LA SIERRADR

ELM AVE

KIRK ST

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

ROEDING DR

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

DIVISADERO ST

MERCED ST
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

MONTEREYST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

BLACKSTONE AVE BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE
H ST

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTACLARA ST

STROTHER AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

FAIRVIEW AVE
B ST

ARTHUR AVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST

LEMON AVE

ONEILAVE

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

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

WAYTE LN

NAPA AVE

LOTUS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

AIRPORT RD

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

WALNUT AVE

VAN NESS AVE

TRINITY ST

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

MADDY DR

PALM AVE

OC LL GE E V/ ANNESSALY

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

FARRIS AVE

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

VALENTINE AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

ELM AVE

HUGHES AVE HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

VALENTINE AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

CENTRAL AVE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE
Source: City of Fresno FIGURE 3-2 Land Use Map for Plan Area

RESIDENTIAL EMPLOYMENT

MIXED-USE

PUBLIC FACILITIES OPEN SPACE

COMMERCIAL
O Office P Park
CZ Clear Zone
NP Neighborhood Park
CP Community Park
RP Regional Park
PB Ponding Basin
PBP Ponding Basin Park
NP* Neighborhood Park* CMX Corridor/Center Mixed-Use
NMX Neighborhood Mixed-Use
ol
C College
E Elementary School
PF Public Facility
M Middle School
A Airport
HOSP Hospital
PG&E PG&E Station NC Neighborhood Center
Water Recharge
Basin
WR
R Regional
CH Church
C Community
*The exact location of the parks within the Mission Ranch development will be determined in a future planning process.

Medium Density (5 - 12 du/ac)
Medium High Density (12 - 16 du/ac)
Urban Neighborhood (16 - 30 du/ac)
Medium Low Density (3.5 - 6 du/ac)
Low Density (1 - 3.5 du/ac)
’s “Reverse
y industrial
ermitted
City Limit Sphere of Influence
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
Plan Area
Note: Dual land use designations for proposed public facilities and open space are shown on Figure 3-3.

G General
OS Open Space
O
FIGURE 3-2 Land Use Map for Plan Area
41 41
180
99 99
NMX
NMX
O
O
O
O
R O
G
CMX

CMX CMX
C C
C
PB
PB
PB
PB

PB PBP PB
PB
PB
P
CP
CP
NP
NP
NP
CZ
RP
A
PG&E
HOSP
E
M
PB
PB
C
E
R C
NP*
NP*
E
C
NP
NP
E
M
NC
WR
NC
PBP
PF
PF
PF
C
NMX
C C
P
R
CZ
CMX
CMX
CMX
NMX
PF
OS OS
NP

WEST AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C ALIFORNIA CT TEILMAN AVE

JENSEN AVE VAGEDESAVE ATCHISON ST

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

NIELSEN AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE

BLOSSER AVE

GEORGEAVE

ILA AVE

CALWA AVE

LORENA AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

BELG RAVIAAVE

DELNOAVE

HAWESAVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

GARRETT AVE

FLORENCEAVE

TE ILMAN I C R

PLEASANT AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

LAFAYETTE AVE

SAMSON AVE

FRUIT AVE

THORNE AVE

BARDELL ST

LA SIERRADR

ELM AVE

KIRK ST

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

ROEDING DR

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

DIVISADERO ST

MERCED ST
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

MONTEREYST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

BLACKSTONE AVE BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE
H ST

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTACLARA ST

STROTHER AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

FAIRVIEW AVE
B ST

ARTHUR AVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST

LEMON AVE

ONEILAVE

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

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

WAYTE LN

NAPA AVE

LOTUS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

AIRPORT RD

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

WALNUT AVE

VAN NESS AVE

TRINITY ST

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

MADDY DR

PALM AVE

OC LL GE E V/ ANNESSALY

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

FARRIS AVE

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

VALENTINE AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

ELM AVE

HUGHES AVE HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

VALENTINE AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

CENTRAL AVE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE
Source: City of Fresno FIGURE 3-2 Land Use Map for Plan Area

RESIDENTIAL EMPLOYMENT

MIXED-USE

PUBLIC FACILITIES OPEN SPACE

COMMERCIAL
O Office P Park
CZ Clear Zone
NP Neighborhood Park
CP Community Park
RP Regional Park
PB Ponding Basin
PBP Ponding Basin Park
NP* Neighborhood Park* CMX Corridor/Center Mixed-Use
NMX Neighborhood Mixed-Use
chool
C College
E Elementary School
PF Public Facility
M Middle School
A Airport
HOSP Hospital
PG&E PG&E Station NC Neighborhood Center
Water Recharge
Basin
WR
R Regional
CH Church
C Community
*The exact location of the parks within the Mission Ranch development will be determined in a future planning process.

Medium Density (5 - 12 du/ac)
Medium High Density (12 - 16 du/ac)
Urban Neighborhood (16 - 30 du/ac)
Medium Low Density (3.5 - 6 du/ac)
Low Density (1 - 3.5 du/ac)
Fresno’s “Reverse
h heavy industrial
are permitted
City Limit Sphere of Influence
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
Plan Area
Note: Dual land use designations for proposed public facilities and open space are shown on Figure 3-3.

G General
OS Open Space
O
Chapter 3 | Land Use 3-5
41 41
180
99 99

WEST AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C ALIFORNIA CT TEILMAN AVE

JENSEN AVE VAGEDESAVE ATCHISON ST

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

NIELSEN AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE

BLOSSER AVE

GEORGEAVE

ILA AVE

CALWA AVE

LORENA AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

BELG RAVIAAVE

DELNOAVE

HAWESAVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

GARRETT AVE

FLORENCEAVE

TE ILMAN I C R

PLEASANT AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

LAFAYETTE AVE

SAMSON AVE

FRUIT AVE

THORNE AVE

BARDELL ST

LA SIERRADR

ELM AVE

KIRK ST

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

ROEDING DR

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

DIVISADERO ST

MERCED ST
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

MONTEREYST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

BLACKSTONE AVE BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE
H ST

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTACLARA ST

STROTHER AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

FAIRVIEW AVE
B ST

ARTHUR AVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST

LEMON AVE

ONEILAVE

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

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

WAYTE LN

NAPA AVE

LOTUS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

AIRPORT RD

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

WALNUT AVE

VAN NESS AVE

TRINITY ST

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

MADDY DR

PALM AVE

OC LL GE E V/ ANNESSALY

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

FARRIS AVE

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

VALENTINE AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

ELM AVE

HUGHES AVE HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

VALENTINE AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

CENTRAL AVE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE
FIGURE 3-3 Dual Land Use Designation Map for Plan Area

RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE EMPLOYMENT
CMX Corridor/Center Mixed-Use O Office
Medium Density (5 - 12 du/ac)
Medium High Density (12 - 16 du/ac)
Urban Neighborhood (16 - 30 du/ac)
Medium Low Density (3.5 - 6 du/ac)
City Limit Sphere of Influence
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
Plan Area
O

CMX CMX
O
O
O
Source: City of Fresno FIGURE 3-3 Dual Land Use Designation Map for Plan Area

WEST AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C ALIFORNIA CT TEILMAN AVE
J

VAGEDESAVE ATCHISON ST

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

BLOSSER AVE

GEORGEAVE

ILA AVE

CALWA AVE

LORENA AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

BELG RAVIAAVE

DELNOAVE

HAWESAVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

GARRETT AVE

FLORENCEAVE

TE ILMAN I C R

LAFAYETTE AVE

SAMSON AVE

FRUIT AVE

THORNE AVE

BARDELL ST

LA SIERRADR

NORTH AVE
A

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

ROEDING DR
G
S

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

MERCED ST
C ST

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

STANISLAUS ST
B

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

STROTHER AVE

FAIRVIEW AVE
B ST

TUPMAN ST

LEMON AVE

ONEILAVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST
C
F ST

COLLINS AVE

A/B ALY
FAGAN

WELLER ST

AIRPORT RD

WALNUT AVE

TRINITY ST

MODOC ST

CHANNING
WAY

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

STEPHENS AVE

FARRIS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

VALENTINE AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE
H
U
G
HES A
VE
WEST A
VE

BRAWLEY AVE

CENTRAL AVE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS A
VE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE
FIGURE 3-3 Dual Land Use Designation Map for Plan Area

CMX CMX
O
O
O
3-6 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Medium-low Density
The Medium Low Density designation is intended
to provide for single-family detached housing with
densities of 3.5 to 6 units per acre.

The scale of Office uses can be compatible with existing residential neighborhoods.

Urban Neighborhood residential creates compact
development with multi-family dwellings.

Medium Density
Medium Density Residential covers developments
of 5 to 12 units per acre and is intended for areas
with predominantly single-family residential
development, but can also accommodate a mix of
housing types, including small-lot starter homes,
zero-lot-line developments, duplexes, and townhouses. Much of the city’s established neighborhoods fall within this designation.

Medium-high Density
Medium High Density Residential is intended
for neighborhoods with a mix of single-family
residences, townhomes, garden apartments, and
multi-family units intended to support a fine-grain,
pedestrian scale. This land use accommodates
densities from 12 to 16 units per acre overall.

Urban Neighborhood
Urban Neighborhood Residential covers densities
from 16 to 30 units per acre, which will generally
require multi-family dwellings but still allow for a
mix of housing types including single-family houses.

This land use is intended to provide for a compact
community that includes community facilities
and walkable access to parkland and commercial
services; it also supports efficient, frequent transit
service. Urban Neighborhood is designated for
targeted areas with complementary land uses
adjacently located.

Employment
Office
The Office designation is intended for administrative, financial, business, professional, medical, and public offices. This designation is mainly intended
to apply to existing office uses on smaller lots,
generally located on arterial roadways. This designation is also considered compatible with existing residential neighborhoods given the smaller
level of noise and traffic generated compared to
commercial uses. Retail uses would generally be
limited to business services, food services, and
convenience goods for those who work in the area.

The maximum FAR is 2.0.

Chapter 3 | Land Use 3-7
Community Commercial uses are intended to serve local
residents within a smaller neighborhood.

Office Restricted
The Office Restricted designation only exists in the
SOI; it allows all of the uses allowed in the Office
designation with the exception of auto/vehicle services and rentals to limit potential negative impacts related to aesthetics, noise, odor, and air quality to
affect surrounding residential neighborhoods and
employment areas. The maximum FAR is 2.0.

Commercial
Commercial land use designations allow a wide
range of retail and service establishments intended
to serve local and regional needs.

Community
Community Commercial is intended for commercial
development that primarily serves local needs such
as convenience shopping and small offices. Many of
the city’s current commercial districts fall into this
designation. Specific uses allowed include mediumscale retail, office, civic and entertainment uses, supermarkets, drug stores and supporting uses.

The maximum FAR is 1.0.

Regional
The Regional Commercial designation is intended
to meet local and regional retail demand, such
as large-scale retail, office, civic and entertainment uses; shopping malls, with large format or “big-box” retail allowed. It allows supporting uses
such as gas stations, and hotels. Buildings typically
have relatively large footprints. Development and
design standards will create a pedestrian orientation within centers and along major corridors. The maximum FAR is 1.0.

General
The General Commercial designation is intended
for a range of retail and service uses that are
not appropriate in other areas because of higher
volumes of vehicle traffic and potential adverse
impacts on other uses. Examples of allowable uses
include: building materials, storage facilities with
active storefronts, equipment rental, wholesale
businesses, and specialized retail not normally
found in shopping centers. The maximum FAR is

2.0. Regional Commercial development with surface
parking.
3-8 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Mixed-Use
Mixed-use designations are based on commercial
uses and also require a residential or office component.

Neighborhood Mixed-Use
This designation allows a minimum of 50 percent
residential uses and provides for mixed-use districts
of local-serving, pedestrian-oriented commercial
development, such as convenience shopping and
professional offices in two- to three-story buildings.

Development is expected to include ground-floor
neighborhood retail uses and upper-level housing
or offices, with a mix of small -lot single-family
houses, townhomes, and multi-family dwelling
units on side streets, in a horizontal or vertical
mixed-use orientation. The built form will have a
scale and character that is consistent with pedestrian orientation, to attract and promote a walk-in clientele, with small lots made accessible by closely
spaced connections for pedestrians, bicyclists, and
vehicular traffic; these connections will provide
convenient access from residences to commercial
space. Automobile-oriented uses are not permitted. Residential densities range between 12 and 16 units per acre and the maximum FAR is 1.5.

Corridor/Center Mixed-Use
The Corridor/Center Mixed-Use designation is
higher intensity than Neighborhood Mixed-Use,
and is intended to allow for horizontal and vertical
mixed-use development in multiple story buildings
along key circulation corridors where height and
density can be easily accommodated. Ground-floor
retail and upper-floor residential or offices are
the primary uses, with personal and business
services and public and institutional space as
supportive uses. Development will facilitate the
transformation of existing transportation corridors
into active, highly walkable areas with broad,
pedestrian- friendly sidewalks, trees, landscaping,
and local-serving uses with new buildings that step
down in relationship to the scale and character
of adjacent neighborhoods. This designation will
largely apply along major roadways, at targeted
locations between regional Activity Centers as
defined in the General Plan. Residential densities
Neighborhood Mixed-use emphasizes pedestrianoriented commercial development.

Corridor/Center Mixed-use with ground-floor office
space and multi-family housing above.

Chapter 3 | Land Use 3-9
range between 16 and 30 units per acre with a
minimum 40 percent residential uses, and the
maximum FAR is 1.5.

Public Facilities
This designation applies to public facilities, such as
City Hall, county buildings, schools, colleges, the
municipal airports, and hospitals. It also includes
public facilities, such as fire and police stations,
City-operated recycling centers, and sewage treatment plants. The following public facility land uses are within the Plan Area: Public Facility (General),
K to 12 Schools (such as Elementary, Middle, and
Special Schools), Airport, Church, Hospital, Neighborhood Center, PG&E Station, Water Recharge Basin, and College.

Open Space
The Open Space designation applies to open space
areas, such as parks, golf courses, ponding basins,
riparian corridors, and the clear zone around
airports. The following open space land uses are
within the Plan Area: Park (General), Neighborhood Park, Community Park, Regional Park, Clear Zone, Ponding Basin, and Ponding Basin Park. Of
these, Parks, Neighborhood Parks, Community
Parks, Regional Parks, and Ponding Basin Parks are
considered parkland space for purposes of General
Plan goals. Further explanation about the parkland
definition can be found in Chapter 6, Public Facilities.

The Clear Zone land use designation is for land
that is within close proximity to the airport and is
limited to use of ten people per acre. Any potential
development within the Clear Zone could conflict
with flight sightlines and movements. The Southwest Fresno area contains a number of ponding basins, which are used to collect and reuse stormwater. The Ponding Basin Park land use designation is for certain ponding basins that are also accessible to the public as park space. However, park access is not open year-round and only accessible
during seasons where the ponding basin will not be
used to collect stormwater.

Fresno City CouncilMarch 21, 2024

Fresno City Council
March 21, 2024