Revisions to the Draft PEIR, of this Final EIR. Titles on Figures 4.14-3, 4.14-5,
4.14-6, 4.14-7, 4.14-8, 4.14-9, 4.14-10, 4.14-12, 4.14-13, 4.14-14, 4.14-15,
4.14-16, 4.14-17, 4.14-18, and 4.14-19 have been revised as shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft PEIR, of this Final EIR. Scenario references in Tables 4.14-2, 4.14-3, 4.14-4, 4.14-8, 4.14-9, 4.14-10, 4.14-11, 4.14-12,
4.14-13, 4.14-14, 4.14-15, 4.14-16, 4.14-17, and 4-14-18 have been revised as shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft PEIR, of this Final EIR.
GOV3-06 Right-of-way should be preserved for the Type L-9 partial cloverleaf interchange for the SR 41/North Avenue interchange. Roundabouts at the ramp intersections should be considered as an interim improvement. The Type L-9 interchange configuration has been changed to a right-angle intersection at the on-ramp intersection to accommodate pedestrian crossing by utilizing traffic signal control. Refer to the current Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) Chapter 500 for these changes.
As described in Mitigation Measure TRANS-7.2, the widening of the SR 41 southbound off-ramp at North Avenue is sufficient to improve traffic operations to an acceptable level under cumulative conditions with the proposed Plan. Further interchange reconstruction, including possible expansion to a Type L-9 partial cloverleaf configuration, is not necessary to mitigate the proposed Plan’s cumulative impact nor is it identified as a future project in any currently adopted planning document, including the Caltrans SR 41 Transportation Concept Report, Fresno COG RTP/SCS, or Fresno General Plan.
However, separate from the proposed Plan and the Draft PEIR, the City is willing to work with Caltrans in the future to determine if an alternative ultimate concept for the SR 41 / North Avenue interchange, such as a Type L-9 partial cloverleaf interchange, may be mutually desirable in the longterm future, as suggested by Caltrans comment.
GOV3-07 In reference to "Intersection Operations" on Page 4.14-40, it is stated that the adjustments to cycle length and shifting green time phases at the intersection of SR 99 northbound ramps/East/Jensen A venues would result in slightly better operations under existing plus proposed plan. Signal timing modification should not be used as Project mitigation, this is considered routine maintenance.
The study recognizes that the signal timing modifications would occur as part of routine maintenance. As stated on page 4.14-40 of the Draft PEIR, “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.” The stated adjustments to cycle length and green time phases is simply included as an example to explain why delay is lower (i.e., slightly better operations) under existing plus proposed Plan than existing conditions at the SR 99 northbound ramps/East Avenue/Jensen Avenue intersection. It is not being proposed as mitigation.
GOV3-08 Table 4.14-10 for SR 99 southbound ramps/East/Jensen Avenues displayed the delay would remain at 61 seconds from the Existing Conditions to Existing plus The results presented in Table 4.14-10 of the Draft PEIR are consistent with the overall intersection control delay presented in the Synchro worksheets,
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-24 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
Project Conditions. There is an increase in traffic volumes by 632 for the Existing plus Project condition. However the Synchro worksheets showed higher delay for the southbound off-ramp approach. The southbound off-ramp would operate poorly in the Existing plus Project condition and excessive queuing on the offramp and freeway mainline may occur. Synchro files should be submitted to verify the delay. The first paragraph under Table 4.14-10 may not be necessarily true.
which are calculated according to the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. As shown in Table 4.14-10 and supported by the Synchro worksheets, the overall intersection delay at the State Route (SR) 99 southbound ramps/East Avenue/Jensen Avenue intersection has a negligible change from 60.8 seconds per vehicle under existing conditions to 60.6 seconds per vehicle under existing plus proposed Plan conditions.
Therefore, the referenced statement in the first paragraph under Table
4.14-10 is true.
While the Synchro worksheets do show a slight increase in delay for the southbound off-ramp approach (from 106.7 seconds per vehicle under existing conditions to 117.5 seconds per vehicle under existing plus proposed Plan conditions), this is balanced out by less delay on the other approaches (e.g., 21.9 seconds per vehicle for the westbound approach and 41.9 seconds per vehicle for the eastbound approach). The result is a negligible change in the weighted average delay for the overall intersection, as noted above (60.8 seconds per vehicle to 60.6 seconds per vehicle).
Although the southbound off-ramp approach would operate with higher delay than the other approaches, Table 4.14-11 shows that excessive queuing on the SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Jensen would not occur under existing plus proposed Plan conditions.
GOV3-09 In Table 4.14-10 for the SR 99 northbound ramps/East Avenue/Jensen Avenue indicates the delay decreases from the Existing to Existing plus Project conditions with the same lane configuration and with increased traffic volumes. An explanation should be provided to justify the decrease in delay between conditions.
As stated on page 4.14-40 of the Draft PEIR:
“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.” GOV3-10 In reference to Tables 4.14.-4, 4.14-11, 4.14-15, and 4.14-18, deceleration length at the off-ramps prior to stopping at the end of queue is required. Refer to the current Caltrans HDM for deceleration length requirements.
Tables 4.14-4, 4.14-11, 4.14-15, and 4-14-18 have been revised as shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft PEIR, of this Final EIR.
GOV3-11 Table 4.14-10 - Existing plus Project condition and Table 4.14-14 - Cumulative Conditions are not consistent in regards to delay. An explanation as to the Delay and LOS results for the Existing Plus Proposed Plan scenario in Table
4.14-14 in Chapter 4.14 of the Draft PEIR has been revised to match Table
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-25
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
inconsistency should be explained. 4.14-10 as shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft PEIR, of this Final EIR.
GOV3-12 Refer to Synchro worksheets for SR 41 northbound ramps/North Avenue, the Cumulative displayed two eastbound-through-lanes and two westboundthrough-lanes, and the Existing and Existing plus Project condition displayed one eastbound-through-lane and one westbound through-lane. It is unclear when North Avenue within the interchange area is widened to two lanes before it would be mitigated.
As described on pages 4.14-53 and 4.14-54 of the Draft PEIR, the widening of North Avenue to a four-lane divided arterial east of Elm Avenue is included as a planned improvement to the regional roadway network as identified in the Fresno Council of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Fresno Downtown Plans, and/or the Fresno General Plan. According to the project list, this improvement is planned to be open to traffic in 2035.
GOV3-13 Refer to Table 4.14-14 and Synchro worksheets for SR 99 northbound ramps/East Avenue/Jensen Avenue, the traffic volumes would increase from the Existing plus Project to Cumulative condition but the delay would decrease. Synchro files should be submitted to verify this delay.
Please see Response GOV3-11. The delay and LOS results for the Existing Plus Proposed Plan scenario in Table 4.14-14 of the Draft PEIR has been revised to match Table 4.14-10 as shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft PEIR, of this Final EIR. With these revisions, the delay increases from existing plus proposed Plan conditions to cumulative conditions.
GOV3-14 The queue length on the westbound-left turn lane at the SR 99 southbound ramps/Fresno Street will exceed the available storage.
The comment correctly identifies that the queue for the westbound leftturn on Fresno Street turning onto the SR 99 southbound on-ramp would exceed the available storage of the westbound left-turn pocket. However, this is not a significant impact per the significance criteria on page 4.14-35, Chapter 4.14 of the Draft PEIR.
GOV3-15 Refer to Page 4.14-69 (MM Trans 7.3), the proposed southbound right-tum phase to run concurrently with the eastbound through phase may be conflicting with pedestrian crossing phase. Synchro files should be submitted to verify the proposed mitigation.
The pedestrian crossing phase would run concurrently with the westbound through phase, and would not conflict with the proposed southbound right-turn phase.
GOV3-16 The Synchro analysis and the proposed improvements for each interchange will need to be reevaluated once Synchro files are submitted to Caltrans for review.
Additional comments will be provided at the later date.
Synchro analysis files were submitted to Caltrans for review by the City on October 11, 2017.
GOV3-17 Trip generation, trip distribution, and intersection traffic turning movement figures should be provided.
Intersection traffic turning movement figures have been provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft PEIR, of this Final EIR. As stated on page
4.14-29 in Chapter 4.14 of the Draft PEIR, trip generation for the proposed Plan is estimated by the travel demand forecasting (TDF) model that was developed for the Fresno General Plan MEIR. As stated on page 4.14-36, the proposed Plan’s land uses are added to the Fresno General Plan MEIR TDF model, and the TDF model generates trips based on those land uses and locally valid trip generation rates. Since the trip generation step is one of several steps in the TDF modeling process outlined on page 4.14-29, it is not feasible to develop a figure that illustrates the proposed Plan’s trip generation.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-26 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
Similarly, the scope and scale of the 3,255-acre Plan Area makes developing an accurate trip distribution figure infeasible. Spanning more than three miles east-to-west and three miles north-to-south with an irregular shape, development in the northwest portion of the Plan Area would have a much different trip distribution pattern from the southeast portion of the Plan Area, which would be different still from areas in the central, western, and southern portions of the Plan Area. In addition, a portion of the trips generated by the proposed Plan would travel within the Plan Area without using regional roadways or the State highway system outside the Plan Area. Given the complexities of the Plan Area’s size, scope, and scale, the Fresno General Plan MEIR TDF model was the most appropriate tool to distribute the Plan Area trips, as described on page
4.14-29, Chapter 4.14 of the Draft PEIR.
GOV3-18 SB 375 formalized the connection between land use planning and transportation.
Population growth is eminent. The Specific Plan is indicating that the "Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)" is projected to increase to approximately 1,470,179 with full build-out. Furthermore, with the funding constraints in transportation that we are compelled to contend with, we are learning that we cannot necessarily afford to build our way out of congestion. While there is still opportunity to expand infrastructure in our region, we will also need to manage our transportation infrastructure more efficiently. This can only be done by working together, maximizing funding opportunities (i.e. all-inclusive Regional fee programs) to develop a well-integrated system that offers various alternative modes for our residents.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact David Padilla at (559) 444-2493 or [email protected].
The comment affirms the Draft PEIR analysis; however, it does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis or mitigation measures contained in the Draft PEIR, nor does the comment raise a new environmental issue. The proposed Plan includes goals and policies that promote the efficient management of transportation infrastructure and a well-integrated system that offers various alternative modes for Southwest Fresno residents, including Goals T-4, T-6, T-7, T-8, T11, T-12, and T-14, and the multiple policies contained under each of these goals. Furthermore, Fresno General Plan policies MT-1-p, MT-2-b, MT-2-g, MT-2-j, MT-2-l, and MT-4-c reaffirm the City’s commitment to work together with our partners in the region to address the topics identified in this comment.
GOV4 9/25/2017 Thomas W. Barth, Barth Daly LLP, Washington Unified School District GOV4-01 Our firm represents Washington Unified School District ("District"). On behalf of the District, we submit these comments on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("Draft PEIR") prepared for the proposed Southwest Fresno Specific Plan (collectively, the "Project"). As set forth in this letter, the Draft PEIR does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA," Pub.
Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15000, et seq.) for both technical and substantive reasons. The Draft PEIR The comment serves as an opening remark and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis or mitigation measures contained in the Draft PEIR. Please see Responses GOV4-02 through GOV4-15.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-27
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
does not include sufficient information to evaluate potential environmental impacts related to schools. The District requests that the City revise the Draft PEIR to address the issues identified in this letter, develop appropriate mitigation measures for any impacts that are identified as significant, and then recirculate the revised Draft PEIR as required by CEQA. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15088.5.) As another public agency serving the population of Fresno, the District prefers to cooperate with the City regarding the proposed Project so as to help ensure that it will benefit the entire community, without undue impacts. The District's primary concern is that the Project not create significant impacts on the student population it serves, their families, District staff and teachers, and the school facilities in which they are housed. The District wishes to emphasize that this Project has the potential to have a profound negative effect on the District's students, their families, and residents who will reside in and near the Project. It remains the District's hope that collaboration between the District and both the City and Project developers can occur to avoid this result.
GOV4-02 I. The Draft PEIR does not meet its purpose as an informational document because it fails to provide an adequate description of the environmental setting related to schools.
An environmental impact report is required to include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published. This environmental setting constitutes the baseline physical conditions by which the lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15125, subd. (a).) In this regard, the Draft PEIR's discussion of the impacts of the Southwest Specific Plan on the District's ability to serve students generated by the eventual development in the Plan area is of particular concern. The Draft PEIR contains no specific information pertaining to the District, and relies almost exclusively on information pertaining to Fresno Unified School District (serving just a portion of the north of the Plan area, and Central Unified School District (serving only a small part along the western edge of the Plan area. [Draft PEIR, p. 4.13-14-17.] The PEIR entirely fails to disclose the existing conditions of schools located within the District.
Where the environmental setting in an EIR contains inaccuracies, it fails as an informational document. An EIR cannot properly and accurately assess the impacts of the project or determine appropriate mitigation measures if it does The comment expresses concern regarding baseline physical conditions and states that the EIR does not contain any specific information about the Washington Unified School District (WUSD). The City attempted to contact the WUSD in July 2017 during the preparation of the Draft PEIR to receive school data and did not receive a response. In addition, the City did not receive a letter in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) filed on February 23, 2017, and no information was available on the District's website. Absent this information, the City reasonably used baseline conditions from another local school district, the Fresno Unified School District (FUSD), consistent with the Draft PEIR approach of tiering from the Fresno General Plan Master EIR adopted July 2014. The Draft PEIR evaluates school impacts and mitigation measures based on current State guidelines and requirements; thus, no additional analysis per the commenter’s request is required.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-28 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
not include adequate consideration and documentation of the existing environmental conditions. (See, San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center, et al. v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713.)
GOV4-03 II. The Draft PEIR does not meet its purpose as an informational document because it fails to provide an adequate analysis of environmental impacts related to schools.
A. The Draft PEIR contains an inadequate discussion of impacts on schools.
The Draft PEIR is deficient in its discussion and proposed mitigation of schoolrelated impacts that may result from the Project. The Draft PEIR states that impacts on schools are deemed less than significant with payment of school developer fees. [Draft PEIR, pp. 4.13-18-19.] The Draft PEIR states that in accordance with Senate Bill ("SB") 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." [Draft PEIR, p. 4.13-19.] This analysis is based on a misconception and falls short of providing a full and accurate picture of the school-related impacts that will necessarily result from the Project. Further, here and elsewhere, the Draft PEIR contains bare conclusions regarding impacts without a sufficient explanation of the basis for those conclusions, again in violation of CEQA. (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n. v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 397.) In this instance, as the Draft PEIR fails to acknowledge, the statutory school impact fees will not sufficiently fund the necessary new facilities. It is commonly understood that "Level 1" developer fees (Ed. Code,§ 17620; Gov. Code,§ 65995) for schools cover only approximately one-third of the projected cost of school construction, with the other two-thirds expected to come from State and local bond funds. With there now having been no new statewide bond measure for school facilities for many years, State funds are depleted, leaving an even greater shortfall. Similarly, "Level 2" fees reflect only approximately half of the necessary cost, as demonstrated by the fact that when State funding runs out, the possibility of an approximate doubling of the fees to a "Level 3" is permitted to address the full anticipated cost of school construction. (See Go,1. Code §§65995.5 - 65995.7.) Level 3 fees are not currently available due to a pending lawsuit against the State Allocation Board, which is not likely to be resolved in short order. The shortfall of necessary funds is exacerbated by the potential limitations on bonding capacity of land in the Plan Area, should a new school site be needed. Without sufficient space to build on the current elementary school As indicated in the Draft PEIR, per California Government Code Section 65995(3)(h), the payment of statutory fees is “deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization...on the provision of adequate school facilities.” Thus, because applicants for all future development under implementation of the proposed Plan would be subject to applicable developer impact fees, impacts to the FUSD, WUSD, and Central Unified School District (CUSD) were correctly described as less than significant in the Draft PEIR.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-29
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
site owned by the District in the Plan Area, acquisition of a new site, and more likely multiple sites, is probable, with inadequate available funds for such land purchases.
The developer fees cited by the Draft PEIR were never intended to prohibit other mitigation, nor will they adequately mitigate all impacts of this Project.
Government Code section 65996(b) mentions only "school facilities mitigation," meaning that mitigation of impacts on issues other than school facilities must still be addressed. (See, Chawanakee Unified School District v. County of Madera, et al. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016.)
GOV4-04 The Draft PEIR fails to explore other measures that would alleviate the impact of the increases in student enrollment. Government Code section 65996 also does not preclude a host of available means of addressing a School District's needs as a result of new development. Alternative means of addressing the impacts of new development on schools still allowed under SB 50, and not acknowledged in the Draft PEIR, include:
1. Coordinated Planning for School Sites
Government Code sections 65352 and 65352.2 require local cities to coordinate planning of school facilities with school districts. The Legislature confirmed in this statutory scheme that the parties are meant to coordinate "[o]ptions for the siting of new schools and whether or not the local city or counties existing land use element appropriately reflects the demand for public school facilities, and ensures that new planned development reserves location for public schools in the most appropriate locations." (Gov. Code 65352.2(d)(2).) No such coordination has occurred in relation to the Project. The Draft PEIR does not analyze the City's failure to comply with these coordination requirements.
The Legislature recognized that new planned development should take into consideration and even "reserve" locations for schools to serve development because schools are as integral a part of planning for new development as is any other public service, such as fire, police, water and sewer. As it relates to this instance, the intent behind sections 65350, et seq., supports the District's position that the City must analyze whether the current size of District schools is adequate to accommodate both its existing population and the new development. The City can help the District provide adequate facilities resulting from the impacts of the Project, which are not addressed by developer fees, by acknowledging the significant impact on schools, and requiring alternative The comment expresses concern regarding the coordination of planning of school facilities with school districts. As stated on page 4.13-18 of the Draft PEIR, the proposed Plan includes goals and policies related to school facilities, specifically Goal PF-5 and Policy PF-5.1, which are described below.
With respect to the commenter’s concerns of inadequate mitigation measures to address school siting issues within the Plan Area, the WUSD has its own methodology for managing school population and the determination for a new or physically altered school facility is outside of the jurisdiction of the City. However, as stated on page 4.12-6 of the Draft PEIR, the population within the Plan Area is not projected to increase above the population projected in the Fresno General Plan, adopted in 2014. In addition, as discussed in the Draft PEIR, Goal PF-5 and Policy PF5.1 ensure that the amount of existing and new schools within the Plan Area adequately support the number of existing and new residents, and school sites are identified, located outside the Plan Area but within the SOI, in the adopted Fresno General Plan. Further, applicants for all future development under implementation of the proposed Plan would be required to undergo separate environmental assessment as required by CEQA to identify appropriate mitigation measures. As a program-level EIR, it would be speculative for this EIR to conduct a site-specific analysis of potential future school sites that have not yet been identified. The City is looking forward to working with the WUSD to designate new sites if needed.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-30 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
mitigation measures to assure that there are adequate sites to accommodate school facilities.
The Draft PEIR states that "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 school so that new student populations can be provided with adequate school facilities ... ," but this statement is inadequate as mitigation because it does not commit the City to any action, and does create a condition of approval for developers. [Draft PEIR, p. 4.13-18.] The City has improperly delegated authority for development of adequate mitigation measures to address the school siting issues to future developers of the land within the Plan Area. This is not a permissible delegation of authority under CEQA. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15025, subd. (b)(l).) Per section 15084, subdivision (e), of the CEQA Guidelines, a draft EIR must reflect the independent judgment of the lead agency, and the lead agency is responsible for the adequacy and objectivity of the draft EIR. Leaving developers to come up with mitigation measures to address school-related issues does not comply with this standard. (See also, Pub. Resources Code,§ 21081.6, subd. (b); Cal Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(2) [EIR must have mitigation measures that are enforceable through conditions of approval, contracts or other means that are legally binding].)
GOV4-05 2. Land Dedication
One feasible mitigation measure not addressed by the City would be for the City to adopt findings requiring any developer building as part of the development allowed by the Project to dedicate land and/or funding pursuant to Government Code sections 65970, et seq., which permit the City to require a developer to dedicate land to a school district. Section 65974 specifically states that "for the purpose of establishing an interim method of providing classroom facilities where overcrowded conditions exist, ... a city, county, or city and county may, by ordinance, require the dedication of land, the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for classroom and related facilities for elementary or high schools as a condition to the approval of a residential development." Nothing in SB SO/
Government Code section 65996 precludes this approach.
A land dedication requirement would be good public planning benefiting all residents of the community, including future residents of the Project. Land Please see Response GOV4-04.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-31
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
suitable for a new school site in the vicinity of the Project is already scarce; it will only become more so if the Project is implemented and further development occurs. Under Government Code sections 65352 and 65352.2, the City has a duty to help plan for adequate services to its residents by ensuring that future sites are set aside for schools. Failure to do so leads to inadequate services, future controversies, and the potential need for a school district to exercise its rights under eminent domain, displacing future residents.
All of these are impacts potentially stemming from the Project that are not considered in the Draft PEIR, and for which mitigation is and can be made available under existing law. Land dedication is a permissible mitigation measure under Government Code sections 65995, et seq. Section 65995(a) specifically states that "[e]xcept for a fee, charge. dedication, or other requirement authorized under Section 17620 of the Education Code, or pursuant to Chapter
4.7 (commencing with Section 65970), a fee, charge, dedication or other requirement for the construction or reconstruction of school facilities may not be levied .... " (Emphasis added.) Section 65995 expressly excludes Chapter 4.7, inclusive of section 65974, from this limitation, thus permitting a city to address the impacts of development through the dedication of land.
Further, the City is authorized by section 66478 of the Subdivision Map Act to require dedication of elementary school sites when needed to address development. Nothing in Government Code sections 65995, et seq., precludes such a requirement.
Land dedication is particularly important in the Project's vicinity given the lack of available vacant land for the school facilities that will be needed to serve the Project.
GOV4-06 3. Phasing
Another method by which the City can work cooperatively with the District within all legal constraints to ensure adequate school facilities with regard to new development allowed by the Project is by requiring future development to be phased and not permitted prior to availability of school facilities. Timing development so as to balance the availability of school facilities with new development can significantly aid the District in its attempt to provide for the additional students who will be generated as a result of the Project and development following approval of the Project. The Draft PEIR makes vague Please see Response GOV4-04.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-32 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
assumptions regarding project build-out by stating that the development of residential units would occur over many years, so the growth in students would be spread across the some unknown future time. The reality is that the District must plan in advance for the arrival of the new students generated by the Project. The City could mitigate the impacts of the Project and allow for available school facilities when needed by requiring phasing of future development. This phasing could require that the timing of the development of the Project be coordinated with the availability of school facilities.
GOV4-07 B. The Draft PEIR contains an inadequate discussion of other school related impacts.
In addition to the above discussion of the inadequacy of school impact fees to mitigate the Project's significant impact on schools, the Draft PEIR fails to address other types of impacts related to the inundation of District schools that will be caused by the Project.
The case of Chawanakee Unified School District v. County of Madera, et al., (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016 ("Chawanakee") addresses the extent to which a city or county must consider school related impacts in an environmental impact report for new development. The Court determined that SB 50 does not excuse a lead agency from conducting environmental review of school impacts other than an impact "on school facilities." With respect to this terminology from subdivision (a) of section 65996, the Court opined:
[T]he use of the term "on" indicates a direct relationship between the object (i.e. school facilities) and the impact and excludes impacts to other parts of the physical environment. Consequently, the phrase "impacts on school facilities" used in SB 50 does not cover all possible environmental impacts that have any type of connection or relationship to schools.
(Id., at 1028.)
The comment expresses concern regarding an inadequate discussion of other school-related impacts. As described in Chapter 1, Introduction, the Draft PEIR is a program-level analysis that tiers from the Fresno General Plan Master EIR adopted July 2014. The Draft PEIR evaluates school impacts and mitigation measures based on current State guidelines and requirements. As a program-level EIR, it would be speculative for this EIR to conduct a site-specific analysis of potential future school sites in this Draft PEIR that have not yet been identified;; thus, no additional analysis per the commenter’s request is required. Further, as the WUSD did not respond to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) filed on February 23, 2017 and did not respond to a request for information in July 2017, the Draft PEIR assumes WUSD has adequate capacity, without a need to mitigate other schoolrelated impacts through implementation of the proposed Plan. Policy PF5.1 ensures that the amount of existing and new schools within the Plan Area adequately support the number of existing and new residents.
Further, discretionary projects under the proposed Plan would be required to undergo separate environmental analysis as required by CEQA to identify appropriate mitigation measures.
GOV4-08 As a result, the Court of Appeal in Chawanakee concluded that the County would have to set aside the certification of the EIR at issue in that case and approvals of the project and take "action necessary to bring the EIR into compliance with CEQA regarding its analysis of the (a) traffic from private and school bus trips to existing schools outside the project area pending the construction of school with the project area and (b) the potential environmental effects from the construction of additions, either temporary or permanent, to existing schools prior to the construction of schools in the project area." (Id., at 2019.) The Draft See Response GOV4-07.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-33
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
PEIR does not contain any discussion of these impacts and effects.
As in the Chawanakee case, there is no analysis whatsoever in the Draft PEIR of the impact on school children and surrounding neighborhoods as portable classrooms or permanent construction are added to existing schools, or new schools are built, to accommodate development flowing from the approval of the Project. This would include addition of second stories on existing school buildings.
GOV4-09 1. Traffic and Transportation
Though the Draft PEIR generally analyzes the impacts of increased traffic, its analysis is inadequate particularly as related to schools. Traffic in the area of the Project is already impacted. The Specific Plan recognizes that the only high school within the District boundaries, Washington High School, is approximately four (4) miles south of the Plan Area, but the Draft PEIR fails to account for the traffic associated with transporting students from newly developed residential areas within the Plan Area to the existing high school, prior to any construction of a high school within the Plan Area. The Draft PEIR must include greater analysis regarding safety issues affected by traffic, such as reduced pedestrian safety (particularly as pupils walk to and from the schools that will serve the Project area), reduced response times for emergency services and first responders traveling to school sites, and increased gridlock during, before, and after school drop-off and pick-up hours. Since the District does not provide regular bussing for students (an important existing condition not addressed in the Draft PEIR), the Project has the potential to create substantial impacts in terms of traffic.
Given these concerns and the lack of mitigation measures to address them adequately, the Draft PEIR must be revised and supplemented to analyze the significant issues of traffic and safety as they relate to existing and proposed schools. The Chawanakee case supports the conclusion that greater traffic analysis that specifically takes the District and its students into consideration is required.
The travel demand forecasting (TDF) model used in this study (originally developed for the Fresno General Plan Master EIR) includes land use and transportation inputs for all of Fresno County. This includes land use inputs that reflect schools in WUSD, including West Fresno Elementary School, West Fresno Middle School, and Washington Union High School, as well as schools in FUSD, CUSD, private schools, and other public school districts in the county. The TDF model’s trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and trip assignment steps, described on page 4.14-29 of the Draft PEIR, account for school trips that would be generated by newly developed residential areas. This includes trips between the proposed residential development in the Plan Area and existing schools as well as proposed school locations in and around the Plan Area. As shown in Table 4.14-9 and Table 4.14-13, Elm Avenue, Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, and North Avenue in the southeastern portion of the Plan Area all show increases in a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic levels with the proposed Plan, reflecting new trips generated by development in the proposed Plan, including school trips to and from WUSD school sites.
Per Fresno General Plan policy MT-2-i, a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) will be required for:
• all development projected to generate 100 or more peak hour new vehicle trips if they are located in traffic impact zone (TIZ) III (most of the WUSD portion of the Plan Area);
• all development projected to generate 200 or more peak hour new vehicle trips if they are located in TIZ II or TIZ IV (the remaining Washington Unified School District portion of the Plan Area);
• a project that includes a General Plan amendment; or
• a project that will substantially change the off-site transportation system
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-34 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
These transportation studies will evaluate traffic conditions as new development occurs, including traffic generated by school-related trips.
Furthermore, future discretionary projects, including new schools, would be required to conduct project-level environmental assessment, including a traffic analysis.
The comment expresses concern regarding the findings under Impact TRANS-4. As stated on page 4.14-48 and page 4.14-50 of the Draft PEIR, the proposed Plan includes goals and policies that promote pedestrian and bicycle safety, including the safety of students. This includes Goals T-1, T-3, T-4, T-9, and Policies T-3.5 and T-4.5.
The comment expresses concern regarding the findings under Impact TRANS-5 related to response times for emergency services. As stated on page 4.14-50 of the Draft PEIR, the proposed Plan would 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 Plan would have a less than significant impact on emergency access.
GOV4-10 As stated in Chawanakee, a project's indirect impacts on parts of the physical environment that are not school facilities are not excused from being considered.
For example:
[A]n impact on traffic, even if that traffic is near a school facility and related to getting students to and from the facility, is not an impact 'on school facilities' for purposes of Government Code section 65996, subdivision (a). From both a chronological and a molecular view of adverse physical change, the additional students traveling to existing schools will impact the roadways and traffic before they set foot on the school grounds. From a funding perspective, the capped school facilities fee will not be used by a school district to improve intersections affected by the traffic. Thus, it makes little sense to say that the impact on traffic is fully mitigated by the payment of the fee. In summary, ... the impact on traffic is not an impact on school facilities and, as a result, the impact on traffic must be considered in the EIR.
(Chawanakee, 196 Cal.App.4th at 1028-29.)
Please see Response GOV4-09.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-35
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
GOV4-11 The Draft PEIR expressly acknowledges that there will be traffic (and other) impacts associated with construction and operation of new or expanded schools, and it states, " . ..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." [Draft PEIR, p. 4.13-18.] In this regard, the Draft PEIR fails to comply with CEQA and the requirements of Chawanakee.
Mitigation measures are required to be enforceable through conditions of approval, contracts or other means that are legally binding. (Pub. Resources Code, §21081.6, subd. (b); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(2).) The measure in the Draft PEIR that defers mitigation of the impacts of future development does not meet this standard, and is therefore inadequate. It does not commit the City to take any action in the future, or refrain from doing so, and it does not impose any obligation on a third party through a condition of approval or contract. The measure also improperly defers formulation of mitigation. While deferral of specifics is acceptable in some circumstances, the lead agency must articulate specific performance criteria and make further approval contingent on finding a way to meet them. In Preserve Wild Santee v.
City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, an EIR was disapproved by the court based on the fact that it improperly deferred mitigation of impacts to an endangered butterfly and did not include any performance standards or guidelines. Rather, the court found that the anticipated plan for management contained nonspecific actions, and left the timing and other specifics subject to the discretion of the habitat preserve manager on prevailing environmental conditions. Therefore, the activities were not guaranteed to occur at any particular time or in any particular manner. Further, the EIR in Preserve Wild Santee did not indicate that it was in any way impractical or infeasible to specify standards or guidelines.
Like the EIR in Preserve Wild Santee, the Draft PEIR improperly defers mitigation of significant impacts related to the foreseeable need to construct schools to serve the expected development within the Plan Area.
This comment expresses concern regarding deferred mitigation. Mitigation measures describe the actions that will be taken to reduce or avoid an impact. It is ordinarily not appropriate to defer the formulation of mitigation measures until some future time (CEQA Guidelines Section 12156.4(a)(1)(B)). The CEQA Guidelines acknowledge an exception, explaining that mitigation measures may specify performance standards for mitigating a significant impact that might be accomplished in various ways.
In Sacramento Old City Ass’n v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, the court held that an agency may defer committing to a specific mitigation measure when it approves a project if the measures that will be considered subsequently are described and performance criteria are identified. The court reasoned that when it is known that mitigation is feasible, but it is impractical to devise specific measures during the planning process, the agency can commit itself to devising measures that satisfy performance criteria.
If a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project, the effects of the mitigation measure are discussed in the Draft PEIR, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed (Stevens v. City of Glendale (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 986; CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(D)).
The Draft PEIR tiers from the Fresno General Plan Master EIR and is consistent with the finding under Impact PS-3. Accordingly, as shown in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR, MEIR Mitigation Measure PS-3 has been included in response to this comment.
GOV4-12 The failure adequately to consider and analyze the constraints on the future need to construct schools contemplated in the Draft PEIR also points to a failure to consider adequate and feasible alternatives, as required by CEQA. (See, e.g., As discussed in response to comment GOV4-09, the traffic analysis accounts for school trips that would be generated by newly developed residential areas, and these trips are reflected in the traffic forecasts
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-36 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
Pub. Resources Code § 15126.6(a)-(e).)
To the extent that the City contends that the traffic analysis "assumes" that there will be school trips associated with residential units, this is not sufficient. There is no specific data or discussion of such school trips, and there is no way to separate those types of trips from other vehicle trips so as to meaningfully review and analyze their impacts. The analysis therefore fails to comply with CEQA. (See, Pub. Resources Code,§ 21003, subd. (b) [EIR must be meaningful and useful to decision-makers and the public]; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15140, 15147 [maps, charts and other means of presenting information graphically should be used to enhance an EIR's clarity; technical data should be summarized].)
presented in Table 4.14-9 and Table 4.14-13 of the Draft PEIR.
As described on pages 4.14-29 and 4.14-30 of the Draft PEIR, the plan-level traffic analysis conducted for this programmatic EIR uses the state-of-thepractice four-step travel modeling process to develop traffic forecasts, and state-of-the-practice traffic operations methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual to evaluate traffic operations. The analysis uses specific traffic significance criteria identified in the City of Fresno Traffic Impact Study Report Guidelines and Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies to identify significant impacts, as discussed on pages
4.14-30, 4.14-31, and 4.14-34 of the Draft PEIR. Table 4.14-9 and Table
4.14-13 summarize the a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic levels for existing conditions, existing plus proposed Plan conditions, and cumulative conditions side-by-side so readers can easily see how traffic changes by segment. Figures 4.14-5, 4.14-13, and 4.14-17 present maps with average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on study roadway segments, while Figures 4.14- 6, 4.14-7, 4.14-14, 4.14-15, 4.14-18, and 4.14-19 present maps showing the a.m. and p.m. level of service (LOS) to make the results of the analysis more accessible to readers.
Since the analysis presented in Chapter 4.14 of the Draft PEIR uses state-ofthe-practice methodologies, relevant traffic significance criteria for the lead and responsible agencies, clearly presents the results of the analysis, and summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed Plan on transportation and traffic, the Draft PEIR sufficiently describes the transportation effects in a meaningful and useful way for decision makers and the public.
GOV4-13 2. Impacts of commercial development
The Draft PEIR ignores the impact of commercial development on the generation of students and demand for schools. This oversight apparently results from a flawed assumption with no basis. In fact, the Legislature has expressly recognized that commercial development generates students. Otherwise, it would not have authorized school districts to charge fees against commercial and industrial development, as it did with Education Code section 17620(a)(l)(A). The imposition of fees on commercial and industrial development is based on the premise, recognized by the Legislature, that this type of development will attract new employees with families and therefore will generate new students. (See, The comment expresses concern regarding student generation rates. The City attempted to contact the WUSD in July 2017 during the preparation of the Draft PEIR. The WUSD did not provide background data on how their student generation rates are established as requested on July 11, 2017.
The WUSD is responsible for establishing its student generation rates.
Absent this information, the City reasonably used student generation rates from another local school district, the FUSD. These rates are based on residential growth and not commercial growth. The Draft PEIR evaluates school impacts and mitigation measures based on current State guidelines and requirements; thus, no additional analysis per the commenter’s
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-37
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218, 246.) Since California law provides for fees to be imposed on both residential and commercial development, it recognizes that the students generated by these types of development do not necessarily overlap. Thus, the impacts of student generation resulting from both types of development must be analyzed. request is required.
GOV4-14 III. Plan Consistency
The Draft PEIR also fails adequately to consider consistency with the City of Fresno General Plan ("General Plan"). The Draft PEIR acknowledges that the General Plan contains the goal of "Appropriate School Locations," and "Park and School Park and School Site Coordination." [Draft PEIR, p. 4.13-14 (quoting Policies POSS-8-b/c).] No analysis is undertaken and no information is provided as to whether the Project will result in such efficient and equitable distribution of quality educational facilities. In fact, the development likely will be underserved by school facilities, and hence educational opportunities, as discussed earlier.
Residents of the Project will therefore face inequity with other students in the District, including undersized schools, lack of play space, lack of parking, school overcrowding, and potentially disadvantageous location of facilities near railroad tracks and gas pipelines. This inconsistency and relating impact must be addressed in the Draft PEIR.
The comment expresses concern regarding consistency with the City of Fresno General Plan. As stated on page 4.13-19 of the Draft PEIR, implementation of "Goal PF-8: Locate parks, schools, and other public facilities equitably," among other requirements, would result in less-thansignificant impacts to schools; thus, no additional analysis per the commenter’s request is required.
GOV4-15 Conclusion
The Draft PEIR does not adequately analyze the Specific Plan's potential impacts, particularly as related to schools. The Draft PEIR must address with greater specificity the impacts on school facilities and services, student safety, and more, as addressed in this letter. The District encourages the City to work cooperatively with the District and consider alternative mitigation measures that can assist in adequately mitigating the impacts on the District's schools and the affected surrounding environment. The Draft PEIR is also deficient in the other manners discussed above. The District stands ready to meet and work with the City to address these vital issues.
See Master Response 2. The City is committed to working with the WUSD, as stated in Policy PF-5.1 of the proposed Plan.
GOV5 9/25/2017 Steven White, Director, County of Fresno Department of Public Works & Planning GOV5-01 Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
2600 Fresno Street, Rm. 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
SUBJECT: Notice of Availability of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the
The text on page 4.14-9 of the Draft PEIR notes General Plan policy MT-11- c. These comments do not relate to the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft PEIR or the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. No further response is required.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-38 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos,
The County of Fresno appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the subject Notice of Availability. In the Transportation and Circulation section of the Technical Appendices, the plan proposes new and modified truck routes on the below County Roadway segments:
1. Central Avenue - SR 41 to West Avenue
2. Church Avenue - West Avenue to Marks Avenue
3. Elm Avenue - Central Avenue to North Avenue
4. West Avenue - Central Avenue to North Avenue
5. Marks Avenue - Church Avenue to Kearney Boulevard
Based on data gathered on these roadways in the PMS database, the existing roadway conditions of some of these roads include narrow pavement widths and very low PCI. Even though this is a planning document, the recommended truck routes should be thoroughly discussed and evaluated before designating the proposed routes as future truck routes. The County requests to be included in all discussions regarding truck routes and potential impacts to County Roads. Please contact Tong Xiong from our Design Division ((559) 600-4532 or [email protected]) and Frank Daniele from our Road Maintenance and Operations Division ((559) 600-4268) or
[email protected]) regarding this request.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the project. If you have any questions, you may email me at [email protected] or contact me at (559) 600-4245.
Sincerely,
ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE
Chrissy Monfette, Planner
Development Services Division
CMM:
G:\4360Devs&Pln\EnvPlan\OAR\City of Fresno\Southwest Fresno Specific Plan\NOA\SWF SP NOA Comment Letter.dotx
c: Bernard Jimenez, Deputy Director of Planning
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-39
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
William M. Kettler, Development Services Division
Chris Motta, Development Services Division
Marianne Mollring, Development Services Division
GOV6 9/27/2017 Wendull Lum, Master Plan Special Projects Manager, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
GOV6-01 Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno, Development and Resource Management Department 2600 Fresno Street, RM 3065
Fresno, CA 93 721
Dear Sophia,
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (District)
Comments on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) for City of Fresno Southwest Specific Plan (Plan) SCH#2017031012
District has reviewed the subject DPEIR for the City of Fresno Southwest Specific Plan and has the following comments.
The comment serves as an opening remark and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis or mitigation measures contained in the Draft PEIR, nor does the comment raise a new environmental issue. No further response is required.
GOV6-02 1. On page 4.9-15 under Local Surface Waters and Drainage, the storm drainage pipe system (not the basin as called out in the text) has the capacity for a twoyear storm and the basin is designed for six-inches (6") of rain over the Master Planned water shed areas . Further in the paragraph it should be noted in older areas of the existing system there may not be available area to expand basin property to allow a 20 percent change in required volume. The same comment is applicable to 4.9-24 and 27.
Text edits to Chapter 4.9 of the Draft PEIR have been made to clarify the capacity of the storm drainage pipe system. These edits are shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft PEIR, of this Response to Comments Document. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations provided in the Draft PEIR.
GOV6-03 2. On pages 4.9-16 and 4.9-25 for their respective tables the column identifying "Acres" needs to provide more clarification. For example it is not the acreage of the drainage area, but perhaps acreage of the area within the area that is affected by the Plan. Also on the table is an identified volume for "GP Required Basin Volume" and "Specific Plan Required Basin Volume". Please provide the documentation for these calculations for review and verification. At this time the District is unable to provide proper comment to these values as presented and will provide comment after receipt of support documentation.
The acreages and volumes are from Blair Church and Flynn Consulting Engineers, who prepared Chapter 7 (Utilities) of the Specific Plan dated 4- 24-17. No revision pending further comment from FMFCD.
GOV6-04 3. Figure 4.9-1 FMFCD Urban Flood Control System Area is from 2014 and is out of date I and should be replaced with the current version. The most recently published map is dated 12/9/ 2016 and is included as an attachment for your use.
Figure 4.9-1 in Chapter 4.9 of the Draft PEIR has been revised per the commenter's suggestion. This edit is shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft PEIR, of this Response to Comments Document. The revision does not affect any conclusions or significance determinations provided in the Draft
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-40 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
PEIR.
GOV6-05 4. Figure 4.9-2 Existing Urban Flood Control System In and Near the Plan Area is based on the 2014 FMFCD facilities map and is out of date and should be replaced with the current version. The most recently published map is dated 12/ 9/2016 and is included as an attachment for your use.
Figure 4.9-2 in Chapter 4.9 of the Draft PEIR has been revised per the commenter's suggestion. This edit is shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft PEIR, of this Response to Comments Document. The revision does not affect any conclusions or significance determinations provided in the Draft PEIR.
GOV6-06 The comments previously provided in the letter dated March 30, 2017 are still applicable for the Fresno Southwest Specific Plan prior to this subsequent request for comment for the DPEIR for the City of Fresno Southwest Specific Plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please keep our office informed on the development of the project and if you have any further questions, or need any additional information, please contact the District at (559) 456-3292.
Very truly yours,
Signature
Wendell Lum
Master Plan Special Projects Manager
WL/MW/lrl
Attachment
The comment serves as a closing remark and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis or mitigation measures contained in the Draft PEIR, nor does the comment raise a new environmental issue. No further response is required.
GOV7 9/28/2017 Wendell Lum, Master Plan Special Projects Manager, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
GOV7-01 From: Wendell Lum [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 11:04 AM
To: Sophia Pagoulatos
Subject: Southwest Specific Plan - Additional Comment
Sophia,
The District would like to add an additional comment pertaining to the City’s Southwest Specific Plan. On page 4.9-15, please delete sentence “When necessary, FMFCD can move water from a basin in one such drainage area to a second such basin by pumping water into a street and letting water flow in curb and gutter to a storm drain inlet in an adjoining drainage area” and the number 18 citation ”Rourke, Daniel, Environmental Resources Manager, Fresno Metropolitan Flood control District. Phone Call with Place Works, April 11, 2014.” Chapter 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, includes an analysis of surface water and drainage, which are evaluated using FMFCD data. Text edits to Chapter 4.9 of the Draft PEIR have been made to clarify stormwater detention processes. These edits are shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft PEIR, of this FEIR. These revisions do not affect any conclusions or significance determinations provided in the Draft PEIR.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-41
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
See the included attachment. Today, this situation is a rare occurrence because the District plans and constructs basin relief pipelines in order to avoid pumping water on the streets. The District’s current generation of Storm Drain Master Plans include basin relief pipelines that intertie the adjacent drainage areas together. This is the case for basins that do not have direct access to a canal for relief. Operationally, the District calls this situation a tiered relief system. The upstream basin pumps flow thru the relief pipeline to an adjacent downstream basin. This operation repeats until the water is ultimately moved to a downstream basin that has a permanent relief such as a canal or the river. Or the storm water may be detained at a downstream basin facility for recharge purpose depending on the forecasted weather conditions or maintenance requirements.
Wendell Lum
Master Plan Special Projects Manager
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
5469 E. Olive Avenue
Fresno, Ca 93727
(559) 456-3292
[email protected]
www.fresnofloodcontrol.org
B. Non-Governmental Organizations and Private Companies ORG1 8/11/2017 Terance Frazier, TFS Investments, LLC
ORG1-01 I am the property owner of the three parcels of land located at the southeastern corner of E. Church Avenue and Walnut Avenue. The APN numbers are:
APN 479-050-01
APN 479-050-06
APN 479-050-08
In reviewing the Land Use Map of both the Specific Plan and the DPEIR, I'm noticing that only the large 10+ acre parcel is designated Neighborhood MixedUse (NMX). In fact, all three parcels should be designated NMX per the fourth amendment that was approved by the City Council on December 8, 2016. As the owner of these three parcels, I respectfully request that the Land Use designations in the final Specific Plan and DPEIR be revised to include all three of the above parcels as being designated NMX, consistent with the intent of the City The comment pertains to the proposed Plan and does not address the adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Please see Master Response 1.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-42 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
Council action in December 2016.
ORG2 8/27/2017 Lee Ayres, Tree Fresno
ORG2-01 Good afternoon – We wish to submit the following comments on the Plan and the program EIR:
• Thanks for the thorough detail on conditions and terms. • We recommend that you add language that the Specific Plan policies and plans will be applied to adjacent areas when annexed in order to foster a coordinated plan for SW Fresno.
• We applaud the policies on Green Streets to promote bicycle and pedestrian use.
• Given that this is a Specific Plan, it would be helpful and appropriate to emphasize specific aims that would give this community a comparative advantage when competing with subdivisions in Fresno, Kerman, Fowler and Selma. These could include:
• Green Streets to provide safe routes to schools and connect every neighborhood with the jobs in near the HSR station.
• A target tree canopy of 40%
• Alternative Subdivision Standards to reduce street widths and increase lot sizes and landscape ratios.
The comment pertains to the proposed Plan and does not address the adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Please see Master Response 1.
ORG2-02 • A Community Landscapes Plan (recently funded by a CDBG grant) to develop tree and plant collections for each major neighborhood, new and existing.
The comment pertains to the proposed Plan and does not address the adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Please see Master Response 1.
The redline version of the Plan will include the Community Landscapes Plan as an implementation measure in Chapter 8 Implementation.
ORG2-03 • We question the allocation of an above average amounts of land for commercial uses, given traffic and aesthetic impacts, unless you can demonstrate this would provide job within walking distance for residents.
The Draft PEIR addresses the proposed Plan's impacts related to aesthetics and traffic in Chapters 4.1 and 4.14, respectively. The proposed Plan includes goals and policies that promote commercial uses to be located within walking distance of residents, including Goal LU-3, Policy LU-3.1, Policy LU-3.2, Goal LU-6, and Policy LU-6.1.
ORG2-04 • We challenge the low allocation of land for parks; given our low ParkScore. The Draft PEIR addresses the proposed Plan's impact on meeting the City's parks and open space standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents. The Draft PEIR includes Mitigation Measure PS-7, which mandates that "if the ratio is not met, the City should 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."
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-43
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
ORG2-05 In fact, it would be in the interest of the future attractiveness of SW Fresno to double the existing park ratio.
• Rather than not recognize Hyde Park and the Regional Sports Park as neighborhood assets, it would be better to mitigate the concerns and improve these parks. This will not reduce the need to add more. • A Community Park of 20 or more acres – maintained to a high standard – needs to be called out as a priority in the Edison High-Hinton-Computech-Gaston area.
If a Community College Campus is located nearby, it would make sense to master plan the combined Greenspace provided by the school, park and college properties.
• We recommend a ¼ mile buffer for pedestrians and bicyclists from major arterials such as North, Jensen, and California/Venture due to the noise, child safety and near-road air pollution. Same for schools and parks.
Please see Master Response 1.
ORG3 9/25/2017 Christopher Hall, Partner, McCormick Barstow LLP ORG3-01 This letter is issued on behalf of my client Darling Ingredients Inc., who own interests in properties within the lands encompassed by the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan (the "Project"). This is a comment letter concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the Project. Please ensure this letter is included in the Record of Proceedings regarding the consideration of the Project by the City of Fresno (the "City").
l. The EIR Project Description Omits a Significant Feature of the Project - the Goal to Displace All Developed Industrial Land Uses Within the Project Boundaries.
An EIR's Project Description is required to include a clearly written statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project (CEQA Guidelines Section I 5 I 24(b)). A fundamental purpose of this Project is to abolish all zoning and land use districts for all industrial uses within the Project Boundaries, including lands that have been previously developed and which support a significant employment base for the City. (the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Figure 3-2). However, that purpose and objective of the Project is nowhere disclosed in the Project description.
The proposed Plan requires neither the relocation or cessation of existing uses or businesses, including industrial uses and businesses that have been lawfully sited and are operating within the Plan Area. Therefore, this information is not included in the Project Description. The commenter is correct that the proposed Plan reflects a change in the City's approach for accommodating future industrial development within the city. The proposed Plan envisions a gradual transition of industrial land uses in the Plan Area to land uses such as office, residential, park, public facilities, mixed-use, and commercial. The proposed Plan’s Vision chapter addresses the incompatibility of locating industrial uses near residential uses, and includes a set of industrial compatibility guiding principles to improve the quality of life of existing and future residents. These guiding principles, found on page 2-4 of the proposed Plan, include: “monitor and mitigate negative impacts of industrial uses from becoming a nuisance and hazard to residents”; “prohibit new industrial development in the Specific Plan Area through the adoption of proposed Specific Plan land use and zoning provisions and restrict the proximity of and truck routes near residential areas to the maximum extent feasible”; “locate new industrial development away from Southwest Fresno residential neighborhoods”; and “increase transparency and communication between government staff, government and elected officials, residents, and stakeholders regarding proposed industrial uses and/or improvements.” The city limit
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-44 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
contains adequate land available outside the Plan Area that may accommodate industrial uses. Currently, a total of approximately 7,250 acres citywide are designated for industrial use. Of that land, approximately 2,150 acres are vacant (including parcels identified as partially vacant) per City GIS data. Within the Plan Area, there are a total of 217 acres of existing industrial business properties. While the proposed Plan does not designate land for new industrial development within the Plan Area itself, it provides policy direction to direct new industrial growth in other areas of the city and within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI).
Policy LU-8.2 states: “Prioritize the ‘Reverse Triangle,’ bounded by Jensen Avenue, Central Avenue, Highway 41, and Highway 99, as the City’s targeted area for new industrial development.” Policy LU-8.2 is consistent with the City’s General Plan in that the “Reverse Triangle” area is located within the General Plan’s “South Industrial Area,” which is designated for Heavy Industrial land uses. Policy LU-8.3 states: "When 85 percent of the ‘Reverse Triangle,’ bounded by Jensen Avenue, Central Avenue, Highway 41, and Highway 99, is developed with Heavy Industrial uses designate parcels along the east side of Elm Avenue south of North Avenue for future Light Industrial uses, mixed with the Plan’s planned Office uses." These parcels are located directly adjacent to, but outside of, the Plan Area and within the SOI. It is the proposed Plan’s intent for future annexation of these parcels within the SOI. Note that even after annexation, these parcels would still be located outside the Plan Area. Policy LU-1.2 states:
“Following the Fresno General Plan amendment to approve the Plan Area’s proposed land uses, amend the Fresno General Plan to approve the proposed land uses located outside of the Plan Area and in the SOI as shown in the Vision for Southwest Fresno for the purposes of future annexation.” Other policies under Goal LU-8 support a long-term transition of assessing and/or improving the compatibility of existing industrial uses, and locating new industrial uses to other areas of the city which are more compatible for industrial uses. Policy LU-8.4 addresses the enforcement and evaluation of performance on the operation of existing industrial activity related to air quality, odor, noise, and vibration. Policy LU-8.5 calls for the completion of the Industrial Land Use Compatibility Study, which would further identify and adopt long-term solutions for industrial land uses in existing neighborhoods. Text on pages 4.10-6 and 4.12-7 of the Draft PEIR has been revised to more accurately reflect that, while the
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-45
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
proposed Plan does not directly plan for growth outside of the Plan Area, the proposed Plan reflects the City's citywide approach to accommodating new industrial development.
Finally, while the proposed Plan envisions the prohibition of new industrial uses, as well as the eventual transition of existing industrial uses to nonindustrial uses, the proposed Plan does not require the immediate cessation or relocation of existing industrial uses which were lawfully established as defined by the Fresno Municipal Code. Industrial uses which were lawfully established prior to adoption of the proposed Plan will be governed by FMC section 15-402, et. seq. Transition of those sites to nonindustrial uses is expected to occur over time, subject to market forces.
ORG3-02 The DEIR Project Description does disclose that the Project results in 1 million square feet of less employment related uses than intended by the recently adopted 2015 General Plan. However, the DEIR claims that this decrease is the result of the change of business park and regional business park uses to other land uses such as residential, park, mixed use, and commercial (DEIR page 3-10).
No mention is made of the abolition of all industrial land use designations, including the industrial designations that apply to developed industrial uses that are the source of significant employment.
The comment correctly states that all industrial land use designations would be removed in the Plan Area. The text of the Project Description has been revised to describe this more clearly, as shown in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR.
However, the redeisgnation and rezoning of existing industrial land uses will not necessarily result in a corresponding decrease in employment uses because the proposed Plan does not require the abandonment, cessation, or immediate relocation of lawfully sited existing uses and any lawfully established and lawfully operating existing use will be allowed to continue consistent with the provisions of FMC sections 15-402, et. seq. As such, concluding that the redesignation and rezoning of industrial land within the Plan Area would result in a decrease in employment uses is speculative, and subject to market forces. Further, redesignation of existing industrial parcels to non-industrial designations does not require the immediate cessation and relocation of existing industrial uses which were lawfully established prior to adoption of the plan. Such lawfully established industrial uses are expected to transition to non-industrial uses over time, subject to market conditions. In this way, the timing and quantity of potential employment losses related to this transition is unknown.
Therefore, quantification of potential employment losses related to the transition the existing lawful industrial uses to non-industrial uses is speculative.
ORG3-03 The City has had a long-standing policy, existing since the early 1970's and reaffirmed by the adoption of the 2015 General Plan, to support the retention of Please see Responses ORG3-02 and ORG3-05.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-46 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
industrial uses in the Plan Area. These policies were supported by substantial investments of Federal and Redevelopment Agency funding, which the City now intends to discard.
The City possesses the land use authorities to make this significant change in long standing policy. However, the City is obligated to comply with CEQA in exercising those authorities. By failing to disclose this intended displacement policy, the City fails to analyze the potential for significant negative environmental impacts that may arise by the implementation of such a policy.
Further, the Fresno General Plan did not specifically prioritize the retention of industrial uses within the Plan Area. Instead, industrial uses were contemplated in the Fresno General Plan to be located in the “South Industrial Area” which is outside the boundaries of the Plan Area. Relative to the acreage of land available for industrial uses within the City and the SOI, the amount of land proposed for redesignation to non-industrial uses is not significant, and substantial land remains available to meet the City’s industrial use needs.
ORG3-04 2. The EIR Analysis of Land Use Impacts Fails to Disclose the Intended Displacement of All Developed and Undeveloped Industrial Land Uses Within the Project Boundaries.
The primary purpose of an EIR is its service as a public informational document. (Public Resources Code Section 21061 ). If the EIR fails to comply with CEQA's information requirement, the lead agency has abused its discretion and failed to proceed in the manner required by law. (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 4 12, at page 435).
The DEIR confirms that one of its standards of significance requires that it evaluate whether the Project conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project. (DEIR Page 4.10-2).
However, the DEIR fails to sufficiently conduct the required evaluation of this important potential environmental impact. As a result, the DEIR fails to provide the public information required to achieve the EIR's required purposes.
Specifically, the DEIR at Table 4.10 lists various elements of the City of Fresno's adopted 2015 General Plan, and references that Plan's policy LU-7, which requires that the City "plan and support industrial development to promote job growth". The DEIR then states that the Project is consistent with Policy LU-7 because the Project's Goal LU-8 "supports long term sustainability of industrial uses by directing them outside the plan area, where they will not conflict with existing neighborhoods." Displacing existing industrial development that was recently supported by the 2015 General Plan cannot reasonably be construed as consistent with a pol icy of planning and supporting industrial development.
The proposed Plan is not in conflict with applicable Fresno General Plan objectives and policies related to industrial uses. The commenter has mischaracterized the Fresno General Plan’s policy of planning and supporting industrial development to promote job growth as a policy that requires retention of all industrial designations in perpetuity. The Fresno General Plan also states that new development should be consistent with surrounding uses, including residential uses (LU-1-b). In furtherance of the Fresno General Plan vision for compatible uses, the proposed Plan envisions a gradual transition of industrial land uses in the Plan Area to land uses such as office, residential, park, public facilities, mixed-use, and commercial. The proposed Plan’s Vision chapter addresses the incompatibility of locating industrial uses near residential uses, and includes a set of industrial compatibility guiding principles to improve the quality of life of existing and future residents. These guiding principles include: “monitor and mitigate negative impacts of industrial uses from becoming a nuisance and hazard to residents”; “prohibit new industrial development in the Specific Plan Area through the adoption of proposed Specific Plan land use and zoning provisions and restrict the proximity of truck routes near residential areas to the maximum extent feasible”; “locate new industrial development away from Southwest Fresno residential neighborhoods”; and “increase transparency and communication between government staff, government and elected officials, residents, and stakeholders regarding proposed industrial uses and/or improvements.” The City limit contains adequate land available outside the Plan Area that may accommodate industrial uses. Currently, a total of approximately 7,250 acres citywide are designated for industrial use. Of that land, approximately 2,150 acres are vacant (including parcels identified as partially vacant) per City GIS data. While the proposed Plan
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-47
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
does not designate land for new industrial development within the Plan Area itself, it provides policy direction to direct new industrial growth in other areas of the city and within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). Policy LU-8.2 states: “Prioritize the ‘Reverse Triangle,’ bounded by Jensen Avenue, Central Avenue, Highway 41, and Highway 99, as the City’s targeted area for new industrial development.” Policy LU-8.2 is consistent with the City’s General Plan in that the “Reverse Triangle” area is located within the General Plan’s “South Industrial Area,” which is designated for Heavy Industrial land uses. Policy LU-8.3 states: "When 85 percent of the ‘Reverse Triangle,’ bounded by Jensen Avenue, Central Avenue, Highway 41, and Highway 99, is developed with Heavy Industrial uses designate parcels along the east side of Elm Avenue south of North Avenue for future Light Industrial uses, mixed with the Plan’s planned Office uses." These parcels are located directly adjacent to, but outside of, the Plan Area and within the SOI. It is the proposed Plan’s intent that these parcels within the SOI be annexed in the future into the City’s limit. Note that even after annexation, these parcels would still be located outside the Plan Area.
Policy LU-1.2 states “Following the Fresno General Plan amendment to approve the Plan Area’s proposed land uses, amend the Fresno General Plan to approve the proposed land uses located outside of the Plan Area and in the SOI as shown in the Vision for Southwest Fresno for the purposes of future annexation.” Other policies under Goal LU-8 support a long-term transition of assessing and/or improving the compatibility of existing industrial uses, and locating new industrial uses to other areas of the city which are more compatible for industrial uses. Policy LU-8.4 addresses the enforcement and evaluation of performance on the operation of existing industrial activity related to air quality, odor, and noise. Policy LU-8.5 calls for the completion of the Industrial Land Use Compatibility Study, which would further identify and adopt long-term solutions for industrial land uses in existing neighborhoods. Text on pages
4.10-6 and 4.12-7 of the Draft PEIR has been revised to more accurately reflect that, while the proposed Plan does not directly plan for growth outside of the Plan Area, the proposed Plan reflects the City's citywide approach to accommodating new industrial development.
Further, cessation of lawfully established and lawfully operating existing industrial uses is anticipated to occur over time and subject to market
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-48 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
forces.
In this way, the proposed Plan is consistent with Fresno General Plan Objective LU-7 and its subsequent policies.
ORG3-05 In addition, the Project's Goal LU-8 does not actually direct industrial uses to areas outside the Plan Area. That is because the Project does not implement any land use policies for any lands outside the Plan Area. (Southwest Specific Plan
Plan Area lands does not implement a strategy for directing such uses to other areas. It simply draws a perimeter around an area within which such uses can no longer be conducted.
The Specific Plan details a number of negative environmental factors associated with existing industrial uses. The ban that the Specific Plan adopts on such uses with the Plan area will presumably visit such negative impacts to other locations.
However, the potential for that environmental impact arising from the Project's relocation of existing industrial uses is nowhere acknowledged or analyzed.
Future development of industrial uses in other areas of the city would occur over time subject to market forces. As a program-level EIR, analysis of such potential future projects would be speculative. Furthermore discretionary projects throughout the city, including within the Plan Area, would undergo environmental assessment, as required under CEQA. Please also see Responses ORG3-01 and ORG3-02, and Master Response 2.
ORG3-06 The Plan includes Policy LU-8.3 which states an intent to focus new industrial growth within a designated "reverse triangle area", and then allowing light industrial growth in a separate targeted area when a percentage of industrial lands in the reverse triangle area have been developed with heavy industrial uses. (Southwest Specific Plan Page 3- 15.) However, there are no new industrial land uses being allocated by this Plan because the Plan only addresses land uses within the Plan's boundaries. Both the "reverse triangle area" and the location where additional light industrial growth might be permitted are outside the Plan area. The DEIR fails to disclose this important fact, even while it claims that the Plan supports long-term sustainability of industrial uses. By failing to disc lose that Policy LU-8.3 is in fact not being implemented, the DEIR fails to provide the public information required to achieve the DEIR's required purposes.
Please see Responses ORG3-01 and ORG3-02.
ORG3-07 The DEIR also includes, at Page 4.12-7, the misleading statement that "New industrial jobs could occur in existing industrial businesses; however, the proposed Plan redirects new industrial uses to locations outside of the Plan Area to remove land use conflicts with nearby residential and other sensitive uses".
That statement is misleading. The Plan does more than redirect new industrial uses to locations outside the Plan Area. It also redirects existing industrial users to relocate outside the Plan Area by adopting land use and zoning designations that will denigrate such uses to legal non-conforming zoning status. In addition, The proposed Plan would guide new development over time within the Plan Area but would not directly result in any new development projects or changes to existing land uses. Further, the proposed Plan does not require the abandonment, cessation, or immediate relocation of lawfully sited existing uses and any lawfully established and lawfully operating existing use will be allowed to continue consistent with the provisions of FMC sections 15-402, et. seq. Therefore it is speculative to conclude that redesignation and rezoning will create blight because it presumes that the
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-49
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
the City's Development Code imposes significant legal hurdles that seek to restrain the ability of legal non-conforming uses from expanding their nonconforming activity. (Fresno Municipal Ordinances Section 15-404). Any business activities that increase industrial employment at existing industrial sites will be treated by the City as an expansion of the nonconforming use, which the Development Code is designed to constrain. Therefore, the Project actually seeks to assure that new industrial jobs do not occur in existing industrial businesses, which is inconsistent with the DEIR's description of the Project's impact. existing industrial uses will be forced to vacate instead of gradually transitioning to non-industrial uses subject to market forces.
Changes in business activities or decisions made by existing businesses within the Plan Area would occur over time subject to market forces, and it would be speculative for this program-level EIR to try to determine how businesses will choose to operate in the future. Please see Master Response 3, as well as Responses ORG-3-01 and ORG3-04.
ORG3-08 3. The DEIR's Analysis of Aesthetic Impacts Fails to Disclose the Blighting Influences that Will Result from its Designation of Developed Industrial Land Uses as Legal Nonconforming Status.
The Project adopts a bold plan to rid the Southwest Fresno community of all existing industrial uses. However, the Project and the DEIR fail to incorporate any measures that reasonably transition the existing uses into the newly adopted land uses. This lack of a strategic approach to the displacement of substantial existing industrial uses will likely result in the existing sites becoming vacated and unable to be effectively developed in accordance with the Plans new land use designations. There is therefore a substantial likelihood that constrained industrial use properties will thereby create blighting influences.
Neither the Project nor the DEIR set forth any implementation arrangement for transitioning the newly designated legal nonconforming uses into uses that comply with the Project's designations. The only City policies that would apply for those purposes are the regulatory arrangements that the City's Development Code imposes on legal nonconforming uses, set forth at Article 4 of Chapter 15.
However, the provisions of that Code, its effectiveness in attaining the desired transition of land uses on the developed industrial sites, and the potential environmental impacts of the imposition of the Code's standards to such sites, is not disclosed nor analyzed in the DEIR.
The Development Code imposes special conditional use permit requirements for any "expansion" of a legal nonconforming use, which requires extraordinary findings, and which requires that the user overcome the Development Code's stated presumption that the legal nonconforming use is creating an adverse impact. (Development Code Section 15-404-B and 15-405-E-2). Therefore, when any existing industrial uses seek an "expansion" of the use, the consequences of the Project is that the Development Code will impose substantial legal The comment expresses concern regarding the transition of current industrial uses to office land uses. As described in Section 1.3 of Chapter 1, Introduction, the Draft PEIR is a program-level EIR for a long-term policy document that tiers from the City of Fresno General Plan Master EIR with the purpose "to promote construction of needed housing and other development projects by (1) streamlining regulatory procedures, (2) avoiding repetitive discussions of the same issues in successive environmental impact reports, and (3) ensuring that EIRs prepared for later projects which are consistent with a previously approved policy, plan, program, or ordinance concentrate upon environmental effects that may be mitigated or avoided in connection with the decision on each later project." Accordingly, it is infeasible to determine the exact timing and location of future land use transitions that may occur through implementation of the proposed Plan. Furthermore, such transitions will occur subject to market forces; therefore it is speculative for the Draft PEIR to analyze the secondary physical impacts that may occur from such unknown future economic changes. Further the comment asks the City to identify economic issues related to existing businesses; please see also Master Response 2.
Further, the proposed Plan does not require the abandonment, cessation, or immediate relocation of lawfully sited existing uses and any lawfully established and lawfully operating existing use will be allowed to continue consistent with the provisions of FMC sections 15-402, et. seq. Therefore it is speculative to conclude that redesignation and rezoning will create blight because it presumes that the existing industrial uses will be forced to vacate instead of gradually transitioning to non-industrial uses subject to market forces. In addition, existing industrial uses only account for 217 acres of the Plan Area. Any site that is vacated by an existing industrial legal
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-50 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
impediments.
Once an industrial use terminates on a site, that site will likely still be surrounding by existing industrial uses. The transitioning site will then effectively suffer the consequences of a "spot zoning" arrangement, where all properties adjacent to the site are supporting the industrial uses to the extent such uses are allowed by their legal non-conforming status.
nonconforming use can be repurposed to a non-industrial use and to conclude that the relatively small quantity of sites to be redesignated will not be reused is speculative.
Also, please see Master Response 2 and response ORG3-01.
ORG3-09 The current industrial uses are being commanded to transition to Office land uses. However, the feasibility of developing a transitioning site to the uses permitted by the Project is not evaluated by the DEIR.
The City's General Plan states that the Office land uses are to be focused on as administrative, professional and public offices and is a land use designation designed for office uses on smaller lots generally located on arterial roadways (Fresno General Plan, page 3-40). However, the Project contains. larger sized industrial parcels that are developed on sites whose roadways were specifically designed and developed by the City to establish visual barriers between those uses and adjacent roadways. (See Fruit/Church Industrial Area Plan prepared in 1970 by Design Omnibus for the Fresno West Development Company, Inc., an economic development entity of the City of Fresno created as part of the Fresno Model Cities Program and Tentative Tract Map No. 2573 for the Southgate Industrial Park, submitted by the City of Fresno on September 20, 1973 ). These sites are now being allocated an Office land use and zoning, which the Fresno General Plan confirms is designed for office uses on smaller lots generally located on arterial roadways.
These existing industrial sites are to conduct that transition to office uses on sites with parcel and roadway designs that are not consistent those that the General Plan states are appropriate for such uses. The existing industrial sites are further to conduct such transition in the midst of legal nonconforming industrial uses.
Yet, despite such significant hurdles, the potential environmental impact of the blighting influences that will result if the intended land use transactions are not done in an effective manner is nowhere disclosed or analyzed in the DEIR.
Please see Response ORG3-08.
ORG4 9/25/2017 Andy Levine, et al., Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability ORG2-06 • Recommend a pedestrian/bicycle tunnel under North Avenue at Santa Clara Avenue with North treated as a Green Street west of Elm. The Cargill plant at The comment pertains to the proposed Plan and does not address the adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Please see Master Response 1.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-51
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
Church and MLK needs to be put in a non-conforming use status and phased out with the trucks re-routed to Central. The 41 + North Corridor Complete Streets Plan identifies and recommends specific pedestrian crossing improvements along North Avenue, which have been incorporated into the redline version of the proposed Plan as an implementation measure in Chapter 8 Implementation.
ORG2-07 • MLK should treated as a Green Street between Church and California due to the MLK elementary school and the proposal that this section of MLK street become a Green Street to connect SW Fresno neighborhoods with employers near the HSR station.
• We sense that the planning team was driving with their foot on the brake to limit the proposed investments on community assets in the neighborhood. Just as we have witnessed with the Parks Master Plan. We need to be bold and set forth what is reasonable and needed and call for measures to fund the O&M costs.
• The commercial nodes proposed at Marks and 180 and at Jensen and MLK make sense. Mixed land uses in this low-density suburban setting are not likely to be viable.
• The land use plan for a retail center at the SW corner of Church and MLK in not in the community interest with the concentration of school children nearby. • New development is badly needed at Fruit and California to mitigate blight and energize this section of the BRT corridor. This may be a suitable place for a TCC multi-family housing subsidy.
The comment pertains to the proposed Plan and does not address the adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Please see Master Response 1.
ORG4-01 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Fresno’s Southwest Specific Plan (“SWSP”) and Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”).
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability works alongside disadvantaged communities across the Central and Coachella Valleys, including in the City of Fresno, to advocate for sound policy and eliminate barriers to opportunity on the basis of wealth, race, income, and place. Throughout the development of the Southwest Specific Plan, we have worked closely with West Fresno residents to identify community priorities for the plan and ensure that the plan reflects and advances those priorities. These comments aim to assist the City in preparing a final SWSP and EIR that realize residents’ goals of achieving healthy neighborhoods. To create communities with the resources and amenities necessary for residents to thrive and meaningfully mitigate cumulative and new environmental impacts resulting from the SWSP.
1. Revisions and Additions Required to the Draft Southwest Specific Plan The comment serves as an opening remark and does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis or mitigation measures contained in the Draft PEIR, nor does the comment raise a new environmental issue. No further response is required.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-52 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
We commend staff for its responsiveness to resident and stakeholder requests that the City host additional Steering Committee meetings to allow further discussion of public comments received on the previous SWSP draft. The Draft SWSP includes many of the recommendations discussed and agreed upon by the Committee, nonetheless, the Draft does not accurately reflect or include all of the revisions voted on. We recommend the following changes to ensure that the Final SWSP fully includes the revisions recommended by the Committee and Southwest Fresno has an enforceable and purposeful plan.
ORG4-02 A. Include a Clear & Realistic Timeframe For Completing The Industrial Compatibility Study
The Draft indicates that the City will complete a draft Industrial Land Use Compatibility Study by December 8, 2017. To our knowledge, the City has not initiated development of the draft study and therefore the stated deadline is unrealistic. The Final Draft should include a realistic timeline that will allow for development and adoption of the study with robust community input and also reflects the high priority placed by the community and Steering Committee on improving environmental health and addressing incompatible land uses in West Fresno. Based on these considerations, we recommend a completion deadline of January 2019.
The comment pertains to the proposed Plan and does not address the adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Please see Master Response 1.
The redline version of the proposed Plan includes a revised deadline for the completion of a draft Industrial Land Use Compatibility Study of January 2019.
ORG4-03 B. Add Detail & Cost Estimates to the Actions Identified in the Implementation Chapter
In recognition of the importance of ensuring residents’ ability remain in West Fresno and enjoy the benefits of SWSP implementation as well as the extreme vulnerability of existing residents to displacement, the Steering Committee established Policy LU-4.8. As further discussed in Section 2-B below, the SWSP must specify a clear timeframe for the development and adoption of the antidisplacement strategy which includes a robust public process. The City should align the development of the anti-displacement strategy with implementation of Housing Element Program 12A, Downtown Displacement Prevention, which requires the City to convene a committee in 2018 and develop and adopt an antidisplacement strategy within six months thereafter. Like Program 12A, LU 4.8 should specify that the anti-displacement strategy will aim to prevent and mitigate any displacement of both residents and businesses in the Plan Area.
The comment pertains to the proposed Plan and does not address the adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Please see Master Response 1.
An anti-displacement strategy is included in the redline version of the proposed Plan as an implementation measure, which includes responsible party and support parties and an implementation time frame, in Chapter 8 Implementation.
ORG4-04 C. Eliminate Additional Truck Routes That Conflict with Southwest Neighborhood Settings
The SWSP includes important policies long sought by the community to reduce the air pollution, noise, vibration, and aesthetic impacts of truck traffic that The comment pertains to the proposed Plan and does not address the adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Please see Master Response 1.
Figure 5-6 has been revised in the redline version of the proposed Plan to
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-53
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
currently runs through the Plan Area. The Final Plan should include two further changes to address concerns regarding incompatible routes raised by residents:
(1) elimination of the existing truck route on Elm Avenue north of Jensen, and (2) elimination of the additional route proposed in the Draft on Roeding Drive south of Whites Bridge Avenue. Neither of these routes serve any existing industrial land uses, and thus no reasonable basis for these additions exist. recommend elimination of the existing truck route along Elm Avenue north of Jensen Avenue.
ORG4-05 D. Add Detail and a Timeline to Policy PF-7.4
We support the addition of Policy PF-7.4 which calls on the City to establish a policy requiring businesses and City programs in the Plan Area to hire local residents. To ensure timely and effective implementation of the policy, the Final Plan should establish a timeline for implementation (we recommend a deadline of June 2018) and ensure SWSP Oversight Committee and public participation.
The comment pertains to the proposed Plan and does not address the adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Please see Master Response 1.
A local hiring policy is included in the redline version of the proposed Plan as an implementation measure, which includes an implementation time frame, in Chapter 8 Implementation.
ORG4-06 E. Eminent Domain
SWSP Plan Area residents have identified the use of eminent domain as a serious concern for this community, in particular, as it relates to proposals in the Plan to widen streets and support new development. Through eminent domain, the City, State, and Federal Government rezoned residential land for industrial use, wiped out thriving commercial boulevards and residential districts and replaced them with freeways, and cut West Fresno off from the rest of the City, helping to create the community’s current reality of chronic disinvestment and nationallyranked concentrated poverty. The Plan should put safeguards in place to ensure that past is not repeated and that any use of eminent domain is supported by profusive community support, SWSP policies, and the exhaustion or lack of alternatives, especially where residential property, small or local business, or important community landmarks are involved.
The comment pertains to the proposed Plan and does not address the adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Please see Master Response 1.
ORG4-07 F. Ensure Compliance With the Housing Element & State Housing Element & No Net Loss Laws
The community demonstrated a clear preference for a balanced mix of housing opportunities, including single family home options currently lacking in this community. To accommodate the community’s preference of establishing a more balanced mix of housing varieties, the land use map redesignates land currently designated for high density multi-family housing to low and medium residential density which restrict or prohibit multi-family development. Before adopting the Plan, the City must specifically identify any residential zoned sites designated for a reduction in density that are included in the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element to meet the City’s need for lower-income housing and make findings that adequate alternative sites exist or identify suitable alternative sites The comment pertains to the proposed Plan and does not address the adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Please see Master Response 1.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-54 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
as required by Government Code Section 65863 and Housing Element Program 2.
In identifying replacement sites, the City must consider the concentration of affordable housing in high poverty areas such as West Fresno pursuant to Program 2 and identify alternative sites in high opportunity neighborhoods that lack affordable housing opportunities consistent with the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.
ORG4-08 G. Prioritize Zero and Near-Zero Emission Transportation Technology Transportation is the leading source of toxic and carcinogenic air pollutants in the state, emitting smog-forming ozone, black carbon, fine particulate matter, and nitrous oxides. These pollutants contribute to a host of respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, including asthma, heart disease, and cancer, and result in thousands of early deaths annually. Southwest Fresno is specifically disadvantaged; according to the CalEnviroScreen tool, census tracts in the Plan Area rank in the 95-98th percentile for diesel, ozone and particulate matter pollution, and in the 98th percentile for both asthma and cardiovascular disease.
To ensure reductions in criteria and toxic air pollutants in the Plan Area, the Final Plan should commit Southwest Fresno to a zero-emission transportation future.
Specifically, a policy goal should be included within the Plan’s Transportation section that directs the city to actively pursue funds to 1) replace both public and private vehicles and fleets with zero-emission technology, and 2) promote electric vehicle charging infrastructure throughout the Plan Area. When zeroemission solutions are not feasible, the city should seek deployment of near-zero emission vehicles. Diesel fleets located or operating within the Plan Area should be prioritized for replacement.
To actuate these goals, state, local and corporate funds are available. The Legislature recently appropriated $1 billion from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to state and local agencies to replace or retrofit dirty diesel engines. Fresno must actively pursue the following funds for the benefit of public health in the Plan Area:
• $350M for The California Clean Truck, Bus, and Off-Road Vehicle and Equipment Technology Program, SB 1204 (Lara, 2014). These programs specifically target diesel pollution by incentivizing the purchase of zero-emissions trucks, buses, and freight equipment. The programs have been substantially over-subscribed.
• $150M for light-duty equity pilots (especially EFMP Plus Up), agricultural The comment pertains to the proposed Plan and does not address the adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Please see Master Response 1.
A new goal and policies for Vehicles are included in the redline version of the proposed Plan’s Chapter 5 Transportation, which address zeroemission technology and electrical vehicle charging infrastructure. A new implementation measure for pursuing funding to implement these policies has also been added to Chapter 8 Implementation of the redline version of the proposed Plan.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-55
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
worker vanpools, and car-sharing under SB 1275 (De Leon, 2014). These programs primarily serve disadvantaged communities, as defined by the CalEnviroScreen, promoting replacement of inefficient and ultra-polluting vehicles with hybrid or zero-emission alternatives, and promoting ridesharing. • $20M for zero emission school buses. Replacing old, dirty, diesel buses would improve health outcomes for students. Existing programs have been rapidly oversubscribed.
• $300M for Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (Electric Vehicle Rebates). Public demand is likely to increase given the availability of new electric vehicle models such as the Chevy Bolt and Tesla Model 3. Fresno should maximize the effectiveness of the funding by lowering the income cap and raising the electricmiles requirement for plug-in hybrids.
The San Joaquin Valley Air District also has funds available to support a zeroemission future. Grant programs include 1) the School Bus Program, which provides funds to retrofit existing school buses with verified diesel emission control systems, or replace existing high-polluting buses with new, low-emission buses, and 2) the Charge Up! program, which provides funds for businesses and public agencies to purchase and install electric vehicle chargers for public use.
Lastly, corporate funds could also be used to leverage state and local incentive programs. For instance, PG&E is currently implementing pilot programs to install infrastructure to support electric vehicle charging at multi-unit dwellings, workplaces, and public interest destinations. The company has also submitted a $211 million proposal to California Public Utilities Commission to build "makeready" electric infrastructure for medium- to heavy-duty and offroad fleets.
Responding to consumer demand for fast-charging stations, PG&E also proposed to complement state and privately funded fast charger deployments with new electric infrastructure
ORG4-09 2. The Final DEIR Must Comprehensively Assess Cumulatively Significant Impacts and Identify and Adopt All Feasible Mitigation Measures for Significant Impacts The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires the City consider the cumulative impacts of a Project and determine (A) whether the Project’s impact are significant and require mitigation and (B) assess and include all feasible mitigation for significant impacts identified. Several sections of the DEIR -- Air Quality, Public Services and Recreation, and Population and Housing – lack adequate analysis of cumulative impacts and fail to identify and include available The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow.
Please see Responses ORG4-09 through ORG4-12.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-56 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
mitigation measures for significant impacts. CEQA prohibits agencies from approving projects with significant environmental impacts if feasible mitigation measures or alternatives exist that would lessen or avoid such impacts. Pub. Res.
Code § 21002. The Final DEIR must include a comprehensive assessment of all cumulative impacts of the Project and identify and adopt all feasible mitigation measures for significant impacts identified. Pub. Res. Code § 21081.6(b); C.C.R. §15126.4(a)(2); See Napa Citizens for Honest Gov’t v. Napa County Bd. of Sup. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 358.
ORG4-10 A. The Final DEIR Must Identify & Address the Cumulative Impacts of Mobile & Stationary Pollution Sources
According to CalEnviroScreen (“CES”) 3.0, every census tract in the SWSP Area is among the top 5% most pollution burdened communities in the State of California. The census tracts in the Plan Area rank as high as the 98th percentile for asthma and cardiovascular disease and 97th for particulate matter 2.5 (PM
2.5). Numerous studies have directly linked PM 2.5 emissions to an increase in asthma attacks and heart attacks.
The Air Quality assessment provided in the DEIR identifies existing policies in the General Plan as mitigation measures. Several of these policies, such as Objective UF-12 and Policy UF-12-a, Policy LU-3-c, and Policy LU-5-f, lack the specifity required to constitute adequate and enforceable mitigation measures.
Additionally, Policy LU-2-b, which states that the City will “consider a priority infill incentive program” to promote affordable housing development, could be strengthened and thereby serve as an adequate mitigation measure by including a specific timeline for the development and adoption of the program and inclusion of proven measures to preserve affordability in the area, thus reducing potential displacement. The incorporation of clear policies to prevent displacement of vulnerable low-income residents from the Plan Area is essential to mitigate potential significant impacts from increased vehicle miles travelled generated by these residents due to forced relocation to areas not served by transit and farther from jobs, education, and other resources and amenities necessary for everyday life.
The EIR evaluates potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Plan on the environment in accordance with CEQA and the California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) __Cal.4th__ (Case No. S213478). Air quality in the local area is best described by whether San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) attains the California and National ambient air quality standards (SJVAPCD), per the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), and not by CalEnviroScreen, which takes into consideration other non-air quality factors when assessing pollution burden.
Chapter 4.3, Air Quality, identifies policies in the General Plan under the "Existing Conditions" setting and does not list the City's General Plan policies as mitigation. Chapter 4.12, Population and Housing, identifies that the proposed Plan would not displace a substantial number of people.
Therefore, policies that prevent displacement of people as suggested by the Commenter are not warranted.
ORG4-11 The assessment AQ-1 finds that the proposed Plan would increase long-term criteria air pollutants and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations set up by the local air district is significant and unavoidable. Despite the extremely high levels of pollution in West Fresno and the City’s obligation to consider all feasible mitigation measures, the DEIR fails to take into account As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft PEIR of this Final EIR, edits have been made to the EIR and some of these address the commenter's concern. Edits have also been made to the proposed Plan. a. The commenter requests physical barriers along corridors, sites, and
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-57
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
various mitigation measures that would serve to reduce the impacts of long-term criteria air pollutants and nonattainment designations. Accordingly, we recommend the inclusion of the following policies in the Final DEIR:
‘a. Identify high emission corridors, stationary sites, and truck traffic routes, and create physical barriers such as with walls lined with trees or other shrubbery, or trees and shrubbery. Studies have shown that walls lined with trees are the most effective way to reduce emissions from impacting an area. b. Complete the Industrial Compatibility Assessment by January 2019. This study will assess the compatibility of existing sites and zoned land with surrounding neighborhoods considering their air quality, noise, odor, aesthetic, and other impacts. Sites found incompatible will follow recommended steps to mitigate pollution and other significant impacts in the surrounding area, including through amortization and/or greening. Additional funding sources should also be sought out as the current $150,000 in the City’s budget for FY 2017-2018 is not enough.
The TCC Planning Grant is one example the City of Fresno can seek out. c. To reduce VMT-related emissions from commute trips in and out of the Plan Area, develop and implement a policy, with community input, requiring new employment sources within the community to hire workers from within the Plan Area.
d. To reduce VMT-related emissions, work with Plan Area residents and stakeholders to identify measures to increase public and group transit options, including through improving efficiency and reliability of FAX services, implementing Bus Rapid Transit on California Street and Elm Avenue, identifying ride sharing opportunities, and more.
e. Enforce laws and regulations prohibiting vehicle idling. f. Actively seek and apply for all available funding to provide electric vehicle infrastructure in the Plan Area.
g. Actively seek and apply for all available funding to replace both public and private light, medium, and heavy-duty diesel equipment with zero or near-zero emission technology. Funding sources examples are provided above for the City to begin its search.
truck routes to buffer air pollutants. The proposed Plan prohibits barriers along streets through design standards. Page 4-8 of the proposed Plan states: "“Walls. Walls are not permitted within the required front yard setback nor between residential uses and California Avenue.” Also, page 4- 9 states: “Buildings and their main entrances will be oriented towards the street.”
b. The comment requests the completion of the Industrial Compatibility Assessment. Please see Response ORG4-02.
c. The proposed Plan includes Policy PF-7.4 which states: "Establish a workforce policy to encourage businesses and City programs in the Plan Area to prioritize hiring Plan Area residents in the 93706 zip code, consistent with applicable laws."
d. The proposed Plan includes Policy T-6.2, which states: "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." Policy T-7.1, which states: "Work with FAX to retain transit routes west of Highway 99, and work to enhance transit service along Elm Avenue and Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard to connect to future BRT routes and the FAX and HSR stations in Downtown when there is demand from development along those corridors." The proposed Plan provides for BRT on California, while enhanced transit services are planned on Elm Street.
e. The comment requests enforcement of existing laws and regulations prohibiting vehicle idling. As stated on page 4.3-4 of Chapter 4.3, Air Quality in the Draft PEIR, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has promulgated specific rules to limit toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions, including motor vehicle idling. Further, Table 4.3-2 on page 4.3-17 presents General Plan objectives and policies relevant to air quality, including Policy HC-3-f: "New Drive‐Through Facilities. Include in the Development Code design review to reduce vehicle emissions resulting from queued idling vehicles at drive‐through facilities in proximity to residential neighborhoods."
f. The comment requests the City actively seek and apply for all available
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-58 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
funding to provide electric vehicle infrastructure in the Plan Area. Policy T9.2 has been added to the redline version of the proposed Plan, which states: "Promote, incentivize, and pursue funding for electrical vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure throughout the Plan Area. Require EV charging infrastructure for new multi-family residential and mixed-use residential development projects."
g. The comment requests that the City actively seek and apply for all available funding to replace both public and private light, medium, and heavy-duty diesel equipment with zero or near-zero emission technology.
Policy T-9.1 has been added to the redline version of the proposed Plan, which states: "Promote, incentivize, and pursue funding to replace public and private vehicles and fleets with zero-emission (or near-zero emission if zero-emission solutions are not feasible) technology. Diesel fleets, such as transit buses, located or operating within the Plan Area should be prioritized for replacement."
ORG4-12 B. Prevent Project-Related Physical and Economic Displacement of Residents and Businesses
The CES 3.0 ranks the SWSP Plan Area poverty levels as high as the 99th percentile in the State. A majority of the residents in this community live below the federal poverty line, which for a family of four is $24,600. The City of Fresno in general also experiences high levels of housing cost burden, with the greatest burdens impacting lower-income residents, such as those in West Fresno.
Housing cost burden rates make lower residents extremely vulnerable to displacement due to minor increases in housing costs.
The DEIR discussion in Population and Housing solely addresses physical displacement through the removal of existing housing units. The DEIR includes no analysis or proposed mitigation for economic displacement of low-income residents and no analysis or proposed mitigation for displacement of small, local and/or minority-owned businesses due to rising property values and rent prices as a result of the implementation of the proposed plan.
The Plan proposes to direct significant public and private investment into the community. The Plan identifies a new community college facility site which will employ hundreds of people and attract thousands more to the area; proposes significant new park space; identifies Bus Rapid Transit routes and other Housing affordability is an economic and social issue that informs policy decisions made by the City, but it is not treated as a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(e)) and, therefore, does not require analysis under CEQA. It would be speculative to determine the demographics of future residents and employees and their housing needs, affordable or otherwise. Quantifying the number or percentage of existing residents who could be economically displaced if costs continue to increase would be speculative. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, the Draft PEIR is not required to consider issues that are too speculative for evaluation. Furthermore, displacement for CEQA purposes regards the demolition of existing housing that requires the construction of new housing for the persons displaced by the removal of housing. The proposed Plan does not allow for the rezoning of property in a manner that would allow the removal of housing units such that there would be physical displacement. Finally, the City acknowledges that rising housing prices are an important local and regional issue. Under the proposed Plan, the City’s Housing Element will continue to apply (and no changes to the Housing Element are proposed as part of the proposed project), and the City will continue to implement its policies and programs that seek to protect residents from displacement and increase the City’s stock of affordable housing.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-59
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
improvements; and provides for the remediation of basic infrastructure and service deficiencies. These improvements, coupled with other factors such as the High Speed Rail, the potential investment of up to $70 million in the Plan Area through the Transformative Climate Communities Program, and population growth in the Central Valley, will undoubtedly lead to increase land prices, property values, rent prices, and cost of living. Ultimately, threatening economic displacement of residents and businesses and significant environmental impacts due to their relocation. Absent clear and enforceable mitigation, displacement, caused by both physical and economic forces resulting from SWSP implementation, will result in significant environmental impacts due to the need for new construction and increased VMT of displaced residents. Residents forced to move from areas served by transit will have to rely on personal vehicles consequentially having a significant impact on VMTs, traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, and air quality. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083(b)(3) (the Guidelines “shall require a finding that project may have a ‘significant effect on the environment’ if…[t]he environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.”). The Final DEIR must analyze and include all feasible mitigation measures to prevent displacement of residents and businesses. C.C.R. § 15064(e).
Anti-displacement measures are essential to reduce impacts associated with increased housing costs pushing residents further away from amenities and public transit. Feasible mitigation measures and policies we recommend include:
a. Adoption of a rent stabilization ordinance preventing rent increases of more than 15% over a three-year period.
b. Adopt inclusionary zoning requirements wherein new residential construction must include at least 25% of units affordable to extremely-low, very-low and low income residents or developers must pay an in lieu fee. c. Adopt a just cause eviction ordinance.
d. Require City-owned land, when sold, include units affordable to lower-income residents, wherever residential construction occurs on those sites. e. Create an Anti-Displacement Advisory Committee in 2018 which will develop antidisplacement strategy for adoption by City Council within six months thereafter.
ORG4-13 I. Provide Adequate Park Space for Expected Population Growth As noted in the SWSP DEIR, West Fresno has 19 acres of existing park space total -- well below Fresno City’s goal of 3 acres per 1,000 residents of park space. The This comment expresses concern regarding park space. As shown in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR, the first paragraph under Impact PS-7 on page
4.13-28 of the Draft PEIR has been revised. Please also see Master
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-60 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
proposed plan zones for an additional 70 acres of park space creating a combined total of 89 acres. The DEIR, however, finds a total of 91 acres of existing and new parkland will be designated. The City should include at least an additional two acres of park space in the Final DEIR to ensure that sufficient park space can be provided to meet the City’s park space goals. The City can and must also utilize the current Parks Master Planning Process to identify and expand park space opportunities in West Fresno.
Furthermore, the draft report results a deficiency of 32 acres (adjusting for the missing 2 acres noted above) for the expected population growth under the Dual Designation Scenario. Mitigation Measure PS-7 states the City will monitor population growth in the Plan Area compared to parklands every 5 years. If the ratio of 3 acres per 1,000 residents is not met the City will explore additional ways to increase park space. Given the City’s existing park space conditions in South Fresno where residents south of Shaw Avenue have an average of 1.75 acres of park space per 1,000 residents. And given that the City has not updated its Parks Master Plan since 1989, a plan that was supposed to be updated every five years, we cannot expect to comply with its Mitigation Measure PS-7.
Thank you for your considerations of our comments. Our goal is simple and assuredly shared with the City of Fresno to ultimately provide Southwest Fresno with a revolutionary plan to transform the community for years to come. We look forward to continue collaborating with the City of Fresno to address the issues identified in this letter. Please contact Grecia Elenes at (559) 369-2790 to set up a time to meet to discuss these comments in person.
Response 2 in regards to concern regarding Mitigation Measure PS-7.
C. Members of the Public
PUB1 9/18/2017 Gwendolyn Leffall
PUB1-01 Please accept the following comments I offer for consideration to the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan and the Draft Program EIR:
1. Plan MODERATE/MIDDLE income levels of housing IN LIEU of low/affordable income levels of housing types.
2. Raise the bar of income housing levels types to attract RETAIL, to be established in this DPEIR SFSP.
3. Build a Fresno City Community College Annex in this DPEIR SFSP.
4. Provide regular service to keep our streets, roads, highways, sidewalks free of The comment pertains to the proposed Plan and does not address the adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Please see Master Response 1.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-61
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
potholes, cracked pavement, and cracked concrete for the subject planned area, and the IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREAS to include south of Jensen, and Jensen, east and west.
5. Regular attention to tree trimming and landscape cleanup for the subject planned area, and, the immediate surrounding areas, to include south of Jensen, and Jensen, east and west.
PUB2 9/19/2017 Eric Payne
PUB2-01 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the City of Fresno’s West Fresno Specific Plan. I appreciate the collaborative process your office has facilitated with community stakeholders. The City of Fresno presents an incredible opportunity to do something truly transformative in the City of Fresno through its South West Fresno Specific Plan and I am committed to ensuring we have a plan that meets the communities environmental, economic, and equity goals. I commend the City of Fresno staff for developing a comprehensive plan and I recognize that additional revisions may be needed. I am broadly supportive of the plan as stakeholder and member of the committee. I would also appreciate your allowing flexibility in the requirements to the South West Fresno Specific Plan that would be in alignment with better serving the community.
The comment pertains to the proposed Plan and does not address the adequacy of the Draft PEIR. The comment also serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. Please see Responses PUB2-02 through PUB2-
11. PUB2-02 I do request you consider a few outstanding issues and questions in relation to the Biological Resource Section of the South West Fresno Specific Plan: DPEIR The Recovery Plan has defined 6 key elements. 1. What are the elements that pertain to the SW Specific Plan?
This comment expresses concern regarding the elements of the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis or mitigation measures contained in the Draft PEIR. Page 4.4-6 of the Draft PEIR states, "If specific projects require consultation with the USFWS, the project would be evaluated in relation to the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan." It follows that all elements (or goals and objectives) of the Recovery Plan pertain to development that would occur under the proposed Plan.
PUB2-03 2. Although DEIR states SJKF not within a 5 miles radius. What is the nearest radius for SJKF? The SJKF protection range per USFWS is a 10 mile radius. “The purpose of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, are to provide a means whereby the ecosystem upon which endangered species and threatened species depends may be conserved…and to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered and threatened species.” (The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) The language contained in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to not only protect individual animals, but has the further obligation of This comment expresses concern regarding the nearest radius for San Joaquin Kit Fox (SJKF) habitat to the Plan Area, but does not state a specific concern or question regarding the sufficiency of the analysis or mitigation measures contained in the Draft PEIR.
The proximity of existing SJKF habitat can be estimated using the California State University (CSU) Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program website:
http://esrp.csustan.edu/publications/pubhtml.php?doc=sjvrp&file=chapter
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-62 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
providing listed species with functioning ecosystems so protections provided by the Act are no longer necessary. For the Services to achieve this goal and to allow the project applicants to proceed with their project in a timely manner, the Service has developed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey Protocol for the Northern Range where foothill grassland, oak savannah, and agricultural lands are the primary kit fox habitats.
To avoid unnecessary expenditures and delays for projects located within the northern range of the San Joaquin kit fox, the project applicant, along with a qualified biologist, must conduct an early evaluation with the Service. 02L00.html#distribution. Further, the Draft PEIR assumes that SJKF may be located in the periphery of the Plan Area, stating on page 4.4-25 "San Joaquin kit fox that are dispersing or foraging in the periphery of the Plan Area that have not been fragmented by agricultural-residential or urban development could be subject to injury or mortality from constructionrelated activities." In addition, the comment expresses concern regarding an early evaluation of SJKF for projects located within the northern range of the SJKF habitat.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1.3 on page 4.4-26 of the Draft PEIR states, "No less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to commencement of construction activities the project proponent should retain a USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist to conduct pre‐construction surveys in potential habitat periphery of the Plan Area that has not been fragmented by agricultural-residential or urban development."
PUB2-04 SWHA
1. Has a survey been conducted to identify potential suitable nesting locations for SWHA within the project site? If so, it has not been clearly stated in the biological report.
This comment expresses concern regarding whether a survey has been conducted to identify suitable nesting locations for SWHA within the proposed Plan Area. CEQA requires an evaluation and determination of whether the proposed Plan would result in a significant impact with respect to biological resources if it would, among other impacts: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or USFWS. As such, the Draft PEIR evaluates the potential for implementation of the proposed Plan to result in mortality of Swainson's hawks, and concludes, on page 4.4-25, that adherence to Mitigation Measure BIO-1.2 ensures impacts to Swainson's hawks would be less than significant, as future development under the proposed Plan would be required to "ensure that if Swainson’s hawks nest on or near the Plan Area, their presence would be detected, the risk of mortality would be avoided to the maximum extent feasible, and impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level." Please also note that Mitigation Measure BIO1.2 has been revised, as shown in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR, to reflect comments received from the CDFW. These revisions do not change the conclusions of the Draft PEIR.
PUB2-05 2. What's the proposed plan for trees onsite where SHWA may occur and utilize? As stated on page 4.4-25 of the Draft PEIR, "Trees in the Plan Area may be removed without adversely affecting nesting Swainson’s hawks as long as
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-63
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
they are determined not to contain a Swainson’s hawk nest or be in close proximity to a tree with a Swainson’s hawk nest during the nesting season (March through August)." It follows that future discretionary projects under the proposed Plan would be required to evaluate trees onsite where SHWA may occur and utilize and ensure such trees are preserved, in accordance with the findings of a preconstruction survey for Swainson's hawk nests as required by Mitigation Measure BIO-1.2.
PUB2-06 3. The Mitigation Measure is too vague, BIO-1.2 As described in Chapter 4.4, Mitigation Measure BIO-1.2 is based on the information available at this programmatic stage for a plan-level analysis and the methodology is based on Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000). Future discretionary projects would be required to conduct project-level environmental assessment, including a site-specific Swainson's hawk survey of the project site and the surrounding 0.5-mile-radius area.
PUB2-07 4. The first SHWA survey period from January 1 to March 20 could provide information on where suitable and potential nesting locations may occur and should not be dismissed nor considered optional.
Revisions to the Draft PEIR, of this Final EIR.
PUB2-08 SJKF
Mitigation Measures too vague.
As described in Chapter 4.4, Mitigation Measure BIO-1.3 is based on the information available at this programmatic stage for a plan-level analysis and the methodology is based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. Future discretionary projects would be required to conduct project-level environmental assessment, including pre‐construction surveys in potential habitat periphery of the Plan Area that has not been fragmented by agricultural-residential or urban development.
PUB2-09 1. Why is a take authorization/permit being considered but no mention of mitigation bank or conservation habitat?
The Draft PEIR is a program-level analysis of potential environmental impacts that may occur through implementation of the proposed Plan during the planning horizon, through the year 2042. As described in Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1b, future discretionary projects that would require an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) due to significant and unavoidable impacts to SJKF would be required to obtain a permit from the CDFW and undergo subsequent project-level CEQA review. A mitigation bank or habitat conservation area may be considered as adequate mitigation for project-related impacts to SJKF.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-64 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
PUB2-10 2. If disruption of any habitat utilized by the SJKF should occur has a mitigation bank or habitat
conservation area been identified to offset the SJKF loss? Please see Response PUB2-09.
PUB2-11 3. Before implementing Project and any ITP activity, the applicant should be required to develop and submit a construction monitoring plan to the City planning department for review and approval. The construction monitoring plan should consist of the following:
• Results of planning and preconstruction surveys.
• Description of avoidance and minimization measures to be implemented, including a description of project-specific refinements to the measures or additional measures.
• Description of monitoring activities, including monitoring frequency and duration, and specific activities to be monitored.
• Description of the onsite authority of the construction monitor to modify implementation of the activity.
Again thank you for your efforts to develop this plan and for providing an inclusive public process. As mentioned previously, the alignment between the City of Fresno and the “Community” reinforces a collective vision. I forward to working with you on further development and implementation of this document.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this process, I look forward to your response.
The Draft PEIR is a program-level analysis of potential environmental impacts that may occur implementation of the proposed Plan during the planning horizon, through the year 2042. Discretionary projects that would require an ITP would be required to obtain a permit from the CDFW and undergo subsequent project-level CEQA review. CDFW’s issuance of an Incidental Take Permit is considered a discretionary action as defined in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, link opens in new window Section 15357, under CEQA. Therefore, before CDFW can issue the permit the applicant must have completed the necessary steps under CEQA.
Compliance with CEQA is further described in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 783.3.
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CESA/Incidental-TakePermits#50033469-ceqa PUB3 9/21/2017 Tate Hill
PUB3-01 I'm beginning to go through the EIR, there are a numbers of the Impact classifications with S/SU designation with no mitigation measures. There a few that just couldn't be accurate with the elements of new development.
The comment serves as an introduction to the comments that follow.
Please see Responses PUB3-02 through PUB3-06.
PUB3-02 For example: Population‐1 that states will be no population impacts due to the proposed plan. With the proposed housing, there would be a Significant population increase in that neighborhood. With the addition of the proposed 5923 housing units, there would be significant increase to the population with an estimated 50% increase (24,000) to the current population base.
The comment expresses concern regarding the significance finding under Impact POP-1. The Draft PEIR acknowledges the amount of residential growth anticipated under the proposed Plan and considers this growth in the context of the level of growth anticipated under the City’s General Plan and regional growth projections. As stated on page 4.12-6 of the Draft PEIR, future development in the Plan Area “would result in approximately 27,775 new residents… The population potential for the Plan Area is within the population growth contemplated by the Fresno General Plan, which anticipates growth of up to 226,000 additional residents…” Page 4.12-7 of the Draft PEIR states, “the General Plan anticipates that the Plan Area would result in 6,723 new housing units as the General Plan is
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-65
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
implemented… [The] proposed Plan could result in 7,131 new housing units under the Dual Designation Scenario (based on the dual land use designation), which is greater than the estimated buildout of the General Plan.” However, the Draft PEIR finds that, although the number of new residents generated under the proposed Plan could exceed the number analyzed under the General Plan MEIR, cumulative growth with the proposed Plan would be consistent with regional planning targets. In addition, as stated in the Draft PEIR (page 4.12-7), “growth under the proposed Plan would occur incrementally over a period of approximately 25 years and would be guided by a policy framework in the proposed Plan that is generally consistent with many of the principal goals and objectives established in the Fresno General Plan and 2015-2023 Housing Element.” Therefore, the Draft PEIR finds on page 4.12-8 that, “this additional growth would be consistent with the citywide planning objectives. As a result, impacts to population growth associated with potential future development under the proposed Plan would be less than significant.” PUB3-03 As it relates to AQ2, AQ4, GHG 1, GHG3, the mitigation measures only apply towards the development of planned uses not the full implementation of the plan which extends beyond the actual construction itself. There is been no mitigation measure to address the impacts of air quality and GHGs from the establishment of new development (housing or commercial) in the plan.
The comment expresses concern regarding mitigation measures to address the impacts of air quality and greenhouse gases (GHGs). The Draft PEIR evaluates both construction and operation impacts as a result of implementation of the proposed Plan. Operational analyses for air quality thresholds are included under Impact AQ-1 (Draft PEIR pages 4.3-29 through 4.3-32), Impact AQ-3 (Draft PEIR pages 4.3-35 through 4.3-36), Impact AQ-4 (Draft PEIR pages 4.3-36 through 4.3-38), Impact AQ-5 (Draft PEIR pages 4.3-38 through 4.3-39), Impact AQ-6 (Draft PEIR page 4.3-40, under the Operation-Related Odors heading), and Impact AQ-7 (Draft PEIR pages 4.3-41 and 4.3-42, under the Operation heading). Operational analyses for greenhouse gas thresholds are located under Impact GHG-1 (Draft PEIR pages 4.7-26 through 4.7-28) and Impact GHG-3 (Draft PEIR pages 4.7-32 through 4.7-36). Impact AQ-3 and GHG-1 address long-term, regional operational impacts of the proposed Plan (i.e., not just construction). As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft PEIR, of this Final EIR, edits have been made to the EIR and some of these address the commenter's concern. Edits have also been made to the redline version of the proposed Plan.
a. The commenter requests physical barriers along corridors, sites, and truck routes to buffer air pollutants. The proposed Plan prohibits barriers
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-66 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
along street through design standards. Page 4-8 of the Plan states: "“Walls.
Walls are not permitted within the required front yard setback nor between residential uses and California Avenue.” Also, page 4-9 states:
“Buildings and their main entrances will be oriented towards the street.” b. The comment requests the completion of the Industrial Compatibility Assessment. Please see Response ORG4-02.
c. The Plan includes Policy PF-7.4 which states: "Establish a workforce policy to encourage businesses and City programs in the Plan Area to prioritize hiring Plan Area residents in the 93706 zip code, consistent with applicable laws."
d. The Plan includes Policy T-6.2, which states: "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." Policy T-7.1, which states: "Work with FAX to not reduce transit routes west of Highway 99, and work to enhance transit service along Elm Avenue and Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard to connect to future BRT routes and the FAX and HSR stations in Downtown when there is demand from development along those corridors." The proposed Plan provides for BRT on California Avenue, while enhanced transit services are planned on Elm Street.
e. The comment requests enforcement of existing laws and regulations prohibiting vehicle idling. As stated on page 4.3-4 of Chapter 4.3, Air Quality in the Draft PEIR, CARB has promulgated specific rules to limit TAC emissions, including motor vehicle idling. Further, Table 4.3-2 on page 4.3- 17 presents General Plan Objectives and policies relevant to air quality, including Policy HC-3-f: "New Drive‐Through Facilities. Include in the Development Code design review to reduce vehicle emissions resulting from queued idling vehicles at drive‐through facilities in proximity to residential neighborhoods."
f. The comment requests the City actively seek and apply for all available funding to provide electric vehicle infrastructure in the Plan Area. Policy T9.2 has been added to the redline version of the proposed Plan, which states: "Promote, incentivize, and pursue funding for electrical vehicle (EV)
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-67
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
charging infrastructure throughout the Plan Area. Require EV charging infrastructure for new multi-family residential and mixed-use residential development projects."
g. The comment requests that the City actively seek and apply for all available funding to replace both public and private light, medium, and heavy-duty diesel equipment with zero or near-zero emission technology.
Policy T-9.1 has been added to the redline version of the proposed Plan, which states: "Promote, incentivize, and pursue funding to replace public and private vehicles and fleets with zero-emission (or near-zero emission if zero-emission solutions are not feasible) technology. Diesel fleets, such as transit buses, located or operating within the Plan Area should be prioritized for replacement."
PUB3-04 In Noise‐1, its listed as LTS and SU with no mitigation measure. The comment expresses concern regarding the significance findings for Impact NOISE-1. As explained on pages 4.11-23 through 4.11-27 of the Draft PEIR, traffic noise is considered a significant and unavoidable impact, while stationary noise is considered a less-than-significant impact as a result of implementation of the proposed Plan. No mitigation is required for the less-than-significant stationary noise impact and, as described in Chapter 4.11 of the Draft PEIR, no feasible mitigation measures are available for the significant and unavoidable traffic impact.
PUB3-05 The response in HAZ‐9 contradicts with the EnvironScreen 3 that shows that West Fresno neighborhoods are the most impacted by hazardous, toxic and air contaminating effects. The proposed plan's new uses may not increase hazardous impact but there are significant cumulative impacts due to hazardous materials in the plan area because of past projects. How did the EIR address the impact of population densification and increasing proximity of populations to current hazardous sights?
The comment expresses concern regarding the significance finding for Impact HAZ-9 and the evaluation in the Draft PEIR of cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials sites. The Draft PEIR evaluates cumulative impacts consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 by evaluating the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed Plan along with “other projects causing related impacts” under a projections-based approach as described in Section 15130(b)(1)(B). As discussed in Section 4.8.4 of the Draft PEIR, future cumulative projects will be required to comply with existing federal, State, and local regulations regarding existing hazardous materials. Future discretionary projects in the Plan Area would be subject to CEQA review, which would focus on the impacts of new development on residents in the Plan Area. In addition, Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a through HAZ-4h would require investigation and remediation of hazardous materials prior to the issuance of building permits. These mitigation measures will apply to all projects in the Plan Area as new development occurs. Please also see Response ORG3-01, which explains that the City’s
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-68 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
long-term land use strategy is to focus new industrial development in areas of the city outside of the Plan Area, in order to improve the quality of life for current and future Plan Area residents.
PUB3-06 There is the introduction of PS which I assume is 'potentially significant' but it's not included in the key.
In response to this comment, this abbreviation has been added to the key in Table 2-1 of this Final EIR.
PUB4 9/25/2017 Lillie
PUB4-01 I would like to see a college and a walmart in southwest fresno. The comment pertains to the proposed Plan and does not address the adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Please see Master Response 1.
PUB5 9/19/2017 Rosalyn Warren, et al.
PUB5-01 99c Store
Walmart
Grocery store
Gas station
Walking place - park
Taco Bell
The comment pertains to the proposed Plan and does not address the adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Please see Master Response 1.
PUB5-02 Dollars Store
Walmart
This what we needs
The comment pertains to the proposed Plan and does not address the adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Please see Master Response 1.
PUB5-03 1. We do not want a dollar General.
2. We would like to see a dollar tree.
3. We would like a Wal-Mart.
4. A Starbucks. This is what we would love to have beside the College.
5. We need a safe walking place to walk.
6. A gas station.
The comment pertains to the proposed Plan and does not address the adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Please see Master Response 1.
Comments Received After Close of Public Comment Period
GOV8 9/29/2017 Brian Clements, Program Manager, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
GOV8-01 Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:
The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Fresno Southwest Fresno Specific Plan and offers the following comments:
1. Future development within the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan (Project) will contribute to the overall decline in air quality due to increased traffic and Please see page 4.3-39 of the Draft PEIR. TAC would be controlled by the SJVAPCD through permitting and would be subject to further study and health risk assessment prior to the issuance of any necessary air quality permits.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-69
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
ongoing operational emissions. New development may require further environmental review and mitigation. The District makes the following recommendations regarding future development:
A. Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are air pollutants identified by the State of California that may cause or contribute to an increase in exposure to the surrounding public (i.e. - nearby schools, residents, and actual or proposed worksites). The location of development projects is a major factor in determining whether a proposed project will result in localized health impacts. The potential for adverse health impacts increase as the distance between the source of emissions and receptors decrease.
Accurate quantification of emissions and health impacts requires detailed site specific information (i.e. - type of emission source, proximity of the source to receptors, toxics emitted, and source parameter information).
The required level of detail is typically not available until project specific approvals are granted. Therefore, the District recommends that an assessment be required during the project level review. This recommendation includes proposed projects that would otherwise appear to be exempt from CEQA requirements, such as projects that could be categorically exempt or allowed land uses under current zoning.
GOV8-02 B. Prior to conducting a Health Risk Assessment (HRA), the District recommends conducting a screening analysis that includes all sources of emissions. A screening analysis is used to identify projects which may have a significant health impact. Prioritization - using the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) updated methodology is a recommended screening method. A prioritization score of 10 or greater is considered to be significant and an HRA should be performed. The prioritization calculator can be found at:
http:www.valleyair.org/busind/p to/emission
factors/Criteria/Toxics/Utilities/PRIG RITIZATION%20RMR%202016.XLS.
The District recommends a refined HRA for projects that result in a prioritization score of 10 or greater. It is recommended that the project proponent contact the District to review the proposed modeling protocol. The proposed project would be considered to have a significant health risk if the HRA demonstrates that the project related health impacts would exceed the District's significance threshold Please see Response GOV8-01. Future projects under the proposed Plan that are determined to generate permitted sources of air pollutants would be subject to further environmental review and would be required by SJVAPCD to prepare a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) in accordance with SJVAPCD guidance.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-70 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
of 20 in a million for carcinogenic risk and 1.0 for the Acute and Chronic Hazard Indices. More information on toxic emission factors, prioritizations and HRAs can be obtained by:
• E-mailing inquiries to: [email protected]; or
• Visiting the District's website at (modeling information):
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/Tox Resources/
AirQualityMonitoring.htm
GOV8-03 C. Construction Emissions - The Draft PEIR concludes that construction emissions will have a significant and unavoidable impact on air quality. The District recommends additional mitigation of construction exhaust emissions to further lessen the air quality impact. Feasible mitigation of construction exhaust emission includes use of construction equipment powered by engines meeting, at a minimum, Tier II emission standards, as set forth in §2423 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, and Part 89 of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations. The District recommends incorporating, as a condition of project approval, a requirement that off-road construction equipment used on site achieve fleet average emissions equal to or less than the Tier II emissions standard of 4.8 NOx g/hp-hr. This can be achieved through any combination of uncontrolled engines and engines complying with Tier II and above engine standards.
Mitigation measures required for future discretionary projects under the proposed Plan are identified on pages 4.3-32 through 4.3-34 of the Draft PEIR. Site-specific projects accommodated under the proposed Plan that meet the criteria of Rule 9510 would be required to prepare a detailed air quality impact assessment and would identify appropriate mitigation.
GOV8-04 D. Individual development projects would be subject to District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) if upon full build-out the project would include or exceed any one of the following:
• 50 dwelling units
• 2,000 square feet of commercial space;
• 25,000 square feet of light industrial space;
• 100,000 square feet of heavy industrial space;
• 20,000 square feet of medical office space;
• 39,000 square feet of general office space; or
• 9,000 square feet of educational space; or
• 10,000 square feet of government space; or
• 20,000 square feet of recreational space; or
• 9,000 square feet of space not identified above
The District recommends that demonstration of compliance with District Rule 9510, before issuance of the first building permit for each project phase including As stated on page 4.3-37 of the Draft PEIR, "application of SJVAPCD Rule 9510 and Regulation VIII would contribute in reducing operation- and construction-related NOX and particulate matter emissions." As such, future discretionary projects under implementation of the proposed Plan would comply with District Rule 9510.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-71
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
payment of all applicable fees, be made a condition of project approval.
Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/lSR/ISRHome.htm.
E. Individual development projects may also be subject to the following District rules: Regulation VIII, (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), Rule 4102 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations). In the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or removed, the project may be subject to District Rule 4002 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants).
F. The above list of rules is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to this project or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the applicant is strongly encouraged to contact the District's Small Business Assistance Office at (559) 230-5888. Current District rules can be found online at: www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm.
GOV8-05 2. The Plan lays out a vision for Southwest Fresno over the Plan's next 25-year horizon as a vibrant community and well-connected to downtown Fresno, strengthening the overall image and livability of the city. The District is currently designated as extreme non-attainment of the federal national ambient air quality standard for ozone and non-attainment for PM2.5. Given the size of the project, it is reasonable to conclude that mobile source emissions resulting from growth and development would have significant impacts on air quality. To reduce the project related impacts on air quality the Plan should include design standards that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). VMT can be reduced through encouragement of mixed-use development, walkable communities, etc.
Recommended design elements can be found on the District's website at http://www.valleyair.org/lSR/ISROnSite Measures.htm.
As stated on page 4.3-36 of the Draft PEIR, implementation of General Plan design standards and measures would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
The following General Plan policies would contribute to the reduction of air quality and GHG emissions during implementation of the proposed Plan:
MT-1-f, MT-1-g, MT-1-m, MT-2-b, MT-2-c, MT-2-g, MT-4-b, MT-4-d, MT-5- a, MT-5-b, and MT-8-c.
GOV8-06 3. As presented in the Draft PEIR, after implementation of all feasible mitigation, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on air quality.
However, the environmental document does not discuss the feasibility of implementing a voluntary emission reduction agreement (VERA). As discussed below, the District believes that mitigation through a VERA is feasible in many cases, and recommends the environmental document be revised to include a discussion of the feasibility of implementing a VERA to mitigate project specific impacts to less than significant levels.
A VERA is a mitigation measure by which the project proponent provides poundAs stated on page 4.3-32 of the Draft PEIR, "no further measures to reduce operation-phase criteria air pollutant emissions are available beyond the applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations." In compliance with applicable SJVAPCD regulations, the City will provide the ability for future development projects under implementation of the proposed Plan to opt to participate in this voluntary agreement in order to reduce projectspecific impacts.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-72 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
for pound mitigation of emissions increases through a process that develops, funds, and implements emission reduction projects, with the District serving a role of administrator of the emissions reduction projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort. To implement a VERA, the project proponent and the District enter into a contractual agreement in which the project proponent agrees to mitigate project specific emissions by providing funds for the District's Strategies and Incentive Program (SI). The funds are disbursed by SI in the form of grants for projects that achieve emission reductions. Thus, project specific impacts on air quality can be fully mitigated. Types of emission reduction projects that have been funded in the past include electrification of stationary internal combustion engines (such as agricultural irrigation pumps), replacing old heavyduty trucks with new, cleaner, more efficient heavy-duty trucks, and replacement of old farm tractors.
In implementing a VERA, the District verifies the actual emission reductions that have been achieved as a result of completed grant contracts, monitors the emission reduction projects, and ensures the enforceability of achieved reductions. The initial agreement is generally based on the projected maximum emissions increases as calculated by a District approved air quality impact assessment, and contains the corresponding maximum fiscal obligation.
However, because the goal is to mitigate actual emissions, the District has designed flexibility into the VERA such that the final mitigation is based on actual emissions related to the project as determined by actual equipment used, hours of operation, etc., and as calculated by the District. After the project is mitigated, the District certifies to the lead agency that the mitigation is completed, providing the lead agency with an enforceable mitigation measure demonstrating that project specific emissions have been mitigated to less than significant.
The District has been developing and implementing VERA contracts with project developers to mitigate project specific emissions since 2005. It is the District's experience that implementation of a VERA is a feasible mitigation measure, and effectively achieves the emission reductions required by a lead agency, by mitigating project related impacts on air quality to a net zero level by supplying real and contemporaneous emissions reductions. To assist the Lead Agency and project proponent in ensuring that the environmental document is compliant with CEQA, the District recommends the environmental document be amended to include an assessment of the feasibility of implementing a VERA.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PLACEWORKS 5-73
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
Additional information on implementing a VERA can be obtained by contacting District CEQA staff at (559) 230-6000.
GOV8-07 4. Referral documents for new development projects should include a project summary detailing, at a minimum, the land use designation, project sized, and proximity to sensitive receptors and existing emission sources.
Please see Response GOV8-06.
PUB6 No Date Jeff Roberts
PUB6-01 No Date A. Biological Resources:
1. The EIR contains quite a number of requirements for studies, monitoring, and reporting that add time and cost to the development process. ( It's pretty obvious that this section of the report was authored by a biologist) The need for the studies, etc. seems to be based somewhat upon the existing use of the property and the Figure 5-1 ( Existing land Use) incorrectly illustrates the use of our land. This inaccuracy could "trigger" a lot of additional work and add a lot of additional cost.
The City should make the Exhibit 5-1 accurate, and then create an "New" exhibit of lands that "trigger" the need for preconstruction surveys, monitoring, etc. If a property is not identified on the new exhibit, then it would be exempt from the mitigation measures in this section.
Chapter 4.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft PEIR provides a high-level evaluation of the biological resources within the 3,138-acre Plan Area based on generalized biotic habitat types (see Table 4.4-2. on page 4.4-6 of the Draft PEIR). The evaluation is based on published biological resource data, and not existing land uses. Proposed mitigation measures are intended to provide guidance to future development on what would be required to address potential biological resource impacts on a site-by-site basis. Given the size of the Plan Area, a parcel-by-parcel evaluation of biological resources is not feasible nor necessary to address the biological resource significance criteria. Please also see Master Response 1.
PUB6-02 B. Parks and Recreation:
1. The Draft EIR ( provided by the City) contains standards for the amount of parkland required by the City of Fresno. Along with the Draft PEIR, the City also provided a "Memorandum" dated 8-08-17 entitled "Revisions to the Public Review Draft Southwest Fresno Specific Plan" which provides a rationale to reduce the amount of parks that a recounted in the inventory. The result is that the plan area went from having 3.45 acres/ 1000 population down to 1.49 acres/ 1000 population. The first figure was well above the park acreage requirement; the second figure is far below the requirement. The concern is that the development community will now have to fund additional parks to get the ratio back up to 3 acres/ 1000 population.
It may be better for the City to accurately reflect that amount of parks and then state that the "Desired Ratio" is 4 acres / 1000 population.
Please see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft PEIR, which provides the standard used in the parkland analysis.
PUB6-03 2. Additionally, the DEIR document discusses the ratio of parks within its study area and also mentions a Goal ( PF-2 ) which states: "Increase the overall amount of usable parkland within southwest Fresno allowing varied recreational Please see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft PEIR. The City’s parkland standard applies citywide, but the Draft PEIR evaluates the additional parkland that would be needed to accommodate the proposed Plan.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5-74 OCTOBER 201 7
TABLE 5-1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE MATRIX
Comment # Date Comment Response
opportunities within the entire Southwest Area". This goal applies to All of Southwest Fresno ( approximately 5760 acres), not just the plan area of 3255 acres. The authors of the documents seem to want to impose the park ratio on a specific geographic area of 56% of the Southwest area. This issue needs to be reconsidered.
PUB6-04 C. In the 8-08-17 Memorandum mentioned above, Figure 3-3, "Dual Land Use Designation Map for Plan Area" incorrectly places "CMX" on the southwest corner of Hughes and California. This land is currently planned and zoned for "Medium Low Density Residential" uses and the Specific Plan map and DEIR Exhibit map needs to be corrected to reflect this.
The comment pertains to the proposed Plan and does not address the adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Figure 3-3 as shown in the proposed Plan is correct and intentionally redesignates the dual land use of the parcels at the southwest corner of Hughes and California Avenues to "CMX." Please also see Master Response 1.
PUB6-05 D. On page 4.15 - 27, it states "Recycled water, an important water source for the City of Fresno" is not yet utilized in I the Plan Area. This is a gross overstatement which is not really true. The only place that recycled water is being used in the City of Fresno is at Copper River Ranch.
The comment expresses concern regarding an inaccurate statement of recycled water utilization in the Plan Area. As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft PEIR, in this Final EIR, page 4.15-27 of the Draft PEIR has been revised accordingly.
PUB6-06 E. On Page 4.15 - 33, Table 4.15-7 indicates Basin Sizes by acres. These figures cannot be accurate and this table needs to be corrected.
The comment expresses concern regarding the accuracy of Table 4.15-7 of the Draft PEIR. As shown in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft PEIR, in this Final EIR, page 4.15-33 has been revised accordingly.
PUB6-07 F. On page 5-3, one of the Project Objectives reads "Provide quality open space and recreational opportunities by improving existing parks and creating new parks within walking distance (½ mile) of all residences". While this may sound like a great "goal", has anyone at the City figured out how many parks (new) would be required to "satisfy'' this statement and how these numerous parks will be maintained?
The comment pertains to the proposed Plan and does not address the adequacy of the Draft PEIR. Please also see Master Response 1.
PLACEWORKS 6-1
6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
This chapter contains the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the City of Fresno’s Southwest Fresno Specific Plan, herein referred to as “proposed Plan.” The MMRP is intended to ensure the implementation of mitigation measures identified as part of the environmental review for the proposed project. The MMRP includes the following information:
A list of mitigation measures
The timing for implementation of each mitigation measure The agency responsible for monitoring implementation
The monitoring action and frequency
The City of Fresno must adopt this MMRP, or an equally effective program, if it adopts the proposed Plan with the mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project adoption.
Mitigation Measures that have been incorporated from the Fresno General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) are numbered with “MEIR” as a prefix.
SOUTHWE ST FRESNO SPECIFIC P LAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6-2 OCTOBER 2017
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
AESTHETICS
MEIR 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.
Prior to issuance of electrical permits City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
MEIR 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.
Prior to issuance of electrical permits City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
MEIR 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.
Prior to issuance of electrical permits City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
MEIR 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.
Prior to issuance of sign permits City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
MEIR AES‐5: Materials used on building façades shall be non‐reflective. Prior to issuance of building permits City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
AIR QUALITY
AQ-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits for new development projects within the Plan Area, the project applicant shall show on the building plans that all major appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) to be provided/installed are Energy Star-certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency. Installation of Energy Star-certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Prior to issuance of building permits City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
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.
Prior to issuance of grading,
demolition, or building permits,
whichever occurs first
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
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 Prior to commencement of and during
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 6-3
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
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.
Department
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, low-pressure spray method operated at an air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge to achieve a 65 percent application efficiency; or (2) manual application using a paintbrush, hand-roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge, to achieve a 100 percent applicant efficiency. The construction contractor shall also use precoated/natural colored building materials, where feasible.
Prior to issuance of building permits City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
AQ-3: Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Prior to issuance of building permits City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
AQ-4a: Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-2a through AQ-2c to further reduce construction-related criteria air pollutant emissions.
Prior to issuance of building permits,
commencement of and during
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
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 consistent with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII requirements that includes, but not limited to the following measures during ground-disturbing 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 Prior to issuance of grading,
demolition, or building permits,
whichever occurs first
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
SOUTHWE ST FRESNO SPECIFIC P LAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6-4 OCTOBER 2017
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
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.)
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 Plan Area.
Adhere to Regulation VIII’s 20 percent opacity limitation, as applicable.
AQ-7: AQ-7: Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-2a through AQ-4b of the Draft EIR.
Prior to issuance of grading,
demolition, or building permits,
whichever occurs first
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO‐1.1a: Construction of a proposed project should avoid, where possible, vegetation communities that provide suitable habitat for a special-status species known to occur within the Plan Area. If construction within potentially suitable habitat must occur, a qualified botanist should conduct botanical surveys to confirm the presence/absence of any special-status plant or wildlife species to determine if the habitat supports any special-status species. The surveys should be completed using the reporting and data collection guidelines outlined in the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities66 and a report of findings should be submitted to the City and the Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) before the onset of any initial ground-disturbing activity or construction associated with each phase of project Prior to commencement of
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 6-5
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
implementation. If a special-status species is determined to occupy any portion of a project site, then any occurrence should be avoided whenever possible by delineating and observing a disturbancefree buffer zone of a minimum of 50 feet from the outer-edge of the special-status plant populations(s) or specific habitat type(s) required by special status plant species. If the buffer zone(s) cannot be maintained, appropriate minimization measures and mitigation measures should be prepared in consultation with CDFW on a case-by-case basis.
BIO‐1.1b: Direct or incidental take of any State- or federally-listed species should be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. If construction of a proposed project will result in the direct or incidental take of a listed species, consultation with the resources agencies and/or additional permitting may be required. Agency consultation through the CDFW 2081 and USFWS Section 7 or Section 10 permitting processes must take place prior to any action that may result in the direct or incidental take of a listed species. Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to a listed species will be determined on a case‐by‐case basis through agency consultation.
Prior to commencement of
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
BIO‐1.1c: Development within the Plan Area should avoid, where possible, special‐status natural communities and vegetation communities that provide suitable habitat for special‐status species. If a proposed project will result in the loss of a special‐status natural community or suitable habitat for special‐status species, compensatory habitat‐based mitigation is required under CEQA and CESA.
Mitigation will consist of preserving on‐site habitat, restoring similar habitat, or purchasing off‐site credits from an approved mitigation bank. Compensatory mitigation will be determined through consultation with the City and/or resource agencies. An appropriate mitigation strategy and ratio will be agreed upon by the developer and lead agency to reduce project impacts to special‐status natural communities to a less than significant level. Agreed‐upon mitigation ratios will depend on the quality of the habitat and presence/absence of a special‐status species. The specific mitigation for project level impacts will be determined on a case‐by‐case basis.
Prior to commencement of
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
BIO-1.2: A qualified biologist knowledgeable of the species should conduct a Swainson’s hawk survey of the project site and the surrounding 0.5-mile-radius area, in substantial compliance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000) during the normal bird breeding season (1 February through 15 September) prior to the start of any initial ground-disturbing activity or construction associated with each phase of project implementation, to the extent feasible.
Additional pre-construction Swainson’s hawk surveys should take place no more than 10 days prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities.
To mitigate for the loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, the project applicant should provide Habitat Management (HM) lands to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) based on the following ratios, if feasible:
Prior to commencement of and during
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
SOUTHWE ST FRESNO SPECIFIC P LAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6-6 OCTOBER 2017
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
If the project(s) is located within 1 mile of an active nest tree, the applicant should provide a minimum of 1 acre of HM lands for each 1 acre of urban development authorized. If the project(s) is located within 5 miles of an active nest tree but greater than 1 mile from the nest tree, the applicant should provide a minimum of 0.75 acres of HM lands for each 1 acre of urban development authorized.
If the project(s) is located within 10 miles of an active nest tree but greater than 5 miles from the nest tree, the applicant should provide a minimum of 0.5 acres of HM lands for each 1 acre of urban development authorized.
The project applicant should provide for the long-term management of the HM lands by funding a management endowment, the interest of which should be used for managing the HM lands. The rate per HM acre should be established through consultation with CDFW. In addition to fee title acquisition of grassland habitat, mitigation could occur by the purchase of conservation or suitable agricultural easements. Suitable agricultural easements would include areas limited to production of crops such as alfalfa, dry land and irrigated pasture, and cereal grain crops. Vineyards, orchards, cotton fields, and other dense vegetation do not provide adequate foraging habitat.
BIO -1.3: No less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to commencement of construction activities the project proponent should retain a USFWS- and CDFW-approved biologist to conduct pre-construction surveys in potential habitat periphery of the Plan Area that has not been fragmented by agricultural-residential or urban development. The survey, reporting, and activities during construction should be in substantial compliance with the requirements contained in the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance.66 As described in the standardized recommendations, if a natal/pupping den is discovered within the Plan Area or within 200-feet of the project boundary, the USFWS and CDFW should be immediately notified and under no circumstances should the den be disturbed or destroyed without prior authorization. If the preconstruction/preactivity survey reveals an active natal pupping or new information, the project applicant should contact the USFWS immediately to obtain the necessary take authorization/permit.
Prior to commencement of and during
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
BIO-1.4: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Special-status Bats and Implement Avoidance Measures. Any medium or larger (≥ 12-inch diameter) trees or snags selected for removal should be inspected by a qualified biologist for presence of potential day-roosting habitat (e.g., cavities exfoliating bark, or basal hollows) for special-status bats or a maternity colony. If feasible, cavities should be examined for roosting bats using a portable camera probe or similar technology.
No more than two weeks before the onset of any initial ground-disturbing activity or construction Prior to commencement of and during
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 6-7
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
associated with each phase of project implementation, a qualified bat biologist should conduct preconstruction surveys of all buildings with potential for roosting habitat for supporting special-status bats or a maternity colony should be inspected by a qualified biologist for evidence of roosting colonies. If suitable roosting habitat is present and/or bat sign is observed, but no bats are detected, an evening exit count and acoustic survey using a full spectrum acoustic detector should be conducted by a qualified bat biologist to determine if bats are present and what species are present.
If present, roosts (including day roosts, winter hibernacula, and maternity colonies) and a 100- to 300-foot disturbance-free buffer surrounding each roost should be flagged and avoided, as determined by a qualified bat biologist. The 100- to 300-foot disturbance-free buffer should be maintained until the qualified bat biologist can determine that bats no longer use the roost.
If avoidance is not possible, a qualified bat biologist should develop a Bat Eviction Plan in consultation with CDFW for written approval prior to implementation. The Bat Eviction Plan should include exclusion methods, roost removal procedures, and monitoring efforts to ensure that all bats have exited the roost prior to all ground-disturbing activities and are unable to re-enter the roost. In addition, replacement habitat appropriate for the species’ roost requirements should be created prior to the roost removal. The qualified bat biologist, in consultation with CDFW, should facilitate the removal of roosting bats outside of the winter hibernation (1 November to 28 February) and maternity roosting (15 March to 31 August) periods through the following means:
1. Implementing eviction during a period of warm (nighttime low>50°F), dry weather, when bats are expected to be active.
2. Opening the roosting area to allow airflow through the cavity or building (air flow disturbance).
3. Waiting a minimum of three nights of warm weather, as defined above, for roosting bats to respond to air flow disturbance, thereby allowing bats to leave during nighttime hours when predation risk is relatively low and chances of finding a new roost is greater than in the daytime.
4. Conducting a follow-up survey prior to roost removal to ensure that bats have vacated the roost.
5. Disturbing roosts at dusk just prior to roost removal the same evening to allow bats to escape during nighttime hours.
BIO-1.5: Conduct Focused American Badger Surveys and Avoid or Minimize Impacts to American Badger Dens. No more than 30 days before the start of construction activities, a qualified biologist should conduct pre-construction surveys for American badgers within suitable habitat. If a potentially active den is found in a construction area, the den openings may be monitored with tracking medium or an infrared-beam camera for three consecutive nights to determine current use. Potential (inactive) dens within the limits of disturbance should be blocked with a one-way door or excavated to prevent use during construction. Blocking with one-way doors is preferable to excavation where Prior to commencement of and during
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
SOUTHWE ST FRESNO SPECIFIC P LAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6-8 OCTOBER 2017
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
feasible; potential dens blocked with doors will be made available to badgers after construction. If American badgers or active dens are detected during these surveys, the following should be implemented:
If present, occupied badger dens should be flagged, and ground-disturbing activities avoided, within 50 feet of the occupied den during the nonbreeding season (1 July through 14 February).
Flagging that is highly visible by construction crews should encircle the occupied den at the appropriate buffer distance, and should not prevent access to the den by badgers. Dens determined to be occupied during the breeding season (15 February through 30 June) should be flagged, and ground-disturbing activities avoided, within 200 feet to protect adults and nursing young. Buffers may be modified by the qualified biologist, provided the badgers are protected, and should not be removed until the qualified biologist has determined that the den is no longer in use.
If avoidance of an active non-maternity den is not feasible, the qualified biologist should consult with CDFW to determine whether the badger(s) may be evicted. Relocation methods may be implemented by first incrementally blocking the den over a three-day period, followed by slowly excavating the den (either by hand or with mechanized equipment under the direct supervision of a qualified biologist, removing no more than 4 inches at a time) before or after the rearing season (15 February through 30 June). Any passive relocation of American badgers should occur only under the direction of a qualified biologist.
BIO-1.6: Conduct a Preconstruction Survey for Burrowing Owl and Implement Avoidance Measures. A qualified biologist(s) knowledgeable of the species should conduct a focused, preconstruction survey during the peak breeding season for burrowing owls (15 April to 15 July) prior to the start of grounddisturbing activities for the project to determine if burrowing owls are present on the project site and within 250 feet where access allows. The survey should be conducted in substantial compliance with the California Burrowing Owl Consortium's Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (CBOC, 1997), or other survey and mitigation protocols recommended by the CDFW, to the extent feasible.
All areas of suitable habitat proposed for ground disturbance will be surveyed. If burrowing owls are detected, buffers and mitigation per the Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines will be implemented.
If burrowing owl(s) are found to occupy the site and avoidance is not possible, a qualified biologist knowledgeable of the species should conduct burrow exclusion during the non-breeding season, before breeding behavior is exhibited and after the burrow is confirmed empty by site surveillance and/or scoping. Burrow closure should be implemented only where there are adjacent natural burrows and non-impacted sufficient habitat for burrowing owls to occupy with permanent protection mechanisms in place. Ongoing surveillance should be conducted during any initial groundPrior to commencement of and during construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 6-9
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
disturbing activity or construction associated with each phase of project implementation to monitor colonization of the area by burrowing owls.
BIO-1.7: Conduct Pre-construction Surveys for Western Pond Turtle, and Move Individuals to Safety.
Prior to construction, a qualified biologist (i.e., a biologist approved by CDFW and that holds a Scientific Collecting Permit to handle western pond turtles) should conduct focused surveys during the western pond turtle egg-laying season (March through August) to determine if western pond turtles are present within 0.25-mile of aquatic and riparian habitat, where accessible. If any pond turtles are detected during these surveys, or during construction in an area where individuals could be affected, they should be allowed to move out on their own volition. If this is not feasible, they should be moved to the nearest suitable habitat immediately upstream or downstream from the project site. The candidate sites for relocation should be identified before construction and should be selected based on the size and type of habitat present, the potential for negative interactions with resident species, and the species’ range.
If any western pond turtle nests with eggs are found, the nests should remain undisturbed until the eggs have hatched.
Prior to commencement of and during
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
BIO‐1.8. Proposed projects within the Plan Area should avoid, if possible, construction within the general nesting season of February through August for avian species protected under Fish and Game Code 3500 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), if it is determined that suitable nesting habitat occurs on a project site. If construction cannot avoid the nesting season, a pre‐construction clearance survey must be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no more than 10 days prior to the start of any initial ground-disturbing activity or construction associated with each phase of project implementation to determine if any nesting birds or nesting activity is observed on or within 500 feet of a project site. If an active nest is observed during the survey, a biological monitor must be on site to ensure that no proposed project activities would impact the active nest. A suitable buffer will be established around the active nest until the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer active. Project activities may continue in the vicinity of the nest only at the discretion of the biological monitor. Once construction begins, a qualified wildlife biologist should continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from project-related activities.
If continuous monitoring of nests by a qualified wildlife biologist is not feasible, a disturbance-free buffer zone of a minimum of 250 feet should be delineated around active nests of non-listed bird species and a disturbance-free buffer zone of a minimum of 500 feet should be delineated around active nests of non-listed raptors, or suitable buffer distance approved by the biological monitor.
These buffers should be maintained until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified wildlife biologist can determine that the bird species or raptors have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. Variance from these buffers should be considered only after Prior to commencement of and during
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
SOUTHWE ST FRESNO SPECIFIC P LAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6-10 OCTOBER 2017
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
consultation with a qualified wildlife biologist and CDFW.
BIO‐2.1a: Impacts to riparian habitat should be avoided by delineating a 200-foot disturbance free buffer from the high water mark of a waterbody or waterway or form the outside edge of the riparian habitat and for areas with no riparian vegetation, a minimum 100-foot disturbance-free buffer should be delineated around the high water mark of a waterbody or waterway.
If avoidance is not possible, a compensatory habitat-based mitigation should be required to reduce project impacts. Compensatory mitigation must involve the preservation or restoration or the purchase of off-site mitigation credits for impacts to riparian habitat and/or a special-status natural community. Mitigation must be conducted in-kind or within an approved mitigation bank in the region. The specific mitigation ratio for habitat based mitigation should be determined on an acrefor-acre basis through consultation with the appropriate agency (i.e., CDFW or USFWS).
Prior to commencement of
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
BIO‐2.1b: Project impacts that occur to riparian habitat may also result in significant impacts to streambeds or waterways protected under Section 1600 of Fish and Wildlife Code and Section 404 of the CWA. In accordance with Fish & Game Code Section 1600 et seq., consultation with CDFW and/or USACE should be initiated to determine the appropriate mitigation strategy and regulatory permitting to reduce impacts prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake (including the removal of riparian vegetation); or (c) deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake.
Prior to commencement of
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
BIO-2.1c: Project‐related impacts to riparian habitat or a special‐status natural community may result in direct or incidental impacts to special‐status species associated with riparian or wetland habitats.
Project impacts to special‐status species associated with riparian habitat shall be mitigated through agency consultation, development of a mitigation strategy, and/or issuing incidental take permits for the specific special‐status species, as determined by the CDFW and/or USFWS.
BIO‐3a: If a proposed project will result in the significant alteration or fill of a federally protected wetland, in accordance with Fish & Game Code Section 1600 et seq., consultation with CDFW and/or USACE should be initiated to determine the appropriate mitigation strategy and regulatory permitting to reduce impacts prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake (including the removal of riparian vegetation) (c) deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake.
In addition, a formal wetland delineation conducted according to USACE accepted methodology is required for each project to determine the extent of wetlands on a project site. The delineation Prior to commencement of
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 6-11
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
should be used to determine if federal permitting and mitigation strategy are required to reduce project impacts. Acquisition of permits from USACE for the fill of wetlands and approval of wetland mitigation plan would ensure a “no net loss” of wetland habitat within the Plan Area by the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., USACE, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)). Appropriate wetland mitigation/creation should be implemented in a ratio according to the size of the impacted wetland.
BIO‐3b: In addition to regulatory agency permitting, Best Management Practices identified from a list provided by the USACE shall be incorporated into the design and construction phase of the project to ensure that no pollutants or siltation drain into a federally protected wetland. Project design features such as fencing, appropriate drainage and incorporating detention basins shall assist in ensuring project‐related impacts to wetland habitat are minimized to the greatest extent feasible.
Implementation of temporary
construction-related BMPs shall occur
prior to commencement of and during
construction activities; implementation
of long-term operational BMPs shall
occur prior to issuance of occupancy
permits
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
CULTURAL RESOURCES
MEIR CUL-1: If previously unknown cultural resources are encountered during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and an archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the archaeologist and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping; incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space; or data recovery excavations of the finds.
No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City‐approved institution or person who is capable of providing long‐term preservation to allow future scientific study.
During construction activities City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
MEIR CUL-2: Subsequent to a preliminary City review of the project grading plans, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for prehistoric archaeological resources shall be conducted. The following procedures shall be followed.
Subsequent to a preliminary City
review of the project grading plans and
during construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
SOUTHWE ST FRESNO SPECIFIC P LAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6-12 OCTOBER 2017
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
If prehistoric resources are not found during either the field survey or a literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence. In the event that buried prehistoric archaeological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. If the resources are determined to be unique prehistoric archaeological resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any prehistoric archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City‐approved institution or person who is capable of providing long‐term preservation to allow future scientific study.
If prehistoric resources are found during the field survey or literature review, the resources shall be inventoried using appropriate State record forms and submit the forms to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. The resources shall be evaluated for significance. If the resources are found to be significant, measures shall be identified by the qualified archaeologist. Similar to above, appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. In addition, appropriate mitigation for excavation and construction activities in the vicinity of the resources found during the field survey or literature review shall include an archaeological monitor. The monitoring period shall be determined by the qualified archaeologist. If additional prehistoric archaeological resources are found during excavation and/or construction activities, the procedure identified above for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed.
MEIR CUL-3: Subsequent to a preliminary City review of the project grading plans, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for unique paleontological/geological resources shall be conducted.
The following procedures shall be followed:
If unique paleontological/geological resources are not found during either the field survey or a literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence. In the event that unique paleontological/geological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, Subsequent to a preliminary City
review of the project grading plans and
during construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 6-13
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified paleontologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified paleontologist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to, excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds.
If the resources are determined to be significant, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping; incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space; or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any paleontological/geological resources recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City‐ approved institution or person who is capable of providing long‐term preservation to allow future scientific study.
If unique paleontological/geological resources are found during the field survey or literature review, the resources shall be inventoried and evaluated for significance. If the resources are found to be significant, mitigation measures shall be identified by the qualified paleontologist. Similar to above, appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping; incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space; or data recovery excavations of the finds. In addition, appropriate mitigation for excavation and construction activities in the vicinity of the resources found during the field survey or literature review shall include a paleontological monitor. The monitoring period shall be determined by the qualified paleontologist. If additional paleontological/ geological resources are found during excavation and/or construction activities, the procedure identified above for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed.
MEIR CUL-4: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with During construction activities City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
SOUTHWE ST FRESNO SPECIFIC P LAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6-14 OCTOBER 2017
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants’ preferences for treatment.
Applicable regulations and procedures described above, along with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4, would ensure that any human remains discovered during construction would be handled appropriately.
CUL-5: Implement Fresno General Plan MEIR Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-4. See Mitigation Measures MEIR CUL-1, MEIR CUL-2, and MEIR CUL-4.
GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS
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.
See Mitigation Measure AQ-2b.
HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-3: Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a through HAZ-4h, described later in the section under Impact HAZ-4, would reduce potential impacts to schools.
In addition, as stated in the discussions of Impacts HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations, procedures, and policies would avoid potential impacts associated with hazardous materials handling, use, and storage in the Plan Area. Compliance with these regulations, procedures, and policies would ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, thereby reducing potential risks to nearby schools.
See Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a through HAZ-4h.
HAZ-4a: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that a Phase I ESA (performed in accordance with the current ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process [E 1527]) shall be conducted for each individual property prior to development or redevelopment to ascertain the presence or absence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HRECs), and Potential Environmental Concerns (PECs) relevant to the property under consideration. The findings and conclusions of the Phase I ESA shall become the basis for potential recommendations for follow-up investigation, if found to be warranted.
Prior to issuance of grading permit City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
HAZ-4b: In the event that the findings and conclusions of the Phase I ESA for a property result in evidence of RECs, HRECs and/or PECs warranting further investigation, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that a Phase II ESA shall be conducted to determine the Prior to issuance of grading permit City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 6-15
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
presence or absence of a significant impact to the subject site from hazardous materials.
The Phase II ESA may include but may not be limited to the following: (1) Collection and laboratory analysis of soils and/or groundwater samples to ascertain the presence or absence of significant concentrations of constituents of concern; (2) Collection and laboratory analysis of soil vapors and/or indoor air to ascertain the presence or absence of significant concentrations of volatile constituents of concern; and/or (3) Geophysical surveys to ascertain the presence or absence of subsurface features of concern such as USTs, drywells, drains, plumbing, and septic systems. The findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA shall become the basis for potential recommendations for follow-up investigation, site characterization, and/or remedial activities, if found to be warranted.
HAZ-4c: In the event the findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA reveal the presence of significant concentrations of hazardous materials warranting further investigation, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that site characterization shall be conducted in the form of additional Phase II ESAs in order to characterize the source and maximum extent of impacts from constituents of concern. The findings and conclusions of the site characterization shall become the basis for formation of a remedial action plan and/or risk assessment.
Prior to issuance of grading permit City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
HAZ-4d: If the findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA(s), site characterization and/or risk assessment demonstrate the presence of concentrations of hazardous materials exceeding regulatory threshold levels, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, property owners and/or developers of properties shall complete site remediation and potential risk assessment with oversight from the applicable regulatory agency including, but not limited to, the Cal-EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD). Potential remediation could include the removal or treatment of water and/or soil. If removal occurs, hazardous materials shall be transported and disposed at a hazardous materials permitted facility.
Prior to issuance of grading permit City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department and
Fresno County Department
of Environmental
Health Services
HAZ-4e: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an individual property within the Plan Area with residual environmental contamination, the agency with primary regulatory oversight of environmental conditions at such property ("Oversight Agency") shall have determined that the proposed land use for that property, including proposed development features and design, does not present an unacceptable risk to human health, if applicable, through the use of an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) that could include institutional controls, site-specific mitigation measures, a risk management plan, and deed restrictions based upon applicable risk-based cleanup standards. Remedial action plans, risk management plans and health and safety plans shall be required as determined by the Oversight Agency for a given property under applicable environmental laws, if not already completed, to prevent an unacceptable risk to human health, including workers during and after construction, from exposure to residual contamination in soil and Prior to issuance of building permit City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department
SOUTHWE ST FRESNO SPECIFIC P LAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6-16 OCTOBER 2017
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
groundwater in connection with remediation and site development activities and the proposed land use.
HAZ-4f: For those sites with potential residual volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil, soil gas, or groundwater that are planned for redevelopment with an overlying occupied building, a vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed by a licensed environmental professional. If the results of the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the potential for significant vapor intrusion into the proposed building, the project design shall include vapor controls or source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or the Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) requirements. Soil vapor mitigations or controls could include passive venting and/or active venting.
The vapor intrusion assessment as associated vapor controls or source removal can be incorporated into the ESMP (Mitigation Measure HAZ4-4e).
Prior to commencement of and during
construction activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
HAZ-4g: In the event of planned renovation or demolition of residential and/or commercial structures on the subject site, prior to the issuance of demolition permits, asbestos and lead based paint (LBP) surveys shall be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of asbestoscontaining materials (ACM) and/or LBP. Removal of friable ACM, and non-friable ACMs that have the potential to become friable, during demolition and/or renovation shall conform to the standards set forth by the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).
The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) is the responsible agency on the local level to enforce the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) and shall be notified by the property owners and/or developers of properties (or their designee(s)) prior to any demolition and/or renovation activities. If asbestos-containing materials are left in place, an Operations and Maintenance Program (O&M Program) shall be developed for the management of asbestos containing materials.
Prior to issuance of demolition permit City of Fresno Development and Resource Management
Department and the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control
District
HAZ-4h: Prior to the import of a soil to a particular property within the Plan Area as part of that property’s site development, such soils shall be sampled for toxic or hazardous materials to determine if concentrations exceed applicable Environmental Screening Levels for the proposed land use at such a property, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or the Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) requirements, prior to importing to such a property.
Prior to soil import City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
NOISE
NOISE-2a: Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, applicants for individual development projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities—such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers—within 50 feet of off-site structures, shall prepare and submit to Prior to issuance of grading and
construction permits
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 6-17
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
the City of Fresno an acoustical study to evaluate potential construction-related vibration damage impacts. The vibration assessment shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and be based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) vibration-induced architectural damage criterion. If the acoustical study determines a potential exceedance of the FTA thresholds, measures shall be identified that ensure vibration levels are reduced to below the thresholds. Measures to reduce vibration levels can include use of less-vibration-intensive equipment (e.g., drilled piles and static rollers) and/or construction techniques (e.g., non-explosive rock blasting and use of hand tools) and preparation of a pre-construction survey report to assess the condition of the affected sensitive structure. Identified measures shall be included on all construction and building documents and submitted for verification to the City.
NOISE-2b: Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, applicants for individual development projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities—such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers—within 100 feet of sensitive receptors (e.g., residences and schools) shall prepare and submit to the City of Fresno an acoustical study to evaluate potential construction-related vibration annoyance impacts. The study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and shall identify measures to reduce impacts to habitable structures to below the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) vibration-induced annoyance criterion. If constructionrelated vibration is determined in the acoustical study to be perceptible at vibration-sensitive uses, additional requirements, such as use of less-vibration-intensive equipment or construction techniques, shall be implemented during construction (e.g., drilled piles, static rollers, and nonexplosive rock blasting). Identified measures shall be included on all construction and building documents and submitted for verification to the City.
Prior to issuance of grading and
construction permits
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
NOISE-4a: As required by the City of Fresno Municipal Code, construction activity shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, and shall require a permit issued by the City.
Prior to issuance of construction
permits and during construction
activities
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
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 Development and Resource Management 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 Development and Resource Management Director. Specific measures may include, but are not limited to, the following best management practices:
Prior to issuance of demolition, grading
and/or construction permits
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
SOUTHWE ST FRESNO SPECIFIC P LAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6-18 OCTOBER 2017
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
Post a construction site notice near the construction site access point or in an area that is clearly visible to the public. The notice shall include the following: job site address; permit number, name, and phone number of the contractor and owner; dates and duration of construction activities; construction hours allowed; and the City of Fresno Community Development Director and construction contractor phone numbers where noise complaints can be reported and logged. Consider the installation of temporary sound barriers for construction activities immediately adjacent to occupied noise-sensitive structures.
Restrict haul routes and construction-related traffic to the least noise-sensitive times of the day. Reduce non-essential idling of construction equipment to no more than five minutes. Ensure that all construction equipment is monitored and properly maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to minimize noise.
Fit all construction equipment with properly-operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds, no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer, to minimize noise emissions.
If construction equipment is equipped with back-up alarm shut offs, switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters, as feasible.
Stationary equipment (such as generators and air compressors) and equipment maintenance and staging areas shall be located as far from existing noise-sensitive land uses, as feasible. To the extent feasible, use acoustic enclosures, shields, or shrouds for stationary equipment such as compressors and pumps.
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.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 6-19
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
MEIR PS‐5: As future school facilities are planned, the school districts shall evaluate if specific environmental effects would occur. Typical impacts from school facilities include noise, traffic, and lighting. Typical mitigation to reduce potential impacts includes:
Noise: Barriers and setbacks placed on school sites.
Traffic: Traffic devices for circulation.
Lighting: Provision of hoods and deflectors on lighting fixtures for stadium lights.
Prior to issuance of construction
permits
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
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.
At 5-year intervals during
implementation of the proposed Plan,
through the year 2042
City of Fresno Development and
Resource Management
Department
PS-8: Implement Mitigation Measure PS-7. See Mitigation Measure PS-7.
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
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 shall be 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 modes in 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.
Ongoing City of Fresno Public Works
Department
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 SR41/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:
Ongoing
Note: State Route 99 and State Route
41 are under Caltrans’ jurisdiction, and
the implementation and timing of
Mitigation Measure TRANS-7.2 is not
Caltrans, Fresno Council of
Governments, City of Fresno
Public Works Department
SOUTHWE ST FRESNO SPECIFIC P LAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6-20 OCTOBER 2017
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
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. - 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 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).
fully under the City’s control.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 6-21
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
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.
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).
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.
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 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 and any applicable future City of Fresno fee update applicable to roadway facilities and/or traffic signals:
Ongoing
Note: State Route 41 is under Caltrans’
jurisdiction, and the implementation
and timing of Mitigation Measure
TRANS-7.3 is not fully under the City’s
control.
Caltrans, Fresno Council of
Governments, City of Fresno
Public Works Department
SOUTHWE ST FRESNO SPECIFIC P LAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6-22 OCTOBER 2017
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
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.
Table 4.14-18 in Chapter 4.14 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.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
MEIR USS-1: The City shall develop and implement a wastewater master plan update. Prior to wastewater conveyance and treatment demand exceeding capacity
City of Fresno Public Utilities
Department
MEIR 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 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.
Prior to exceeding existing wastewater
treatment capacity
City of Fresno Public Utilities
Department
MEIR 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.
Prior to exceeding existing wastewater
treatment capacity
City of Fresno Public Utilities
Department
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 6-23
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
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.
MEIR 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.
Prior to construction of water and
sewer facilities
City of Fresno Public Works
Department
MEIR 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 million gallon per day (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.
Prior to exceeding existing water
supply capacity
City of Fresno Public Utilities
Department
MEIR 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.
Prior to exceeding capacity within the
existing wastewater collection system
facilities
City of Fresno Public Utilities
Department
SOUTHWE ST FRESNO SPECIFIC P LAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6-24 OCTOBER 2017
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
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 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 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.
Prior to exceeding capacity within the
existing 28 pipeline segments shown
on Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix J-1 of
the Fresno General Plan MEIR
City of Fresno Public Utilities
Department
MEIR 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 Prior to exceeding capacity within the
existing water conveyance facilities
City of Fresno Public Utilities
Department
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 6-25
TABLE 6-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Timing of Implementation
Agency/Department Responsible
for Verification
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. 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 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 Update.
Prior to exceeding capacity within the
existing water conveyance facilities
City of Fresno Public Utilities
Department
UTIL-3: Implement MEIR Mitigation Measures USS-1 through USS-3. See Mitigation Measures MEIR USS-1 through MEIR USS-3.
UTIL-4: Implement MEIR Mitigation Measures USS-1 through USS-9. See Mitigation Measures MEIR USS-1 through MEIR USS-9.
MEIR 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.
Prior to exceeding landfill capacity City of Fresno Public Utilities Department
SOUTHWE ST FRESNO SPECIFIC P LAN
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT
CITY OF FRESNO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6-26 OCTOBER 2017
........................................................................................................................
A PPENDIX H
D RAFT P EIR C OMMENT L ETTERS
........................................................................................................................
COMMENT LETTER # GOV1
GOV1-01
GOV1-02
GOV1-03
GOV1-04
GOV1-05
GOV1-06
GOV1-07
GOV1-08
GOV1-09
GOV1-10
GOV1-11
GOV1-12
GOV1-13
GOV1-14
GOV1-15
GOV1-16
GOV1-16
cont.
GOV1-17
GOV1-18
GOV1-19
GOV1-20
GOV1-20
cont.
GOV1-21
COMMENT LETTER # GOV2
GOV2-01
GOV2-01
cont.
GOV2-02
GOV2-02
cont.
GOV2-03
GOV2-04
GOV2-04
cont.
GOV2-05
GOV2-06
GOV2-07
GOV2-07
cont.
GOV2-08
GOV2-09
GOV2-09
cont.
GOV2-10
GOV2-11
GOV2-12
GOV2-12
cont.
GOV2-13
GOV2-14
GOV2-15
GOV2-16
GOV2-16
cont.
GOV2-17
GOV2-18
GOV2-19
GOV2-19
cont.
GOV2-20
GOV2-21
GOV2-21
cont.
GOV2-22
GOV2-23
GOV2-24
GOV2-25
COMMENT LETTER # GOV3
GOV3-01
GOV3-02
GOV3-03
GOV3-04
GOV3-05
GOV3-06
GOV3-07
GOV3-08
GOV3-08
cont.
GOV3-09
GOV3-10
GOV3-11
GOV3-12
GOV3-13
GOV3-14
GOV3-15
GOV3-16
GOV3-17
GOV3-18
GOV3-18
cont.
COMMENT LETTER # GOV4
GOV4-01
By U.S. Mail & E-Mail: [email protected]
September 25, 2017
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
Barth Daly LLP
431 I Street #201
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: 916.440.8600
Fax: 91 6.440. 961 0
Barth-Daly.com
City of Fresno, Development and Resource Management Department 2600 Fresno Street, Rm. 3065
Fresno, CA 93 721
Re: Comments of Washington Unified School District on Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:
Our firm represents Washington Unified School District ("District"). On behalf of the District, we submit these comments on the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ("Draft PEIR") prepared for the proposed Southwest Fresno Specific Plan (collectively, the "Project"). As set forth in this letter, the Draft PEIR does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA," Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15000, et seq.) for both technical and substantive reasons. The Draft PEIR does not include sufficient information to evaluate potential environmental impacts related to schools. The District requests that the City revise the Draft PEIR to address the issues identified in this letter, develop appropriate mitigation measures for any impacts that are identified as significant, and then recirculate the revised Draft PEIR as required by CEQA. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15088.5.)
As another public agency serving the population of Fresno, the District prefers to cooperate with the City regarding the proposed Project so as to help ensure that it will benefit the entire community, without undue impacts. The District's primary concern is that the Project not create significant impacts on the student population it serves, their families, District staff and teachers, and the school facilities in which they are housed.
The District wishes to emphasize that this Project has the potential to have a profound negative effect on the District's students, their families, and residents who will reside in and near the Project. It remains the District's hope that collaboration between the District and both the City and Project developers can occur to avoid this result.
GOV4-02
GOV4-03
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno, Development and Resource Management Department September 25, 2017
I. The Draft PEIR does not meet its purpose as an informational document because it fails to provide an adequate description of the environmental setting related to schools.
An environmental impact report is required to include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published. This environmental setting constitutes the baseline physical conditions by which the lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. (Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15125, subd. (a).) In this regard, the Draft PEIR's discussion of the impacts of the Southwest Specific Plan on the District's ability to serve students generated by the eventual development in the Plan area is of particular concern. The Draft PEIR contains no specific information pertaining to the District, and relies almost exclusively on information pertaining to Fresno Unified School District (serving just a portion of the north of the Plan area, and Central Unified School District (serving only a small part along the western edge of the Plan area. [Draft PEIR, p. 4.13-14-17.] The PEIR entirely fails to disclose the existing conditions of schools located within the District.
Where the environmental setting in an EIR contains inaccuracies, it fails as an informational document. An EIR cannot properly and accurately assess the impacts of the project or determine appropriate mitigation measures if it does not include adequate consideration and documentation of the existing environmental conditions. (See, San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center, et al. v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713.)
II. The Draft PEIR does not meet its purpose as an informational document because it fails to provide an adequate analysis of environmental impacts related to schools.
A. The Draft PEIR contains an inadequate discussion of impacts on schools.
The Draft PEIR is deficient in its discussion and proposed mitigation of school-related impacts that may result from the Project. The Draft PEIR states that impacts on schools are deemed less than significant with payment of school developer fees. [Draft PEIR, pp.
4.13-18-19.] The Draft PEIR states that in accordance with Senate Bill ("SB") 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." [Draft PEIR, p.4.13-19.] This analysis is based on a misconception and falls short of providing a GOV4-03
cont.
GOV4-04
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno, Development and Resource Management Department September 25, 2017
full and accurate picture of the school-related impacts that will necessarily result from the Project. Further, here and elsewhere, the Draft PEIR contains bare conclusions regarding impacts without a sufficient explanation of the basis for those conclusions, again in violation ofCEQA. (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n. v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47Cal.3d 376, 397.)
In this instance, as the Draft PEIR fails to acknowledge, the statutory school impact fees will not sufficiently fund the necessary new facilities. It is commonly understood that "Level 1" developer fees (Ed. Code,§ 17620; Gov. Code,§ 65995) for schools cover only approximately one-third of the projected cost of school construction, with the other two-thirds expected to come from State and local bond funds. With there now having been no new statewide bond measure for school facilities for many years, State funds are depleted, leaving an even greater shortfall. Similarly, "Level 2" fees reflect only approximately half of the necessary cost, as demonstrated by the fact that when State funding runs out, the possibility of an approximate doubling of the fees to a "Level 3" is permitted to address the full anticipated cost of school construction. (See Go,1. Code §§65995.5 - 65995.7.) Level 3 fees are not currently available due to a pending lawsuit against the State Allocation Board, which is not likely to be resolved in short order. The shortfall of necessary funds is exacerbated by the potential limitations on bonding capacity of land in the Plan Area, should a new school site be needed. Without sufficient space to build on the current elementary school site owned by the District in the Plan Area, acquisition of a new site, and more likely multiple sites, is probable, with inadequate available funds for such land purchases.
The developer fees cited by the Draft PEIR were never intended to prohibit other mitigation, nor will they adequately mitigate all impacts of this Project. Government Code section 65996(b) mentions only "school facilities mitigation," meaning that mitigation of impacts on issues other than school facilities must still be addressed. (See, Chawanakee Unified School District v. County of Madera, et al. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016.)
The Draft PEIR fails to explore other measures that would alleviate the impact of the increases in student enrollment. Government Code section 65996 also does not preclude a host of available means of addressing a School District's needs as a result of new development. Alternative means of addressing the impacts of new development on schools still allowed under SB 50, and not acknowledged in the Draft PEIR, include:
GOV4-04
cont.
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno, Development and Resource Management Department September 25, 2017
Page4
1. Coordinated Planning for School Sites
Government Code sections 65352 and 65352.2 require local cities to coordinate planning of school facilities with school districts. The Legislature confirmed in this statutory scheme that the parties are meant to coordinate "[o]ptions for the siting of new schools and whether or not the local city or counties existing land use element appropriately reflects the demand for public school facilities, and ensures that new planned development reserves location for public schools in the most appropriate locations." (Gov. Code 65352.2(d)(2).) No such coordination has occurred in relation to the Project.
The Draft PEIR does not analyze the City's failure to comply with these coordination requirements.
The Legislature recognized that new planned development should take into consideration and even "reserve" locations for schools to serve development because schools are as integral a part of planning for new development as is any other public service, such as fire, police, water and sewer. As it relates to this instance, the intent behind sections 65350, et seq., supports the District's position that the City must analyze whether the current size of District schools is adequate to accommodate both its existing population and the new development. The City can help the District provide adequate facilities resulting from the impacts of the Project, which are not addressed by developer fees, by acknowledging the significant impact on schools, and requiring alternative mitigation measures to assure that there are adequate sites to accommodate school facilities.
The Draft PEIR states that "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 school so that new student populations can be provided with adequate school facilities ... ," but this statement is inadequate as mitigation because it does not commit the City to any action, and does create a condition of approval for developers. [Draft PEIR, p. 4.13-18.] The City has improperly delegated authority for development of adequate mitigation measures to address the school siting issues to future developers of the land within the Plan Area.
This is not a permissible delegation of authority under CEQA. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15025, subd. (b)(l).) Per section 15084, subdivision (e), of the CEQA Guidelines, a draft EIR must reflect the independent judgment of the lead agency, and the lead agency is responsible for the adequacy and objectivity of the draft EIR. Leaving developers to come up with mitigation measures to address school-related issues does not comply with this standard. (See also, Pub. Resources Code,§ 21081.6, subd. (b); Cal Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(2) [EIR must have mitigation measures that are enforceable through conditions of approval, contracts or other means that are legally binding].) GOV4-05
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno, Development and Resource Management Department September 25, 2017
2. Land Dedication
One feasible mitigation measure not addressed by the City would be for the City to adopt findings requiring any developer building as part of the development allowed by the Project to dedicate land and/or funding pursuant to Government Code sections 65970, et seq., which permit the City to require a developer to dedicate land to a school district.
Section 65974 specifically states that "for the purpose of establishing an interim method of providing classroom facilities where overcrowded conditions exist, ... a city, county, or city and county may, by ordinance, require the dedication of land, the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for classroom and related facilities for elementary or high schools as a condition to the approval of a residential development." Nothing in SB SO/Government Code section 65996 precludes this approach.
A land dedication requirement would be good public planning benefiting all residents of the community, including future residents of the Project. Land suitable for a new school site in the vicinity of the Project is already scarce; it will only become more so if the Project is implemented and further development occurs. Under Government Code sections 65352 and 65352.2, the City has a duty to help plan for adequate services to its residents by ensuring that future sites are set aside for schools. Failure to do so leads to inadequate services, future controversies, and the potential need for a school district to exercise its rights under eminent domain, displacing future residents.
All of these are impacts potentially stemming from the Project that are not considered in the Draft PEIR, and for which mitigation is and can be made available under existing law. Land dedication is a permissible mitigation measure under Government Code sections 65995, et seq. Section 65995(a) specifically states that "[e]xcept for a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement authorized under Section 17620 of the Education Code, or pursuant to Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970), a fee, charge, dedication or other requirement for the construction or reconstruction of school facilities may not be levied .... " (Emphasis added.) Section 65995 expressly excludes Chapter
4.7, inclusive of section 65974, from this limitation, thus permitting a city to address the impacts of development through the dedication of land.
Further, the City is authorized by section 66478 of the Subdivision Map Act to require dedication of elementary school sites when needed to address development. Nothing in Government Code sections 65995, et seq., precludes such a requirement.
Land dedication is particularly important in the Project's vicinity given the lack of available vacant land for the school facilities that will be needed to serve the Project.
GOV4-06
GOV4-07
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno, DeYelopment and Resource Management Department September 25, 2017
3. Phasing
Another method by which the City can work cooperatively with the District within all legal constraints to ensure adequate school facilities with regard to new development allowed by the Project is by requiring future development to be phased and not permitted prior to availability of school facilities. Timing development so as to balance the availability of school facilities with new development can significantly aid the District in its attempt to provide for the additional students who will be generated as a result of the Project and development following approval of the Project. The Draft PEIR makes vague assumptions regarding project build-out by stating that the development of residential units would occur over many years, so the growth in students would be spread across the some unknown future time. The reality is that the District must plan in advance for the arrival of the new students generated by the Project. The City could mitigate the impacts of the Project and allow for available school facilities when needed by requiring phasing of future development. This phasing could require that the timing of the development of the Project be coordinated with the availability of school facilities.
B. The Draft PEIR contains an inadequate discussion of other schoolrelated impacts.
In addition to the above discussion of the inadequacy of school impact fees to mitigate the Project's significant impact on schools, the Draft PEIR fails to address other types of impacts related to the inundation of District schools that will be caused by the Project.
The case of Chawanakee Unified School District v. County of Madera, et al., (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016 ("Chawanakee") addresses the extent to which a city or county must consider school related impacts in an environmental impact report for new development.
The Court determined that SB 50 does not excuse a lead agency from conducting environmental review of school impacts other than an impact "on school facilities." With respect to this terminology from subdivision (a) of section 65996, the Court opined:
[T]he use of the term "on" indicates a direct relationship between the object (i.e. school facilities) and the impact and excludes impacts to other parts of the physical environment. Consequently, the phrase "impacts on school facilities" used in SB 50 does not cover all possible environmental impacts that have any type of connection or relationship to schools. (Id., at 1028.)
GOV4-08
GOV4-09
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno, Development and Resource Management Department September 25, 2017
As a result, the Court of Appeal in Chawanakee concluded that the County would have to set aside the certification of the EIR at issue in that case and approvals of the project and take "action necessary to bring the EIR into compliance with CEQA regarding its analysis of the (a) traffic from private and school bus trips to existing schools outside the project area pending the construction of school with the project area and (b) the potential environmental effects from the construction of additions, either temporary or permanent, to existing schools prior to the construction of schools in the project area." (Id., at 2019.) The Draft PEIR does not contain any discussion of these impacts and effects.
As in the Chawanakee case, there is no analysis whatsoever in the Draft PEIR of the impact on school children and surrounding neighborhoods as portable classrooms or permanent construction are added to existing schools, or new schools are built, to accommodate development flowing from the approval of the Project. This would include addition of second stories on existing school buildings.
1. Traffic and Transportation
Though the Draft PEIR generally analyzes the impacts of increased traffic, its analysis is inadequate particularly as related to schools. Traffic in the area of the Project is already impacted. The Specific Plan recognizes that the only high school within the District boundaries, Washington High School, is approximately four (4) miles south of the Plan Area, but the Draft PEIR fails to account for the traffic associated with transporting students from newly developed residential areas within the Plan Area to the existing high school, prior to any construction of a high school within the Plan Area. The Draft PEIR must include greater analysis regarding safety issues affected by traffic, such as reduced pedestrian safety (particularly as pupils walk to and from the schools that will serve the Project area), reduced response times for emergency services and first responders traveling to school sites, and increased gridlock during, before, and after school drop-off and pick-up hours. Since the District does not provide regular bussing for students (an important existing condition not addressed in the Draft PEIR), the Project has the potential to create substantial impacts in terms of traffic.
Given these concerns and the lack of mitigation measures to address them adequately, the Draft PEIR must be revised and supplemented to analyze the significant issues of traffic and safety as they relate to existing and proposed schools. The Chawanakee case supports the conclusion that greater traffic analysis that specifically takes the District and its students into consideration is required.
GOV4-10
GOV4-11
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno, Development and Resource Management Department September 25, 2017
As stated in Chawanakee, a project's indirect impacts on parts of the physical environment that are not school facilities are not excused from being considered. For example:
[A]n impact on traffic, even if that traffic is near a school facility and related to getting students to and from the facility, is not an impact 'on school facilities' for purposes of Government Code section 65996, subdivision (a). From both a chronological and a molecular view of adverse physical change, the additional students traveling to existing schools will impact the roadways and traffic before they set foot on the school grounds. From a funding perspective, the capped school facilities fee will not be used by a school district to improve intersections affected by the traffic.
Thus, it makes little sense to say that the impact on traffic is fully mitigated by the payment of the fee. In.summary, ... the impact on traffic is not an impact on school facilities and, as a result, the impact on traffic must be considered in the EIR.
(Chawanakee, 196 Cal.App.4th at 1028-29.)
The Draft PEIR expressly acknowledges that there will be traffic (and other) impacts associated with construction and operation of new or expanded schools, and it states, " ... 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." [Draft PEIR, p. 4.13-18.] In this regard, the Draft PEIR fails to comply with CEQA and the requirements of Chawanakee.
Mitigation measures are required to be enforceable through conditions of approval, contracts or other means that are legally binding. (Pub. Resources Code, §21081.6, subd. (b); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(2).) The measure in the Draft PEIR that defers mitigation of the impacts of future development does not meet this standard, and is therefore inadequate. It does not commit the City to take any action in the future, or refrain from doing so, and it does not impose any obligation on a third party through a condition of approval or contract. The measure also improperly defers formulation of mitigation. While deferral of specifics is acceptable in some circumstances, the lead agency must articulate specific performance criteria and make further approval contingent on finding a way to meet them. In Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, an EIR was disapproved by the court based on the fact that it improperly deferred mitigation of impacts to an endangered butterfly and did not GOV4-11
cont.
GOV4-12
GOV4-13
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno, Development and Resource Management Department September 25, 2017
include any performance standards or guidelines. Rather, the court found that the anticipated plan for management contained nonspecific actions, and left the timing and other specifics subject to the discretion of the habitat preserve manager on prevailing environmental conditions. Therefore, the activities were not guaranteed to occur at any particular time or in any particular manner. Further, the EIR in Preserve Wild Santee did not indicate that it was in any way impractical or infeasible to specify standards or guidelines.
Like the EIR in Preserve Wild Santee, the Draft PEIR improperly defers mitigation of significant impacts related to the foreseeable need to construct schools to serve the expected development within the Plan Area.
The failure adequately to consider and analyze the constraints on the future need to construct schools contemplated in the Draft PEIR also points to a failure to consider adequate and feasible alternatives, as required by CEQA. (See, e.g., Pub. Resources Code§ 15126.6(a)-(e).)
To the extent that the City contends that the traffic analysis "assumes" that there will be school trips associated with residential units, this is not sufficient. There is no specific data or discussion of such school trips, and there is no way to separate those types of trips from other vehicle trips so as to meaningfully review and analyze their impacts. The analysis therefore fails to comply with CEQA. (See, Pub. Resources Code,§ 21003, subd. (b) [EIR must be meaningful and useful to decision-makers and the public]; Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15140, 15147 [maps, charts and other means of presenting information graphically should be used to enhance an EIR's clarity; technical data should be summarized].)
2. Impacts of commercial development
The Draft PEIR ignores the impact of commercial development on the generation of students and demand for schools. This oversight apparently results from a flawed assumption with no basis. In fact, the Legislature has expressly recognized that commercial development generates students. Otherwise, it would not have authorized school districts to charge fees against commercial and industrial development, as it did with Education Code section 17620(a)(l)(A). The imposition of fees on commercial and industrial development is based on the premise, recognized by the Legislature, that this type of development will attract new employees with families and therefore will generate new students. (See, Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218, 246.) Since California law provides for fees to be imposed on both residential and commercial development, it recognizes that the students generated by these types of GOV4-13
cont.
GOV4-14
GOV4-15
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno, Development and Resource Management Department September 25, 2017
development do not necessarily overlap. Thus, the impacts of student generation resulting from both types of development must be analyzed.
III. Plan Consistency
The Draft PEIR also fails adequately to consider consistency with the City of Fresno General Plan ("General Plan"). The Draft PEIR acknowledges that the General Plan contains the goal of "Appropriate School Locations," and "Park and School Park and School Site Coordination." [Draft PEIR, p. 4.13-14 (quoting Policies POSS-8-b/c).] No analysis is undertaken and no information is provided as to whether the Project will result in such efficient and equitable distribution of quality educational facilities. In fact, the development likely will be underserved by school facilities, and hence educational opportunities, as discussed earlier. Residents of the Project will therefore face inequity with other students in the District, including undersized schools, lack of play space, lack of parking, school overcrowding, and potentially disadvantageous location of facilities near railroad tracks and gas pipelines. This inconsistency and relating impact must be addressed in the Draft PEIR.
Conclusion
The Draft PEIR does not adequately analyze the Specific Plan's potential impacts, particularly as related to schools. The Draft PEIR must address with greater specificity the impacts on school facilities and services, student safety, and more, as addressed in this letter. The District encourages the City to work cooperatively with the District and consider alternative mitigation measures that can assist in adequately mitigating the impacts on the District's schools and the affected surrounding environment. The Draft PEIR is also deficient in the other manners discussed above. The District stands ready to meet and work with the City to address these vital issues.
Very truly yours,
l
COMMENT LETTER # GOV5
GOV5-01
COMMENT LETTER # GOV6
GOV6-01
GOV6-02
GOV6-03
GOV6-04
GOV6-05
GOV6-06
COMMENT LETTER # GOV7
GOV7-01
Sophia,
The District would like to add an additional comment pertaining to the City’s Southwest Specific Plan. On page 4.9-15, please delete sentence “When necessary, FMFCD can move water from a basin in one such drainage area to a second such basin by pumping water into a street and letting water flow in curb and gutter to a storm drain inlet in an adjoining drainage area” and the number 18 citation ”Rourke, Daniel, Environmental Resources Manager, Fresno Metropolitan Flood control District. Phone Call with Place Works, April 11, 2014.” See the included attachment. Today, this situation is a rare occurrence because the District plans and constructs basin relief pipelines in order to avoid pumping water on the streets. The District’s current generation of Storm Drain Master Plans include basin relief pipelines that intertie the adjacent drainage areas together. This is the case for basins that do not have direct access to a canal for relief. Operationally, the District calls this situation a tiered relief system. The upstream basin pumps flow thru the relief pipeline to an adjacent downstream basin. This operation repeats until the water is ultimately moved to a downstream basin that has a permanent relief such as a canal or the river. Or the storm water may be detained at a downstream basin facility for recharge purpose depending on the forecasted weather conditions or maintenance requirements.
Wendell Lum
Master Plan Special Projects Manager
Fresno Metropolitian Flood Control District
5469 E. Olive Avenue
Fresno, Ca 93727
(559) 456-3292
[email protected]
www.fresnofloodcontrol.org
COMMENT LETTER # GOV8
GOV8-01
GOV8-01
cont.
GOV8-02
GOV8-03
GOV8-04
GOV8-05
GOV8-05
cont.
GOV8-06
GOV8-06
cont.
GOV8-07
COMMENT LETTER # ORG1
ORG1-01
From: Lee Ayres [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2017 4:24 PM
To: Sophia Pagoulatos; Southwestcomments
Subject: RE: Southwest Fresno Specific Plan & EIR - comments Good afternoon – We wish to submit the following comments on the Plan and the program EIR:
Thanks for the thorough detail on conditions and terms. We recommend that you add language that the Specific Plan policies and plans will be applied to adjacent areas when annexed in order to foster a coordinated plan for SW Fresno.
We applaud the policies on Green Streets to promote bicycle and pedestrian use. Given that this is a Specific Plan, it would be helpful and appropriate to emphasize specific aims that would give this community a comparative advantage when competing with subdivisions in Fresno, Kerman, Fowler and Selma. These could include:
o Green Streets to provide safe routes to schools and connect every neighborhood with the jobs in near the HSR station.
o A target tree canopy of 40%
o Alternative Subdivision Standards to reduce street widths and increase lot sizes and landscape ratios.
o A Community Landscapes Plan (recently funded by a CDBG grant) to develop tree and plant collections for each major neighborhood, new and existing. We question the allocation of an above average amounts of land for commercial uses, given traffic and aesthetic impacts, unless you can demonstrate this would provide job within walking distance for residents.
We challenge the low allocation of land for parks; given our low ParkScore. In fact, it would be in the interest of the future attractiveness of SW Fresno to double the existing park ratio.
Rather than not recognize Hyde Park and the Regional Sports Park as neighborhood assets, it would be better to mitigate the concerns and improve these parks. This will not reduce the need to add more.
A Community Park of 20 or more acres – maintained to a high standard – needs to be called out as a priority in the Edison High‐Hinton‐Computech‐Gaston area. If a Community College Campus is located nearby, it would make sense to master plan the combined Greenspace provided by the school, park and college properties. We recommend a ¼ mile buffer for pedestrians and bicyclists from major arterials such as North, Jensen, and California/Venture due to the noise, child safety and near‐road air pollution. Same for schools and parks.
Recommend a pedestrian/bicycle tunnel under North Avenue at Santa Clara Avenue with North treated as a Green Street west of Elm. The Cargill plant at Church and MLK needs to be put in a non‐conforming use status and phased out with the trucks re‐ routed to Central.
MLK should treated as a Green Street between Church and California due to the MLK elementary school and the proposal that this section of MLK street become a Green Street to connect SW Fresno neighborhoods with employers near the HSR station.
COMMENT LETTER # ORG2
ORG2-01
ORG2-02
ORG2-03
ORG2-04
ORG2-05
ORG2-06
ORG2-07
We sense that the planning team was driving with their foot on the brake to limit the proposed investments on community assets in the neighborhood. Just as we have witnessed with the Parks Master Plan. We need to be bold and set forth what is reasonable and needed and call for measures to fund the O&M costs. The commercial nodes proposed at Marks and 180 and at Jensen and MLK make sense.
Mixed land uses in this low‐density suburban setting are not likely to be viable. The land use plan for a retail center at the SW corner of Church and MLK in not in the community interest with the concentration of school children nearby. New development is badly needed at Fruit and California to mitigate blight and energize this section of the BRT corridor. This may be a suitable place for a TCC multi‐family housing subsidy.
Thank you for your consideration. Lee
Lee Ayres
Let’s transform the San Joaquin Valley
with trees, greenways and beautiful landscapes . . .
one school, park, business or home at a time
Tree Fresno www.treefresno.org
3150 E. Barstow Avenue Fresno, California 93740
(O) 559‐221‐5556 (M) 559‐285‐3906 [email protected]
ORG2-07
cont.
COMMENT LETTER # ORG3
ORG3-01
ORG3-02
ORG3-03
ORG3-04
ORG3-05
ORG3-06
ORG3-06
cont.
ORG3-07
ORG3-08
ORG3-08
ORG3-09
A Tides Center Project
764 P Street, Suite 012, Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 369-2790
Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
[email protected]
2600 Fresno Street, Rm. 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
RE: Draft Southwest Specific Plan & Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. Pagoulatos,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Fresno’s Southwest Specific Plan (“SWSP”) and Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”). Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability works alongside disadvantaged communities across the Central and Coachella Valleys, including in the City of Fresno, to advocate for sound policy and eliminate barriers to opportunity on the basis of wealth, race, income, and place. Throughout the development of the Southwest Specific Plan, we have worked closely with West Fresno residents to identify community priorities for the plan and ensure that the plan reflects and advances those priorities. These comments aim to assist the City in preparing a final SWSP and EIR that realize residents’ goals of achieving healthy neighborhoods. To create communities with the resources and amenities necessary for residents to thrive and meaningfully mitigate cumulative and new environmental impacts resulting from the SWSP.
1. Revisions and Additions Required to the Draft Southwest Specific Plan COMMENT LETTER # ORG4
ORG4-01
A Tides Center Project
764 P Street, Suite 012, Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 369-2790
We commend staff for its responsiveness to resident and stakeholder requests that the City host additional Steering Committee meetings to allow further discussion of public comments received on the previous SWSP draft. The Draft SWSP includes many of the recommendations discussed and agreed upon by the Committee, nonetheless, the Draft does not accurately reflect or include all of the revisions voted on. We recommend the following changes to ensure that the Final SWSP fully includes the revisions recommended by the Committee and Southwest Fresno has an enforceable and purposeful plan.
A. Include a Clear & Realistic Timeframe For Completing The Industrial Compatibility Study
The Draft indicates that the City will complete a draft Industrial Land Use Compatibility Study by December 8, 2017. To our knowledge, the City has not initiated development of the draft study and therefore the stated deadline is unrealistic. The Final Draft should include a realistic timeline that will allow for development and adoption of the study with robust community input and also reflects the high priority placed by the community and Steering Committee on improving environmental health and addressing incompatible land uses in West Fresno. Based on these considerations, we recommend a completion deadline of January 2019.
B. Add Detail & Cost Estimates to the Actions Identified in the Implementation Chapter
In recognition of the importance of ensuring residents’ ability remain in West Fresno and enjoy the benefits of SWSP implementation as well as the extreme vulnerability of existing residents to displacement, the Steering Committee established Policy LU-4.8. As further discussed in Section 2-B below, the SWSP must specify a clear timeframe for the development and adoption of the anti-displacement strategy which includes a robust public process. The City should align the development of the anti-displacement strategy with implementation of Housing Element Program 12A, Downtown Displacement Prevention, which requires the City to convene a committee in 2018 and develop and adopt an anti-displacement strategy within six months thereafter. Like Program 12A, LU 4.8 should specify that the anti-displacement strategy will aim to prevent and mitigate any displacement of both residents and businesses in the Plan Area.
C. Eliminate Additional Truck Routes That Conflict with Southwest Neighborhood Settings
ORG4-01
cont.
ORG4-02
ORG4-03
ORG4-04
A Tides Center Project
764 P Street, Suite 012, Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 369-2790
The SWSP includes important policies long sought by the community to reduce the air pollution, noise, vibration, and aesthetic impacts of truck traffic that currently runs through the Plan Area.
The Final Plan should include two further changes to address concerns regarding incompatible routes raised by residents: (1) elimination of the existing truck route on Elm Avenue north of Jensen, and (2) elimination of the additional route proposed in the Draft on Roeding Drive south of Whites Bridge Avenue. Neither of these routes serve any existing industrial land uses, and thus no reasonable basis for these additions exist.
D. Add Detail and a Timeline to Policy PF-7.4
We support the addition of Policy PF-7.4 which calls on the City to establish a policy requiring businesses and City programs in the Plan Area to hire local residents. To ensure timely and effective implementation of the policy, the Final Plan should establish a timeline for implementation (we recommend a deadline of June 2018) and ensure SWSP Oversight Committee and public participation.
E. Eminent Domain
SWSP Plan Area residents have identified the use of eminent domain as a serious concern for this community, in particular, as it relates to proposals in the Plan to widen streets and support new development. Through eminent domain, the City, State, and Federal Government rezoned residential land for industrial use, wiped out thriving commercial boulevards and residential districts and replaced them with freeways, and cut West Fresno off from the rest of the City, helping to create the community’s current reality of chronic disinvestment and nationally-ranked concentrated poverty. The Plan should put safeguards in place to ensure that past is not repeated and that any use of eminent domain is supported by profusive community support, SWSP policies, and the exhaustion or lack of alternatives, especially where residential property, small or local business, or important community landmarks are involved.
F. Ensure Compliance With the Housing Element & State Housing Element & No Net Loss Laws
The community demonstrated a clear preference for a balanced mix of housing opportunities, including single family home options currently lacking in this community. To accommodate the community’s preference of establishing a more balanced mix of housing varieties, the land use map redesignates land currently designated for high density multi-family housing to low and medium residential density which restrict or prohibit multi-family development. Before adopting the Plan, the City must specifically identify any residential zoned sites designated for a reduction in density that are included in the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element to meet the City’s need for ORG4-04
cont.
ORG4-05
ORG4-06
ORG4-07
A Tides Center Project
764 P Street, Suite 012, Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 369-2790
lower-income housing and make findings that adequate alternative sites exist or identify suitable alternative sites as required by Government Code Section 65863 and Housing Element Program
2. In identifying replacement sites, the City must consider the concentration of affordable housing in high poverty areas such as West Fresno pursuant to Program 2 and identify alternative sites in high opportunity neighborhoods that lack affordable housing opportunities consistent with the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.
G. Prioritize Zero and Near-Zero Emission Transportation Technology Transportation is the leading source of toxic and carcinogenic air pollutants in the state, emitting smog-forming ozone, black carbon, fine particulate matter, and nitrous oxides. These pollutants contribute to a host of respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, including asthma, heart disease, and cancer, and result in thousands of early deaths annually. Southwest Fresno is specifically disadvantaged; according to the CalEnviroScreen tool, census tracts in the Plan Area rank in the 95-98th percentile for diesel, ozone and particulate matter pollution, and in the 98th percentile for both asthma and cardiovascular disease.
To ensure reductions in criteria and toxic air pollutants in the Plan Area, the Final Plan should commit Southwest Fresno to a zero-emission transportation future. Specifically, a policy goal should be included within the Plan’s Transportation section that directs the city to actively pursue funds to 1) replace both public and private vehicles and fleets with zero-emission technology, and 2) promote electric vehicle charging infrastructure throughout the Plan Area.
When zero-emission solutions are not feasible, the city should seek deployment of near-zero emission vehicles. Diesel fleets located or operating within the Plan Area should be prioritized for replacement.
To actuate these goals, state, local and corporate funds are available. The Legislature recently appropriated $1 billion from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to state and local agencies to replace or retrofit dirty diesel engines. Fresno must actively pursue the following funds for the benefit of public health in the Plan Area:
• $350M for The California Clean Truck, Bus, and Off-Road Vehicle and Equipment Technology Program, SB 1204 (Lara, 2014). These programs specifically target diesel pollution by incentivizing the purchase of zero-emissions trucks, buses, and freight equipment. The programs have been substantially over-subscribed. • $150M for light-duty equity pilots (especially EFMP Plus Up), agricultural worker vanpools, and car-sharing under SB 1275 (De Leon, 2014). These programs primarily serve disadvantaged communities, as defined by the CalEnviroScreen, promoting replacement of inefficient and ultra-polluting vehicles with hybrid or zero-emission alternatives, and promoting ridesharing.
• $20M for zero emission school buses. Replacing old, dirty, diesel buses would improve health outcomes for students. Existing programs have been rapidly oversubscribed. • $300M for Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (Electric Vehicle Rebates). Public demand is likely to increase given the availability of new electric vehicle models such as the Chevy ORG4-07
cont.
ORG4-08
A Tides Center Project
764 P Street, Suite 012, Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 369-2790
Bolt and Tesla Model 3. Fresno should maximize the effectiveness of the funding by lowering the income cap and raising the electric-miles requirement for plug-in hybrids.
The San Joaquin Valley Air District also has funds available to support a zero-emission future.
Grant programs include 1) the School Bus Program, which provides funds to retrofit existing school buses with verified diesel emission control systems, or replace existing high-polluting buses with new, low-emission buses, and 2) the Charge Up! program, which provides funds for businesses and public agencies to purchase and install electric vehicle chargers for public use.
Lastly, corporate funds could also be used to leverage state and local incentive programs. For instance, PG&E is currently implementing pilot programs to install infrastructure to support electric vehicle charging at multi-unit dwellings, workplaces, and public interest destinations.
The company has also submitted a $211 million proposal to California Public Utilities Commission to build "make-ready" electric infrastructure for medium- to heavy-duty and offroad fleets. Responding to consumer demand for fast-charging stations, PG&E also proposed to complement state and privately funded fast charger deployments with new electric infrastructure.
2. The Final DEIR Must Comprehensively Assess Cumulatively Significant Impacts and Identify and Adopt All Feasible Mitigation Measures for Significant Impacts The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires the City consider the cumulative impacts of a Project and determine (A) whether the Project’s impact are significant and require mitigation and (B) assess and include all feasible mitigation for significant impacts identified.
Several sections of the DEIR -- Air Quality, Public Services and Recreation, and Population and Housing – lack adequate analysis of cumulative impacts and fail to identify and include available mitigation measures for significant impacts. CEQA prohibits agencies from approving projects with significant environmental impacts if feasible mitigation measures or alternatives exist that would lessen or avoid such impacts. Pub. Res. Code § 21002. The Final DEIR must include a comprehensive assessment of all cumulative impacts of the Project and identify and adopt all feasible mitigation measures for significant impacts identified. Pub. Res. Code § 21081.6(b); C.C.R. § 15126.4(a)(2); See Napa Citizens for Honest Gov’t v. Napa County Bd. Of Sup. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 358.
A. The Final DEIR Must Identify & Address the Cumulative Impacts of Mobile & Stationary Pollution Sources
According to CalEnviroScreen (“CES”) 3.0, every census tract in the SWSP Area is among the top 5% most pollution burdened communities in the State of California. The census tracts in the Plan Area rank as high as the 98th percentile for asthma and cardiovascular disease and 97th for ORG4-08
cont.
ORG4-09
ORG4-10
A Tides Center Project
764 P Street, Suite 012, Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 369-2790
particulate matter 2.5 (PM 2.5). Numerous studies have directly linked PM 2.5 emissions to an increase in asthma attacks and heart attacks.
The Air Quality assessment provided in the DEIR identifies existing policies in the General Plan as mitigation measures. Several of these policies, such as Objective UF-12 and Policy UF-12-a, Policy LU-3-c, and Policy LU-5-f, lack the specifity required to constitute adequate and enforceable mitigation measures. Additionally, Policy LU-2-b, which states that the City will “consider a priority infill incentive program” to promote affordable housing development, could be strengthened and thereby serve as an adequate mitigation measure by including a specific timeline for the development and adoption of the program and inclusion of proven measures to preserve affordability in the area, thus reducing potential displacement. The incorporation of clear policies to prevent displacement of vulnerable low-income residents from the Plan Area is essential to mitigate potential significant impacts from increased vehicle miles travelled generated by these residents due to forced relocation to areas not served by transit and farther from jobs, education, and other resources and amenities necessary for everyday life.
The assessment AQ-1 finds that the proposed Plan would increase long-term criteria air pollutants and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations set up by the local air district is significant and unavoidable. Despite the extremely high levels of pollution in West Fresno and the City’s obligation to consider all feasible mitigation measures, the DEIR fails to take into account various mitigation measures that would serve to reduce the impacts of longterm criteria air pollutants and nonattainment designations. Accordingly, we recommend the inclusion of the following policies in the Final DEIR:
a. Identify high emission corridors, stationary sites, and truck traffic routes, and create physical barriers such as with walls lined with trees or other shrubbery, or trees and shrubbery. Studies have shown that walls lined with trees are the most effective way to reduce emissions from impacting an area.
b. Complete the Industrial Compatibility Assessment by January 2019. This study will assess the compatibility of existing sites and zoned land with surrounding neighborhoods considering their air quality, noise, odor, aesthetic, and other impacts. Sites found incompatible will follow recommended steps to mitigate pollution and other significant impacts in the surrounding area, including through amortization and/or greening.
Additional funding sources should also be sought out as the current $150,000 in the City’s budget for FY 2017-2018 is not enough. The TCC Planning Grant is one example the City of Fresno can seek out.
c. To reduce VMT-related emissions from commute trips in and out of the Plan Area, develop and implement a policy, with community input, requiring new employment sources within the community to hire workers from within the Plan Area.
ORG4-10
cont.
ORG4-11
A Tides Center Project
764 P Street, Suite 012, Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 369-2790
d. To reduce VMT-related emissions, work with Plan Area residents and stakeholders to identify measures to increase public and group transit options, including through improving efficiency and reliability of FAX services, implementing Bus Rapid Transit on California Street and Elm Avenue, identifying ride sharing opportunities, and more. e. Enforce laws and regulations prohibiting vehicle idling. f. Actively seek and apply for all available funding to provide electric vehicle infrastructure in the Plan Area.
g. Actively seek and apply for all available funding to replace both public and private light, medium, and heavy-duty diesel equipment with zero or near-zero emission technology.
Funding sources examples are provided above for the City to begin its search.
B. Prevent Project-Related Physical and Economic Displacement of Residents and Businesses
The CES 3.0 ranks the SWSP Plan Area poverty levels as high as the 99th percentile in the State.
A majority of the residents in this community live below the federal poverty line, which for a family of four is $24,600. The City of Fresno in general also experiences high levels of housing cost burden, with the greatest burdens impacting lower-income residents, such as those in West Fresno. Housing cost burden rates make lower residents extremely vulnerable to displacement due to minor increases in housing costs.
The DEIR discussion in Population and Housing solely addresses physical displacement through the removal of existing housing units. The DEIR includes no analysis or proposed mitigation for economic displacement of low-income residents and no analysis or proposed mitigation for displacement of small, local and/or minority-owned businesses due to rising property values and rent prices as a result of the implementation of the proposed plan.
The Plan proposes to direct significant public and private investment into the community. The Plan identifies a new community college facility site which will employ hundreds of people and attract thousands more to the area; proposes significant new park space; identifies Bus Rapid Transit routes and other improvements; and provides for the remediation of basic infrastructure and service deficiencies. These improvements, coupled with other factors such as the High Speed Rail, the potential investment of up to $70 million in the Plan Area through the Transformative Climate Communities Program, and population growth in the Central Valley, will undoubtedly lead to increase land prices, property values, rent prices, and cost of living. Ultimately, threatening economic displacement of residents and businesses and significant environmental impacts due to their relocation. Absent clear and enforceable mitigation, displacement, caused by both physical and economic forces resulting from SWSP implementation, will ORG4-11
cont.
ORG4-12
A Tides Center Project
764 P Street, Suite 012, Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 369-2790
result in significant environmental impacts due to the need for new construction and increased VMT of displaced residents. Residents forced to move from areas served by transit will have to rely on personal vehicles consequentially having a significant impact on VMTs, traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, and air quality. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083(b)(3) (the Guidelines “shall require a finding that project may have a ‘significant effect on the environment’ if…[t]he environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.”). The Final DEIR must analyze and include all feasible mitigation measures to prevent displacement of residents and businesses. C.C.R. § 15064(e).
Anti-displacement measures are essential to reduce impacts associated with increased housing costs pushing residents further away from amenities and public transit. Feasible mitigation measures and policies we recommend include:
a. Adoption of a rent stabilization ordinance preventing rent increases of more than 15% over a three-year period.
b. Adopt inclusionary zoning requirements wherein new residential construction must include at least 25% of units affordable to extremely-low, very-low and low income residents or developers must pay an in lieu fee.
c. Adopt a just cause eviction ordinance.
d. Require City-owned land, when sold, include units affordable to lower-income residents, wherever residential construction occurs on those sites. e. Create an Anti-Displacement Advisory Committee in 2018 which will develop antidisplacement strategy for adoption by City Council within six months thereafter.
I. Provide Adequate Park Space for Expected Population Growth As noted in the SWSP DEIR, West Fresno has 19 acres of existing park space total -- well below Fresno City’s goal of 3 acres per 1,000 residents of park space. The proposed plan zones for an additional 70 acres of park space creating a combined total of 89 acres. The DEIR, however, finds a total of 91 acres of existing and new parkland will be designated. The City should include at least an additional two acres of park space in the Final DEIR to ensure that sufficient park space can be provided to meet the City’s park space goals. The City can and must also utilize the current Parks Master Planning Process to identify and expand park space opportunities in West Fresno.
Furthermore, the draft report results a deficiency of 32 acres (adjusting for the missing 2 acres noted above) for the expected population growth under the Dual Designation Scenario.
Mitigation Measure PS-7 states the City will monitor population growth in the Plan Area compared to parklands every 5 years. If the ratio of 3 acres per 1,000 residents is not met the City will explore additional ways to increase park space. Given the City’s existing park space conditions in South Fresno where residents south of Shaw Avenue have an average of 1.75 acres ORG4-12
cont.
ORG4-13
A Tides Center Project
764 P Street, Suite 012, Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 369-2790
of park space per 1,000 residents. And given that the City has not updated its Parks Master Plan since 1989, a plan that was supposed to be updated every five years, we cannot expect to comply with its Mitigation Measure PS-7.
* * * * *
Thank you for your considerations of our comments. Our goal is simple and assuredly shared with the City of Fresno to ultimately provide Southwest Fresno with a revolutionary plan to transform the community for years to come. We look forward to continue collaborating with the City of Fresno to address the issues identified in this letter. Please contact Grecia Elenes at (559) 369-2790 to set up a time to meet to discuss these comments in person.
Sincerely,
/s/
Andy Levine
Faith in Fresno
Genevieve Gale
Central Valley Air Quality Coalition
Grecia Elenes
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
Kevin Hamilton
Central California Asthma Collaborative
ORG4-13
cont.
From: Gwen Leffall [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 5:55 PM
To: Southwestcomments
Subject: Comments On The SWFSP and DPEIR
Please accept the following comments I offer for consideration to the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan and the Draft Program EIR:
1. Plan MODERATE/MIDDLE income levels of housing IN LIEU of low/affordable income levels of housing types.
2. Raise the bar of income housing levels types to attract RETAIL, to be established in this DPEIR SFSP.
3. Build a Fresno City Community College Annex in this DPEIR SFSP.
4. Provide regular service to keep our streets, roads, highways, sidewalks free of potholes, cracked pavement, and cracked concrete for the subject planned area, and the IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREAS to include south of Jensen, and Jensen, east and west.
5. Regular attention to tree trimming and landscape cleanup for the subject planned area, and, the immediate surrounding areas, to include south of Jensen, and Jensen, east and west.
Respectfully and Sincerely submitted,
Gwendolyn J. Leffall
2677 S. Lee Av
Fresno, CA, 93706
COMMENT LETTER # PUB1
PUB1-01
September 19, 2017
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
Sophia Pagoulato
City of Fresno: DARM
2600 Fresno St.
Fresno, CA 93721
Re: The Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) Dear Sophia Pagoulato:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the City of Fresno’s West Fresno Specific Plan. I appreciate the collaborative process your office has facilitated with community stakeholders. The City of Fresno presents an incredible opportunity to do something truly transformative in the City of Fresno through its South West Fresno Specific Plan and I am committed to ensuring we have a plan that meets the communities environmental, economic, and equity goals. I commend the City of Fresno staff for developing a comprehensive plan and I recognize that additional revisions may be needed. I am broadly supportive of the plan as stakeholder and member of the committee. I would also appreciate your allowing flexibility in the requirements to the South West Fresno Specific Plan that would be in alignment with better serving the community.
I do request you consider a few outstanding issues and questions in relation to the Biological Resource Section of the South West Fresno Specific Plan:
DPEIR
The Recovery Plan has defined 6 key elements.
1. What are the elements that pertain to the SW Specific Plan?
2. Although DEIR states SJKF not within a 5 miles radius. What is the nearest radius for SJKF? The SJKF protection range per USFWS is a 10 mile radius. “The purpose of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, are to provide a means whereby the ecosystem upon which endangered species and threatened species depends may be conserved…and to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered and threatened species.” (The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) The language contained in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to not only protect individual animals, but has the COMMENT LETTER # PUB2
PUB2-01
PUB2-02
PUB2-03
further obligation of providing listed species with functioning ecosystems so protections provided by the Act are no longer necessary. For the Services to achieve this goal and to allow the project applicants to proceed with their project in a timely manner, the Service has developed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey Protocol for the Northern Range where foothill grassland, oak savannah, and agricultural lands are the primary kit fox habitats.
To avoid unnecessary expenditures and delays for projects located within the northern range of the San Joaquin kit fox, the project applicant, along with a qualified biologist, must conduct an early evaluation with the Service.
SWHA
1. Has a survey been conducted to identify potential suitable nesting locations for SWHA within the project site? If so, it has not been clearly stated in the biological report.
2. What's the proposed plan for trees onsite where SHWA may occur and utilize?
3. The Mitigation Measure is too vague, BIO-1.2
4. The first SHWA survey period from January 1 to March 20 could provide information on where suitable and potential nesting locations may occur and should not be dismissed nor considered optional.
SJKF
Mitigation Measures too vague.
1. Why is a take authorization/permit being considered but no mention of mitigation bank or conservation habitat?
2. If disruption of any habitat utilized by the SJKF should occur has a mitigation bank or habitat conservation area been identified to offset the SJKF loss?
3. Before implementing Project and any ITP activity, the applicant should be required to develop and submit a construction monitoring plan to the City planning department for review and approval. The construction monitoring plan should consist of the following:
• Results of planning and preconstruction surveys.
• Description of avoidance and minimization measures to be implemented, including a description of project-specific refinements to the measures or additional measures. • Description of monitoring activities, including monitoring frequency and duration, and specific activities to be monitored.
PUB2-05
PUB2-06
PUB2-07
PUB2-08
PUB2-09
PUB2-10
PUB2-11
PUB2-04
PUB2-03
cont.
• Description of the onsite authority of the construction monitor to modify implementation of the activity.
Again thank you for your efforts to develop this plan and for providing an inclusive public process. As mentioned previously, the alignment between the City of Fresno and the “Community” reinforces a collective vision. I forward to working with you on further development and implementation of this document. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this process, I look forward to your response.
In Community,
Eric Payne
South West Fresno Specific Plan Committee Member
PUB2-11
cont.
From: Tate Hill [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 12:30 PM
To: Sophia Pagoulatos
Cc: Southwestcomments
Subject: Re: Southwest Fresno Specific Plan EIR Notice of Availability-- Comments Good morning Sophia:
I'm beginning to go through the EIR, there are a numbers of the Impact classifications with S/SU designation with no mitigation measures. There a few that just couldn't be accurate with the elements of new development.
For example: Population‐1 that states will be no population impacts due to the proposed plan. With the proposed housing, there would be a Significant population increase in that neighborhood. With the addition of the proposed 5923 housing units, there would be significant increase to the population with an estimated 50% increase (24,000) to the current population base.
As it relates to AQ2, AQ4, GHG 1, GHG3, the mitigation measures only apply towards the development of planned uses not the full implementation of the plan which extends beyond the actual construction itself. There is been no mitigation measure to address the impacts of air quality and GHGs from the establishment of new development (housing or commercial) in the plan.
In Noise‐1, its listed as LTS and SU with no mitigation measure.
The response in HAZ‐9 contradicts with the EnvironScreen 3 that shows that West Fresno neighborhoods are the most impacted by hazardous, toxic and air contaminating effects. The proposed plan's new uses may not increase hazardous impact but there are significant cumulative impacts due to hazardous materials in the plan area because of past projects. How did the EIR address the impact of population densification and increasing proximity of populations to current hazardous sights? There is the introduction of PS which I assume is 'potentially significant' but it's not included in the key.
Tate Hill
Sent from my iPhone
COMMENT LETTER # PUB3
PUB3-01
PUB3-02
PUB3-03
PUB3-04
PUB3-05
PUB3-06
From: Lillie [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 2:07 PM
To: Southwestcomments
Subject: Southwest Fresno specific plan
I would like to see a college and a walmart in southwest fresno.
Sent from my iPhone
COMMENT LETTER # PUB4
PUB4-01
COMMENT LETTER # PUB5
PUB5-01
PUB5-02
PUB5-03
COMMENT LETTER # PUB6
PUB6-01
PUB6-02
PUB6-03
PUB6-04
PUB6-05
PUB6-06
PUB6-07
1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, California 94709
510.848.3815
www.placeworks.com
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
for the City of Fresno
SCH #: 2017031012
August 2017 | Public Review Draft EIR
In Association With:
Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants
H.T. Harvey & Associates
Blair, Church & Flynn Consulting Engineers
Sierra Valley Cultural Planning
PlaceWorks
1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, California 94709
510.848.3815
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
for the City of Fresno
SCH #: 2017031012
August 2017 | Public Review Draft EIR
Prepared By:
ORANGE COUNTY • NORTHERN CALIFORNIA • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE • SAN DIEGO www.placeworks.com
PLACEWORKS i
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Environmental Review Process.........................................................................................1-2
1.3 Type of EIR ............................................................................................................................1-4
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Environmental Procedures................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Summary of the Proposed Plan........................................................................................2-4
2.3 Summary of the Alternatives to the Proposed Plan .....................................................2-5
2.4 Issues to be Resolved .........................................................................................................2-5
2.5 Areas of Concern................................................................................................................2-5
2.6 Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures...............................................................2-6
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Intended Uses of the EIR ....................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Purpose of the Proposed Plan..........................................................................................3-2
3.3 Required Approvals..........................................................................................................3-11
4. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Aesthetics......................................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.2 Agriculture........................................................................................................................ 4.2-1
4.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.4 Biological Resources....................................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources........................................................................ 4.5-1
4.6 Geology and Soils........................................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................ 4.7-1
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials............................................................................... 4.8-1
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality....................................................................................... 4.9-1
4.10 Land Use and Planning................................................................................................ 4.10-1
4.11 Noise................................................................................................................................ 4.11-1
4.12 Population and Housing .............................................................................................. 4.12-1
4.13 Public Services and Recreation ................................................................................. 4.13-1
4.14 Transportation and Traffic ........................................................................................... 4.14-1
4.15 Utility Systems ................................................................................................................. 4.15-1
SOUTHWEST FRESNO S PECIFIC PLAN DRAFT E I R
CITY OF FRESNO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii AUGUST 2017
5. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................5-1
5.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Potentially Significant Impacts.........................................................................................5-1
5.3 Project Objectives ..............................................................................................................5-3
5.4 Selection of a Reasonable Range of Alternatives.......................................................5-4
5.5 No Project Alternative........................................................................................................5-7
5.6 MIxed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative..........................................................................5-14
5.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative ............................................................................5-18
6. CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT.....................................................................................................6-1
6.1 Impacts Found Not To Be Significant ..............................................................................6-1
6.2 Growth Inducement...........................................................................................................6-1
6.3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts............................................................................6-2
6.4 Significant Irreversible Changes.......................................................................................6-2
7. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED .............................................................................7-1
7.1 Lead Agency.......................................................................................................................7-1
7.2 Report Preparers .................................................................................................................7-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Notice of Preparatoin (NOP) and Comments on the NOP Appendix B: Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Public Review Draft Appendix C: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Data
Appendix D: Cultural Resources
Appendix E: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Data
Appendix F: Noise Data
Appendix G: Traffic Data
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLACEWORKS iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Regional Location Map.....................................................................................................3-4 Figure 3-2 Plan Area Map ....................................................................................................................3-5 Figure 4.4-1 Habitat Map..................................................................................................................... 4.4-7 Figure 4.4-2 CNDDB Plants and Wildlife in the Plan Area.............................................................. 4.4-9 Figure 4.4-3 Potential Jurisdictional Habitats Map ....................................................................... 4.4-22 Figure 4.6-1 Fault Map.......................................................................................................................... 4.6-5 Figure 4.6-2 Geologic Map................................................................................................................. 4.6-7 Figure 4.8-1 Hazardous Materials Sites............................................................................................ 4.8-18 Figure 4.9-1 FMFCD Urban Flood Control System Area ................................................................. 4.9-3 Figure 4.9-2 Existing Urban Flood Control System In and Near the Plan Area .......................... 4.9-5 Figure 4.9-3 Tulare-Buena Vista Lakes Watershed and Upper Dry Subbasin........................... 4.9-11 Figure 4.9-4 Kings Groundwater Subbasin ..................................................................................... 4.9-18 Figure 4.11-1 Ambient Noise Measurement Locations................................................................ 4.11-17 Figure 4.14-1 Regional Context........................................................................................................ 4.14-10 Figure 4.14-2 Roadway Classification ............................................................................................. 4.14-12 Figure 4.14-3 Existing Roadway Network........................................................................................ 4.14-13 Figure 4.14-4 Study Roadway Segments and Intersections........................................................ 4.14-16 Figure 4.14-5 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes .................................................................................... 4.14-17 Figure 4.14-6 Existing AM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS.................................................... 4.14-20 Figure 4.14-7 Existing PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS .................................................... 4.14-21 Figure 4.14-8 Existing Fixed Route Transit Service.......................................................................... 4.14-25 Figure 4.14-9 Existing Bicycle Facilities............................................................................................. 4.14-27 Figure 4.14-10 Existing Pedestrian Facilities ...................................................................................... 4.14-28 Figure 4.14-11 Proposed Land Use Plan............................................................................................ 4.14-37 Figure 4.14-12 Existing Plus Proposed Plan’s Roadway Network.................................................. 4.14-38 Figure 4.14-13 Existing Plus Proposed Plan Daily Roadway Volumes.......................................... 4.14-39 Figure 4.14-14 Existing Plus Proposed Plan AM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS ................ 4.14-41 Figure 4.14-15 Existing Plus Proposed Plan PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS................. 4.14-42 Figure 4.14-16 Cumulative Roadway Network................................................................................ 4.14-55 Figure 4.14-17 Cumulative Daily Roadway Volumes ..................................................................... 4.14-57 Figure 4.14-18 Cumulative AM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS ........................................... 4.14-58 Figure 4.14-19 Cumulative PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS............................................ 4.14-59 Figure 5-1 Existing Land Use .................................................................................................................5-8
SOUTHWEST FRESNO S PECIFIC PLAN DRAFT E I R
CITY OF FRESNO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv AUGUST 2017
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................2-7 Table 3-1 Development Capacities for the Proposed Plan and General Plan in the Plan Area.......................................................................................................................3-9 Table 4.1-1 General Plan Objectives and Policies Relevant to Aesthetics .............................. 4.1-2 Table 4.2-1 General Plan Objectives and Policies Relevant to Agriculture and Forestry Resources........................................................................................................... 4.2-6 Table 4.3-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants.............................................. 4.3-3 Table 4.3-2 General Plan Objectives and Policies Relevant to Air Quality ............................ 4.3-15 Table 4.3-3 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the San Joaquin Valley Area Air Basin........................................................................................................................... 4.3-22 Table 4.3-4 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary................................................................ 4.3-23 Table 4.3-5 SJVAPCD Regional Criteria Air Pollutants Significance Thresholds...................... 4.3-25 Table 4.3-6 SJVAPCD Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources ........................................ 4.3-26 Table 4.3-7 SJVAPCD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds ........................... 4.3-27 Table 4.3-8 Construction Activities, Phasing, and Equipment................................................... 4.3-29 Table 4.3-9 Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Estimates........................... 4.3-33 Table 4.3-10 Operation-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Estimates............................... 4.3-35 Table 4.4-1 General Plan Objectives and Policies Relevant to Biological Resources............ 4.4-5 Table 4.4-2 Biotic Habitat Types and Surface Areas in the Plan Area....................................... 4.4-6 Table 4.4-3 Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species, Their Status, and Potential Occurrence in the Plan Area ..................................................................................... 4.4-10 Table 4.5-1 General Plan Objectives and Policies Relevant to Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources.......................................................................................................... 4.5-5 Table 4.5-2 Identified Cultural Resources Sites............................................................................. 4.5-12 Table 4.6-1 General Plan Objectives and Policies Relevant to Geology and Soils................ 4.6-3 Table 4.7-1 GHG Emissions and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2 .......................................................................................................... 4.7-3 Table 4.7-2 Summary of GHG Emissions Risks to California .......................................................... 4.7-6 Table 4.7-3 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Emissions Reductions Gap to Achieve the 2030 GHG Target................................................................................... 4.7-12 Table 4.7-4 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Emissions Reductions Change by Sector to Achieve the 2030 Target............................................................................ 4.7-13 Table 4.7-5 General Plan Objectives and Policies Relevant to GHG Emissions..................... 4.7-20 Table 4.7-6 Forecasted GHG Reduction Target .......................................................................... 4.7-25 Table 4.7-7 Construction Activities, Phasing, and Equipment................................................... 4.7-27
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLACEWORKS v
Table 4.7-8 Net Annual GHG Forecast .......................................................................................... 4.7-28 Table 4.7-9 Fresno Council of Governments 2014-2040 RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis............................................................................................................................ 4.7-31 Table 4.7-10 City of Fresno GHG Reduction Plan Consistency Analysis.................................... 4.7-33 Table 4.8-1 Fresno General Plan Objectives and Policies Relevant to Hazards and Hazardous Materials..................................................................................................... 4.8-14 Table 4.8-2 EnviroStor Sites in the Plan Area ................................................................................. 4.8-19 Table 4.8-3 GeoTracker Sites in the Plan Area ............................................................................. 4.8-21 Table 4.9-1 Construction BMPs.......................................................................................................... 4.9-9 Table 4.9-2 General Plan Objectives and Policies Relevant to Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................................................................. 4.9-12 Table 4.9-3 Drainage Areas and Retention Basin Capacities................................................... 4.9-16 Table 4.9-4 Retention Basin Capacities......................................................................................... 4.9-25 Table 4.10-1 General Plan Consistency Analysis............................................................................ 4.10-4 Table 4.11-1 Noise Perceptibility ....................................................................................................... 4.11-3 Table 4.11-2 Typical Noise Levels...................................................................................................... 4.11-4 Table 4.11-3 Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels........................................................... 4.11-8 Table 4.11-4 Land Use Compatibility Noise Guidelines .............................................................. 4.11-11 Table 4.11-5 General Plan Objectives and Policies Relevant to Noise ................................... 4.11-13 Table 4.11-6 Ambient Base Noise Level Criteria........................................................................... 4.11-13 Table 4.11-7 Groundborne Vibration Criteria: Human Annoyance......................................... 4.11-14 Table 4.11-8 Groundborne Vibration Criteria: Architectural Damage.................................... 4.11-15 Table 4.11-9 Long-Term Noise Measurements Summary, 24+ Hour Durations ....................... 4.11-19 Table 4.11-10 Short-Term Noise Measurements Summary, 15-Minute Durations ..................... 4.11-20 Table 4.11-11 Existing Conditions Traffic Noise Levels ................................................................... 4.11-22 Table 4.11-12 Specific Plan Buildout Traffic Noise Increases........................................................ 4.11-25 Table 4.11-13 Vibration Levels for Common Construction Equipment Items........................... 4.11-28 Table 4.11-14 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels..................................................... 4.11-32 Table 4.12-1 General Plan Objectives and Policies Relevant to Population and Housing............................................................................................................................ 4.12-2 Table 4.12-2 Housing Element Objectives and Policies Relevant to Population and Housing............................................................................................................................ 4.12-3 Table 4.12-3 Residential Population Potential ................................................................................ 4.12-6 Table 4.12-4 Employment Population Potential............................................................................. 4.12-7 Table 4.13-1 General Plan Objectives and Policies Relevant to Fire Protection Services ........................................................................................................................... 4.13-3 Table 4.13-2 Existing City of Fresno Fire Stations in the Plan Area.............................................. 4.13-4 Table 4.13-3 General Plan Objectives and Policies Relevant to Police Services .................... 4.13-8
SOUTHWEST FRESNO S PECIFIC PLAN DRAFT E I R
CITY OF FRESNO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vi AUGUST 2017
Table 4.13-4 General Plan Objectives and Policies Relevant to Schools ............................... 4.13-14 Table 4.13-5 Schools within the Plan Area .................................................................................. 4.13-15 Table 4.13-6 Capacity and Enrollment Figures for Fresno Unified School District.................. 4.13-16 Table 4.13-7 Student Generation Rates for K-12......................................................................... 4.13-17 Table 4.13-8 General Plan Objectives and Policies Relevant to Parks and Recreation.................................................................................................................... 4.13-20 Table 4.13- 9 Desirable Park Facility Standards............................................................................. 4.13-24 Table 4.13-10 City of Fresno Existing Pocket, Neighborhood, and Community Parks within the Plan Area ................................................................................................... 4.13-26 Table 4.14-1 General Plan Policies Relevant to Transportation and Traffic.............................. 4.14-6 Table 4.14-2 Peak Hour Roadway Segment Operations – Existing Conditions...................... 4.14-18 Table 4.14-3 Peak Hour Intersection Operations – Existing Conditions.................................... 4.14-22 Table 4.14-4 Peak Hour Freeway Off-Ramp Queuing – Existing Conditions........................... 4.14-23 Table 4.14-5 Study Roadway Segment LOS Standards.............................................................. 4.14-32 Table 4.14-6 Roadway Functional Classification and Peak Hour Traffic Volume LOS Thresholds ..................................................................................................................... 4.14-33 Table 4.14-7 Level of Service Definitions – Signalized Intersections.......................................... 4.14-34 Table 4.14-8 VMT Comparison – Existing Conditions and Existing Plus Proposed Plan ......... 4.14-40 Table 4.14-9 Peak Hour Roadway Segment Operations – Existing Plus Proposed Plan Conditions .................................................................................................................... 4.14-43 Table 4.14-10 Peak Hour Intersection Operations – Existing Plus Proposed Plan Conditions .................................................................................................................... 4.14-45 Table 4.14-11 Peak Hour Freeway Off-Ramp Queuing – Existing Plus Proposed Plan Conditions .................................................................................................................... 4.14-46 Table 4.14-12 VMT Comparison – Existing Conditions and Cumulative Conditions................ 4.14-56 Table 4.14-13 Peak Hour Roadway Segment Operations – Cumulative Conditions.............. 4.14-60 Table 4.14-14 Peak Hour Intersection Operations – Cumulative Conditions............................ 4.14-63 Table 4.14-15 Peak Hour Freeway Off-Ramp Queuing – Cumulative Conditions................... 4.14-64 Table 4.14-16 Peak Hour Intersection Operations – Cumulative Conditions with Mitigations.................................................................................................................... 4.14-67 Table 4.14-17 Peak Hour Intersection Operations – Cumulative Conditions with Mitigations.................................................................................................................... 4.14-68 Table 4.14-18 Peak Hour Freeway Off-Ramp Queuing – Cumulative Conditions with Mitigations.................................................................................................................... 4.14-69 Table 4.15-1 General Plan Objectives and Policies Relevant to Utility Systems....................... 4.15-3 Table 4.15-2 Comparison of Baseline and Proposed Wastewater Generation....................... 4.15-5 Table 4.15-3 General Plan Objectives and Policies Relevant to Water Service and Facilities......................................................................................................................... 4.15-16 Table 4.15-4 Comparison of Baseline and Proposed Water Usage......................................... 4.15-19 Table 4.15-5 General Plan Objectives and Policies Relevant to Recycled Water Supply............................................................................................................................ 4.15-26
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLACEWORKS vii
Table 4.15-6 General Plan Objectives and Policies Relevant to Wastewater Service and Facilities ................................................................................................................ 4.15-31 Table 4.15-7 Drainage System Required Capacity by Drainage Area................................... 4.15-33 Table 5-1 Comparison of Proposed Plan Alternatives...................................................................5-7 Table 5-2 Development Capacities for the Plan and General Plan in the Plan Area.......................................................................................................................................5-9 Table 6-1 Summary of Significant and Unavoidable (SU) Impacts.............................................6-3
SOUTHWEST FRESNO S PECIFIC PLAN DRAFT E I R
CITY OF FRESNO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
viii AUGUST 2017
PLACEWORKS 1-1
1. Introduction
A thorough examination of the existing regulatory and environmental settingsin Fresno is a critical initial step in the adoption and implementation of the proposed Southwest Fresno Specific Plan (Plan) and the certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process.
The City of Fresno (City) is the Lead Agency for the proposed Plan. This EIR is intended to inform the City’s decision-makers, other responsible agencies, and the public-at-large of the nature of the proposed Plan and its effect (impact) on the environment. Accordingly, this Draft EIR provides an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of adoption, implementation, and development of the proposed Plan. Additionally, this Draft EIR identifies mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed Plan that would avoid or reduce significant impacts. This Draft EIR analyzesthe buildout potential1 of the Plan Area
described in detail in each resource section of Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR.
1.1 PROPOSED ACTION
The City is currently undertaking a community-based planning process to prepare the proposed Plan.
Pursuant to Section 21080(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)2 and Section 15378[a] of the CEQA Guidelines, 3 the proposed Plan is subject to environmental review because adoption and implementation of the proposed Plan is an “action” [undertaken by a public agency] that hasthe potential to resultin either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
The proposed Plan contains land use, urban design, transportation, public facilities, and utilities goals, policies, and strategies to guide investment and development in the Plan Area over the next 25 years.
Because the proposed Plan is the guiding regulatory document for Plan Area, and consistent with Section 15-104B, the associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments are necessary to ensure that the land use and zoning designations, policies, and development standards in these documents are consistent with the proposed Plan. A detailed description of the proposed Plan is provided in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR.
1 Buildout potential is defined as the maximum theoretical amount of development that could occur within the 25-year horizon of the Specific Plan. 2 The CEQA Statute is found at California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Sections 21000-21177. 3 The CEQA Guidelines are found at California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387.
SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R
CI TY OF FRESNO
INTRODUCTION
1-2 AUGUST 2017
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
1.2.1 DRAFT EIR
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City determined that the proposed Plan could result in potentially significant environmental impacts and that an EIR would be required; therefore, this EIR was prepared without an initial study. In compliance with Section 21080.4 of the California Public Resources Code, the City circulated the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed Plan to the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) State Clearinghouse (SCH), as well as interested agencies and persons, on February 28, 2017, for a 30-day review period. The NOP solicited comments from identified responsible and trustee agencies, as well as interested parties regarding the scope of the Draft EIR.
Appendix A, Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments, of this Draft EIR contains the NOP as well as the comments received by the City in response to the NOP.
The scope of this EIR was established by the City through the NOP process and includes an analysis of both the project-specific and cumulative impacts in the following issue areas:
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services and Recreation
Transportation and Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
CEQA-Mandated Assessment:
Impacts Found Not To Be Significant
Significant Unavoidable Impacts
Growth-Inducing Impacts
Significant Irreversible Changes
The implementation of the proposed Planwas found to have no impacts related to Forestry Resources and Mineral Resources. A complete discussion of the impacts to Forestry Resources, and Mineral Resources is provided in Chapter 6, CEQA-Mandated Assessment, of this Draft EIR.
This Draft EIR will be available for review by the public and interested parties, agencies, and organizations for a 45-day comment period. During the comment period, the public is invited to submit written
SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R
CI TY OF FRESNO
INTRODUCTION
PLACEWORKS 1-3
comments via mail or e-mail on the Draft EIR to the City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department.
Written comments should be submitted to:
City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department Attention: Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, California 93721
Email: [email protected]
1.2.2 FINAL EIR
Upon completion of the 45-day review period, the City will review all written comments received and prepare written responses for each comment. A Final EIR will then be prepared, incorporating all of the comments received, responses to comments raising environmental issues, and any changes to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR will then be presented to the Planning Commission for a recommendation on the certification of the EIR and to City Council for potential certification as the environmental document for the proposed Plan. Public input is encouraged at all public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council.
All persons who commented on the Draft EIR will be notified of the availability of the Final EIR and the date of the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council.
All responses to comments submitted on the Draft EIR by agencies will be provided to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certification of the Draft EIR. The City Council will make findings regarding the extent and nature of the impacts as presented in the Final EIR. The Final EIR will need to be certified as complete by the City prior to making a decision to adoptthe proposed Plan.
After the City Council certifies the Final EIR, it may then consider the proposed Plan itself, which it may approve as presented in this Draft EIR, approve in part, approve with conditions, or deny. In other words, the certification of this EIR does not in and of itself approve any component of the proposed Plan. The approval of the proposed Planmay occur at another time subsequent to the certification of the EIR, if at all. The City Council may require the mitigation measures specified in this Draft EIR as conditions of Plan approval, and it may also require other feasible mitigation measures. Alternately, the City Council may find that the mitigation measures are outside the jurisdiction of the City to implement, or that no feasible mitigation measures have been identified for a given significant impact. In the latter case, the City Council may nonetheless determine that the proposed Plan is necessary or desirable due to specific overriding considerations, including economic factors, and may approve the proposed Plan despite an unavoidable, significant impact.
1.2.3 MITIGATION MONITORING
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that the Lead Agency adopt a monitoring or reporting program for any project for which it has made findings pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081. Such a
SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R
CI TY OF FRESNO
INTRODUCTION
1-4 AUGUST 2017
program is intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the preparation of an EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program for the proposed Planwill be completed as part of the environmental review process.
1.3 TYPE OF EIR
As described in Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines, the most common type of EIR is a project EIR, which examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. As described in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, program EIRs are appropriate when a project consists of a series of actions related to the issuance of rules, regulations, and other planning criteria. In this case, the proposed Plan that is the subject of this EIR includes the proposed Plan, a long-term plan that will be implemented over a 25-year horizon as a policy document guiding future development activities. Therefore, this EIR serves as a program-level EIR that does not evaluate the impacts of future individual projects that may be proposed under the proposed Plan. Under the programmatic EIR approach, future projects or phases may require additional, project-specific environmental analysis.
In order to identify whether additional analysis would be necessary when the project is implemented, the Lead Agency (the City) will need to determine the following:
Whether the planned characteristics of the project are substantially different from those defined in the programmatic EIR;
Whether the project would require additional mitigation measures; or Whether specific impacts were not evaluated in sufficient detail in the programmatic EIR.
If any of these conditions apply, then a new project-specific Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR, unless the activity qualifies for an exemption,would be necessary to identify how the impacts of the project differ from those identified in this EIR or what additional mitigation measures would be necessary. For these subsequent environmental review documents, this program EIR will serve as the basis or first-tier environmental analysis for future projectlevel CEQA review.
1.3.1 TIERING
This Draft EIR tiers from the Master EIR (MEIR), SCH 2012111915, prepared for the Fresno General Plan. “Tiering” or “tier” means the coverage of general matters and environmental effects in an environmental impact report prepared for a policy, plan, program, or ordinance followed by narrower or site-specific environmental impact reports which incorporate by reference the discussion in any prior environmental impact report, and which concentrate on the environmental effects which (a) are capable of being mitigated, or (b) were not analyzed as significant effects on the environment in the prior environmental impact report (Cal. Pub. Res. Code Section 20168.5; CEQA Guidelines Section 15152).
Tiering of EIRs is encouraged to promote construction of needed housing and other development projects by (1) streamlining regulatory procedures, (2) avoiding repetitive discussions of the same issues in
SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R
CI TY OF FRESNO
INTRODUCTION
PLACEWORKS 1-5
successive environmental impact reports, and (3) ensuring that EIRs prepared for later projects which are consistent with a previously approved policy, plan, program, or ordinance concentrate upon environmental effects that may be mitigated or avoided in connection with the decision on each later project. Tiering is appropriate when it helps a public agency focus upon the issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review and in order to exclude duplicate analysis of environmental effects examined in previous EIRs. To achieve this purpose, the California Legislature has determined that an EIR shall be tiered whenever feasible, as determined by the lead agency (Cal. Pub. Res. Code Section 20193).
Where a lead agency is using the tiering process in connection with an EIR for a large-scale planning approval, such as a general plan or component thereof (e.g., a specific plan), the development of detailed, site-specific information may not be feasible but can be deferred, in many instances, until such time as the lead agency prepares a future environmental document in connection with a project of a more limited geographical scale, as long as deferral does not prevent adequate identification of significant effects of the planning approval at hand.
Each topical section of this Draft EIR provides any applicable mitigation measures from the MEIR.
Additional mitigation measures are provided where necessary to discuss impacts unique to the implementation of the proposed Plan that were not addressed in the MEIR.
PLACEWORKS 2-1
2. Executive Summary
This chapter presents an overview of the proposed Southwest Fresno Specific Plan, herein referred to as “proposed Plan.” This executive summary provides a summary of the proposed Plan, a summary of the alternatives to the proposed Plan, identifies issues to be resolved, areas of concern, and conclusions of the analysis contained in Chapters 4.0 through 4.15 of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR).
For a complete description of the proposed Plan, see Chapter 3, and for a discussion of alternatives to the proposed Plan, see Chapter 5 of this Draft EIR.
This Draft EIR addresses the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the proposed Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that local government agencies, prior to taking action on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority, consider the environmental consequences of such projects. An EIR is a public document designed to provide the public, and local and State governmental agency decision-makers with an analysis of potential environmental consequences to support informed decision-making.
This Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Section 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.) to determine if approval of the identified discretionary actions and related subsequent development under the proposed Plan could have a significant impact on the environment. The City of Fresno, as the Lead Agency, has reviewed and revised as necessary all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports to reflect its own independent judgment, including reliance on applicable City technical personnel and review of all technical subconsultant reports.
Information for this Draft EIR was obtained from on-site field observations; discussions with affected agencies; analysis of adopted plans and policies; review of available studies, reports, data, and similar literature in the public domain; and specialized environmental assessments (e.g., air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and transportation and traffic).
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
This Draft EIR has been prepared to assess the potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed Plan. The main purposes of this document as established by CEQA are:
To disclose to decision-makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities.
To identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage. To prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures.
SOU THWEST FRESNO SPECIF IC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-2 AUGUST 2017
To disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental effects.
To foster interagency coordination in the review of projects. To enhance public participation in the planning process.
An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in the statutes and in the CEQA Guidelines. It provides the information needed to assess the environmental consequences of a proposed project, to the extent feasible. EIRs are intended to provide an objective, factually supported, full-disclosure analysis of the environmental consequences associated with a proposed project that has the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. An EIR is also one of various decisionmaking tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Prior to approving a proposed project, the lead agency must consider the information contained in the EIR, determine whether the EIR was properly prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, determine that it reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency, adopt findings concerning the project’s significant environmental impacts and alternatives, and must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the proposed project would result in significant impacts that cannot be avoided.
2.1.1 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This Draft EIR is organized into the following chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction. Provides an overview describing the Draft EIR document. Chapter 2: Executive Summary. Summarizes the environmental consequences that would result from implementation of the proposed Plan, the alternatives to the proposed Plan, the recommended mitigation measures, and it indicates the level of significance of environmental impacts with and without mitigation.
Chapter 3: Project Description. Describes the proposed Plan in detail, including the site location and characteristics, objectives, and the structural and technical elements of the proposed action. Chapter 4: Environmental Analysis. Organized into 15 sub-chapters corresponding to the environmental resource categories identified in Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, this section provides a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the proposed Plan as they existed at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, from both a local and regional perspective, as well as an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Plan, and recommended mitigation measures, if required, to reduce their significance. The environmental setting included in each sub-chapter provides baseline physical conditions from which the Lead Agency determines the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed Plan. Each sub-chapter also includes a description of the thresholds used to determine if a significant impact would occur; the methodology to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed Plan; and the potential cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Plan. Chapter 5: Alternatives to the Proposed Plan. Considers two alternatives to the proposed Plan, including the CEQA-required “No Project” Alternative and the “Mixed-Use Corridor” Alternative.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-3
Chapter 6: CEQA-Mandated Assessment. Discusses growth inducement, cumulative impacts, unavoidable significant effects, and significant irreversible changes as a result of the proposed Plan.
Additionally, this chapter identifies environmental issues that were determined not to require further environmental review during the scoping process pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15128. Chapter 7: Organizations and Persons Consulted. Lists the people and organizations that were contacted during the preparation of this EIR for the proposed Plan. Chapter 8: References. List of the material referenced in this EIR. Appendices: The appendices for this document (presented in PDF format on a CD attached to the back cover of the Draft EIR) contain the following supporting documents:
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments Appendix B: Proposed Public Review Draft of Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Appendix C: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Data
Appendix D: Cultural Resources Data
Appendix E: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Data
Appendix F: Noise Data
Appendix G: Public Services Data
Appendix H: Transportation and Traffic Data
2.1.2 PURPOSE OF THE DRAFT EIR
According to Section 15121(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of an EIR is to:
Inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.
The Project that is the subject of this EIR is the proposed Plan, a long-term plan that will be implemented over time as a policy document guiding future development activities. Therefore, this EIR serves as a program-level EIR. This EIR discloses and evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the policies, development standards, and anticipated buildout of the proposed Plan at a program level. This programmatic EIR is generally qualitative in nature due to a 25-year buildout horizon.
This EIR does not evaluate the impacts of future individual projects that may be proposed under the proposed Plan. However, if the program EIR addresses the program’s effects as specifically and comprehensively as is reasonably possible, and later activities are within scope of the effects examined in the program EIR, then additional environmental review may not be required for those future projects. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c] and CEQA streamlining provisions.) When a program EIR is relied on for a subsequent activity, the lead agency must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR, and the Fresno General Plan MEIR when applicable, into the subsequent activities (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c][3]). If a subsequent activity would have effects that are not within the scope of the program EIR, the lead agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR unless the activity qualifies for an exemption. For these subsequent environmental review documents, this program EIR will serve as the
SOU THWEST FRESNO SPECIF IC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-4 AUGUST 2017
first-tier environmental analysis. The program EIR can also serve to streamline future environmental review of subsequent projects.
See Chapter 1, Introduction, Section 1.3, Type of EIR, of this Draft EIR for a detailed discussion on the environmental review applied in this EIR.
2.2 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PLAN
The City of Fresno proposes the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan for the 3,255-acre area located southwest of the Downtown Planning Area. The proposed Plan envisions the interplay of “Complete Neighborhoods,” “Corridors,” and “Magnet Cores” to create a vibrant and desirable community for both existing and new residents. The proposed Plan sets aside the majority of vacant land for single-family residential uses and locates higher density residential uses at neighborhood nodes, near magnet uses, and along corridors.
This will allow walkable access for greater numbers of residents to shopping, schools, parks, and transit.
Additionally, the proposed 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 types of 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 community commercial, including neighborhood retail shops, would be closer to the residential areas at many of the neighborhood nodes, adjacent to magnet uses, and near mixed use.
Furthermore, larger scale employment uses such as offices, a college, and medical facilities are concentrated along higher-intensity corridors and within magnet cores, while opportunities for smaller scale offices are allowed along a less intensive corridor. While more jobs in Southwest Fresno are desirable, the types of businesses that provide them must be healthy, safe, and good neighbors to nearby residents. To avoid potential conflicts between residents and employment uses, new employment areas and all previously “Light Industrial,” “Heavy Industrial,” “Business Park,” or “Regional Business Park” areas would be planned and zoned “Office”.
Table 3-1 in Chapter 3, Project Description contains the development capacity of the land uses proposed in the Plan Area over the proposed Plan’s 25-year timeframe compared to the Fresno General Plan, as well as a discussed of findings from the development capacity analysis. It should be noted that, like the Fresno General Plan, the development capacities are for new development and only take into account the development of parcels that have higher opportunities for development, such as parcels that are vacant, open agriculture, or rural residential (partially vacant).
The development capacities for the Fresno General Plan are also shown in the table for comparison against the proposed Plan’s development capacities.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-5
2.3 SUMMARY OF THE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PLAN
This Draft EIR analyzes alternatives to the proposed Plan that are designed to reduce the significant environmental impacts of the proposed Plan and feasibly attain some of the proposed Plan objectives.
There is no set methodology for comparing the alternatives or determining the environmentally superior alternative under CEQA. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative involves weighing and balancing all of the environmental resource areas by the City. The following alternatives to the proposed Plan were considered and analyzed in detail:
No Project Alternative
Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative
Chapter 5 of this Draft EIR includes a complete discussion of these alternatives and of alternatives that were considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis.
2.4 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the proposed Plan, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the City of Fresno, as Lead Agency, related to:
Whether this Draft EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the proposed Plan. Whether the benefits of the proposed Plan override those environmental impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance. Whether the proposed land use changes are compatible with the character of the existing area. Whether the identified goals, policies, or mitigation measures should be adopted or modified. Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the proposed Plan besides those Mitigation Measures identified in the Draft EIR.
Whether there are any alternatives to the proposed Plan that would substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed Plan and achieve most of the basic objectives.
2.5 AREAS OF CONCERN
The City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on February 28, 2017, and held a Scoping Meeting on March 1, 2017, to receive comments on the proposed Plan from interested agencies and members of the public. In addition to the comments received at the Scoping Meeting, the City received 10 comment letters from two State agencies, three local agencies, one Native American Tribe, one non-profit organization, and three members of the public during the public review period. A summary of the comments received at the Scoping Meeting and copies of the letters received are provided in Appendix A, Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments, of this Draft EIR.
SOU THWEST FRESNO SPECIF IC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-6 AUGUST 2017
The following is a discussion of issues that are likely to be of particular concern to agencies and interested members of the public during the environmental review process. While every concern applicable to the CEQA process is addressed in this Draft EIR, this list is not necessarily exhaustive, but rather attempts to capture those concerns that are likely to generate the greatest interest based on the input received during the NOP scoping process.
Groundwater/soil contamination
Traffic impacts in and around the Plan Area, including parking, transit access, and safe pedestrian and bicycle safety and connections
Affordable housing
Cultural resources
Eminent Domain
2.6 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Under CEQA, a significant impact on the environment is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the proposed Plan, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic significance.
The proposed Plan has the potential to generate significant environmental impacts in a number of areas; however, as described in Chapter 6, CEQA-Mandated Assessment, of this Draft EIR, the proposed Plan would have no significant impact on the following environmental topics due to existing conditions in the Plan Area and the surrounding area. These issues have therefore not been analyzed further in this Draft EIR.
Forestry Resources
Mineral Resources
Table 2-1 presents a summary of the significant impacts and mitigation measures identified based on the conclusions of the environmental analysis in Chapters 4.1 through 4.15 of this Draft EIR. The table is arranged in four columns: 1) impact 2) significance without mitigation; 3) mitigation measures; and 4) significance with mitigation. For a complete description of potential impacts, please refer to the specific discussions Chapters 4.0 through 4.15.
As shown in Table 2-1, some significant impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level if the mitigation measures identified in this Draft EIR are adopted and implemented. However, pursuant to Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures, as shown in Table 2-1, significant unavoidable impacts were identified in the areas of Aesthetics, Agriculture, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation and Traffic.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-7
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
AESTHETICS
AES-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
LTS N/A N/A
AES-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not substantially degrade the view from a scenic
highway, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings.
LTS N/A N/A
AES-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
LTS N/A N/A
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 MEIR 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.
MEIR 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.
MEIR 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.
MEIR 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.
MEIR 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
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN D RAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-8
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
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-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
LTS N/A N/A
AG-3: Implementationof the proposed Plan would not
involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use.
LTS N/A N/A
AG-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in
combination with past, present and reasonably
foreseeable projects, would result in significant and
unavoidable cumulative impacts with respect to
agriculture resources.
SU No mitigation measures available. SU
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 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(SJVAPCD) regional significance thresholds for VOC
and NOX.
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 SU
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-9
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
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 highvolume, low-pressure spray method operated at an air pressure between
0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge to achieve a 65 percent application efficiency; or (2) manual application using a paintbrush, handroller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge, to achieve a 100 percent applicant efficiency.
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
S AQ-4a: Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-2a through AQ-2c to further reduce construction-related criteria air pollutant emissions.
SU
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN D RAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-10
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
long-term emissions that could cause or contribute to
a violation of the AAQS. 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 ground-disturbing 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.)
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.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-11
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
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-5: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations.
LTS N/A N/A
AQ-6: New land uses accommodated under the
proposed Plan would not create objectionable odors
that could affect a substantial number of people.
LTS N/A N/A
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 Draft EIR. SU
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN D RAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-12
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1.1: Potential development resulting from the
proposed Plan could result in the loss of rare plant
species.
S MEIR BIO‐1.1a: Construction of a proposed project should avoid, where possible, vegetation communities that provide suitable habitat for a special‐status species known to occur within the Plan Area. If construction within potentially suitable habitat must occur, the presence/absence of any special‐status plant or wildlife species must be determined prior to construction, to determine if the habitat supports any special‐status species. If a special‐status species are determined to occupy any portion of a project site, avoidance and minimization measures shall be incorporated into the construction phase of a project to avoid direct or incidental take of a listed species to the greatest extent feasible.
MEIR BIO‐1.1b: Direct or incidental take of any State- or federally-listed species should be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. If construction of a proposed project will result in the direct or incidental take of a listed species, consultation with the resources agencies and/or additional permitting may be required. Agency consultation through the CDFW 2081 and USFWS Section 7 or Section 10 permitting processes must take place prior to any action that may result in the direct or incidental take of a listed species. Specific mitigation measures for direct or incidental impacts to a listed species will be determined on a case‐by‐case basis through agency consultation.
MEIR BIO‐1.1c: Development within the Plan Area should avoid, where possible, special‐status natural communities and vegetation communities that provide suitable habitat for special‐status species. If a proposed project will result in the loss of a special‐status natural community or suitable habitat for special‐status species, compensatory habitat‐based mitigation is required under CEQA and CESA.
Mitigation will consist of preserving on‐site habitat, restoring similar habitat, or purchasing off‐site credits from an approved mitigation bank. Compensatory mitigation will be determined through consultation with the City and/or resource agencies. An appropriate mitigation strategy and ratio will be agreed upon by the developer and lead agency to reduce project impacts to special‐status natural communities to a less than significant level. Agreed‐upon mitigation ratios will depend on the quality of the habitat and presence/absence of a special‐status species. The specific mitigation for project level impacts will be determined on a case‐by‐case basis.
LTS
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-13
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
BIO-1.2: Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in mortality of Swainson’s hawks.
S BIO-1.2: Conduct a Preconstruction Survey for Swainson’s Hawk Nests and Implement Avoidance Measures. If trees suitable for Swainson’s hawk nesting are to be removed during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March through August), a qualified biologist knowledgeable of the species will conduct a Swainson’s hawk survey of the project site and the surrounding 0.5-mile-radius area, as described in the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000).
This methodology divides the nesting season into five survey periods: January 1 to March 20, March 20 to April 5, April 5 to May 20, May 21 to June 10, and June 10 to July 30. The first survey period occurs before most Swainson’s hawks return to California, so this survey is optional. The site should be surveyed at a minimum of 3 times in each of the two periods that precede project initiation.
If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is detected on the project site, CDFW will be consulted and site-specific avoidance or mitigation measures will be implemented consistent with CDFW recommendations (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000).
LTS
BIO-1.3: Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in mortality of San Joaquin kit fox.
S BIO -1.3: Implement Standard Measures for Protection of San Joaquin Kit Fox. No less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to commencement of construction activities the project proponent shall retain a USFWS- and CDFWapproved biologist to conduct pre‐construction surveys in potential habitat periphery of the Plan Area that has not been fragmented by agricultural-residential or urban development. The survey, reporting, and activities during construction shall adhere to the requirements contained in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. As described in the standardized recommendations, if a natal/pupping den is discovered within the Plan Area or within 200-feet of the project boundary, the USFWS shall be immediately notified and under no circumstances should the den be disturbed or destroyed without prior authorization. If the preconstruction/preactivity survey reveals an active natal pupping or new information, the project applicant should contact the USFWS immediately to obtain the necessary take authorization/permit.
LTS
BIO-1.4: Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in impacts to roosting habitat or maternity
colonies of special-status bats.
S BIO-1.4: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Special-status Bats and Implement Avoidance Measures. Any medium or larger (≥ 12-inch diameter) trees or snags selected for removal shall be inspected by a qualified biologist for presence of LTS
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN D RAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-14
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
potential day-roosting habitat (e.g., cavities exfoliating bark, or basal hollows) for special-status bats or a maternity colony. If feasible, cavities shall be examined for roosting bats using a portable camera probe or similar technology.
Buildings with potential for roosting habitat for supporting special-status bats or a maternity colony shall be inspected by a qualified biologist for evidence of roosting colonies. If suitable roosting habitat is present and/or bat sign is observed, but no bats are detected, an evening exit count and acoustic survey using a full spectrum acoustic detector shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist to determine if bats are present and what species are present. If present, roosts (including day roosts, winter hibernacula, and maternity colonies) and a 100- to 300-foot disturbance-free buffer surrounding each roost shall be flagged and avoided, as determined by a qualified bat biologist.
If avoidance is not possible, replacement habitat appropriate for the species’ roost requirements shall be created prior to the roost removal, and the roosting bats shall be passively evicted under the direction of a qualified biologist (as determined by a Memorandum of Understanding with the CDFG). The qualified biologist shall facilitate the removal of roosting bats outside of the winter hibernation (November 1 to February 28th) and maternity roosting (March 15 to August 31) periods through the following means:
1. Implementing eviction during a period of warm (nighttime low >50°F), dry weather, when bats are expected to be active.
2. Opening the roosting area to allow airflow through the cavity or building (air flow disturbance).
3. Waiting a minimum of three nights of warm weather, as defined above, for roosting bats to respond to air flow disturbance, thereby allowing bats to leave during nighttime hours when predation risk is relatively low and chances of finding a new roost is greater than in the daytime.
4. Conducting a follow-up survey prior to roost removal to ensure that bats have vacated the roost.
5. Disturbing roosts at dusk just prior to roost removal the same evening to allow bats to escape during nighttime hours.
BIO-1.5: Potential development resulting from the
proposed Plan could result in disruption of denning
S BIO-1.5. Conduct Focused American Badger Surveys and Avoid or Minimize Impacts to American Badger Dens. No more than 30 days before the start of construction LTS
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-15
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
badgers and mortality of badgers. activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for American badgers within suitable habitat. If a potentially active den is found in a construction area, the den openings may be monitored with tracking medium or an infraredbeam camera for three consecutive nights to determine current use. Potential (inactive) dens within the limits of disturbance shall be blocked with a one-way door or excavated to prevent use during construction. Blocking with one-way doors is preferable to excavation where feasible; potential dens blocked with doors will be made available to badgers after construction. If American badgers or active dens are detected during these surveys, the following shall be implemented:
If present, occupied badger dens shall be flagged, and ground-disturbing activities avoided, within 50 feet of the occupied den during the nonbreeding season (1 July through 14 February). Flagging that is highly visible by construction crews shall encircle the occupied den at the appropriate buffer distance, and shall not prevent access to the den by badgers. Dens determined to be occupied during the breeding season (15 February through 30 June) shall be flagged, and ground-disturbing activities avoided, within 200 feet to protect adults and nursing young. Buffers may be modified by the qualified biologist, provided the badgers are protected, and shall not be removed until the qualified biologist has determined that the den is no longer in use.
If avoidance of an active non-maternity den is not feasible, badgers shall be relocated by first incrementally blocking the den over a three-day period, followed by slowly excavating the den (either by hand or with mechanized equipment under the direct supervision of a qualified biologist, removing no more than 4 inches at a time) before or after the rearing season (15 February through 30 June). Any passive relocation of American badgers shall occur only under the direction of a qualified biologist.
BIO-1.6: Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in mortality of, and loss of habitat for,
burrowing owls.
S BIO-1.6: Conduct a Preconstruction Survey for Burrowing Owl and Implement Avoidance Measures. No more than 15 days before the start of ground-disturbing activities for the project, a qualified biologist(s) knowledgeable of the species will conduct a focused, preconstruction survey for burrowing owls and their sign on the project site and within 250 feet where access allows. In conformance with federal and State regulations regarding the protection of raptors, the survey will be conducted per the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. All areas of suitable habitat proposed for ground disturbance will be surveyed. If burrowing owls are LTS
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN D RAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-16
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
detected, buffers and mitigation per the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation will be implemented.
BIO-1.7: Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in impacts to Western pond turtle nests and
mortality of pond turtles.
S BIO-1.7. Conduct Pre-construction Surveys for Western Pond Turtle, and Move Individuals to Safety. Prior to construction, a qualified biologist (i.e., a biologist approved by CDFW to handle western pond turtles) shall look for western pond turtles within 0.25-mile of aquatic and riparian habitat, where accessible. If any pond turtles are detected during these surveys, or during construction in an area where individuals could be affected, they shall be moved to a suitable location outside the area of impact. The candidate sites for relocation shall be identified before construction and shall be selected based on the size and type of habitat present, the potential for negative interactions with resident species, and the species’ range.
If any western pond turtle nests with eggs are found, the nests shall remain undisturbed until the eggs have hatched, if feasible. If avoidance of a nest is infeasible (e.g., if avoidance would result in an unacceptable delay in the project’s schedule), or if the eggs are discovered only after the nest has been affected, any viable eggs shall be relocated to a suitable location outside the impact area. Egg relocation areas shall be identified based on pond turtle nesting biology. Any viable eggs shall be deposited in a hole and buried for thermal protection.
LTS
BIO-1.8: Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in take of birds or nests.
S MEIR BIO‐1.8. Proposed projects within the Plan Area should avoid, if possible, construction within the general nesting season of February through August for avian species protected under Fish and Game Code 3500 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), if it is determined that suitable nesting habitat occurs on a project site.
If construction cannot avoid the nesting season, a pre‐construction clearance survey must be conducted to determine if any nesting birds or nesting activity is observed on or within 500 feet of a project site. If an active nest is observed during the survey, a biological monitor must be on site to ensure that no proposed project activities would impact the active nest. A suitable buffer will be established around the active nest until the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer active.
Project activities may continue in the vicinity of the nest only at the discretion of the biological monitor.
LTS
BIO-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
S MEIR BIO‐2.1a: If a proposed project will result in the removal or impact to any riparian habitat and/or a special‐status natural community with potential to occur in the Plan Area, compensatory habitat‐based mitigation shall be required to reduce LTS
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-17
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
project impacts. Compensatory mitigation must involve the preservation or restoration or the purchase of off‐site mitigation credits for impacts to riparian habitat and/or a special‐status natural community. Mitigation must be conducted in‐kind or within an approved mitigation bank in the region. The specific mitigation ratio for habitat based mitigation will be determined through consultation with the appropriate agency (i.e., CDFW or USFWS) on a case‐by‐case basis.
MEIR BIO‐2.1b: Project impacts that occur to riparian habitat may also result in significant impacts to streambeds or waterways protected under Section 1600 of Fish and Wildlife Code and Section 404 of the CWA. CDFW and/or USACE consultation, determination of mitigation strategy, and regulatory permitting to reduce impacts, as required for projects that remove riparian habitat and/or alter a streambed or waterway, shall be implemented.
MEIR BIO‐2.1c: Project‐related impacts to riparian habitat or a special‐status natural community may result in direct or incidental impacts to special‐status species associated with riparian or wetland habitats. Project impacts to special‐status species associated with riparian habitat shall be mitigated through agency consultation, development of a mitigation strategy, and/or issuing incidental take permits for the specific special‐status species, as determined by the CDFW and/or USFWS.
BIO-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan could
result in loss of federally protected wetlands or
waters.
S MEIR BIO‐3a: If a proposed project will result in the significant alteration or fill of a federally protected wetland, a formal wetland delineation conducted according to USACE accepted methodology is required for each project to determine the extent of wetlands on a project site. The delineation shall be used to determine if federal permitting and mitigation strategy are required to reduce project impacts.
Acquisition of permits from USACE for the fill of wetlands and USACE approval of wetland mitigation plan would ensure a “no net loss” of wetland habitat within the Plan Area. Appropriate wetland mitigation/creation shall be implemented in a ratio according to the size of the impacted wetland.
MEIR BIO‐3b: In addition to regulatory agency permitting, Best Management Practices identified from a list provided by the USACE shall be incorporated into the design and construction phase of the project to ensure that no pollutants or siltation drain into a federally protected wetland. Project design features such as fencing, appropriate drainage and incorporating detention basins shall assist in LTS
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN D RAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-18
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
ensuring project‐related impacts to wetland habitat are minimized to the greatest extent feasible.
BIO-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
LTS N/A N/A
BIO-5: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance.
LTS N/A N/A
BIO-6: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State
habitat conservation plan.
LTS N/A N/A
BIO-7: 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
biological resources
LTS N/A N/A
CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
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.
S MEIR CUL-1: If previously unknown cultural resources are encountered during grading activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and an archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, measures shall be identified by the LTS
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-19
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
archaeologist and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping; incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space; or data recovery excavations of the finds.
No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any historical artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City‐approved institution or person who is capable of providing long‐term preservation to allow future scientific study.
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.
S MEIR CUL-2: Subsequent to a preliminary City review of the project grading plans, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for prehistoric archaeological resources shall be conducted. The following procedures shall be followed.
If prehistoric resources are not found during either the field survey or a literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence. In the event that buried prehistoric archaeological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified archaeologist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. If the resources are determined to be unique prehistoric archaeological resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any prehistoric archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City‐approved institution or person who is capable of providing long‐term preservation to allow future scientific study.
If prehistoric resources are found during the field survey or literature review, the LTS
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN D RAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-20
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
resources shall be inventoried using appropriate State record forms and submit the forms to the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. The resources shall be evaluated for significance. If the resources are found to be significant, measures shall be identified by the qualified archaeologist. Similar to above, appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. In addition, appropriate mitigation for excavation and construction activities in the vicinity of the resources found during the field survey or literature review shall include an archaeological monitor. The monitoring period shall be determined by the qualified archaeologist. If additional prehistoric archaeological resources are found during excavation and/or construction activities, the procedure identified above for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed.
CUL-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
have the potential to directly or indirectly affect a
unique paleontological resource or site, or unique
geologic feature.
S MEIR CUL-3: Subsequent to a preliminary City review of the project grading plans, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for unique paleontological/geological resources shall be conducted. The following procedures shall be followed:
If unique paleontological/geological resources are not found during either the field survey or a literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence. In the event that unique paleontological/geological resources are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified paleontologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified paleontologist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to, excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds. If the resources are determined to be significant, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping; incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space; or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any paleontological/geological resources recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City‐approved institution LTS
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-21
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
or person who is capable of providing long‐term preservation to allow future scientific study.
If unique paleontological/geological resources are found during the field survey or literature review, the resources shall be inventoried and evaluated for significance.
If the resources are found to be significant, mitigation measures shall be identified by the qualified paleontologist. Similar to above, appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping; incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space; or data recovery excavations of the finds.
In addition, appropriate mitigation for excavation and construction activities in the vicinity of the resources found during the field survey or literature review shall include a paleontological monitor. The monitoring period shall be determined by the qualified paleontologist. If additional paleontological/ geological resources are found during excavation and/or construction activities, the procedure identified above for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed.
CUL-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
have the potential to disturb human remains,
including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
S MEIR CUL-4: In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants’ preferences for treatment.
Applicable regulations and procedures described above, along with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4, would ensure that any human remains discovered LTS
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN D RAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-22
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
during construction would be handled appropriately.
CUL-5: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
have the potential to impact TCRs the disturbance of
which could result in a significant impact under CEQA.
S CUL-5: Implement Fresno General Plan MEIR Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-4.
LTS
CUL-6: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in
combination with past, present and reasonably
foreseeable projects, would not result in less than
significant cumulative impacts with respect to cultural resources.
LTS N/A N/A
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1: Development under the proposed Plan would
not subject people or structures to hazards from
surface rupture of a known active fault.
NI N/A N/A
GEO-2: Ground shaking can be expected to occur
within the design lifetimes of buildings that would be
constructed under the proposed Plan. Such
developments would comply with building codes then
in effect. Buildout of the proposed Plan would not
subject people or structures to substantial hazards
from ground shaking.
LTS N/A N/A
GEO-3: Buildout of the proposed Plan would subject
people and structures to hazards from seismic-related
ground failure including liquefaction.
LTS N/A N/A
GEO-4: The Plan Area and surroundings are nearly
level, with a southwest slope of about 0.1 percent
grade. Buildout of the proposed Plan would not
subject people or structures to landslide hazards.
NI N/A N/A
GEO-5: Potential construction projects under the
proposed Plan would disturb and expose large
amounts of soil, thus dramatically increasing the
potential for soil erosion on-site. Construction
projects 1 acre or larger would be required to use
LTS N/A N/A
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-23
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize
erosion from the site.
GEO-6: Buildout of the proposed Plan would not
subject people or structures to substantial hazards
from ground subsidence.
LTS N/A N/A
GEO-7: Shallow site soils are expected to be
compressible and unsuitable for supporting structures
for human occupancy. Implementation of the
proposed Plan could pose hazards to people and
structures arising from compressible soils.
LTS N/A N/A
GEO-8: Expansive soils may be present on-site, and
buildout of the proposed Plan could pose hazards to
people or structures arising from expansive soils.
LTS N/A N/A
GEO-9: Buildout of the proposed Plan would not add
land uses to the Plan Area relying on septic tanks or
other alternative wastewater disposal systems, and
thus would have no impact respecting soils incapable
of supporting such systems.
LTS N/A N/A
GEO-10: No significant cumulative impacts to geology
and soils are anticipated, and impacts of buildout of
the proposed Plan would not be cumulatively
considerable.
LTS N/A N/A
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-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
LTS N/A N/A
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN D RAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-24
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs).
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
HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials.
LTS N/A N/A
HAZ-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment.
LTS N/A N/A
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.
PS/LTS HAZ-3: Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a through HAZ-4h, described later in the section under Impact HAZ-4, would reduce potential impacts to schools.
In addition, as stated in the discussions of Impacts HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations, procedures, and policies would avoid potential impacts associated with hazardous materials handling, use, and storage in the Plan Area. Compliance with these regulations, procedures, and policies would ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, thereby reducing potential risks to nearby schools.
LTS
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.
PS HAZ-4a: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that a Phase I ESA (performed in accordance with the current ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process [E 1527]) shall be conducted for each individual property prior to development or redevelopment to ascertain the presence or absence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HRECs), and Potential Environmental Concerns (PECs) relevant to the property under consideration. The findings and conclusions of the Phase I ESA shall become the basis for potential LTS
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-25
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
recommendations for follow-up investigation, if found to be warranted.
HAZ-4b: In the event that the findings and conclusions of the Phase I ESA for a property result in evidence of RECs, HRECs and/or PECs warranting further investigation, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that a Phase II ESA shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of a significant impact to the subject site from hazardous materials.
The Phase II ESA may include but may not be limited to the following: (1) Collection and laboratory analysis of soils and/or groundwater samples to ascertain the presence or absence of significant concentrations of constituents of concern; (2) Collection and laboratory analysis of soil vapors and/or indoor air to ascertain the presence or absence of significant concentrations of volatile constituents of concern; and/or (3) Geophysical surveys to ascertain the presence or absence of subsurface features of concern such as USTs, drywells, drains, plumbing, and septic systems. The findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA shall become the basis for potential recommendations for follow-up investigation, site characterization, and/or remedial activities, if found to be warranted.
In the event the findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA reveal the presence of significant concentrations of hazardous materials warranting further investigation, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that site characterization shall be conducted in the form of additional Phase II ESAs in order to characterize the source and maximum extent of impacts from constituents of concern. The findings and conclusions of the site characterization shall become the basis for formation of a remedial action plan and/or risk assessment.
HAZ-4d: If the findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA(s), site characterization and/or risk assessment demonstrate the presence of concentrations of hazardous materials exceeding regulatory threshold levels, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, property owners and/or developers of properties shall complete site remediation and potential risk assessment with oversight from the applicable regulatory agency including, but not limited to, the Cal-EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD). Potential remediation could include the removal or treatment of water and/or soil. If removal occurs, hazardous
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN D RAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-26
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
materials shall be transported and disposed at a hazardous materials permitted facility.
HAZ-4e: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an individual property within the Plan Area with residual environmental contamination, the agency with primary regulatory oversight of environmental conditions at such property ("Oversight Agency") shall have determined that the proposed land use for that property, including proposed development features and design, does not present an unacceptable risk to human health, if applicable, through the use of an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) that could include institutional controls, site-specific mitigation measures, a risk management plan, and deed restrictions based upon applicable risk-based cleanup standards. Remedial action plans, risk management plans and health and safety plans shall be required as determined by the Oversight Agency for a given property under applicable environmental laws, if not already completed, to prevent an unacceptable risk to human health, including workers during and after construction, from exposure to residual contamination in soil and groundwater in connection with remediation and site development activities and the proposed land use.
HAZ-4f: For those sites with potential residual volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil, soil gas, or groundwater that are planned for redevelopment with an overlying occupied building, a vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed by a licensed environmental professional. If the results of the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the potential for significant vapor intrusion into the proposed building, the project design shall include vapor controls or source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or the Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) requirements. Soil vapor mitigations or controls could include passive venting and/or active venting. The vapor intrusion assessment as associated vapor controls or source removal can be incorporated into the ESMP (Mitigation Measure HAZ4-4e).
HAZ-4g: In the event of planned renovation or demolition of residential and/or commercial structures on the subject site, prior to the issuance of demolition permits, asbestos and lead based paint (LBP) surveys shall be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and/or
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-27
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
LBP. Removal of friable ACM, and non-friable ACMs that have the potential to become friable, during demolition and/or renovation shall conform to the standards set forth by the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).
The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) is the responsible agency on the local level to enforce the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) and shall be notified by the property owners and/or developers of properties (or their designee(s)) prior to any demolition and/or renovation activities. If asbestos-containing materials are left in place, an Operations and Maintenance Program (O&M Program) shall be developed for the management of asbestos containing materials.
HAZ-4h: Prior to the import of a soil to a particular property within the Plan Area as part of that property’s site development, such soils shall be sampled for toxic or hazardous materials to determine if concentrations exceed applicable Environmental Screening Levels for the proposed land use at such a property, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or the Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD)requirements, prior to importing to such a property.
HAZ-5: The proposed Plan would be located within
2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, but
would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Plan Area.
LTS N/A N/A
HAZ-6: For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, the proposed Plan would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Plan
Area.
NI N/A N/A
HAZ-7: The proposed Plan would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
LTS N/A N/A
HAZ-8: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
NI N/A N/A
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN D RAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-28
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands.
HAZ-9: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable projects, would result in less than
significant cumulative impacts with respect to hazards
and hazardous materials.
LTS N/A N/A
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
HYD-1: Buildout of the proposed Plan would not
violate any water quality standards or discharge
requirements.
LTS N/A N/A
HYD-2.1: Buildout of the proposed Plan would
increase water demands in the City, thus increasing
demands for groundwater.
LTS N/A N/A
HYD-2.2: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not substantially interfere with groundwater
recharge.
LTS N/A N/A
HYD-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not substantially change the drainage pattern on and
surrounding the Plan Area, and would not cause
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
LTS N/A N/A
HYD-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not substantially change the drainage pattern on and
surrounding the Plan Area and would not cause
flooding on- or off-site.
LTS N/A N/A
HYD-5: Buildout of the proposed Plan would not
generate runoff exceeding the capacity of existing or
planned storm drainage systems, or generate a
substantial increase in polluted runoff
LTS N/A N/A
HYD-6: Buildout of the proposed Plan would not
substantially degrade water quality.
LTS N/A N/A
HYD-7: Buildout of the proposed Plan would not place
housing in a 100-year flood hazard area.
LTS N/A N/A
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-29
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
HYD-8: Buildout of the proposed Plan would not place
structures which would redirect flood flows within a
100-year flood zone.
LTS N/A N/A
HYD-9: The Plan Area is not in dam inundation areas
or mapped as protected from 100-year floods by
levees. Buildout of the proposed Plan would not
expose people or structures to flood hazard due to
dam inundation.
LTS N/A N/A
HYD-10: The Plan Area is not susceptible to flooding
due to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Buildout of the
proposed Plan would not subject people or structures
to such flood hazards.
LTS N/A N/A
HYD-11: Buildout of the proposed Plan, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable projects, would not cause significant
cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality.
LTS N/A N/A
LAND USE AND PLANNING
LU-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would not
physically divide an established community.
LTS N/A N/A
LU-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan would not
conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.
LTS N/A N/A
LU-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan would not
conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plan.
LTS N/A N/A
LU-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable projects, would not result in less than
significant cumulative impacts with respect to land
LTS N/A N/A
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN D RAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-30
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
use and planning.
NOISE
NOISE-1: Development in accordance with the
proposed Plan would cause increases in traffic along
local roadways of more than 3 dBA over existing
conditions.
SU/LTS N/A SU/LTS
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 NOISE-2a: Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, applicants for individual development projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities—such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers—within 50 feet of off-site structures, shall prepare and submit to the City of Fresno an acoustical study to evaluate potential construction-related vibration damage impacts. The vibration assessment shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and be based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) vibration-induced architectural damage criterion. If the acoustical study determines a potential exceedance of the FTA thresholds, measures shall be identified that ensure vibration levels are reduced to below the thresholds. Measures to reduce vibration levels can include use of less-vibration-intensive equipment (e.g., drilled piles and static rollers) and/or construction techniques (e.g., non-explosive rock blasting and use of hand tools) and preparation of a pre-construction survey report to assess the condition of the affected sensitive structure. Identified measures shall be included on all construction and building documents and submitted for verification to the City.
NOISE-2b: Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, applicants for individual development projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities—such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers—within 100 feet of sensitive receptors (e.g., residences and schools) shall prepare and submit to the City of Fresno an acoustical study to evaluate potential construction-related vibration annoyance impacts. The study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and shall identify measures to reduce impacts to habitable structures to below the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) vibration-induced annoyance criterion. If construction-related vibration is determined in the acoustical study to be perceptible at vibration-sensitive uses, additional requirements, such as use of less-vibration-intensive equipment or construction techniques, shall be LTS
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-31
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
implemented during construction (e.g., drilled piles, static rollers, and non-explosive rock blasting). Identified measures shall be included on all construction and building documents and submitted for verification to the City.
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: Construction activities would result in
temporary noise increases in the vicinity of the Plan
Area.
PS NOISE-4a: As required by the City of Fresno Municipal Code, construction activity shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, and shall require a permit issued by the City.
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.
SU
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN D RAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-32
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
Reduce non-essential idling of construction equipment to no more than five minutes.
Ensure that all construction equipment is monitored and properly maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to minimize noise. Fit all construction equipment with properly-operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds, no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer, to minimize noise emissions.
If construction equipment is equipped with back-up alarm shut offs, switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters, as feasible. Stationary equipment (such as generators and air compressors) and equipment maintenance and staging areas shall be located as far from existing noisesensitive 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 noisereduction 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-5: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not cause exposure of people residing or working in
the vicinity of the study area to excessive aircraft
LTS N/A N/A
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-33
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
noise levels, for a project located within an airport
land use plan, or where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public
use airport.
NOISE-6: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not cause exposure of people residing or working in
the Plan Area to excessive noise levels, for a project
within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
LTS N/A N/A
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
POPULATION AND HOUSING
POP-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure).
LTS N/A N/A
POP-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere.
LTS N/A N/A
POP-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere.
LTS N/A N/A
POP-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in
combination with past, present and reasonably
foreseeable projects, would not result in less than
significant cumulative impacts with respect to
population and housing.
LTS N/A N/A
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN D RAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-34
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PS-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would not
result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of or need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for fire protection, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts.
LTS N/A N/A
PS-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable projects, would not result in significant
cumulative impacts with respect to fire protection
service.
LTS N/A N/A
PS-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan would not
result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of or need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for police protection,
the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts.
LTS N/A N/A
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.
LTS N/A N/A
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
LTS N/A N/A
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-35
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
construction of which could cause significant
environmental 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.
LTS N/A N/A
PS-7: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
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.
S 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.
LTS
PS-8: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
contribute to cumulative parks and recreation impacts
in the area.
LTS PS-8: Implement Mitigation Measure PS-7. LTS
PS-9: Implementation of 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.
LTS N/A N/A
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.
LTS N/A N/A
PS-11: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not contribute to cumulative library impacts in the
area.
LTS N/A N/A
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN D RAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-36
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.
LTS N/A N/A
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.
LTS N/A N/A
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.
LTS N/A N/A
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).
LTS N/A N/A
TRANS-5: The proposed Plan would not result in
inadequate emergency access.
LTS N/A N/A
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.
LTS N/A N/A
TRANS-7.1: The addition of proposed Plan traffic to
the roadway network, in combination with traffic
S TRANS-7.1: Provide transportation improvements consistent with General Plan Policy MT-1-j in the Plan Area that would encourage non-vehicular transportation LTS
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-37
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
generated by reasonably foreseeable projects, results
in unacceptable roadway operations on City of Fresno
study roadway segments under cumulative
conditions.
and reduce auto traffic levels. These improvements shall be 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 modes in 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.
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.
S 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.
SU
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN D RAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-38
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
- 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.
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).
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.
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:
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-39
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
- 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).
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.
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.
S 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 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 and 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 offramp 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 SU
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN D RAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-40
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
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 in Chapter 4.14 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 offramp, 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.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
UTIL-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.
S MEIR USS-1: The City shall develop and implement a wastewater master plan update.
MEIR 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 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 USS-3: Prior to exceeding existing wastewater treatment capacity, the City shall evaluate the wastewater system and shall not approve additional development LTS
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-41
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.
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.
S MEIR 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 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 million gallon per day (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 USS-6: Prior to exceeding capacity within the existing wastewater collection system facilities, the City shall evaluate the wastewater collection system and shall LTS
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN D RAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-42
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
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 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 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 USS-8: Prior to exceeding capacity within the existing water conveyance facilities, the City shall evaluate the water conveyance system and shall not approve
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-43
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.
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 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 Update.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN D RAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-44
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
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.
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.
S UTIL-3: Implement MEIR Mitigation Measures USS-1 through USS-3. LTS 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.
S UTIL-4: Implement MEIR Mitigation Measures USS-1 through USS-9. LTS 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.
LTS N/A N/A
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.
LTS N/A N/A
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.
LTS N/A N/A
UTIL-8: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not require or result in the construction of new
LTS N/A N/A
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-45
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
reclaimed water treatment facilities or expansion of
baseline facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects.
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.
LTS N/A N/A
UTIL-10: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in
combination with past, present and reasonably
foreseeable projects, would/would not result in a
significant cumulative impacts with respect to
reclaimed water supply.
LTS N/A N/A
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.
LTS N/A N/A
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.
LTS N/A N/A
UTIL-13: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
result in a determination by the stormwater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
Plan Area that it has adequate capacity to serve the
proposed Plan’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s baseline commitments.
LTS N/A N/A
UTIL-14: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in
combination with past, present and reasonably
foreseeable projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impacts with respect to stormwater.
LTS N/A N/A
UTIL-15: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
S MEIR USS-22: Prior to exceeding landfill capacity, the City shall evaluate additional landfill locations and shall not approve additional development that could LTS
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN D RAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NI = No Impact LTS = Less Than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact PLACEWORKS 2-46
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
capacity to accommodate the proposed Plan’s solid
waste disposal needs.
contribute solid waste to a landfill that is at capacity until additional capacity is provided.
UTIL-16: Implementation of the proposed Plan would
comply with federal, State, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.
LTS N/A N/A
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.
S MEIR 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.
LTS
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.
LTS N/A N/A
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.
LTS N/A N/A
PLACEWORKS 3-1
3. Project Description
This chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the proposed Southwest Fresno Specific Plan (referred to as the “proposed Plan”). The proposed Plan would guide future development in the Plan Area.
3.1 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR
This EIR is intended to disclose and assess potential environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the proposed Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Amendments.
As a programmatic-level review, this EIR does not evaluate the impacts of other future specific, individual developments that may be allowed under implementation of the proposed Plan. Future projects or phases may require additional, project-specific environmental analysis, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to secure the necessary discretionary development permits. Therefore, while subsequent environmental review may be tiered off this EIR, this EIR may not address impacts of future individual projects. Subsequent projects will be reviewed by the City for consistency with the General Plan, Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and this EIR, and subsequent project-level environmental review will be conducted if required by CEQA. Projects successive to this EIR may include, but are not limited to, the following:
Approval and funding of major public projects and capital improvements. Issuance of permits and other approvals necessary for implementation of the proposed Plan Development plan approvals, such as tentative maps, variances, conditional use permits, and other land use permits.
Permit issuances and other approvals necessary for public and private development projects. Development agreement processes and approvals.
See Chapter 1, Introduction, Section 1.3, Type of EIR, of this Draft EIR for a detailed discussion on the environmental review applied in this EIR, and the conditions that must apply in order to determine whether additional environmental analysis would be necessary for a future project under the proposed Plan.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-2 AUGUST 2017
3.2 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PLAN
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 proposed Plan implements the goals and policies set forth in the City of Fresno General Plan (Fresno General Plan) by building upon its concepts for the Southwest Development Area. The proposed Plan also includes ideas and measures that have been extensively tailored and reviewed by the Southwest Fresno community and stakeholders, including a Steering Committee. The Committee was comprised of a representative crosssection of community leaders and stakeholders and participated in each critical decision during the planning process, along with City staff.1
The proposed Plan provides guiding principles, policies, development criteria, and implementation strategies to coordinate private development and public improvements given the unique opportunities and characteristics of this important part of the City of Fresno. The proposed Plan is included as Appendix B of this Draft EIR.
3.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.2.1.1 PLAN AREA LOCATION
The area addressed by the proposed Plan lies within the southwestern most part of the City of Fresno, as shown in Figure 3-1, Regional Location Map. The Specific Plan Area (Plan Area) is approximately 3,255 acres, 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 (with one exception) the land currently in Fresno County that is within the Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City’s General Plan, but not yet within the City limits. The county land in the SOI is expected to be considered by the City of Fresno City Council and LAFCo. However, as shown in Figure 3-2, Plan Area Map, there is one area in the SOI that is part of the Plan Area: the Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard (MLK) Activity Center, identified as one of the “Magnet Cores” in the proposed Plan. 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.
3.2.1.2 EXISTING USES
Land within the Plan Area is not clearly organized into distinct uses or patterns. Instead, there is a mixture of industrial, agricultural, commercial, and residential land uses throughout the Plan Area. Properties located at the eastern end of the Plan Area carry over the largely residential land use pattern found in
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-3
Downtown, west of Highway 99. The pattern transitions into land that is designated for agricultural uses towards the western end of the Plan Area, closer to land outside the City limit within the City’s SOI and County-owned land. Pockets of commercial and employment uses are scattered throughout the Plan Area and SOI. Industrial uses, such as Foster Poultry Farms, are located immediately adjacent to, or enclosed by, residential neighborhoods, which have led to incompatible uses and noise and air quality concerns.
Additionally, there are large areas of vacant lands across the Plan Area.
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 1.5 3 Miles
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Area
Figure 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 1.5 3 Miles
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Area
Figure 1 Regional Location Map Source: PlaceWorks, 2017.
Figure 3-1
Regional Location Map
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
Source: PlaceWorks, 2017.
Figure 3-2
Plan Area Map
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-6 AUGUST 2017
Adopted in December 2014, the City’s General Plan devotes much attention to the Plan Area and calls for a more cohesive land use pattern. The central theme for the Plan Area is to achieve what the General Plan defines as Complete Neighborhoods; in essence, neighborhoods that are self-sufficient, interconnected by multi-modal transit, and walkable. Planned land uses are envisioned to support new medium- and medium-low-density residential development adjacent to existing residential uses. New development is anticipated to be characterized as infill, served by local streets, centered by parks, a mix of housing types, and schools in order to encourage and incentivize, through policies and development regulations, building a network of Complete Neighborhoods. Major streets such as California Avenue are intended to support future expansion of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and include Complete Street systems that will accommodate mixed use development located along the routes.
As described above, the existing land use pattern of the Plan Area can be characterized as a patchwork of residential, vacant, agriculture, commercial, and industrial uses. Overall, the proposed Plan would enhance the connectivity of existing land uses both within the Plan Area and to adjacent areas of the city through implementation of land use designations that center on two key ideas: 1) create unique, selfsustaining neighborhoods that provide residents with day-to-day services, and 2) create strong commercial arteries with a healthy street network that feeds into neighborhoods. For example, roadways would be improved for vehicular as well as pedestrian and bicycle access, while transit would be located on routes near residential areas and provide access to desired destinations, such as employment and services. Future commercial and residential development under the proposed Plan would be sited along improved roadways in a manner that connects the Plan Area to adjacent areas. For example, housing would be located close to amenities such as parks, schools, transit, services, retail and employment in the adjacent downtown.
3.2.1.3 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Based on the City’s Citywide Development Code Chapter of the Municipal Code (Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code), the Plan Area falls within the following zoning districts:
Residential Single-Family, Low Density (RS-3)
Residential Single-Family, Medium Low Density (RS-4)
Residential Single-Family, Medium Density (RS-5)
Residential Multi-Family, Medium High Density (RM-1)
Residential Multi-Family, Urban Neighborhood (RM-2)
Neighborhood Mixed-Use (NMX)
Corridor/Center Mixed-Use (CMX)
Commercial - Community (CC)
Commercial - Regional (CR)
Office (O)
Office Restricted (O-No Auto)
Office* (O*)
Open Space (OS)
Parks and Recreation (PR)
Public and Institutional (PI)
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-7
3.2.2 CONTENTS OF THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN
The proposed 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:
Plan 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 proposed 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 quality of life. The community environmental health section also calls out specific chapters in the Plan that address and strive to improve these existing health issues. 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.
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 proposed Plan for new single-family and higher-density housing units, retail, office, parks, schools, and other public facilities.
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 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). 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. 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.
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.
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,
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-8 AUGUST 2017
including homeownership, business development, education, training, and retail anchor tenant recruitment.
3.2.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED PLAN
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15124, the EIR must identify the objectives of the project. The stated objectives of this proposed Plan are to:
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 radius) of all residences. 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.
3.2.4 PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN
3.2.4.1 BUILDOUT OF THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN
As noted above, the proposed Plan is included in Appendix B of this Draft EIR. Development capacity numbers were calculated using the General Plan’s dwelling unit per acre (du/acre) and floor area ratio (FAR) capacity factors. The General Plan’s development capacity numbers are also shown in Table 3-1 for comparison.
Table 3-1 contains the development capacity of the land uses proposed in the Plan Area over the proposed Plan’s 25-year timeframe. It should be noted that, like the General Plan, the development capacities are for new development and only take into account the development of parcels that have higher opportunities for development, such as parcels that are vacant, open agriculture, or rural residential (partially vacant). In order to provide a conservative analysis as required by CEQA, this Draft EIR assumes a more intense scenario for development capacity under the proposed Plan, unless specifically
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-9
noted otherwise. Known as the Dual Designation Scenario, it assumes the dual land uses discussed in Chapter 3 and shown on Figure 3-3 of the May 2017 draft Southwest Fresno Specific Plan. 2 The dual land
use designation is applied to all land designated as new parks, open space and public facility so that if the facility is not needed, alternative private or public development consistent with zoning and development standards may be approved. The development capacities for the General Plan are also shown in the table for comparison against the proposed Plan’s development capacities.
TABLE 3-1 DEVELOPMENT CAPACITIES FOR THE PROPOSED 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
Development Scenario
4,221 2,910 7,131 1,220,596 2,489,065 0 32 325,482
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. During community outreach process as part of the development of this Plan, it was determined that the Regional Sports Complex is not to be designated as parkland.Therefore, the Plan shows this acreage designated as “public facility.”
Some findings from the development capacity analysis are described below. A discussion of the development capacity under the Dual Designation Scenario is described in Section 3.2.4.2:
Housing. The total number of projected housing units in the proposed Plan is lower than under the adopted General Plan. 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 multi-family housing. The proposed Plan’s ratio is 70 percent single-family housing to 30 percent multi-family housing in the Plan Area.
Because the General Plan ratio includes a higher proportion of single-family housing to multi-family housing than the proposed Plan, there would be 575 fewer dwelling units developed under the proposed Plan than the total number of dwelling units proposed within the Plan Area under the General Plan.
Commercial. The amount of commercial development in the Plan Area is greater in the proposed Plan than in the General Plan by approximately 222,000 square feet. Several factors contribute to this 2 The dual land use designation was applied to all parcels within the Plan Area with such a designation, 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 FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-10 AUGUST 2017
increase, including new corridor/center mixed-use, neighborhood mixed-use, regional commercial, and community commercial areas.
Employment. The amount of employment space in the Plan Area (i.e., office, business park, regional business park, light industrial, and heavy industrial uses) in the proposed Plan is significantly less than in the General Plan; the proposed Plan shows approximately 1 million square feet less in employment uses in the Plan Area. 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. Parks/Open Space. The proposed Plan includes a refined definition of parkland than under the adopted General Plan. As a result, the Plan Area’s total park acreage in the proposed Plan is less than in the General Plan because the General Plan counts the approximately 112 acres directly east of the Regional Sports Complex, as well as the 16-acre Hyde Park, as parkland. It was determined through the outreach process that this land should not be considered parkland since it was previously used as a landfill, and in order to provide a more accurate estimate of the amount of usable parkland 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.
Public Facilities. The amount of public facilities development in the proposed Plan is significantly 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 redesignation of singlefamily housing to public facilities along North Avenue in an effort to create a buffer between residential areas and nearby industrial uses.
3.2.4.2 DUAL DESIGNATION SCENARIO
As described in Section 3.2.4.1 above and shown in Table 3-1, the Dual Designation Scenario assumes the dual land uses discussed in Chapter 3 and shown on Figure 3-3 of the May 2017 draft Southwest Fresno Specific Plan are applied to the development capacity under the proposed Plan. Under this Scenario, new housing would be developed at a ratio of 59 percent single family to 41 percent multi-family housing units, which would result in 408 more dwelling units developed within the Plan Area than under the General Plan. The Dual Designation Scenario also assumes a lower amount of commercial development in the Plan Area, at 110,235 square feet, which is less than the amount developed under the General Plan.
However, the amount of employment space would be 708,985 square feet more than the General Plan.
As the Dual Designation Scenario assumes parkland would be developed for other types of land uses, zero acres of parkland would be developed within the Plan Area. The square footage and acreage of public facilities developed under the Dual Designation Scenario would be less than the amount developed under the General Plan (317,895 square feet; 25 acres).
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-11
3.2.4.3 IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of the proposed Plan would involve the following:
Adoption of the proposed Plan is proposed to be enacted by resolution of the City Council. The following discretionary actions are anticipated:
Repeal of the Edison Community Plan.
Adoption of the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan.
Amendment of the Fresno General Plan, including amendment of the land use map. Rezoning of property for consistency with the General Plan amendment. Adoption of Zoning Overlays for the proposed Historic Corridor and Mixed-Use Corridors Adoption of a Text amendment to the Development Code to establish regulations for the overlays.
3.3 REQUIRED APPROVALS
The proposed Plan is a policy-level document and does not include any specific development proposals.
Therefore, the proposed Plan would be adopted solely by the Fresno City Council. The Planning Commission and other decision-making bodies would review the proposed Plan and make recommendations to City Council. In addition, Plan review and approval is required by the Airport Land Use Commission. While other agencies may be consulted during the adoption process, their approval is not required for adoption of the proposed Plan. However, subsequent development under the proposed Plan may require approval of State, federal and responsible trustee agencies that may rely on the program-level analysis in this EIR for decisions in their areas of expertise.
PLACEWORKS 4-1
4. Environmental Analysis
This chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) is made up of 15 subchapters which evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed Southwest Fresno Specific Plan (Plan). The following sections describe the format of the environmental analysis, the format of the thresholds of significance, and the methodology of the cumulative impact analysis.
FORMAT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15128 allows for no analysis of environmental issues for which there is no likelihood of significant impact. Due to the location of the proposed Plan in an urbanized area in the city of Fresno, no impacts would occur to forestry or mineral resources. A brief discussion of each topic is provided as follows:
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 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, project implementation would not result in impacts to known mineral resources or locally important mineral resources.
Accordingly, this chapter of the Draft EIR is made up of 15 subchapters, which evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed Plan. In accordance with Appendix F, Energy Conservation, and Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines as amended per Assembly Bill 52 (Tribal Cultural Resources) and the California Supreme Court in a December 2015 opinion [California Building Industry Association (CBIA) v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 62 Cal. 4th 369 (No. S 213478)], the potential environmental effects of the proposed Plan are analyzed for 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
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-2 AUGUST 2017
potential significant impacts in the following 15 environmental issue areas, which are organized with the listed abbreviations:
Aesthetics (AES)
Agriculture (AG)
Air Quality (AQ)
Biological Resources (BIO)
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources (CUL)
Geology and Soils (GEO)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (HAZ)
Hydrology and Water Quality (HYDRO)
Land Use and Planning (LU)
Noise (NOISE)
Population and Housing (POP)
Public Services and Recreation (PS)
Transportation and Traffic (TRANS)
Utilities and Service Systems (UTIL)
Each subchapter is organized into the following sections:
Environmental Setting provides an overview of federal, State, regional and local laws and regulations relevant to each environmental issue, together with a description of the existing environmental conditions, providing a baseline against which the impacts of the proposed Plan can be compared. Standards of Significance refers to the quantitative or qualitative standards or conditions used to compare the existing setting with and without the proposed Plan to determine whether the impact is significant. These standards are based primarily on the CEQA Guidelines, and may reflect established health standards, ecological tolerance standards, public service capacity standards, and guidelines established by agencies or experts.
Impact Discussion gives an overview of potential impacts of the proposed Plan and explains why impacts were found to be significant or less than significant prior to mitigation. This subsection also includes a discussion of cumulative impacts of the proposed Plan. Impacts and mitigation measures are numbered consecutively within each topical analysis and begin with an acronymic or abbreviated reference to the impact section.
LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE
As noted above, the significance criteria are identified before the impact discussion subsection, under the subsection, “Standards of Significance.” For each impact identified, a level of significance is determined using the following classifications:
Significant (S) impacts describe effects that exceed an established or defined threshold. Less-than-significant (LTS) impacts describe effects that are noticeable, but do not exceed established or defined thresholds, or are mitigated below such thresholds. No impact describes the circumstances where there is no adverse effect on the environment.
For each impact identified as being significant, the EIR provides mitigation measures to reduce, eliminate, or avoid the adverse effect. If the mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level successfully, this is stated in the EIR. However, significant and unavoidable (SU) impacts are described where mitigation measures would not diminish these effects to less-than-significant levels.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-3
CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
A cumulative impact consists of an impact created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR, together with other reasonably foreseeable impacts not caused by the proposed Plan. Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable.” Used in this context, cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.
Where the incremental effect of a project is not “cumulatively considerable,” a Lead Agency need not consider that effect significant, but must briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable. Where the cumulative impact caused by the project’s incremental effect and the effects of other reasonably foreseeable projects is not significant, the EIR must briefly indicate why the cumulative impact is not significant.
The cumulative impacts discussions in Chapters 4.1 through 4.15 explain the geographic scope of the area affected by each cumulative effect (e.g., immediate project vicinity, city, county, watershed, or air basin).
The geographic area considered for each cumulative impact depends upon the impact that is being analyzed. For example, in assessing aesthetic impacts, the pertinent geographic study area is the vicinity of the areas of new development under the proposed Plan from which the new development can be publicly viewed and may contribute to a significant cumulative visual effect. In assessing macro-scale air quality impacts, on the other hand, all development within the air basin contributes to regional emissions of criteria pollutants, and basin-wide projections of emissions are the best tool for determining the cumulative effect.
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines permits two different methodologies for completion of the cumulative impact analysis:
The ‘list’ approach permits the use of a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including projects both within and outside the city; and The ‘projections’ approach allows the use of a summary of projections contained in an adopted plan or related planning document, such as a regional transportation plan, or in an EIR prepared for such a plan. The projections may be supplemented with additional information such as regional modeling.
This EIR uses the projections approach and takes into account growth from the proposed Plan within the Fresno city boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI), in combination with impacts from projected growth in the rest of Fresno County and the surrounding region. In each subsection of Chapter 4, the cumulative impacts discussion is based on the cumulative development described in Chapter 6, CEQA-Mandated Assessment, of this Draft EIR. The following provides a summary of the cumulative impact scope for each impact area:
Aesthetics: The cumulative setting for visual impacts includes potential future development under the proposed Plan combined with effects of development on lands adjacent to the Plan Area within the city.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-4 AUGUST 2017
Agriculture Resources: Cumulative impacts to agriculture resources occur from potential future development under the proposed Plan combined with effects of development on lands within the region.
Air Quality: Cumulative air quality impacts could occur from a combination of the proposed Plan combined with regional growth within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Biological Resources: The geographic scope of the cumulative analysis for biological resources considers the 5-mile radius surrounding the Plan Area.
Cultural and Tribal Resources: Cumulative impacts to cultural resources occur from potential future development under the proposed Plan combined with effects of development on lands within the region.
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity: Potential cumulative geological impacts could arise from a combination of the development of the proposed Plan together with future development in the immediate vicinity of the adjoining jurisdictions.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The cumulative impact analyses for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are related to ongoing development in Fresno and the entire region. Because GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide, the cumulative analysis focuses on the global impacts.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Potential cumulative hazardous impacts could arise from a combination of the development of the proposed Plan together with the regional growth in the immediate vicinity of the Plan Area.
Hydrology and Water Quality: The geographic context used for the cumulative assessment of water quality and hydrology impacts is the Upper Dry Subbasin, which encompasses the entire Plan Area. Land Use and Planning: The cumulative setting for land use and planning includes the City planning regulations and regional planning, with which the City is required to comply to. Noise: The analysis addresses the operational and construction noise and vibration impacts of the proposed Plan on the noise environment in the Plan Area and the surrounding area. The traffic noise levels are based on cumulative traffic conditions that take into account cumulative development in the region.
Population and Housing: Impacts from cumulative growth are considered in the context of their consistency with regional planning efforts.
Public Services and Recreation: Cumulative impacts are considered in the context of the growth from development under the proposed Plan within the city combined with the estimated growth in the service areas of each service provider.
Transportation and Traffic: The analysis of the proposed Plan addresses cumulative impacts to the transportation network in Fresno and the surrounding area. Utilities and Service Systems: Cumulative impacts are considered in the context of the growth from potential future development under the proposed Plan combined with the estimated growth in the service areas of each utility’s service area.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-1
4.1 AESTHETICS
This chapter describes the existing aesthetic character of the Plan Area and evaluates the potential environmental consequences of future development that could occur to the aesthetic character by adopting and implementing the proposed Plan.
4.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.1.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section summarizes key State and local regulations and programs related to aesthetics in the Plan Area. There are no federal regulations pertaining to aesthetics that apply to the proposed Plan.
State Regulations
California Building Code
The California Building Code, Part 2 of Title 24 in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), is based on the International Building Code and combines three types of building standards from three different origins:
Building standards that have been adopted by State agencies without change from building standards contained in the International Building Code.
Building standards that have been adopted and adapted from the International Building Code to meet California conditions.
Building standards, authorized by the California legislature, that constitute extensive additions not covered by the International Building Code that have been adopted to address particular California concerns.
The California Building Code includes standards for outdoor lighting that are intended to improve energy efficiency, and to reduce light pollution and glare by regulating light power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls.
Local Regulations
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan is the City’s primary policy planning document. Through its 12 elements, the General Plan provides the framework for the management and utilization of the City’s physical, economic, and human resources. Each element contains goals, policies, and implementation measures that guide development within the City.
The Fresno General Plan includes the following objectives and policies that pertain to aesthetics and visual resources (Table 4.1-1).
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
AESTHETICS
4.1-2 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.1-1 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO AESTHETICS Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Urban Form, Land Use and Design Element
Policy UF‐1‐c
Identifiable City Structure. Focus integrated and ongoing planning efforts to achieve an identifiable city structure, comprised of a concentration of buildings, people, and pedestrian‐oriented activity in Downtown; along a small number of prominent east‐west and north‐south transit‐oriented, mixed‐use corridors with distinctive and strategically located Activity Centers; and in existing and new neighborhoods augmented with parks and connected by multi‐purpose trails and tree lined bike lanes and streets.
Policy UF‐1‐e
Unique Neighborhoods. Promote and protect unique neighborhoods and mixed use areas throughout Fresno that respect and support various ethnic, cultural and historic enclaves; provide a range of housing options, including furthering affordable housing opportunities; and convey a unique character and lifestyle attractive to Fresnans. Support unique areas through more specific planning processes that directly engage community members in creative and innovative design efforts.
Objective UF‐2 Enhance the unique sense of character and identity of the different subareas of the Downtown neighborhoods.
Objective UF‐8 Develop each of Downtown’s neighborhoods and districts, according to its unique character.
Policy UF‐12‐g
Impacts on Surrounding Uses. Establish design standards and buffering requirements for high‐intensity Activity Centers to protect surrounding residential uses from increased impacts from traffic noise and vehicle emissions, visual intrusion, interruption of view and air movement, and encroachment upon solar access.
Policy UF-13-a
Future Planning to Require Design Principles. Require future planning, such as Specific Plans, neighborhood plans or Concept Plans, for Development Areas designated by the General Plan to include urban design principles and standards consistent with the Urban Form, Land Use, and Design Element.
Policy UF-1-f
Complete Neighborhoods, Densities, and Development Standards. Use Complete Neighborhood design concepts, development standards, and project reviews outside the Downtown planning area to achieve the development of Complete Neighborhoods and the residential density targets of the General Plan.
Objective UF‐14 Create an urban form that facilitates multi‐modal connectivity.
Policy UF‐14‐a
Design Guidelines for Walkability. Develop and use design guidelines and standards for a walkable and pedestrian‐scaled environment with a network of streets and connections for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as transit and autos.
Objective LU‐1
Establish a comprehensive citywide land use planning strategy to meet economic development objectives, achieve efficient and equitable use of resources and infrastructure, and create an attractive living environment.
Policy LU‐1‐b
Land Use Definition and Compatibility. Include zoning districts and standards in the Citywide Development Code that provide for the General Plan land use designations and create appropriate transitions or buffers between new development with existing uses, taking into consideration the health and safety of the community.
Policy LU‐1‐a
Promote Development within the Existing City Limits as of December 31, 2012. Promote new development, infill, and rehabilitation of existing building stock in the Downtown planning area, along BRT corridors, in established neighborhoods generally south of Herndon Avenue, and on other infill sites and vacant land within the City.
Objective LU‐2 Plan for infill development that includes a range of housing types, building forms, and land uses to meet the needs of both current and future residents.
Policy LU‐2‐c Infill Design Toolkit. Develop and distribute an infill design toolkit, consistent with the City’s Infill Development Act to support and encourage infill development.
Policy LU‐2‐e Neighborhood Preservation. Incorporate standards in the Citywide Development Code to preserve the existing small‐scale residential quality of older neighborhoods.
Policy LU‐3‐b
Mixed‐Use Urban Corridors that Connect the Downtown Planning Area. Support the development of mixed‐use urban corridors that connect the Downtown planning area with the greater Fresno‐Clovis Metropolitan Area with functional, enduring, and desirable urban qualities along the Blackstone Avenue, Shaw Avenue, California Avenue, and Ventura Avenue/Kings Canyon Road corridors.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-3
TABLE 4.1-1 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO AESTHETICS Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Policy LU‐4‐a Neighborhood Nuisance Abatement. Continue proactive and responsive code enforcement and nuisance abatement programs to improve the attractiveness of residential neighborhoods.
Policy LU‐5‐g
Scale and Character of New Development. Allow new development in or adjacent to established neighborhoods that is compatible in scale and character with the surrounding area by promoting a transition in scale and architectural character between new buildings and established neighborhoods, as well as integrating pedestrian circulation and vehicular routes.
Policy LU‐6‐a Design of Commercial Development. Foster high quality design, diversity, and a mix of amenities in new development with uses through the consideration of guidelines, regulations and design review procedures.
Policy LU‐6‐b
Commercial Development Guidelines. Consider adopting commercial development guidelines to assure high quality design and site planning for large commercial developments, consistent with the Urban Form policies of the General Plan.
Policy LU‐6‐d
Neighborhood and Community Commercial Center Design. Plan for neighborhood mixed use and community commercial uses to implement the Urban Form concepts of the General Plan, promote the stability and identity of neighborhood and community shopping areas, and allow efficient access without compromising the operational effectiveness of the street system.
Neighborhoods will be anchored by community commercial centers with a mix of uses that meet the area’s needs and create a sense of place.
Community commercial centers will be located within Activity Centers.
Policy LU‐6‐e
Regional Center Planning and Design. Promote economic growth with regional commercial centers. New regional commercial centers will be located with access to State Routes and/or other major transportation facilities to ensure access from throughout the region. Regional shopping centers will have internally‐unified building design, landscaping, and signage standards.
Policy LU‐6‐f
Auto‐Oriented Commercial Uses. Direct highway‐oriented and auto‐serving commercial uses to locations that are compatible with the Urban Form policies of the General Plan. Ensure adequate buffering measures for adjacent residential uses noise, glare, odors, and dust.
Policy LU‐9‐e Downtown Sightline. Require new development to preserve existing sightlines to Downtown to the extent feasible.
Policy LU‐9‐f View Corridors. Promote new view corridors that highlight the Downtown skyline.
Objective D‐1 Provide and maintain an urban image that creates a “sense of place” throughout Fresno.
Policy D‐1‐d Public Art. Continue to promote a citywide public art program that contributes to an awareness of the City’s history and culture.
Policy D‐1‐e Graphic Identity. Continue the preservation, promotion, procurement and strategic location of landmarks, monuments and artwork that provide orientation and represent Fresno’s cultural heritage and artistic values.
Policy D‐1‐h
Screening of Parking. Continue requiring all new development with parking in Activity Centers and along corridors to be screened or concealed. Locate principal pedestrian entrances to new non‐residential buildings on the sidewalk; any entrances from parking areas should be incidental or emergency use only.
Objective D‐2 Enhance the visual image of all “gateway” routes entering the Fresno Planning Area.
Policy D‐2‐a Design Requirements for Gateways. Consider unified design requirements for gateways to welcome travelers to the City’s Activity Centers.
Policy D‐2‐c Highway Beautification. Work with Caltrans, the Fresno Council of Governments, Tree Fresno, neighboring jurisdictions, and other organizations to obtain funding for highway beautification programs.
Objective D‐3 Create unified plans for Green Streets, using distinctive features reflecting Fresno’s landscape heritage.
Policy D‐3‐a
Green Street Tree Planting. Create a Green Street Tree Planting Program, with a well‐balanced variety and spacing of trees to establish continuous shading and visual continuity for each streetscape. Strive to achieve coherent linkages between public and private spaces, prioritizing tree planting along tree‐deficient Arterial and Collector Roadways in neighborhoods characterized by lower per capita rates of vehicle ownership.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
AESTHETICS
4.1-4 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.1-1 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO AESTHETICS Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Policy D‐3‐b Funding for Green Street Tree Planting Program. Pursue funding for the Green Street Tree Planting Program, including landscaping of median islands.
Policy D‐3‐c Local Streets as Urban Parkways. Develop local streets as “urban parkways,” where appropriate, with landscaping and pedestrian spaces.
Policy D‐3‐d Undergrounding Utilities. Partner with utility companies to continue to pursue the undergrounding of overhead utilities as feasible.
Objective D‐4 Preserve and strengthen Fresno’s overall image through design review and create a safe, walkable and attractive urban environment for the current and future generations of residents.
Policy D‐4‐f
Design Compatibility with Residential Uses. Strive to ensure that all new nonresidential land uses are developed and maintained in a manner complementary to and compatible with adjacent residential land uses, to minimize interface problems with the surrounding environment and to be compatible with public facilities and services.
Objective D‐5 Maintain and improve community appearance through programs that prevent and abate blighting influences.
Policy D‐5‐a Code Enforcement. Continue enforcement of the Fresno Municipal Code to remove or abate public nuisances in a timely manner.
Policy D‐5‐b Clean Streets. Promote community partnerships and continued City efforts toward litter clean‐up and abatement of trash stockpiles on public and private streets.
Policy D‐5‐c Facade Improvements. Pursue funding for, and support of, building façade improvement programs.
Policy D‐5‐d Graffiti Prevention and Abatement. Seek ways to end graffiti, continue and expand the City’s effective Graffiti Abatement Program.
Policy D‐6‐b Consider adopting and implementing incentives for, and support efforts by, private development to incorporate culturally‐specific architectural elements in areas with a predominant ethnic population.
Mobility and Transportation Element
Objective MT‐3 Identify, promote and preserve scenic or aesthetically unique corridors by application of appropriate policies and regulations.
Policy MT‐3‐a
Scenic Corridors. Implement measures to preserve and enhance scenic qualities along scenic corridors or boulevards, including:
Van Ness Boulevard—Weldon to Shaw Avenues
Van Ness Extension—Shaw Avenue to the San Joaquin River Bluff Kearney Boulevard—Fresno Street to Polk Avenue
Van Ness/Fulton couplet—Weldon Avenue to Divisadero
Butler Avenue—Peach to Fowler Avenues
Minnewawa Avenue—Belmont Avenue to Central Canal
Huntington Boulevard—First Street to Cedar Avenue
Shepherd Avenue—Friant Road to Willow Avenue
Audubon Drive—Blackstone to Herndon Avenues
Friant Road—Audubon to Millerton Roads
Tulare Avenue—Sunnyside to Armstrong Avenues
Ashlan Avenue—Palm to Maroa Avenues
Policy MT‐3‐b Preserve street trees lining designated scenic corridors or boulevards. Replace trees of the predominant type and in a comparable pattern to existing plantings if there is no detriment to public safety.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-5
4.1.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes the existing visual character of the Plan Area, the scenic resources present in the surrounding area, as well as light and glare conditions.
Visual Character
Regional Character
The Plan Area is located in the southwestern portion of the city, generally between the urban downtown core of the City, and agriculture uses to the west and south. The Downtown area includes high-rise buildings, civic/institutional buildings, and industrial warehouses.
The Downtown area is the urban core of the city with high-rise buildings that contain a variety of land uses. The most common building types within Downtown are mixed-use buildings, theaters, civic/institutional buildings, and industrial warehouses. The Downtown area contains many structures that provide historic design elements. The suburbs contain low-rise neighborhood buildings that are primarily dominated by single-family residential uses.
Plan Area
Initially agricultural land, Southwest Fresno has gradually transitioned to house more residential, industrial, and commercial uses. As a result, the character of the housing, community buildings, and work places range in character and conditions. For the most part, they exhibit a very suburban character with large areas of parking and significant setbacks.
Many of the major streets in the Plan Area (e.g., California, Fig, and Church Avenues) were designed and built to accommodate transportation of industrial and agricultural products. Because Southwest Fresno was predominantly an area of farming, the roads allowed trucks to pass through and transport materials.
Later on, large trucking businesses were introduced to the eastern side of the area. These streets cut through most of the established neighborhoods, with posted speeds of 45 MPH, and lead to agricultural areas. Most of the other local streets are also wide, and for the most part, provide on-street parking for the community. Sidewalks are narrow and offer little to no shade. In other cases, sidewalks are used as onstreet parking for residents, or are nonexistent.
Most of the buildings in the Plan Area have been built between the 1950s and the 1990s. The prevalent architectural character for single-family homes is “American vernacular,” with altered Craftsman bungalows, modest Minimal Traditional, Mid-Century Modern, and contemporary tract homes, and mostly consists of one-story housing. Toward the center of the Plan Area, there are a few examples of older homes, which have been remodeled over time and thus lost their original architectural character.
In general, there is a lack of tree cover and mature vegetation on the streets that run north-south in the Plan Area. There is more landscaping on streets that run east-west such as Kearney Boulevard, California Avenue, and smaller residential streets.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
AESTHETICS
4.1-6 AUGUST 2017
Scenic Vistas
The Fresno General Plan does not identify or designate scenic vistas within the city. Although no scenic vistas have been designated, scenic vistas within the Plan Area could provide distant views of natural landscape features such as the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. Distant views of man-made landscape features include the Downtown Fresno buildings that provide a unique skyline and can be seen from major thoroughfares including Elm Avenue in the Plan Area.
Light and Glare
Significant sources of light and glare, such as streetlights, parking lots, interior lights, and light emitted from residential and non-residential buildings throughout the Plan Area are located along major thoroughfares such as Elm Avenue and California Avenue. Limited lighting currently exists in areas closer to the City limit as single-story, rural residential and agricultural areas that are located within the Plan Area. Buildings and structures made with glass, metal, and polished exterior or roofing materials exist throughout the Plan Area. These surfaces as well as the natural and manmade light sources could result in localized glare.
4.1.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed Plan would result in a significant aesthetic impact if it would:
1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway.
3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
4. Expose people on- or off-site to substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
4.1.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
AES-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
Future development under the proposed Plan would have the potential to affect scenic vistas and/or scenic corridors if new or intensified development blocks views of areas that provide or contribute to such vistas. Potential effects could include blocking views of a scenic vista/corridor from specific publicly accessible vantage points or altering the overall scenic vista/corridor itself. Such alterations could be positive or negative, depending on the characteristics of individual future developments and the subjective perception of observers.
As previously described, public views of scenic corridors are considered those views as seen along a linear transportation route, and public views of scenic vistas are views of specific scenic features. Scenic vistas
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-7
are generally interpreted as long-range views, while scenic corridors are comprised of short-, middle-, and long-range views.
The Fresno General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas from within the City. Although the General Plan identifies six locations as publicly valued scenic features along the San Joaquin River bluffs, the river bluffs are not visible from the Plan Area due to the flat topography of the city. The Fresno General Plan, as noted in Policy MT-3-a, identifies Kearney Boulevard from Fresno Street to Polk Avenue as a scenic corridor. Policy MT-3-b requires that street trees lining designated scenic corridors, such as the palm trees on Kearney Boulevard, be preserved. As a result, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact to scenic vistas.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
AES-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not substantially degrade the view from a scenic highway, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings.
Scenic highways are California highways designated by a local governing body and protected by the State Scenic Highway Program for the purpose of protecting and enhancing the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment. There are no officially designated State Scenic Highways in the City of Fresno (California State Scenic Highway Program 2015). As a result, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact to scenic highways.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
AES-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
Future development allowed by the proposed Plan could degrade the visual character of the Plan Area if the form and appearance of new development deteriorate the quality of the existing setting.
As described above, the Plan Area exhibits a predominantly auto-oriented urban character and is largely comprised of single-story residential buildings, retail commercial, and light industrial uses in buildings that are not architecturally notable. Future development allowed by the proposed Plan would introduce building form and massing that is more intense than the current character of the area but would generally be consistent with the overall urban character of the area.
In addition, as described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the proposed Plan contains Development and Design Guidelines that regulate new site and building development through standards for intensity, building height, and setbacks. These standards and guidelines would require all new development be more visually pleasing to pedestrians than existing uses, most of which are auto-oriented and include surface parking lots along the sidewalk. In addition, the Plan includes Goal LU-4 which requires that the use and character of existing residential neighborhoods be maintained, while improving the quality of housing and encouraging homeownership, and remediates Southwest Fresno’s blighting conditions to
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
AESTHETICS
4.1-8 AUGUST 2017
improve the community’s image, attract private investment, and create a pleasant living environment.
Furthermore, Policy LU-4.5 requires the creation of design standards that promote high-quality, aesthetically-attractive, and architecturally-consistent building design for building improvements.
Although future development allowed by the proposed Plan would change the existing visual character on individual sites, compliance with these regulations would ensure that the bulk, mass, height, and architectural character of future development under the proposed Plan would be compatible with surrounding uses and would not substantially degrade the visual quality of the site or its surroundings and associated impacts would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
AES-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan would expose people on- or offsite to substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Development in accordance with the General Plan and Development Code will result in land use changes within the Plan Area. These land use changes include the development of new residential and nonresidential land uses.
New development within the City limit could increase the amount of light from street lights, exterior lighting systems on private and public property, exterior lighting from buildings, and vehicular headlights.
New development could also increase light with new illuminated signs and lighting systems to illuminate active play areas. The increase in lighting within the City limit could result in light spillover onto adjacent properties. In addition, the increase in light will substantially illuminate the sky at night. This increase in light illumination is considered a significant impact.
Many areas outside of the existing City limit and within the Plan Area, as well as directly adjacent to the Plan Area, are exposed to a nominal amount of light due to the rural and agricultural setting. New urban development will substantially alter these existing rural and agricultural areas. Increases in lighting systems will occur within new development throughout this area and could result in an increase in lighting adjacent to the Plan Area. Residential development will include lighting systems on properties to provide safety and security. Non-residential development will include lighting system for parking areas, buildings, and signs. Public facilities including active use parks will increase lighting to illuminate play areas for evening activities. With the increase in development in this area, there will be increases in nighttime traffic that will increase lighting from car headlights. Together, new development will increase the amount of light that could cause light spillover onto adjacent properties within and adjacent to the Plan Area and increase the illumination of the sky at night. This increase in light is considered a significant impact.
Development in accordance with the General Plan and Development Code will increase the amount of structures that could create new sources of glare within the Plan Area and directly adjacent to the Plan Area. These new sources of glare could be from materials used on building façades, parking lots, signs, roadway surfaces, and motor vehicles. As a result, due to the amount of new building square footage
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-9
planned for the Plan Area, new buildings will result in a substantial increase in glare. This increase could result in significant glare impacts.
Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.
The following mitigation measures were included in the MEIR and remain applicable to this project:
Impact 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.
MEIR Mitigation Measure 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.
MEIR Mitigation Measure 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.
MEIR Mitigation Measure 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.
MEIR Mitigation Measure AES-4: Lighting systems for freestanding signs shall not exceed 100 footLamberts (FT-L) when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of less than 2.0 horizontal 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.
Mitigation Measure AES-5: Materials used on building façades shall be non-reflective.
Significance With Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. The increase in sources of light would result in impacts to nighttime sky that could not be mitigated through the implementation of MEIR Mitigation Measures AES-1 through AES-4.
4.1.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
AES-5 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 aesthetics.
The methodology used for the cumulative impact analysis is described in Section 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR. The cumulative setting for aesthetics includes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the immediate vicinity of the Plan Area.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
AESTHETICS
4.1-10 AUGUST 2017
As previously discussed, there are no designated scenic vistas or State-designated scenic highways in the Plan Area or the City of Fresno. As such, there would be no cumulative impacts to scenic vistas or visual resources along scenic highways.
Because of the developed nature of the proposed Plan, future development under the proposed Plan, in combination with other new development, would not negatively impact the visual character of Southwest Fresno.
As discussed above, implementation of the proposed Plan would increase the amount of structures that could create new sources of glare within the Plan Area and directly adjacent to the Plan Area. These new sources of glare could be from materials used on building façades, parking lots, signs, roadway surfaces, and motor vehicles. As a result, due to the amount of new building square footage planned for the Plan Area, new buildings will result in a substantial increase in glare. This increase could result in cumulativelyconsiderable significant glare impacts and illumination of the nighttime sky.
Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.
Impact AES-5: Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an increase in glare.
Mitigation Measure AES-5: Implement Mitigation Measures AES-4a through AES-4e of the MEIR.
Significance With Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. The increase in sources of light would result in impacts to nighttime sky that could not be mitigated through the implementation of MEIR Mitigation Measures AES-4a through AES-4e.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
AGRICULTURE
PLACEWORKS 4.2-1
4.2 AGRICULTURE
This section describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions of the Plan Area related to agricultural resources, and the potential impacts of the proposed Plan on agricultural resources.
4.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.2.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
Farmland Protection Policy Act
The Farmland Protection and Policy Act (FPPA) was designed to minimize the impact federal programs have on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. This act assures that to the extent possible, federal programs are administered to be compatible with state, local units of government, and private programs and policies to protect farmland. Federal agencies are required to develop and review their policies and procedures to implement the FPPA every two years. This act does not authorize the federal government to regulate the use of private or nonfederal land or, in any way, affect the property rights of owners. For the purposes of the act, “farmland” includes prime farmland, unique farmland, and farmland of statewide or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA requirements does not have to be currently used for cropland. It can be forest land, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not water or urban/built-up land.1
State Regulations
Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) allows local governments to enter into voluntary contracts with private landowners to restrict specific parcels of land to agricultural uses. In return, restricted parcel property taxes are assessed at a rate consistent with their actual use rather than potential market value. The minimum length of Williamson Act contracts is ten years. Because the contract term automatically renews on each anniversary date of the contract, the actual contract length is essentially indefinite.
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
Within the California Natural Resources Agency, the State Department of Conservation (CDC) provides services and information that promote informed land use decisions and sound management of the State’s natural resources. The Department manages the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), 1 Natural Resources Conservation Service, Farmland Protection Policy Act.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
AGRICULTURE
4.2-2 AUGUST 2017
which supports agriculture throughout California by developing maps and statistical data for analyzing land use impacts to farmland.
The developed maps are called the Important Farmlands Inventory (IFI). The IFI categorizes land based on the productive capabilities of the land. There are many factors that determine the agricultural value of land, including the suitability of soils for agricultural use, whether soils are irrigated, the depth of soil, water-holding capacity, and physical and chemical characteristics. To categorize soil capabilities, two soil classification systems are used: the Capability Classification System and the Storie Index. The Capability Classification System categorizes soils from Class I to Class VIII based on their capability to produce common cultivated crops and pasture plants without deteriorating over a long period of time (Class I soils have few limitations for agriculture; Class VIII soils are unsuitable for agriculture).2 The Storie Index takes into account other factors, such as slope and texture.
FMMP rates the production potential of agricultural land according to the following classifications:
Prime Farmland has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term agricultural production. Prime Farmland has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agriculture production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. Farmland of Statewide Importance is similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as steeper slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. Unique Farmland consists of lesser quality soils used for the production of the State’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
Farmland of Local Importance is land that is important to the local agricultural economy. It is determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. Grazing Land is the land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. Urban and Built-Up Land is occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel. Common examples include residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures.
Other Land is land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; wetlands and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, and aquaculture facilities; and strip mines. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as other land.
The Rural Land Mapping Project provides more detail on the distribution of various land uses within 2 Natural Resources Conservation Service, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/about/ history/?cid=nrcs143_021436, accessed April 21, 2017.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
AGRICULTURE
PLACEWORKS 4.2-3
the Other Land category in all eight San Joaquin Valley counties. The Rural Land categories include:
Rural Residential Land, Semi-Agricultural and Rural Commercial Land, Vacant or Disturbed Land, Confined Animal Agriculture, and Nonagricultural or Natural Vegetation. Water is used to describe perennial water bodies with an extent of at least 40 acres.
California Government Code Section 56064
This section of the Government Code defines “Prime Agricultural Land” as follows:
Prime agricultural land means an area of land, whether single parcel or contiguous parcels, that has not been developed for a use other than an agricultural use and that meets any of the following qualifications:
Land that qualifies, if irrigated, for rating as class I or class II in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification, whether or not land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible. Land that qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Rating. Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber that has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the USDA in the National Range and Pasture Handbook, Revision 1, December 2003.
Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops that have a nonbearing period of less than five years and that will return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than $400.00 dollars per acre.
Land that has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than $400.00 dollars per acre for three of the previous five calendar years.
Local Regulations
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan contains objectives and policies related to agricultural resources within the City of Fresno (Table 4.2-1).
4.2.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
As shown in Table 5.2-2 of the Fresno General Plan Master EIR, adopted December 2014, the Planning Area of the city contains approximately 9,550 acres of Prime Farmland, and 9,070 acres of Farmland of Local Importance. The Master EIR contemplated the conversion of this farmland to non-agricultural uses, and determined the impact to be significant and unavoidable, as no feasible mitigation measures in
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
AGRICULTURE
4.2-4 AUGUST 2017
addition to Policies RC-9-a, RC-9-b, and RC-8-c under Objective RC-9 are available.3 The Findings of Fact for the General Plan Master EIR state that due to the substantial amount of development that would occur through buildout of the Plan, and since no new farmlands would be created, the implementation of the project would result in a loss of farmland, which is considered significant and unavoidable.4 The City
of Fresno issued a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this and other impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable as a result of implementation of the project. The Statement describes the benefits of the project and determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in the Master EIR may be considered “acceptable” due to several considerations. For example, the project will facilitate reinvestment in existing neighborhoods and commercial areas within the city, and promote land uses that conserve resources and will make efficient use of existing infrastructure.5
The Plan Area is located within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) within the area planned for urbanization, and within the city limit. Therefore, Objective RC-9 and Policies RC-9-a, RC-9-b, and RC-9c (described in Table 4.2-1) do not apply to the proposed Plan. According to FMMP data, 406 acres of Farmland of Local Importance and 744 acres of Prime Farmland are located within the Plan Area, for a total of 1,150 acres. Further, Figure 4.2-1 shows that existing land uses within the Plan Area include areas designated for agricultural use. This use is spread intermittently throughout the Plan Area. Specifically, agricultural use is located in the far northwestern portion of the Plan Area north of Kearney Boulevard, west of Marks Avenue; north of Jensen Avenue, west of Fairview Avenue, south of Church Avenue, and east of West Avenue; and in the far southeastern portion of the 3 Fresno General Plan Master EIR, Section 5.2, Agricultural Resources, Impact AG-1. 4 Findings of Fact, General Plan and Development Code Update Master Environmental Impact Report, City of Fresno, County of Fresno, California, Section 2.2.1, Convert Farmland to Non-Agricultural Use. 5 Resolution of the Council of the City of Fresno certifying environmental impact report SCH no. 2012111015, Exhibit 3, Statement of Overriding Considerations.
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
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
Source: City of Fresno.
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
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
AGRICULTURE
4.2-6 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.2-1 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Objective RC‐9 Preserve agricultural land outside of the area planned for urbanization under this General Plan.
Policy RC‐9‐a Regional Cooperation. Work to establish a cooperative research and planning program with the Counties of Fresno and Madera, City of Clovis, and other public agencies to conserve agricultural land resources.
Policy RC‐9‐b
Land Outside SOI. Express opposition to residential and commercial development proposals in unincorporated areas (excluding County Islands) within or adjacent to the planning area when these proposals would do any of the following:
Make it difficult or infeasible to implement the General Plan; Contribute to the premature conversion of agricultural, open space, or grazing lands; or Constitute a detriment to the management of resources and/or facilities important to the Fresno Metropolitan Area (such as air quality, water quantity and quality, traffic circulation, and riparian habitat).
Policy RC‐9‐c
Farmland Preservation Program. In coordination with regional partners or independently, establish a Farmland Preservation Program. When Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance is converted to urban uses outside City limits, this program would require that the developer of such a project permanently protect an equal amount of similar farmland elsewhere through easement.
Policy HC‐5‐f
Urban Agriculture. Promote a full range of urban agriculture activities, including farmers’ markets, farm stands, community gardens, on‐site garden produce market stands, and urban farms. Support associations involved in these activities, which can be accomplished by a combination of the following:
Amend the Fresno Municipal Code (FMC) to provide clear and concise permitting procedures regarding Community Gardens, On‐site Garden Produce Market Stands, and Urban Farms that allow sale of foods grown locally.
Create a policy for reduced planning entitlements and plan check fees. Make publically available an inventory of City‐owned surplus land that could be used for urban agriculture. Continue to allow and promote community gardens in City‐owned parks. Support the planning of community gardens within walking distance of high‐density residential areas to compensate for the reduced amount of open space in these areas. Emphasize opportunities for urban agriculture in all areas of the city, schools, parks, residential food deserts, and especially in areas of the city with a relatively high proportion of “food insecure” individuals.
Policy HC‐5‐g Commercial Agriculture. Continue to develop policies to allow agriculture on land greater than 50 acres in area.
Plan Area west of Fig Avenue. The City completed an update to its zoning code effective March 7, 2016.
Under existing zoning, there are lands within the Plan Area that are zoned for exclusive 20-acre agricultural use. Those lands are located between Highway 180 and Whites Bridge Avenue, between West Chandler Avenue and Kearney Boulevard, and between Kearney Boulevard and West Church Avenue.
The Healthy Communities Element of the Fresno General Plan includes a goal to provide opportunities for urban agriculture. The City defines urban agriculture as the practice of cultivating, processing, and distributing food in or around a city or town for local consumption. Urban agriculture includes farmers’ markets, farm stands, community gardens, on-site garden produce market stands, and urban farms.6 Specifically, Policy HC-5-f encourages the implementation of small-scale agricultural uses within urban 6 City of Fresno, Healthy Communities Element, 2014.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
AGRICULTURE
PLACEWORKS 4.2-7
areas. Therefore, this policy would apply to the Plan Area. Policy HC-5-g allows commercial agriculture on land greater than 50 acres in area, which would not apply to the Plan Area, as no parcel is greater than 50 acres in size.
According to the FMMP California Important Farmland Finder, there is no Unique Farmland within the Plan Area. However, there are areas of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance scattered throughout the Plan Area. These include parcels located south of California Avenue and east of Fruit Avenue, parcels located northwest of California and West Avenues as well as the MLK Activity Center located at Jensen Avenue and MLK Jr. Boulevard (see Figure 4.2-1).. Just west of the Plan Area, in the SOI, there is Prime Farmland located west of Hughes Avenue. Some of the parcels designated as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance are in use as Open Agriculture, including land at the far western portion of the Plan Area at California and Valentine Avenues, as well as in the central portion of the Plan Area at Fruit and Church Avenues. The parcels at Marks and Kearney Avenue are in use as Rural Residential. The parcel at Walnut and Church Avenues is in use as a Public Facility, partly being prepared for agricultural use. The remaining parcels that contain Prime Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance are not currently under active agricultural use and not considered important on a local level.
The Fresno General Plan, adopted in 2014, depicts existing farmland within the city’s SOI in its Map Atlas.
According to the Atlas’s associated Prime Farmland map, the Plan Area is designated as Urban Developed, Farmland of Local Importance, Prime Farmland, Rural Residential, as well as some Farmland of Local Importance and Unique Farmland. The Fresno General Plan Map Atlas describes some of the area containing the Farmland of Local Importance as Vacant, indicating that there are no active agricultural uses on-site. Other areas, as described above, are designated Open Agriculture, Public Facility and Rural Residential uses.
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey data, the area within the Plan Area that is designated as Farmland of Local Importance contains soils in the Atwater series. The Atwater soils series is used mainly for production of truck crops, grapes, tree fruits, nuts, grain, and alfalfa (USDA 2003). However, no such uses currently occur on these designated areas.
4.2.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed Plan would result in a significant impact to agriculture or forestry resources if it would:
1. 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.
2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
3. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)).
4. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
AGRICULTURE
4.2-8 AUGUST 2017
5. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use.
4.2.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
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 nonagricultural use.
According to the FMMP California Important Farmland Finder, there are areas of “Prime Farmland” and “Farmland of Local Importance” scattered throughout the Plan Area. The remainder of the Plan Area is considered Urban Built-Up Land. As a result, implementation of the proposed Plan would result in the conversion of Prime Farmland to non-agriculture use. As discussed in Section 4.2.1.2, the conversion of Prime Farmland to non-agriculture use was found to be significant and unavoidable, with no mitigation measure available to reduce the impact to less than significant. Therefore, there would be a significant impact related to the conversion of prime or unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance.
Impact 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.
Significance Without Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. Consistent with the findings of the adopted General Plan MEIR, the proposed Plan includes land use changes that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agriculture uses, and no feasible mitigation measures are available.
AG-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
The Fresno General Plan depicts existing farmland within the City’s SOI in the Map Atlas Existing Conditions Report. According to the associated Williamson Act Property map, there are no Williamson Act properties within the Plan Area. Further, the proposed Plan does not contain zoning designations that pertain to agriculture. Thus, no impact to Williamson Act lands would occur.
Existing land use designations within the Plan Area include agriculture. Under the proposed Plan, there are no land use designations that include agriculture, and no areas that would be zoned for agricultural use. However, community gardens are encouraged by the following Policy:
Policy LU-1.1 Increase access to fresh, affordable, and nutritious food sources with an emphasis on attracting and encouraging small and large food retailers such as grocery stores, farmers’ markets, nutrition programs, community gardens, and food stands to provide fresh, affordable, and nutritious foods.
SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
CITY OF FRESNO
AGRICULTURE
PLACEWORKS 4.2-9
Community gardens would accommodate urban agriculture in a variety of physical contexts and provide areas for garden plots available to the general public for the cultivation of vegetables, fruit, and flowers.
Because the areas under existing agricultural zoning are not currently under active agricultural production and are located in an urban/residential setting that is designated for urban/residential development under the Fresno General Plan, and because the proposed Plan would promote urban agriculture, as feasible, including community gardens, impacts associated with agricultural zoning conflicts are considered less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
AG-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use.
As discussed above under Impact AG-1, future development under the proposed Plan would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Except for direct conversion, the implementation of the Plan would not result in other changes in the existing environment that would impact agricultural land outside of the Plan Area. In addition, the development in accordance with the proposed Plan would not impact forest land, as discussed in Chapter 2, Executive Summary. Therefore, the proposed Plan would result in no impact on farmland or forest land involving other changes to the existing environment.