Exhibit N-4 – Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Certification (Resolution 2017-299) — Fresno City Council, March 21, 2024 (part 4 of 14)

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Potentially significant.

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

HAZ-4 The proposed Plan would be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

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

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

Impact HAZ-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan would occur on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a potentially significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Significance Without Mitigation: Potentially significant.

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

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

The City’s Police and Fire Departments are the lead agencies for all local emergency response efforts. The City’s full-time Emergency Preparedness Officer (EPO) is responsible for ensuring that Fresno’s emergency response plans are up to date and implemented properly. The EPO also facilitates cooperation between City departments and other local, State, and federal agencies that would be involved in emergency response operations.
17 Development of the Plan Area would increase the development of residential, office, retail, , and open conservation land uses within the Plan Area. Because of the nature of the types of land uses proposed under the proposed Plan, it is not anticipated that the Plan will impair implementation nor physically interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans of the City of Fresno.

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

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

Although portions of the city are close to high and very high fire hazard designated areas, the city is largely categorized as little or no threat or moderate fire hazard, which is largely attributed to paved areas.

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: No Impact.

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

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

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-1

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

4.9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOCKERY

DEL REYINDIANOLABETHELGREENWOODACADEMYMENDOCINOMADSENNEWMARKZEDIKERRIVERBENDSMITHMAC DONOUGH RNDON
RRA
LLARD
RSTOW
AW

TTYSBURG
HLAN
KOTA
ELDS
NTON
KINLEY
VE
MONT
LSEN

TESBRIDGE

ARNEY BLVD

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

ERNATIONAL
PPER
ERICAN
C-11

GARFIELD
C-12

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

CORNELIA
C-17
BLYTHE
C-18

BRAWLEY
C-19

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

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

MINNEWAWA
C-36
CLOVIS
C-37

SUNNYSIDE
C-38
FOWLER
C-39

ARMSTRONG
C-40

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

LEONARD
C-44

HIGHLAND
C-45

THOMPSON
C-46

MC CALL
C-47

DOCKERY
C-48

DEL REY
C-49

INDIANOLA
C-50
BETHEL
C-51

GREENWOOD
C-52

ACADEMY
C-53

MENDOCINO
C-54
MADSEN
C-55

NEWMARK
C-56

ZEDIKER
C-57

RIVERBEND
C-58
SMITH
C-59

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

HERNDON
SIERRA

BULLARD

BARSTOW
SHAW

GETTYSBURG
ASHLAN
DAKOTA

SHIELDS

CLINTON

MC KINLEY
OLIVE

BELMONT
TULARE

KINGS CANYON
BUTLER

CALIFORNIA
CHURCH
JENSEN

ANNADALE
NORTH
MUSCAT

CENTRAL
MALAGA

ALLUVIAL
NEES
TEAGUE

SHEPHERD
PERRIN

BEHYMER

INTERNATIONAL
COPPER

HERNDON
SIERRA

BULLARD

BARSTOW
SHAW

GETTYSBURG
ASHLAN
DAKOTA

SHIELDS

CLINTON

MC KINLEY
OLIVE

BELMONT

NIELSEN

WHITESBRIDGE

KEARNEY BLVD

CALIFORNIA
CHURCH
JENSEN

ANNADALE
NORTH
MUSCAT

CENTRAL
MALAGA

ALLUVIAL
NEES
TEAGUE

SHEPHERD
PERRIN

BEHYMER

INTERNATIONAL
COPPER

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

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

NORTH CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK

KINGS RIVER
VERNON
GREY'S
CLOVIS
TRIB #1

FANCHER
TRIB #4

FANCHER
TRIB #3
TRIB #2
TRIB #5

REDBANK

REDBANK
TRIB #3

REDBANK

REDBANK
TR BI #2

FANCHER
TRIB #4

REDBANK

FANCHER

FANCHER
TRIB #2
TRIB #3
TRIB #1

REDBANK
TRIB #1

CHANNEL
TRIB #1
TRIB #2
TRIB #21

ALLUVIAL
RIVER

JOAQUIN
SAN
CANAL
CREEK
DOG
KERN
FRIANT
CANAL

ENTERPRISE
CREEK

REDBANK

CREEKFANCHER

DRY CREEK CANAL

CENTRAL CANAL

FRESNO COLONY

CENTRAL CANAL

HOUGHTON CANAL
GOULD
CANAL

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

BIG DRY CREEK

RESERVOIR

FANCHER CREEK

RESERVOIR

REDBANK

RESERVOIR

REDBANK
BASIN

FANCHER CREEK
BASIN

ALLUVIAL DRAIN
BASIN

PUP CREEK
BASIN

DRY CREEK

EXTENSION BASIN

PUP CREEK ENTERPRISE

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

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
FRESNO

WOODWARD
PARK

FRESNO - YOSEMITE

INTERNATIONAL

ROEDING
PARK

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

DOCKERY

DEL REYINDIANOLABETHELGREENWOODACADEMYMENDOCINOMADSENNEWMARKZEDIKERRIVERBENDSMITHMAC DONOUGH RNDON
RRA
LLARD
RSTOW
AW

TTYSBURG
HLAN
KOTA
ELDS
NTON
KINLEY
VE
MONT
LSEN

TESBRIDGE

ARNEY BLVD

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

ERNATIONAL
PPER
ERICAN
C-11

GARFIELD
C-12

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

CORNELIA
C-17
BLYTHE
C-18

BRAWLEY
C-19

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

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

MINNEWAWA
C-36
CLOVIS
C-37

SUNNYSIDE
C-38
FOWLER
C-39

ARMSTRONG
C-40

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

LEONARD
C-44

HIGHLAND
C-45

THOMPSON
C-46

MC CALL
C-47

DOCKERY
C-48

DEL REY
C-49

INDIANOLA
C-50
BETHEL
C-51

GREENWOOD
C-52

ACADEMY
C-53

MENDOCINO
C-54
MADSEN
C-55

NEWMARK
C-56

ZEDIKER
C-57

RIVERBEND
C-58
SMITH
C-59

HERNDON
SIERRA

BULLARD

BARSTOW
SHAW

GETTYSBURG
ASHLAN
DAKOTA

SHIELDS

CLINTON

MC KINLEY
OLIVE

BELMONT
TULARE

KINGS CANYON
BUTLER

CALIFORNIA
CHURCH
JENSEN

ANNADALE
NORTH
MUSCAT

CENTRAL
MALAGA

ALLUVIAL
NEES
TEAGUE

SHEPHERD
PERRIN

BEHYMER

INTERNATIONAL
COPPER

HERNDON
SIERRA

BULLARD

BARSTOW
SHAW

GETTYSBURG
ASHLAN
DAKOTA

SHIELDS

CLINTON

MC KINLEY
OLIVE

BELMONT

NIELSEN

WHITESBRIDGE

KEARNEY BLVD

CALIFORNIA
CHURCH
JENSEN

ANNADALE
NORTH
MUSCAT

CENTRAL
MALAGA

ALLUVIAL
NEES
TEAGUE

SHEPHERD
PERRIN

BEHYMER

INTERNATIONAL
COPPER

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

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

NORTH CREEK
CREEK
CREEK
CREEK

KINGS RIVER
VERNON
GREY'S
CLOVIS
TRIB #1

FANCHER
TRIB #4

FANCHER
TRIB #3
TRIB #2
TRIB #5

REDBANK

REDBANK
TRIB #3

REDBANK

REDBANK
TR BI #2

FANCHER
TRIB #4

REDBANK

FANCHER

FANCHER
TRIB #2
TRIB #3
TRIB #1

REDBANK
TRIB #1

CHANNEL
TRIB #1
TRIB #2
TRIB #21

ALLUVIAL
RIVER

JOAQUIN
SAN
CANAL
CREEK
DOG
KERN
FRIANT
CANAL

ENTERPRISE
CREEK

REDBANK

CREEKFANCHER

DRY CREEK CANAL

CENTRAL CANAL

FRESNO COLONY

CENTRAL CANAL

HOUGHTON CANAL
GOULD
CANAL

BIG DRY CREEK

RESERVOIR

FANCHER CREEK

RESERVOIR

REDBANK

RESERVOIR

REDBANK
BASIN

FANCHER CREEK
BASIN

ALLUVIAL DRAIN
BASIN

PUP CREEK
BASIN

DRY CREEK

EXTENSION BASIN

PUP CREEK ENTERPRISE

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
FRESNO

WOODWARD
PARK

FRESNO - YOSEMITE

INTERNATIONAL

ROEDING
PARK

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

L E G E N D

PROPOSED PIPELINES
BQ

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY

CHANNELS AND CANALS

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

DRAINAGE AREA DESIGNATION

EXISTING PIPELINES

AG USE FEE EXEMPTION

PROPOSED BASIN FACILITY

CITY SPHERE

NON-PLANNED AREAS

ACQUIRED BASIN FACILITY

LANDSCAPED BASIN FACILITY

STORM DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL MASTER PLAN

FRESNO METROPOLITAN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT

FRESNO COUNTY CALIFORNIA
C-32

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

MINNEWAWA
C-36
CLOVIS
C-37

SUNNYSIDE
C-38
FOWLER
C-39

ARMSTRONG
C-40

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

LEONARD
C-44

HIGHLAND
C-45

THOMPSON
C-46

MC CALL
C-47

DOCKERY
C-48

DEL REY
C-49

INDIANOLA
C-50
BETHEL
C-51

GREENWOOD
C-52

ACADEMY
C-53

MENDOCINO
C-54
MADSEN
C-55

NEWMARK
C-56

ZEDIKER
C-57

RIVERBEND
C-58
SMITH
C-59

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

BULLARD

BARSTOW
SHAW

GETTYSBURG
ASHLAN
DAKOTA

SHIELDS

CLINTON

MC KINLEY
OLIVE

BELMONT
TULARE

KINGS CANYON
BUTLER

CALIFORNIA
CHURCH
JENSEN

ANNADALE
NORTH
MUSCAT

CENTRAL
MALAGA

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

KINGS RIVER
VERNON
GREY'S
CLOVIS
TRIB #1

FANCHER
TRIB #4

FANCHER
TRIB #3
TRIB #2
FANCHE

REDBANK

FANCHER

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

ENTERPRISE
CREEK

REDBANK

CREEKFANCHER
GOULD
CANAL

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

REDBANK

RESERVOIR

REDBANK
BASIN

FANCHER CREEK
BASIN

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

NIA STATE UNIVERSITY
FRESNO

FRESNO - YOSEMITE

INTERNATIONAL

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

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

MINNEWAWA
C-36
CLOVIS
C-37

SUNNYSIDE
C-38
FOWLER
C-39

ARMSTRONG
C-40

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

LEONARD
C-44

HIGHLAND
C-45

THOMPSON
C-46

MC CALL
C-47

DOCKERY
C-48

DEL REY
C-49

INDIANOLA
C-50
BETHEL
C-51

GREENWOOD
C-52

ACADEMY
C-53

MENDOCINO
C-54
MADSEN
C-55

NEWMARK
C-56

ZEDIKER
C-57

RIVERBEND
C-58
SMITH
C-59

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

BULLARD

BARSTOW
SHAW

GETTYSBURG
ASHLAN
DAKOTA

SHIELDS

CLINTON

MC KINLEY
OLIVE

BELMONT
TULARE

KINGS CANYON
BUTLER

CALIFORNIA
CHURCH
JENSEN

ANNADALE
NORTH
MUSCAT

CENTRAL
MALAGA

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

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

KINGS RIVER
VERNON
GREY'S
CLOVIS
TRIB #1

FANCHER
TRIB #4

FANCHER
TRIB #3
TRIB #2
FANCHE

REDBANK

FANCHER

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

ENTERPRISE
CREEK

REDBANK

CREEKFANCHER
GOULD
CANAL

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

REDBANK

RESERVOIR

REDBANK
BASIN

FANCHER CREEK
BASIN

NIA STATE UNIVERSITY
FRESNO

FRESNO - YOSEMITE

INTERNATIONAL

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

L E G E N D

PROPOSED PIPELINES
BQ

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY

CHANNELS AND CANALS

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

DRAINAGE AREA DESIGNATION

EXISTING PIPELINES

AG USE FEE EXEMPTION

PROPOSED BASIN FACILITY

CITY SPHERE

NON-PLANNED AREAS

ACQUIRED BASIN FACILITY

LANDSCAPED BASIN FACILITY

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

PLACEWORKS

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

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

PLACEWORKS

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: CASQA 2003.

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

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

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

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

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

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

PLACEWORKS

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three dams control flows on the two rivers. The Friant and Mendota Dams, on the San Joaquin River, are reservoirs for municipal and agricultural irrigation supply and provide some flood control. The Friant Dam is about 19 miles north of the Plan Area, upstream from the Plan Area; while the Mendota Dam is approximately 31 miles west and downstream from the Plan Area. Millerton Lake is impounded behind Friant Dam. The Pine Flat Dam is a flood control dam on the Kings River about 28 miles east, and upstream, from the Plan Area.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

Madera
Clovis
Fresno
Sanger
Reed
Selma
0 2.5 5 10
Miles

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

Figure 4.9-4
Kings Groundwater Subbasin

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

PLACEWORKS

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-22 AUGUST 2017

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

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

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

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

6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: less than significant.

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

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

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

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

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

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

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

There is no tsunami flood hazard within the Plan Area.

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-1

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

4.10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Physically divide an established community.

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consistent. Goal LU-3 of the proposed Plan seeks to create a diversity of new complete neighborhoods that are safe, healthy, self-sufficient, walkable, and interconnected ,and strengthen existing neighborhoods so that they become a complete neighborhood.

D‐3. Create unified plans for Green Streets, using distinctive features reflecting Fresno’s landscape heritage.

Consistent. The proposed Plan includes development and design standards for the creation of green streets.

D‐4. Preserve and strengthen Fresno’s overall image through design review and create a safe, walkable and attractive urban environment for the current and future generations of residents.

Consistent. The proposed Plan seeks to create a diversity of new complete neighborhoods that are safe, healthy, self-sufficient, walkable, and interconnected, and strengthen existing neighborhoods so that they become a complete neighborhood. All future development within the Plan Area will be required to comply with the design regulations and policies of the proposed Plan and the Development Code.

D‐5. Maintain and improve community appearance through programs that prevent and abate blighting influences
Consistent. Goal LU-4 of the proposed Plan includes remediation of Southwest Fresno’s blighting conditions to improve the community’s image, attract private investment, and create a pleasant living environment.

D‐6. Encourage design that celebrates and supports the cultural and ethnic diversity of Fresno.

Consistent. The proposed Plan encourages design that celebrates and supports the cultural and ethnic diversity of Fresno.

D‐7. Continue applying local urban form, land use, and design policies to specific neighborhoods and locations.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-7
TABLE 4.10-1 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Element General Plan Objective Consistency Summary
proposed Plan and the Development Code
Mobility and
Transportation
MT‐1. Create and maintain a transportation system that is safe, efficient, provides access in an equitable manner, and optimizes travel by all modes.

Consistent. Goal T-6 of the proposed Plan seeks to develop the Southwest Fresno transit network into a viable transportation alternative to singleoccupancy vehicles, and provide equitable transit options to all residents.

MT‐2. Make efficient use of the City’s existing and proposed transportation system and strive to ensure the planning and provision of adequate resources to operate and maintain it.

Consistent. Goals T-6 and T-7 of the proposed Plan seek to make efficient use of the City’s existing transportation system and well as capitalizing on proposed improvements, such as Downtown’s proximity to the future High‐ Speed Rail Station.

MT‐4. Establish and maintain a continuous, safe, and easily accessible bikeways system throughout the metropolitan area to reduce vehicle use, improve air quality and the quality of life, and provide public health benefits.

Consistent. Goal T-8 of the proposed Plan seeks to invest in developing, improving, and maintaining a roadway network that provides safety and adequate capacity for automobiles and for walking, bicycling, and transit mobility. In addition, the plan includes a bicycle network that was adopted as part of the Active Transportation Plan
MT‐5. Establish a well‐integrated network of pedestrian facilities to accommodate safe, convenient, practical, and inviting travel by walking, including for those with physical mobility and vision impairments.

MT‐6. Establish a network of multi‐purpose pedestrian and bicycle paths, as well as limited access trails, to link residential areas to local and regional open spaces and recreation areas and urban Activity Centers in order to enhance Fresno’s recreational amenities and alternative transportation options.

Consistent. Goal T-5 of the proposed Plan seeks to create a separated, scenic, and well-connected multi-use trails network that provides Southwest Fresnans convenient access to nature and active recreational opportunities.

MT‐10. Establish parking standards that are strategically tuned to support neighborhoods, shopping districts and employment centers that have a complete range of transportation choices.

Consistent. Policy LU-9.2 of the proposed Plan seeks to encourage parking to be consolidated into parking structures, discourage large areas to be dominated by surface parking visible from the street, and screen parking lots with buildings and/or vegetation and tree planning.

Parks, Open Space,
and Schools
POSS‐1. Provide an expanded, high quality and diversified park system, allowing for varied recreational opportunities for the entire Fresno community.

Consistent. Goal PF-2 of the proposed Plan seeks to increase the overall amount of usable parkland within Southwest Fresno allowing varied recreational opportunities for the entire Southwest Fresno community.

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

Consistent. Goal PF-2 of the proposed Plan seeks to increase the overall amount of usable parkland within Southwest Fresno, allowing varied recreational opportunities for the entire Southwest Fresno community. This includes joint‐use agreements to provide a wider range of recreation programs and maximize the efficient use, maintenance, and supervision of public facilities. Expanding access to these facilities can increase the amount of park land available to residents while utilizing existing facilities. Further, the

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.10-8 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.10-1 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Element General Plan Objective Consistency Summary
proposed Plan calls for 78 new acres of parkland, ensuring that both existing and new residents are able to access a park within 1.2 mile of their residence.

POSS‐8. Work cooperatively with school districts to find appropriate locations for schools to meet the needs of students and neighborhoods.

Consistent. Goal PF-5 of the proposed Plan seeks to ensure that the amount of existing and new schools within the Plan Area adequately supports the number of existing and new residents. Further, impacts to schools were evaluated by this Draft EIR and determined to be less than significant. Refer to Section 4.13, Public Services, for further discussion.

Public Utilities
and Services
PU‐1. Provide the level of law enforcement and crime prevention services necessary to maintain a safe, secure, and stable urban living environment through a Police Department that is dedicated to providing professional, ethical, efficient and innovative service with integrity, consistency and pride.

Consistent. Impacts to law enforcement and crime prevention services are evaluated in this Draft EIR and determined to be less than significant with mitigation. Refer to Section 4.13, Public Services, for further discussion.

PU‐2. Ensure that the Fire Department’s staffing and equipment resources are sufficient to meet all fire and emergency service level objectives and are provided in an efficient and cost effective manner.

Consistent. Impacts to fire protection services are evaluated in this Draft EIR and determined to be less than significant with mitigation. Refer to Section

4.13, Public Services, for further discussion.

PU‐4. Ensure provision of adequate trunk sewer and collector main capacities to serve existing and planned urban development, consistent with the Wastewater Master Plan.

Consistent. Policy U-1.3 of the proposed Plan requires developers to build or contribute towards the design and construction of expanded and upgraded utilities to serve new development projects, including sewer collection systems. Further, impacts to trunk sewer capacity were evaluated by this Draft EIR and determined to be less than significant. Refer to Section 4.15, Utilities, for further discussion.

PU‐6. Ensure the provision of adequate sewage treatment and disposal by utilizing the Fresno‐Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility as the primary facility, when economically feasible, for all existing and new development within the Metropolitan Area.

Consistent. Policy U-1.5 of the proposed Plan requires all existing and new development within the Plan Area to provide adequate sewage treatment and disposal by utilizing the City of Fresno’s regional wastewater treatment plant. Further, impacts to sewage treatment and disposal were evaluated by this Draft EIR and determined to be less than significant. Refer to Section

4.15, Utilities, for further discussion.

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

4.15, Utilities, for further discussion.

PU‐9. Provide adequate solid waste facilities and services for the collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal of refuse.

Consistent. Impacts to solid waste facilities were evaluated by this Draft EIR and determined to be less than significant. Refer to Section 4.15, Utilities, for further discussion.

Historic and HCR‐2. Identify and preserve Fresno’s historic and cultural resources that Consistent. Policy LU-2.4 of the proposed Plan encourages preservation of

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-9
TABLE 4.10-1 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Element General Plan Objective Consistency Summary
Cultural Resources reflect important cultural, social, economic, and architectural features so that residents will have a foundation upon which to measure and direct physical change.

Kearney Boulevard to support a Historic Corridor, including preserving its scenic quality. Refer to Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, for further discussion of historic and cultural resources.

Noise and Safety
NS‐1. Protect the citizens of the City from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise.

Consistent. This Draft EIR evaluates potential noise impacts and sets forth mitigation measures to ensure that sensitive receptors (such as residential uses) are not exposed to excessive noise levels. Refer to Section 4.11, Noise, for further discussion.

NS‐2. Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic risks.

Consistent. This Draft EIR evaluates potential impacts related to geologic and seismic hazards. Refer to Section 4.6, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, for further discussion.

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

Consistent. This Draft EIR requires construction stormwater quality control measures to prevent flooding due to stormwater runoff. Refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, for further discussion,
NS‐4. Minimize the risk of loss of life, injury, serious illness, and damage to property resulting from the use, transport, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes.

Consistent. Policy LU-8.6 of the proposed Plan restricts residential development on or near toxic and/or hazardous sites without proper evaluation and mitigation as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Healthy
Communities
HC‐1. Work with neighborhood associations of local residents, businesses, and institutions on neighborhood and community health initiatives.

Consistent. Goal LU-8 of the proposed Plan seeks to protect the health and wellness of Southwest Fresno residents through regulating and reducing the negative impacts of industrial businesses and other sources of pollution, including collaboration with other organizations on health initiatives.

HC‐2. Create complete, well‐structured, and healthy neighborhoods and transportation systems.

Consistent. Goal LU-3 of the proposed Plan seeks to create a diversity of new complete neighborhoods that are safe, healthy, self-sufficient, walkable, and interconnected and strengthen existing neighborhoods so that they become a complete neighborhood.

HC‐3. Create healthy, safe, and affordable housing. Consistent. Policy LU-5.3 of the proposed Plan encourages new affordable single-family housing through the provision of smaller housing types on smaller lots.

HC‐5. Promote access to healthy and affordable food. Consistent. Policy LU-6.3 of the proposed Plan encourages increasing access to fresh, affordable, and nutritious food sources with an emphasis on attracting and encouraging small and large food retailers such as grocery stores, farmers’ markets, nutrition programs, community gardens, and food stands to provide fresh, affordable, and nutritious foods.

Source: City of Fresno, General Plan, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.10-10 AUGUST 2017
LU-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, the Plan Area overlaps with areas that are covered by Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E’s) San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
1 The HCP covers PG&E’s routine operations and
maintenance activities, as well as minor new construction, on any PG&E gas and electrical transmission and distribution facilities, easements, private access routes, or lands owned by PG&E. The proposed Plan would not be expected to conflict or interfere with the HCP activities. The proposed Plan, however, would likely result in a need for PG&E gas and electrical transmission and distribution facilities to support new residential and industrial land uses not covered by the HCP, but these activities in the Plan Area would be addressed by General Plan Policies POSS-5-a through POSS-5-f, and both the General Plan and specific plan mitigation measures described in Section 4.4 of this Draft EIR.

The proposed Plan is also located in the planning area of the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, which addresses recovery needs and goals for the San Joaquin kit fox, among other species. Project-level implementation of the General Plan Policies POSS-5-a through POSS-5-f and Mitigation Measures BIO-1 to BIO-3, and Specific Plan Mitigation Measure BIO-1.3, will reduce potential project impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox and other wildlife covered by the Recovery Plan and their associated habitat, and require consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), if take of federally-listed species would occur. Thus, with implementation of these measures, the proposed Plan would not be expected to conflict with the goals of the Recovery Plan.

There are no other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans that would conflict with the proposed Plan. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.10.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
LU-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to land use and planning.

As discussed in Impact LU-1, the proposed Plan would not physically divide an established community.

Considering that the proposed Plan is anticipated to create a vibrant mixed use district and the Policies contained in the proposed Plan would serve to minimize impacts on adjacent communities, the proposed Plan is not expected to contribute to any cumulative division of an established community. 1 Jones & Stokes, 2006. Pacific Gas & Electric Company San Joaquin Valley Operations and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (includes updated Chapter 4 and Tables 5-3, 5-4 and 5-5, December 2007), Sacramento, CA.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.10-11
As demonstrated in Impact LU-2, the proposed Plan is consistent with Fresno’s General Plan and thus would not contribute to cumulative impacts on land use policies and regulations.

Impact LU-3 states that implementation of the proposed Plan would not conflict with an HCP or the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley Area due to implementation of General Plan policies and mitigation measures proposed in this Draft EIR.

Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant cumulative impact with regard to land use and planning as a result of implementing the proposed Plan.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.10-12 AUGUST 2017

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-1

4.11 NOISE
This section discusses the fundamentals of sound and vibration; describes the existing noise and vibration settings/conditions; examines federal, State, and local noise guidelines, policies, and standards; reviews noise levels at existing receptor locations; evaluates potential noise impacts associated with the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan (proposed Plan); and provides mitigation to reduce noise impacts at sensitive residential locations. This evaluation uses procedures and methodologies as specified by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the proposed Plan to result in noise impacts in the Plan Area.

4.11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

4.11.1.1 TECHNICAL TERMINOLOGY
Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.” The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this chapter:
 Sound. A vibratory disturbance that, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone.  Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.  Hertz (Hz). A unit of frequency of change in state or cycle in a sound wave. The nearly universal usage is one (complete) cycle in one second. The unit ‘Hertz’, named after the German physicist Heinrich Hertz (1857-1894) replaces the previous ‘cycles per second (cps)’ nomenclature.  Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale, which indicates the squared ratio of sound pressure amplitude to a reference sound pressure amplitude. The reference pressure is 20 micropascals (20 µPa).
 Vibration Decibel (VdB). A unitless measure of vibration, expressed on a logarithmic scale and with respect to a defined reference vibration velocity. In the U.S., the standard reference velocity is 1 micro-inch per second (1x10-6 in/sec).
 A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels which approximates the frequency response of the human ear.
 Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq); also called the Energy-Equivalent Noise Level. The value of an equivalent, steady sound level which, in a stated time period (often over an hour) and at a stated location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound. Thus, the Leq metric is a single numerical value that represents the equivalent amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor over the specified duration.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-2 AUGUST 2017
 Statistical Sound Level (Ln). The sound level that is exceeded “n” percent of time during a given sample period. For example, the L50 level is the statistical indicator of the time-varying noise signal that is exceeded 50 percent of the time (during each sampling period); that is, half of the sampling time, the changing noise levels are above this value and half of the time they are below it. This is called the “median sound level.” The L10 level, likewise, is the value that is exceeded 10 percent of the time (i.e., near the maximum) and this is often known as the “intrusive sound level.” The L90 is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is often considered the “effective background level” or “residual noise level.”
 Day-Night Level (Ldn or DNL). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. For general community/environmental noise, CNEL and Ldn values rarely differ by more than 1 dB. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are interchangeable and are treated as being equivalent in this assessment.  Sensitive Receptor. Noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors include land uses where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment and public health and safety. Residences, schools, motels and hotels, libraries, religious institutions, hospitals, and nursing homes are examples.

4.11.1.2 FUNDAMENTALS OF SOUND
When an object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy in the form of a pressure wave. Sound is that pressure wave transmitted through the air. Technically, airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation or oscillation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure that creates sound waves. Sound is described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in dB), frequency or pitch (measured in Hertz [Hz] or cycles per second), and duration or time variations (measured in seconds or minutes).

Amplitude
The range of pressures that causes airborne vibrations (i.e., sound) is quite large and would be cumbersome to measure lineally. Therefore, noise is measured on a logarithmic scale, which has a more manageable range of numbers, and a decibel is the standard unit for measuring sound pressure amplitude.1 All noise levels in this study—reported in terms of dB—are relative to the industry-standard reference sound pressure of 20 micropascals.

On a logarithmic scale, an increase of 10 dB is 10 times more intense than 1 dB, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 1 The commonly held threshold of audibility is 20 micropascals, and the threshold of pain is around 200 million micropascals, a ratio of one to 10 million. By converting these pressures to a logarithmic scale (i.e., decibels), the range becomes a more convenient 0 dB to 140 dB.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-3
10 times greater than 0 dB. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Changes of 1 to 3 dB are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions, and changes of less than 1 dB are usually not discernible (even under ideal conditions). A 3 dB change in noise levels is considered the minimum change that is detectable with human hearing in outside environments. A change of 5 dB is readily discernible to most people in an exterior environment, and a 10 dB change is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the sound. These relationships are summarized in Table 4.11-1.

TABLE 4.11-1 NOISE PERCEPTIBILITY
± 3 dB Threshold of human perceptibility
± 5 dB Clearly noticeable change in noise level
± 10 dB Half or twice as loud
± 20 dB Much quieter or louder
Source: Bies, David A. and Colin H. Hansen. 2009. Engineering Noise Control: Theory and Practice. 4th edition. New York: Spoon Press.

Frequency
The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all, but are “felt” more as a vibration. Similarly, though people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz.

When describing sound and its effect on a human population, A-weighted (dBA) sound levels are typically used to approximate the response of the human ear. The term "A-weighted" refers to a filtering of the noise signal in a manner corresponding to the way the human ear perceives sound. The A-weighted noise level has been found to correlate well with people’s judgments of the “noisiness” of different sounds and has been used for many years as a measure of community and industrial noise.

Since most people do not routinely work with decibels or A-weighted sound levels, it is often difficult to appreciate what a given sound pressure level number means. To help relate noise level values to common experience, Table 4.11-2 shows typical noise levels from common noise sources.

Although the A-weighted scale and the energy-equivalent metric are commonly used to quantify the range of human response to individual events or general community sound levels, the degree of annoyance or other response also depends on several other perceptibility factors, including:
 Ambient (background) sound level.
 General nature of the existing conditions (e.g., quiet rural or busy urban).  Difference between the magnitude of the sound event level and the ambient condition.  Duration of the sound event.
 Number of event occurrences and their repetitiveness.  Time of day that the event occurs.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-4 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.11-2 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
Onset of physical discomfort 120+
110 Rock Band (near amplification system)
Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet
100
Gas Lawn Mower at three feet
90 Diesel Truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet
Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet
Commercial Area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60
Large Business Office
Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime
30 Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) 20 Extremely Remote Area Broadcast/Recording Studio
10 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2009. Technical Noise Supplement (“TeNS”). Prepared by ICF International, November.

Temporal Effects
Time variation in noise exposure is typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called Leq), or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. For example, the L50 noise level represents the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time; half the time the noise level

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-5
exceeds this level and half the time the noise level is less than this level. This level is also representative of the level that is exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L2, L8, and L25 values represent the noise levels that are exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour, respectively.

These “n” values are typically used to demonstrate compliance for stationary noise sources with many cities’ noise ordinances. Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the Lmin and Lmax. These values represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over the measurement period, respectively.

Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, state law and many local jurisdictions use an adjusted 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn). The CNEL descriptor requires that an artificial increment (or “penalty”) of 5 dBA be added to the actual noise level for the hours from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 10 dBA for the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The Ldn descriptor uses the same methodology except that there is no artificial increment added to the hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Both descriptors give roughly the same 24-hour level, with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive (i.e., higher). The CNEL or Ldn metrics are commonly applied to the assessment of roadway and airport-related noise sources.

Propagation
Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. This phenomenon is known as “spreading loss.” For a single-point source, sound levels decrease by approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source (conservatively neglecting ground attenuation effects, air absorption factors, and barrier shielding). For example, if a backhoe at 50 feet generates 84 dBA, at 100 feet the noise level would be 79 dBA, and at 200 feet it would be 73 dBA. This drop-off rate is conservative and is appropriate for noise generated by onsite operations from stationary equipment/activities at a project site. This approach is commonly used for construction equipment noise evaluations. For more detailed assessments, if ground-level absorptive vegetation or other “soft site” conditions are considered, the distance attenuation (drop-off) rate would be increased by 1.5 dB per distance doubling; for a total of 7.5 dB per propagation distance doubling.

If noise is produced by a line source, such as highway traffic, the sound decreases by 3 dB for each doubling of distance over a reflective (“hard site”) surface such as concrete or asphalt. Line source noise in a relatively flat environment with ground-level absorptive vegetation decreases by 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance.

Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA.

Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system. Extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage, which is the main driver for employee hearing protection regulations in the workplace. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, an unpleasant ‘tickling’ sensation occurs in the human ear; even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-6 AUGUST 2017
sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear. This is called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 160 to 165 dBA will result in dizziness or loss of equilibrium. In comparison, for community environments, the ambient or background noise problem is widespread, though generally worse in urban areas than in outlying, less-developed areas. Elevated ambient noise levels can result in noise interference (e.g., speech interruption/masking, sleep disturbance, disturbance of concentration) and cause annoyance.

Loud noise can be annoying and it can have negative health effects. 2,3,4
The effects of noise on people can
be listed in three general categories:
 Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction.  Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning.  Physiological effects such as startling and hearing loss (both temporary and permanent).

In most cases, environmental noise produces effects in the first two categories only. However, unprotected workers in some industrial work settings may experience noise effects in the last category.

4.11.1.3 FUNDAMENTALS OF VIBRATION
Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration is normally associated with activities stemming from operations of railroads or vibration-intensive stationary sources, but can also be associated with construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers.

Like noise, vibration is transmitted in waves, but through the earth or solid objects. Unlike noise, vibration is typically of a frequency that is felt rather than heard. Vibration can be either natural as in the form of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides, or man-made as from explosions, the action of heavy machinery or heavy vehicles such as trains. Both natural and man-made vibration may be continuous such as from operating machinery, or transient as from an explosion. As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude may be characterized in three ways:
displacement, velocity, and acceleration.

Vibration displacement is the distance that a point on a surface moves away from its original static position. The instantaneous speed that a point on a surface moves is the velocity, and the rate of change of the speed is the acceleration. Each of these descriptors can be used to correlate vibration to human response, building damage, and acceptable equipment vibration levels. During construction, the operation of construction equipment can cause groundborne vibration. During the operational phase of a project, receptors may be subject to levels of vibration that can cause annoyance due to noise generated from vibration of a structure or items within a structure. 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1978. Protective Noise Levels, November. EPA 550/9-79-100. (Condensed version of 1971 and 1974 documents.) 3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, March. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control. 4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, December. Prepared by Bolt Beranek and Newman (Cambridge, MA) for the U.S. EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Washington, D.C.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-7
Vibration amplitudes are usually described in terms of either the peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity. PPV is the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal, and RMS is the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. PPV is more appropriate for evaluating potential building damage, and RMS is typically more suitable for evaluating human response.

The units for PPV and RMS velocity are normally inches per second (in/sec). However, vibration is often presented and discussed in dB units in order to compress the range of numbers (in a similar fashion as for sound energy). In this study, PPV and RMS velocities are in in/sec, and vibration levels are in dB relative to 1 micro-inch per second (abbreviated as VdB). Typically, groundborne vibration generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Man-made vibration problems are therefore usually confined to relatively short distances from the source (500 to 600 feet or less).

Vibrations also vary in frequency and this affects perception. Typical construction vibrations fall in the 10 to 30 Hz range and usually occur around 15 Hz. Traffic vibrations exhibit a similar range of frequencies; however, due to their suspension systems, buses often generate frequencies around 3 Hz at high vehicle speeds. It is less common, but possible, to measure traffic frequencies above 30 Hz.

The way in which vibration is transmitted through the earth is called propagation. Propagation of groundborne vibrations is complicated and difficult to predict because of the endless variations in the soil and rock through which waves travel. There are three main types of vibration propagation: surface, compression and shear waves. Surface waves, or Raleigh waves, travel along the ground’s surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wave front, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water. Compression waves, or P-waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a “push-pull” fashion). P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. Shear waves, or S-waves, are also body waves that carry energy along an expanding spherical wave front. However, unlike P-waves, the particle motion is transverse or “side-to-side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation.” As vibration waves propagate from a source, the energy is spread over an ever-increasing area such that the energy level striking a given point is reduced with the distance from the energy source. This geometric spreading loss is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Wave energy is also reduced with distance as a result of material damping in the form of internal friction, soil layering, and void spaces. The amount of attenuation provided by material damping varies with soil type and condition as well as the frequency of the wave.

As with airborne sound, annoyance with vibrational energy is a subjective measure, depending on the level of activity and the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Persons accustomed to elevated ambient vibration levels, such as in an urban environment, may tolerate higher vibration levels. Table 4.11-3 displays the human response and the effects on buildings resulting from continuous vibration (in terms of various levels of PPV).

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-8 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.11-3 HUMAN REACTION TO TYPICAL VIBRATION LEVELS Vibration Level,
PPV (in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings

0.006–0.019 Threshold of perception, possibility of intrusion Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type

0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level of vibration to which
ruins and ancient monuments should be
subjected

0.10 Level at which continuous vibration begins to
annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural” (i.e., not
structural) damage to normal buildings

0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in buildings
Threshold at which there is a risk to
“architectural” damage to normal dwelling –
houses with plastered walls and ceilings

0.4–0.6
Vibrations considered unpleasant by people
subjected to continuous vibrations and
unacceptable to some people walking on
bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than normally
expected from traffic, but would cause
“architectural” damage and possibly minor
structural damage
Source: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Department of Transportation, Noise, Vibration, and Hazardous Waste Management Office. 2004, June. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. Prepared by ICF International.

Human response to ground vibration has been correlated best with the velocity of the ground, typically expressed in terms of the vibration decibel of VdB.5 The U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has developed rational vibration limits that can be used to evaluate human annoyance to groundborne vibration. These criteria are primarily based on experience with rapid transit and commuter rail systems.6 Railroad and transit operations are potential sources of substantial ground vibration depending on distance, the type and the speed of trains, and the type of track. Trains generate substantial vibration due to their engines, steel wheels, heavy loads, and wheel-rail interactions.

Similarly, construction operations generally include a wide range of activities that can generate groundborne vibration, which varies in intensity. In general, blasting and demolition as well as pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment generate the highest vibrations. Because of the impulsive nature of such activities, PPV is used to measure and assess groundborne vibration and assess the potential of vibration to induce structural damage and annoyance for humans. Vibratory compactors or rollers, pile drivers, and pavement breakers can generate perceptible amounts of vibration at up to 200 feet. Heavy trucks can also generate groundborne vibrations, which can vary, depending on vehicle type, weight, and pavement conditions. Potholes, pavement joints, discontinuities, differential settlement of pavement, all increase the vibration levels from vehicles passing over a road surface. Construction vibration is normally of greater concern than vibration from normal traffic flows on streets and freeways with smooth pavement conditions.7
5 The reference velocity is 1 x 10-6 in/sec RMS, which equals 0 VdB, and 1 in/sec equals 120 VdB. 6 Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT). FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May. 7 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Department of Transportation, Noise, Vibration, and Hazardous Waste Management Office, 2004. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, June. Prepared by ICF International.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-9

4.11.1.4 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
In addition to FHWA standards, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified the relationship between noise levels and human response. The EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control was originally established to coordinate federal noise-control activities. The office issued the Federal Noise Control Act of 1972, which set programs and guidelines to identify and address the effects of noise on public health and welfare, and the environment. Although the primary responsibility of regulating noise was transferred to state and local governments in 1982, the EPA provided guidelines for noise levels that would be considered safe for community exposure without the risk of adverse health or welfare effects.

The EPA found that to prevent hearing loss over the lifetime of a receptor, the yearly average Leq should not exceed 70 dBA. Interference with activity and annoyance will not occur if exterior levels are maintained at an Leq of 55 dBA and interior levels at or below 45 dBA. While these levels are relevant for planning and design and useful for informational purposes, they are not land use planning criteria because they do not consider economic cost, technical feasibility, or the needs of the community.

The EPA also set 55 dBA Ldn as the basic goal for exterior residential noise intrusion. However, other federal agencies, in consideration of their own program requirements and goals, as well as difficulty of actually achieving a goal of 55 dBA Ldn, have settled on the 65 dBA Ldn level as their standard. At 65 dBA Ldn, activity interference is kept to a minimum, and annoyance levels are still low. It is also a level that can realistically be achieved.

Occupational Health and Safety Administration
The federal government regulates occupational noise exposure common in the workplace through the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) under the EPA. Such limitations would apply to the operation of construction equipment and could also apply to any proposed industrial land uses. Noise exposure of this type is dependent on work conditions and is addressed through a facility’s Health and Safety Plan, as required under OSHA, and is therefore not addressed further in this analysis.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has set a goal of 65 dBA Ldn as a desirable maximum exterior standard for residential units developed under HUD funding.8 (This level is also generally accepted within the State of California.) While HUD does not specify acceptable interior noise levels, standard construction of residential dwellings constructed under Title 24 standards typically provides in excess of 20 dBA of attenuation with the windows closed. Based on this premise, the interior Ldn should not exceed 45 dBA.
8 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 1985. Noise Guidebook: A Reference Document for Implementing the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Noise Policy, March.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-10 AUGUST 2017
California Regulations
Land Use Planning
The California Department of Health Services’ Office of Noise Control (ONC) has studied the correlation of noise levels and their effects on various land uses. As a result, a set of generalized exterior and interior noise standards was generated for residential, commercial, institutional/public, and open space land uses.9 These noise standards, in terms of the CNEL noise metric, are summarized in Appendix F.

The ONC also prepared a land use compatibility chart for community noise which is intended to provide urban planners with a tool to gauge the compatibility of land uses relative to existing and future noise levels. The table identifies ‘normally acceptable’, ‘conditionally acceptable’, ‘normally unacceptable’ and ‘clearly unacceptable’ noise levels for various land use types. A ‘conditionally acceptable’ or ‘normally unacceptable’ designation implies new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. By comparison, a ‘normally acceptable’ designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements. These noise compatibility guidelines, also in terms of the CNEL noise metric, are shown in Table 4.11-4.

Building Code Requirements
The California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1, Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Section 1207.11.2, Allowable Interior Noise Levels, requires that residences’ interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. The noise metric is evaluated as either the day-night average sound level (Ldn) or the community noise equivalent level (CNEL); using the noise metric that is consistent with the noise element of the particular local general plan.

The California Green Building Standards Code (CalGREEN), Chapter 5, Division 5.5, has additional requirements for insulation that affect exterior-interior noise transmission for non-residential structures (which include multi-family structures 4-stories or greater). Pursuant to section 5.507.4.1, Exterior Noise Transmission, Prescriptive Method, wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source making up the building or addition envelope or altered envelope shall meet:
 A composite sound transmission class (STC) rating of at least 50, or  A composite outdoor-indoor transmission class (OITC) rating of no less than 40 with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40, or

9 Residential’ includes single and multi-family, duplex, and mobile homes; ‘Commercial’ includes hotel, motel, transient housing, commercial retail, bank, restaurant, office building, research and development, professional offices, amphitheater, concert hall, auditorium, movie theater, gymnasium (multipurpose), sports club, manufacturing, warehouse, wholesale, utilities, and movie theaters uses; ‘Institutional / Public’ includes, hospital, school classrooms/playground, church, and library uses; and ‘Open Space’ includes parks.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-11
TABLE 4.11-4 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY NOISE GUIDELINES
Land Uses
CNEL (dBA)
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential-Low Density Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes Residential- Multiple Family
Transient Lodging: Hotels and Motels
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports
Playground, Neighborhood Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Businesses, Commercial and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agricultural
Explanatory Notes
Normally Acceptable:

With no special noise reduction requirements
assuming standard construction.

Normally Unacceptable:

New construction is discouraged. If new
construction does not proceed, a detailed
analysis of the noise reduction requirements
must be made and needed noise insulation
features included in the design.

Conditionally Acceptable:

New construction or development should be
undertaken only after a detailed analysis of
the noise reduction requirement is made and
needed noise insulation features included in
the design.

Clearly Unacceptable:

New construction or development should
generally not be undertaken.

Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2003. State of California General Plan Guidelines, October.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-12 AUGUST 2017
 OITC of 30 if the project location is within the 65 dBA CNEL or Ldn noise contour of an airport (military, public, private, or heliport), freeway, expressway, railroad, industrial source, or fixed-guideway source (as determined by the noise element of the general plan). Where noise contours are not readily available, projects exposed to a noise level of 65 dBA Leq-1 hr during any hour of operation shall have building, addition or alteration exterior wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source meeting a composite STC rating of at least 45 (or OITC 35), with exterior windows of a minimum of STC 40 (or OITC 30).

Residential structures within the noise contours identified above require an acoustical analysis showing that the structure has been designed to limit intruding noise in the prescribed allowable levels. To comply with these regulations, applicants for new residential projects are required to submit an acoustical analysis report. The report is required to show topographical relationship of noise sources and dwelling site, identification of noise sources and their characteristics, predicted noise spectra at the exterior of the proposed dwelling structure considering present and future land usage, basis for the prediction (measured or obtained from published data), noise attenuation measures to be applied, and an analysis of the noise insulation effectiveness of the proposed construction showing that the prescribed interior noise level requirements are met. If interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be unopenable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify the means that will be employed to provide ventilation and cooling, if necessary, to provide a habitable interior environment.

Local Noise Standards
While the Plan Area is located within the boundaries of the City of Fresno, some land uses adjacent to the Plan Area lie outside the City boundary, on unincorporated land within the County of Fresno. As such, noise generated by implementation of the proposed Plan would have the potential to result in impacts at receptors under County jurisdiction. The County of Fresno Ordinance Code applies only to noise sources located within unincorporated areas of the County, and developments due to buildout of the proposed Plan are not subject to these restrictions. Regardless, Chapter 8.40, Noise Control, of the County Code of Ordinances and the County of Fresno General Plan Health and Safety Element are included in Appendix F of this Draft EIR for reference.

Fresno General Plan
The Noise and Safety element of the City of Fresno General Plan (2014) establishes noise-related policies and guides their implementation for the City. The purpose of the noise section of the Element is to identify and quantify potential noise problems and to provide effective policies for noise control and mitigation. The noise section discusses sources of noise within the City, existing and projected future noise levels throughout the City, and noise control through the standards in the municipal code. The section also includes noise contour maps for noise levels generated by traffic and rail activity throughout the city and by each of the three airports within the city (see Table 4.11-5).

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-13
TABLE 4.11-5 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO NOISE Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Noise and Safety Element
Policy NS-1-a
Establishes the following “Desirable and Generally Acceptable Exterior Noise Environment” noise levels by receiving land use:
 Desirable noise level of 60 dBA Ldn or CNEL at residential or noise-sensitive uses  Maximum average noise level of 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL at residential or noise-sensitive uses  Maximum average noise level of 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL at non-sensitive commercial uses  Maximum average noise level of 70 dBA Ldn or CNEL at industrial uses Policy NS-1-j Establishes the significance threshold for a significant increase generated by a project as an increase of 3 dB Ldn or CNEL or more above the ambient noise limits established in the General Plan.

Policy NS-1-p
Requires implementation of the land use and noise exposure compatibility provisions of the adopted Fresno Yosemite International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport Master and Environs Specific Plan, and the Sierra Sky Park Land Use Policy Plan to assess noise compatibility of proposed uses and improvements within airport influence and environs areas.

Municipal Code
The City regulates noise through Article 10-1 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code. The City’s noise ordinance is designed to protect people from non-transportation noise sources such as construction activity, machinery, air conditioners, maintenance, and landscaping activities.

General Stationary Noise Sources
Section 10-102 establishes that the following criteria (in Table 4.11-6) will be used as a base (ambient noise level) from which noise levels can be compared.

TABLE 4.11-6 AMBIENT BASE NOISE LEVEL CRITERIA
Zone Time
Sound Level A (Decibels) Community
Environment Classification
Residential
10 pm to 7 am 50
7 pm to 10 pm 55
7 am to 7 pm 60
Commercial
10 pm to 7 am 60
7 am to 10 pm 65
Industrial Anytime 70
Source: City of Fresno Municipal Code, Section 10-102.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-14 AUGUST 2017
Section 10-106 prohibits any noise that exceeds the ambient noise level at receiving residential properties by more than 5 dB, while Section 10-107 prohibits any noise which “disturbs or unduly annoys” people within schools, hospitals, or churches.

Construction Noise
The Municipal Code makes exceptions to the noise level limits for construction activity that occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and has obtained a permit issued by the City.

Project-Applicable Vibration Standards
The City of Fresno Municipal Code does not include quantitative thresholds for vibration. In lieu of such quantified thresholds, it is common practice to rely on published information from the FTA. The FTA provides criteria for acceptable levels of ground-borne vibration for various types of special buildings that are sensitive to vibration. The FTA criteria are often used to evaluate vibration impacts during construction and are used herein for impact assessment thresholds.

FTA Noise and Vibration Impact Guidelines for construction impact identifies that an impact would occur if construction activities generate vibration that is strong enough to (a) physically damage buildings or (b) cause undue annoyance at sensitive receptors. The threshold for human annoyance at residential receptors during the daytime is 78 VdB. The threshold for vibration-induced architectural damage is 0.2 peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec) for typical wood-framed buildings.10 Vibration-Related Annoyance
The human reaction to various levels of vibration is highly subjective and varies from person to person. The FTA criteria for annoyance are shown below in Table 4.11-7. These criteria are based on the work of many researchers that suggested that humans are sensitive to vibration velocities in the range of 8-80 Hz.

TABLE 4.11-7 GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION CRITERIA: HUMAN ANNOYANCE Land Use Category Max Lv (VdB)a Description
Workshop 90 Distinctly felt vibration. Appropriate to workshops and non-sensitive areas Office 84 Felt vibration. Appropriate to offices and non-sensitive areas.

Residential – Daytime 78 Barely felt vibration. Adequate for computer equipment.

Residential – Nighttime 72 Vibration not felt, but groundborne noise may be audible inside quiet rooms.
a. Lv is the velocity level in decibels, as measured in 1/3-octave bands of frequency over the frequency ranges of 8 to 80 Hz.

Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May. US Department of Transportation (DoT), FTAVA-90-1003-06. 10 Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May. U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT). FTA-VA-90-1003-06.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-15
Vibration-Related Architectural Damage
Structures amplify groundborne vibration and wood-frame buildings, such as typical residential structures, are more affected by ground vibration than heavier buildings. The level at which groundborne vibration is strong enough to cause architectural damage has not been determined conclusively. The most conservative estimates are reflected in the FTA standards, shown in Table 4.11-8.

TABLE 4.11-8 GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION CRITERIA: ARCHITECTURAL DAMAGE Building Category
PPV
(in/sec)
Lv
(VdB)a
I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 a. RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of one microinch/second.

Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May. U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT).

FTA-VA-90-1003-06.

4.11.1.5 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
Ambient Noise Measurements
Ambient noise monitoring was conducted by PlaceWorks in May of 2017, during normal weekday periods.

Three long-term (24-hour) measurements, and eight short-term (15-minute) measurements were conducted within the Plan Area. Long-term measurements were conducted from Tuesday May 16th to Wednesday May 17, and short-term measurements were conducted on Wednesday, May 17th.

The general noise environment around the Plan Area is a combination of local and distant roadway noise, general community noise, aircraft flyovers, chirping birds, rustling vegetation, and various neighborhood activities (e.g., people talking, lawnmowers, etc.). Meteorological conditions during the measurement periods were favorable for outdoor sound measurements and were noted to be representative of typical conditions for the season. Generally, conditions included clear skies, daytime temperatures of approximately 75 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and winds of less than 7 miles per hour.

Long-term noise monitoring was performed using Larson-Davis Model 814 Sound Level Meters, and Shortterm noise monitoring was performed using a Larson-Davis Model 820 integrating/logging Sound Level Meter. All sound level meters used for noise monitoring satisfy the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard S1.3 for Type 1 general environmental noise measurement instrumentation. The sound level meters were programmed to acquire noise levels with the “slow” time constant and using the “A” weighting filter network. The meters were field calibrated immediately prior to the first set of readings.

The calibration was rechecked immediately after the conclusion of the readings and no notable meter “drift” was noted (i.e., less than ½ dB deviation).

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-16 AUGUST 2017
This work effort included three long-term (24-hour) measurements and eight short-term (15-minute) measurements. For the long-term measurements, the microphone was mounted to a fence or tree approximately 5 to 7 feet above the ground. For the short-term samples, the sound level meter and microphone were mounted on a tripod, 5 feet above the ground. All sound level meters were equipped with a windscreen during measurements. Noise measurement locations are described below and shown in Figure 4.11-1.

The following describes the noise level measurement locations:
 Long-Term Location 1 (LT-1): Long-term noise monitoring Location 1 was located within a residential neighborhood on Eden Avenue, between Arthur Avenue and Thorne Avenue. The noise monitor was attached to a tree, approximately 7 feet above the ground. The noise monitor was located approximately 10 feet from Eden Avenue. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken beginning at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 16, at which time the air temperature was 74°F with 36 percent Relative Humidity (RH), and winds were light (2-3 mph). The noise environment of this site was characterized primarily by roadway noise along Thorne Ave, and by nearby residential collectors. Neighborhood operations (i.e., people talking, property maintenance, music), and aircraft noise from the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport were also experienced at this monitoring location. Weather conditions during pickup were approximately the same as drop-off.
 Long-Term Location 2 (LT-2): Long-term noise monitoring Location 2 was located within a residential neighborhood in a cul-de-sac at the end of Vagedes Avenue. This residential area is generally surrounded by open space agricultural land. The noise monitor was attached to a light pole on the sidewalk, approximately 7 feet above the ground. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken beginning at 3:46 p.m. on Tuesday, May 16, at which time the air temperature was 79°F with 36 percent RH, and winds were calm (0-1 mph). The noise environment of this site was characterized primarily by roadway noise along nearby residential streets, and by normal neighborhood operations (i.e., people talking, property maintenance, music). Weather conditions during pickup were approximately the same as drop-off.
 Long-Term Location 3 (LT-3): Long-term noise monitoring Location 3 was located within an industrial area along Annadale Avenue, approximately 375 feet east of Elm Avenue. The noise monitor was attached to a tree, approximately 6 feet above the ground. The noise monitor was located approximately 10 feet from Annadale Avenue. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken beginning at 3:23 p.m. on Tuesday, May 16, at which time the air temperature was 78°F with 34 percent RH, and winds were light (1-2 mph). The noise environment of this site was characterized primarily by roadway noise along Highway SR-41, Elm Avenue, and other nearby collector streets. Industrial operations (i.e., truck movements, maintenance, loading/unloading), and aircraft noise from sporadic flyovers were also experienced at this monitoring location. Weather conditions during pickup were approximately the same as drop-off.
 Short-Term Location 1 (ST-1): Short-term noise monitoring Location 1 was located within the Fresno Regional Sports Complex, within a parking lot on the east side of the property. Fifteen minutes of noise measurements were taken beginning at 2:53 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17, at which time the air temperature was 80°F with 36 percent RH, and winds were light, at approximately 2-4 mph. There were no sports activities occurring at the time of the measurement. The noise environment was W Madison Ave
W California Ave
W Jensen Ave
W Church Ave
W North Ave
W Annadale Ave
99 180
41 Whites Bridge Ave
W Nelson Ave
S West Ave
S Fruit Ave
S Hughes Ave
S Marks Ave
S Cherry Ave
S Fig Ave
S Elm Ave
S Walnut Ave
Tulolumne St
Broadway St
W Belmont Ave
N Abby St
Fresno Chandler
Executive
Airport
Specific Plan Boundary Short-Term Noise Measurement Locations (8) Long-Term Noise Measurement Locations (3)
ST-1
LT-1

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN

CITY OF FRESNO
Noise Monitoring Locations
Figure 1 0 Feet 3,500
N
Source: Google Earth Pro, 2017
LT-1
ST-7
LT-2
ST-8
LT-3
ST-4
ST-5
ST-6
ST-2 ST-3
ST-1
W Madison Ave
W California Ave
W Jensen Ave
W Church Ave
W North Ave
W Annadale Ave
99 180
41 Whites Bridge Ave
W Nelson Ave
S West Ave
S Fruit Ave
S Hughes Ave
S Marks Ave
S Cherry Ave
S Fig Ave
S Elm Ave
S Walnut Ave
Tulolumne St
Broadway St
W Belmont Ave
N Abby St
Fresno Chandler
Executive
Airport
Specific Plan Boundary Short-Term Noise Measurement Locations (8) Long-Term Noise Measurement Locations (3)
ST-1
LT-1
Noise Monitoring Locations
Figure 1 0 Feet 3,500
N
Source: Google Earth Pro, 2017
LT-1
ST-7
LT-2
ST-8
LT-3
ST-4
ST-5
ST-6
ST-2 ST-3
ST-1
0 Scale (Feet)
3,500 Source: PlaceWorks, 2017.

Figure 4.11-1
Ambient Noise Measurement Locations

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

PLACEWORKS

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-18 AUGUST 2017
comprised of distant traffic noise, property maintenance, rustling leaves/vegetation, bugs/birds, and aircraft noise from sporadic flyovers.
 Short-Term Location 2 (ST-2): Short-term noise monitoring Location 2 was located in a residential neighborhood in close proximity to Highway State Route 41 (SR-41). This monitoring location was located on Kirk Avenue, between Burns Avenue and Church Avenue, approximately 130 feet west of SR-41. Fifteen minutes of noise measurements were taken at 12:20 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17, at which time the air temperature was 68°F with 48 percent RH, and winds were light, at approximately 2-4 mph. The noise environment of this site was dominated by roadway noise along SR-41.

Neighborhood activities (i.e., people talking, property maintenance) were also noted at the monitoring location, but were secondary to the traffic flow noise.  Short-Term Location 3 (ST-3): Short-term noise monitoring Location 3 was located at the southern edge of the Rutherford B. Gaston Middle School campus, on the sidewalk near the baseball diamond.

This monitoring location was positioned along Grove Avenue, approximately 125 feet east of Martian Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Fifteen minutes of noise measurements were taken beginning at 1:35 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at which time the air temperature was 80°F with 38 percent RH, and winds were calm, at approximately 1-2 mph. The noise environment of this site was primarily controlled by roadway noise along Martian Luther King Jr. Boulevard and other residential collectors.

Residential neighborhood noise (i.e., people talking, property maintenance) and aircraft noise from sporadic flyovers were also experienced at this monitoring location.  Short-Term Location 4 (ST-4): Short-term noise monitoring Location 4 was located on the property of Foster Poultry Farms, along Teilman Avenue approximately 375 feet north of Church Avenue. Fifteen minutes of noise measurements were taken beginning at 4:10 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at which time the air temperature was 79°F with 26 percent RH, and winds were light, at approximately 3-5 mph. The noise environment of this site was primarily controlled by industrial noise (i.e., workpiece noise, machinery ‘hum’, truck movements), parking lot noise, and by roadway noise along Church Avenue.
 Short-Term Location 5 (ST-5): Short-term noise monitoring Location 5 was located in a residential neighborhood near open space and agricultural land. This monitoring location was located at the southwest corner of La Sierra Drive and Hulbert Avenue. Fifteen minutes of noise measurements were taken at 3:47 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17, at which time the air temperature was 77°F with 30 percent RH, and winds were light, at approximately 2-4 mph. The noise environment of this site was comprised of primarily Neighborhood operations (i.e., people talking, property maintenance, dogs barking), and roadway noise along residential collectors. No noise sources beyond the immediate vicinity were noted during the measurement period.  Short-Term Location 6 (ST-6): Short-term noise monitoring Location 6 was located on the property of the Veteran’s Home of California, a residential complex surrounded by agricultural open space. Fifteen minutes of noise measurements were taken at 3:22 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17, at which time the air temperature was 77°F with 30 percent RH, and winds were light, at approximately 3-6 mph. The noise environment of this site was comprised of primarily residential operations (i.e., people talking, property maintenance), parking lot noise, and roadway noise along California Avenue and Marks Avenue. Rustling trees/vegetation and aircraft noise from sporadic flyovers were also noted at the monitoring location.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-19
 Short-Term Location 7 (ST-7): Short-term noise monitoring Location 7 was located in a residential neighborhood near the southern end of the Plan Area. This monitoring location was located on Weller Street, between Edgar Avenue and Chester Avenue. Fifteen minutes of noise measurements were taken at 2:23 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17, at which time the air temperature was 85°F with 85 percent RH, and winds were calm. The noise environment of this site was dominated by roadway noise along Martian Luther King Boulevard and other residential collectors. Neighborhood operations (i.e., people talking, property maintenance) were also noted at the monitoring location.  Short-Term Location 8 (ST-8): Short-term noise monitoring Location 8 was located within a residential area at the southeast corner of Drummond Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Across Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard is W.E.B. DuBois Academy. Fifteen minutes of noise measurements were taken beginning at 1:56 p.m. on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, at which time the air temperature was 76°F with 40 percent RH, and winds were light, between 4 to 7 mph. The noise environment of this site was primarily controlled by roadway noise along Martian Luther King Jr. Boulevard and other residential collectors. Residential neighborhood noise (i.e., people talking, property maintenance) and dogs barking were also experienced at this monitoring location.

Long-Term Monitoring Results
During the ambient noise survey, the daytime, energy-average (Leq) noise levels within the areas surrounding the Plan Area, as measured during the long-term noise measurements, ranged from 33 to 94 dBA Leq. The short-term noise measurement results are summarized in Table 4.11-9 and are included in the Appendix F of this technical report.

TABLE 4.11-9 LONG-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENTS SUMMARY, 24+ HOUR DURATIONS Monitoring
Location Description Lmin Leq Lmax
LT-1 Residential Area, along Eden Avenue 42 58 94
LT-2 Residential Area, Vagedes Avenue cul-de-sac 39 53 87 LT-3 Industrial Area, along Annadale Avenue 33 53 89
Note: 24-hour noise measurements were conducted by PlaceWorks staff on May 16-17, 2017, at each site with a Larson Davis 814 sound level meter.

Short-Term Monitoring Results
During the ambient noise survey, the daytime, energy-average (Leq) noise levels within the areas surrounding the Plan Area, as measured during the short-term noise measurements, ranged from 41 to 76 dBA Leq. The short-term noise measurement results are summarized in Table 4.11-10 and are included in the Appendix F of this Draft EIR.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-20 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.11-10 SHORT-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENTS SUMMARY, 15-MINUTE DURATIONS Monitoring
Location Description Lmin Leq Lmax
ST-1 Fresno Regional Sports Complex 43 49 59
ST-2 Residential Area near SR-41 55 60 71
ST-3 Residential Area near Rutherford B. Gaston MS 43 56 69 ST-4 Foster Poultry Farms 54 60 76
ST-5 Residential Area near Agricultural Open Space 46 56 73 ST-6 Veteran’s Home of California 49 58 74
ST-7 Residential Area along Weller Street 41 47 56
ST-8 Residential Area near W.E.B. DuBois Academy 45 58 71 Note: Noise sampling conducted by PlaceWorks staff on May 17, 2017, for a minimum of 15 minutes at each site with a Larson Davis 820 sound level meter.

Summary of Ambient Noise Measurement
The noise environment around the Plan Area is considered to be generally louder than a typical urban residential area, due to the amount of transportation sources proximate to the monitoring locations. The time-averaged sound level in the vicinity of the Plan Area was in the range of 33 to 94 dBA Leq-24-hr. For receivers that were directly exposed to roadway noise (i.e., ST-2), the noise level ranged from 55 to 71 dBA.

On-Road Vehicles
Noise from motor vehicles is generated by engine vibrations, the interaction between tires and the road, and the exhaust system. Reducing the average motor vehicle speed reduces the noise exposure of receptors adjacent to the road. Each reduction of five miles per hour reduces noise by about 1.3 dBA. 11 Given the preponderance of mobile-source noise in the vicinity of the Plan Area, it is necessary to determine the noise currently generated by vehicles traveling through the Plan Area. The traffic noise levels for this proposed Plan were estimated using a version of the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. The FHWA model determines a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to a reference sound level. These adjustments account for traffic flows, speed, truck mix, varying distances from the roadway, length of exposed roadway, and noise shielding. Average daily traffic volumes, lane 11 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (Department of Transportation, Noise, Vibration, and Hazardous Waste Management Office), 2004. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. Prepared by ICF International, June.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-21
configurations, and speed limits were provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis, which is included as Appendix H of this Draft EIR.
12,13
The results of this modeling indicate that average noise levels along arterial segments currently range from approximately 54 dBA to 70 dBA CNEL (as calculated at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline of the road). Noise levels for existing conditions along analyzed roadways are presented in Table 4.11-11.

Aircraft Noise
Fresno Chandler Executive Airport (FCH) lies adjacent to the northeastern boundary of the Plan Area.

According to Figure NS-514 in the City of Fresno General Plan, a portion of the Plan Area falls within the Airport Influence Area (AIA), including some land that lies within the airport’s 60 dBA CNEL and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours. Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in future development that would increase and/or intensify development within the Plan Area.. The FCH Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan establishes policies for planning developments for land within the AIA.

Other nearby airports include Fresno Yosemite International Airport (located 6.4 miles to the northeast of the Plan Area boundary) and Sierra Sky Park (7.3 miles to the northwest).15 The 65 dBA CNEL noise contours for these airports (shown in Figures NS-4 and NS-6 of the General Plan,16 respectively) lie outside of the Plan Area. While aircraft that utilize these airports could fly over the Plan Area and generate noise levels that may be momentarily audible or noticeable, these aircraft operations do not significantly contribute to the Plan Area’s community noise environment.

There are no heliports within the Plan Area. However, there is a heliport located at the Community Regional Medical Center (1.8 miles to the northeast). Given the distance to the Plan Area and that flights are sporadic and limited for medical use, heliport contributions to community noise levels within the Plan Area are negligible.

Stationary Source Noise
Stationary sources of noises may occur from all types of land uses. Residential uses would generate noise from landscaping, maintenance activities, and air conditioning systems. Office and commercial uses would generate noise from ventilation systems, loading docks, parking lot activities, and other sources. Industrial uses may generate noise from Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems, loading docks, and possibly machinery. Farmland uses may generate noise from operation of farm equipment or HVAC and other machinery at farm facility buildings. Noise generated by residential, office, or commercial uses 12 The traffic model used by Fehr and Peers does not have the ability to force trucks to use specific roadways, and therefore does not account for variations in fleet mix that may accompany the designated truck routes shown in Figure 5-7, Existing and Potential Truck Routes. As such, traffic noise modeling by PlaceWorks also does not include truck-related these variations. 13 Fehr and Peers, 2017. Draft Transportation Impact Study for the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan, June. 14 “Figure NS-5” refers to the figure within the General Plan, and is not to be confused with figures within this EIR. The General Plan Noise and Safety Element is included in Appendix F. 15 Airnav.com, 2017. 16 “Figures NS-4 and NS-6” refers to the figures within the General Plan, and is not to be confused with figures within this EIR. The General Plan Noise and Safety Element is included in Appendix F.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-22 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.11-11 EXISTING CONDITIONS TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment
Daily
Traffic
Volumes
Noise Level
at 50 Feet
(dBA CNEL)
Distance to Noise Contour
(Feet)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
Whitesbridge Ave Marks Ave to Roeding Dr 2,800 64.8 22 48 104 Whitesbridge Ave Roeding Dr to Thorne Ave 2,300 61.7 14 30 65 Kearney Blvd Marks Ave to West Ave 2,400 61.9 14 31 66
Kearney Blvd West Ave to Thorne Ave 2,000 61.1 13 27 59 California Ave Marks Ave to West Ave 2,000 63.3 18 39 83 California Ave West Ave to Fresno St 4,300 61.9 14 31 67 California Ave Fresno St to MLK Jr. Blvd 6,600 63.6 19 40 87 Ventura St MLK Jr. Blvd to B Street 9,900 65.5 25 54 116 Church Ave Marks Ave to West Ave 1,200 60.0 11 23 50
Church Ave West Ave to Walnut Ave 2,600 60.9 12 27 58
Church Ave Walnut Ave to Elm Ave 4,300 63.1 17 37 81
Jensen Ave Marks Ave to West Ave 5,200 67.5 34 73 157
Jensen Ave West Ave to Walnut Ave 8,700 69.7 48 103 221 Jensen Ave Walnut Ave to Elm Ave 12,000 69.0 43 93 200
North Ave Walnut Ave to Elm Ave 5,200 63.9 20 42 92
Marks Ave Whitesbridge Ave to California Ave 6,900 68.7 41 89 191 Marks Ave California Ave to Jensen Ave 2,300 63.9 20 42 91 Hughes Ave/Roeding Dr Belmont Ave to Whitesbridge Ave 2,600 61.0 13 27 59 Hughes Ave Whitesbridge Ave to California Ave 400 56.3 6 13 28 Hughes Ave California Ave to Church Ave 200 53.3 4 8 18 Roeding Dr/West Ave Whitesbridge Ave to California Ave 900 56.3 6 13 28 West Ave California Ave to Jensen Ave 900 59.8 11 23 49 Fruit Ave California Ave to Jensen Ave 2,400 60.6 12 25 55 Thorne Ave Whitesbridge Ave to California Ave 2,900 61.4 13 29 62 Walnut Ave California Ave to Jensen Ave 3,600 62.3 15 33 72 Walnut Ave Jensen Ave to North Ave 600 58.1 8 17 37
Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd California Ave to Jensen Ave 6,300 63.4 18 39 84 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd Jensen Ave to North Ave 3,300 63.2 18 38 82 Elm Ave Ventura St to Jensen Ave 7,100 65.5 25 54 116
Elm Ave Jensen Ave to North Ave 4,800 63.8 19 41 89
Source: FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model based on traffic volumes provided by Fehr and Peers in 2017. Calculations included in Appendix F.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-23
are generally short and intermittent. Industrial and farmland uses may generate noise on a more continual basis due to the nature of their activities.

Project and Nearby Sensitive Receptors
Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration such as residences, schools, hospital facilities, houses of worship, and open space/recreation areas where quiet environments are necessary for the enjoyment, public health, and safety of the community. Commercial and industrial uses are not considered noise- or vibration-sensitive uses.

The Plan Area currently contains residential, farmland, commercial, and industrial uses, with nominally incompatible land uses located near one another. Sensitive receptors within the Plan Area include schools, churches, community centers, museums, and medical uses. For more information related to land use, please see the Land Use chapter of this Draft EIR.

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

1. Expose people to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan or the Municipal Code, and/or the applicable standards of other agencies.

2. Expose people to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

3. Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Plan Area above levels existing without the Project.

4. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Plan Area above levels existing without the Project.

5. Expose people residing or working in the vicinity of the Project site to excessive aircraft noise levels, for a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport.

6. Expose people residing or working in the Plan Area to excessive noise levels, for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip.

4.11.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
NOISE-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan would cause exposure of people to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan or the Municipal Code, and/or the applicable standards of other agencies.

Implementation of the proposed Plan would have a significant impact if it would expose new and existing receptors to incompatible levels of noise from both the operations and increased traffic resulting from future development of the proposed Plan.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-24 AUGUST 2017
Policy NS-1-a of the Fresno General Plan establishes the following “Desirable and Generally Acceptable Exterior Noise Environment” noise levels by receiving land use:
 Desirable noise level of 60 dBA Ldn or CNEL at residential or noise-sensitive uses  Maximum average noise level of 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL at residential or noise-sensitive uses  Maximum average noise level of 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL at non-sensitive commercial uses  Maximum average noise level of 70 dBA Ldn or CNEL at industrial uses As discussed above, Policy NS-1-j establishes the significance threshold for a significant increase generated by a project as an increase of 3 dB Ldn or CNEL or more above the ambient noise limits established in the General Plan.

Traffic Noise
Future development in accordance with the proposed Plan would cause increases in traffic along local roadways. A substantial increase is defined as a noise increase greater than 3 dBA over existing conditions.

Sensitive land uses include residential, schools, churches, nursing homes, hospitals, and open space/recreation areas. Commercial, farmland, and industrial areas are not considered noise sensitive and generally have higher tolerances for exterior and interior noise levels.

The traffic noise levels were estimated using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. Table

4.11-12 presents the noise level increases on roadways over existing conditions at 50 feet from the centerline of each roadway segment due to the proposed Plan. The “Cumulative” traffic noise levels include effects of future regional ambient growth and growth due to the project.17,18 “Project Contribution” represents the effect the proposed Plan would have on traffic noise levels by comparing the difference between “Existing-Plus-Project” noise levels and existing noise levels. Appendix F of this Draft EIR includes tables showing traffic noise levels for all three scenarios: Existing, Existing-Plus-Project, and Cumulative, as well as the calculated distances to the 70, 65, and 60 CNEL contours for selected roadway segments in the Plan Area.

Table 4.11-12 shows that traffic noise increases resulting from the project contribution would range from -

0.9 to 9.8 dBA CNEL, and overall increases due to both the proposed Plan and regional growth would range from 2.6 to 12.5 dBA CNEL. Of the 30 segments analyzed, 21 segments would experience substantial noise increases greater than 3 dBA attributable to buildout of the proposed Plan, with future noise levels that exceed 65 dB CNEL. Therefore, increases in traffic noise levels due to the proposed Plan would result in a potentially significant impact.

Significance Without Mitigation (Traffic Noise): Significant Impact NOISE-1: Development in accordance with the proposed Plan would cause increases in traffic along local roadways of more than 3 dBA over existing conditions. 17 As noted above, the traffic noise modeling does not include variations in fleet mix that may be associated with the existing or recommended (future) designated truck routes (as shown in Figure 5-7, Existing and Potential Truck Routes). 18 Fehr and Peers, 2017. Draft Transportation Impact Study for the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan, June.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-25
TABLE 4.11-12 SPECIFIC PLAN BUILDOUT TRAFFIC NOISE INCREASES Roadway Segment
dBA CNEL @ 50 Feet
Existing Cumulative
Overall
Increase
Project
Contribution
Whitesbridge Ave Marks Ave to Roeding Dr 64.8 71.1 6.4 6.3 Whitesbridge Ave Roeding Dr to Thorne Ave 61.7 68.3 6.6 4.3 Kearney Blvd Marks Ave to West Ave 61.9 67.9 6.1 5.4
Kearney Blvd West Ave to Thorne Ave 61.1 68.0 6.9 5.5
California Ave Marks Ave to West Ave 63.3 67.5 4.2 2.0
California Ave West Ave to Fresno St 61.9 69.7 7.8 6.0
California Ave Fresno St to MLK Jr. Blvd 63.6 66.2 2.6 1.3 Ventura St MLK Jr. Blvd to B Street 65.5 71.0 5.5 3.9
Church Ave Marks Ave to West Ave1 60.0 65.0 5.0 5.7
Church Ave West Ave to Walnut Ave 60.9 68.3 7.4 5.7
Church Ave Walnut Ave to Elm Ave 63.1 69.8 6.7 4.5
Jensen Ave Marks Ave to West Ave 67.5 71.2 3.7 -0.9
Jensen Ave West Ave to Walnut Ave 69.7 73.2 3.5 1.5
Jensen Ave Walnut Ave to Elm Ave 69.0 74.1 5.1 4.3
North Ave Walnut Ave to Elm Ave 63.9 69.2 5.3 3.3
Marks Ave Whitesbridge Ave to California Ave 68.7 73.3 4.6 2.6 Marks Ave California Ave to Jensen Ave 63.9 69.6 5.7 3.0 Hughes Ave/Roeding Dr Belmont Ave to Whitesbridge Ave 61.0 69.7 8.7 4.9 Hughes Ave Whitesbridge Ave to California Ave 56.3 67.1 10.8 9.8 Hughes Ave California Ave to Church Ave 53.3 65.8 12.5 9.7 Roeding Dr/West Ave Whitesbridge Ave to California Ave 56.3 67.2 10.9 7.3 West Ave California Ave to Jensen Ave 59.8 69.8 10.0 6.5 Fruit Ave California Ave to Jensen Ave 60.6 67.7 7.1 6.2 Thorne Ave Whitesbridge Ave to California Avea 61.4 64.5 3.1 3.4 Walnut Ave California Ave to Jensen Ave 62.3 67.5 5.2 5.2 Walnut Ave Jensen Ave to North Ave 58.1 69.7 11.6 9.7
Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd California Ave to Jensen Ave 63.4 68.2 4.9 4.4 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd Jensen Ave to North Ave 63.2 70.1 6.8 6.9 Elm Ave Ventura St to Jensen Ave 65.5 69.8 4.3 1.8
Elm Ave Jensen Ave to North Ave 63.8 68.9 5.1 5.0
Note: Bold text indicates segments for which the project contribution constitutes a significant impact. a. While the increase in noise levels due to the proposed Plan along these segments exceeds 3 dB, the future noise levels would not exceed the maximum acceptable ambient noise level of 65 dB CNEL and the increase from the proposed Plan would not constitute a significant impact.

Source: FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model based on traffic volumes provided by Fehr & Peers, 2017. Calculations in Appendix F.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-26 AUGUST 2017
In compliance with CEQA, “each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so” (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1(b)). The term “feasible” is defined in CEQA to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors” (Public Resources Code Section 21061.1).

A number of measures were considered for mitigating or avoiding the noise impacts from traffic generated by the proposed Plan; however, no feasible mitigation measures are available that would reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. The following is a brief discussion of the mitigation measures considered.

Sound Barrier Walls
The primary method for addressing excessive roadway noise is sound barrier walls. Several factors make potential implementation of sound walls impractical, infeasible, or economically unrealistic:

Along many impacted segments, houses or other sensitive uses face the roadway and access to the properties is via driveways. Sound walls between the roadway and the house would cut off the access to the property.

Due to the wide distribution of scattered residences, the cost per receptor of effective sound walls would be unreasonable.

The City does not have control over all roadway rights-of-way or the private property that walls would have to be constructed on.

Therefore, roadway sound barrier walls are impractical and infeasible along the impacted segments.

Special Roadway Paving
Notable reductions in tire noise have been achieved with special paving materials, such as rubberized asphalt or open-grade asphalt concrete overlays. For example, Caltrans performed a 12-year study of pavement noise along I-8019 and found improvements in the range of 6 to 7 dB (compared to the baseline conditions using aged, dense-graded asphalt concrete).

However, such reductions would not provide sufficient noise reduction to preclude substantial increases to segments that would experience project-generated increases of over 7 dB CNEL. Another serious failing of this noise reduction approach is the long-term degradation of benefits as the material ages, wears, and is compacted by years of passing vehicles. Thus, the noise reduction from this method may not be adequate for all receptors along the impacted segment, either initially or over time. In consideration of the shortcomings of this potential mitigation measure, it was determined that this approach would be 19 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2001. I-80 Davis OGAC Pavement Noise Study, Traffic Levels Associated with Aging Open Grade Asphalt Concrete Overlay, May. Prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/Davis_12Yr_QPR_Study_May11.pdf.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-27
inadequate for reducing the noise impacts to less than significant levels and it was rejected from additional consideration.

Traffic Noise Summary
No individual measure and no set of feasible or practical mitigation measures are available to reduce Plangenerated traffic noise to less than significant levels. Thus, traffic noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Significance With Mitigation (Traffic Noise): Significant and unavoidable.

Stationary-Source Noise
Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an increase in residential, mixed use, office, and commercial development within the Plan Area. The primary noise sources from these land uses are landscaping and maintenance activities, HVAC systems, mechanical equipment, and loading docks. Noise generated by residential, office, or commercial uses are generally short-term and intermittent, are generally localized, and are not a substantial source of community noise.

The City’s Municipal Code prohibits any noise that exceeds the ambient noise level (shown in Table

4.11-6) at receiving residential properties by more than 5 dB, and any noise which “disturbs or unduly annoys” people within schools, hospitals, or churches. Consequently, since developments would be subject to the restrictions in the municipal code, stationary-source noise from these types of proposed land uses would not substantially increase the noise environment. Therefore, Plan-related noise impacts from stationary sources would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation (Stationary Noise): Less than significant.

NOISE-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan could potentially cause exposure of people to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

The potential vibration impacts resulting from development of the proposed Plan are addressed in this impact. Construction vibration effects and operational vibration effects are discussed separately.

Construction-Related Vibration Impacts
Construction operations can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the construction site depends on soil type, ground strata, and receptor-building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels. Thus, vibration effects are commonly assessed relative to ‘annoyance’ and ‘architectural damage’ (the former is typically in terms of vibration decibels, VdB, while the latter is typically in terms of peak particle velocities,

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-28 AUGUST 2017
PPV). Vibration from construction activities rarely reaches levels that can damage structures, but can achieve the audible and perceptible ranges in buildings close to the construction site. Table 4.11-13 lists vibration levels for common construction equipment items.

TABLE 4.11-13 VIBRATION LEVELS FOR COMMON CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ITEMS Equipment
Approximate Velocity
Level at 25 Feet
(VdB)
Approximate RMSa
Velocity at 25 Feet
(in/sec)
Pile Driver (impact) Upper Range 112 1.518
Pile Driver (impact) Lower Range 104 0.644
Pile Driver (sonic) Upper Range 105 0.734
Pile Driver (sonic) Lower Range 93 0.170
Large Bulldozer 87 0.089
Caisson Drilling 87 0.089
Jackhammer 79 0.035
Small Bulldozer 58 0.003
Loaded Trucks 86 0.076
FTA Criteria: Human Annoyance (Daytime/Nighttime) 78/72 — FTA Criteria: Structural Damage — 0.200
a. RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of 1 microinch/second.

Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May. U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT).

FTA-VA-90-1003-06.

As shown in Table 4.11-13, vibration generated by construction equipment has the potential to be substantial, since it has the potential to exceed the FTA criteria of 78 VdB for human annoyance and 0.200 in/sec for structural damage. However, groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors, so it is usually evaluated in terms of indoor receivers.20 Construction details and equipment for individual development projects that could be implemented through the proposed Plan are not known at this time. As such, vibration impacts may occur from construction equipment associated with development in accordance with the implementation of the proposed Plan. Therefore, construction vibration impacts are considered potentially significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Potentially significant.

Impact NOISE-2:Construction activities could result in vibration-induced architectural damage at nearby structures or hardscape features, or could result in vibration-induced annoyance at nearby sensitive receptors.
20 Fresno General Plan MEIR, 2014.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-29
Mitigation Measure NOISE-2a: Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, applicants for individual development projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities—such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers—within 50 feet of off-site structures, shall prepare and submit to the City of Fresno an acoustical study to evaluate potential construction-related vibration damage impacts. The vibration assessment shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and be based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) vibration-induced architectural damage criterion. If the acoustical study determines a potential exceedance of the FTA thresholds, measures shall be identified that ensure vibration levels are reduced to below the thresholds. Measures to reduce vibration levels can include use of less-vibration-intensive equipment (e.g., drilled piles and static rollers) and/or construction techniques (e.g., non-explosive rock blasting and use of hand tools) and preparation of a pre-construction survey report to assess the condition of the affected sensitive structure. Identified measures shall be included on all construction and building documents and submitted for verification to the City.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-2b: Prior to issuance of grading and construction permits, applicants for individual development projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities—such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers—within 100 feet of sensitive receptors (e.g., residences and schools) shall prepare and submit to the City of Fresno an acoustical study to evaluate potential construction-related vibration annoyance impacts. The study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and shall identify measures to reduce impacts to habitable structures to below the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) vibration-induced annoyance criterion. If construction-related vibration is determined in the acoustical study to be perceptible at vibration-sensitive uses, additional requirements, such as use of less-vibration-intensive equipment or construction techniques, shall be implemented during construction (e.g., drilled piles, static rollers, and non-explosive rock blasting).

Identified measures shall be included on all construction and building documents and submitted for verification to the City.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures N1 and N-2, which would place limitations on certain equipment and/or their use at certain distances, construction-generated vibration impacts would be reduced to less than significant after mitigation.

Roadway-Related Vibration Impacts
Operation of new commercial land uses could generate additional truck trips over existing conditions, which could potentially generate various levels of vibration along the traveled roadways. Additionally, truck trips could also be generated during construction of new development projects in the Plan Area.

Caltrans has studied the effects of vehicle vibration on sensitive land uses and notes that “heavy trucks, and quite frequently buses, generate the highest earthborne vibrations of normal traffic.” Caltrans further notes that the highest traffic-generated vibration is along freeways and state routes and finds that “vibrations measured on freeway shoulders (five meters from the centerline of the nearest lane) have never exceeded 0.08 inches per second, with the worst combinations of heavy trucks. This level coincides with the maximum recommended safe level for ruins and ancient monuments (and historic buildings).” Typically, trucks do not generate high levels of vibration because they travel on rubber wheels and do not

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-30 AUGUST 2017
have vertical movement, which generates ground vibration.21 Given these results and long-term observations by Caltrans, roadways in the proposed Plan area are not expected to generate excessive vibration. Therefore, there would be no impact due to roadway-related vibration.

Significance Without Mitigation: No impact.

Operations-Related Vibration Impacts
The use of heavy equipment associated with industrial operations can create elevated vibration levels in its immediate proximity. Such equipment-generated vibrations would spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the vibration source varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor-building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight structural damage at the highest levels.

While no new industrial uses would be developed within the Plan Area, new sensitive land uses could potentially experience perceptible vibration levels if they are placed in close proximity of existing industrial uses. Specific project-level information is not available at this time for individual development projects that could be implemented through the proposed Plan. However, Policy NS-1-c of the Noise and Safety Element of the General Plan requires that a site-specific acoustical analysis be performed for projects involving sensitive uses that would be located in areas with exterior noise levels of greater than 65 dB Ldn or CNEL. Since areas zoned for industrial uses typically have noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL, new projects that would be potentially affected by vibration levels due to nearby industrial activities would require an acoustical analysis for noise compatibility prior to approval. It is expected that such future acoustical analyses would also include an evaluation of vibration levels. Thus, with the expectation that future development within the Plan Area would follow established approval procedures within the City and would comply with standard conditions of approval – including, but not limited to, fulfillment of applicable policies within the City’s Noise and Safety Element – implementation of the proposed Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact due to operations-related vibration.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

NOISE-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan would cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Plan Area above levels existing without the proposed Plan.

As presented in Impact NOISE-1 above, project-generated operational noise, stationary noise sources (i.e., mechanical systems), and operational activities would not exceed the standards of the General Plan or the Municipal Code and would not result in a substantial permanent increase in community ambient noise levels.
21 Fresno General Plan MEIR, 2014.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-31
However, 21 roadway segments would experience substantial noise increases greater than 3 dBA attributable to buildout of the proposed Plan, with future noise levels that exceed 65 dB CNEL. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed Plan would result in a substantial permanent increase in noise levels, and impacts would be significant.

Significance Without Mitigation (Traffic Noise): Significant As discussed above, no individual measure and no set of feasible or practical mitigation measures are available to reduce project-generated traffic noise to less than significant levels. Thus, traffic noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Significance With Mitigation (Traffic Noise): Significant and unavoidable.

NOISE-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan could potentially cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Plan Area above levels existing without the proposed Plan.

This impact discusses the potential construction-related noise impacts resulting from land use developments accommodated by the proposed Plan. The proposed Plan would increase residential, mixed-use, office, and commercial uses, as compared to existing conditions. Two types of temporary noise impacts could occur during construction activities associated with development that would be accommodated by the proposed Plan. First, the transport of workers and movement of materials to and from the site could incrementally increase noise levels along local access roads. The second type of temporary noise impact is related to demolition, site preparation, grading, and/or physical construction.

The City of Fresno recognizes that the control of construction noise is difficult at best and provides an exemption for this type of noise when the work is performed between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and has obtained a permit issued by the City. Compliance with the municipal code is mandatory, and as such, does not constitute mitigation under CEQA.

Given the lack of specific details about the future developments at the site, a generalized, program-level set of assumed construction activities were used for the construction noise assessment. Noise generated during construction is based on the type of equipment used, the location of the equipment relative to sensitive receptors, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. Sensitivity to noise is based on the location of the equipment relative to sensitive receptors, the time of day, and the duration of noise-generating activities.

Construction is performed in distinct steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and noise characteristics. Table 4.11-14 lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noiseimpact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and noise receptor.

As shown in Table 4.11-14, construction equipment generates high levels of noise, with maximums ranging from 71 dBA to 101 dBA. Construction of individual development projects associated with the proposed Plan would temporarily increase the ambient noise environment and would have the potential to affect noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of that Plan Area.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-32 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.11-14 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE EMISSION LEVELS Construction
Equipment
Typical Max Noise Level
(dBA Lmax)a
Construction
Equipment
Typical Max Noise Level
(dBA Lmax) a
Air Compressor 81 Pile-Driver (Impact) 101
Backhoe 80 Pile-Driver (Sonic) 96
Ballast Equalizer 82 Pneumatic Tool 85
Ballast Tamper 83 Pump 76
Compactor 82 Rail Saw 90
Concrete Mixer 85 Rock Drill 98
Concrete Pump 71 Roller 74
Concrete Vibrator 76 Saw 76
Crane, Derrick 88 Scarifier 83
Crane, Mobile 83 Scraper 89
Dozer 85 Shovel 82
Generator 81 Spike Driver 77
Grader 85 Tie Cutter 84
Impact Wrench 85 Tie Handler 80
Jack Hammer 88 Tie Inserter 85
Loader 85 Truck 88
Paver 89
a. Measured at 50 feet from the source.

Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May. U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT). FTAVA-90-1003-06.

Significant noise impacts may occur from operation of heavy earthmoving equipment and truck hauling that would occur with construction of individual development projects. Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an increase in development intensity throughout the plan area. However, construction noise levels depend on the specific locations, site plans, and construction details of individual development projects, which are not known at this time. Additionally, construction-related noise would be localized and would occur intermittently for varying periods of time.

Because specific project-level information is not available at this time, it is not possible to quantify the construction noise impacts at specific off-site or on-site sensitive receptors. Construction of individual development projects associated with the proposed Plan would temporarily increase the ambient noise environment in the vicinity of each development project, potentially affecting existing and future sensitive uses in the localized vicinity. Because these construction activities may occur near noise-sensitive receptors and because noise disturbances may occur for prolonged periods of time (depending on the project type), construction noise impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Plan are considered potentially significant.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-33
Significance Without Mitigation: Potentially significant Impact NOISE-4:Construction activities would result in temporary noise increases in the vicinity of the Plan Area.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-4a: As required by the City of Fresno Municipal Code, construction activity shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, and shall require a permit issued by the City.

Mitigation Measure NOISE-4b: Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading, and/or construction permits, applicants for individual development projects within 500 feet of noise-sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, hospitals, schools) shall conduct a project-level construction noise analysis to evaluate potential impacts on sensitive receptors. The analysis shall be conducted once the final construction equipment list that will be used for demolition and grading activities is determined. The project-level noise analysis shall be prepared, reviewed, and approved by the City of Fresno Community Development Director. If the analysis determines that demolition and construction activities would result in an impact to identified noise-sensitive receptors, then specific measures to attenuate the noise impact shall be outlined in the analysis and reviewed and approved by the City of Fresno Community Development Director. Specific measures may include, but are not limited to, the following best management practices:
 Post a construction site notice near the construction site access point or in an area that is clearly visible to the public. The notice shall include the following: job site address; permit number, name, and phone number of the contractor and owner; dates and duration of construction activities; construction hours allowed; and the City of Fresno Community Development Director and construction contractor phone numbers where noise complaints can be reported and logged.  Consider the installation of temporary sound barriers for construction activities immediately adjacent to occupied noise-sensitive structures.
 Restrict haul routes and construction-related traffic to the least noise-sensitive times of the day.  Reduce non-essential idling of construction equipment to no more than five minutes.  Ensure that all construction equipment is monitored and properly maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to minimize noise.
 Fit all construction equipment with properly-operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds, no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer, to minimize noise emissions.
 If construction equipment is equipped with back-up alarm shut offs, switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters, as feasible.
 Stationary equipment (such as generators and air compressors) and equipment maintenance and staging areas shall be located as far from existing noise-sensitive land uses, as feasible.  To the extent feasible, use acoustic enclosures, shields, or shrouds for stationary equipment such as compressors and pumps.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-34 AUGUST 2017
 Shut off generators when generators are not needed.
 Coordinate deliveries to reduce the potential of trucks waiting to unload and idling for long periods of time.
 Grade surface irregularities on construction sites to prevent potholes from causing vehicular noise.
 Minimize the use of impact devices such as jackhammers, pavement breakers, and hoe rams.

Where possible, use concrete crushers or pavement saws rather than hoe rams for tasks such as concrete or asphalt demolition and removal.

The final noise-reduction measures to be implemented and their associated details shall be determined by the construction-level noise analysis. The final noise-reduction measures shall be included on all construction and building documents and/or construction management plans and submitted for verification to the City; implemented by the construction contractor through the duration of the construction phase; and discussed at the pre-demolition, -grade, and/or -construction meetings.

Significance With Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. With implementation of Mitigation Measures N-3 and N-4, construction noise impacts due to construction activities would be reduced to the extent feasible. However, given that details of individual development projects in the vicinity of the Plan Area are currently unknown, it is not possible to quantify the construction noise impacts at specific off-site or on-site sensitive receptors. Because these construction activities may occur near noise-sensitive receptors and because noise disturbances may occur for prolonged periods of time, construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

NOISE-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not cause exposure of people residing or working in the vicinity of the study area to excessive aircraft noise levels, for a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport.

Fresno Chandler Executive Airport lies adjacent to the northeastern boundary of the Plan Area. Other nearby public airports include Fresno Yosemite International Airport (located 6.4 miles to the northeast of the Plan Area boundary) and Sierra Sky Park (7.3 miles to the northwest).22 The 65 dBA CNEL noise contours for Fresno Yosemite International Airport and Sierra Sky Park (shown in Figures NS-4 and NS-6 of the General Plan, respectively) lie outside of the Plan Area. While aircraft that utilize these airports could fly over the Plan Area and generate noise levels that may be momentarily audible or noticeable, these aircraft operations do not significantly contribute to the Plan Area’s noise environment. Figure NS-5 of the City of Fresno General Plan shows that a portion of the Plan Area falls within the Airport Influence Area of Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, including some land that lies 22 Airnav.com, 2017.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-35
within the airport’s 60 dBA CNEL and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours. Land uses that fall within these contours include “Open Space” (“Ponding Basin” and “Clear Zone”) and “Residential.” It is possible that future increases in airport traffic could result in the noise contours encompassing a larger area, which could affect existing uses within the Plan Area. However, no potential changes to airport traffic would be due to implementation of the proposed Plan. As such, no determination of impacts under CEQA is applicable to airport-related noise level increases at existing uses. However, CEQA is applicable to future development in accordance with the proposed Plan, which may increase or intensify development in the area within the Airport Influence Area and the noise contours. The Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) establishes policies for planning new developments on land within the Airport Influence Area.

Table 1 of the ALUCP provides guidance for the compatibility of land uses within the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. ALUCP Policy 3.1 (5) establishes that new residential development and new schools shall be prohibited within the 65 CNEL contour unless it is determined that there is no feasible alternative to such development and provided that the property owner grants an avigation easement to the City. Additionally, ALUCP Policy 3.1 (6) requires an acoustical analysis for any new sensitive use located within a 65 or greater CNEL contour. The acoustical analysis must demonstrate that new structures for sensitive uses shall incorporate noise insulation such that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB CNEL. In accordance with ALUCP Policy 3.1 (7), development of new sensitive uses is prohibited within the 70 CNEL contour.

Since noise from individual aircraft can be intrusive and annoying in locations beyond the limits of the mapped noise contours, the ALUCP also requires an avigation easement to the City of Fresno as a condition for approval of any residential development proposal (i.e., zone change, subdivision map, conditional use permit, site plan review) within the Airport Influence Area (AIA), and for all development proposals (commercial, industrial or residential) within the 65 CNEL contour. The full text of the ALUCP is included in Appendix F.

Although implementation of the proposed Plan may result in development of new uses within the AIA and although noise contours of Fresno Chandler Executive Airport could potentially expand, the developments within the Plan Area would be required to comply with the policies set by the ALUCP and the City’s Noise and Safety Element. Thus, with the expectation that future development within the Plan Area would follow established approval procedures and would fulfill applicable policies, implementation of the proposed Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts due to aircraft-related noise from public airports.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

NOISE-6 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not cause exposure of people residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels, for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip.

There are no heliports or private airports within the Plan Area. The nearest heliport is located at the Community Regional Medical Center (1.8 miles to the northeast), and there are no private airports within five miles of the Plan Area. Given the distance to the Plan Area and that flights would be sporadic and

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-36 AUGUST 2017
limited for medical use, heliport contributions to community noise levels within the Plan Area would be negligible. Therefore, development in accordance with the proposed Plan would not expose people to excessive noise levels, and noise impacts due to private airports and heliports would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.11.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
NOISE-7 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to noise.

Operational Noise – Traffic Sources
Project-related cumulative noise impacts would occur if the proposed Plan’s contribution to cumulative noise increases results in a substantial noise increase in comparison to existing conditions. As previously discussed under Impact NOISE-1, 21 of the 30 segments analyzed would experience substantial noise increases greater than 3 dBA attributable to buildout of the proposed Plan, with future noise levels that exceed 65 dB CNEL. The substantially increased ADT flows resulting from implementation of the proposed Plan would create, by itself, a project-related traffic noise increase that would be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts due to traffic-generated noise would be significant.

Significance With Mitigation (Traffic Noise): Significant and unavoidable.

Operational Noise – Stationary Sources
As discussed under Impact NOISE-1, potential new stationary sources due to the proposed Plan would not be expected to contribute any notable, future sound energy within or outside of the Plan Area.

Additionally, onsite ventilation units and associated equipment at a project site would be acoustically engineered with appropriate procurement specifications, sound enclosures, and parapet walls to minimize noise—all in accordance with City of Fresno stationary noise requirements—to ensure that such equipment does not exceed allowable noise limits. Other stationary sources for residential, office, and commercial uses include landscaping, maintenance, truck deliveries, trash pickup, and parking lot activity, and any other sources of stationary noise at a project site would also be subject to the restrictions of the municipal code.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.11-37
Of particular note with all existing and future stationary sources associated with the proposed Plan is that they are generally localized in nature (as opposed to more area-wide sources such as roadways and freeways). For example, a single, roof-top ventilation unit or a single lawn-mower will only potentially affect listeners in the immediate vicinity; say within 100 feet (for discussion purposes). Given this relatively limited sphere of influence for any given, single stationary source, coupled with the dispersed placement of such sources across the Plan Area, the aggregation of stationary sources would not be expected to be cumulatively considerable. Thus, cumulative impacts from project-related stationary noise sources would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

Construction Noise
Construction activities may occur simultaneously and in close proximity to sensitive receptors, resulting in significant impacts. Additionally, it cannot be determined whether other, close-proximity projects will be conducted simultaneously or to what extent their potential noise emissions might be, since details of individual development projects in the vicinity of the Plan Area are currently unknown. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to construction noise could be potentially significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Potentially significant.

Significance With Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. Even after implementation of Mitigation Measures N-3 and N-4 listed above, construction noise impacts due to buildout of the proposed Plan may remain significant.

Construction Vibration
Construction activities may occur simultaneously and in close proximity to sensitive receptors. However, given the distances between potential construction zones of individual projects within and outside of the Plan Area, these cumulative projects would not be expected to cause a cumulatively significant construction vibration impact. Additionally, Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2 listed below would reduce the impacts to offsite receptors for each individual project to a less than significant level. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts related to construction vibration are anticipated.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO
NOISE

4.11-38 AUGUST 2017

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

POPULATION AND HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.12-1

4.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
This chapter describes the population and housing characteristics in the City of Fresno and evaluates the potential environmental consequences from future development that could occur by adopting and implementing the proposed Plan. A summary of the relevant regulatory setting and existing conditions is followed by a discussion of specific and cumulative impacts from future development permitted under the proposed Plan.

4.12.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

4.12.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section summarizes existing State and local laws and policies pertaining to population and housing in Fresno. There are no federal regulations applicable to population and housing in relation to the proposed Plan.

State Regulations
California Housing Element Law
California Housing Element Law includes provisions related to the requirements for housing elements of local government General Plans. Among these requirements, some of the necessary parts include an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. Additionally, in order to assure that counties and cities recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the State housing goals, this section of the Government Code calls for local jurisdictions to plan for, and allow the construction of, a share of the region’s projected housing needs.

Regional Regulations
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
State Housing Element Law, Government Code Chapter 1143, Article 10.6, Sections 65580 and 65589, requires development of a Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan (RHNA). The RHNA, which was adopted by the Council of Fresno County Governments (FCOG) in July 2014, defines local housing market areas. Each jurisdiction within a market area is then assigned and is responsible for, a proportional share of the area’s non-market rate housing needs. According to the 2013 Fresno County RHNA Plan, the City of Fresno falls into the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Market Area (FCMA) and receives an allocation of units based on the City’s share of the housing need within that boundary. The FCMA also includes the City of Clovis, the unincorporated communities of Easton and Friant, and several unincorporated neighborhoods such as Calwa, Fig Garden, Malaga, and Sunnyside.

Adopted in April 2016, the Fresno County RHNA Plan covers an 8-year planning period that is between December 21, 2015 and December 31, 2023. The Plan includes housing at four different income levels, including very-low, low, moderate, and above-moderate. As determined by FCOG, the City of Fresno’s total

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

POPULATION AND HOUSING

4.12-2 A UGUST 2017
housing unit capacity allocation is 23,565.1 This allocation translates into sites that could accommodate housing affordable to households that fall within the various income categories as follows:
 Extremely and Very Low Income: 5,666 dwelling units
 Low Income: 3289 dwelling units
 Moderate Income: 3571 dwelling units
 Above-Moderate: 11,0392
Local Regulations
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan is the City’s primary policy planning document, providing the framework for management and utilization of the City’s physical, economic, and human resources. Adopted on December 18, 2014, the Plan includes ten separate Elements, including a Housing Element chapter. Each Element of the General Plan contains goals, objectives, and implementing policies that guide development within the city. The City’s Policies related to population and housing in the city are listed below in Table

4.12-1.

TABLE 4.12-1 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO POPULATION AND HOUSING Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Urban Form Element
Objective UF-12 Emphasize the opportunity for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, and housing types.

Policy UF-1-a Diverse Neighborhoods. Support development projects that provide Fresno with a diversity of urban and suburban neighborhood opportunities.

Policy UF-1-d
Range of Housing Types. Provide for diversity and variation of building types, densities, and scales of development in order to reinforce the identity of individual neighborhoods, foster a variety of market-based options for living and working to suit a large range of income levels, and further affordable housing opportunities throughout the city.

Policy UF-1-e
Unique Neighborhoods. Promote and protect unique neighborhoods and mixed use areas throughout Fresno that respect and support various ethnic, cultural and historic enclaves; provide a range of housing options, including furthering affordable housing opportunities; and convey a unique character and lifestyle attractive to Fresnans. Support unique areas through more specific planning processes that directly engage community members in creative and innovative design efforts.

Policy UF-1-f
Complete Neighborhoods, Densities, and Development Standards. Use Complete Neighborhood design concepts and development standards to achieve the development of Complete Neighborhoods and the residential density targets of the General Plan.

Objective UF-13
Locate roughly one-half of future residential development in infill areas—defined as being within the City on December 31, 2012— including the Downtown core area and surrounding neighborhoods, mixed-use centers and transit-oriented development along major BRT corridors, and other non-corridor infill areas, and vacant land.
1 The total housing unit capacity allowance is adjusted to account for “credits”, which are existing affordable housing units, and “debits,” which are additional units that have been carried over from the previous Housing Element. 2 Fresno Council of Governments Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element, Adopted April 2016.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

POPULATION AND HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.12-3
Fresno Housing Element
The 2015-2023 Fresno Housing Element was adopted on April 28, 2016 and amended on April 13, 2017; the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has certified that it meets State requirements. The 2015-2023 Housing Element includes a housing needs assessment that identifies current and projected housing needs, as well as policies to accommodate housing development that will be affordable to a range of household types and income ranges. The City’s Policies related to population and housing in the city are listed below in Table 4.12-2. In addition, the City of Fresno 2015-2023 General Plan Housing Element includes an Unaccommodated Regional Housing Needs Allocation from 2008 for additional housing sites (before credits) as follows:
 Extremely and Very Low Income: 3,172 dwelling units
 Low Income: 3,304 dwelling units3
TABLE 4.12-2 HOUSING ELEMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO POPULATION AND HOUSING Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Objective H‐1 Provide adequate sites for housing development to accommodate a range of housing by type, size, location, price, and tenure.

Policy H‐1‐a Implement land use policies and standards that allow for a range of residential densities and products that will enable households of all types and income levels the opportunity to find suitable ownership or rental housing.

Policy H‐1‐b Encourage development of residential uses in strategic proximity to employment, recreational facilities, schools, neighborhood commercial areas, and transportation routes.

Policy H‐1‐c Promote the development of affordable and special needs housing near transit and/or smart growth areas.

Policy H‐5‐g
Create equitable and affordable housing options throughout the City that provide incentives to residents for finding housing in high opportunity areas and to developers for building affordable housing in high opportunity areas.

Objective H-3 Address, and where possible, remove any potential governmental constraints to housing production and affordability.

Policy H-3-a
Review and adjust as appropriate residential development standards, regulations, ordinances, departmental processing procedures, and residential fees related to rehabilitation and construction that are determined to be a constraint on the development of housing.

Objective H-5 Continue to promote equal housing opportunity in the City’s housing market regardless of age, disability/medical condition, race, sex, marital status, ethnic background, source of income, and other factors.

Policy H-5-a
Prohibit discrimination in the sale, rental, or financing of housing based on race, color, ancestry, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, disability/medical condition, familial status, marital status, source of income, or any other arbitrary factor.

Policy H-5-b
Assist in the enforcement of fair housing laws by providing support to organizations that can receive and investigate fair housing allegations, monitor compliance with fair housing laws, and refer possible violations to enforcing agencies.

Policy H-5-c Provide equal access to housing for special needs residents such as people experiencing homelessness, elderly individuals, and persons with disabilities.

Policy H-5-d Promote the provisions of disabled-accessible units and housing for persons with mental and physical disabilities.

Policy H-5-e Ensure that all development applications are considered, reviewed, and approved without prejudice to the proposed residents, contingent on the development application’s compliance with all entitlement 3 City of Fresno General Plan, 2015-2023 Housing Element, adopted April 28, 2016, amended April 13, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

POPULATION AND HOUSING

4.12-4 A UGUST 2017
TABLE 4.12-2 HOUSING ELEMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO POPULATION AND HOUSING Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
requirements.

Policy H-5-f Accommodate persons with disabilities who seek reasonable waiver or modification of land use controls and/or development standards pursuant to procedures and criteria set forth in the Development Code.

Policy H-5-g
Create equitable and affordable housing options throughout the City that provide incentives to residents for finding housing in high opportunity areas and to developers for building affordable housing in high opportunity areas.

Policy H-5-h Consult with a wide range of groups throughout the community and consider environmental justice issues in the development and update of regulations, guidelines and other local programs.

Policy H-5-i Increase or maintain resources to establish and support outreach, public education and community development activities through community- based and neighborhood organizations.

4.12.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes the existing population and housing conditions within the Plan Area, as well as in the City of Fresno as a whole, to provide context for the analysis of the proposed Plan.

As depicted in Figure 3-2, land within the Plan Area is not clearly organized into distinct uses or patterns.

Instead, there is a mixture of industrial, agricultural, commercial, and residential land uses throughout the Plan Area. Properties located at the eastern end of the Plan Area carry over the largely residential land use pattern found in Downtown, west of Highway 99. The pattern transitions into agricultural uses towards the western end of the Plan Area, closer to land outside the City limit within the City’s Sphere of Influence and County-owned land. Pockets of commercial uses are scattered through the Plan Area. Industrial uses, such as Foster Poultry Farms and Cargill Meat Solutions, are located immediately adjacent to, or enclosed by, residential neighborhoods. Additionally, there are vacant lands across the Plan Area.

Population
As of 2015, it is estimated that the Plan Area includes 3,043 households and has a total population of 12,649.
4 Between the years 2010 and 2015, there was a slight decline in the number of households, an annual rate of decline of 0.8 percent. However, there was a 0.6 percent per year increase in the number of households in both the city and county during this time period. If the existing trend continues, the Plan Area would see a 0.05 percent per year decline in the number of households between the years 2015 and 2020, whereas the city would increase by 0.6 percent per year, and the county would increase by 0.7 percent per year.
4 Esri, 2015. Community Profile for Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Area. Prepared by PlaceWorks on July 23, 2015.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

POPULATION AND HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.12-5
Housing
In 2015, the average household size in the Plan Area was 4.1 persons per unit, about 31 percent higher than the citywide average of 3.1. The difference has been increasing from 24 percent in 2000 to 30 percent in 2010. The higher average household size in the Plan Area reflects the types of households residing there. In the Plan Area, about 57 percent of households include one or more children living with the householder, compared to 43 percent in the city as a whole. In addition, 14 percent of the households in the Plan Area are considered multi-generational, consisting of three or more generations that live together in one house, compared to 7 percent in the city as a whole.

Employment
As of 2011, a total 2,935 people work in the Plan Area. About 212 people, or 4.8 percent, of the Plan Area’s 4,443 employed residents work within the Plan Area. The remaining 4,231 employed Plan Area residents, or 95.2 percent, out-commute to another location for work. Conversely, 2,723 workers living outside of the Plan Area commute into the Plan Area for work.

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

1. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).

2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

3. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

POPULATION AND HOUSING

4.12-6 A UGUST 2017

4.12.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
POP-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).

The proposed Plan would result in a significant impact related to population growth if it would lead to substantial unplanned growth, either directly or indirectly.

Housing and Population
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, buildout of the proposed Plan under the Dual Designation Scenario could generate a maximum of approximately 7,131 new housing units, 2,489,065 square feet of office space, and 1,698,040 square feet of retail space (based on the dual land use designation in Figure 3-3 of the proposed Plan) during implementation of the proposed Plan through the 25-year planning horizon.. This anticipated future development would result in approximately 27,7755 new residents. The projected occupied housing is based on an average occupancy of total units throughout Fresno County between the year 2000 and 2010. The average occupancy was approximately 95 percent and approximately 5 percent vacancy.6 The residential population for the Plan Area, as well as citywide, is shown in Table 4.12-3. The population potential for the Plan Area is within the population growth contemplated by the Fresno General Plan, which anticipates growth of up to 226,000 additional residents, as shown in Table 4.12‐3, consistent with the proposed Plan. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Plan would not exceed the City’s projection.

TABLE 4.12-3 RESIDENTIAL POPULATION POTENTIAL
Land Use Proposed Plan City of Fresno General Plan
Population Estimate Under
Horizonb
Existing Population 12,649a 545,000c
New Population 27,775 226,000
Total Residential Population 40,424 771,000
a. As of the year 2015, obtained from Esri Business Analyst. b. City of Fresno General Plan, Table 1-5: Population Estimate under Horizon and Buildout. The Horizon year is 2035
c. Existing population includes the entire SOI area population from 2010 Census Data.

Source: PlaceWorks, 2015, using data from Esri business analyst; City of Fresno General Plan.

As noted above, the proposed Plan could generate up to 7,131 new housing units in the Plan Area under the Dual Designation Scenario.
5 ((7,131 housing units * .95 occupancy rate )*4.1 people per unit )) = 27,775.24. 6 Fresno General Plan MEIR, Population and Housing, page 5.12-11.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

POPULATION AND HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.12-7
As described Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the General Plan anticipates that the Plan Area would result in 6,723 new housing units as the General Plan is implemented.7 As noted above, the proposed Plan could result in 7,131 new housing units under the Dual Designation Scenario (based on the dual land use designation), which is greater than the estimated buildout of the General Plan.

Employment
New jobs in the Plan Area would be created by development of commercial, office, and other employment-generating uses. New industrial jobs could occur in existing industrial businesses; however, the proposed Plan redirects new industrial uses to locations outside of the Plan Area to remove land use conflicts with nearby residential and other sensitive uses. As shown in Table 4.12-4, the Fresno General Plan MEIR projects an increase of 183,940 jobs for a total of 393,200 jobs in Fresno in 2056. As described in the Project Description in this Draft EIR, buildout of the proposed Plan could result in as many as 8,671 additional jobs in 2042.
8 These new jobs would not exceed the citywide job projections. Although job growth usually does not directly induce population growth, this calculation takes into account the fact that an increase in employment could accompany population growth, as workers and their family members are likely to live close to their workplaces.

TABLE 4.12-4 EMPLOYMENT POPULATION POTENTIAL
Land Use Proposed Plan City of Fresno Planning Area
General Plan Employment
Estimate
Existing Jobs 2,935a 209,260b
New Jobs 8,671 183,940
Total Jobs 11,606 393,200c
a. As of the year 2011, obtained from Esri Business Analyst b. As of the year 2010, obtained from Table 5.12-5 of the Fresno General Plan MEIR c. As of the year 2056, obtained from Table 5.12-5 of the Fresno General Plan MEIR Source: PlaceWorks, 2015, using data from Esri business analyst; Fresno County General Plan MEIR.

Although the number of residents generated under the proposed Plan could exceed the number projected by the General Plan under the Dual Designation Scenario, growth under the proposed Plan would occur incrementally over a period of approximately 25 years and would be guided by a policy framework in the proposed Plan that is generally consistent with many of the principal goals and objectives established in the Fresno General Plan and 2015-2023 Housing Element. As discussed in Chapter 4.10, Land Use and Planning, the proposed Plan is consistent with Economic Development Goals ED-1, -2, -3 and -4 that seek to promote employment growth. As the goals and vision of the proposed Plan are to facilitate infill growth in magnet cores and along corridors, as well as to plan for and zone employment areas for “healthy” businesses, implementation of the proposed Plan would support 7 Development capacity numbers for the General Plan were calculated using the planned land uses shown in the General Plan Land Use map approved February 29, 2016. 8 ((7,131 housing units *.95 occupancy rate)*1.28 employees per occupied housing unit)) = 8,671.30.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

POPULATION AND HOUSING

4.12-8 A UGUST 2017
citywide planning efforts. Therefore, this additional growth would be consistent with the citywide planning objectives. As a result, impacts to population growth associated with potential future development under the proposed Plan would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

POP-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

The proposed Plan would have a significant impact if it would displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the proposed Plan would allow for an increase in the total number of housing units in the Plan Area (up to a total of 7,131 net new housing units under the Dual Designation Scenario) through the 25-year planning horizon. Since implementation of the proposed Plan would result in a net increase in housing, it would not require replacement housing outside the Plan Area. Furthermore, no housing is proposed to be demolished under the proposed Plan, and the availability of vacant land within the Plan Area would not require the demolition of existing housing units to produce new units. Development under the proposed Plan would be required to comply with the City’s Housing Element Objective H-5 and associates policies, as shown in Table 4.12-2 above, which promotes equal housing opportunity in the City’s housing market. Therefore, impacts related to the displacement of housing would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

POP-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

The proposed Plan would have a significant environmental impact if it would displace a substantial number of people, thereby requiring construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an increase in the total number of housing units within the Plan Area. As described under impact POP-2 above, because there is ample vacant land available to locate new units within the Plan Area, production of these new units would not require the demolition of existing housing. As a result, substantial numbers of people would not be displaced, and construction of replacement housing would not be required. Therefore, impacts associated with the displacement of substantial numbers of people would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

POPULATION AND HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.12-9

4.12.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
POP-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to population and housing.

As discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Evaluation, of this Draft EIR, this EIR takes into account growth projected by the proposed Plan within the Fresno City boundary and Sphere of Influence, in combination with impacts from projected growth in the rest of Fresno County and the surrounding region. Impacts from cumulative growth are considered in the context of their consistency with regional planning policies.

As described above, the proposed Plan would not induce a substantial amount of growth that has not been adequately planned for or require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Although the number of new residents generated under the proposed Plan could exceed the number analyzed under the General Plan MEIR under the Dual Designation Scenario, cumulative growth would be consistent with regional planning targets. Thus, when considered along with the proposed Plan, which, as described in the above sections, would not exceed regional growth projections, cumulative growth would not displace substantial numbers of people or housing or exceed planned levels of growth. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-1

4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
The following information is provided in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125. The environmental setting discussion examines the existing conditions within the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan (Plan) Area. This chapter describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions within the Plan Area and evaluates the potential environmental consequences on public services and recreation from future development that could occur by adopting and implementing the proposed Plan. The public services and recreation facilities analyzed in this chapter include fire and police protection services, schools, libraries, and parks and recreation. For each service, a summary of the relevant regulatory setting and existing conditions is followed by a discussion of potential impacts from future development permitted under the proposed Specific Plan.

4.13.1 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES
This section describes the current fire protection regulations, resources, and response times for fire protection services within the Plan Area, as well as the proposed Plan’s potential impacts to fire protection services.

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-2 AUGUST 2017
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC), contained in Part 9 of CCR Title 24, incorporates by adoption the International Fire Code of the International Code Council, with California amendments. The CFC is updated every 3 years and the current 2016 CFC went into effect January 1, 2017. It is effective state-wide but a local jurisdiction may adopt more restrictive standards based on local conditions under specific amendment rules prescribed by the State Building Standards Commission. The California Fire Code regulates building standards set forth in the CBC, fire department access, fire protection systems and devices, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, and standards for building inspection.

Local Regulations
Fresno Municipal Code
The Fresno Municipal Code (FMC), organized by Title, Chapter, and Section, contains all ordinances for the City. The City’s Fire Code, which is in Chapter 10, Article 5 of the FMC, regulates permit processes, emergency access, hazardous material handling, and fire protection systems, including automatic sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, and fire alarms. Chapter 11, Article 1 of the FMC, sets forth the standards for building and construction in the city. The City has adopted by reference the most recent CBC, subject to additions and amendments as outlined in Section 11-101 (Building Code).

Fresno General Plan
The City’s General Plan contains the following policies and objectives relevant to the provision of fire protection services shown in Table 4.13-1.

Existing Conditions
The Fresno Fire Department (FFD) provides the following services within the City limit: fire prevention, fire suppression, hazardous material mitigation, rescue, and emergency medical services. The City has instant aid agreements with surrounding agencies and districts whereby the nearest fire station responds to an emergency regardless of the jurisdiction within which it is located. These agreements, in addition to the services offered by the FFD, provide high quality fire suppression and emergency medical care services.

Emergency medical service is provided to all city residents by the Fire Department; however, emergency transport is provided by private carriers (such as private ambulance companies).1

1 City of Fresno Fire Department. Available at https://www.fresno.gov/fire/, accessed July 3, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-3
TABLE 4.13-1 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Objective PU‐2 Ensure that the Fire Department’s staffing and equipment resources are sufficient to meet all fire and emergency service level objectives and are provided in an efficient and cost effective manner.

Policy PU‐2‐b
Maintain Ability. Strive to continually maintain the Fire Department’s ability to provide staffing and equipment resources to effectively prevent and mitigate emergencies in existing and new high‐rise buildings and in other high‐density residential and commercial development throughout the city.

Policy PU‐2‐c
Station Siting. Use the General Plan, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, and Concept Plans, the City’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database, and a fire station location program to achieve optimum siting of future fire stations.

Objective PU‐3 Enhance the level of fire protection to meet the increasing demand for services from an increasing population.

Policy PU‐3‐a
Fire Prevention Strategies. Develop strategies to enable the performance of annual fire and life safety inspection of all industrial, commercial, institutional, and multifamily residential buildings, in accordance with nationally recognized standards for the level of service necessary for a large Metropolitan Area, including a self‐certification program. Develop strategies to provide a more systematic and broad based Public Education Outreach.

Policy PU‐3‐d
Review Development Applications. Continue Fire Department review of development applications, provide comments and recommend conditions of approval that will ensure adequate on‐site and off‐site fire protection systems and features are provided.

Policy PU‐3‐e
Building Codes. Adopt and enforce amendments to construction and fire codes, as determined appropriate, to systematically reduce the level of risk to life and property from fire, commensurate with the City’s fire suppression capabilities.

Policy PU‐3‐f Adequate Infrastructure. Continue to pursue the provision of adequate water supplies, hydrants, and appropriate property access to allow for adequate fire suppression throughout the City.

Policy PU‐3‐g
Cost Recovery. Continue to evaluate appropriate codes, policies, and methods to generate fees or other sources of revenue to offset the ongoing personnel and maintenance costs of providing fire prevention and response services.

Policy PU‐3‐I
New Fire Station Locations. Consideration will be given to co‐locating new Fire Station facilities with other public property including, but not limited to, police substations, schools, parks, playgrounds, and community centers to create a synergy of participation in the neighborhood with the potential result of less vandalism and promotion of a better sense of security for the citizens using these facilities.

Equipment and Staffing
The FFD employs 321 uniformed firefighters, 17 sworn non-safety Fire Prevention staff, and 44 civilian members, serving a population of more than 525,000 in the City of Fresno, the North Central Fire Protection District, the Fig Garden Fire Protection District, and the unincorporated County lands located within the City limit. The FFD operates a total of 24 fire stations/companies that serve a 336-square-mile area; 19 fire stations, including the Airport Rescue Fire Fighting Station (ARFF), are located within the City of Fresno and four are located in the contract areas served by FFD. The companies are divided into four battalions: three serve the City of Fresno and one serves the North Central Fire Protection District; each battalion is supervised by a battalion chief. Daily staffing consists of 89 firefighters and one 24-hour arson investigator. The Fire Department has 23 engine companies and 6 truck companies. Additionally, the FFD also has hazardous materials, swift water rescue, heavy rescue, water tenders, and specialized grassland firefighting apparatus, which are staffed as needed by engine and truck company personnel.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-4 AUGUST 2017
Average Response Times
The FMC requires that all new residential development (with up to 4 units per building) must be located within a 5-mile “running distance” of an existing fire station.2 All residential buildings with more than four units and all other development must be located within 3 miles of an existing fire station. With the exception of the Regional Sports Complex at Jensen Avenue, all new development within the proposed Plan Area would be located within a 3-mile running distance of an existing fire station. Table 4.13-2 shows the fire stations that are located either within the Plan Area boundary or within a 3-mile running distance of the boundary.

TABLE 4.13-2 EXISTING CITY OF FRESNO FIRE STATIONS IN THE PLAN AREA Station
No. Address (Fresno) Equipment/Personnel
3 1406 Fresno
Street
Engine 3 —The engine is operated by a crew of four.

Water Tender 3 —The water tender holds 3,000 gallons of water and is staffed as needed by the crew off Engine 3
The block occupied by Station 3 is also home to the FFD’s Training Drill Tower, as well as the Repair and Maintenance section that is responsible for maintaining fire department apparatus.
4 3065 East Iowa
Avenue
Engine 4 —The engine is operated by a crew of three.

Truck 4—The truck is operated by a crew of four.
7 2571 South Cherry Avenue Engine 7 — The engine is operated by a crew of three.

Patrol 7 —The unit is staffed by the crew of Engine 7 as needed. 8 1428 South Cedar
Avenue
Engine 8—The engine is operated by a crew of four.
9 2340 North Vagedes Avenue
Engine 9 — The engine is operated by a crew of three.

Truck 9 — The truck is operated by a crew of four.

Battalion 4
16 2510 North Polk Avenue Engine 16 — The engine is operated by a crew of three.

HazMat 16 — The unit is staffed by the crew of Engine 16 as needed. 19 3187 West Belmont Avenue
Truck 19 — The engine is operated by a crew of three.

Brush 19 — Staffed by the crew of Tuck 19 as needed
Battalion 2
22 806 South Garfield Avenue (North
Central Fire Protection District) Engine 22 — Staffed by a crew of three.

Source: City of Fresno Fire Department Station Locations, 2012. Website: http://www.fresno.gov/Government/DepartmentDirectory/ Fire/AboutFresnoFire/StationLocations/default.htm.

The Fire Department’s target response travel time for the first arriving fire company upon notification of an emergency is 4 minutes 90 percent of the time. In 2016, on a citywide basis, the 4-minute goal was reached 68 percent of the time. Industry standards define an Effective Firefighting Force (EFF) as having 15 firefighters on a residential fire ground within 8 minutes, 90 percent of the time and 21 firefighters on 2 City of Fresno Municipal Code, Section 12-4.508-E-1.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-5
a commercial fire ground within 8 minutes 90 percent of the time. In 2016, the 8-minute EFF goal was reached 81 percent of the time for residential fires and 82 percent for commercial fires. The Fire Department has been unable to meet target response times with the current staffing and fire station locations due to the increasing number of emergency calls for service (which totaled 44,000 incidents in 2016), fire station location density, and unit availability. This issue is not unique to the Plan Area, but is rather a citywide Department statistic. The Fire Department has a staffing level of 0.44 firefighters per 1,000 people; the State average is 0.81, and the national standard is 1 to 1.5 per 1,000 residents. The National Fire Protection Association Standard (NFPA) 1710 provides recommendations of minimum workforce standards to accomplish provisions of fire suppression and emergency medical services. FFD uses NFPA 1710 as a guidance document to establish its own minimum staffing standards to ensure that sufficient workforce is present in emergencies. FFD’s long-term planning target is to match daily staffing levels to service level demands.

Impact Fees
The City has implemented the following impact fees that address fire protection services:

Fire Facilities Fee: Section 12-4.901 of the FMC, which states:

In order to implement the goals and objectives of the City’s General Plan, and to mitigate the impacts caused by future development in the City, certain fire department facilities must be constructed. The City Council has determined that a Fire Facilities Fee is needed in order to finance these public facilities and to pay for each development’s fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements. In establishing the fee described in the following sections, the City Council has found the fee to be consistent with its general plan, and pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.2, has considered the effects of the fee with respect to the city's housing needs as established in the housing element of the general plan.

Street Facilities Fees: Section 12-4.1001 of the FMC states:

In order to implement the goals and objectives of the City’s General Plan, and to mitigate the impacts caused by future development in the City, certain street facilities must be constructed. The City Council has determined that street facilities fees are needed in order to finance these public facilities and to pay for each development’s fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements. Based on this determination, Council adopted, by resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule, a Citywide Regional Street Impact Fee (“Citywide Street Fee”) and a New Growth Area Major Street Fee (“Growth Area Street Fee”). Council adopts this Article to require the imposition of these street facilities fees on new development in the city.

4.13.1.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Plan would have a significant impact related to fire protection and emergency services if it would:

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-6 AUGUST 2017

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

2. Contribute to cumulative fire protection and emergency medical service impacts in the area.

4.13.1.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes potential Plan-specific and cumulative impacts to fire protection services.

PS-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

As described above in Section 4.13.1.1, the Fire Department’s level of emergency response service is below average compared with metropolitan cities of similar size. The expected level of fire prevention services in a city the size of Fresno is the ability to provide annual fire and life safety inspections of all commercial, industrial, institutional, and multi-family buildings, and to provide proactive systematic fire safety public education programs to all pre-adult school levels, senior citizens, the disabled, and the nonEnglish speaking population. Due to current staffing levels and new construction inspection demands, many buildings that are susceptible to low and moderate fire and life safety hazards are being inspected at intervals of 2 to 4 years. Public education outreach is currently limited to attendance requested for community events and the Burn Aware school education program focused on grades 1 to 3.

Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an additional 4,035,143 square feet of nonresidential building space, along with 7,131 housing units, which would generate an increase of up to 27,775 residents; this increase is greater than the population growth contemplated by the General Plan.

Increased population densities of the Plan Area and planned creation of new mixed-use corridors and centers will require commensurate increases in firefighter staffing and facilities and equipment. Fire station location will become more dependent on density and availability than “running distances” between fire stations. Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an increased demand for fire protection services, commensurate with the increase in resident population and daytime population.

However, this increase in demand can be met with additional staffing requirements at the existing fire stations that service the Plan Area, and would not result in the need to construct additional government facilities. Additionally, future development within the Plan Area would be required to comply with Section 12-4.901 of the FMC, which requires each development to pay a Fire Facilities Fee in order to mitigate the impacts on fire protection facilities caused by future development within the city. Payment of the appropriate development impact fees would offset the construction and acquisition costs of required fire facility improvements.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-7
Implementation of the proposed Plan would also be required to comply with General Plan Policies listed below that seek to minimize potential impacts to response times and physical impacts to the environment from future construction of facilities that may result from development proposed under the Plan.

Objective PU-2: Ensure that the Fire Department’s staffing and equipment resources are sufficient to meet all fire- and emergency service-level objectives and are provided in an efficient and cost effective manner.

Policy PU-3-d Review Development Application. Continue Fire Department review of development applications, provide comments and recommend conditions of approval that will ensure adequate on-site and off-site fire protection systems and features are provided.

Policy PU-3-e Building Codes. Adopt and enforce amendments to construction and fire codes, as determined appropriate, to systematically reduce the level of risk to life and property from fire, commensurate with the City’s fire suppression capabilities.

Policy PU-3-f Adequate Infrastructure. Continue to pursue the provision of adequate water supplies, hydrants, and appropriate property access to allow for adequate fire suppression throughout the City.

Additionally, development projects within the proposed Plan Area would be required to comply with Section 12-4.901 of the FMC, which requires each development to pay a Fire Facilities Fee in order to mitigate the impacts on fire protection facilities caused by future development in the city. Payment of the appropriate development impact fees would offset the construction and acquisition costs of required fire facility improvements. Further, the Master EIR for the City’s General Plan has analyzed and accounted for the anticipated improvements to the City’s fire protection facilities and services, and the development regulations in the proposed Plan include an objective to site new fire stations adjacent to parks, trails, and schools. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.13.1.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
PS-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to fire protection service.

Future growth would result in an increased demand for fire services and facilities throughout the Plan Area, as well as areas that are outside the Plan Area. The Master EIR for the City’s General Plan has analyzed and accounted for this increased demand and the associated facility improvements. Because the proposed Plan population increase is within the population increase contemplated by the General Plan, the project impacts are not deemed cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-8 AUGUST 2017
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.13.2 POLICE PROTECTION SERVICES
This section describes the current police protection regulations, resources, and response times in Fresno, as well as the proposed Plan’s potential impacts to police protection services.

4.13.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes local policies related to police services in Fresno. There are no federal or State regulations pertaining to law enforcement that apply to the Plan Area.

Local Regulations
Fresno General Plan
The City’s General Plan contains the following goals, policies, and objectives relevant to the provision of police services as shown in Table 4.13-3:

TABLE 4.13-3 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO POLICE SERVICES Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Objective PU‐1
Provide the level of law enforcement and crime prevention services necessary to maintain a safe, secure, and stable urban living environment through a Police Department that is dedicated to providing professional, ethical, efficient and innovative service with integrity, consistency and pride.

Policy PU‐1‐c
Safety Considerations in Development Approval. Continue to identify and apply appropriate safety, design and operational measures as conditions of development approval, including, but not limited to, street access control measures, lighting and visibility of access points and common areas, functional and secure on‐site recreational and open space improvements within residential developments, and use of State licensed, uniformed security.

Policy PU‐1‐d
New Police Station Locations. Consideration will be given to co‐locating new police station facilities with other public property including, but not limited to, schools, parks, playgrounds, and community centers to create a synergy of participation in the neighborhood with the potential result of less vandalism and promotion of a better sense of security for the citizens using these facilities.

Policy PU‐1‐j Lighting and Safety. Ensure adequate lighting at off‐sale liquor stores to help deter crime and to promote a more inviting and safe atmosphere around them.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-9
Existing Conditions
Equipment and Staffing
The City of Fresno Police Department (FPD) provides the following police protection services within the City limit: uniformed patrol response to calls for service, crime prevention, tactical crime enforcement (such as gang/violent crime suppression), and traffic enforcement/accident prevention. The FPD also contains the Investigative Services Division, which investigates crimes against persons/property, collects intelligence information, and deals with vice/narcotics control and enforcement. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) provides law enforcement services for the State highway system and assists the City of Fresno by providing enforcement within the city under special programs. 3 Patrol services are divided into five policing districts. The Southwest Policing District is located south of McKinley Avenue, and west of East Avenue and State Route 99 (SR 99). The Northwest Policing District is located north of McKinley Avenue to the San Joaquin River and west of Blackstone Avenue/Abby Street to the western City limit. The Southeast Policing District is located south of Ashlan Avenue (east of Clovis Avenue), south of Clinton Avenue between East Avenue and Clovis Avenue, east of SR 99 (south of Church Avenue) to the southern City limit. The Northeast Policing District is located north of McKinley Avenue to the San Joaquin River and east of Blackstone Avenue to the City of Clovis. The Central District is located south of McKinley Avenue to Belmont Avenue, west of Second Street to Parkway Drive.4 The Plan Area falls entirely within the Southwest Policing District (District 1). In addition to the Fresno Police Headquarters, located at 2323 Mariposa Mall, the FPD operates five police stations within the city:
 Southwest: 1211 Fresno Street, Fresno, CA 93706
 Southeast: 1617 S. Cedar Avenue, Fresno, CA 93702
 Northeast: 1450 E. Teague Avenue, Fresno, CA 93720
 Northwest: 3781 N. Hughes Avenue, Fresno, CA 93705
 Central: 3502 N. Blackstone, Suite 201, Fresno, CA 93726 Calls for Service
According to the 2015 Fresno Police Department Annual Report, a total of 427,407 calls for service were made in 2015, with an average daily call for service of 1,171. The average delay time was 6.24 seconds, less than the statewide average of 10 seconds.

Impact Fees
The City has implemented the following impact fees that are applicable to the provision of police protection services:
3 City of Fresno Police Department, https://www.fresno.gov/police/, accessed on July 3, 2017. 4 City of Fresno, Police Department Annual Report, 2015.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-10 AUGUST 2017
Police Facilities Fee: Section 12-4.801 of the FMC states:

In order to implement the goals and objectives of the City’s General Plan, and to mitigate the impacts caused by future development in the City, certain police facilities must be constructed. The City Council has determined that a Police Facilities Fee is needed in order to finance these public facilities and to pay for each development’s fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements. In establishing the fee described in the following sections, the City Council has found the fee to be consistent with its general plan, and pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.2, has considered the effects of the fee with respect to the city's housing needs as established in the housing element of the general plan.

Street Facilities Fees: Section 12-4.1001 of the FMC states:

Fresno County Sheriff’s Department
The Fresno County Sheriff’s Department provides law enforcement/crime prevention to the unincorporated portions of the metropolitan area and Fresno County. These unincorporated communities include Calwa, Malaga, Mayfair, Sunnyside, Fig Garden, and Tarpey. The proposed Plan Area is located within Patrol Area 2 of the County of Fresno Sherriff’s Department. Area 2 extends from the San Joaquin River south to American Avenue and from McCall Avenue west to Chateau Fresno which is immediately west of the Plan Area. The proposed Plan Area is served by Area 2; the Sheriff’s Department office is located at 5717 E. Shields Avenue, approximately 11 miles northeast of the proposed Plan Area.

4.13.2.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Plan would have a significant impact related to police protection services if it would:

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

2. Contribute to cumulative police protection service impacts in the area.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-11

4.13.2.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes the proposed Plan’s potential impacts to police protection services.

PS-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

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

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

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

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

As growth occurs within the Plan Area, the FPD may require additional personnel and additional facilities to provide adequate police protection services. Development projects within the Plan Area would be required to comply with the following General Plan policies:
 Objective PU-1: Provide the level of law enforcement and crime prevention services necessary to maintain a safe, secure, and stable urban living environment through a Police Department that is dedicated to providing professional, ethical, efficient and innovative service with integrity, consistency and pride.
 Policy PU-1-c: Safety Considerations in Development Approval. Continue to identify and apply appropriate safety, design and operational measures as conditions of development approval, including, but not limited to, street access control measures, lighting and visibility of access points and common areas, functional and secure on-site recreational and open space improvements within residential developments, and use of State licensed, uniformed security. 5 (27,775 new residents/1,000) *2) = 55.55

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-12 AUGUST 2017
 Policy PU-1-d: New Police Station Locations. Consideration will be given to co-locating new police station facilities with other public property including, but not limited to, schools, parks, playgrounds, and community centers to create a synergy of participation in the neighborhood with the potential result of less vandalism and promotion of a better sense of security for the citizens using these facilities.
 Policy PU-1-j: Lighting and Safety. Ensure adequate lighting at off-sale liquor stores to help deter crime and to promote a more inviting and safe atmosphere around them.

In addition, future development would be required to comply with Section 12-4.801 of the FMC, which requires each development to pay a Police Facilities Fee in order to mitigate the impacts on police protection facilities caused by future development in the city. Payment of the appropriate development impact fees would offset the construction and acquisition costs of required police facility improvements.

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.13-13

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

Street Facilities Fees: Section 12-4.1001 of the FMC states:

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Fresno Unified School District, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-18 AUGUST 2017
PS-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-20 AUGUST 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

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

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

1.49 acres per
1,000 residents

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

Park Facilities Fee: Section 12-4.701 of the FMC states:

In order to implement the goals and objectives of the City’s General Plan, and to mitigate the impacts caused by future development in the City, certain park facilities must be constructed. The City Council has determined that a park facilities fee is needed in order to finance these public facilities and to pay for each development’s fair share of the construction and acquisition costs of these improvements. In establishing the fee described in the following sections, the City Council has found the fee to be consistent with its general plan, and pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.2, has considered the effects of the fee with respect to the city's housing needs as established in the housing element of the general plan.

Street Facilities Fees: Section 12-4.1001 of the FMC states:

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

4.13-28 AUGUST 2017

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

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

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

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

PS-7 Implementation of the proposed Plan could result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

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

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

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

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

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

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

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

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

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

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

2. Contribute to cumulative library facilities impacts in the area

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

PS-10 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for libraries, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-1

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

4.14.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

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

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

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

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

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

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

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

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

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

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 4.14-1
Regional Context

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 4.14-2
Roadway Classification

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

Figure 4.14-3
Existing Roadway Network

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

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

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

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

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 4.14-4
Study Roadway Segments and Intersections

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

Figure 4.14-5
Existing Daily Traffic Volumes

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

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

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

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

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

Figure 4.14-6
Existing AM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

Figure 4.14-7
Existing PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

AM 75 ft.

PM 75 ft.

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

AM 50 ft.

PM 50 ft.

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

AM 625 ft.*
PM 450 ft.*

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

AM 225 ft.*
PM 250 ft.*

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

AM 250 ft.

PM 75 ft.

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

AM 25 ft.

PM 50 ft.

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

AM 100 ft.

PM 150 ft.

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

AM 75 ft.

PM 100 ft.

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

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

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

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 4.14-8
Existing Fixed Route Transit Service

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 4.14-9
Existing Bicycle Facilities

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

Figure 4.14-10
Existing Pedestrian Facilities

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-29

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

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

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

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

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

5. Result in inadequate emergency access.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-30 AUGUST 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Fresno General Plan, 2014.

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

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

Source: Fresno General Plan MEIR, 2014.

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-36 AUGUST 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 4.14-11
Proposed Land Use Plan

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

Figure 4.14-3
Existing Roadway Network

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Ventura St: Martin Luther King Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18. Hughes Ave./Roeding Dr.:

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

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

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

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

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

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

21. Roeding Dr./West Ave.:

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

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

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

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

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

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

27. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.:

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

28. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.:

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

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

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

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

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

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

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

CI TY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. SR-99 Southbound Ramps/Fresno St. Signal
AM 24 C 27 C
PM 18 B 25 C

8. SR-99 Northbound Ramps/Fresno St. Signal
AM 15 B 19 B
PM 19 B 32 C
Notes: BO LD text indicates the intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS based on Caltrans concept LOS.

UNDERLINED text indicates the proposed Plan would have a significant impact based on the significance criteria presented in the Methodology section. a. The overall average intersection control delay is reported in seconds per vehicle. b. Level of service based on Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010).

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

While the SR-99 Southbound Ramps/East Avenue/Jensen Avenue operates at an unacceptable LOS E under existing plus proposed Plan conditions, the proposed Plan does not increase the delay from existing conditions. Therefore, this is a less than significantimpact.

The remaining intersections continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better under existing plus proposed Plan conditions. Therefore, the proposed Plan has a less than significantimpact on intersection operations.

Queuing
As described above, the proposed Planwould have a less than significant effect on roadway operations, intersection operations, and freeway off-ramp queuing. While the proposed Planwould add trips to the roadway network, the resulting roadway, intersection, and freeway off-ramp conditions would not conflict with applicable plans, ordinances, or policies establishing measures of effectiveness (i.e., delay, LOS, and queue lengths) for the performance of the circulation system. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-46 AUGUST 2017
Table 4.14-11 presents the AM and PM peak hour queues on freeway off-ramps under existing plus proposed Plan conditions. As shown in Table 4.14-11, all study freeway off-ramps have sufficient storage for existing plus proposed Plan queues. While the proposed Plan causes increases in queue lengths on freeway off-ramps, all queues can be adequately stored on the off-ramp without backing onto the freeway mainline. Therefore, the proposed Plan has a less than significant impact on freeway off-ramp queuing.

TABLE 4.14-11 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING – EXISTING PLUS PROPOSED PLAN CONDITIONS F reeway Off-Ramp
Ramp
Lengtha
Peak
Hour
95th Percentile Queue b
Existing Conditions
Existing Plus
Proposed Plan

1. SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,380 ft.

AM 75 ft. 600 ft.*
PM 75 ft. 550 ft.*

2. SR-41 Northbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,470 ft.

AM 50 ft. 50 ft.

PM 50 ft. 50 ft.

3. SR-99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,440 ft.

AM 625 ft.* 650 ft.*
PM 450 ft.* 475 ft.*

4. SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,050 ft.

AM 225 ft.* 400 ft.*
PM 250 ft.* 475 ft.*

5. SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp at North Ave. 1,575 ft.

AM 250 ft. 400 ft.*
PM 75 ft. 100 ft.

6. SR-41 Northbound Off-Ramp at North Ave. 1,700 ft.

AM 25 ft. 50 ft.

PM 50 ft. 50 ft.

7. SR-99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Fresno St. 1,030 ft.

AM 100 ft. 400 ft.*
PM 150 ft. 225 ft.

8. SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp at Fresno St. 1,070 ft.

AM 75 ft. 100 ft.

PM 100 ft. 125 ft.

Note: * = 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity; the actual queue may be longer than reported. a. The ramp length is estimated by measuring the distance from the gore point where the off-ramp departs from the mainline to the limit line at the ramp terminal intersection with the local street, as measured from aerial imagery. Distance is reported in feet. b. 95th Percentile Queue calculated using Synchro software. Queue is reported in feet and rounded up to the nearest 25-foot interval.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

As described above, the Proposed Planwould have a less than significant effect on roadway operations, intersection operations, and freeway off-ramp queuing. While the Proposed Planwould add trips to the roadway network, the resulting roadway, intersection, and freeway off-ramp conditions would not conflict with applicable plans, ordinances, or policies establishing measures of effectiveness (i.e., delay, LOS, and queue lengths) for the performance of the circulation system. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-47
TRANS-2 The proposed Plan would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards, travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.

The passage of California Assembly Bill 2419 (Bowler) in 1996 allowed counties to “opt out” of the California Congestion Management Program, referenced above, if a majority of local governments elected to exempt themselves from California’s congestion management plans. On September 25, 1997, the Fresno COG Policy Board rescinded the Fresno County Congestion Management Program at the request of the local member agencies. Therefore, this impact criterion is not applicable and this impact is less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

TRANS-3 The proposed Plan would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.

The Fresno-Chandler Executive Airport is the only aviation facility near the proposed Plan. It is a general aviation airport owned and operated by the City of Fresno located immediately northwest of the Plan Area north of Kearney Boulevard and east of West Avenue. According to the Fresno-Chandler Downtown Airport Land Use Policy Plan, 17 approximately 180 general aviation aircraft were based at the Airport as of 2000. In addition, one small cargo carrier and nine general aviation-related businesses operated at the Airport in 2000. The Airport is the smaller of two airports operated by the City of Fresno, with the larger Fresno Yosemite International Airport handling commercial airline service, air cargo operators, charter operators, and United States military, in addition to general aviation.

The Fresno-Chandler Downtown Airport Land Use Policy Plan aims to minimize the exposure of the public to high noise levels and safety hazards through land use controls and policies for property in the vicinity of the Airport. The proposed Plan is consistent with the Fresno-Chandler Downtown Airport Land Use Policy Plan. The land uses proposed for opportunity sites in the proposed Plan do not conflict with policies or allowed uses identified in Fresno-Chandler Downtown Airport Land Use Policy Plan. Since the Airport is a general aviation facility not serving commercial airline service, the population and employment growth associated with the proposed Plan is not expected to result in an increased demand for air travel at the Airport. Therefore, the proposed Planwould not cause any changesto existing aviation activity. 17 Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission, 2000. Fresno-Chandler Downtown Airport Land Use Policy Plan. Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-48 AUGUST 2017
The proposed Plan does not propose changing the location of airports. The proposed Plan also will not cause a change in air traffic patterns that would result in a substantial safety risk. Therefore, the proposed Plan would have a less than significant impact on aviation activity.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

TRANS-4 The proposed Plan would not increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

A review of the proposed Plan revealed no potential internal policy inconsistencies or discrepancies related to hazards associatedwith design features or incompatible uses. Implementation of the proposed Plan would increase the amount of vehicle traffic, which would require the improvement and expansion of the roadway network in the Plan Area. The proposed Plan identifies a roadway system, bikeways, trails, and sidewalks that will be constructed along with policy direction for future transit service to facilitate transportation in the Plan Area. New transportation facilities will be designed according to applicable federal, State, and local design standards, which will minimize traffic hazards.

The proposed Plan includes the following goals and policies related to the implementation of the transportation system. These goals and policies are related to the implementation of complete streets, the design of transportation facilities to improve safety and reduce conflicts, and identifying alternative truck routes to reduce their impact on sensitive users. The policies also encourage reduced vehicle speeds on roadways, which have been shown to improve overall safety by reducing the severity of collisions and improve driver awareness.

Goal T-3: Reduce conflicts between pedestrians and drivers, especially on streets with high speeds and limited pedestrian crossings.

Policy T-3.2 Ensure that sidewalks and other facilities meet the principle of universal design and comply with the ADA standards to assure access for pedestrians and people with disabilities.

Goal T-5: Create a separated, scenic, and well-connected multi-use trails network that provides Southwest Fresnans convenient access to nature and active recreational opportunities.

Policy T-5.3 Where feasible, design the trails to have separated paths for travel by foot and by bicycle to prevent potential conflicts.

Policy T-5.4 Provide separation for trail users against vehicular traffic such as landscaping,railings, or grade separation.

Goal T-8: Invest in developing, improving, and maintaining a roadway network that provides safety and adequate capacity for automobiles and for walking, bicycling, and transit mobility.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-49
Policy T-8.2: Reduce auto use and prioritize walking, bicycling, and transit mobility over increasing vehicle travel speeds when considering roadway improvements.

Policy T-8.3: Maintain the existing roadway network and expand its capacity as necessary to ensure safe and convenient vehicular circulation; require new development to provide safe and convenient vehicular circulation and to contribute to capacity improvements on arterials and regional roadways.

Goal T-9: Create a healthy environment for Southwest Fresno residents by intentionally routing truck traffic away from sensitive areas such as residential areas, parks, and schools.

Policy T-9.1: Work with existing industrial and heavy commercial businesses to identify alternative truck routes that limit negative impacts on sensitive areas while maintaining an efficient movement of goods.

Policy T-9.3: Improve conditions of existing and rerouted truck routes for pedestrians and bicyclists by implementing pedestrian and bicycle facilities such as reduced corner radii at intersections to slow turning vehicular traffic, protected signal phasing for truck left-turns, enhanced high-visibility crossings, protected bikeways, and wide sidewalks.

Goal T-10: Create an accessible and well-connected “complete streets” transportation network that serves community members of all ages, income groups, and abilities, and balances travel by all modes of travel such as by car, bus, bicycle, foot, or wheelchair.

Policy T-10.2 Identify streets with excessive vehicular ROW that are opportunities to implement traffic calming and other improvements to slow traffic and provide options for multi-modal travel.

Policy T-10.3 Encourage lower vehicular travel speeds for collector and local streets in the Plan Area.

This could be accomplished through traffic calming measures, narrower travel lanes, reducing the number of travel lanes, neighborhood speed watch/traffic management programs, or speed enforcement programs.

Implementation of the proposed Planwould increase the amount of vehicle traffic, which will require improvement and expansion of the transportation systemin the Plan Area. However, new and upgraded roadways will be designed according to applicable federal, state, and local design standards. In addition, the selected policies outlined above from the proposed Plan support development of the transportation system based on complete street concepts that accommodate mobility of all system users and trip purposes. As a result, implementation of the proposed Planwould result in a less than significantimpact related to hazards due to roadway design features or incompatible uses.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-50 AUGUST 2017
TRANS-5 The proposed Plan would not result in inadequate emergency access.

A review of the proposed Plan revealed no potential internal policy inconsistencies or discrepancies related to emergency access. Implementation of the proposed Planwould increase the amount of vehicle traffic, which would require the improvement and expansion of the roadway network in the Plan Area to accommodate forecasted travel demand. The proposed Planwould expand the roadway network to serve forecasted travel demand and improve existing rural or substandard roadways to City standards. This enhanced roadway network that accommodates forecasted travel demand would also provide adequate emergency access. Therefore, the proposed Planwould have a less than significantimpact on emergency access.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

TRANS-6 The proposed Plan would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.

A review of the proposed Plan revealed no potential internal policy inconsistencies or conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or the performance or safety of those facilities. Implementation of the proposed Planwould increase the demand for public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian travel, which would require the improvement and expansion of facilities to support these travel modes. The proposed Plan identifies a system of planned bikeways, trails, and sidewalks that will be constructed to support bicycle and pedestrian travel. The proposed Plan also recommends enhanced transit service including recommended bus rapid transit (BRT) corridors along key corridors to serve future transit demand.

The proposed Plan includes the following goals and policies related to the implementation of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. These goals and policies support the development of pedestrian and bicycle friendly infrastructure,the implementation of complete streets, and the provision of a reliable and efficient transit service in the Plan Area.

Goal T-1: Create a well-connected pedestrian network that allows Southwest Fresnans to comfortably walk to key destinations such as schools, parks, services, retail, and transit.

Policy T-1.1 Implement the pedestrian recommendations from the City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan (ATP), focusing on the high priority areas first.

Policy T-1.2 Prioritize sidewalk improvements, including the priority sidewalk network identified in the Fresno ATP, on streets that generate higher pedestrian travel demand, especially along corridors, around magnet uses, and within ¼- mile of complete neighborhood nodes.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-51
Policy T-1.5 Fill sidewalk gaps on streets in areas where there are incomplete segments of sidewalk adjacent to existing sidewalks in order to provide a continuous walking experience, unless the area or development was intentionally planned without sidewalks. Prioritize the Plan Area’s high priority area identified in the Fresno ATP.

Goal T-2: Create a vibrant pedestrian experience to enhance the character and identity of Southwest Fresno, especially in commercial and employment areas.

Policy T-2.1 Enhance streetscape by providing pedestrian amenities where sidewalk widths allow, such as benches, lighting, outdoor seating, and planters.

Goal T-3: Reduce conflicts between pedestrians and drivers, especially on streets with high speeds and limited pedestrian crossings.

Policy T-3.2 Ensure that sidewalks and other facilities meet the principle of universal design and comply with the ADA standards to assure access for pedestrians and people with disabilities.

Policy T-3.4 Provide continuous sidewalks along public streets and encouragethe provision of sidewalks on both sides for all new development within the Plan Area.

Goal T-4: Create a comprehensive, well-connected, and continuous bicycle network that provides linkages between residential areas and local and regional key destinations such as schools, parks, services, retail, and transit, so that Southwest Fresnans may bicycle as a viable mode of transportation and as a means to improve health and increase physical activity.

Policy T-4.1 Implement the bicycle recommendations from the Fresno ATP.

Policy T-4.2 Prioritize the implementation of bicycle facilities, including the priority bicycle network identified in Fresno’s ATP, that fill a gap between existing separated sections of the bikeway system, will likely serve the highest concentration of existing or potential bicyclists, and provide access to high activity areas.

Policy T-4.4 Ensure that all roadway widening projects in Southwest Fresno include Class II or Class IV bicycle facilities.

Goal T-5: Create a separated, scenic, and well-connected multi-use trails network that provides Southwest Fresnans convenient access to nature and active recreational opportunities.

Policy T-5.1 Implement the Class I bikeway recommendations from the City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan and General Plan Figure MT-2.

Policy T-5.4 Provide separation for trail users against vehicular traffic such as landscaping, railings, or grade separation.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-52 AUGUST 2017
Goal T-6: Develop the Southwest Fresno transit network into a viable transportation alternative to singleoccupancy vehicles.

Policy T-6.1 Improve the reliability, quality, and efficiency of transit service within Southwest Fresno and to regional destinations.

Goal T-7: Focus transit improvements along corridors that have more intensive land uses to more effectively and efficiently provide transit service and promote non-automobile access to high activity uses.

Policy T-7.2 Design transit stops and bus stop platforms such that transit travel has a higher priority than through traffic on transit corridors.

Goal T-8: Invest in developing, improving, and maintaining a roadway network that provides safety and adequate capacity for automobiles and for walking, bicycling, and transit mobility.

Policy T-8.2 Reduce auto use and prioritize walking, bicycling, and transit mobility over increasing vehicle travel speeds when considering roadway improvements.

Goal T-9: Create a healthy environment for Southwest Fresno residents by intentionally routing truck traffic away from sensitive areas such as residential areas, parks, and schools.

Policy T-9.3 Improve conditions of existing and rerouted truck routes for pedestrians and bicyclists by implementing pedestrian and bicycle facilities such as reduced corner radii at intersections to slow turning vehicular traffic, protected signal phasing for truck left-turns, enhanced high-visibility crossings, protected bikeways, and wide sidewalks.

Policy T-10.1 When feasible, design new roadways and retrofit existing roadways within magnet cores, complete neighborhoods, and along special corridors to prioritize travel by walking, bicycling, and riding transit, using the complete streets design guidelines contained in this chapter. For example, if adequate or excessive vehicle traffic capacity is available, create wide sidewalks, provide pedestrian amenities, and install bicycle facilities such as separated bikeways or bike lanes, bike parking, and signage. This could be in the form of a “road diet” to transform certain corridors into multi-modal streets.

Goal T-11: Foster a healthy lifestyle in Southwest Fresno through encouraging active forms of transportation such as walking and bicycling as an alternative to motorized modes of travel.

Policy T-11.1 Prioritize the implementation of facilities that encourage walking and biking, such as sidewalks, multi-use trails, and bikeways.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-53
Policy T-11.3 Support Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs to encourage alternative modes of travel to the single-occupancy vehicle such as transit use, car- or vanpool, rideshare, and telecommuting.

Goal T-13: Ensure that Southwest Fresno’s transportation infrastructure is in well-maintained conditions to provide a comfortable travel experience for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Policy T-13.2 Monitor the conditions of roadways to ensure the repair and resurfacing of cracked and uneven roadway surfaces to provide a smooth and even surface for bicycling.

The proposed Plan identifies a system of planned bikeways, trails, and sidewalks as well as recommended transit service improvements to support bicycling, walking, and transit use. In addition, the selected policies outlined above from the proposed Plan support development of the transportation system based on complete street concepts that accommodate mobility of all system users.

FAX seeks to provide the residents of Southwest Fresno with enhanced bus service in terms of increased frequencies, fixed-route transit lines, or both based on feedback provided by residents. The enhanced bus service seeks to connect people to activity centers (employment, housing, and retail), with a specific emphasis on California Avenue, Church Avenue, Elm Avenue, Jensen Avenue, and Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard, as identified by the proposed Plan.

As a result, implementation of the proposed Planwould result in a less than significantimpact related to adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.14.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
TRANS-7 The proposed Plan, in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to transportation and traffic.

In combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, development associated with the proposed Plan would increase the amount of vehicle traffic, which would require the improvement and expansion of the roadway network to serve the associated travel demand. Cumulative impacts due to increases in peak hour traffic volumes are based on planned development in the Fresno metropolitan area consistent with the Fresno General Plan, Fresno County General Plan, and Fresno COG RTP/SCS. In addition, the cumulative analysis includes funded improvements to the regional roadway network, as identified in the Fresno COG RTP/SCS, Fresno Downtown Plans, and Fresno General Plan. This includes the following roadway projects in the cumulative setting:

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-54 AUGUST 2017
 Roadway network changes in Downtown Fresno associated with High Speed Rail, including:
 Closure of the Divisadero Street, Kern Street, and Mono Street Union Pacific Railroad at-grade crossings.
 Converting Tuolumne Street to two-way traffic with an overcrossing of the Union Pacific Railroad and High Speed Rail.
 Closure and removal of the Stanislaus Street overcrossing of the Union Pacific Railroad and High Speed Rail.
 New grade-separated crossings under the Union Pacific Railroad and High Speed Rail at Fresno Street, Tulare Street, and Ventura Street.
 Converting Whitesbridge Avenue and Amador Street to two-way traffic east of Tielman Avenue consistent with the Fresno Downtown Plan.
 Widening Marks Avenue to a four-lane divided arterial north of Jensen Avenue, and to a six-lane arterial between Whitesbridge Avenue and SR 180.
 Widening Jensen Avenueto a four-lane divided arterial east of Marks Avenue.  Widening California Avenue to a four-lane divided arterial from Fruit Avenue to Walnut Avenueas compared to Figure 4.14-3 above.
 Widening North Avenue to a four-lane divided arterial east of Elm Avenue.

Figure 4.14-16shows the planned number of lanes on the roadway network in the Plan Area under cumulative conditions.

Cumulative Traffic Forecasts
Consistent with the process for forecasting project traffic levels, this study uses the TDF model developed for the Fresno General Plan MEIR to forecast cumulative traffic levels with and without the proposed Plan.

For cumulative traffic levels without the proposed Plan, this study assumes development consistent with the Fresno General Plan would occur instead of the development and land uses proposed by the proposed Plan.

To forecast cumulative traffic levels with the proposed Plan, the development potential associated with the proposed Planwas included in the Fresno General Plan MEIR TDF model representing 2035 conditions with the Fresno General Plan. This model includes development consistent with the Fresno General Plan and Fresno Downtown Plans outside of the Plan Area, as well as the roadway projects identified above to match the roadway network presented in Figure 4.14-16.

Figure 4.14-16 Cumulative Roadway Network Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-16
Cumulative Roadway Network

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-56 AUGUST 2017
The outputs of the cumulativeTDF model were reviewed and compared to the baseline model outputs.

Cumulativetraffic forecasts were developed using a process known as the “difference method,” which adjusts raw model volume forecasts based on expected incremental growth from existing conditions using the following formula:

Cumulative Traffic Forecasts = Existing Traffic Count + (Cumulative Raw Model Volume–Baseline Raw Model Volume) Figure 4.14-17presents the resulting daily traffic volumes for the 30 study roadway segments under cumulative conditions.

Vehicle Miles of Travel
The Fresno General Plan MEIR TDF model is also used to estimate and forecast VMT. Table 4.14-12 compares the VMT existing condition estimate with the forecasted VMT for the proposed Plan under cumulative conditions. As shown in Table 4.14-12, VMT is projected to increase from 285,232 milesto 1,806,108 miles per weekday under cumulative conditions, an increase of 1,520,876 miles over existing conditions.

TABLE 4.14-12 VMT COMPARISON – EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Trip Type
Average Weekday VMT
Existing
Conditions
Existing
Plus Propos ed Plan
Cumulative
Conditions
Internal-to-Internal (I-I) 1,153 41,991 27,182
Internal-to-External (I-I) 141,973 815,020 890,302
External-to-Internal (I-I) 142,106 813,627 888,624
Total 285,232 1,670,638 1,806,108
Source: Fresno COG Countywide Travel Demand Forecasting Model as modified for the proposed Plan.

Traffic Operations
Roadway Segment Operations
Table 4.14-13 presents the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes and LOS for each study roadway segment under cumulative conditions. Figure 4.14-18presents the AM peak hour roadway LOS under cumulative conditions, while Figure 4.14-19 presents the PM peak hour roadway LOS. As shown in Table

4.14-13, all study roadway segments operate at LOS C or LOS D under cumulative conditions, with the exception of the following roadway segments.
 Church Avenue: Walnut Avenue to Elm Avenue (LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours)  North Avenue: Walnut Avenue to Elm Avenue (LOS E during the PM peak hour only)  Walnut Avenue: California Avenue to Jensen Avenue (LOS E during the PM peak hour only) Figure 4.14-17 Cumulative Daily Roadway Volumes
Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-17
Cumulative Daily Roadway Volumes

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS
Figure 4.14-18 Cumulative AM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-18
Cumulative AM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS
Figure 4.14-19 Cumulative PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2017.

Figure 4.14-19
Cumulative PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOS

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PLACEWORKS

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-60 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.14-13 PEAK HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Roadway Segment Classificationa
Peak
Hour
Existing
Conditions
Existing
Plus Propos ed Plan
Cumulative
Conditions
Volume V/Cb LOSc Volume V/Cb LOSc Volume V/Cb LOSc

1. Whitesbridge Ave.:

Marks Av. to Roeding Dr.
4-lane Divided
Collector
AM 180 0.12 C 1,280 0.34 D 1,970 0.53 D
PM 260 0.18 C 1,650 0.44 D 2,310 0.62 D

2. Whitesbridge Ave.:

Roeding Dr. to Thorne Av.
2-lane Collector
with TWLTL
AM 110 0.08 C 360 0.24 D 1,120 0.63 D
PM 210 0.14 C 560 0.38 D 1,340 0.76 D

3. Kearney Blvd.: Marks Ave.
to West Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 290 0.19 C 730 0.50 D 970 0.65 D
PM 210 0.14 C 710 0.48 D 1,000 0.68 D

4. Kearney Blvd.: West Ave.
to Thorne Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 240 0.16 C 620 0.42 D 1,090 0.73 D
PM 170 0.12 C 600 0.41 D 1,150 0.78 D

5. California Ave.:

Marks Ave. to West Ave.
2-lane Collector
with TWLTL
AM 180 0.12 C 440 0.25 D 1,030 0.58 D
PM 170 0.12 C 480 0.27 D 1,140 0.65 D

6. California Ave.: West Ave.
to Fresno St.
4-lane Divided
Arterial
AM 350 0.19 C 1,350 0.36 D 2,280 0.61 D
PM 430 0.23 C 1,510 0.40 D 2,700 0.72 D

7. California Ave.: Fresno St.
to MLK Jr. Blvd.
2-lane Arterial
with TWLTL
AM 590 0.34 D 790 0.45 D 1,200 0.68 D
PM 550 0.31 D 790 0.45 D 1,340 0.76 D

8. Ventura St: MLK Jr. Blvd.
to B Street
4-lane Divided
Arterial
AM 930 0.25 C 2,100 0.56 D 2,570 0.69 D
PM 840 0.22 C 2,130 0.57 D 2,860 0.77 D

9. Church Ave.: Marks Ave.
to West Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 80 0.05 C 570 0.39 D 670 0.45 D
PM 120 0.08 C 670 0.45 D 740 0.50 D

10. Church Ave.: West Ave. to
Walnut Ave.
2-lane Collector
with TWLTL
AM 150 0.10 C 690 0.39 D 1,140 0.65 D
PM 170 0.11 C 770 0.44 D 1,240 0.71 D

11. Church Ave.: Walnut Ave.
to Elm Ave.
2-lane Collector
with TWLTL
AM 390 0.22 C 870 0.49 D 1,780 1.01 F
PM 370 0.21 C 880 0.50 D 1,830 1.04 F

12. Jensen Ave.: Marks Ave.
to West Ave.
4-lane Divided
Arterial
AM 320 0.22 C 390 0.27 D 1,790 0.48 D
PM 410 0.28 D 510 0.34 D 2,130 0.57 D

13. Jensen Ave.: West Ave.
to Walnut Ave.
4-lane Divided
Arterial
AM 420 0.28 D 1,300 0.35 D 2,080 0.56 D
PM 560 0.38 D 1,520 0.41 D 2,530 0.68 D

14. Jensen Ave.: Walnut Ave.
to Elm Ave.
4-lane Divided
Arterial
AM 730 0.20 C 2,110 0.56 D 2,870 0.77 D
PM 920 0.25 C 2,320 0.62 D 3,260 0.87 D

15. North Ave.: Walnut Ave.
to Elm Ave.
2-lane Arterial
with TWLTL
AM 380 0.26 D 1,060 0.60 D 1,500 0.85 D
PM 340 0.23 D 1,150 0.65 D 1,620 0.92 E

16. Marks Ave.: Whitesbridge
Ave. to California Ave.
4-lane Divided
Arterial
AM 620 0.34 D 1,790 0.48 D 2,400 0.64 D
PM 670 0.36 D 2,050 0.55 D 2,830 0.76 D

17. Marks Ave.: California Av.
to Jensen Av.
4-lane Divided
Arterial
AM 140 0.10 C 100 0.07 C 1,290 0.35 D
PM 210 0.14 C 170 0.12 C 1,500 0.40 D

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-61
TABLE 4.14-13 PEAK HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Roadway Segment Classificationa
Peak
Hour
Existing
Conditions
Existing
Plus Propos ed Plan
Cumulative
Conditions
Volume V/Cb LOSc Volume V/Cb LOSc Volume V/Cb LOSc

18. Hughes Ave./Roeding Dr.:

Nielsen Ave. to
Whitesbridge Ave.
4-lane Divided
Collector
AM 200 0.05 C 660 0.18 C 1,600 0.43 D
PM 230 0.06 C 760 0.20 C 1,890 0.51 D

19. Hughes Ave.:

Whitesbridge Ave. to
California Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 20 0.02 C 420 0.29 D 880 0.60 D
PM 50 0.03 C 530 0.36 D 920 0.62 D

20. Hughes Ave.: California
Ave. to Church Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 20 0.01 C 260 0.18 C 660 0.44 D
PM 30 0.02 C 320 0.22 C 750 0.51 D

21. Roeding Dr./West Ave.:

Whitesbridge Ave. to
California Ave.
2-lane Divided
Collector
AM 80 0.06 C 410 0.22 C 1,010 0.54 D
PM 80 0.05 C 440 0.24 C 1,140 0.61 D

22. West Ave.: California Ave.
to Jensen Ave.
2-lane Collector
with TWLTL
AM 70 0.05 C 530 0.30 D 1,270 0.72 D
PM 80 0.05 C 580 0.33 D 1,320 0.75 D

23. Fruit Ave.: California Ave.
to Jensen Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 140 0.09 C 750 0.51 D 870 0.59 D
PM 180 0.12 C 810 0.55 D 950 0.64 D

24. Thorne Ave.:

Whitesbridge Ave. to
California Ave.
2-lane Collector
with TWLTL
AM 240 0.14 C 510 0.29 D 700 0.39 D
PM 270 0.15 C 600 0.34 D 810 0.46 D

25. Walnut Ave.: California
Ave. to Jensen Ave.
2-lane Undivided
Collector
AM 380 0.26 D 1,030 0.70 D 1,200 0.81 D
PM 350 0.24 D 1,100 0.74 D 1,370 0.93 E

26. Walnut Ave.: Jensen Ave.
to North Ave.
2-lane Collector
with TWLTL
AM 20 0.01 C 730 0.41 D 1,160 0.66 D
PM 50 0.04 C 820 0.47 D 1,240 0.71 D

27. Martin Luther King Jr.

Blvd.: California Ave. to
Jensen Ave.
2-lane Collector
with TWLTL
AM 500 0.28 D 1,370 0.78 D 1,420 0.80 D
PM 520 0.29 D 1,400 0.80 D 1,520 0.86 D

28. Martin Luther King Jr.

Blvd.: Jensen Ave. to
North Ave.
2-lane Collector
with TWLTL
AM 330 0.22 C 1,050 0.60 D 1,090 0.62 D
PM 290 0.20 C 1,070 0.61 D 1,120 0.64 D

29. Elm Ave.: Ventura St to
Jensen Ave.
4-lane Divided
Arterial
AM 290 0.08 C 580 0.16 C 1,090 0.29 D
PM 600 0.16 C 970 0.26 C 1,630 0.44 D

30. Elm Ave.: Jensen Ave. to
North Ave.
2-lane Divided
Arterial
AM 240 0.06 C 670 0.36 D 770 0.41 D
PM 420 0.11 C 920 0.49 D 1,090 0.58 D
Notes: BO LD text indicates the roadway operates at an unacceptable LOS based on the LOS standards presented in Table 4.14-5.

UNDERLINED text indicates the proposed Plan would have a significant impact based on the significance criteria presented in the Methodology section. a. Roadway classifications reflect cumulative roadway configuration (see Figure 4.14-16). Description of classifications are presented in the Local Roadways section:

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-62 AUGUST 2017
Per Fresno General Plan policy MT-1-l and MT-2-I, Walnut Avenue from California Avenue to Jensen Avenueis located in the Downtown Planning Area (TIZ I) where LOS F conditions are considered acceptable (see Table 4.14-6). Therefore, the LOS E conditions on Walnut Avenue are acceptable.

The remaining two segments on North Avenue and Church Avenue have a LOS D standard as shown in Table 4.14-6. Therefore, the LOS E and LOS F conditions on these roadways are considered unacceptable.

Since the proposed Plan contributes to these unacceptable LOS conditions when analyzed in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, this is considered a significant impact.

Therefore, the proposed Plan has a significant impact on roadway operations for the following two roadway segments:
 Church Avenue: Walnut Avenue to Elm Avenue
 North Avenue: Walnut Avenue to Elm Avenue
This impact and associated mitigation is described in Impact TRANS-7.1 below.

Intersection Operations
Table 4.14-14 presents the AM and PM peak hour LOS for each study intersection under cumulative conditions (refer to Appendix H for calculations). As shown in Table 4.14-14, the following intersections would operate at LOS E or LOS F under cumulative conditions during the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, or both AM and PM peak hours:
 SR-99 Southbound Ramps/East Ave./Jensen Ave. (AM and PM peak hours)  SR-99 Northbound Ramps/East Ave./Jensen Ave. (AM peak hour only)  SR-41 Southbound Ramps/North Ave. (AM peak hour only)  SR-99 Southbound Ramps/Fresno St. (AM and PM peak hours)  SR-99 Northbound Ramps/Fresno St. (PM peak hour only) While the SR-99 Southbound Ramps/East Avenue/Jensen Avenueoperates at an unacceptable LOS E under existing conditions, the proposed Plan contributes to LOS F operations under cumulative conditions. This is considered a significant impact.

The remaining four intersections that operate at LOS E or LOS F under cumulative conditions were operating at LOS D or better under existing conditions. Since the proposed Plan contributes to these unacceptable LOS conditions when analyzed in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, this is considered a significant impact. Therefore, the proposed Plan has a significant impact on intersection operations at the following five intersections:
 SR-99 Southbound Ramps/East Ave./Jensen Ave.
 SR-99 Northbound Ramps/East Ave./Jensen Ave.
 SR-41 Southbound Ramps/North Ave.
 SR-99 Southbound Ramps/Fresno St.
 SR-99 Northbound Ramps/Fresno St.

This impact and associated mitigation is described in Impact TRANS-7.2 below.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-63
TABLE 4.14-14 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Intersection
Traffic
Control
Peak
Hour
Existing
Conditions
Existing Plus
Proposed Plan
Cumulative
Conditions
Delaya LOSb Delaya LOSb Delaya LOSb

1. SR-41 Southbound Ramps/Jensen Ave. Signal
AM 9 A 27 C 33 C
PM 7 A 22 C 35 D

2. SR-41 Northbound Ramps/Jensen Ave. Signal
AM 4 A 4 A 5 A
PM 4 A 5 A 5 A

3. SR-99 Southbound Ramps/East
Ave./Jensen Ave. Signal
AM 61 E 61 E 109 F
PM 29 C 35 D 119 F

4. SR-99 Northbound Ramps/East
Ave./Jensen Ave. Signal
AM 53 D 94 F 73 E
PM 46 D 74 E 50 D

5. SR-41 Southbound Ramps/North Ave. Signal
AM 23 C 94 F 100 F
PM 13 B 91 F 48 D

6. SR-41 Northbound Ramps/North Ave. Signal
AM 9 A 56 E 25 C
PM 12 B 104 F 45 D

7. SR-99 Southbound Ramps/Fresno St. Signal
AM 24 C 51 D 60 E
PM 18 B 51 D 59 E

8. SR-99 Northbound Ramps/Fresno St. Signal
AM 15 B 18 B 33 C
PM 19 B 54 D 75 E
Notes: BO LD text indicates the intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS based on Caltrans concept LOS.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

Queuing
Table 4.14-15 presents the AM and PM peak hour queues on freeway off-ramps under cumulative conditions. While Table 4.14-15 shows that all study freeway off-ramps have sufficient storage for cumulativequeues, several are serving over-capacity volumes. As a result, the queues reported for these over-capacity ramps may be underestimated by the Synchro 9 software.

To address this limitation, this study conservatively assumes that queues would extend back onto the mainline for movements that are over capacity and have a reported 95th percentile queues within 500 feet of the off-ramp length. Using this criteria, the following freeway off-rampswould have 95th percentile queues that would back onto to the freeway mainline under cumulative conditions during the AM peak hour, PM peak hour, or both AM and PM peak hours:
 SR-41 Southbound off-ramp at Jensen Avenue (AM and PM peak hours)  SR-99 Southbound off-ramp at Jensen Avenue (AM and PM peak hours)  SR-99 Northbound off-ramp at Jensen Avenue (AM and PM peak hours)  SR-41 Southbound off-ramp at North Avenue (AM and PM peak hours)  SR-99 Southbound off-ramp at Fresno Street (AM peak hour only)

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-64 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.14-15 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS 95th Percentile Queue b
F reeway Off-Ramp
Ramp
Lengtha
Peak
Hour
Existing
Conditions
Existing Plus
Proposed Plan
Cumulative
Conditions

1. SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,380 ft.

AM 75 ft. 600 ft.* 950 ft.*
PM 75 ft. 550 ft.* 1,125 ft.*

2. SR-41 Northbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,470 ft.

AM 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft.

PM 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft.

3. SR-99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,440 ft.

AM 625 ft.* 650 ft.* 1,175 ft.*
PM 450 ft.* 475 ft.* 1,100 ft.*

4. SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,050 ft.

AM 225 ft.* 400 ft.* 600 ft.*
PM 250 ft.* 500 ft.* 650 ft.*

5. SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp at North Ave. 1,575 ft.

AM 250 ft. 275 ft.* 1,100 ft.*
PM 75 ft. 75 ft. 875 ft.*

6. SR-41 Northbound Off-Ramp at North Ave. 1,700 ft.

AM 25 ft. 50 ft. 75 ft.

PM 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft.

7. SR-99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Fresno St. 1,030 ft.

AM 100 ft. 400 ft.* 750 ft.*
PM 150 ft. 150 ft. 500 ft.*

8. SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp at Fresno St. 1,070 ft.

AM 75 ft. 100 ft. 550 ft.*
PM 100 ft. 125 ft. 525 ft.*
Notes: BO LD text indicates the off-ramp queue is expected to extend back through the entire off-ramp and onto the freeway mainline.

UNDERLINED text indicates the proposed Plan would have a significant impact based on the significance criteria presented in the Methodology section. * = 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity; the actual queue may be longer than reported. a. The ramp length is estimated by measuring the distance from the gore point where the off-ramp departs from the mainline to the limit line at the ramp terminal intersection with the local street, as measured from aerial imagery. Distance is reported in feet. b. 95th Percentile Queue calculated using Synchro software. Queue is reported in feet and rounded up to the nearest 25-foot interval.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

All five of these freeway off-ramps that are forecasted to experience 95th percentile queues that extend back to the mainline under cumulative conditions are able to provide adequate storage for existing 95th percentile queues under existing conditions. Since the proposed Plan contributes to these unacceptable freeway off-ramp queues when analyzed in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, this is considered a significant impact. Therefore, the proposed Plan has a significant impact on freeway off-ramp queuing at the following five ramps:
 SR-41 Southbound off-ramp at Jensen Avenue
 SR-99 Southbound off-ramp at Jensen Avenue
 SR-99 Northbound off-ramp at Jensen Avenue
 SR-41 Southbound off-ramp at North Avenue
 SR-99 Southbound off-ramp at Fresno Street
This impact and associated mitigation is described in Impact TRANS-7.3 below.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-65
Impact TRANS-7.1: The addition of proposed Plan traffic to the roadway network, in combination with traffic generated by reasonably foreseeable projects, results in unacceptable roadway operations on City of Fresno study roadway segments under cumulative conditions.

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

Mitigation Measure TRANS-7.1: Provide transportation improvements consistent with General Plan Policy MT-1-j in the Plan Area that would encourage non-vehicular transportation and reduce auto traffic levels. These improvements shallbe consistent with the goals and policies in the proposed Plan, which require the implementation of complete streets, bikeways, trails, sidewalks, and enhanced transit service to support transit use, biking, and walking as viable modes of travel. By supporting and encouraging these non-auto modesin lieu of auto travel, future traffic levels would be reduced.

The City of Fresno shall also apply General Plan Policy MT-1-o, which allows LOS E or F conditions outside of identified multimodal districts if provisions are made to sufficiently improve the overall transportation system and promote non-vehicular transportation. With the application of General Plan policy MT-1-o, the LOS F conditions on Church Avenue and LOS E conditions on North Avenue would be considered acceptable. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

Both Church Avenue and North Avenue are planned to be two-lane roadways with a center two-way leftturn lane (TWLTL). The proposed Plan intentionally includes fewer travel lanes on these roadways to place a limit on vehicular traffic capacity and encourage walking and biking along these corridors.

In addition to providing access to Gaston Middle School, the segment of Church Avenue between Walnut Avenue and Elm Avenue that is projected to operate at LOS F will serve the planned Community College Magnet, which includes a community college, neighborhood mixed-use, community commercial, and medium-density residential uses. Given the nature of these uses, providing wide sidewalks, attractive bikeways, and transit facilities along this corridor in accordance with the Complete Streets Guidelines, and policies in the proposed Plan will encourage non-vehicular travel for this pedestrian activity center.

Furthermore, the Fresno ATP shows that a Class I bike path is planned along this segment of Church Avenue to further support walking and biking. As such, it is justified for the City to accept a lower LOS for this corridor and provide fewer travel lanes for vehicular traffic to maintain and prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes.

The 41 & North Corridor Complete Streets Plan18 recommends that North Avenue from Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to Elm Avenue include buffered bike lanes, wide sidewalks, high visibility crosswalks, and a pedestrian activated signal at North Avenue and Clara Avenue to facilitate pedestrian crossings of North Avenue. Given the existing neighborhood residential uses and nearby schools, parks, and planned corridor mixed use along Elm Avenue, North Avenue is expected to serve pedestrian and bicycle travel between 18 City of Fresno, 2016. 41 & North Corridor Complete Streeets Plan. City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-66 AUGUST 2017
the neighborhood and these nearby destinations. Therefore, it is justified for the City to accept a lower LOS for this corridor and provide fewer travel lanes for vehicular traffic to maintain and prioritize pedestrians and bicyclists.

Impact TRANS-7.2: The addition of project traffic to the roadway network, in combination with traffic generated by reasonably foreseeable projects, results in unacceptable intersection operations at Caltrans study intersections.

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

Mitigation Measure TRANS-7.2:Development within the proposed Plan shall pay its regional transportation mitigation fee (RTMF) towards funding improvements to the regional highways and streets system. The City of Fresno shall coordinate with Caltrans and the Fresno Council of Governments to recommend the following intersection and ramp improvements at the SR-99/Jensen Avenue interchange and SR-41/North Avenue interchange be incorporated into the RTMF program and any applicable future City of Fresno fee update applicable to roadway facilities and/or traffic signals:
 SR-99 Southbound Off-Ramp/Jensen Avenue intersection:
- Widen the SR-99 southbound off-ramp to add an additional left-turn pocket. - Restripe the existing shared through-left turn lane on the SR-99 southbound off-ramp as a dedicated through lane.
- The resulting lane configuration on the southbound off-ramp is: two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane.
- Add an overlap phase for the northbound right-turn movement. - Prohibit westbound U-turn movement to allow the northbound right-turn overlap. - Widen the eastbound approach to stripe a third through lane; add a third receiving lane on the east leg that traps into the SR-99 southbound on-ramp.  SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp/Jensen Avenue intersection:
- Change the lane configurations on the northbound off-ramp to a dedicated left-turn pocket and shared through-right turn lane.
- Add an overlap phase for the southbound right-turn movement. - Prohibit eastbound U-turn movement to allow the southbound right-turn overlap. - Widen the westbound approach to stripe a third through lane; add a third receiving lane on the west leg that traps into the SR-99 northbound on-ramp. - Change the phasing for the northbound and southbound approaches to protected left-turn movements and separate.
 SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp/North Avenue intersection:
- Widen the SR-41 southbound off-ramp to add a left-turn pocket. - Change the lane configurations on the southbound off-ramp to convert the existing shared through-left turn lane to a shared right turn-through-left turn lane.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-67
- Extend the right-turn pocket on the off-ramp to accommodate right-turn queue length shown in Table 4.14-16.
- The resulting lane configuration on the southbound off-ramp is: one left-turn lane, one shared right turn-through-left turn lane, and one right-turn lane. - Widen the eastbound approach to add a third through lane that traps into the eastbound leftturn onto the SR-41 northbound on-ramp.

In addition to addressing intersection operations, the changes identified above also address freeway off-ramp queuing impacts identified in Impact TRANS-7.3 below. With the implementation of the changeslisted above, the operations at these three intersections would be improved to LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours, as shown in Table 4.14-16 below (refer to Appendix H for calculations).

TABLE 4.14-16 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH MITIGATIONS

Traffic
Control
Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions
Cumulative
Conditions
Cum ulative with
Mitigation
Intersection Delaya LOSb Delaya LOSb Delaya LOSb

3. SR-99 Southbound Ramps/East
Ave./Jensen Ave. Signal
AM 61 E 109 F 46 D
PM 29 C 119 F 52 D

4. SR-99 Northbound Ramps/East
Ave./Jensen Ave. Signal
AM 53 D 73 E 27 C
PM 46 D 50 D 27 C

5. SR-41 Southbound Ramps/North Ave. Signal
AM 23 C 100 F 34 C
PM 13 B 48 D 22 C
Notes: BO LD text indicates the intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS based on Caltrans concept LOS.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

While these changes would improve traffic operations to an acceptable LOS, these improvements require alterations to signals operated by Caltrans as well as physical expansion of intersections and ramps that are under Caltrans jurisdiction. Since these improvements are not within the City of Fresno’s jurisdiction to control, it cannot be guaranteed that these improvements will be implemented.

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 unacceptableLOS E operations at the SR-99/Fresno Street interchange:
 SR-99 Southbound Ramps/Fresno Streetintersection:
- 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.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-68 AUGUST 2017
- The resulting lane configuration on the southbound off-ramp is: oneleft-turn lane, one shared through left-turn lane, and two right-turn lanes.  SR-99 Northbound Ramps/Fresno Streetintersection:
- Add a through lane to the westbound approach on Fresno Street that traps into the left-turn onto the SR-99 southbound on-ramp.
- Adding the third through lane on Fresno Street would require removing the existing raised median and prohibiting eastbound left-turns at the Fresno Street/E Street intersection.

With the implementation of the changes listed above, the operations at these two intersections would be improved to LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours, as shown in Table

4.14-17 below (refer to Appendix H for calculations).

TABLE 4.14-17 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH MITIGATIONS

Traffic
Control
Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions
Cumulative
Conditions
Cum ulative with
Mitigation
Intersection Delaya LOSb Delaya LOSb Delaya LOSb

7. SR-99 Southbound Ramps/Fresno St. Signal
AM 24 C 60 E 46 D
PM 18 B 59 E 52 D

8. SR-99 Northbound Ramps/Fresno St. Signal
AM 15 B 33 C 27 C
PM 19 B 75 E 27 C
Notes: BO LD text indicates the intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS based on Caltrans concept LOS.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

While the intersection and ramp changes at the SR-99/Fresno Street interchange would improve intersection LOS, physical constraints on the SR-99 southbound frontage road would make the proposed widening of the southbound approach infeasible.

Significance with Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. The improvementsto the SR-99/Jensen Avenue and SR-41/North Avenue interchanges require changes to intersections and ramps under Caltransjurisdiction. Therefore, the City of Fresno cannot guarantee that these changes will be implemented. In addition, some of the improvements to the SR-99/Fresno Street interchange are physically infeasible. Therefore, the proposed Plan’s cumulative contribution to unacceptable operations at these intersections remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact TRANS-7.3: The addition of proposed Plan traffic to the roadway network in combination with traffic generated by reasonably foreseeable projects results in freeway off-ramp queues that extend back onto the freeway mainline.

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.14-69
Mitigation Measure TRANS-7.3:Development within the proposed Plan shall pay its regional transportation mitigation fee (RTMF) towards funding improvements to the regional highways and streets system. In addition to the recommended improvements listed in Mitigation Measure TRANS7.2, the City of Fresno shall coordinate with Caltrans and the Fresno Council of Governments to recommend the following intersection and ramp improvements at the SR-41/Jensen Avenue interchange be incorporated into the RTMF programand any applicable future City of Fresno fee update applicable to roadway facilities and/or traffic signals:
 SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp/Jensen Avenue intersection:
- Change the existing shared left-right turn lane on the SR-41 southbound off-ramp as a dedicated right-turn lane SR-99 southbound off-ramp
- The resulting lane configuration on the southbound off-ramp is: oneleft-turn lane and two right-turn lanes
- Add a southbound right-turn phase to run concurrently with the eastbound through phase by taking green time from the westbound through phase
The implementation of the changes to the SR-41 southbound off-ramp at Jensen Avenue listed above would reduce queuing on the SR-41 southbound off-ramp. These changes in combination with the improvements to the SR-99/Jensen Avenue, SR-41/North Avenue, and SR-99/Fresno Street interchange listed in Mitigation Measure TRANS-7.2, would reduce freeway off-ramp queuing under cumulative conditions.

Table 4.14-18 presents the estimated freeway off-ramp queues with the improvements presented in Mitigation Measure TRANS-7.2 and TRANS-7.3 (refer to Appendix H for calculations). While these changes would reduce the 95th percentile queues on freeway off-ramps to within the available storage on the off-ramp, these improvements require alterations to signals operated by Caltrans as well as physical expansion of intersections and ramps that are under Caltrans jurisdiction. Since these improvements are not within the City of Fresno’s jurisdiction to control, it cannot be guaranteed that these improvements will be implemented.

TABLE 4.14-18 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH MITIGATIONS F reeway Off-Ramp
Ramp
Lengtha
Peak
Hour
95th Percentile Queue b
Existing
Conditions
Cumulative
Conditions
Cum ulative with
Mitigation

1. SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,380 ft.

AM 75 ft. 950 ft.* 550 ft.

PM 75 ft. 1,125 ft.* 675 ft.*

3. SR-99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,440 ft.

AM 625 ft.* 1,175 ft.* 625 ft.*
PM 450 ft.* 1,100 ft.* 650 ft.*

4. SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp at Jensen Ave. 1,050 ft.

AM 225 ft.* 600 ft.* 250 ft.

PM 250 ft.* 650 ft.* 450 ft.*

SOU THW EST FRESNO SPE CI FI C PLAN DRAFT EI R

CI TY OF FRESNO

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

4.14-70 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 4.14-18 PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUING – CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH MITIGATIONS F reeway Off-Ramp
Ramp
Lengtha
Peak
Hour
95th Percentile Queue b
Existing
Conditions
Cumulative
Conditions
Cum ulative with
Mitigation

5. SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp at North Ave. 1,575 ft.

AM 250 ft. 1,100 ft.* 550 ft.

PM 75 ft. 875 ft.* 275 ft.

7. SR-99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Fresno St. 1,030 ft.

AM 100 ft. 750 ft.* 500 ft.

PM 150 ft. 500 ft.* 475 ft.*
Notes: BO LD text indicates the off-ramp queue extends through the entire off-ramp and onto the freeway mainline.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2017.

Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. The improvements to the SR-99/Jensen Avenue, SR-41/North Avenue, and SR-41/Jensen Avenue interchanges require changes to intersections and ramps under Caltrans jurisdiction. Therefore, the City of Fresno cannot guarantee that these changes will be implemented. In addition, some of the improvements to the SR-99/Fresno Street interchange are physically infeasible. Therefore, the proposed Plan’s cumulative contribution to unacceptable freeway off-ramp queuing at these off-ramps remainssignificant and unavoidable.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-1

4.15 UTILITY SYSTEMS
This section describes the baseline utilities and service systems in the Plan Area and evaluates potential environmental consequences that could occur by adopting and implementing the proposed Plan.

Wastewater, water supply, reclaimed water, stormwater, and solid waste, are each addressed in separate subsections. Stormwater as it relates to both water quality and capacity is addressed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR. In each section, a summary of the relevant regulatory settings and baseline conditions is followed by a discussion of impacts and cumulative impacts from implementation of the proposed Plan.

4.15.1 WASTEWATER
This section outlines the regulatory setting, describes baseline conditions, and discusses potential impacts from buildout of the proposed Plan.

4.15.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
Federal Regulations
The federal government regulates wastewater treatment and planning through the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, more commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), as well as through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, both of which are discussed in further detail below.

Federal Clean Water Act
The CWA regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the nation. It is the primary federal law governing water pollution. Under the CWA, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implements pollution control programs and sets wastewater standards. The objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters by preventing point and nonpoint pollution sources, providing assistance to publicly owned treatment works for the improvement of wastewater treatment, and maintaining the integrity of wetlands.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was established in the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States. Federal NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges, including point-source municipal waste discharges and nonpoint-source storm water runoff. NPDES permits generally identify effluent and receiving water limits on allowable concentrations and/or mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge; prohibitions on discharges not specifically allowed under the permit; and provisions that describe required actions by the discharger, including industrial pretreatment, pollution

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-2 AUGUST 2017
prevention, self-monitoring, and other activities. Wastewater discharge is regulated under the NPDES permit program for direct discharges into receiving waters and by the National Pretreatment Program for indirect discharges to a sewage treatment plant.

State Regulations
Wastewater treatment and planning are regulated at the State level. Specific regulations relevant to the proposed Plan are described below.

State Water Resources Control Board
On May 2, 2006, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted a General Waste Discharge Requirement (Order No. 2006-0003) for all publicly owned sanitary sewer collection systems in California with more than 1 mile of sewer pipe. The order provides a consistent statewide approach to reducing sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) by requiring public sewer system operators to take all feasible steps to control the volume of waste discharged into the system, to prevent sanitary sewer waste from entering the storm sewer system, and to develop a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). The General Waste Discharge Requirement also requires that storm sewer overflows be reported to the SWRCB using an online reporting system.

The SWRCB has delegated authority to nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to enforce these requirements within their region. The Central Valley RWQCB issues and enforces NPDES permits in Fresno. NPDES permits allow the RWQCB to regulate where and how the waste is disposed, including the discharge volume and effluent limits of the waste and the monitoring and reporting responsibilities of the discharger. The RWQCB is also charged with conducting inspections of permitted discharges and monitoring permit compliance.

Sanitary District Act of 1923
The Sanitary District Act of 1923 (Health and Safety Code Section 6400 et seq.) authorizes the formation of sanitation districts and enforces the Districts to construct, operate, and maintain facilities for the collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater.1 The Act was amended in 1949 to allow the Districts to also provide solid waste management and disposal services, including refuse transfer and resource recovery.

Local Regulations
Fresno General Plan
The City's General Plan contains the following goals, policies, and objectives relevant to the provision of wastewater service and facilities (Table 4.15-1):

1 California Health and Safety Code, http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=hsc, accessed November 18, 2011.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-3
TABLE 4.15-1 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO UTILITY SYSTEMS Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Objective PU-4 Ensure provision of adequate trunk sewer and collector main capacities to serve baseline and planned urban development, consistent with the Wastewater Master Plan.

Policy PU-4-c
System Extension and Cost Recovery. Pursue enlargement or extension of the sewage collection system where necessary to serve planned urban development, with the capital costs and benefits allocated equitably and fairly between the baseline users and new users.

Objective PU-5 Preserve groundwater quality and ensure that the health and safety of the entire Fresno community is not impaired by use of private, on-site disposal systems.

Policy PU-5-b
Non-Regional Treatment. Discourage, and when determined appropriate, oppose the use of private wastewater (septic) disposal systems, community wastewater disposal systems, or other non-regional sewage treatment and disposal systems within or adjacent to the Metropolitan Area if these types of wastewater treatment facilities would cause discharges that could result in groundwater degradation.

Policy PU-5-c Satellite Facilities. Work with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure that approval of any satellite treatment and reclamation facility proposal is consistent with governing statutes and regulations.

Objective PU-6
Ensure the provision of adequate sewage treatment and disposal by utilizing the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility as the primary facility, when economically feasible, for all existing and new development within the Metropolitan Area.

Policy PU-6-a
Treatment Capacity and Cost Recovery. Prepare for and consider the implementation of increased wastewater treatment and reclamation facility capacity in a timely manner to facilitate planned urban development within the Metropolitan Area consistent with this General Plan. Accommodate increase in flows and loadings from the existing community with the capital costs and benefits allocated equitably and fairly between existing users and new users, as authorized by law.

Policy PU-6-b
Treatment Capacity and Cost Recovery. Prepare for and consider the implementation of increased wastewater treatment and reclamation facility capacity in a timely manner to facilitate planned urban development within the Metropolitan Area consistent with this General Plan. Accommodate increase in flows and loadings from the existing community with the capital costs and benefits allocated equitably and fairly between existing users and new users, as authorized by law.

Objective PU-7 Promote reduction in wastewater flows and develop facilities for beneficial reuse of reclaimed water and biosolids for management and distribution of treated wastewater.

Policy PU-7-a Reduce Wastewater. Identify and consider implementing water conservation standards and other programs and policies, as determined appropriate, to reduce wastewater flows.

Policy PU-7-b
Reduce Stormwater Leakage. Reduce storm water infiltration into the sewer collection system, where feasible, through a program of replacing old and deteriorated sewer collection pipeline; eliminating existing stormwater sewer cut-ins to the sanitary sewer system; and avoiding any new sewer cut-ins except when required to protect health and safety.

Policy PU-7-c Biosolid Disposal. Investigate and consider implementing economically effective and environmentally beneficial methods of biosolids handling and disposal.

Policy PU-7-d
Wastewater Recycling. Pursue the development of a recycled water system and the expansion of beneficial wastewater recycling opportunities, including a timely technical, practicable, and institutional evaluation of treatment, facility siting, and water exchange elements.

Policy PU-7-e Infiltration Basins. Continue to rehabilitate existing infiltration basins, and if determined appropriate, pursue acquiring additional sites for infiltration basins, as needed.

Policy PU-7-f
Food and Drink Industry. Ensure adequate provision of facilities for the appropriate management of wastewater from wineries and food processing and beverage facilities, including conformance with Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-4 AUGUST 2017
Baseline
Wastewater Collection
Since 1968, Fresno has administered a Mandatory Sewering Ordinance that requires discontinued use of on-site disposal and connection to the Regional Sewer System when it becomes available.2 In total, the City’s wastewater collection system consists of:
 Approximately 1,500 miles of gravity sewer pipes ranging from 6 inches to 84 inches in diameter;  More than 24,000 manholes;
 15 lift stations;
 54 junction structures; and
 Approximately 1 mile of force mains.

Existing Average Dry Weather Flows (ADWF) within the Plan Area were estimated by assigning each parcel in the proposed Plan to one of the land use classifications. The corresponding Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (WCSMP) wastewater generation rate for each classification was then multiplied by the measured parcel area to calculate an existing wastewater flow. These flows were summed by collection area to obtain the ADWF for each contributing sewer collection area, and the collection areas were summed to obtain a total for the entire proposed Plan. To estimate the peak flow rates that are used to determine the capacity needed for pipes and other collection facilities, the ADWF was multiplied by the WCSMP's peaking factor of 1.49 to account for fluctuations in wastewater flow over the course of a day, and then increased by 10,000 gallons per day (gpd) per acre to account for the combined effects of infiltration and inflow (jointly referred to as "I&I").

Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
As a condition of a Clean Water Grant issued by the federal government, the City of Fresno was designated the Regional Sewer Agency for the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area (FCMA) in 1966. The City operates the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) under a Joint Powers Agreement with Clovis and the County of Fresno. The 3,000-acre RWRF was originally constructed in 1947 and is located inside the City limit but within a non-contiguous area situated approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the Chandler Executive Airport at Jensen and Cornelia Avenues. Over the past 40 years, the RWRF has been expanded and rehabilitated several times, most recently in 2010 when process units were added to the facility to address high organic concentrations within incoming wastewater. The treatment plant includes a number of redundant facilities that allow for regular maintenance and provide backup capacity in the event of equipment failure. The RWRF currently provides secondary treatment and has an average annual rated capacity of 80 million gallons per day (mgpd), with equipment redundancy to accommodate maintenance schedules or equipment failures. Peak hour flow is 160 mgpd. Effluent disposal occurs primarily through a combination of infiltration beds located at the RWRF and agricultural irrigation (Sherwood Design Engineers 2011). Table 4.15-2 on the next page provides a detailed comparison of wastewater generation of the General Plan and proposed Plan projections by land use classification.
2 City of Fresno, Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, 2006.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-5
TABLE 4.15-2 COMPARISON OF BASELINE AND PROPOSED WASTEWATER GENERATION Land Use Classification
Land Use
Abbreviation
General Plan
Water Usage
(mgpd)
Proposed Plan
(mgpd)
Difference
(%)
Employment - Business Park cbp 0.136 0 -100%
Commercial - Community cc 0.048 0.088 83.50%
Corridor/Center Mixed Use cmx 0.249 0.263 5.80%
Employment - Office co 0.016 0.115 614%
Commercial - Regional cr 0.036 0.06 66.30%
Industrial - Heavy ih 0.042 0 -100%
Industrial - Light il 0.13 0 -100%
Neighborhood Mixed Use nmx 0 0.273 100%
Open Space - Ponding Basin obp 0.052 0.045 -11.90%
Open Space - Park orp 0.001 0.002 141%
Open Space - Community Park orpc 0.024 0.021 -14.70%
Open Space - Regional Park orpr 0.062 0.034 -45.30%
Public Facilities - Airport pa 0.001 0.001 0.00%
Public Facilities - College pc 0 0.033 100%
Public Facilities pf 0.018 0.113 526%
Public Facilities - Neighborhood Center pnc 0.002 0.002 0.00% Public Facilities - Church pqch 0.001 0 -100%
Public Facilities - PG&E Substation pqge 0.002 0.002 0.00% Public Facilities - Hospital pqmh 0.02 0.02 0.00%
Public Facilities - Elementary School pse 0.026 0.03 14.40% Public Facilities - Middle School psm 0.045 0.034 -23.40% Residential High Density rh 0.079 0 -100%
Residential Low Density rl 0.025 0.025 0.00%
Residential Medium Density rm 0.746 0.775 3.90%
Residential Medium High Density rmh 0.09 0.045 -49.80%
Residential Medium Low Density rml 0.912 0.857 -6.10%
Residential Urban Neighborhood run 0.365 0.373 2.20%
Totals 3.128 3.219 2.90%
Source: Blair, Church & Flynn, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-6 AUGUST 2017

4.15.1.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed Plan would result in a significant impact if it would:

1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB.

2. Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of baseline facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

3. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the proposed Plan that it has adequate capacity to serve the Plan’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s baseline commitments.

4.15.1.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
UTIL-1 Implementation of the proposed Plan could exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The proposed Plan proposes a modest transfer of density from the proposed Plan compared with the General Plan, which would modify the distribution of wastewater generation throughout the Plan Area.

Under both the proposed Plan and the General Plan, wastewater generation is projected to increase as growth occurs over the next 25 years. For the purposes of this wastewater analysis, it was assumed growth within the Plan Area will occur as described above, on currently vacant or underutilized parcels. As shown in detail in this Draft EIR, this will result in a maximum of new or reoccupied dwelling units and million square feet of new or repurposed commercial/industrial space within the Plan Area.

Under the proposed Plan, the Plan Area has capacity for over 6,000 dwelling units, over 1.5 million square feet of commercial space, nearly 750,000 square feet of office space, 78 acres of parks or open space, and

2.4 million square feet of public facilities.

As shown in Table 4.15-2, there would be an estimated increase of 2.9 percent in wastewater annually produced for the proposed Plan compared with the baseline General Plan. The Plan Area is currently forecast to produce an estimated 3.13 million gallons per day at buildout with masterplan land uses compared to 3.22 million gallons per day under the proposed Plan. A 2.9 percent increase is not considered significant, however, with implementation of the specific policies below, the implementation of the General Plan was found to have a potentially significant impact associated with wastewater treatment requirements and waste discharge requirements.

To reduce the potential impacts associated with wastewater discharge permits, the City would be required to increase wastewater treatment capacity as well as obtain revised and new waste discharge permits.

The policies included in the adopted General Plan would reduce the potential impacts associated with wastewater treatment requirements and waste discharge requirements, including those associated with the proposed Plan. The General Plan requirements that are applicable to the proposed Plan are listed in Table 4.15-1.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-7
Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

The following mitigation measures were included in the Master EIR (MEIR) and remain applicable to this proposed Plan:

Impact UTIL-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.

MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-1: The City shall develop and implement a wastewater master plan update.

MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-2: Prior to exceeding existing wastewater treatment capacity, the City shall evaluate the wastewater system and shall not approve additional development that contributes wastewater to the wastewater treatment facility that could exceed capacity until additional capacity is provided. By approximately the year 2025, the City shall construct the following improvements.  Construct an approximately 70 million gallons per day (mgd) expansion of the Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility and obtain revised waste discharge permits as the generation of wastewater is increased.
 Construct an approximately 0.49 mgd expansion of the North Facility and obtain revised waste discharge permits as the generation of wastewater is increased.

MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-3: Prior to exceeding existing wastewater treatment capacity, the City shall evaluate the wastewater system and shall not approve additional development that contributes wastewater to the wastewater treatment facility that could exceed capacity until additional capacity is provided. After approximately the year 2025, the City shall construct the following improvements.  Construct an approximately 24 mgd Wastewater Treatment Facility within the Southeast Development Area and obtain revised waste discharge permits as the generation of wastewater is increased.
 Construct an approximately 9.6 mgd expansion of the Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility and obtain revised waste discharge permits as the generation of wastewater is increased.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

UTIL-2 Implementation of the proposed Plan would require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of baseline facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Wastewater Treatment Facilities
As discussed in Impact UTIL-1, the implementation of the proposed Plan and Fresno General Plan will result in the need for expansion and new wastewater treatment facilities to serve future land uses and population. In addition, according to the City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-8 AUGUST 2017
Phase 2, the expansion and new surface water treatment facilities will be needed to increase water supplies within the Plan Area. Therefore, development in accordance with proposed Plan could result in a significant impact on the existing wastewater treatment facilities.

A summary of the wastewater treatment facilities that could require at least partial construction to accommodate future development associated with the proposed Plan includes the following.  Construct 70 mgd expansion at the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility, in accordance with the City of Fresno 2006 Wastewater Master Plan.  Construct 25,000 acre-feet per year recycled water expansion to the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility, in accordance with the January 2012 City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan.
 Construct a 0.49 mgd expansion of the North Facility.  Construct 24 mgd wastewater treatment facility within the Southeast Development Area, in accordance with the City of Fresno 2006 Wastewater Master Plan.  Construct 9.6 mgd expansion at the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility.

The estimated increase of 2.9 percent in wastewater annually produced for the proposed Plan compared with the baseline General Plan will not appreciably impact the wastewater system. The area is currently forecast to produce an estimated 3.13 million gallons per day at buildout with masterplan land uses compared to 3.22 million gallons per day for the Plan Area. A 2.9 percent increase is not significant, however, with implementation of the specific policies below, the implementation of the General Plan was found to result in potential significant effects associated with wastewater treatment requirements and waste discharge requirements.

To reduce the potential impacts associated with expansion of facilities, the City will need to increase wastewater treatment capacity as well as obtain revised and new waste discharge permits. The policies in the Fresno General Plan are designed to reduce the potential effect associated with expansion of wastewater treatment capacity including those associated with the proposed Plan. The measures required by the 2014 General Plan include the above listed improvements as well as surface water treatment facilities, additional wastewater collection system infrastructure, water conveyance facilities, and additional pipeline and storage facilities. Potential environmental impacts are identified in the 2014 Master Plan and mitigation measures will be required to minimize and mitigate impacts in the areas of:
 Traffic
 Air Emissions
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Noise
 Water Quality
 Aesthetics
 Agricultural Resources
 Biological Resources
 Cultural Resources

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-9
The following mitigation measures were included in the MEIR and remain applicable to this proposed Plan:

Impact UTIL-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan would require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-4: A Traffic Control/Traffic Management Plan to address traffic impacts during construction of water and sewer facilities shall be prepared and implemented subject to approval by the City prior to construction. The plan shall identify hours of construction and for deliveries, include haul routes, identify access and parking restrictions, plan for notifications, identify pavement markings and signage, and plan for coordination with emergency service providers and schools.

MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-5: Prior to exceeding existing water supply capacity, the City shall evaluate the water supply system and shall not approve additional development that demand additional water until additional capacity is provided. By approximately the year 2025, the following capacity improvements shall be provided.
 Construct an approximately 80 mgd surface water treatment facility near the intersection of Armstrong and Olive Avenues, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the City of Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan Update Phase 2 Report, January 2012 (2012 Metro Plan Update).
 Construct an approximately 30 mgd expansion of the existing northeast surface water treatment facility for a total capacity of 60 mgd, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.
 Construct an approximately 20 mgd surface water treatment facility in the southwest portion of the City, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9- 1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.

MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-6: Prior to exceeding capacity within the existing wastewater collection system facilities, the City shall evaluate the wastewater collection system and shall not approve additional development that would generate additional wastewater and exceed the capacity of a facility until additional capacity is provided. By approximately the year 2025, the following capacity improvements shall be provided.
 Orange Avenue Trunk Sewer: This facility shall be improved between Dakota and Jensen Avenues.

Approximately 37,240 feet of new sewer main shall be installed and approximately 5,760 feet of existing sewer main shall be rehabilitated. The size of the new sewer main shall range from 27- inches to 42-inches in diameter. The associated project designations in the 2006 Wastewater Master Plan are RS03A, RL02, C01-REP, C02-REP, C03-REP, C04-REP, C05-REP, C06-REL and C07- REP.
 Marks Avenue Trunk Sewer: This facility shall be improved between Clinton Avenue and Kearney Boulevard. Approximately 12,150 feet of new sewer main shall be installed. The size of the new

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-10 AUGUST 2017
sewer main shall range from 33 inches to 60 inches in diameter. The associated project designations in the 2006 Wastewater Master Plan are CM1-REP and CM2-REP.  North Avenue Trunk Sewer: This facility shall be improved between Polk and Fruit Avenues and also between Orange and Maple Avenues. Approximately 25,700 feet of new sewer main shall be installed. The size of the new sewer main shall range from 48 inches to 66 inches in diameter. The associated project designations in the 2006 Wastewater Master Plan are CN1-REL1 and CN3-REL1.  Ashlan Avenue Trunk Sewer: This facility shall be improved between Hughes and West Avenues and also between Fruit and Blackstone Avenues. Approximately 9,260 feet of new sewer main shall be installed. The size of the new sewer main shall range from 24 inches to 36 inches in diameter. The associated project designations in the 2006 Wastewater Master Plan are CA1-REL and CA2-REP.

MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-7: Prior to exceeding capacity within the existing 28 pipeline segment shown on Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix J-1 of the Fresno General Plan MEIR, the City shall evaluate the wastewater collection system and shall not approve additional development that would generate additional wastewater and exceed the capacity of one of the 28 pipeline segments until additional capacity is provided.

MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-8: Prior to exceeding capacity within the existing water conveyance facilities, the City shall evaluate the water conveyance system and shall not approve additional development that would demand additional water and exceed the capacity of a facility until additional capacity is provided. The following capacity improvements shall be provided by approximately 2025.  Construct 65 new groundwater wells, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.
 Construct a 2.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T2) near the intersection of Clovis and California Avenues, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.
 Construct a 3.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T3) near the intersection of Temperance and Dakota Avenues, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.
 Construct a 3.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T4) in the Downtown Planning Area, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.  Construct a 4.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T5) near the intersection of Ashlan and Chestnut Avenues, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.
 Construct a 4.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (Reservoir T6) near the intersection of Ashlan Avenue and Highway 99, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.
 Construct 50.3 miles of regional water transmission mains ranging in size from 24-inch to 48-inch, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-11
 Construct 95.9 miles of 16-inch transmission grid mains, in accordance with Chapter 9 and Figure 9-1 of the 2012 Metro Plan Update.

MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-9: Prior to exceeding capacity within the existing water conveyance facilities, the City shall evaluate the water conveyance system and shall not approve additional development that would demand additional water and exceed the capacity of a facility until additional capacity is provided. The following capacity improvements shall be provided after approximately the year 2025 and additional water conveyance facilities shall be provided prior to exceedance of capacity within the water conveyance facilities to accommodate full buildout of the General Plan.  Construct a 4.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (SEDA Reservoir 1) within the northern part of the Southeast Development Area.
 Construct a 4.0 million gallon potable water reservoir (SEDA Reservoir 2) within the southern part of the Southeast Development Area. Additional water conveyance facilities shall be provided prior to exceedance of capacity within the water conveyance facilities to accommodate full buildout of the General Plan Update.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

UTIL-3 Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the proposed Plan that it has adequate capacity to serve the proposed Plan’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s baseline commitments.

The potential long-term impacts related to wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal requirements of the baseline versus proposed Plan differ by 2.9 percent and are considered both nominal and less than significant for full implementation of the proposed Plan.

Public utility districts and other municipalities exist near or adjacent to the Plan Area and include the Malaga Utility District. These entities have wastewater treatment facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts. However, the operation of these treatment facilities would be required to comply with the same wastewater treatment requirements and RWQCB waste discharge requirements explained above. Since the proposed Plan would result in potential significant impacts associated with wastewater treatment requirements and waste discharge requirements, the proposed Plan’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts are considerable and would be a significant cumulative impact.

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

Mitigation Measure UTIL-3: Implement MEIR Mitigation Measures USS-1 through USS-3.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-12 AUGUST 2017

4.15.1.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
UTIL-4 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to wastewater.

The study area for cumulative impacts regarding wastewater is the City of Fresno Planning Area and the City of Clovis because the City of Fresno acts as the Regional Sewering Agency and is responsible for operating the Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility. No significant adverse cumulative impacts are anticipated with the forecast increase in wastewater associated with the proposed Plan.

Wastewater service cumulative impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with regulatory requirements and proposed policies for full implementation of the proposed Plan.

Impact UTIL-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in a significant cumulative impacts with respect to wastewater.

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

Mitigation Measure UTIL-4: Implement MEIR Mitigation Measures USS-1 through USS-9.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.15.2 WATER SUPPLY

4.15.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
Federal Regulations
Federal Clean Water Act
The CWA establishes regulatory requirements for potable water supplies including raw and treated water quality criteria. The City of Fresno is required to monitor water quality and conform to the regulations and requirements of the CWA.

Fresno City CouncilMarch 21, 2024

Fresno City Council
March 21, 2024