Exhibit N-4 – Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Certification (Resolution 2017-299) — Fresno City Council, April 4, 2024 (part 5 of 14)

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

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

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

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

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

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

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

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

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

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

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

TABLE 4.15-3 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO WATER SERVICE AND FACILITIES Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Objective PU-8
Manage and develop the City's water facilities on a strategic timeline basis that recognizes the long life cycle of the assets and the duration of the resources, to ensure a safe, economical, and reliable water supply for existing customers and planned urban development and economic diversification. 10 The green building standards became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the code.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-17
TABLE 4.15-3 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO WATER SERVICE AND FACILITIES Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Policy PU-8-a
Forecast Need. Use available and innovative tools, such as computerized flow modeling to determine system capacity, as necessary to forecast demand on water production and distribution systems by urban development, and to determine appropriate facility needs.

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

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

Fresno Municipal CodeModel Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance The Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance was adopted by the Office of Administrative Law in September 2009, and requires local agencies to implement water efficiency measures as part of its review of landscaping plans. Local agencies can either adopt the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or incorporate provisions of the ordinance into its own code requirements for landscaping. For new landscaping projects of 2,500 square feet or more that require a discretionary or ministerial approval, the applicant is required to submit a detailed "Landscape Documentation Package" that discusses water efficiency, soil management, and landscape design elements.

Baseline Conditions
This section describes existing water supply sources, water supply infrastructure, water treatment facilities, as well as projected demand and supply for the current General Plan. Baseline water usage is shown in Table 4.15-4.

Water Supply Sources and Infrastructure
The City of Fresno Water Division manages and operates the City of Fresno’s water system. The City delivers drinking water to over 500,000 urban residential, commercial, and industrial customers in over 114 square miles of the City. This area includes many County islands (unincorporated areas within the City) and areas within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). Fresno meets its demand for domestic water from a combination of groundwater, treated surface water, and reclaimed water sources.

The City of Fresno operates approximately 260 municipal supply wells that access groundwater from the Kings River Sub-basin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, as well as the Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (NESWTF), a 30 mgd surface water treatment facility. As growth within the City increases demands, this facility will be expanded by another 30 mgd for a total capacity of 60 mgd. The planned schedule for expansion to planned capacity is buildout by approximately 2035. The City will adjust the schedule for this proposed Plan as required to meet projected water system demands and maintain the sustainable use of available water resources. Groundwater quality generally meets primary and secondary drinking water standards for municipal use, although chemical contaminant plumes and

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-18 AUGUST 2017
nitrates are risks that require monitoring and adjustments to the groundwater supply. Water treatment or removal of specific wells from service are conducted as required to maintain drinking water supply quality.

The Surface Water Treatment Facility (SWTF) located in northeast Fresno receives supplies from the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Fresno Irrigation District (FID) contract for Kings River Water, and a wastewater recycle exchange agreement with the Fresno Irrigation District. The USBR would supply 60,000 afy in year 2010 through year 2025, the FID would supply an estimated 108,200 afy in year 2010 (125,543 afy actual) (increasing to 132,400 afy by 2035) for the Kings River contracted water, and the FID wastewater exchange agreement would supply 13,800 afy in year 2010 through year 2025.11 11 City of Fresno, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-19
TABLE 4.15-4 COMPARISON OF BASELINE AND PROPOSED WATER USAGE Land Use Classification
Land Use
Abbreviation
General Plan
Water Usage
(mgpd)
Proposed
Plan
Water Usage
(mgpd)
Increase or
Decrease
(%)
Employment – Business Park cbp 0.289 0.0 -100%
Commercial – Community cc 0.102 0.187 84%
Commercial – General cgh 0.001 0.001 0%
Corridor/Center Mixed-Use cmx 0.149 0.157 6%
Employment–Office co 0.027 0.196 614%
Commercial – Regional cr 0.065 0.108 66%
Clear Zone cz 0.000 0.003 100%
Industrial - Heavy ih 0.044 0.000 -100%
Industrial - Light il 0.195 0.000 -100%
Neighborhood Mixed Use nmx 0.000 0.409 100%
Open Space - Ponding Basin obp 0.052 0.045 -12%
Open Space - Park orp 0.005 0.013 141%
Open Space - Community Park orpc 0.072 0.062 -15%
Open Space - Neighborhood Park orpn 0.067 0.078 17%
Open Space - Regional Park orpr 0.369 0.202 -45%
Public Facilities - Airport pa 0.003 0.003 0%
Public Facilities - College pc 0.000 0.066 N/A
Public Facilities pf 0.051 0.319 526%
Public Facilities - Neighborhood Center pnc 0.007 0.007 0% Public Facilities - Church pqch 0.002 0.000 N/A
Public Facilities - PG&E Substation pqge 0.007 0.007 0% Public Facilities - Hospital pqmh 0.027 0.027 0%
Public Facilities - Elementary School pse 0.098 0.112 14% Public Facilities - Middle School psm 0.166 0.127 -23%
Residential High Density rh 0.079 0.000 -100%
Residential Low Density rl 0.066 0.066 0%
Residential Medium Density rm 3.109 3.231 4%
Residential Medium High Density rmh 0.143 0.072 -50%
Residential Medium Low Density rml 1.449 1.361 -6%
Residential Urban Neighborhood Density run 0.483 0.494 2% Total 7.126 7.351 3%
Source: Blair, Church & Flynn, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-20 AUGUST 2017
In 2004, the NESWTF, located at Chestnut and Behymer Avenues, began operation. The NESWTF has reduced the dependence on groundwater pumping by the City needed to meet water demand. Prior to NESWTF operation, 100 percent of the City’s water demand was met through groundwater pumping.

According to the 2015 UWMP, the City had a high in groundwater pumping of 165,540 afy in 2002. Since the NESWTF went online in 2004, groundwater production has dropped to half this value in 2015. In addition, the City has started construction on a new 54-mgd SWTF in southeast Fresno (SESWTF), a 13-mile, 72-inch-diameter raw water gravity main from the Fresno Irrigation District’s Fresno Canal to the proposed SESWTF, and approximately 13 miles of Regional Transmission Mains (RTM) throughout the City.

Production from this facility may ultimately reach 80 mgd, with the City demonstrating to DDW that the facility is capable of safely running at higher loading rates. All of these major water system improvements began construction in 2016 with completion planned in 2017 and 2018. Surface water use will help to alleviate groundwater demand.

The SWTF has an existing design capacity of 92.07 acre-feet per day (30 mgd). Based on this design capacity, and assuming the SWTF is inoperable for a total of 30 days throughout the year for maintenance activities, the SWTF can provide up to approximately 30,800 afy of treated surface water. Because of operational constraints, the SWTF has a current capacity of only 28,300 afy (27.5 mgd). Plans call for increasing total treatment capacity through correction of the operational constraints bringing the SWTF to its design capacity of 30,800 afy by year 2010. Additional proposed improvements at the facility would increase the capacity to 61,700 afy by year 2020. In addition to the SWTF improvements, the proposed Southeast Surface Water Treatment Plant with a design capacity of 61,700 afy, would bring the total supply to 123,400 afy.12
Groundwater is obtained from the Kings Sub-basin within the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater basin, a natural underground basin (i.e., aquifer). Using approximately 260 City-operated municipal groundwater supply wells, the estimated groundwater pumped in year 2011 was 119,8013 afy, with a steady decrease to 83,360 afy in 2015.

Because this groundwater replaces a similar volume of surface water that FID contractors would otherwise use for irrigation, the City receives a surface water credit from FID for 46 percent of the water it pumps into the canals under the terms of the Wastewater Recycle Exchange Agreement, up to a maximum of 13,800 afy. Surface water obtained under this agreement is treated at the City’s SWTF along with its other surface supplies, and pumped into the potable distribution system. To help reduce its use of limited potable water supplies and control groundwater contamination associated with percolation disposal, the City plans to begin using treated effluent from the City-operated Fresno/Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) for landscape irrigation and other approved uses by 2030. Refer to the discussion below under the heading “Wastewater Collection” for a detailed discussion of the RWRF.

This would require upgrading at least a portion of the RWRF treatment facilities to produce the tertiary quality effluent required for unrestricted use on publicly accessible landscape. It is now estimated the use of recycled water will total 25,000 afy by 2025.
12 City of Fresno, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-21
Projected Water Supply and Demand
The existing average water use for the City of Fresno is 300 gallons per capita per day. Total water demand for all sectors (industrial, public landscape irrigation, commercial/institutional, multi-family residential, single-family residential) in 2015 was 132,843 afy, and is projected by the 2015 UWMP to reach 262,500 afy by the year 2040. This projection includes conservation savings that will be achieved by the year 2040.

Beginning late 2008 through January 2013, the City had initiated and completed the implementation of a residential water meter program through the installation of 113,000 water meters for single-family homes. From the period of 2008 through 2015, there has been a dramatic decline of water usage for all water use sectors.13
Water Supply Reliability
Aging infrastructure is one of the Plan Area’s deficits. Portions of the utility networks in the Plan Area are over 50 years old. These networks are either nearing or past their intended design life and are subject to capacity, reliability, and potential failure issues. The City of Fresno (particularly in areas developed more recently) has some of the highest water use per capita in the State and at the same time the lowest water rates of any major California city, which promotes the water demand. This water resource issue will only intensify if more stringent water conservation measures are not implemented and water rates are not raised to fund needed infrastructure improvements. In 2015, the City implemented new water rates, and currently, several infrastructure improvements funded by the new rates are in various stages of development.

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

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

2. Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from baseline entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed.

4.15.2.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
UTIL-5 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of baseline facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

The potential long-term impacts related to water supply, treatment and distribution requirements of the baseline versus proposed plans differ by 3 percent and are considered nominal and therefore, less than significant for full implementation of the proposed Plan. 13 City of Fresno, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-22 AUGUST 2017
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

UTIL-6 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the proposed Plan from baseline entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed.

Waste supply and water treatment impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with regulatory requirements and proposed policies for full implementation of the proposed Plan.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.15.2.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
UTIL-7 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would/would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to water supply.

The study area for cumulative impacts regarding water supply is the City of Fresno Planning Area and the groundwater basins from which the Plan Area derives water. Water supply and water treatment impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with regulatory requirements and proposed policies for full implementation of the proposed Plan.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.15.3 RECYCLED WATER SUPPLY

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-23
State Regulations
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under the Porter-Cologne, which was passed in California in 1969, the SWRCB has the ultimate authority over State water rights and water quality policy. Porter-Cologne also establishes nine RWQCBs to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis at the local and regional level. RWQCBs engage in a number of water quality functions in their respective regions. RWQCBs regulate all pollutant or nuisance discharges that may affect either surface water or groundwater.14 Fresno is overseen by the Central Valley RWQCB.

This requirement applies to all suppliers providing water to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 afy.
15 This Act is intended to support conservation and efficient use of urban water supplies.

The Act requires that total project water use be compared to water supply sources over the next 20 years in five-year increments, that planning occur for single and multiple dry water years, and that plans include a water recycling analysis that incorporates a description of the wastewater collection and treatment system within the agency’s service area along with current and potential recycled water uses16.

Senate Bills 610 and 221
SB 610 and SB 221 amended State law to ensure better coordination between local water supply and land use decisions and confirm that there is an adequate water supply for new development. Both statutes require that detailed information regarding water availability be provided to City and County decisionmakers prior to approval of large development projects. SB 610 requires the preparation of a WSA for certain types of projects, as defined by Water Code Section 10912, which are subject to CEQA. Projects required to prepare a WSA are defined as follows:
 Residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.  Shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor area.
 Hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms.
 Industrial, manufacturing or processing plant, or industrial park planned to employ more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
 Mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified above. 14 California Wetlands Information System, Summary of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, http://ceres.ca.gov/wetlands/permitting/Porter_summary.html, accessed February 5, 2015. 15 One acre-foot is the amount of water required to cover 1 acre of ground (43,560 square feet) to a depth of 1-foot. 16 Department of Water Resources, About Urban Water Management, http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanwatermanagement/, accessed February 5, 2015.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-24 AUGUST 2017
 Project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required for 500 dwelling units.

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

California Groundwater Management Act of 1992
The Groundwater Management Act (AB 3030) was signed into law in 1992 and provides guidance for applicable local agencies to develop voluntary GMP in State-designated groundwater basins. GMPs can allow agencies to raise revenue to pay for measures influencing the management of the basin, including extraction, recharge, conveyance, facilities’ maintenance, and water quality.17 The Groundwater Management Act and has since been modified by Senate Bill 1938 in 2002 and AB 359 in 2011.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014
On September 16, 2014, a three-bill legislative package was signed into law, composed of AB 1739, SB 1168, and SB 1319, collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.18 The Governor’s signing message states "a central feature of these bills is the recognition that groundwater management in California is best accomplished locally." The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7)19
SB X7-7, which was enacted in 2009, requires all water suppliers to increase water use efficiency. The legislation sets an overall goal of reducing per capita water by 20 percent by 2020, with an interim goal of a 10 percent reduction in per capita water use by 2015.

State Updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (AB 1881 [2006])20 The updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requires cities and counties to adopt landscape water conservation ordinances by January 31, 2010 or to adopt a different ordinance that is at least as effective in conserving water as the updated Model Ordinance (MO). See Fresno Municipal Code below for a discussion of local ordinances that are required to reduce water consumption and conserve water. 17 Department of Water Resources Planning and Local Assistance Central District, Groundwater, Groundwater Management, http://www.cd.water.ca.gov/groundwater/gwab3030.cfm, accessed February 5, 2015. 18 Department of Water Resources, Groundwater Information Center, http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/ groundwater_management/legislation.cfm, accessed February 5, 2015. 19 Department of Water Resources, Senate Bill SBX7-7 2009 Information, http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/sb7/, accessed February 5, 2015. 20 Department of Water Resources, Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/ landscapeordinance/, accessed February 5, 2015.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-25
State Mandated Water Reductions
On April 1, 2015, as a result of severe drought conditions in California, the Governor issued an executive order directing the SWRCB to implement mandatory water reductions in cities and towns across California to reduce water usage by 8 percent to 36 percent. The water reductions vary depending on per capita water usage in each municipality and are based on the water usage for a three month period in 2014 (July through September). Cities that use more water will have to make larger cuts. Fresno will be subject to water reductions of 16 percent. The order also requires:
 Replacement of 50 million square feet of lawns throughout the State with drought tolerant landscaping.
 Creation of a temporary, statewide consumer rebate program to replace old appliances with more water and energy efficient models.
 Requirement that campuses, golf courses, cemeteries, and other large landscapes make significant cuts to water use.
 Prohibit new homes and development from irrigating with potable water unless water-efficient drip irrigation systems are used and ban the watering of ornamental grass on public street medians.

CALGreen Building Code
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11, Title 24, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California CCR) to apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure, unless otherwise indicated in this code, throughout the State of California. CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development including water conservation and requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent.21 The mandatory provisions of the CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local building permit process.

The purpose of CALGreen is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories:
 Planning and design
 Energy efficiency
 Water efficiency and conservation
 Material conservation and resource efficiency
 Environmental quality
21 The green building standards became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the code.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-26 AUGUST 2017
The provisions of this code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure, unless otherwise indicated in this code, throughout the State of California. Compliance with the CALGreen Code is not a substitution for meeting the certification requirements of any green building program. CALGreen requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent.

Local Regulations
Fresno General Plan
The City's General Plan contains the following goals, policies, and objectives relevant to the provision of water service and facilities (Table 4.15-5):

TABLE 4.15-5 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO RECYCLED WATER SUPPLY Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Objective PU-8
Manage and develop the City's water facilities on a strategic timeline basis that recognizes the long life cycle of the assets and the duration of the resources, to ensure a safe, economical, and reliable water supply for existing customers and planned urban development and economic diversification.

Policy PU-8-a
Forecast Need. Use available and innovative tools, such as computerized flow modeling to determine system capacity, as necessary to forecast demand on water production and distribution systems by urban development, and to determine appropriate facility needs.

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-27
applicant is required to submit a detailed "Landscape Documentation Package" that discusses water efficiency, soil management, and landscape design elements.

Baseline Conditions
This section describes water supply sources, water supply infrastructure, water treatment facilities, as well as projected demand and supply.

Recycled Water Supply Sources and Infrastructure
Recycled water, an important water source for the City of Fresno, is not yet utilized in the Plan Area. The proposed Plan presents an opportunity to integrate recycled water use into the associated improvements with buildout of the City of Fresno’s Recycled water system. Green field installation of a distribution system at the initial development stage provides opportunity to plan optimum recycled water utilization within the Plan Area.

Water Supply Reliability
Recycled water supply is not limited by the amount of recycled water available as it is possible and may be beneficial and economical to augment the supply of recycled water with higher grades of water if available. Untreated surface water or even potable water may be used to augment as available and required to meet demands of recycled water users.

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

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

2. Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the proposed Plan from baseline entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed.

4.15.3.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
UTIL-8 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not require or result in the construction of new reclaimed water treatment facilities or expansion of baseline facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Recycled water is a major contributor to the area’s water supply system. The principal impact of providing recycled water is the overall water supply rather than direct shortages for end users. This is due to the ability to trade off and supplement recycled water supply from other sources. Overall water impacts are covered in the water supply discussion and omitted here. Under Impacts UTIL-5 and UTIL-6, impacts were found to be less than significant. Therefore, impacts related to the construction of new reclaimed water treatment facilities or expansion of baseline facilities would be less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-28 AUGUST 2017
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

UTIL-9 Implementation of the proposed Plan would have sufficient reclaimed water supplies available to serve the proposed Plan from baseline entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed.

Recycled water supply shortage impacts would be significant both in real impacts but also in the cost of non-compliance with regulatory requirements and proposed policies. Mitigation measures are those identified in the wastewater supply discussion, under Impact UTIL-1. With implementation of MEIR Mitigation Measures USS-1 through USS-3, impacts related to the sufficient of reclaimed water supplies available to serve the proposed Plan would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.15.3.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
UTIL-10 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would/would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to reclaimed water supply.

The study area for cumulative impacts regarding recycled water supply is the City of Fresno Planning Area and the groundwater basins from which the Plan Area derives water. Recycled water supply cumulative impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with regulatory requirements and proposed policies for full implementation of the proposed Plan.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) manages stormwater runoff in the Plan Area and the Fresno metropolitan area. The FMFCD is authorized to control stormwater within an approximately 400 square mile urban and rural foothill watershed (defined as the Fresno County Stream Group). The district's flood control program is comprised of eight major flood control facilities and related streams and channel features that control the flows from the Fresno County Stream Group. This area includes several low-elevation streams. The watershed drains a part of the west slope of the Sierra Nevada between the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers. The major structural elements of this flood control system include the following (Sherwood Design Engineers 2011):
 Dams and Reservoirs: Big Dry Creek, Fancher Creek, and Redbank Creek  Detention Basins: Pup Creek, Alluvial Drain, Redbank Creek, Fancher Creek, and Big Dry Creek

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-29
The FMFCD is responsible for flood control and stormwater planning and management. The District Services Plan (DSP) provides comprehensive policies and implementation actions for flood control, rural streams management, local storm water drainage, stormwater quality management, water conservation, recreation, and related wildlife management. Policy coordination among the FMFCD, cities, and the County of Fresno occurs through a framework provided by the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan, which is prepared by the district as a specific element within the general plan of each agency. The Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan identifies urban and rural drainage area boundaries, computes runoff flows based on planned land use, identifies facility size and location, establishes street grades necessary to accomplish drainage of the runoff from the point of origin to the nearest collector facility, and identifies natural channels requiring preservation.

The District is responsible for reviewing all land use proposals for drainage and flood control needs/impacts, including evaluation of the proximity of development to floodplains, the need for the application of floodplain management requirements, and acceptability of proposed floodplain modifications' compliance with and implementation of the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan and identification of stormwater quality best management practices.22

4.15.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
Federal Regulations
The federal government regulates storm water treatment and planning through the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, more commonly known as the CWA, as well as through the NPDES permit program, both of which are discussed in further detail below.

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

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The NPDES permit program was established in the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States. Federal NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges, including point-source municipal storm water discharges and nonpoint-source storm water runoff. NPDES permits generally identify effluent and receiving water limits on allowable concentrations and/or mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge; prohibitions on discharges 22 City of Fresno General Plan, adopted 2014.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-30 AUGUST 2017
not specifically allowed under the permit; and provisions that describe required actions by the discharger, including industrial pretreatment, pollution prevention, self-monitoring, and other activities. Storm water discharge is regulated under the NPDES permit program for direct discharges into receiving waters and by the National Pretreatment Program for indirect discharges to a sewage treatment plant.

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

State Water Resources Control Board
The General Waste Discharge Requirement also requires that storm sewer overflows be reported to the SWRCB using an online reporting system. The SWRCB has delegated authority to nine RWQCBs to enforce these requirements within their region. The Central Valley RWQCB issues and enforces NPDES permits in Fresno. NPDES permits allow the RWQCB to regulate where and how the waste is disposed, including the discharge volume and effluent limits of the waste and the monitoring and reporting responsibilities of the discharger. The RWQCB is also charged with conducting inspections of permitted discharges and monitoring permit compliance.

Sanitary District Act of 1923
The Sanitary District Act of 1923 (Health and Safety Code Section 6400 et seq.) authorizes the formation of sanitation districts and enforces the Districts to construct, operate, and maintain facilities for the collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater.23 The Act was amended in 1949 to allow the Districts to also provide solid waste management and disposal services, including refuse transfer and resource recovery.

Local Regulations
Fresno General Plan
The City's General Plan contains the following goals, policies, and objectives relevant to the provision of wastewater service and facilities (Table 4.15-6).

Baseline
Stormwater Collection
Stormwater collection in the Plan Area generally begins in street gutters that convey runoff to existing storm drain inlets and underground storm drain conveyance infrastructure. In some cases, developed property collects stormwater in private collection systems that connect directly to a FMFCD line. Within the Plan Area and the City of Fresno, the City of Fresno Street Maintenance Division is responsible for 23 California Health and Safety Code, http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=hsc, accessed on November 18, 2011.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-31
TABLE 4.15-6 GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO WASTEWATER SERVICE AND FACILITIES Objective/
Policy
Number Objective/Policy Text
Objective PU-4 Ensure provision of adequate trunk sewer and collector main capacities to serve baseline and planned urban development, consistent with the Wastewater Master Plan.

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.

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

Policy PU-7-a Reduce Wastewater. Identify and consider implementing water conservation standards and other programs and policies, as determined appropriate, to reduce wastewater flows. maintaining the gutters, as well as all public streets and sidewalks and is responsible for keeping these surface storm drain facilities operating efficiently. The FMFCD storm water system begins at the storm drain inlets and includes all downstream drainage facilities, including the underground pipes and pump stations that convey runoff to District-owned infiltration basins.

Stormwater Management
Most annual runoff is managed through percolation into the underlying groundwater table. When storms generate larger volumes of runoff than these basins can handle water overflows into a network of relief channels that discharge to the San Joaquin River, its tributary streams, or local agricultural canals. The runoff from the Plan Area is routed to infiltration basins to the west of the Plan Area where it infiltrates into the groundwater table.

Within the City of Fresno, FMFCD's Storm Drain Master Plan divides the District into local drainage areas of one to two square miles. All inlets, pipes and pumping stations within each drainage area are maintained by the District. It is assumed that this maintenance arrangement will remain in place for the foreseeable future and the City will continue to maintain the gutter and surface portion of the Plan Area's storm drain infrastructure.

FMFCD has based planning for the 14 drainage areas using the General Plan land use classifications for each drainage area. Beyond planning, the basins have been located, sized and in most cases basin property acquisition has been completed. All of the basin sites except for Basin AV have been purchased by the FMFCD. Basins AS and CQ require additional improvements before they become operational. The Plan must be analyzed and evaluated for impacts on the aggregate area as well as for each of the 14 planned basin areas. FMFCD guidelines allow a 20 percent change in required volume before FMFCD is required to resize the basin and either enlarge or change the location of the affected basin. The analysis in

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-32 AUGUST 2017
Table 4.15-7 shows all of the fourteen FMFCD drainage basins are sized sufficiently for the Plan as compared to the current General Plan.

Irrigation System Integration
The Fresno Irrigation District (FID) currently serves portions of the Plan Area. Irrigation water is provided by six FID facilities including the Kearney Boulevard Basin No. 189 and five canal and/or pipeline facilities.

While no additional capacity is required with implementation of the Plan, the irrigation system remains a factor and in place for three important reasons.

1. Existing service is required throughout the development period. In-holdings and undeveloped parcels still require irrigation water.

2. Irrigation facilities serve as a water transmission function across the area. This transmission capacity will be required following full buildout of the Plan.

3. The FID irrigation system serves a dual function: a) delivery of irrigation water, and b) stormwater transmission during the wet season. The irrigation facilities serve a vital role in the stormwater system as that capacity for conveying irrigation water is utilized to convey storm water during the wet season.

Improvements in the irrigation system will be required with implementation of the proposed Plan.

Modifications will be required so that facilities are consistent with a developed urban context. These improvement costs are not controlled nor borne by the FID, but by developers which lead in determining both the scope and cost of the associated improvements. Those costs are included in general improvement budgets such as street construction and stormwater projects. This is appropriate as no primary irrigation benefit accrues to the utility owner. The requirements of the final design are principally a function of the property developer. As a rule, the FID easement generally remains but whether a canal is preserved as-is, improved, or replaced with a pipeline is determined by the developer of the project. FID is an interested participant and remains the facility owner involved in planning, design, and approving improvements, but scope and costs for these improvements are included in the development projects.

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

1. Exceed storm water discharge NPDES requirements and applicable RWQCB standards.

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

3. Result in a determination by the FMFCD or FEMA that the project will adversely impact flooding potential in the Plan Area or adjacent environments up or down stream.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-33
TABLE 4.15-7 DRAINAGE SYSTEM REQUIRED CAPACITY BY DRAINAGE AREA Drainage Area
Basin Size
(Acres)
General Plan
Required
Basin Volume
(Acre-Feet)
Proposed Plan
Required
Basin Volume
(Acre-Feet)
Difference
(%)
Basin AR 0.5 .23 .23 0.0%
Basin AS 637 126.06 130.79 3.8%
Basin Au 376 70.76 81.07 14.6%
Basin AV 526 178.00 148.92 -16.3%
Basin CE 0 0.0 0.0% 0.0%
Basin CP 311 61.97 53.82 -13.2%
Basin CQ 220 46.76 52.25 11.8%
Basin FF 273 62.68 62.68 0.0%
Basin II1 168 39.88 41.51 4.1%
Basin KK 250 79.83 73.61 -7.8%
Basin NN 789 170.92 163.35 -4.4%
Basin OO 113 33.49 33.46 0.0%
Basin RR 12.4 1.41 1.41 0.0%
Basin SS 520 117.44 119.28 1.6%
Basin TT 563 140.39 138.85 -3.9%
Basin ZZ 225 57.59 61.34 6.5%
EXEMPT 101 43.86 43.74 -.3%
Out of Drainage Area 774 115.03 144.97 26.0%
Total 5,859 1,346.3 1347.3 0.1%
Source: Blair, Church & Flynn, 2017.

4.15.4.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
UTIL-11 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not exceed NPDES stormwater discharge requirements or applicable standards of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

As development occurs throughout the Plan Area in accordance with the General Plan and Development Code Update, new and expanded stormwater drainage facilities will be needed to adequately accommodate the increases in stormwater flow due to the addition of impervious surfaces. Therefore, implementation of the Fresno General Plan would result in a significant impact on existing storm water drainage facilities.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-34 AUGUST 2017
The proposed Plan proposes a modest transfer of density from the proposed Plan compared with the Fresno General Plan, which would modify the distribution of stormwater generation throughout the Plan Area. Under both the proposed Plan and the General Plan, storm water generation will increase as growth occurs over the next 25 years. For the purposes of this stormwater analysis, it was assumed growth within the Plan Area will occur as described above, on currently vacant or underutilized parcels. As shown in detail in this Draft EIR, this will result in a maximum of new dwelling units and million square feet of new commercial/industrial space within the Plan Area.

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.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

UTIL-12 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater treatment facilities or expansion of baseline facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

The Plan Area as a whole, as well as the 16 individual watershed areas associated with the Plan Area, have FMFCD-planned facilities, which are sufficient to handle the projected flows. The baseline facilities for the Plan Area are sufficient to provide drainage for the planned improvements without significant environmental impacts. Compliance with planning and regulatory requirements requires additions and adjustments to capacity are incorporated into planning and improvement buildout within the Plan Area.

FMFCD plans for drainage facilities but does not construct facilities until such time as development.

Therefore, impacts related to the construction of new stormwater treatment facilities or expansion of baseline facilities would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

UTIL-13 Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in a determination by the stormwater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s baseline commitments.

FMFCD has planned stormwater facilities for each of the planned watershed areas sufficient to accommodate planned storm water in the Plan Area. Stormwater and flood control system impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with regulatory requirements and proposed policies for full implementation of the proposed Plan.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant. Mitigation measures related to storm drain systems are established and required in the 2014 Master Plan and have nearly become standard operating practices. Stormwater collection and handling must adhere to the mitigation measures identified in the

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-35
2014 master Plan EIR as well as regulatory requirements which codify the same fundamental practices.

The practices from the Master Plan are summarized below:

Mitigation Measure

Description
MM-USS-10 Maintain operational intermittent flows during the dry season within define channel capacity and downstream capture capabilities for recharge.

MM-USS-11 FMFCD and Wetlands Requirements (Preliminary) MM-USS-12 FMFCD and Wetlands Requirements (Design Assessment) MM-USS-13 FMFCD and Wetlands Requirements (Design Survey) MM-USS-14 FMFCD and Wetlands Requirements (Special Survey) MM-USS-15 FMFCD and Wetlands Requirements (Nesting Bird Survey) MM-USS-16 FMFCD and Wetlands Requirements (Breeding Season Survey) MM-USS-17 FMFCD and Salmonoid Protection
MM-USS-18 Trail Protection
MM-USS-19 Air Quality Protection
MM-USS-20 Storm Drain Conveyance Capacity

4.15.4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
UTIL-14 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to stormwater.

The study area for cumulative impacts regarding storm water drainage is the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area because the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (District) includes an area of approximately 400 square miles and covers almost the entire portion of the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area.

Stormwater and flood control system impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with regulatory requirements and proposed policies for full implementation of the proposed Plan.

Mitigation measures USS-12 through USS-20, shown under UTIL-13 above, are required to mitigate and potentially significant impacts to the environment within the Plan Area and cumulative setting. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to stormwater would be less than significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-36 AUGUST 2017

4.15.5 SOLID WASTE

4.15.5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
State Regulations
California Integrated Waste Management Act
California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, AB 939, subsequently amended by SB 1016, set a requirement for cities and counties throughout the State to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills by January 1, 2000 though source reduction, recycling, and composting. To help achieve this, the Act required that each city and county prepare and submit a Source Reduction and Recycling Element.

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

As part of the California Integrated Waste Management Board’s (CIWMB’s) Zero Waste Campaign, regulations affect what common household items can be placed in the trash. As of February 2006, household materials including fluorescent lamps and tubes, batteries, electronic devices, and thermostats that contain mercury are no longer permitted in the trash.24 In 2007, SB 1016 amended AB 939 to establish a per capita disposal measurement system. The per capita disposal measurement system is based on two factors: a jurisdiction’s reported total disposal of solid waste divided by a jurisdiction’s population. The California Integrated Waste Management Board was replaced by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) in 2010.

CalRecycle sets a target per capita disposal rate for each jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction must submit an annual report to CalRecycle with an update of its progress in implementing diversion programs and its current per capita disposal rate. In 2013, the statewide residential per capita disposal rate was 4.4 pounds per resident per day, and the statewide employee per capita disposal rate was 10.2 pound per employee per day.25
Assembly Bill 341
In 2011, AB 341 was passed that sets a State policy goal of not less than 75 percent of solid waste that is generated to be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. CalRecycle was required to submit a report to the legislature by January 1, 2014 outlining the strategy that will be used to achieve this policy goal. This bill affects local governments in that each jurisdiction is required to implement a commercial solid waste recycling program that consists of education, outreach, and monitoring of 24 California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (Cal Recycle), http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/homehazwaste, accessed February 26, 2015. 25 CalRecycle, California's Statewide Per Resident, Per Employee, and Total Disposal Since 1989, www.calrecycle.ca.gov/ lgcentral/GoalMeasure/DisposalRate/Graphs/Disposal.htm , accessed February 26, 2015.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-37
businesses. An annual report of the progress of such efforts is required by the law. CalRecycle is responsible for reviewing each jurisdiction’s commercial recycling program.

California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act requires areas in development projects to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials. The Act requires CalRecycle (formerly CIWMB) to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency relating to adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials as part of development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model, or an ordinance of their own, providing for adequate areas in development projects for the collection and loading of recyclable materials.

Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, Scoping Plan26
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (also known as AB 32) Scoping Plan, which was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB), included a Mandatory Commercial Recycling Measure. The Mandatory Commercial Recycling Measure focuses on diverting commercial waste as a means to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e), consistent with the 2020 targets set by AB 32. To achieve the Measure’s objective, the commercial sector will need to recycle an additional 2 to 3 million tons of materials annually by the year 2020.

CalRecycle adopted this Measure at its January 17, 2012 Monthly Public Meeting. The regulation was approved by the Office of Administrative Law on May 7, 2012 and became effective immediately. On June 27, 2012, the Governor signed SB 1018, which included an amendment requiring both businesses that generate 4 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week and multi-family residences with five or more units to arrange for recycling services. This requirement became effective on July 1, 2012.

CALGreen Building Code
As previously stated in Section 4.15.1.1 under “Regulatory Framework,” the purpose of CALGreen is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices related to material conservation and resource efficiency. The provisions of this code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure, unless otherwise indicated in this code, throughout the State of California.

Section 4.408, Construction Waste Reduction Disposal and Recycling, mandates that, in the absence of a more stringent local ordinance, a minimum of 50 percent of non-hazardous construction and demolition debris must be recycled or salvaged. CALGreen requires the applicant to have a Waste Management Plan, for on-site sorting or construction debris, which is submitted to the City for approval. 26 CalRecycle, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Recycle/Commercial/, accessed February 26, 2015.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-38 AUGUST 2017
The Waste Management Plan does the following:
 Identifies the materials to be diverted from disposal by recycling, reuse on the project, or salvage for future use or sale.
 Specifies if materials will be sorted on-site or mixed for transportation to a diversion facility.  Identifies the diversion facility where the material collected can be taken.  Identifies construction methods employed to reduce the amount of waste generated.  Specifies that the amount of materials diverted shall be calculated by weight or volume, but not by both.

Baseline Conditions
Fresno diverts a majority of its solid waste away from landfills and into recycling and composting programs. Diversion conserves limited landfill space, keeps toxic chemicals and materials from contaminating landfills, and enhances the reuse of materials. In 2009, Fresno was ranked highest in the state among larger cities by the CIWMB for diverting 71 percent of its solid waste. A Council resolution commits the City to the goal of a 75 percent Waste Diversion Rate by the year 2012 and a Zero Waste goal by the year 2025. Recycling of construction & demolition is required for any City-issued building, relocation or demolition permitted project that generates at least 8 cubic yards of material by volume and all waste must be hauled to a City-approved facility.
27 The Solid Waste Division of the City of Fresno provides the following services: collection of residential and commercial solid waste, recyclables, and greenwaste throughout the community at least once a week; disposes of solid waste at the County of Fresno landfill; provides and maintains containers; responds to customer complaints/concerns and provides roll-off and compactor services to residential, multi-family and commercial customers.28
American Avenue Landfill is owned and operated by Fresno County and began operation in 1992 for public and commercial solid waste haulers. It is estimated that the landfill will be able to continue operation until 2031 when it will be full and will have to be closed. Fresno County has planned and is planning for an additional facility to be in place and in operation prior to closing the American Avenue Landfill.

American Avenue Landfill is considered a sanitary landfill. The EPA defines a sanitary landfill as a disposal site for non-hazardous solid waste spread in layers, compacted to the smallest practical volume, and covered by material applied at the end of each operating day. 27 City of Fresno, 2011. Working paper 5: Resource Conservation. 28 City of Fresno Public Utilities, 2012.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-39
The American Avenue Landfill (i.e., American Avenue Disposal Site 10-AA-0009) has a maximum permitted capacity of 32,700,000 cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 29,358,535 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of August 31, 2031. The maximum permitted throughput is 2,200 tons per day.29 Other landfills within the County of Fresno include the Clovis Landfill with a maximum remaining permitted capacity of 7,740,000 cubic yards, a maximum permitted throughput of 2,000 tons per day, and an estimated closure date of 2047.30 There is also the Coalinga Landfill with a maximum remaining capacity of 1,930,062 cubic yards, a maximum permitted throughput of 200 tons per day, and an estimated closure date of 2029.31
The City of Fresno and Fresno County co-sponsor two household hazardous waste drop-off events each year, one in the spring and one in the fall. Additionally, the County of Fresno provides a Door-to-Door program that provides household hazardous waste pickup for individuals who, because of special circumstances, cannot participate in the household hazardous waste drop off events held twice a year.

The baseline forecast for solid waste generated in the Plan Area with existing General Plan build-out is

57.2 tons per day.

Projected Solid Waste Generation
The forecast for solid waste generated by the proposed Plan is 59.4 tons per day representing a 3.9 percent increase in the amount of solid waste generated at full build-out of the proposed Plan.

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

1. Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.

2. Not comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

4.15.5.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
UTIL-15 Future development under the proposed Plan would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed Plan’s solid waste disposal needs.

The 2014 Master Plan development was found to have potential for significant impact principally due to the planned closure of the American Avenue landfill scheduled for 2031. To reduce the potentially significant impacts associated with the solid waste disposal, the City will need to increase disposal 29 CalRecycle, 2014. 30 CalRecycle, 2014. 31 CalRecycle, 2014.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-40 AUGUST 2017
capacity. The policies the Fresno General Plan are designed to reduce the potential effect associated with solid waste disposal including those associated with the proposed Plan.

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

Impact UTIL-15: Future development under the proposed Plan would not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed Plan’s solid waste disposal needs.

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-22: Prior to exceeding landfill capacity, the City shall evaluate additional landfill locations and shall not approve additional development that could contribute solid waste to a landfill that is at capacity until additional capacity is provided.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

UTIL-16 Implementation of the proposed Plan would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

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

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.15.5.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
UTIL-17 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to solid waste.

Shortage of waste disposal capacity can have significant impacts on adjacent areas. If refuse is exported to adjacent areas with existing spare capacity, significant impacts due to increased travel distances can result in additional transportation related impacts. If not mitigated, the project’s contribution to potential cumulative would be significant.

The following mitigation measures were included in the MEIR and remain applicable to this project:

Impact UTIL-17: Implementation of the proposed Plan in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed Plan’s solid waste disposal needs.

Significance Without Mitigation: Significant.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-41
MEIR Mitigation Measure USS-22: Prior to exceeding landfill capacity, the City shall evaluate additional landfill locations and shall not approve additional development that could contribute solid waste to a landfill that is at capacity until additional capacity is provided.

Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.15.6 ENERGY CONSERVATION

4.15.6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
Federal Regulations
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
Signed into law in December 2007, this Act is an energy policy law that contains provisions designed to increase energy efficiency and the availability of renewable energy. The Act contains provisions for increasing fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks, while establishing new minimum efficiency standards for lighting as well as residential and commercial appliance equipment.

Energy Policy Act of 2005
Passed by Congress in July 2005, the Energy Policy Act includes a comprehensive set of provisions to address energy issues. The Act includes tax incentives for the following: energy conservation improvements in commercial and residential buildings; fossil fuel production and clean coal facilities; and construction and operation of nuclear power plants, among other things. Subsidies are also included for geothermal, wind energy, and other alternative energy producers.

National Energy Policy
Established in 2001 by the National Energy Policy Development Group, this policy is designed to help the private sector and state and local governments promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for the future. Key issues addressed by the energy policy are energy conservation, repair and expansion of energy infrastructure, and ways of increasing energy supplies while protecting the environment.

State Regulations
California Public Utilities Commission
In September 2008, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted the Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, which provides a framework for energy efficiency in California through the year 2020 and beyond. It articulates a long-term vision, as well as goals for each economic sector, identifying specific near-term, mid-term, and long-term strategies to assist in achieving these goals. The Long Term

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-42 AUGUST 2017
Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan sets forth the following four goals, known as Big Bold Energy Efficiency Strategies, to achieve significant reductions in energy demand:

1. All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2020;

2. All new commercial construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030;

3. Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) will be transformed to ensure that its energy performance is optimal for California’s climate; and

4. All eligible low-income customers will be given the opportunity to participate in the low-income energy efficiency program by 2020.

With respect to the commercial sector, the Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan notes that commercial buildings, which include schools, hospitals, and public buildings, consume more electricity than any other end-use sector in California. The commercial sector’s five billion-plus square feet of space accounts for 38 percent of the state’s power use and over 25 percent of natural gas consumption.

Lighting, cooling, refrigeration, and ventilation account for 75 percent of all commercial electric use, while space heating, water heating, and cooking account for over 90 percent of gas use. In 2006, schools and colleges were in the top five facility types for electricity and gas consumption, accounting for approximately 10 percent of state’s electricity and gas use.

The CPUC and the California Energy Commission (CEC) have adopted the following goals to achieve zero net energy (ZNE) levels by 2030 in the commercial sector:
 Goal 1: New construction will increasingly embrace zero net energy performance (including clean, distributed generation), reaching 100 percent penetration of new starts in 2030.  Goal 2: 50 percent of baseline buildings will be retrofit to zero net energy by 2030 through achievement of deep levels of energy efficiency and with the addition of clean distributed generation.  Goal 3: Transform the commercial lighting market through technological advancement and innovative utility initiatives.

California Building Code
Energy conservation standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2013 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California CCR). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.

On May 31, 2012, the CEC adopted the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, which went into effect on July 1, 2014. Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (non-residential) more energy efficient than those constructed under the prior 2008 standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-43
CALGreen Building Code
As previously stated in Section 4.15.1.1 under “Regulatory Framework,” the purpose of CALGreen is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices related to energy efficiency. The provisions of this code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure, unless otherwise indicated in this code, throughout the State of California. Compliance with the CALGreen Code is not a substitution for meeting the certification requirements of any green building program. CALGreen requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent, divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting materials.
2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608) were adopted by the CEC on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non-federally regulated appliances. Though these regulations are now widely accepted within the state as “business-asusual,” they exceed the standards imposed by all other states and they reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy demand.

State Greenhouse Gas Regulations
The Governor’s GHG Reduction Executive Order S-3-05 was signed on June 1, 2005, and set GHG reduction targets for the State. Soon after, AB 32 was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the State on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. In response to AB 32, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) developed a Scoping Plan outlining California’s approach to achieving the goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The final Scoping Plan was adopted by CARB on December 11, 2008. CARB approved the first 5-year Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014, as required by AB 32. For a detailed discussion on these regulations, see Chapter 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EIR Senate Bill X1-2
Signed into law in 2011, SB X1-2 directs CPUC’s Renewable Energy Resources Program to increase the amount of electricity generated from eligible renewable energy resources per year to an amount that equals at least 20 percent of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2013, 25 percent by December 31, 2016, and 33 percent by December 31, 2020. SB X1-2 codifies the 33 percent by 2020 renewable portfolio standard (RPS) goal established pursuant to the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. This new RPS applies to all electricity retailers in the state including publicly owned utilities, investor-owned utilities, electricity service providers, and community choice aggregators. All of these entities must adopt the new RPS goals of 20 percent of retail sales from renewables by the end of 2013, 25 percent by the end of 2016, and the 33 percent requirement being met by the end of 2020

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-44 AUGUST 2017

4.15.6.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Appendix F, Energy Conservation, of the CEQA Guidelines, requires a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects; however, no specific thresholds of significance for potential energy impacts are suggested in the State CEQA Guidelines or are established by the City. Therefore, this EIR analysis determined that impacts would be significant if the proposed Plan, upon buildout, would result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demands that would require the new construction of energy supply facilities and transmission infrastructure, or capacity enhancing alterations to baseline facilities. This parallels the threshold determinations for other utility and service systems under Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, to further the intent of Appendix F, relevant potential impacts related to energy demand and energy conservation listed in Appendix F are also incorporated in the evaluation of impacts.

Appendix F lists the following impacts to energy conservation that may result from projects:

1. The project's energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials maybe discussed.

2. The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity.

3. The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.

4. The degree to which the project complies with baseline energy standards.

5. The effects of the project on energy resources.

6. The project's projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.

The Appendix F list of potential energy conservation impacts represents a range of impacts that might be applicable to a range of project types. When assessing the potential impacts of the proposed Plan, the analysis included in Section 4.15.4.3 below focuses on discussions related to item numbers 2, 4, 5, and 6 on the list. Focus was placed on these potential impacts because the proposed Plan does not represent a unique or energy-intensive use that would be substantially different than other similar development projects.

4.15.6.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
UTIL-18 Implementation of the proposed Plan would not result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demands, would use appropriate energy conservation and efficiency measures, and would not require new energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to baseline facilities.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-45
New development under the proposed Plan would continue to be served by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) in accordance with Fresno Municipal Code, Chapter 15 as described in Section 4.15.4.1, Environmental Setting, above. New underground electrical and gas lines would be required to replace existing lines when realignment is required under future development. The proposed development would result in a long-term increase in energy demand associated with the operation of lighting and space heating/cooling in the added building space, and vehicle travel. In addition, construction activities associated with development require the use of energy (e.g., electricity and fuel) for various purposes such as the operation of construction equipment and tools, as well as excavation, grading, demolition, and construction vehicle travel.

Construction
Even with energy-saving practices in place (as discussed below), new electrical connections, switches and/or transformers might be required to serve new structures and/or carry additional loads within the Plan Area. Similarly, new gas distribution lines and connections may be necessary. These are anticipated infrastructure improvements and part of the proposed Plan. Most of the work would be in existing public rights-of-way or facilities. Although creation of new or re-located gas and electric lines could create shortterm construction-related environmental effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, temporary service interruption, etc.), the work would be subject to compliance with the City’s and PG&E’s regulations and standard conditions for new construction related to infrastructure improvements. For example, these regulations and conditions would require gas and electric line construction to include best management practices that require construction areas to minimize dust generation, limit construction noise to daytime hours to limit impacts to sensitive receptors, and use modern equipment to limit emissions. In addition, these types of infrastructure improvements are anticipated as part of the proposed Plan. Also, any such work would be subject to compliance with applicable regulations and standard conditions of approval for construction projects, including City permits/review for construction (e.g., grading permits, private development review, encroachment permits, etc.)
Construction vehicles would consume fuel. As discussed in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the EPA adopted the Heavy-Duty National Program to establish fuel efficiency and GHG emission standards in the heavy-duty highway vehicle sector, which includes combination tractors (semi-trucks), heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles (including buses and refuse or utility trucks). These standards include targets for gallons of fuel consumed per mile beginning in model year 2014. These standards are being extended through model year 2018 through current rulemaking by the EPA. While construction activities require a commitment of energy sources, these efficiency standards improve energy security and innovation in clean energy technology and further the goal of conserving energy in the context of project development. As a result, construction impacts for future development under the proposed Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Operational
Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in a total buildout of over 6,000 dwelling units, over

1.5 million square feet of commercial space, nearly 750,000 square feet of office space, 78 acres of parks or open space, and 2.4 million square feet of public facilities. The proposed increase in development would result in a long-term increase in energy demand, associated with the operation of lighting and

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS

4.15-46 AUGUST 2017
space heating/cooling in the added building space, and vehicle travel. In addition, construction activities associated with development require the use of energy (e.g., electricity and fuel) for various purposes such as the operation of construction equipment and tools, as well as excavation, grading, demolition, and construction vehicle travel.

Development Energy Impacts
Proposed new development would be constructed using energy efficient modern building materials and construction practices, in accordance with CALGreen Building Code, CPUC’s Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (2008), and the Chapter 11 of the City’s Municipal Code, which contain the Green Building Ordinance and Energy Code, respectively. The new buildings also would use new modern appliances and equipment, in accordance with the 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608). Under these requirements, future development under the proposed Plan would use recycled construction materials, environmentally sustainable building materials, building designs that reduce the amount of energy used in building heating and cooling systems as compared to conventionally built structures, and landscaping that incorporates water efficient irrigation systems, all of which would conserve energy.

With its infill development effort, the proposed Plan inherently furthers objectives of energy conservation by focusing activities in areas of existing infrastructure and services. Land Use (LU), Public Facilities, (PF) and Transportation (T) policies of the proposed Plan incorporate energy efficiency principles. Also, there are several General Plan policies intended to ensure energy conservation is practiced in Fresno, as shown above in Table 4.15-3.

Therefore, with the implementation of these proposed Plan policies and compliance with the General Plan policies and CALGreen Building Code and the other applicable state and local energy efficiency measures, cited above, significant energy conservation and savings would be realized from future development under the proposed Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

Transportation Energy Impacts
As an infill development, the proposed Plan inherently furthers objectives of energy conservation related to transportation by focusing activities in areas of existing infrastructure and services. Transportation design features are incorporated in the proposed Plan which would benefit transportation efficiencies.

Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, provides an evaluation of the expected traffic and transit trips generated by the proposed Plan. As discussed, the proposed Plan would potentially generate an increase in typical weekday trips consisting of vehicular, transit and walk/bike trips that would vary between 2014 and 2040 due to region-wide transportation system improvements that are projected to alter travel patterns and modes of proposed Plan trips.

As discussed above, the EPA adopted standards that include targets for gallons of fuel consumed per mile beginning in model year 2014. These standards are being extended through model year 2018 through current rulemaking by the EPA. While future transportation would require a commitment of energy sources, these efficiency standards improve energy security and innovation in clean energy technology

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.15-47
further the goal of conserving energy in the context of project development. As with impacts of future development discussed above, implementation of proposed Plan policies and compliance with General Plan policies listed above, would ensure energy impacts from transportation would be less than significant.

Renewable Energy Impacts
The Plan Area would be within the 70,000-square-mile PG&E service territory for electricity and natural gas generation, transmission and distribution. Due to the Plan Area’s size and location within an urban development, buildout of the proposed Plan would not significantly increase energy demands within the service territory and would not require new energy supply facilities. Where new transportation/transmission infrastructure is required, as discussed above under Future Construction Energy Impacts, these projects would be subject to separate environmental review and would be required to comply with applicable regulations for construction projects, including construction permits/review for construction within public rights-of-way (e.g., grading permits, private development review, encroachment permits, etc.). In addition, developments such as the proposed Plan are anticipated in the energy projections of energy providers within the State. As a result, impacts from new energy supply facilities and transportation/transmission infrastructure, or capacity-enhancing alterations to baseline facilities, would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

UTIL-19 Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to energy conservation.

The discussion under UTIL-18 described the proposed Plan’s impacts in relationship to the PG&E service territory and therefore includes a discussion of cumulative impacts. Under Impact UTIL-18, impacts were found to be less than significant. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to energy conservation would be less than significant.

Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.

PLACEWORKS 5-1

5. Alternatives Analysis
The CEQA Guidelines set forth the intent and extent of alternatives analysis to be provided in an EIR.

Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that:

An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible.

The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.

The following discussion is intended to inform the public and decision makers of feasible alternatives to the proposed Plan that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the proposed Plan.

This chapter describes the purpose of the alternatives discussion; provides a summary of the reasonable range of alternatives, including a summary of potentially significant impacts and the relationship of each alternative to the Plan objectives; and identifies the environmentally superior alternative.

5.1 PURPOSE
The alternatives evaluated in this Draft EIR were developed consistent with Section 15126.6(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that:

Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.

5.2 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
A list of the potential impacts is provided in Table 2-1 in Chapter 2, Executive Summary, of this Draft EIR.

The choice of alternatives to the proposed Plan for analysis in this Draft EIR focused on those that would further reduce and avoid the impacts found to be significant and unavoidable and potentially significant, but less than significant with mitigation measures.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5-2 AUGUST 2017
The significant-but-mitigable impacts under the proposed Plan include the following:
 BIO-1.1: Potential development resulting from the proposed Plan could result in the loss of rare plant species.
 BIO-1.2: The proposed Plan could result in mortality of Swainson’s hawks.  BIO-1.3: The proposed Plan could result in mortality of San Joaquin kit fox.  BIO-1.4: The proposed Plan could result in impacts to roosting habitat or maternity colonies of special-status bats.
 BIO-1.5: Potential development resulting from the proposed Plan could result in disruption of denning badgers and mortality of badgers.
 BIO-1.6: The proposed Plan could result in mortality of, and loss of habitat for, burrowing owls.  BIO-1.7: The proposed Plan could result in impacts to Western pond turtle nests and mortality of pond turtles.
 BIO-1.8: The proposed Plan could result in take of birds or nests.  BIO-2: The proposed Plan could result in the loss of riparian habitat.  BIO-3: The proposed Plan could result in loss of federally protected wetlands or waters.  CUL-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.  CUL-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.  CUL-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan could directly or indirectly affect a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature.  CUL-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
 CUL-5: Implementation of the proposed Plan could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Sections, 21074, 5020.1(k), or 5024.1.
 HAZ-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼-mile of an existing or proposed school.  HAZ-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan would occur on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a potentially significant hazard to the public or the environment.  NOISE-2: Construction activities could result in vibration-induced architectural damage at nearby structures or hardscape features, or could result in vibration-induced annoyance at nearby sensitive receptors.
 PS-7: Implementation of the proposed Plan could result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities in order

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-3
to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.  TRANS-7.1: The addition of proposed Plan traffic to the roadway network, in combination with traffic generated by reasonably foreseeable projects, results in unacceptable roadway operations on City of Fresno study roadway segments under cumulative conditions.  UTIL-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan could exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.
 UTIL-2: Implementation of the proposed Plan would require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
 UTIL-3: Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the proposed Plan that it has adequate capacity to serve the proposed Plan’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s baseline commitments.  UTIL-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in a significant cumulative impacts with respect to wastewater.  UTIL-15: Future development under the proposed Plan would not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed Plan’s solid waste disposal needs.  UTIL-17: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed Plan’s solid waste disposal needs.

5.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
As stated above, the range of potential alternatives to the proposed Plan shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the proposed Plan. The City has developed the following project objectives:
 Create a healthy community that offers a positive physical, social, natural and economic environment to support the health and wellbeing of all its members.  Attract high quality new development while protecting existing neighborhoods.  Provide a mix of high quality housing types, with an emphasis on single-family housing that is compatible with community character and located close to amenities such as parks, schools, transit, services, shopping and employment.
 Attract needed retail, such as department stores, restaurants, and grocery stores, in order to serve resident needs with fewer, shorter vehicle trips.
 Provide quality open space and recreational opportunities by improving existing parks and creating new parks within walking distance (1/2 mile) of all residences.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5-4 AUGUST 2017
 Increase economic and educational opportunity through programs, services and facilities to prepare, mentor and train Southwest Fresno residents to access high quality employment opportunities.  Enhance transportation connectivity both within Southwest Fresno and between Southwest Fresno and other Fresno neighborhoods in order to provide more access to economic, social and educational opportunities.
 Improve the quality of life in Southwest Fresno through high quality investment, compatible land uses, increased park and recreational opportunities and a multi-modal and connected transportation system.

5.4 SELECTION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES
Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines states:

The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

5.4.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED AS BEING

INFEASIBLE
As described above, Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process, and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Section 15126.6(c) provides that among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. The following is a discussion of alternatives that were considered and rejected, along with the reasons they were not included in the analysis.

As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, in April 2015, the City initiated a community planning process to identify opportunities for improving the Plan Area. The City formed a Steering Committee and a Technical Advisory Committee, met with key stakeholders, held three community workshops, and numerous topic groups to identify the community’s vision for the Plan Area.

Based on the feedback received, the City prepared three alternatives for land use and circulation in the Plan Area. The alternatives established a framework for land use planning, design, and development in the Plan Area and included three distinct development patterns. The first alternative, the Corridors and Neighborhoods Alternative, emphasized three neighborhoods―complete with housing, retail, parks, and

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-5
employment areas―linked by well-defined corridors lined with higher, more intensive development, and multimodal transportation improvements. The second alternative, the Many Smaller Neighborhood Alternative, emphasized a number of roughly one-square-mile neighborhoods; each would include housing and community-serving uses, such as a small neighborhood park, school, and local retail.

Multimodal transportation improvements would be dispersed along the existing grid of arterial roadways throughout the Plan Area. This alternative was lower in density and had more single-family residential development than the other two alternatives. The third alternative, the Neighborhoods around Magnet Uses Alternative, focused on three neighborhoods developed around higher intensity cores each with a primary magnet use: a new community college activity center, an improved regional sports complex, and a new regional retail center. Each neighborhood core would be ringed with housing and/or employment areas that support the core. The neighborhoods would be linked with pedestrian and bicycle connections that follow the existing water canals and roadways with less vehicular traffic.

With input from the Steering Committee, the City determined that merging components of the three alternatives to create a single land use and circulation concept alternative was preferred. This alternative is the proposed preferred alternative that is analyzed in this Draft EIR. Accordingly, the Corridors and Neighborhoods Alternative, the Many Small Neighborhoods Alternative, and the Neighborhoods around Magnet Uses Alternative were rejected because they did not meet the project objectives.

5.4.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, two alternatives are discussed below. As previously stated, the alternatives were selected because of their potential to reduce significant and unavoidable impacts as well as significant-but-mitigable impacts of the proposed Plan.

The alternatives to be analyzed in comparison to the proposed Plan include:
 No Project Alternative
 Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative
The first alternative discussed is the CEQA-required “No Project” Alternative. The second alternative, Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative, would focus growth along two corridors, one of which is currently designated for future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) development, while land use intensities in other portions of the Plan Area would be reduced to achieve an overall reduction by about one-third of the buildout projections of the proposed Plan.

5.4.3 ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY
The alternatives analysis is presented as a comparative analysis to the proposed Plan.

As described in Chapter 4.3 Air Quality, 4.4 Biological Resources, 4.5 Cultural Resources, 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 4.11 Noise, 4.14 Transportation and Traffic, and 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems, mitigation measures would be required to reduce impacts in these resource categories. For, this reason, this alternatives analysis assumes that all regulations and mitigation measures recommended for the proposed Plan and the MEIR would be implemented.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5-6 AUGUST 2017
The following analysis compares the potentially significant environmental impacts of the two alternatives with those of the Plan-related impacts for each of the environmental topics analyzed in detail in Sections

4.1 through 4.15 of this Draft EIR. The impacts of each alternative are classified as greater, fewer, or essentially similar to (or comparable to) the level of impacts associated with the proposed Plan. Table 5-1 summarizes the relative impacts of each of the alternatives compared to the proposed Plan.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-7
TABLE 5-1 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PLAN ALTERNATIVES
Topic Proposed Plan
No Project
Alternative
Mixed-Use Corridor
Alternative
Aesthetics SU = =
Agriculture SU = <
Air Quality SU < <
Biological Resources LTS/M = <
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources LTS/M = <
Geology and Soils LTS = =
Greenhouse Gas Emissions SU < <
Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS/M = =
Hydrology and Water Quality LTS = =
Land Use and Planning LTS = =
Noise SU = =
Population and Housing LTS < <
Public Services LTS = <
Transportation and Traffic SU < <
Utility Systems LTS/M < <
Notes: LTS = Less than Significant
LTS/M = Less than Significant with Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
< Fewer impact in comparison to the proposed Plan
= Similar impacts in comparison to the proposed Plan
> Greater impact in comparison to the proposed Plan

5.5 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

5.5.1 DESCRIPTION
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(1), the No Project Alternative is required as part of the “reasonable range of alternatives” to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed Plan with the impacts of taking no action or not approving the proposed Plan. Under this alternative, the proposed Plan would not be implemented, and the Plan Area would remain in its current condition with future development occurring in accordance with the objectives and policies of the Fresno General Plan. Figure 5-1 shows land use designations under the Fresno General Plan.

WEST AVE

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C A L IFORN I A CT

DIVISADERO ST

EVA NAMLIET

MARKS AVE

MERCED ST

JENSEN AVE VAGEDES AV E
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

ATCHISON ST

MONTER EY ST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

OLEANDER AVE

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

ARTHUR AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

KEARNEY BLVD

WHITES BRIDGE AVE

NIELSEN AVE

BLACKSTONE AVE

BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE
H ST

BLOSSER AVE

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTA CLARA ST

JENSEN AVE

HA B ITAT A VE

STROTHER AVE

GEORGE AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

ILA AVE

FAIRVIEW AVE

CALWA AVE
B ST

LORENA AVE

BURNS AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

ARTHUR AVE

RAV IAAVE

DELNOAVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

DAN RONQU IL LO DR

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST
E

LEMON AVE

ONE IL AVE

GENEVA AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

CHINA ALY
F ST

EUNICE AVE

HOME RUN ALY
L ST

COLLINS AVE
S ST

A/B ALY

FAGAN ALY
Q ST

HAWESAVE

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

WAYTE LN

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

CHURCH AVE

GARRETT AVE

NAPA AVE

FLORENCE AVE

LOTUS AVE

VALENTINE AVE

T E IL M A N I C R

FARRIS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

PLEASANT AVE

MADISON AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

AIRPORT RD

LAFAYETTE AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

SAMSON AVE

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

EUNEVA GIF

VAN NESS AVE

HUGHES AVE

TRINITY ST

THORNE AVE

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

BARDELL ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE

LA S IERRA DR
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

ELM AVE

M ADDY DR

PALM AVE

COL LEGE V/ A N NESS ALY

KIRK ST

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

ROEDING DR
Regional Sports
Complex
Hyde
Park
Carver
Park
Ivy
Park
Neilson
Park
41 41
180
99 99
Sphere of Influence City Limit

RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
Figure 3.9 Existing Land Use Map
Light
Vacant
Plan Area
Medium Density
Medium-high Density
Heavy
High Density
Medium-low Density
Mobile Home Park
Low Density
Office
Professional Services Office
Heavy/Regional
Neighborhood/Neighborhood Center
Community/Neighborhood Limited Agriculture
Open Space/Park
Airport
Utility
Parking
Community Services/Institutional
School
BELG

WEST AVE

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C A L IFORN I A CT

DIVISADERO ST

EVA NAMLIET

MARKS AVE

MERCED ST

JENSEN AVE VAGEDES AV E
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

ATCHISON ST

MONTER EY ST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

OLEANDER AVE

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

ARTHUR AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

KEARNEY BLVD

WHITES BRIDGE AVE

NIELSEN AVE

BLACKSTONE AVE

BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE
H ST

BLOSSER AVE

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTA CLARA ST

JENSEN AVE

HA B ITAT A VE

STROTHER AVE

GEORGE AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

ILA AVE

FAIRVIEW AVE

CALWA AVE
B ST

LORENA AVE

BURNS AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

ARTHUR AVE

RAV IAAVE

DELNOAVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

DAN RONQU IL LO DR

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST
E

LEMON AVE

ONE IL AVE

GENEVA AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

CHINA ALY
F ST

EUNICE AVE

HOME RUN ALY
L ST

COLLINS AVE
S ST

A/B ALY

FAGAN ALY
Q ST

HAWESAVE

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

WAYTE LN

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

CHURCH AVE

GARRETT AVE

NAPA AVE

FLORENCE AVE

LOTUS AVE

VALENTINE AVE

T E IL M A N I C R

FARRIS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

PLEASANT AVE

MADISON AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

AIRPORT RD

LAFAYETTE AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

SAMSON AVE

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

EUNEVA GIF

VAN NESS AVE

HUGHES AVE

TRINITY ST

THORNE AVE

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

BARDELL ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE

LA S IERRA DR
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

ELM AVE

M ADDY DR

PALM AVE

COL LEGE V/ A N NESS ALY

KIRK ST

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

ROEDING DR
Regional Sports
Complex
Hyde
Park
Carver
Park
Ivy
Park
Neilson
Park
41 41
180
99 99
Sphere of Influence City Limit

Figure 4.2-1
Existing Land Use

SO UT H W ES T FR ES N O S P E C I F I C PLAN D RAFT EI R

C I TY O F FR ES N O

AGRICULTURE

P LAC E WO RK S

WEST AVE

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C A L IFORN I A CT

DIVISADERO ST

EVA NAMLIET

MARKS AVE

MERCED ST

JENSEN AVE VAGEDES AV E
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

ATCHISON ST

MONTER EY ST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

OLEANDER AVE

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

ARTHUR AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

KEARNEY BLVD

WHITES BRIDGE AVE

NIELSEN AVE

BLACKSTONE AVE

BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE
H ST

BLOSSER AVE

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTA CLARA ST

JENSEN AVE

HA B ITAT A VE

STROTHER AVE

GEORGE AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

ILA AVE

FAIRVIEW AVE

CALWA AVE
B ST

LORENA AVE

BURNS AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

ARTHUR AVE

RAV IAAVE

DELNOAVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

DAN RONQU IL LO DR

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST
E

LEMON AVE

ONE IL AVE

GENEVA AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

CHINA ALY
F ST

EUNICE AVE

HOME RUN ALY
L ST

COLLINS AVE
S ST

A/B ALY

FAGAN ALY
Q ST

HAWESAVE

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

WAYTE LN

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

CHURCH AVE

GARRETT AVE

NAPA AVE

FLORENCE AVE

LOTUS AVE

VALENTINE AVE

T E IL M A N I C R

FARRIS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

PLEASANT AVE

MADISON AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

AIRPORT RD

LAFAYETTE AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

SAMSON AVE

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

EUNEVA GIF

VAN NESS AVE

HUGHES AVE

TRINITY ST

THORNE AVE

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

BARDELL ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE

LA S IERRA DR
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

ELM AVE

M ADDY DR

PALM AVE

COL LEGE V/ A N NESS ALY

KIRK ST

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

ROEDING DR
Regional Sports
Complex
Hyde
Park
Carver
Park
Ivy
Park
Neilson
Park
41 41
180
99 99
Sphere of Influence City Limit

WEST AVE

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C A L IFORN I A CT

DIVISADERO ST

EVA NAMLIET

MARKS AVE

MERCED ST

JENSEN AVE VAGEDES AV E
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

ATCHISON ST

MONTER EY ST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

OLEANDER AVE

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

ARTHUR AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

KEARNEY BLVD

WHITES BRIDGE AVE

NIELSEN AVE

BLACKSTONE AVE

BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE
H ST

BLOSSER AVE

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTA CLARA ST

JENSEN AVE

HA B ITAT A VE

STROTHER AVE

GEORGE AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

ILA AVE

FAIRVIEW AVE

CALWA AVE
B ST

LORENA AVE

BURNS AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

ARTHUR AVE

RAV IAAVE

DELNOAVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

DAN RONQU IL LO DR

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST
E

LEMON AVE

ONE IL AVE

GENEVA AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

CHINA ALY
F ST

EUNICE AVE

HOME RUN ALY
L ST

COLLINS AVE
S ST

A/B ALY

FAGAN ALY
Q ST

HAWESAVE

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

WAYTE LN

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

CHURCH AVE

GARRETT AVE

NAPA AVE

FLORENCE AVE

LOTUS AVE

VALENTINE AVE

T E IL M A N I C R

FARRIS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

PLEASANT AVE

MADISON AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

AIRPORT RD

LAFAYETTE AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

SAMSON AVE

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

EUNEVA GIF

VAN NESS AVE

HUGHES AVE

TRINITY ST

THORNE AVE

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

BARDELL ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE

LA S IERRA DR
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

ELM AVE

M ADDY DR

PALM AVE

COL LEGE V/ A N NESS ALY

KIRK ST

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

ROEDING DR
Regional Sports
Complex
Hyde
Park
Carver
Park
Ivy
Park
Neilson
Park
41 41
180
99 99
Sphere of Influence City Limit

Figure 4.2-1
Existing Land Use

SO UT H W ES T FR ES N O S P E C I F I C PLAN D RAFT EI R

C I TY O F FR ES N O

AGRICULTURE

P LAC E WO RK S
Source: City of Fresno.

Figure 5-1
Existing Land Use

SO UT H W ES T FR ES N O S P E C I F I C PLAN D RAFT EI R

C I TY O F FR ES N O

ALTERNATIVES

P LAC E WO RK S

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-9
Table 5-2 below compares the projected development capacity of the Specific Plan compared to that of the General Plan. It should be noted that, like the General Plan, the development capacities pertain to new development within the identified opportunity sites in the Plan area, including parcels that are vacant, open agriculture, or rural residential (partially vacant). In order to provide a conservative analysis, this Draft EIR assumes the Dual Designation Scenario development capacity under the proposed Plan, unless specifically noted otherwise. The Dual Designation Scenario assumes dual land uses consistent with the dual land use designations presented in Section 3.2.4.1 of Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, and shown on Figure 3-3 of the May 2017 draft Specific Plan.1 The General Plan MEIR also analyzes the dual land use designation, as shown on Figure LU-2.

TABLE 5-2 DEVELOPMENT CAPACITIES FOR THE PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN IN THE PLAN AREA Single-Family
Housing
(DU)
Multi-Family
Housing
(DU)
Housing
Total
(DU)
Commercial
(Bldg. SF)
Employment
(Bldg. SF)
Parks/Open
Space
(Acre)c
Public
Facilities
(Acre)
Public
Facilities
(Bldg. SF)
Plan Area – Standard
Development Scenarioa 4,307 1,840 6,148 1,552,676 748,820 78 192 2,411,064 Plan Area –Dual
Designation Scenario 4,221 2,910 7,131 1,220,596 2,489,065 0 32 325,482 Specific Plan Area
included in General
Planb
4,108 2,616 6,723 1,330,831 1,780,080 184d 57 643,377
Notes: DU = dwelling units SF = square feet
a. Includes the MLK Activity Center. Development capacities consistent with February 2017 Draft Specific Plan. b. Development capacity numbers for the General Plan were calculated using the planned land uses shown in the General Plan Land Use map approved February 29, 2016.
c. Excludes land uses designated as “clear zone, ““ponding basin,” and “ponding basin park.” d. Includes approximately 112 acres of landfill located directly east of the Regional Sports Complex. The Steering Committee does not consider this land to be parkland and therefore the Plan shows this acreage designated as “public facility.” The following discussion explains the differences between the No Project Alternative and the proposed Specific Plan under each of the major land use types:
 Housing. The total number of projected housing units in the proposed Specific Plan is lower than the General Plan’s total number of housing units. The General Plan’s ratio of single-family housing to multi-family housing within the Plan Area is 61 percent single-family housing to 39 percent multifamily housing. The proposed Plan’s ratio is 70 percent single-family housing to 30 percent multifamily housing in the Plan Area. Therefore, housing developed under the proposed Plan would result in 575 fewer dwelling units than the total number of dwelling units proposed within the Plan Area under the General Plan. However, under the Dual Designation Scenario, the ratio would be 59 percent single family housing to 41 percent multi-family housing, and would result in 408 more dwelling units developed within the Plan Area than under the General Plan.  Commercial. Under the Standard Development Scenario, the amount of commercial development in the Plan Area is greater under the proposed Specific Plan than in the General Plan by approximately 1 The dual land use designation was applied to all parcels within the Plan Area, except for the parcel designated to be developed as a college near the MLK activity center. This exception was made based on the decision that the college would be a more intensive land use designation than the dual land use designation.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5-10 AUGUST 2017
222,000 square feet. Several factors contribute to this increase, including new areas designated as corridor/center mixed-use, neighborhood mixed-use, regional commercial, and community commercial. However, under the Dual Designation Development Scenario, the amount of commercial development in the Plan Area would be 110,235 square feet less than the General Plan.  Employment. Under the Standard Development Scenario, the projected amount of employment space in the Plan Area (i.e., office, business park, regional business park, light industrial, and heavy industrial uses) under the proposed Specific Plan is less than in the General Plan by approximately 1 million square feet. The reason for this decrease is because of the change of business park and regional business park uses to other land uses such as residential, park, mixed use, and commercial. However, under the Dual Designation Development Scenario, the amount of employment space would be 708,985 square feet more than the General Plan.
 Parks/Open Space. The proposed Plan includes a refined definition of parkland compared to the definition in the adopted General Plan. As a result, the Plan Area’s total park acreage in the proposed Plan under the Standard Development Scenario is less than in the General Plan because the General Plan counts the 112 acres directly east of the Regional Sports Complex, as well as the 16-acre Hyde Park, as parkland. Since these areas do not provide locally-serving park facilities, they were removed from the inventory of park land in the Plan Area. With the exclusion of the 112-acre Regional Sports Complex from the General Plan’s parks/open space development capacity, the amount of parkland within the Plan Area under the proposed Plan is slightly less than the General Plan’s park acreage. In addition, the amount of parks/open space in the SOI increases more significantly in the proposed Plan by 55 acres, largely because of the new parkland located directly to the west of the Regional Sports Complex that is accessible to residents of the Plan Area. Under the Dual Designation Development Scenario, the dual land use pattern is assumed, which results in zero acres of parkland within the Plan Area.

Public Facilities. The amount of public facilities development in the proposed Plan under the Standard Development Scenario is larger than the amount in the General Plan (1,767,687 square feet; 135 acres). The primary reasons for this increase include the re-designation of the aforementioned 112- acre landfill from park to public facilities, the inclusion of a new college in the MLK Activity Center, and the re-designation of single-family housing to public facilities along North Avenue in an effort to create a buffer between residential areas and nearby industrial uses. However, under the Dual Designation Development Scenario, the amount of public facilities development is less than the amount in the General Plan (317,895 square feet; 25 acres).

In general, the development capacity in the proposed Specific Plan is higher due to the increased area of land designated for public facilities compared to the General Plan. While this is partially offset by the reduced area designated for employment uses, the overall development capacity would be higher.

5.5.2 IMPACT DISCUSSION
The potential environmental impacts associated with the No Project Alternative when compared to the proposed Plan are described below.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-11

5.5.2.1 AESTHETICS
Most impacts related to aesthetics under the proposed Plan incorporate MEIR mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. As with the proposed Specific Plan, future development under the No Project Alternative would not block views, and would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area. However, impacts related to nighttime sky illumination, would occur under the No Project Alternative and under the proposed Specific Plan, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts. Thus, overall impacts related to aesthetics would be similar when comparing the No Project Alternative to the proposed Plan.

5.5.2.2 AGRICULTURE
Similar to the proposed Specific Plan, the No Project Alternative would result in the conversion of prime farmland to non-agriculture use. Although the densities of development would differ between the No Project Alternative and the proposed Plan, both would result in development on prime farmland, thus resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. Thus, overall impacts related to agriculture would be similar when comparing the No Project Alternative to the proposed Plan.

5.5.2.3 AIR QUALITY
The proposed Specific Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality.

Because the development capacity is greater under the Dual Designation Development Scenario, compared to the No Project alternative, air quality impacts would be fewer under the No Project alternative.

5.5.2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The biological resources impacts under the proposed Plan are fully mitigable with implementation of MEIR mitigation measures as well as mitigation measures proposed in this Draft EIR.

Under the No Project Alternative the potential to modify habitat for any special-status species identified in the Draft EIR would be similar to that of the impacts potentially resulting from the proposed Plan. Given the areas of impact, any development occurring in the Plan Area would result in impacts to habitat and special status species. As a result, impacts to biological resources would be similar when comparing the No Project Alternative to the proposed Plan.

5.5.2.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The cultural and tribal cultural resources impacts under the proposed Plan are fully mitigable with implementation of MEIR mitigation measures. Under the proposed Plan, potential impacts to cultural resources would result on a site-by-site basis mostly from previously-unknown sites. Under the No Project Alternative, future development under the General Plan would be similar and would require the same mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. As a result, impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be similar when comparing the No Project Alternative to the proposed Plan.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5-12 AUGUST 2017

5.5.2.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The proposed Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts related to geology and soils primarily because of the Plan Area’s proximity to active faults, and potential impacts being addressed by regulatory compliance. Under the No Project Alternative, the conditions and the regulatory requirements do not change as development occurs under the General Plan. As a result, impacts related to geology and soils would be similar when comparing the No Project Alternative to the proposed Plan.

5.5.2.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The existing General Plan, which would be carried forward under the No Project Alternative, identified significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed Specific Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to greenhouse gas emissions. Because the development capacity is greater under the proposed Specific Plan, compared to the No Project alternative, greenhouse gas emissions impacts would be fewer under the No Project alternative.

5.5.2.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
As a result of the proposed Plan, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be fully mitigable with implementation of mitigation measures proposed in this Draft EIR. Implementation of the proposed Plan would occur on sites which contain hazardous materials and could create a potentially significant hazard to the public or the environment. Under the No Project Alternative, development would occur on the same sites; however additional site analysis would be required to ensure that potentiallyhazardous conditions would not adversely affect the public or the environment. As a result, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be similar under the No Project Alternative when compared to the proposed Plan.

5.5.2.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The hydrology and water quality impacts under the proposed Plan would be considered less-thansignificant with implementation of the General Plan. Similarly, as a result of buildout of the General Plan, the No Project Alternative would be required to implement policies of the General Plan. As a result, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be similar under the No Project Alternative when compared to the proposed Plan.

5.5.2.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impacts to land use and planning would be considered less than significant under the proposed Plan because the proposed Plan would be largely consistent with the Fresno General Plan. Because the No Project Alternative would result in the implementation of General Plan, the No Project Alternative and the proposed Plan would result in the similar impacts.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-13

5.5.2.11 NOISE
The proposed Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to noise generated by increased vehicle activity in the Plan Area. The No Project Alternative would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to increased ambient noise volumes. Given the increase in development to occur under the General Plan, as well as the development included under proposed Plan, the impacts related to noise would be considered similar.

5.5.2.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
The proposed Plan would result in an increase in population, housing and employment, but the impacts would be considered less than significant given that the projected growth under the General Plan would be less than the proposed Plan. Because the No Project Alternative would result in implementation of the General Plan, when compared to the proposed Plan, the No Project Alternative would result in fewer impacts with respect to population and housing.

5.5.2.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
As a result of the proposed Plan, impacts related to public services would be less than significant. As discussed in relation to population and housing, the General Plan would result in greater housing density when compared to the proposed Plan. The No Project Alternative would result in similar impacts with respect to public services.

5.5.2.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Under the No Project Alternative, improvements to the roadway network, transit and bicycle/pedestrian facilities would be required to accommodate growth under the General Plan. As a result of the proposed Plan, similar improvements would be required to accommodate growth within the Plan Area. However, because development under the proposed Plan, (Dual Designation Development Scenario), would be higher than under the No Project alternative, transportation impacts would be considered fewer under the No Project alternative. Utility Systems
As a result of the proposed Plan, impacts related to utility systems would be fully mitigable with implementation of mitigation measures proposed in this Draft EIR as well as MEIR mitigation measures.

The overall development capacity would be less under the No Project Alternative when compared to the proposed Plan. As a result, the No Project Alternative would result in fewer impacts when compared to the proposed Plan.

5.5.3 RELATIONSHIP OF THE ALTERNATIVE TO THE OBJECTIVES Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed Plan would not be implemented and therefore this alternative does not meet any of the project objectives.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5-14 AUGUST 2017

5.6 MIXED-USE TRANSIT CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE

5.6.1 DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative is to provide an alternative that could reduce potential impacts from future development when compared to the proposed Plan. This alternative would focus growth along California Avenue, which is currently designated for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Additional growth would be focused along the South Elm Avenue corridor, which could provide a transit connection to the California Avenue BRT project at a later date. Under this alternative, the CMX (Corridor/Center Mixed-Use) land use designation would be applied along the north side of the California Avenue corridor, and along the portions of the South Elm Avenue corridor currently proposed for C (Community Commercial), and NMX (Neighborhood Mixed-Use). The proposed land use intensities in other portions of the Planning Area would be reduced to achieve an overall reduction by about one-third of the development capacity projections of the proposed Plan. The policies in the proposed Plan would apply under this alternative; however, the overall development footprint would be lower under the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor alternative.

5.6.2 IMPACT DISCUSSION
The potential environmental impacts associated with the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor alternative when compared to the proposed Plan are described below.

5.6.2.1 AESTHETICS
Most impacts related to aesthetics under the proposed Plan are less than significant and incorporate MEIR mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts. Same as the proposed Plan, the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative would not block views, and would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. However, similar to the proposed Plan, the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative would also result in development that would increase illumination of the nighttime sky. Although most impacts under the proposed Plan and the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative are less than significant with mitigation, impacts to the nighttime sky cannot be fully mitigated and would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Thus, overall impacts related to aesthetics would be similar when comparing the Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative to the proposed Plan.

5.6.2.2 AGRICULTURE
Similar to the proposed Plan, the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative would result in the conversion of prime farmland to non-agriculture use. Although the densities of development would differ between the Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative and the proposed Plan, both would result in development on prime farmland, thus resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. However, the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor would focus future development along to corridors in the Plan Area, resulting in a smaller development footprint; Thus, overall impacts related to agriculture would be fewer when comparing the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative to the proposed Plan.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-15

5.6.2.3 AIR QUALITY
The proposed Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality generated by increased vehicle activity in the Plan Area. The Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative would result in a reduction of overall development by one-third compared to the proposed Plan, and focus growth along future BRT corridors, resulting in a reduction in vehicle miles travelled, and a reduction in construction and operational air quality impacts compared to the proposed Plan. These characteristics of the MixedUse Transit Corridor alternative would result in fewer impacts compared to the proposed Plan.

5.6.2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The biological resources impacts under the proposed Plan are fully mitigable with implementation of MEIR mitigation measures as well as mitigation measures proposed in this Draft EIR.

Under the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative the potential for adverse impacts on special-status species habitat identified in this Draft EIR would be lower t than the proposed Plan, as the development footprint would be less. As a result, impacts to biological resources would be fewer when comparing the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative to the proposed Plan.

5.6.2.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The cultural and tribal cultural resources impacts under the proposed Plan are fully mitigable with implementation of MEIR mitigation measures. Under the proposed Plan, potential impacts to cultural resources would result on a site-by-site basis mostly from previously-unknown sites. Under the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative, the development footprint would be lower and would require the same mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. As a result, impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be fewer when comparing the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative to the proposed Plan.

5.6.2.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The proposed Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts related to geology and soils primarily because of the Plan Area’s proximity to active faults, and potential impacts being addressed by regulatory compliance. Under the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative, the conditions and the regulatory requirements do not change as development occurs under the General Plan. As a result, impacts related to geology and soils would be similar when comparing the Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative to the proposed Plan.

5.6.2.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative would focus mixed-use development along two primary corridors, one of which is planned for BRT service. With mixed-use development providing residential and commercial development in a more walkable area, and with a reduction in overall development by one third, VMT would be less than that of the proposed Plan, resulting in fewer impacts than the proposed Plan.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5-16 AUGUST 2017

5.6.2.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
As a result of the proposed Plan, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be fully mitigable with implementation of mitigation measures proposed in this Draft EIR. Implementation of the proposed Plan would occur on sites which contain hazardous materials and could create a potentially significant hazard to the public or the environment. Under the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative, development would occur on the same sites, at a reduced density in some locations and higher density in corridors adjacent to future BRT corridors; however as with the proposed Plan, additional site analysis would be required to ensure that potentially-hazardous conditions would not adversely affect the public or the environment. As a result, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be similar under the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative when compared to the proposed Plan.

5.6.2.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The hydrology and water quality impacts under the proposed Plan would be considered less-thansignificant with implementation of regulations controlling stormwater runoff. Similarly, future development under the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative would be subject to the same regulations.

As a result, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be similar under the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative when compared to the proposed Plan.

5.6.2.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impacts to land use and planning would be considered less than significant under the proposed Plan because the proposed Plan would be largely consistent with the Fresno General Plan. Because the MixedUse Transit Corridor Alternative would similarly result in the implementation of General Plan, the MixedUse Corridor Alternative and the proposed Plan would result in similar impacts.

5.6.2.11 NOISE
The proposed Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to noise generated by increased vehicle activity in the Plan Area. The Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to increased ambient noise volumes. Although the development footprint of the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor alternative would be lower than the proposed Plan, the impacts related to noise would be considered similar, given the overall scale of development under this alternative.

5.6.2.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
The proposed Plan would result in an increase in population, housing and employment, but the impacts would be considered significant given that the projected growth under the Dual Designation Development Scenario would be greater than the General Plan. Because the Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative would result in a reduction of overall development by one-third, and thus generate fewer residents and employees than under the proposed Plan, when compared to the proposed Plan, the Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative would result in fewer impacts with respect to population and housing.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-17

5.6.2.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
As a result of the proposed Plan, impacts related to public services would be less than significant. As discussed in relation to population and housing, the Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative would result in reduced development by one-third when compared to the proposed Plan. The Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative would result in fewer impacts with respect to public services.

5.6.2.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
As a result of the proposed Plan, significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts would occur in relation to the uncertainties of implementation of mitigation measures proposed in this Draft EIR. Increased traffic resulting from the proposed Plan would require improvements to intersections and ramps that are not under the jurisdiction of the City of Fresno. As a result, implementation of those mitigation measures is uncertain. The Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Alternative would result in impacts to traffic; however, because this alternative focuses growth along future BRT corridors, and reduces overall development by one-third, impacts related to traffic may be reduced when compared to the proposed Plan. As a result, the MixedUse Corridor Alternative would result in fewer impacts when compared to the proposed Plan.

5.6.2.15 UTILITY SYSTEMS
As a result of the proposed Plan, impacts related to utility systems would be fully mitigable with implementation of mitigation measures proposed in this Draft EIR as well as MEIR mitigation measures.

The overall demand for utility infrastructure would be lower under the Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative when compared to the proposed Plan. As a result, the Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative would result in fewer impacts when compared to the proposed Plan.

5.6.3 RELATIONSHIP OF THE ALTERNATIVE TO THE OBJECTIVES The Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative would meet many of the objectives of the proposed Plan. However, this Alternative would conflict with Objective #3 (“Provide a mix of high quality housing types, with an emphasis on single-family housing…”) because of its emphasis on multi-family housing. In addition, the Alternative would not meet Objective #4 (“Attract needed retail…) as it would bring fewer new residents to the Plan Area, which could potentially affect the viability of retail. Similarly, this Alternative would conflict with Objective #8 (“Improve the quality of life in Southwest Fresno through high quality investment…) as the reduced area of development would bring fewer people to the Plan Area, thereby affecting the ability to achieve this Objective to the same extent that the proposed Plan would.

SOUTHWEST F RESNO SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
5-18 AUGUST 2017

5.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the project and the alternatives, Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an “environmentally superior” alternative be selected and the reasons for such a selection be disclosed. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that would be expected to generate the least environmental impact. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative selected may not be the alternative that best meets project objectives.

As shown in Table 5-1, the No Project Alternative would result in fewer impacts to air quality, GHG emissions, population and housing, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems when compared to the proposed Plan. Furthermore, this alternative would not meet any of the project objectives.

As shown in Table 5-1, the Mixed-Use Corridor Alternative would result in fewer impacts to agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, GHG emissions, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation and traffic, and utility and service systems.

Therefore, this Alternative would have the fewest environmental impacts as compared to the other two alternatives, and would be considered the environmentally superior alternative. However, this alternative would meet some, but not all, of the project objectives.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

ALTERNATIVES
PLACEWORKS 5-19
PLACEWORKS 6-1

6. CEQA-Mandated Assessment
This chapter provides an overview of the impacts of the proposed Plan based on the analyses presented in Chapters 4 through 5 of this Draft EIR. The topics covered in this chapter include impacts found not to be significant, growth inducement, significant and unavoidable impacts, and significant irreversible changes. A more detailed analysis of the effects the proposed Plan would have on the environment and proposed mitigation measures to minimize significant impacts are provided in Chapters 4.1 through 4.15.

6.1 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15128 allows environmental issues, for which there is no likelihood of significant impact to be briefly discussed and not analyzed further in the EIR. This section explains the reasoning by which it was determined that impacts to agricultural and forestry resources, and mineral resources potentially resulting from buildout of the proposed Plan would be less than significant.
 Forestry Resources. According to 2006 mapping data from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the city of Fresno does not contain any woodland or forestland cover;1 therefore, the city does not contain land zoned for Timberland Production. Consequently, there would be no impacts to forestry resources under CEQA.
 Mineral Resources. The City of Fresno permits mining only within the Mining (M) Overlay District (Citywide Development Code). Moreover, the boundaries of the Southwest Fresno Plan Area are classified as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-3, which are defined as potential, but unproven mineral resource reserves (State of California, Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 99-02). MRZ-2 zones are those areas documented to have regionally significant mineral resources.

Because neither the State nor the City of Fresno identifies the Plan Area as containing known regional mineral resource reserves, implementation of the proposed Plan would not result in impacts to known mineral resources or locally important mineral resources.

6.2 GROWTH INDUCEMENT
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss the ways in which a proposed project or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, could foster economic or population growth in the surrounding environment. Typical growth inducing factors might include the 1 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Land Cover Map, http://frap.fire.ca.gov/data/frapgismaps/pdfs/fvegwhr13b_map.pdf, accessed May 26, 2017.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
6-2 AUGUST 2017
extension of urban services or transportation infrastructure to a previously unserved or under-served area, or the removal of major barriers to development. This section evaluates the proposed Plan’s potential to create such growth inducements. Not all aspects of growth inducement are negative; rather, negative impacts associated with growth inducement occur only where the growth associated with the proposed Plan would cause adverse environmental impacts. As described in Chapter 4.12, Population and Housing, implementation of the proposed Plan would not exceed the City’s projections for population growth in the Plan Area.

The proposed Plan is not expected to result in indirect growth inducement because the additional housing units and population resulting from implementation of the proposed Plan would not exceed projections of the City. Additional employment growth would occur incrementally over a period of approximately 25 years and would be consistent with the planning objectives of the City.

Development of the proposed Plan would involve demolition and construction activities that could generate some temporary employment opportunities; however, given the temporary nature of such opportunities, it is unlikely that construction workers would relocate to Fresno as a result of the proposed Plan. Thus, the proposed Plan would not be considered growth-inducing from an employment perspective.

6.3 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. This section lists the impacts for the proposed Plan that were found to be significant and unavoidable.

6.4 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss the extent to which the proposed Plan would commit nonrenewable resources to uses that future generations would probably be unable to reverse. The three CEQA-required categories of irreversible changes are discussed below.

6.4.1 CHANGES IN LAND USE THAT COMMIT FUTURE

GENERATIONS
The proposed Plan would guide future development in the Plan Area, and would also involve the redevelopment of previously developed sites. The Plan Area currently contains retail, industrial/non-retail, and residential uses. Because the Plan Area is already developed and is located in an urban area that already contains these uses, the proposed Plan is not expected to result in any land use changes that would commit future generations to uses that are not already prevalent in the vicinity of the Plan Area.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
PLACEWORKS 6-3
TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE (SU) IMPACTS Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation

AESTHETICS
AES-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan would create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

S AES‐1: Lighting systems for street and parking areas shall include shields to direct light to the roadway surfaces and parking areas. Vertical shields on the light fixtures shall also be used to direct light away from adjacent light sensitive land uses such as residences.

AES‐2: Lighting systems for public facilities such as active play areas shall provide adequate illumination for the activity; however, low‐intensity light fixtures and shields shall be used to minimize spillover light onto adjacent properties.

AES‐3: Lighting systems for non‐residential uses, not including public facilities, shall provide shields on the light fixtures and orient the lighting system away from adjacent properties.

Low‐intensity light fixtures shall also be used if excessive spillover light onto adjacent properties will occur.

AES‐4: Lighting systems for freestanding signs shall not exceed 100 foot‐Lamberts (FT‐L) when adjacent to streets which have an average light intensity of less than 2.0 horizontal footcandles and shall not exceed 500 FT‐L when adjacent to streets that have an average light intensity of 2.0 horizontal footcandles or greater.

AES‐5: Materials used on building façades shall be non‐reflective.

SU
AES-5: Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in an increase in glare.

S AES-5: Implement Mitigation Measures AES-1 through AES-5 of the MEIR. SU

AGRICULTURE
AG-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use.

SU No mitigation measures available. SU
AG-4: Implementation of the proposed Plan, in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts with respect to agriculture resources.

SU No mitigation measures available. SU

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
6-4 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE (SU) IMPACTS Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation

AIR QUALITY
AQ-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in the generation of substantial long-term criteria air pollutant emissions that would exceed the SJVAPCD regional
significance thresholds and would therefore not be
considered consistent with the existing AQMPs.

S N/A SU
AQ-2: Construction activities associated with
implementation of the proposed Plan would exceed the
SJVAPCD regional significance thresholds.

S AQ-2a: In order to contribute in minimizing exhaust emission from construction equipment, prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building permits whichever occurs first, the property owner/developer shall provide a list of all construction equipment proposed to be used on the project site for projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt projects). This list may be provided on the building plans. The construction equipment list shall state the make, model, and equipment identification number of all the equipment.

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

AQ-2c: In order to reduce VOC emissions from construction activities, prior to issuance of a building permit for projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt projects), the property owner/developer shall require the construction contractor and provide a note on construction plans indicating that:
 All coatings and solvents will have a volatile organic compound (VOC) content lower than required under Rule 4601 (i.e., super compliant paints).  All architectural coatings shall be applied either by (1) using a high-volume, lowpressure spray method operated at an air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge to achieve a 65 percent application efficiency; or (2) manual application using a paintbrush, hand-roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge, to achieve a 100 percent applicant efficiency.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
PLACEWORKS 6-5
TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE (SU) IMPACTS Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
 The construction contractor shall also use precoated/natural colored building materials, where feasible.

AQ-3: Operation of development projects accommodated
under the proposed Plan would generate emissions that
would exceed the SJVAPCD regional significance thresholds for VOC, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

S  N/A SU
AQ-4: Development of land uses accommodated under the
proposed Plan could result in short- and long-term
emissions that could cause or contribute to a violation of the AAQS.

S AQ-4a: Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-2a through AQ-2e to further reduce construction-related criteria air pollutant emissions.

AQ-4b: In order to reduce fugitive dust particulate matter emissions during construction activities, prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building permits, whichever occurs first, for projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (i.e., non-exempt projects), but that would be outside the purview of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) Regulation VIII the property owner/developer shall submit a dust control plan that includes, but not limited to the following measures during grounddisturbing activities to further reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions:
 Disturbed areas (including storage piles) that are not being actively utilized for construction purposes shall be effectively stabilized using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, or covered with a tarp or other suitable cover (e.g., revegetated).
 On-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
 Land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled utilizing application of water or by presoaking.
 Material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least 6 inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained when materials are transported off-site.
 Operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions.) (Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.) SU

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
6-6 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE (SU) IMPACTS Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
 Following the addition of materials to or the removal of materials from the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.  Within urban areas, trackout shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the site and at the end of each workday.
 Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and trackout.  Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
 Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent.  Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the project area.
 Adhere to Regulation VIII’s 20 percent opacity limitation, as applicable.

AQ-7: Construction activities associated with
implementation of the proposed Plan would exceed the
SJVAPCD regional significance thresholds for VOC and NOX.

S AQ-7: Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-2a through AQ-4b of the DEIR. SU

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG-1: Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions.

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

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

SU
GHG-3: GHG emissions associated with implementation of
the proposed Plan would substantially cumulatively
contribute to climate change impacts.

S GHG-3: Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-2b . SU
NOISE
NOISE-1: Development in accordance with the proposed
Plan would cause increases in traffic along local roadways of

SU/LTS N/A SU/LTS

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
PLACEWORKS 6-7
TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE (SU) IMPACTS Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
more than 3 dBA over existing conditions.

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

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

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

NOISE-4b: Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading, and/or construction permits, applicants for individual development projects within 500 feet of noise-sensitive receptors (e.g., residences, hospitals, schools) shall conduct a project-level construction noise analysis to evaluate potential impacts on sensitive receptors. The analysis shall be conducted once the final construction equipment list that will be used for demolition and grading activities is determined. The project-level noise analysis shall be prepared, reviewed, and approved by the City of Fresno Community Development Director. If the analysis determines that demolition and construction activities would result in an impact to identified noise-sensitive receptors, then specific measures to attenuate the noise impact shall be outlined in the analysis and reviewed and approved by the City of Fresno Community Development Director. Specific measures may include, but are not limited to, the following best management practices:
 Post a construction site notice near the construction site access point or in an area that is clearly visible to the public. The notice shall include the following: job site address; permit number, name, and phone number of the contractor and owner; dates and duration of construction activities; construction hours allowed; and the City of Fresno Community Development Director and construction contractor phone numbers where noise complaints can be reported and logged.
 Consider the installation of temporary sound barriers for construction activities immediately adjacent to occupied noise-sensitive structures.  Restrict haul routes and construction-related traffic to the least noise-sensitive times of the day.
 Reduce non-essential idling of construction equipment to no more than five minutes.  Ensure that all construction equipment is monitored and properly maintained in SU

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
6-8 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE (SU) IMPACTS Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to minimize noise.  Fit all construction equipment with properly-operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds, no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer, to minimize noise emissions.
 If construction equipment is equipped with back-up alarm shut offs, switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters, as feasible.
 Stationary equipment (such as generators and air compressors) and equipment maintenance and staging areas shall be located as far from existing noise-sensitive land uses, as feasible.
 To the extent feasible, use acoustic enclosures, shields, or shrouds for stationary equipment such as compressors and pumps.
 Shut off generators when generators are not needed.
 Coordinate deliveries to reduce the potential of trucks waiting to unload and idling for long periods of time.
 Grade surface irregularities on construction sites to prevent potholes from causing vehicular noise.
 Minimize the use of impact devices such as jackhammers, pavement breakers, and hoe rams. Where possible, use concrete crushers or pavement saws rather than hoe rams for tasks such as concrete or asphalt demolition and removal.

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

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

SU/LTS/PS N/A SU/LTS

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
TRANS-7.2: The addition of project traffic to the roadway S TRANS-7.2: Development within the project shall pay its regional transportation mitigation SU

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
PLACEWORKS 6-9
TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE (SU) IMPACTS Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
network in combination with traffic generated by
reasonably foreseeable projects results in unacceptable intersection operations at Caltrans study intersections. fee (RTMF) towards funding improvements to the regional highways and streets system.

The City of Fresno shall coordinate with Caltrans and the Fresno Council of Governments to recommend the following intersection and ramp improvements at the SR-99/Jensen Avenue interchange and SR-41/North Avenue interchange be incorporated into the RTMF program:
 SR-99 Southbound Off-Ramp/Jensen Avenue intersection:
- Widen the SR-99 southbound off-ramp to add an additional left-turn pocket. - Restripe the existing shared through-left turn lane on the SR-99 southbound offramp as a dedicated through lane. - The resulting lane configuration on the southbound off-ramp is: two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane.
- Add an overlap phase for the northbound right-turn movement. - Prohibit westbound U-turn movement to allow the northbound right-turn overlap. - Widen the eastbound approach to stripe a third through lane; add a third receiving lane on the east leg that traps into the SR-99 southbound on-ramp.  SR-99 Northbound Off-Ramp/Jensen Avenue intersection:
- Change the lane configurations on the northbound off-ramp to a dedicated left-turn pocket and shared through-right turn lane.
- Add an overlap phase for the southbound right-turn movement. - Prohibit eastbound U-turn movement to allow the southbound right-turn overlap. - Widen the westbound approach to stripe a third through lane; add a third receiving lane on the west leg that traps into the SR-99 northbound on-ramp. - Change the phasing for the northbound and southbound approaches to protected left-turn movements and separate.
 SR-41 Southbound Off-Ramp/North Avenue intersection:
- Widen the SR-41 southbound off-ramp to add a left-turn pocket. - Change the lane configurations on the southbound off-ramp to convert the existing shared through-left turn lane to a shared right turn-through-left turn lane. - Extend the right-turn pocket on the off-ramp to accommodate right-turn queue length shown in Table 4.14-16.
- The resulting lane configuration on the southbound off-ramp is: one left-turn lane, one shared right turn-through-left turn lane, and one right-turn lane. - Widen the eastbound approach to add a third through lane that traps into the eastbound left-turn onto the SR-41 northbound on-ramp.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
6-10 AUGUST 2017
TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE (SU) IMPACTS Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
In addition to addressing intersection operations, the changes identified above also address freeway off-ramp queuing impacts identified in Impact TRANS-7.3 below. With the implementation of the changes listed above, the operations at these three intersections would be improved to LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours, as shown in Table 4.14-16 below (refer to Appendix H for calculations).

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

In addition to the three intersections at the SR-99/Jensen Avenue and SR-41/North Avenue interchanges that operate at LOS E or LOS F under cumulative conditions, the following improvements would address unacceptable LOS E operations at the SR-99/Fresno Street interchange:
 SR-99 Southbound Ramps/Fresno Street intersection:
- Widen the SR-99 southbound frontage road to add an additional right-turn pocket. - Restripe the existing through lane as a shared through-left turn lane on the SR-99 southbound off-ramp.
- The resulting lane configuration on the southbound off-ramp is: one left-turn lane, one shared through left-turn lane, and two right-turn lanes.  SR-99 Northbound Ramps/Fresno Street intersection:
- Add a through lane to the westbound approach on Fresno Street that traps into the left-turn onto the SR-99 southbound on-ramp.
- Adding the third through lane on Fresno Street would require removing the existing raised median and prohibiting eastbound left-turns at the Fresno Street/E Street intersection.

With the implementation of the changes listed above, the operations at these two intersections would be improved to LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours, as shown in Table 4.14-17 below (refer to Appendix H for calculations).

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

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
PLACEWORKS 6-11
TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE (SU) IMPACTS Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
With
Mitigation
TRANS-7.3: The addition of project traffic to the roadway network in combination with traffic generated by
reasonably foreseeable projects results in freeway off-ramp queues that extend back onto the freeway mainline.

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

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.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

CEQA-MANDATED ASSESSMENT
6-12 AUGUST 2017

6.4.2 IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE FROM ENVIRONMENTAL

ACCIDENTS
Demolition and construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed Plan would involve some risk for environmental accidents. However, these activities, such as accidental spills and soil contamination, would be monitored by City, State, and federal agencies, and would follow professional industry standards for safety and construction. Additionally, the land uses proposed by the proposed Plan would not include any uses or activities that are likely to contribute to or be the cause of a significant environmental accident, such as industrial-related leaks. As a result, the proposed Plan would not pose a substantial risk of environmental accidents.

6.4.3 LARGE COMMITMENT OF NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES
Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes issues related to increased energy consumption, conversion of agricultural lands, and lost access to mining reserves. The proposed Plan would require water, electric, and gas service, as well as additional resources for construction. Additionally, the ongoing operation of uses within the Plan Area would involve the use of nonrenewable resources. Construction and ongoing maintenance would irreversibly commit some materials and nonrenewable energy resources.

Materials and resources used would include, but are not limited to, nonrenewable and limited resources such as oil, gasoline, sand, gravel, asphalt, and steel. These materials and energy resources would be used for infrastructure development, transportation of people and goods, and utilities. During the operational phase of the proposed Plan (post-construction), energy sources including oil and gasoline would be used for lighting, heating, and cooling of residences, as well as transportation of people to and from the Plan Area.

However, the proposed Plan would include several features that would offset or reduce the need for nonrenewable resources. The proposed Plan would be required to comply with all applicable building and design requirements, including those set forth in Title 24 relating to energy conservation. In compliance with CALGreen, the State’s Green Building Standards Code, the proposed Plan would be required to reduce water consumption by 20 percent, divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting materials. The landscaping plan for the proposed Plan would group plants with similar water, climatic, and soil requirements to conserve water and create a drought responsive landscape. In addition, the proposed Plan presents an opportunity to integrate recycled water use into Plan Area with buildout of the City of Fresno’s Recycled water system. Green field installation of a distribution system at the initial development stage provides opportunity to plan optimum recycled water utilization within the Plan Area.

Although the construction and ongoing operation of the proposed Plan would involve the use of nonrenewable resources, through the inclusion of energy-conserving Plan features and compliance with applicable standards and regulations, the proposed Plan would not represent a large commitment of nonrenewable resources.

PLACEWORKS 7-1

7. Persons and Organizations Consulted
This Draft EIR was prepared by the following consultants and individuals:

7.1 LEAD AGENCY

CITY OF FRESNO
Sophia Pagoulatos, Supervising Planner
Talia Kolluri, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Craig Agabashian, Admin Manager
Michelle Zumwalt, Architect
Ricky Caperton, Planner III

7.2 REPORT PREPARERS

LEAD EIR CONSULTANT

PLACEWORKS
Steve Noack, AICP, Principal
Kyle Simpson, Senior Associate, Project Manager
William Hass, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Manager
Bob Mantey, Noise, Vibration and Acoustics Manger
Karl Rodenbaugh, Senior Scientist
Michael Milroy, Associate Engineer
John Vang, Associate, AQ/GHG
Natalie Foley, Noise Specialist
Ashley James, Project Planner
Grant Reddy, Graphics Design Specialist

SUBCONSULTANTS

BLAIR, CHYRCH & FLYNN
Utilities and Service Systems
Karl Kienow, Principal Engineer
Cordie Qualle, Project Engineer
Jon Palsgaard, Project Engineer

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPE CIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR

CITY OF FRESNO

PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED/LIST OF PREPARERS
7-2 AUGUST 2017

FEHR & PEERS
Transportation and Traffic
Fred Cha, Principal-In-Charge
Robert (Rob) Hananouchi, Senior Transportation Planner
Jimmy Fong, Project Engineer
H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
Biological Resources
Brian Boroski, Principal, Wildlife Ecology
Daniel Duke, Associate, Regulatory Specialist
Doug Drynan, Senior Wildlife Ecologist

SIERRA VALLEY CULTURAL PLANNING
Cultural Resources
Kristina Roper, Archaeologist
Jon Brady, Architectural Historian

1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, California 94709
510.848.3815
www.placeworks.com
........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX A

N OTICE OF P REPARATION (NOP)

AND C OMMENTS ON THE NOP

........................................................................................................................

STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN Jr., Governor “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 6
1352 WEST OLIVE AVENUE
P.O. BOX 12616
FRESNO, CA 93778-2616
PHONE (559) 444-2493
FAX (559) 445-5875
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Serious drought.

Help save water!
April 14, 2017
06-FRE-GEN-GEN
City of Fresno
Southwest Specific Plan,
Notice of Preparation/
Environmental Impact Report
Ms. Sophia Pagoulatos
Planning Manager
City of Fresno, DARM Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3076
Fresno, California 93721
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos:

We have completed our review of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Fresno’s Southwest Specific Plan. The Specific Plan Area is bounded by State Route (SR) 180 in the north and by SR 41 in the east. Caltrans has the following comments:

It is recognized that the EIR would include extensive evaluation of traffic and would recommend mitigation measures to both local and State facilities. Caltrans would request the opportunity to remain involved throughout this process. Caltrans will provide the traffic consultant with any traffic data available to us to assist them in the Transportation and Traffic section of the EIR. It is recommended that the traffic consultant provide a formal scope of work for our review and comment prior to conducting the traffic analysis. This information should include assumptions, modeling, forecasting, methodologies, etc.

If you have any further questions, please contact me at (559) 444-2493.

Sincerely,
DAVID PADILLA, Acting Chief
Planning South Branch
C: Michael Navarro, Caltrans, Planning North Chief

1 From: Keeza McCoy [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 9:37 PM
To: Southwestcomments
Subject: Draft Preferred Alternative
My name is Keeza McCoy & I'm a resident of West Fresno 93706. In regards to the plan

1. The dumps, meat facilities & any other contamination that has & is causing our environment to be toxic & polluted needs to be removed.

2. Redevelopment needs to happen around & in the neighborhoods/communities that already exist. We do not want eminent domain or the destruction of current homes to be destroyed/removed.

3. Funding should be allocated to homeowners to fix up their homes.

4. (Figure 6 map)A college in the area of Martin Luther King/Church to Mlk/Jensen is not needed in that area.

That will increase traffic & cause for the widening of the streets which will involve the removal of homes. This also goes against urban greening & adds more pollution due to the increase in traffic.

5. West Fresno is a farming area & that should remain.

6. Vacant & unoccupied lots need to be focused on in regards to wanting to build on the westside that will benefit the environment & its current residents.

7. Streets, sidewalks & bikelanes should be automatically maintained & made with our tax dollars not grant funding.

8. The steering committee Do Not Speak For The Community! There are those who aren't & never lived in our community & thats a conflict of interest.

9. My final thoughts on the Draft Alternative Southwest pacific plan is I DON'T AGREE WITH IT AT ALL! Also the community is not being adequately informed about meetings that are affecting us. If it takes the city going door to door to hand out fliers or put notices in the mailboxes so be it.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Attention: Sophia Pagoulatos
Planning Manager,City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department
Regarding: Environment Impact Report Scoping Comments
for the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
The public, particularly the citizens that reside within Southwest Fresno and the 93706 zip code, have the right to know and a chance to support or disagree with the final Southwest Specific Plan EIR before it is submitted to the state for approval. The EIR Scope needs to include not only the concerns of how the terrestrial and ecological environment will be impacted but must include how the people that currently live here will be affected by such changes.

Land Use and Planning:

It should be stated clearly in the Specific Plan when a citizen’s property has been rezoned differently than before the Plan existed. Each property owner should have the right to contest the zoning change.

Eminent Domain should not be allowed to be used to remove a citizen from his/her current property in any planning of the finalized Southwest Specific Plan.

Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Hazardous Materials The Darling Rendering Plant, the City’s Disposal sites and any other Major Industrial polluter must be Removed. It can no longer be ignored. These current polluters are creating more hazards than any planned incoming projects could ever create.

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Cultural and historical sites of Southwest Fresno should remain in place. For example, the Hinton Community Center, should be renovated but not removed as this has always been an important location for most African-American families who live in Southwest Fresno.

The churches, temples, synagogues should remain in place regardless of the changes in zoning.

Geology and Soils and Hydrology and Water Quality
Quality checks of the water and soil that will be used and built upon should be tested during all phases of construction so that we do not have any further poisoning of Southwest Fresno nor a “Flint, Michigan” situation.

Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The more trees and green spaces the better, however, the neglected and diseased state of all the trees and green spaces already within the residential neighborhoods are a severe hazard literally falling and luckily have not fatally fallen on a human. So, before spending resources on new green spaces, do not forget the needed resources for what is already in need of improvements.

A Tides Center Project
764 P Street, Suite 012, Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 369-2790
City of Fresno Development and Resource Management Department Attn: Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
RE: Comments on the Scope of the Southwest Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
Dear Ms. Pagoulatos,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on and suggestions for the scope and content of the Southwest Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”).

We appreciate the Department of Development and Resource Management’s receptiveness to the community’s and Steering Committee’s input as it relates to the Southwest Specific Plan (“SWSP”) and commend the City on adopting a SWSP Vision and Land Use Map that reflect the long-held desires of West Fresno residents for a healthy community with the infrastructure, services, and amenities necessary for residents to thrive. Through these comments, we aim to assist the City in developing an EIR that ensures that the SWSP’s vision for a thriving West Fresno is realized in a way that preserves and enhances environmental quality for current and future residents in accordance with the goals and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq. This letter therefore identifies potentially significant environmental impacts which may arise as a result of implementation of the Southwest Specific Plan and which residents have indicated should be addressed in the EIR.

1. Analyze and Mitigate Individually and Cumulatively Significant Impacts Arising from Existing Polluting Land Uses & New Development
The area encompassed by the SWSP is one of the most environmentally impacted communities in the entire state according to the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (“CalEnviroScreen” or “CES”) due to the concentrated location of numerous polluting and toxic land uses in and around the community coupled with the high vulnerability of the population to pollution. Decades of poor land use planning have left this community ridden with higher asthma rates, extraordinarily high infant mortality rates among the African American population, and a life expectancy 20 years less than other Fresno City zip codes, amongst other ails. The co-location of industrial facilities, agriculture, capped landfills, hazardous waste facilities, truck routes, and freeways with housing, schools, and parks have undermined residents’ and community development. The continued operation of existing polluting facilities as well as new development under that occurs under the SWSP will likely have individually and cumulatively significant impacts and must be analyzed and mitigated in the EIR. In particular, we recommend that the EIR include the following analysis and appropriate mitigation in order to comply with CEQA:

A Tides Center Project
764 P Street, Suite 012, Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 369-2790
• Toxic Air Contaminant emissions from existing land uses and with SWSP build out with an accompanying risk assessment to evaluate cancer risks and other health hazards
• Exposure of children, the elderly, and other sensitive receptors to objectionable odors resulting from existing land uses and associated vehicle traffic and SWSP build out that may be perceived beyond the property lines of the facilities generating the odors
• Exceedances of air quality plans resulting from existing land uses and with SWSP build out
• Air quality and noise impacts resulting from construction under the SWSP • Health impacts of existing and increased air quality emissions These analyses should examine the impacts not only of stationary sources of emissions but also vehicles and trucks associated with particular land uses. West Fresno is currently burdened by the passage of large trucks through the community that carry animal carcases and by-products, live animals, and other noxious materials. These trucks pass alongside homes, emitting horrendous odors, particulate matter 2.5, and other diesel emissions which put residents’ health and safety at risk and undermine the quality of life in West Fresno. Census tracts in West Fresno rank as high as the 97th percentile under CES 3.0 for diesel emissions as a result of the cumulative truck traffic in the community.

The EIR must consider and adopt appropriate mitigation for each individually and cumulatively significant environmental impact identified. Potential mitigation strategies which we recommend that the Plan consider include the following:
• Incentives and/or requirements for local hiring within the West Fresno community for construction projects and new employment opportunities in order to reduce air emissions resulting from commute traffic into West Fresno. • Adoption of proactive neighborhood greening measures in accordance with SWSP Guiding Policy 12.
• Completion of the Industrial Compatibility Assessment to identify a comprehensive strategy to mitigate pollution from existing industrial land use, including through pollution-reduction measures applicable to existing facilities, neighborhood greening, and selective amortization and relocation of noxious land uses.
• Enforcement of laws and regulations prohibiting vehicle idling • Expansion and improvement of public transit services in West Fresno, including BRT, route extensions and connection to the Downtown transit hub, fare reductions and waivers, as well as the availability of other innovative and costeffective transportation options, such as ride sharing, to reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled (“VMT”) and installations of electric charging stations to promote electric vehicle uses.

A Tides Center Project
764 P Street, Suite 012, Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 369-2790
• Expansion and improvement of active transportation options in West Fresno, such as sidewalks, street lights, stormwater drainage, and bike lanes, to improve connectivity between housing and key destinations and reduce VMTs. • Re-routing truck routes to avoid sensitive receptors (i.e., homes, schools, community spaces, etc.) and/or requiring or including incentives for trucks to meet clean emissions standards that pass through the plan area. • Ensure meaningful community engagement through the Transformative Climate Communities Program to have community-driven projects that could potentially mitigate environmental impacts

2. Analyze and Mitigate Potential Physical and Economic Displacement of Existing Residents
Housing is a critical factor in the assessment of the Project’s impacts on the environment. Having suitable sites and available affordable housing options throughout the Plan area will ensure that impacts such as VMT reductions, air quality improvement, reduction of greenhouse gases, traffic, and other environmental impacts will be mitigated. However, if proper precautions and proactive measures aren’t taken in this vulnerable community, displacement will happen preventing existing families to reap the benefits of this community-driven plan.

Physical and economic displacement will result in significant environmental impacts which require analysis and mitigation. C.C.R. § 15064(e). Residents forced to move from areas with planned high quality transit will be forced to rely on personal vehicles which have direct correlations to increased VMT, traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, and worsened air quality. Additionally, displacement will result in significant social and economic costs to already financially burdened populations. This will include, but not limited to increased transportation costs to lower income residents, decreased access to employment opportunities, and social and economic dislocation.

Feasible mitigation efforts can include, but not limited to requiring all new residential development to include at least 30% of residential units affordable to low, very-low, and extremely-low income populations. Additionally, adopting measures such as rent stabilization ordinance to prevent rent increases of more than 15% over a 3-year period, or just cause eviction policies. Require right of first refusal policies that provide current tenants the opportunity to buy a property before it’s sold to a third party. Lastly, the city could do an implementation of nexus study and mitigation fees to promote and secure adequate affordable housing development.

To conclude, hundreds of residents were involved in the basis of what the SWSP should result in, and being able to breathe clean air and live healthier lives is a prominent priority for them. This plan reflects just that, however, with existing industrial uses continuing to pollute the community, the EIR should thoroughly analyze those uses and identify proactive measures to mitigate them. We appreciate the opportunity to comment and look forward to continue working together. If you have any questions in respect to these comments, you can contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
A Tides Center Project
764 P Street, Suite 012, Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 369-2790
/s/
Grecia A. Elenes

A Tides Center Project
764 P Street, Suite 012, Fresno, California 93721
Telephone: (559) 369-2790

........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX B

S OUTHWEST F RESNO S PECIFIC

P LAN - P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT
........................................................................................................................

SOUTHWEST FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • MAY 2017

CITY OF FRESNO

SOUTHWEST FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • MAY 2017
Alternate formats of this document will be provided by the City upon request.

To request alternate formats contact
Shannon M. Mulhall, Certified Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator at (559) 621-8716.

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN

CITY OF FRESNO

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CITY COUNCIL
Oliver L. Baines III
Steve Brandau
Garry Bredefeld
Paul Caprioglio
Luis Chavez
Clint Olivier
Esmeralda Soria

PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairperson Serop Torossian
Vice Chair Rojelio Vasquez
Cary Catalano
Kathy Bray
Lawrence Garcia
Jaime Holt
Randy Reed
Tate Hill
Michaelynn Lewis
Maria Lizaldo
Donna Middleton
Eric Payne
John Pestorich
Jeffrey Roberts
Leoncio Vasquez Santos
Ashley Werner
Sharon Williams
Peng Yang

STEERING COMMITTEE
Thomas W. Beggs
Alex Belanger
Jane Carretero
Shaneece Childress
Esther Cuevas
Mary Curry
Debbie Darden
Juan Esquivel
Marta Frausto
Sylvesta M. Hall
Marina Harutyunyan

CITY MANAGEMENT
Jennifer Clark, Development and Resource
Management Director
Gregory Barfield, Chief of Staff of Oliver L.

Baines III - District 3

PROJECT STAFF
Sophia Pagoulatos, Project Manager
Talia Kolluri, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Drew Wilson, Planner
Michelle Zumwalt, Architect

CONSULTANT TEAM
Bruce Brubaker, PlaceWorks
Janet Chang, PlaceWorks
Rosemary Dudley, PlaceWorks
Steve Gunnells, PlaceWorks
Mark Hoffman, PlaceWorks
Peter Quintanilla, PlaceWorks
Steve Rasmussen Cancian, Shared Spaces
Lucio Avila, Centro La Familia
Margarita Rocha, Centro La Familia
Robert Mitchell
Fred Choa, Fehr & Peers
Jimmy Fong, Fehr & Peers
Robert Hananouchi, Fehr & Peers
Henry Delcore, Pop-Up Design & Development
Marci Lopez, Pop-Up Design & Development
Kiel Schmidt, Pop-Up Design & Development
William Cardinal, Blair, Church & Flynn
Jon Palsgaard, Blair, Church & Flynn
Cordie Qualle, Blair, Church & Flynn

Southwest Fresno Specific Plan | Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PLAN INTRODUCTION 1-1
A. Plan Area and Boundaries 1-2
B. Why Plan Southwest Fresno? 1-6
C. Community Environmental Health 1-9
D. Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Community Engagement 1-17 E. Plan Structure and Content 1-19

2. VISION 2-1
A. Introduction 2-1
B. Guiding Principles 2-2
C. Specific Plan Land Use Vision 2-5

3. LAND USE 3-1
A. Introduction 3-1
B. Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Land Uses 3-2
C. Development Capacity Analysis 3-10
D. Goals and Policies 3-12

4. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 4-1
A. Introduction 4-1
B. Use Regulations 4-2
C. Kearney Boulevard Historic Corridor Overlay 4-5
D. California Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor Overlay 4-8
E. Objectives for Special Corridors, Magnet Cores, and Complete Neighborhoods 4-9 F. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design 4-12

5. TRANSPORTATION 5-1
A. Introduction 5-1
B. Transportation Improvements 5-2
C. Complete Streets Design Guidelines 5-13
D. Goals and Policies 5-23

6. PUBLIC FACILITIES 6-1
A. Introduction 6-1
B. Parks and Open Space 6-1
C. Education 6-8
D. Other Public Facilities 6-10
E. Goals and Policies 6-11

7. UTILITIES 7-1
A. Introduction 7-1
B. Wet Utilities Needs Analysis and Improvements 7-3
C. Dry Utilities Needs Analysis and Improvements 7-12
D. Communications 7-12
E. Goals and Policies 7-13

8. IMPLEMENTATION 8-1
A. Introduction 8-1
B. General Implementation Strategy 8-2
C. Funding and Financing Tools 8-3
D. Economic Development Strategies 8-10
E. Implementation Action Plan 8-17
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan | Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1 Regional Location Map 1-3
FIGURE 1-2 Plan Area Map 1-4
FIGURE 1-3 Context Map 1-5
FIGURE 1-4 Healthy Community Framework 1-11
FIGURE 2-1 Conceptual Vision for Southwest Fresno 2-6
FIGURE 2-2 Conceptual Diagram of Development
within a Complete Neighborhood 2-7
FIGURE 2-3 Conceptual Diagram of Development along a Corridor 2-8 FIGURE 2-4 Conceptual Diagram of Development around a Magnet Core 2-11 FIGURE 3-1 Land Use Map with Conceptual Overlays, including SOI 3-3 FIGURE 3-2 Land Use Map for Plan Area 3-4
FIGURE 3-3 Dual Land Use Designation Map for Plan Area 3-5 FIGURE 3-4 Opportunity Sites in the Plan Area and Existing Development 3-11 FIGURE 4-1 Land Uses with Overlays, Special Corridors, Magnet Cores, & Neighborhood Nodes 4-7
FIGURE 5-1 Existing and Planned Sidewalk Network 5-3
FIGURE 5-2 Existing and Planned Bicycle and Trail Network 5-5 FIGURE 5-3 North Avenue Long-term Alternative Cross Section:

Class II Buffered Bike Lanes 5-6
FIGURE 5-4 Existing and Potential Transit Routes 5-7
FIGURE 5-5 Existing and Planned Number of Roadway Lanes 5-9 FIGURE 5-6 Existing, Planned, and Recommended Truck Routes 5-11 FIGURE 5-7 Zones on a Sidewalk 5-14
FIGURE 5-8 High-visibility Crosswalk Types 5-15
FIGURE 5-9 Bike Lockers 5-22
FIGURE 5-10 Bike Corral 5-22
FIGURE 5-11 Bike Rack Spacing 5-22
FIGURE 6-1 Residential Areas Served by Existing and New Parks 6-5 FIGURE 6-2 Schools and School Districts 6-9
FIGURE 7-1 Proposed Water Improvements 7-4
FIGURE 7-2 Proposed Wastewater Improvements 7-7
FIGURE 7-3 Proposed Recycled Water Improvements 7-9
FIGURE 7-4 Proposed Stormwater Improvements 7-10

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1-1 Health Profile of Southwest Fresno: Current Health Conditions of Adults 1-10 TABLE 1-2 Health Profile of Southwest Fresno: Current Health Conditions of Children 1-10 TABLE 1-3 Health Profile of Southwest Fresno: Risk Factors 1-10 TABLE 3-1 Development Capacities for the Plan Area 3-10 TABLE 4-1 Office Restricted (O-No Auto) Use Regulations in the Specific Plan vs. Base Zoning 4-4
TABLE 6-1 Existing Parkland Inventory Counted Toward the General Plan’s 3 Acres per 1,000 Residents Standard 6-3
TABLE 6-2 Essential and Recommended Park Amenities 6-7
TABLE 7-1 Total Acreage by Land Use Classification for General Plan (GP) and Specific Plan (SP) 7-2
TABLE 7-2 Comparison of General Plan (GP) and Specific Plan (SP) Anticipated Water Usage per Land Use Classification 7-5 TABLE 7-3 Comparison of General Plan (GP) and Specific Plan (SP) Anticipated Wastewater Usage per Land Use Classification 7-8 TABLE 7-4 Comparison of Existing and Required Basin Volumes for General Plan (GP) and Specific Plan (SP) 7-11
TABLE 8-1 Estimated Wet Infrastructure Costs 8-3
TABLE 8-2 Implementation Action Plan Matrix: Community Resources 8-18 TABLE 8-3 Implementation Action Plan Matrix: Economic Development 8-18 TABLE 8-4 Implementation Action Plan Matrix: Infrastructure 8-20 TABLE 8-5 Implementation Action Plan Matrix: Mobility 8-21 TABLE 8-6 Implementation Action Plan Matrix: Parks 8-24 Chapter 1 | Plan Introduction 1-1
PLAN

INTRODUCTION
The Southwest Fresno Specific Plan (the Plan)
marks a historic milestone for the Southwest
Fresno community. Southwest Fresno has a rich
history and culture and many residents have deep
ties to their community and are proud to call
Southwest Fresno their home. With ample land
available for development and a prime location
next to Fresno’s downtown, Southwest Fresno has
great potential.

For many years, however, Southwest Fresno has
been overlooked as a neighborhood suitable for
high quality development. The residents have long
advocated for equitable consideration in citywide
development and the implementation of improvements that will preserve the community’s assets as well as enhance the community’s image and
quality. The community’s determination and passion have fueled incremental changes and previous planning efforts, which have ultimately led to this
critical specific planning process. The Plan acts as a
key step for putting into motion positive change for
the community, guiding future public and private
development to transform Southwest Fresno into a
vibrant, attractive, and valuable area.

The purpose of a Specific Plan is to develop
policies, programs, regulations, and guidelines
to implement the jurisdiction’s adopted General
Plan. A Specific Plan effectively establishes a link
between implementing policies of the General
Plan and the individual development proposals
in a defined area. The Plan implements the goals
and policies set forth in the City of Fresno General
Plan (General Plan) by building upon its concepts
for the Southwest Development Area. The Plan
also includes ideas and measures that have been
extensively tailored and reviewed by the Southwest
Fresno community and stakeholders. The Plan
provides guiding principles, policies, development criteria, and implementation strategies 1 to coordinate private development and public
improvements given the unique opportunities and
characteristics of this important part of the city of
Fresno.
1-2 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
A. PLAN AREA AND

BOUNDARIES
The area addressed by the Plan lies within the
southwestern most part of the city of Fresno,
within Fresno County (see Figure 1-1). The Specific
Plan Area (Plan Area) is bounded by Highway 180
in the north and by Highway 41 in the east. It
does not include the Downtown Neighborhoods
Community Plan Area, nor does it include the
land currently in Fresno County that is considered
within the Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the General
Plan (see Figure 1-2). The county land in the SOI
is anticipated to become part of the city of Fresno
in the future. The following maps and graphics
show and consider the SOI as a matter of good
planning, but the scope of the project, including
the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), will focus
on the Plan Area only. However, as shown in Figure
1-2, there is one area in the SOI that is part of the
Plan Area: the Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard
(MLK) Activity Center. The MLK Activity Center was
identified in the Fresno General Plan as a higher
density neighborhood district that would serve
the Southwest Development Area, established
neighborhoods in Southwest Fresno, and areas
beyond Southwest Fresno and the city. Although
the MLK Activity Center is currently located on SOI
land, it was included into the Plan Area because of
its proximity to the Plan Area and its role in providing retail and services to the Southwest Fresno community.

Other plan areas are located within the larger Plan
Area (see Figure 1-3), including:
■ The Highway 41 + North Corridor Complete
Streets Plan, in which the plan area is
bounded by Elm Avenue, Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard/ Fig Avenue, Annadale Avenue, Roy
Avenue, and Clara Avenue.
■ A future planning process for the Elm Avenue
Areawide Brownfields Plan falls primarily within
the Plan Area.

Fresno Chandler Executive Airport located just outside
of the Plan Area along Whites Bridge Avenue.

Downtown Fresno seen from the Plan Area.

Undeveloped land make up a large amount of the
Plan Area and SOI.

Chapter 1 | Plan Introduction 1-3
FRESNO
CLOVIS
SANGER

PARLIER

REEDLEY
ORANGE
COVE
FOWLER
SELMA
SIERRA

NATIONAL
FOREST

PINE FLAT LAKE

MILLERTON LAKE
MADERA
COUNTY
TULARE
COUNTY
41 41
168
41 99
41 99
180
99 43
168
180
180
180
145
KERMAN

FRESNO-CLOVIS

REGIONAL

WASTEWATER

RECLAMATION

FACILITY
0 1.5mi 1.5mi
FIGURE 1-1 Regional Location Map
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Area
City Limit
Fresno County
Source: City of Fresno
FIGURE 1-1 Regional Location Map
FRESNO
CLOVIS
SANGER

PARLIER

REEDLEY
FOWLER
SELMA

MILLERTON LAKE
MADERA
COUNTY
TU
CO
41 41
168
41 99
41 99
180
99 43
168
180
145
KERMAN

FRESNO-CLOVIS

REGIONAL

WASTEWATER

RECLAMATION

FACILITY
0 1.5mi 1.5mi
FIGURE 1-1 Regional Location Map
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Area
City Limit
Fresno County
1-4 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan

WEST AVE

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C A L IFORN I A CT

DIVISADERO ST

TEILMAN AVE

MARKS AVE

MERCED ST

VAGEDES AV E
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

ATCHISON ST

MONTER EY ST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

OLEANDER AVE

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

ARTHUR AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

KEARNEY BLVD

NIELSEN AVE

BLACKSTONE AVE

BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE
H ST

BLOSSER AVE

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTA CLARA ST

HA B ITAT A VE

STROTHER AVE

GEORGE AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

ILA AVE

FAIRVIEW AVE

CALWA AVE
B ST

LORENA AVE

BURNS AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

ARTHUR AVE

BELG RAV IAAVE

DELNOAVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

DAN RONQU IL LO D R

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST
E

LEMON AVE

ONE IL AVE

GENEVA AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

CHINA ALY
F ST

EUNICE AVE

HOME RUN ALY
L ST

COLLINS AVE
S ST

A/B ALY

FAGAN ALY
Q ST

HAWESAVE

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

WAYTE LN

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

CHURCH AVE

GARRETT AVE

NAPA AVE

FLORENCE AVE

LOTUS AVE

VALENTINE AVE

T E IL M A N I C R

FARRIS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

PLEASANT AVE

MADISON AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

AIRPORT RD

LAFAYETTE AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

SAMSON AVE

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

VAN NESS AVE

HUGHES AVE

TRINITY ST

THORNE AVE

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

BARDELL ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE

LA S IERRA DR
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

M ADDY DR

PALM AVE

COL LEGE V/ A N NESS ALY

KIRK ST

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

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

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD
H

FRUIT AVE

WALNUT AVE

ELM AVE

UGHES AVE

HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

VALENTINE AVE ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

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

WEST AVE

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C A L IFORN I A CT

TEILMAN AVE

MERCED ST

VAGEDES AV E

ATCHISON ST

TUOLUMNE S
A ST

STANISL

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

BLOSSER AVE

AMADOR ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE
KERN

HA B ITAT A VE

STROTHER AVE
G

ILA AVE

FAIRVIEW AVE
CA
B ST

LORENA AVE
BURNS

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

BELG RAV IAAVE

DELNOAVE
E

LEMON AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

COLLINS AVE

HAWESAVE

WELLER ST

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE
BYRD

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

CHURCH AVE
GARR

FLORENCE AVE

T E IL M A N I C R

FARRIS AVE

MADISON AVE

AIRPORT RD

LAFAYETTE AVE
SAMS

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

HUGHES AVE

TRINITY ST

THORNE AVE

MODOC ST

CHANNING
WAY

BARDELL ST

POTTLE AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE

LA S IERRA DR

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE
NOR
ALM
RO

STEPHENS AVE

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

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD
H

FRUIT AVE

WALNUT AVE
U
G
HES A
VE
WEST A
VE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS A
VE

CALIFORNIA AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE
Chapter 1 | Plan Introduction 1-5
41 41
168
41 99
41 99
180
99 43
168
180
180
CSU
Fresno
Fresno Yosemite
International
Airport
Fresno
Chaffee
Zoo
Fresno
Chandler
Executive
Airport

DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS COMMUNITY PLAN

FULTON CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN

ELM AVENUE AREAWIDE

BROWNFIELDS PLAN
HWY 41 + NORTH CORRIDOR

DOWNTOWN NEI

FULTON CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN

SOUTHWEST FRESNO SPECIFIC PLAN

ELM AVENUE AREAWIDE

BROWNFIELDS PLAN
HWY 41 + NORTH CORRIDOR

COMPLETE STREETS PLAN
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
City Limit
Fulton Corridor Specific Plan Area
Elm Avenue Areawide
Brownfields Plan Area
Highway 41 + North Corridor
Complete Streets Plan Area Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan Area
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Area
FIGURE 1-3 Context Map
1-6 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
B. WHY PLAN SOUTHWEST
FRESNO?
Although Southwest Fresno is an area with strong
community identity and character, it is one of the
highest poverty and most environmentally-at-risk
areas in California. It ranks poorly statewide for
communities that are disproportionately burdened
by multiple sources of pollution, such as air
pollution, toxic sites, former landfills, and other
environmental pollutants, and with population
characteristics that make them more sensitive to
pollution.1
Many of these issues are related to
the disinvestment that the west part of Fresno
has suffered from since the early 1900s. Historically, racially discriminatory policies segregated ethnic communities to this part of Fresno. Quality
development in Southwest Fresno and some
other parts of Fresno was discouraged through
redlining. Redlining describes the process by which
financial institutions classified neighborhoods into
categories from most to least desirable, with red
colored areas indicating the areas that were least
desirable.2
As a result, west Fresno had difficulties
attracting quality development, and instead,
became a magnet for siting heavy industrial
facilities and low-cost housing.

Initially agricultural land, Southwest Fresno has
gradually transitioned with more residential, industrial, and commercial uses sprinkled throughout.

Today, Southwest Fresno is made up of a patchwork
of land uses that abut each other, including
subdivisions, industry, and farmland. For example,
many pockets of residential land uses are adjacent
to vacant land, agriculture, and/or industrial uses.

As a result, incompatible land uses are located near
one another, including noise or odor-producing
industrial facilities, land with hazardous materials,
as well as along truck routes. The area within the
City’s SOI contains a significant amount of vacant
land that is residentially designated, but the area
has not yet exhibited much market demand to
develop suburban neighborhoods with desired
commercial and retail services.
1 CalEnviroScreen Version 3.0, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency. 2 Diana Aguilera, “Rare Maps Reveal Fresno’s Overlooked History of Segregation,” Valley Public Radio News, October 27, 2015, http://kvpr.org/post/rare-maps-reveal-fresnos-overlooked-historysegregation#stream/0 (accessed April 13, 2017).

Industrial businesses are located in close proximity to residential neighborhoods.

Southwest Fresno’s housing stock is predominantly
single-family.

Much of Southwest Fresno is used for agricultural
purposes.

Chapter 1 | Plan Introduction 1-7

OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS
This Plan serves as the first major planning effort
and environmental review to focus on major issues
such as land use planning, development and
design, parks and open space, transportation, and
utilities for the Southwest Fresno area. However,
Southwest Fresno residents and stakeholders have
expressed a long-time interest in improving the
conditions of Southwest Fresno. Many previous
planning efforts and programs have helped set the
stage for the initiation of the Plan as described.

Planning-related Documents Adopted by
the City
■ Southwest Fresno General Neighborhood
Renewal Area Redevelopment Plan (1969).

The Southwest Fresno General Neighborhood
Renewal Area Redevelopment Plan (GNRA) was
adopted in 1969 and amended several times,
most recently in 2010. The GNRA project area
partially overlaps the Plan Area, including the
areas located between the Fresno Chandler
Executive Airport and Church Avenue as well
as the Elm and North Avenue corridors. The
purpose of the GNRA is to eliminate blight,
improve economic conditions, and ensure
development potential and growth within the
project area.
■ Edison Community Plan (1977). The Edison
Community Plan was adopted by the Fresno
City Council in 1977. The plan primarily
focuses on the underutilized portion of the
planning area, which is generally located
to the west of Golden State Boulevard and
south of West Belmont Avenue, and bounded
on the north and east by large industrial
concentrations and on the south and west
by agricultural areas. Historically, Southwest
Fresno suffered from racially discriminatory
deed restrictions, which were also practiced
outside the Southwest Fresno. Given its age,
the Edison Community Plan may not seem
as relevant. Surprisingly, some conditions in
the area have not changed. Over the years,
the ethnic composition has varied. Given the
discrepancies between physical conditions and
socio-economic development in the area, the
Edison Community Plan aimed to stimulate the
long-term balanced growth of the community
based on three objectives related to public
facilities improvements, housing, and economic
and employment development. Key areas for
change include the intersection of California
Avenue and Fresno Street/Walnut Avenue for
a new community center area and expanded
local commercial services; Elm Avenue for land
use, aesthetic, and economic improvements;
and the northern section of Fresno Street from
the proposed community center for centralized
office and professional services. Other areas
recommended for change identified in the
plan’s elements include the intersection of B
Street and Ventura Avenue for senior facilities
and the intersection of B and Stanislaus Streets
for more commercial services.
■ Fresno General Plan (2014). The Fresno
General Plan, adopted in 2014, establishes a
vision for the city and creates a set of policies
and implementation actions to achieve the
community’s vision. The Plan Area is identified
as “Development Area 1-South (DA-1 South)”
and only includes land within the city’s limits,
with the exception of the SOI land defined as
the MLK Activity Center. DA-1 South is adjacent
to established neighborhoods such as the
Downtown Planning Area to the north, the
South Industrial Area to the east, and adjacent
to Development Area 1-West (DA-1 West) to
the north. The SOI adjacent to the Plan Area
is called “Growth Area 1.” The General Plan
envisions “complete neighborhoods,” which
are neighborhoods that connect housing, jobs,
retail, recreation, and services, replacing the
current hodgepodge of industrial, agricultural,
and residential land-use patterns with
neighborhood-scale development. An example
of a complete neighborhood envisioned by
the General Plan is located along the future
California Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
corridor, anchored by a regional shopping
center and community park between Church
and Jensen Avenues along Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard. In addition to the emphasis
on complete neighborhoods, the City of
Fresno has worked with the Building Healthy
1-8 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Communities (BHC) campaign, which is led
by the California Endowment and strives to
provide disadvantaged communities with
equitable access to resources that improve
health. To support healthy community
initiatives, the General Plan provides land use
and urban design policies to increase access to
physical exercise and fresh food.
■ Citywide Development Code Update (2015).

The City recently updated the Citywide
Development Code, which addresses
development in all areas of the city and serves
as a vehicle that helps implement the goals,
objectives, and policies of the General Plan and
other operative plans. It functions as a precise
guide for the physical development of the City
that is in concert with the arrangement of
land uses identified in the General Plan. The
Citywide Development Code provides direction
on eleven types of districts: Buffer District,
Residential Single-Family Districts, Residential
Multi-Family Districts, Mixed-Use Districts,
Commercial Districts, Employment Districts,
Public and Semi-Public Districts, Planned
Development District, Bluff Protection Overlay
District, and Expressway Area Overlay District.

The Plan references the Citywide Development
Code for its development regulations and
design guidelines for the Plan Area.

Other Plans and Programs
While the plans and programs described below are
not adopted land use plans, they reflect the desires
of the Southwest Fresno community.
■ West Fresno Community Vision Plan (2003).

The West Fresno Community Vision Plan was
prepared bythe Local Government Commission
and Fresno West Coalition for Economic
Development (FWCED), which included a
charrette to develop the plan. About 300
people participated in the charrette to create
a shared vision for an improved quality of life
in West Fresno, including ideas about a more
walkable, livable, and economically viable
community. The plan includes village centers
with mixed uses, infill of vacant lots, blight
remediation, and traffic calming.
■ California Avenue Neighborhood Plan
(2003). The California Avenue Neighborhood
Plan was prepared by the Fresno Housing
Authority and builds upon the 2003 West
Fresno Community Vision Plan, focusing
on future growth, development, and
investment in West Fresno, particularly around
California and Walnut Avenues. The plan’s
implementation recommendations are grouped
into four categories: continuing community
engagement, private development, public
agency development, and public investment.

The plan provides design guidelines for
developers and recommends specific land use
changes, such as introducing mixed use and
higher density along California Avenue, green
buffers between residential and industrial
uses, and the designation of an activity center.

The plan identifies four catalyst projects that
would transform the neighborhood and bring
private development to the area. The plan
recommends specific street, streetscape,
pedestrian, and bicycle improvements,
as well as recreational and public facility
improvements.
■ West Fresno Asset Map Project (2009). In
2009, the City of Fresno, West Fresno Coalition
for Economic Development and the California
Endowment worked together to assess West
Fresno’s assets and create a five-year plan of
action. At the end of the process, a list of 20
actions were identified, which included fasttracking and coordinating new development, balancing affordable and market rate housing
development, and increasing mixed-use, infill
development, particularly on abandoned
properties; attracting businesses to the area
and building relationships with the existing
business community; improving financial
literacy and promoting higher education/
training for residents; increasing funding for
area schools and developing a new middle
school; coordinating and promoting social and
faith-based services to share resources and
avoid duplication; developing a health clinic;
and hosting events that promote the area’s
cultural diversity. Actions completed thus far
include construction of Gaston Middle School
and construction of a new health care facility
(Clinic Sierra Vista).

Chapter 1 | Plan Introduction 1-9
■ Action and Change (2013). Action and Change/
Acción y Cambio is a resident leadership group
for Southwest Fresno that works to identify the
top-most community priorities and conducts
surveys to assess the existing status of these
priorities, such as neighborhood safety and
economic success for residents.
■ Highway 41 + North Corridor Complete
Streets Plan (2015). The City recently
completed a Complete Streets Plan within
the Plan Area. The effort involves improving
the infrastructure in the Highway 41 and
North Corridor area and addressing current
conflicts between truck traffic and the area’s
neighborhoods. It identifies opportunities for
pedestrian, bicycle, and open space amenities.

The land use and circulation recommendations
from the plan are integrated into the
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan.

Future Planning Efforts
■ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Brownfields Elm Avenue Areawide Plan. The
City is commencing a planning process for Elm
Avenue, which falls primarily within the Plan
Area, to address three brownfield sites which
can serve as catalysts for redevelopment.
■ Industrial Land Use Compatibility Study.

This assessment will address concerns about
incompatible industrial and heavy commercial
land uses and zoning, particularly in south
Fresno neighborhoods, and their negative
health and environmental impacts on the
community. The goals of the project include
identifying incompatible land uses and zoning
with nearby residential land uses, making
recommendations for rezoning and facilities
which should be phased out or relocated,
discussing appropriate locations for these uses,
and identifying feasible mitigation measures
and greening opportunities to reduce their
negative impacts. The Industrial Land Use
Compatibility Study has been directed to be
completed within a year of the adoption of the
Plan’s land use map (see Chapter 3, Land Use,
Section D, Policy LU-8.5).

C. COMMUNITY

ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH
This section describes the existing conditions
of community health related to physical health,
community design, and the natural environment
in Southwest Fresno, and is in keeping with the
Healthy Communities Element in the Fresno
General Plan. Many of the Plan’s chapters touch
upon community health issues and provide
recommendations for improvement; however, this
section highlights how the Plan’s topics such as
land use, transportation, and public facilities relate
to and ultimately influence the community health
and well-being of Southwest Fresno residents.

This section includes a snapshot of the regulatory
framework, existing health conditions, key issues
that impact health, and the Plan’s goals and
policies that can improve the health of Southwest
Fresno residents.

EXISTING HEALTH CONDITIONS
Southwest Fresno residents have long experienced
poorer health than other places in California.

However, information documenting the health and
service needs of Southwest Fresno residents is
generally limited. Hospital community health needs
assessments were available only for a four-county
area and therefore of limited applicability to Southwest Fresno. In addition, the Fresno County Public Health Department could provide only limited data
until access to the California Department of Public
Health records is provided. The California Endowment’s BHC Initiative had data for its project area (Central, Southeast, and Southwest Fresno), while
the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) had
limited information on a zip code basis. As such,
this assessment relies on a variety of sources to
provide a health portrait for Southwest Fresno.

Tables 1-1 to 1-3 provide a summary of key health
indicators. Generally, adults and children within
Southwest Fresno experience poorer health conditions than residents of Fresno County and State of California. Adults have significantly higher rates of
diabetes, asthma, fair to poor health conditions,
1-10 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan

SOUTHWEST
FRESNO

CITY OF
FRESNO
FRESNO
COUNTY

STATE OF

CALIFORNIA
Diabetes: Adults Ever Diagnosed with Diabetes1 10.8% 8.3% 8.7% 8.4% Health Status: Percentage of Adults 18-64 in Fair
to Poor Health1 26.3% 22.5% 22.1% 17.9%
Obesity: Percentage of Adults 18-64 Who are
Obese1 31.8% 28.5% 29.1% 24.8%
Asthma: Percent of Adults 18+ Diagnosed with
Asthma1 16,7% 18.3% 17.9% 13.7%
TABLE 1-1 Health Profile of Southwest Fresno: Current Health Conditions of Adults Sources for Tables 8-1 to 8-3:

1. Source: California Health Interview Survey, Neighborhood Edition.

2. Source: California Attorney General Office, 2014; City of Fresno Police Department, 2014.

3. Source: American Community Survey, 2009-2013.
“N/A” indicates data not available.

SOUTHWEST
FRESNO

CITY OF
FRESNO
FRESNO
COUNTY

STATE OF

CALIFORNIA
Diabetes: Percentage of Children Diagnosed
with Diabetes1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Health Status: Percentage of Children in Fair to
Poor Health1 N/A 7.6% 8.0% 6.0%
Overweight: Percentage of Children Ages 12-17
Who are Overweight/Obese1 N/A 38.1% 37.1% 32.4%
Asthma: Percent of Children Ages 0-17 Diagnosed with Asthma1 N/A 21.2% 19.8% 15.4% TABLE 1-2 Health Profile of Southwest Fresno: Current Health Conditions of Children

SOUTHWEST
FRESNO

CITY OF
FRESNO
FRESNO
COUNTY

STATE OF

CALIFORNIA
Poverty: Percentage of Adults Living in Poverty1 34.1% 22.3% 19.9% 13.0% Poverty: Percentage of Children Living in Poverty1 54.0% 38.1% 35.0% 20.9% Smoking: Percentage of Adults Ages 18+ Who
Currently Smoke1 16.6% 16.3% 15.5% 13.8%
Smoking Among Children: Percentage of Children Who Currently Smoke1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Adults: Percentage of Adults Ages 18-64 Who are
Not Insured1 27.1% 22.3% 22.4% 21.4%
Children: Percentage of Children Who are Not
Insured1 N/A 8.4% 8.5% 4.2%
Violent Crimes per 100,000 Residents2 696 463 476 394
Property Crimes per 100,000 Residents2 3.226 4,148 3,407 2,459 Adults Ages 18+ Who Did Not Graduate from
High School or Receive a GED3 43.7% 24.7% 26.3% 18.7%
Population Ages 16+ Who were Unemployed
(2009-2013)3 17.8% 15.7% 14.5% 11.5%
TABLE 1-3 Health Profile of Southwest Fresno: Risk Factors Chapter 1 | Plan Introduction 1-11
and obesity. Although relatively little data is
available for youth, anecdotal evidence and limited
surveys show that children also experience poorer
health outcomes than their peers in the county and
California.

ISSUES
The aforementioned studies provide evidence
that the City and County of Fresno, and the San
Joaquin Valley as a whole, are known for a number
of conditions that are less conducive to health
and wellness. The physical way communities are
designed, the presence of environmental hazards
(air, water, and soil), the availability of health
care facilities and services, and other features all
combine to present significant challenges to health
and well-being. In Southwest Fresno, many of
these environmental and social features converge,
making it impractical and ineffective to isolate and
focus on singular contributors to health.

Addressing the health of Southwest Fresno
involves more than medical care. In fact, achieving
community health must also address underlying
social, economic, and environmental factors (often
referred to as “upstream influences”) within
communities. While some of these influences can
have an immediate impact on community health
(such as air pollution), other factors are long-term
and shape the choices or behaviors of community
members (such as accessible parks).

In response to the health concerns affecting people
across the nation, many cities have developed a
local healthy community program or implemented
specific policies to improve health and wellbeing.

Generally, a healthy community is one that offers
a positive physical, social, natural, and economic
environment that supports the health and wellbeing of all its members and enables them to live to their fullest potential.

A comprehensive healthy community framework
should include at least the following four areas, as
they each directly affect community environmental
health, described below and shown in Figure 1-4.
§ Natural Environment—where clean air, clean
water, and soil free from hazards provide a
healthful environment for residents of all ages
and the environment.
§ Community Design—where the type, location,
and quality of land uses, parks, housing,
and transportation are mutually designed to
support health.
§ Social Environment—where schools, homes,
workplaces, and communities support healthy
choices and the underlying conditions that
support health.
§ Health Care Access—where quality health
services and facilities are affordable, accessible,
and culturally appropriate for residents.

The following subsections describe Southwest
Fresno’s community health issues related to each
of the fields above. The Plan strives to address
these issues through specific goals and policies
and other regulations or guidelines in its chapters,
which are referenced after each sub-issue below
in orange. These goals and policies below work in
tandem with the Healthy Communities Element
in the Fresno General Plan and are intended to
help Southwest Fresno work towards becoming a
healthy community.

FIGURE 1-4 Healthy Community Framework
1-12 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Natural Environment
Environmental conditions are clearly linked to a
community’s health and well-being. This includes
the levels of air pollution, water pollutants,
hazardous wastes, pesticides released, waste
disposal sites, and other sources of pollution. The
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA), on behalf of the California Environmental
Protection Agency (CalEPA) has created the
CalEnviroScreen tool. This tool is designed to help
identify communities disproportionately burdened
by environmental pollution.

The Plan Area ranks as one of the most polluted
areas in California, scoring in the 90th to 99th
percentile statewide for communities statewide
that are disproportionately burdened by multiple
sources of pollution and with population characteristics that make them more sensitive to pollution.

Air pollution, toxic sites, former landfills, and
other environmental pollutants contribute to this
poor ranking. The Plan’s EIR will further document
environmental hazards and suggest remediation
in the Plan Area. A review of City documents,
“Cortese List,” and available databases revealed the
following concerns:
■ Air Pollution. According to the American Lung
Association, the Fresno-Madera region is one
of the more polluted regions in California,
and received a grade of “F” for air quality.

Although improvements have been made due
to regulations on diesel particulate matter and
other pollutants, Southwest Fresno ranks as
an area with some of the highest levels of air
pollution (ozone, particulate matter, and diesel
particulate matter among others) throughout
California. Air pollution is particularly a concern
for children, seniors, and people with poor
health.
■ Toxic Emissions. CalEnviroScreen ranks census
tracts according to the level and toxicity of
pollutants emitted by stationary sources
(industrial sources) throughout California. US
EPA uses a computer-based screening tool
called Risk Screening Environmental Indicators
(RSEI) that analyzes these releases to the air
and models potential toxic exposures. The RSEI
does not model actual exposures to residents
or sensitive receptors, only the presence
of chemical releases that are considered
unhealthful.
■ Groundwater Quality. The Fresno water
system is complex, with multiple sources,
treatment, and delivery methods. While
city drinking water meets the primary and
secondary standards for municipal use,
contaminants are present that must be
treated or removed prior to consumption. Of
the City’s 272 groundwater wells, 96 wells
are impacted by one contaminant plume,
33 wells are impacted by two contaminant
plumes, and five wells are impacted by three
contaminant plumes. Eight wells supply water
to Southwest Fresno. Nitrate contamination
is the most prevalent, but all eight wells meet
municipal water standards as noted above.

Nitrate contamination is caused by septic
tanks, wineries, major farming operations,
and agricultural chemical formulating plants.

Several areas in Southwest Fresno remain
unsewered.
■ Hazardous Sites. In Southwest Fresno, several
contaminated sites have released hazardous
materials that required remediation and
involvement by State and federal agencies. The
Fresno Sanitary Landfill is a federal Superfund
site. Hyde Park, Fresno Battery, Fresno Drum,
and Commercial Electroplaters are also the
sites of contamination and under remediation
plans. These sites have caused significant
underground water pollution requiring
State and federal response. In addition, the
Southwest Fresno area has had numerous
leaking underground storage tanks, but
cleanup activities have been completed to the
vast majority of the sites.

The Plan addresses Southwest Fresno’s polluted
natural environment through regulating incompatible land uses in Chapter 3, Land Use.

Chapter 1 | Plan Introduction 1-13
Community Design
Southwest Fresno is a neighborhood in transition.

Initially agricultural, this area is transitioning to
a greater number of residential uses, and as a
result, is abutting previously existing industrial and
commercial uses. The area contains a significant
amount of vacant residentially designated land
within the City’s SOI, but the area has not yet
exhibited much market demand to develop typical
suburban neighborhoods with desired commercial
and retail services. The area is characterized by a
patchwork of existing subdivisions, industry, and
farmland. Significant incompatible land uses are
located near one another, and truck routes bring
noise and diesel emissions to adjoining neighborhoods and cause conflicts between heavy vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists.

Some community design features that lead to
unhealthy outcomes are listed below:
■ Housing and Blighting Conditions. Stable,
healthy housing is a fundamental need and
is known to affect the health and well-being
of families and their children, including
educational outcomes and respiratory health,
among others. In Southwest Fresno, housing
was built primarily in the 1950s and 1960s,
prior to the phasing out of lead-based paint.

Four zip codes (93706, 93701, 93702, and
93706) were found to have significant leadbased paint hazards. In 2009, substandard homes and code enforcement have been
cited as critical issues. Finally, as part of the
citywide 2015-2019 consolidated plan process,
a need for effective code enforcement,
including code enforcement services and
code violations, was cited as a critical issue.

Southwest Fresno also experiences high levels
of blighting property conditions such as vacant,
boarded up buildings, poorly maintained
lots, and crumbling infrastructure. Blighting
property conditions are often related to poor
economic conditions within a community or
neighborhood that lead to disinvestment,
poorer social conditions and community
cohesion, lack of jobs and economic
opportunity, and public safety concerns
that affect the health, safety, and welfare of
residents or business.
■ Transportation. Transportation for many
Southwest Fresno residents is a significant
challenge. Approximately one in five
households do not own a car and depend on
transit, walking, or bicycling to travel to work
or run daily errands. However, much of the
area has limited sidewalks and bicycle facilities,
particularly on streets in or transitioning to
undeveloped or unincorporated areas. Most
collector streets also serve as truck routes,
and are generally not conducive to walking
or bicycling. Transit service is limited or not
available. Coupled with lack of trees and other
walking amenities, streets are not conducive to
active transportation. While there are limited
traffic accidents (e.g., about a dozen per year
with the majority resulting in minor injuries),
the overall condition of the transportation
infrastructure and transit services are likely an
impediment to active living. More information
about Southwest Fresno’s transportation
conditions can be found in Chapter 5,
Transportation.

Multi-modal street with sidewalks and a protected
bike lane.
1-14 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
education and job training, to secure employment
with living wages that allow self-sufficiency, and
to feel safe within a neighborhood. The lack of
any of these choices can diminish the potential for
individuals and families to enjoy healthy lives. The
following factors can impede healthy lifestyles:
■ Limited Food and Beverage Choices. Poor
health is often due to the inability to afford
or access healthy food. Poor diet can lead
to poor mental health, chronic disease, and
premature death. Approximately 21 percent
of Southwest Fresno adults are food insecure,
which is significantly above the state average
(8.4 percent) and that of Fresno County (14.7
percent). Poor diet is also in part due to poor
access to healthy foods. Southwest Fresno is
considered a food desert, defined as a large
or isolated area in which grocery stores are
absent or distant. Only one large discount
grocer, supplemented by neighborhood
convenience and liquor stores, serve
Southwest Fresno. Although the area has a few
community gardens, these gardens can only
provide limited amounts of fresh food.
■ Low Education Attainment, Household
Income, and Poverty. Educational levels are
a significant predictor of income and the
ability to make healthier choices, including
diet, exercise, medical care, and other choices
that support health. In Southwest Fresno, 45
percent of residents age 25 and older have not
completed high school. Only seven percent
have earned a college degree. At the local
school level, Edison High’s three-year average
Academic Performance Index is approximately
760, which is below the state standard of 800.

Several elementary schools score in the high
600s, well below the statewide standard of
800. These elementary and secondary school
academic indicators indicate a need for greater
academic achievement among children and
youth living in Southwest Fresno. Education is
often correlated with income. Higher income
levels enable families to make healthy choices.

These include living in safer and wellmaintained housing, affording higher levels of health insurance, purchasing healthier foods,
Neighborhood park as community gathering space.
■ Park and Recreational Facilities. Southwest
Fresno has significant park acreage in total.

However, when the 123-acre fee-based
Regional Sports Complex is excluded, the
acreage of free local parks is significantly
smaller. The lack of sidewalks, bicycle lanes,
trees, and proximity to industry make some
parks inaccessible. Several elementary schools
in Southwest Fresno provide structured
after-school programs that address recreational
needs. In aggregate, there is still a need for
parks. More information about Southwest
Fresno’s parks conditions can be found in
Chapter 6, Public Facilities.

In response to these conditions, the Plan addresses housing quality and blight remediation in Chapter 3, Land Use. The Plan promotes active
transportation in Chapter 5, Transportation.

Chapter 5, Transportation, also addresses rerouting truck traffic, promotes complete streets, and addresses pedestrian and vehicle conflicts. The
Plan addresses park conditions and amenities
in Chapter 6, Public Facilities. Chapter 6, Public
Facilities, also addresses access to parks and
their proximity to residential neighborhoods, and
addresses natural landscape.

Social Environment
Lifestyle choices have an important role in healthy
outcomes. These choices include the ability and
means to choose healthy foods, to obtain quality
Chapter 1 | Plan Introduction 1-15
and making other choices that promote better
health and well-being. Southwest Fresno has
long been a low-income area. More than one
in three adults live in poverty and the median
household income is $26,711. More than
40 percent of households are estimated to
depend on Cal-Fresh food subsidies. Compared
to county and state averages, Southwest
Fresno is considered severely disadvantaged
based on household income and criteria under
Senate Bill 535 for disadvantaged communities.

With high unemployment rates, economic
development and job opportunities remain
important goals.
■ Crime and Safety. One significant investment
disincentive that community leaders point to in
Southwest Fresno is the presence of crime and
violence, particularly gang and drug-related
crime. In 2014, Fresno recorded a crime rate of
463 violent crimes and 4,148 property crimes
per 100,000 people. In Southwest Fresno, the
violent crime rate was 50 percent higher (696
violent crimes per 100,000 residents) while
property crime was 22 percent lower (3,226
crimes per 100,000 people) than in Fresno.

Compared to the 15 other incorporated places
in Fresno County, six cities in the county have
violent crime rates higher than Southwest
Fresno. Southwest Fresno residents also
mentioned that drug possession and sales
were commonplace; however, no statistics are
available that would accurately represent the
relative level of drug possessions and sales
within the community.

In response to these social factors, Chapter 3,
Land Use, addresses access to fresh, affordable,
and nutritious foods. Specific development
regulations contained in Chapter 4, Development
Regulations, allow healthy food grocers throughout the Plan Area. Chapter 6, Public Facilities, addresses educational, vocational, and youth
support. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles are contained in Chapter 4, Development Regulations, and provide
guidance on property design and effective use of
the built environment that can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime.

Community garden.

Farmers’ market stands with fresh and local produce.

Small pop-up grocer offering local fruits, juices, and
other fresh goods.
1-16 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Health Care Access
Access to medical facilities and services is essential
for obtaining preventive health care. Historically,
Southwest Fresno residents have had few options
for accessing medical facilities. The area had a
shortage of services, including mental health, nursing, and primary care for its medically underserved population.

Today, the situation has changed with improvements in services, although barriers still exist to obtaining appropriate care. The following summarizes the current availability and accessibility of health care facilities and services:
■ Hospital Access. No public hospitals are in
Fresno that offer low-cost health care services
to the indigent. Community Regional Medical
Center, located two miles northeast from
Southwest Fresno, is the closest for-profit
hospital. This medical facility continues to
expand in its service capacity and the range
of medical services provided. However, the
facility is still a private hospital facility, and not
a public hospital geared for serving the needs
of lower income and/or immigrant populations
living in Southwest Fresno.
■ Access to Low-Cost Clinics. Access to
community health clinics has significantly
improved in recent years. Southwest Fresnans
have multiple choices to access medical
care: Easton Community Health Center, Elm
Community Health Center (Clinic Sierra Vista),
and West Fresno Community Health Center,
among others. Gaston Middle School also has
an on-site health clinic. These facilities have
significantly improved access to preventive
health care.
■ Health Organizations. Southwest Fresno
residents are served by other health and
social service organizations. One such group
is the West Fresno Family Resource Center.

Its mission is to empower and support the
community in achieving optimal health and
well-being through outreach, education,
engagement, counseling and advocacy, and
health and social service programs. Centro La
Familia and other similar service agencies serve
the health and welfare needs of low income
residents in Southwest Fresno.

Despite improvements in the number and breadth
of health services in Southwest Fresno, the need
for preventive care is still great. Southwest Fresno
residents still experience high levels of preventive
chronic and episodic health conditions. One in four
residents and nearly half of all noncitizens lack basic health insurance. The lack of insurance is often related to delayed medical care and emergency
room visits. Many residents still experience poorer
health outcomes, underscoring the importance of
not only providing health facilities and services, but
also addressing the upstream influences of health.

Chapter 6, Public Facilities, addresses health care
access.

Community Regional Medical Center at Illinois Avenue
and Clark Street in Fresno.

Elm Community Health Center (Clinic Sierra Vista)
provides services to Southwest Fresnans.

Chapter 1 | Plan Introduction 1-17
D. SOUTHWEST FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN

COMMUNITY

ENGAGEMENT
The outreach and participation for the planning
process has been multifaceted and extensive. As of
February 25, 2017, there have been fourteen Steering Committee meetings, approximately ten topic group meetings, and four community workshops.

All meetings were open to the public and noticed
accordingly in English and Spanish. The last three
Steering Committee meetings and workshop have
been a part of a supplementary phase of engagement. A community office was established in a vacant storefront in the Marcus Center at Martin
Luther King Jr. Boulevard and California Avenue as
a convenient venue for community members to
meet and provide input on the Plan. The various
components of the outreach process are described
as follows.

STEERING COMMITTEE
A 21-member Steering Committee made up of
neighborhood residents, business owners, developers, youth, and other stakeholders appointed by City Councilmember Oliver Baines at the beginning
of the planning process, played a crucial advisory
role for the Plan’s development. Community
organizations were represented on the Committee,
including Habitat for Humanity, Action and Change,
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability,
the Fresno Housing Authority, Centro Binacional
para el Desarrollo Indígena Oaxaqueño, the
Economic Development Corporation, Caltrans, and
the Fresno Metro Black Chamber of Commerce.

Washington Union School District as well as the
State Center Community College District were
also represented. The Committee’s task was to
understand the desires of the community (as
expressed at the community workshops and topic
group meetings) and apply their own knowledge
as stakeholders to the development of the Plan’s
land use map. Every Steering Committee meeting
was publicly noticed and attendance by community
members welcomed. Steering Committee and project team after the Planning Commission’s approval of the Plan’s land use map.

The Steering Committee was represented by members
from different organizations.

Steering Committee members working together in
small groups.
1-18 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan

COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS
The initial phase of the planning process included
three community workshops, held on September
15 and October 13, 2015, and on February 16,
2016. They were attended by approximately 125,
70, and 60 people, respectively. The tasks at the
workshops were to identify the community’s vision
and issues and ultimately select a land use concept
that would guide the development of the Plan’s
land use map, which forms the basis of the Plan.

TOPIC GROUPS
Topic groups were organized by Steering Committee members. Members of the public were invited to provide input on the issues that surfaced at the
first community workshop. The majority of topic
group meetings were held at the community office
during the period between the first and third community workshops. The topic groups established were the following, and several of them met more
than once:
■ Housing
■ Neighborhood-serving Retail
■ Parks and Open Space
■ Jobs and Economic Development
■ Community Environmental Health
■ Transportation
■ Industrial Compatibility

COMMUNITY OFFICE
A community office was established in a vacant
storefront in the Marcus Center at 858 E. California
Avenue at Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and
California Avenue to facilitate community input
of various forms. In addition to the topic group
meetings held in the office, a youth art-making
workshop and a produce market event were also
held.

OUTREACH METHODS
Prior to the first community workshop, a bilingual
flyer was mailed to all property owners and
residents in and beyond the Plan Area, including
those within SOI boundary, inviting recipients to all
three community workshops. Postcard reminders
were mailed prior to each workshop. A webpage
was established at www.fresno.gov/southwestplan,
providing public access to public meeting materials
such as agendas, presentations, summaries, and
other important documents. An email list was
created with all interested stakeholders, including
all workshop attendees and anyone else who
requested to be added to the list.

Steering Committee members facilitated conversations
on different topics related to Southwest Fresno.

Community workshop at Gaston Middle School.

Community members working together to help identify
preferred land uses for Southwest Fresno.

Chapter 1 | Plan Introduction 1-19
E. PLAN STRUCTURE AND

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

1. Introduction. This chapter defines a Specific
Plan and explains its purpose, provides a
brief narrative about Southwest Fresno’s
history and its context, explains the Specific
Plan’s relationship to previous and future
planning efforts, and provides a summary of
the planning process and outreach efforts.

This chapter also describes the existing
conditions of community environmental
health related to physical health, community
design, and the natural environment in
Southwest Fresno, providing a snapshot of
the regulatory framework, existing health
conditions, and key issues that impact
health. The community environmental
health section also calls out specific chapters
in the Plan that address and strive to
improve these existing health issues.

2. Vision. This chapter describes the
visioning process that culminated into the
development of the Plan’s conceptual vision
and land use map. Guiding principles for
various topics, including housing, retail,
parks and open space, jobs and economic
development, transportation, and industrial
compatibility, helped shape the Plan’s vision.

3. Land Use. This chapter describes the land
uses that make up the Plan Area. It also
provides the anticipated development
capacity from these land uses over the
25-year horizon of the Plan for new singlefamily and higher-density housing units, retail, office, parks, schools, and other public
facilities.

4. Development Regulations. This chapter
notes where zoning in the Plan Area differs
from the Citywide Development Code. It
provides development and design standards
for the Kearney Boulevard Historic Overlay
and the California Avenue Mixed-Use
Corridor Overlay. It describes the objectives
of three special corridors, two magnet cores,
and complete neighborhood nodes. And
finally, it includes a section on CPTED.

5. Transportation. This chapter describes
improvements for pedestrian, transit, auto,
truck, and bicycle circulation throughout
the area and to adjacent neighborhoods,
including Downtown, the Fresno Area
Express (FAX) bus terminal, and the future
High-Speed Rail (HSR) station. The chapter
also provides complete streets design
standards that will promote walkability and
livability in the Plan Area.

6. Public Facilities. This chapter describes the
existing context for public facilities within
the Plan Area and identifies the Plan’s
proposed public facility improvements.

Public facilities include existing parks, new
parks, new K to 12 schools within complete
neighborhoods, and a new community
college within the MLK Activity Center.

7. Utilities. This chapter summarizes utility
infrastructure needs in the Plan Area for wet
utilities such as water supply, wastewater,
storm system, and recycled water use, as
well as dry utilities such as electrical, fiber
optic and gas systems.

8. Implementation. The final chapter outlines
a strategy to implement the Plan’s vision,
which includes identifying the public
improvements, responsible parties, and
funding sources necessary to implement the
Plan. The chapter also addresses specific
strategies for economic development,
including homeownership, business
development, education, training, and retail
anchor tenant recruitment.
1-20 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Youth recorded down their desires for Southwest
Fresno on paper.

The community office acted as a space for youth to
share their ideas about Southwest Fresno.

Art created by youth at the community office.

Ideas from topic groups were recorded on maps and
worksheets.

Topic groups met at a local community office to
continue their discussions from the community workshop.

Community members sharing thoughts about the
incompatibility of industrial uses in Southwest Fresno.

Chapter 2 | Vision 2-1
VISION
A. INTRODUCTION
Southwest Fresno is an area with a great amount
of potential that has yet to be tapped. The
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Area (Plan Area)
is made up of large swaths of developable land
and the surrounding Sphere of Influence (SOI)
contains miles of green fields. The Southwest
Fresno Specific Plan’s (the Plan) long-term vision
for Southwest Fresno imagines all of these areas
to become places where people live, play, work,
and learn. Southwest Fresno would become its
own vibrant set of communities and be wellconnected to Downtown, strengthening the overall image and livability of the city.

The vision behind the Plan was developed in
collaboration with the community in Southwest
Fresno and the Steering Committee. After com-
munity members shared initial input about the
issues and opportunities for Southwest Fresno
during the first workshop, many of the workshop
attendees participated in follow-up meetings
to continue their discussion on specific topics
in the form of “topic groups.” Through these
topic group meetings, ideas and themes about
each topic emerged and were refined by the
Steering Committee. These themes culminated
into guiding principles that were used for the
development of the Plan and the Plan’s land use
map. The vision defines all physical-, program-,
and policy-related aspects of the Plan described
in this chapter and for all following chapters. 2
2-2 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
B. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The guiding principles below are categorized by
each of the community’s initial working topic
groups and were used to develop the Plan’s
recommendations. The topic of “community
environmental health” is an overarching theme
that is relevant throughout the six topics below.

The purpose of these guiding principles is to
provide the Plan direction on how it can best
benefit the built environment of the community
and promote physical, social, and mental wellness for Southwest Fresnans.

HOUSING
■ Provide a mix of high quality housing types,
with an emphasis on single-family housing,
that is affordable to a mix of low, moderate,
and high-income households.
■ Encourage new housing that is compatible
with the community character and historic
architecture of Southwest Fresno.
■ Locate housing close to amenities such as
parks, schools, transit, services, retail, and
employment.

RETAIL
■ Attract desired and needed retail to serve
Southwest Fresno residents, such as clothing
and department stores, restaurants, healthy
grocers, and services.
■ Discourage the expansion of potentially
controversial retail establishments such as
liquor stores, tobacco shops, and short-term
loan shops, without consideration of unique
impacts to the community and imposition of
any appropriate conditions.
■ Provide both large-scale, regional-serving
retail and smaller-scale, neighborhoodserving retail at appropriate locations in Southwest Fresno.

High quality single-family housing in walkable
neighborhoods.

Park and landscaped open space in close proximity
to housing.

Mixed-use retail.

Chapter 2 | Vision 2-3

PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
■ Refine the standard for what is defined as
“parkland” to include truly usable parks, as
opposed to standards that include unusable
spaces in ponding basins or parkland located
on landfill or toxic sites.
■ Prioritize improving existing parks with better
and more amenities.
■ Create parks that are safe, healthy, social,
and active spaces for residents, especially
families and youth, to visit.
■ Locate new parks within walking distance of
all residences.

JOBS AND ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT
■ Prepare, mentor, and train Southwest Fresno
residents, including youth, to become better
qualified for existing and future employment
within Southwest Fresno by providing
appropriate services, programs, and facilities.
■ Locate employment uses so that they do not
conflict with residential areas, but are still
conveniently accessible by various modes of
transportation.
■ Attract desirable employment to Southwest
Fresno by locating them near retail and
regional access points.
■ Encourage future job opportunities to shift
from unskilled, low-wage jobs to skilled,
higher-education jobs.

Improvements to the public realm with pedestrian
amenities.

Plazas and open space with special amenity areas.

Offices with tree-lined parking areas and internal
pedestrian pathways.
2-4 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan

TRANSPORTATION
■ Accommodate both motorized and nonmotorized modes of travel and people of all ages and abilities to improve mobility/
transportation within Southwest Fresno.
■ Locate transit on routes near residential
areas and provide access to desired
destinations.
■ Include opportunities for recreational
walking and biking.
■ Provide visible, complete, safe, and regularly
maintained transportation infrastructure,
such as roads, crosswalks, sidewalks, and
traffic lights.
■ Connect to and expand access to regional
transportation networks such as Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT), Fresno Area Express (FAX), and
High-speed Rail (HSR).

INDUSTRIAL COMPATIBILITY
■ Monitor and mitigate negative impacts of
industrial uses from becoming a nuisance
and hazard to residents.
■ Restrict the proximity of industrial
development and truck routes near
residential areas.
■ Locate new industrial development
away from Southwest Fresno residential
neighborhoods.
■ Increase transparency and communication
between government staff, government and
elected officials, residents, and stakeholders
regarding proposed industrial uses and/or
improvements.

Bicycle Improvements along a residential street.

Pedestrian-friendly, community-serving retail with
pedestrian crossing.

Landscaped sidewalks and outdoor seating at
building frontages.

Chapter 2 | Vision 2-5
C. SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE VISION
“The Southwest Fresno community is supported by two higher intensity cores near major highway interchanges, each with a primary magnet use.

These magnet cores are ringed with smaller complete neighborhoods that support the core. Each complete neighborhood includes housing and a node with community-serving uses. Neighborhoods are linked by welldefined corridors lined with higher intensity uses.” The guiding principles described in the previous
section, Section B, helped shape the conceptual
vision for the Plan and the Plan’s land use map. A
conceptual vision diagram of the Plan is shown in
Figure 2-1. The Plan’s land use map envisions the
interplay of “complete neighborhoods,” “corridors,” and “magnet cores” to create a vibrant and desirable community that is accessible to
and abundant with neighborhood amenities and
services, supported by local and neighboring
residents. The Plan sets aside the majority of
land for single-family residential uses and locates
higher density residential uses at some neighborhood nodes, near magnet uses, and along corridors. This will allow walkable access for greater numbers of residents to shopping, schools, parks,
and transit, such as buses and BRT.

Additionally, the Plan envisions that the most
optimal locations for large-scale, regional-serving
retail are those that have good proximity, visibility, and access from the greatest number of people, while having enough distance away from
other similar retail to avoid competition. In the
Plan, regional retail is shown in two locations:
with access from Highway 180 at Marks and
Whites Bridge Avenues and from Highway 41
near Jensen Avenue and MLK Jr. Boulevard. These
locations would allow new retail businesses to
draw customers from areas beyond Southwest
Fresno. On the other hand, smaller scale
neighborhood retail shops can be more dispersed
as long as they are located along well-traveled
streets. In the Plan, smaller neighborhood retail
locations are shown in each of the complete
neighborhood nodes and along corridors with
mixed use.

Larger scale employment uses such as offices,
colleges, and medical facilities are concentrated
in higher-intensity corridors, while opportunities
for smaller scale offices are allowed along a less
intensive corridor (the Mixed-Use/Jobs Corridor).

While more jobs in Southwest Fresno are desirable, the businesses that provide them must be healthy, safe, and good neighbors to nearby
residents to avoid potential conflicts between
residents and employment uses. To assure this
good neighbor policy, new employment areas
would be planned and zoned Office and all previously Light Industrial, Heavy Industrial, Business Park, and Regional Business Park areas would be
planned and zoned Office.

The concepts of complete neighborhoods,
corridors, and magnet cores are described in
further detail starting on page 2-7. Chapter 4,
Development Regulations, provides guidance on
how to implement these concepts.
2-6 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Neilson
Park
Ponding
Basin/
Park FF
Ponding
Basin/
Park TT2
41 180
41 180
99 99
Regional
Sports
Complex
Hyde
Park
Neilson
Park
Mary Ella
Brown Community Center
Chandler
Park
West
Fresno
Middle
School
West
Fresno
Elementary
School
WEB Dubois Public Charter School
Rutherford B. Gaston Middle School
Kirk Elementary Anchor Academy School Charter School
Edison
High
School
King Elementary
School
Lincoln
Elementary
School
Bethune
Elementary
School
Sunset
Elementary
School
Pershing
Continuation
High School
Big Picture
High School
Columbia
Elementary
School
Elm Community Health
Center
Community
Regional
Medical Center
Veteran’s
Housing
Complex
e
Fresno Chandler
Executive Airport

DOWNTOWN

KEARNEY BLVD

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD

FRESNO ST

WEST AVE

CHURCH AVE

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

FIG AVENUE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

VALENTINE AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ELM AVENUE

NORTH AVE

CHERRY AVENUE

HUGHES AVE

CENTRAL AVE

0.25mi 0 0.25mi
City limit
Sphere of Influence
Plan Area
County Land
Magnet Core
Complete
Neighborhood
Bus Rapid Transit Line
MAGNET
FIGURE 2-1 Conceptual Vision for Southwest Fresno
Regional Retail Corridor
Regionally-serving retail with
higher-density housing
Historic Corridor
Larger single-family
houses with small-scaled
commercial
Mixed-Use Corridor
Ground-floor retail with
higher-density housing
above and around
Jobs Corridor
Offices and business parks with
higher-density housing and
commercial
Mixed-Use and Jobs
Corridor
Office uses and ground-floor retail
with higher-density housing above

CORRIDORS
HSR
FAX
MAGNET
MAGNET
BRT
S.F. HOUSING

REGIONAL
RETAIL

COMMUNITY

COLLEGE

ACTIVITY CENTER
JOBS H.D. HOUSING
NEW
PARK
NBHD.

RETAIL

EXPANDED
PARK
NBHD.

RETAIL
H.D.

HOUSING
NBHD.

PARK
SUPER
MARKET
H.D. HOUSING
NBHD.

PARK
NBHD.

RETAIL H.D. HOUSING
S.F.

HOUSING

NEW SCHOOL
NBHD.

RETAIL
H.D. HOUSING
S.F.

HOUSING
NBHD.

PARK
NBHD.

RETAIL
H.D. HOUSING

REGIONAL

RETAIL JOBS
SUPER

MARKET MEDICAL
FACILITY H.D. HOUSING
S.F.

HOUSING

NEW SCHOOL
NBHD.

RETAIL EXPANDED
PARK
JOBS
NEW NBHD. SCHOOL
PARK
H.D. HOUSING
NBHD.

RETAIL
S.F.

HOUSING
S.F.

HOUSING
JOBS
JOBS
NBHD.

RETAIL NEW SCHOOL
NBHD.

PARK
H.D. S.F. HOUSING

HOUSING
NBHD.

PARK
NBHD.

PARK
FIGURE 2-1 Conceptual Vision for Southwest Fresno
Chapter 2 | Vision 2-7
Complete neighborhoods are self-sufficient with
housing and parkland nearby.

COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS
The concept of a complete neighborhood is
adopted from the General Plan. The General Plan
introduced the concept of complete neighborhoods to break away from Fresno’s typical development pattern of separating residential
and retail areas, and instead, to create neighborhoods that are interconnected and self-sufficient.

Complete neighborhoods foster communities
that have housing, services, employment, and
recreation all within walking distance (see Figure
2-2). Each complete neighborhood should
uniquely reflect its community’s values and
character, and serve the particular needs of its
residents.

A series of small, complete neighborhoods will
make up the Southwest Fresno area. Each of
the complete neighborhoods should contain a
center, or node, made up of community-serving
uses, including retail, a range of housing types,
a school, and a park. Existing or new singlefamily residences should surround the node and be within a reasonable walking distance of a
quarter-mile of the node.

FIGURE 2-2 Conceptual Diagram of Development within a Complete Neighborhood 1/4 Mile
a range of housing
types in each
neighborhood, with a
preference for
single-family housing
joint-use park facilities
with schools for public use
neighborhood
services and
amenities, clustered
at neighborhood
center
neighborhoods
centered around
the intersection
of two major
streets
Retail
Housing
School
Park
1/4 Mile
a range of housing
types in each
neighborhood, with a
preference for
single-family housing
joint-use park facilities
with schools for public use
neighborhood
services and
amenities, clustered
at neighborhood
center
neighborhoods
centered around
the intersection
of two major
streets
Retail
Housing
School
Park
2-8 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan

CORRIDORS
Corridors are key streets that are lined with higher, more intensive development and have multimodal improvements such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities (see Figure 2-3). Development located further away from the corridor would be less intensive, such as single-family housing. Due to each corridor’s surrounding context and physical characteristics, not all corridors are lined with the same type of higher intensity development or have the same types of improvements. Some corridors are retail-focused, while others are employment- or residential-focused. Additionally, the Mixed-Use Corridor along the future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line, California Avenue, would also have BRT facilities in order to improve BRT connectivity from Southwest Fresno to Downtown.
single-family housing
located outside of
corridors
1/4 Mile
higher-intensity uses such
as higher-density housing
and mixed use clustered
along and around corridor
neighborhoods
can contain
multiple
corridors
Retail
Higher-density housing
Single-family housing
Corridor
Park
School
Mixed use
FIGURE 2-3 Conceptual Diagram of Development along a Corridor Chapter 2 | Vision 2-9
There are several existing major corridors in
Southwest Fresno that should be enhanced to
become locations for vehicular access and bus
service in the future so that new development
along these corridors will benefit from these
transportation connections. The corridors identified in the Plan each have a different emphasis based on the existing character of the street,
including:

Historic Corridor
The historic Kearney Boulevard will be
enhanced with landscaping and lined with
larger-scale single-family residential development as well as lower-intensity office uses.

Regional Retail Corridor
This corridor will be along Whites Bridge
Avenue with regional-serving, big box retail,
housing, and parks.

Mixed-Use Corridor
California Avenue will become a mixed-use
corridor with active ground-floor communityserving stores and services below housing or office and connected to Downtown Fresno
with a future BRT line.

Jobs Corridor
This corridor will be home to office uses and
housing along Jensen Avenue and connect
the magnet core west of Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard to Highway 41.

Mixed-Use/Jobs Corridor
Elm Avenue will feature community-serving
shops and a diverse mix of office, jobs,
housing, and commercial services and could
potentially have enhanced transit service
improvements in the future to connect
the southern portion of the Plan Area to
Downtown.

Pedestrian-oriented entries along a mixed-use corridor.

Office space along a jobs corridor.
2-10 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan

MAGNET CORES
Magnet cores each contain a high intensity
magnet use that attracts other supportive higher
intensity uses. Examples of magnet uses include
regional retail development, a medical facility, or
a community college. Higher intensity uses such
as higher-density housing, community parks,
offices, and retail cluster around magnets, forming a magnet center or “core” (see Figure 2-4).

The magnet core’s high intensity uses create an
activity center that not only serves residents, but
also attracts visitors. Development further away
from the magnet core is at a lower intensity, such
as single-family housing, but still surrounds the
magnet core for convenient accessibility. The
proposed locations for magnet cores in the Plan
will serve different parts of Southwest Fresno and
would be accessible to regional travelers.

The southern magnet core is proposed between
Jensen and Church Avenues, west of MLK Jr.

Boulevard. This area is identified as the “MLK
Activity Center” in the General Plan and proposes
a regional shopping center and higher density
neighborhood district. The community-preferred
magnet use for the MLK Activity Center is a community college campus. While it is not certain that a community college campus in Southwest
Fresno will be funded and built, there has been
discussion about this possibility with the State
Center Community College District’s Board. Other
uses could also serve as magnet uses to attract
development, including large-scale retail, medical
clinics, or campuses. The Plan proposes a set of
flexible uses at this location to accommodate any
of these uses.

The northern magnet core is located at Marks
and Whites Bridge Avenues where there is both
access from Highway 180 and from existing and
new residential development in the western part
of the Plan Area. This magnet core is anticipated
to be developed with regional retail uses and
medical facilities accessible to both travelers on
Highway 180 and residents of the Southwest
neighborhood.

College magnet use.

Supermarket anchor in a regional retail center.

Chapter 2 | Vision 2-11
magnet core with
higher-intensity uses
such as a community
college, park,
employment, and
regional retail
magnet core ringed
with primarily
single-family housing
1/ 4 Mile
existing
residential
housing
existing
school
Retail
Employment
Higher-density housing
Single-family housing
Park
School
College
Mixed Use
FIGURE 2-4 Conceptual Diagram of Development around a Magnet Core 2-12 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Chapter 3 | Land Use 3-1

LAND USE
A. INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes the land use elements
and describes the urban form of the Southwest
Fresno Specific Plan (the Plan), which reflects the
Steering Committee’s and community’s preferred
land use alternative for future development in the
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Area (Plan Area).

The locations of the various land uses were selected and refined by the Steering Committee in order to support the type of community described in the
Plan’s vision (see Chapter 2, Vision). The Plan’s land
use map should be considered the physical “vision”
for the area and the underlying foundation for the
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan.

The Chapter is organized into the following
sections:

A. Introduction
B. Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Land
Uses
C. Development Capacity Analysis
D. Goals and Policies
3 3-2 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
B. SOUTHWEST FRESNO

SPECIFIC PLAN LAND
USES
Figure 3-1 shows the overall planned land uses for
the Southwest Fresno area, including the Sphere
of Influence (SOI) outside of the Plan Area as well
as the conceptual overlays from Chapter 2’s Figure
2-1. The conceptual overlays show how the Plan’s
vision of corridors, magnet cores, and complete
neighborhoods relates to Southwest Fresno’s land
uses. The land uses in the SOI that are shown
Figure 3-1 are for reference and future planning
purposes since the Plan only affects the land within
the Plan Area. Figure 3-2 shows the Plan’s land use
map, which contains only lands within the Plan
Area. Consistent with the Fresno General Plan
(General Plan), new parks, open space, and public
facilities carry dual land use designations, so if that facility is not needed, alternative private or public
development consistent with zoning and development standards may be approved. These dual land use designations are shown in Figure 3-3.

LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS
The following land uses make up the Plan Area
and are categorized by residential, employment,
commercial, public facilities, and open space uses.

Many of the following land use classifications’
descriptions, including their floor area ratio (FAR)
and dwelling units per acre densities, are cited
from the General Plan’s land use classifications. The
Plan introduces a few new land use designations
that provide more specific conditions for existing
land use classifications, which are described in
further detail below.

Residential
Residential land uses provide for a wide range of
neighborhoods and housing types.

Low Density
This designation is intended to provide for large-lot
residential development. Low Density Residential
allows one to 3.5 housing units per acre. The
resulting land use pattern is large-lot residential
in nature, such as rural residential, ranchettes, or
estate homes.

Medium Low Density housing as single-family detached
housing.

Medium Density housing includes duplexes and
townhouses as well as single-family homes.

Medium High Density housing includes townhomes that
can accommodate multi-generational living.

Chapter 3 | Land Use 3-3
41 41
180
99 99
MAGNET
MAGNET

WEST AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C ALIFORNIA CT TEILMAN AVE

JENSEN AVE VAGEDESAVE ATCHISON ST

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

NIELSEN AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE

BLOSSER AVE

GEORGEAVE

ILA AVE

CALWA AVE

LORENA AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

BELG RAVIAAVE

DELNOAVE

HAWESAVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

GARRETT AVE

FLORENCEAVE

TE ILMAN I C R

PLEASANT AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

LAFAYETTE AVE

SAMSON AVE

FRUIT AVE

THORNE AVE

BARDELL ST

LA SIERRADR

ELM AVE

KIRK ST

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

ROEDING DR

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

DIVISADERO ST

MERCED ST
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

MONTEREYST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

BLACKSTONE AVE BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE
H ST

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTACLARA ST

STROTHER AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

FAIRVIEW AVE
B ST

ARTHUR AVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST

LEMON AVE

ONEILAVE

GENEVA AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

CHINA ALY F ST

EUNICE AVE

HOME RUN ALY
L ST

COLLINS AVE
S ST

A/B ALY

FAGAN ALY
Q ST

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

WAYTE LN

NAPA AVE

LOTUS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

AIRPORT RD

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

WALNUT AVE

VAN NESS AVE

TRINITY ST

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

MADDY DR

PALM AVE

OC LL GE E V/ ANNESSALY

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

FARRIS AVE

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

VALENTINE AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

ELM AVE

HUGHES AVE HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

VALENTINE AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

CENTRAL AVE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE

RESIDENTIAL EMPLOYMENT

MIXED-USE

PUBLIC FACILITIES OPEN SPACE

COMMERCIAL
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
O Office
Office Restricted
Automobile /Vehicle Sales and
Services are are not permitted
O No Auto
P Park
CZ Clear Zone
NP Neighborhood Park
CP Community Park
RP Regional Park
PB Ponding Basin
PBP Ponding Basin Park
NP* Neighborhood Park*
CMX Corridor/Center Mixed-Use
NMX Neighborhood Mixed-Use
SS Special School
C College
Elementary School E
PF Public Facility
M Middle School
A Airport
HOSP Hospital
NC Neighborhood Center
PG&E PG&E Station
Water Recharge
Basin
WR
R Regional
G General
FIGURE 3-1 Land Use Map with Conceptual Overlays, including SOI CH Church
C Community
*The exact location of the parks within the Mission Ranch development will be determined in a future planning process.

Medium Density (5 - 12 du/ac)
Medium High Density (12 - 16 du/ac)
Urban Neighborhood (16 - 30 du/ac)
Medium Low Density (3.5 - 6 du/ac)
Low Density (1 - 3.5 du/ac)
Office*
After 85% of the land in Fresno’s “Reverse
Triangle” is occupied with heavy industrial
uses, light industrial uses are permitted
O*
Corridor
Sphere of Influence
City Limit
Plan Area
Magnet Core
Complete
Neighborhood
MAGNET
Note: Dual Land Use designations for proposed public facilities and open space are shown on a supplemental map.

OS Open Space
NMX
NMX
O
O
O
O
R O
G
CMX

CMX CMX
C C
C
PB
PB
PB
PB

PB PBP PB
PB
PB
P
OS
CP
NP
NP
NP
CZ
RP
A
PG&E
HOSP
E
E
M
PB
PB
C
E
R C
NP*
NP*
E
C
NP
NP
E
M
NC
WR
NC
O*
O*
O*
PBP
E or M PF SS
(M/HS) E or M
PF
E
E
PF
C
NMX
C C
P
R
O
No Auto
O
No Auto
R
CZ
CMX
CMX
CMX
CMX
CMX
NMX

PF PF PF
CMX
PB
PB
PB
PB
CP
OS
NP
Source: City of Fresno
O
FIGURE 3-1 Land Use Map with Conceptual Overlays, including SOI 41 41
180
99 99
MAGNET
MAGNET

WEST AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C ALIFORNIA CT TEILMAN AVE

JENSEN AVE VAGEDESAVE ATCHISON ST

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

NIELSEN AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE

BLOSSER AVE

GEORGEAVE

ILA AVE

CALWA AVE

LORENA AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

BELG RAVIAAVE

DELNOAVE

HAWESAVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

GARRETT AVE

FLORENCEAVE

TE ILMAN I C R

PLEASANT AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

LAFAYETTE AVE

SAMSON AVE

FRUIT AVE

THORNE AVE

BARDELL ST

LA SIERRADR

ELM AVE

KIRK ST

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

ROEDING DR

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

DIVISADERO ST

MERCED ST
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

MONTEREYST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

BLACKSTONE AVE BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE
H ST

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTACLARA ST

STROTHER AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

FAIRVIEW AVE
B ST

ARTHUR AVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST

LEMON AVE

ONEILAVE

GENEVA AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

CHINA ALY F ST

EUNICE AVE

HOME RUN ALY
L ST

COLLINS AVE
S ST

A/B ALY

FAGAN ALY
Q ST

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

WAYTE LN

NAPA AVE

LOTUS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

AIRPORT RD

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

WALNUT AVE

VAN NESS AVE

TRINITY ST

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

MADDY DR

PALM AVE

OC LL GE E V/ ANNESSALY

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

FARRIS AVE

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

VALENTINE AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

ELM AVE

HUGHES AVE HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

VALENTINE AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

CENTRAL AVE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE

RESIDENTIAL EMPLOYMENT

MIXED-USE

PUBLIC FACILITIES OPEN SPACE

OS Open Space
NMX
NMX
O
O
O
O
R O
G
CMX

CMX CMX
C C
C
PB
PB
PB
PB

PF PF PF
CMX
PB
PB
PB
PB
CP
OS
NP
Source: City of Fresno
O
3-4 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
41 41
180
99 99
NMX
NMX
O
O
O
O
R O
G
CMX

CMX CMX
C C
C
PB
PB
PB
PB

PB PBP PB
PB
PB
P
CP
CP
NP
NP
NP
CZ
RP
A
PG&E
HOSP
E
M
PB
PB
C
E
R C
NP*
NP*
E
C
NP
NP
E
M
NC
WR
NC
PBP
PF
PF
PF
C
NMX
C C
P
R
CZ
CMX
CMX
CMX
NMX
PF
OS OS
NP

WEST AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C ALIFORNIA CT TEILMAN AVE

JENSEN AVE VAGEDESAVE ATCHISON ST

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

NIELSEN AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE

BLOSSER AVE

GEORGEAVE

ILA AVE

CALWA AVE

LORENA AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

BELG RAVIAAVE

DELNOAVE

HAWESAVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

GARRETT AVE

FLORENCEAVE

TE ILMAN I C R

PLEASANT AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

LAFAYETTE AVE

SAMSON AVE

FRUIT AVE

THORNE AVE

BARDELL ST

LA SIERRADR

ELM AVE

KIRK ST

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

ROEDING DR

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

DIVISADERO ST

MERCED ST
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

MONTEREYST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

BLACKSTONE AVE BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE
H ST

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTACLARA ST

STROTHER AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

FAIRVIEW AVE
B ST

ARTHUR AVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST

LEMON AVE

ONEILAVE

GENEVA AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

CHINA ALY F ST

EUNICE AVE

HOME RUN ALY
L ST

COLLINS AVE
S ST

A/B ALY

FAGAN ALY
Q ST

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

WAYTE LN

NAPA AVE

LOTUS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

AIRPORT RD

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

WALNUT AVE

VAN NESS AVE

TRINITY ST

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

MADDY DR

PALM AVE

OC LL GE E V/ ANNESSALY

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

FARRIS AVE

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

VALENTINE AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

ELM AVE

HUGHES AVE HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

VALENTINE AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

CENTRAL AVE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE
Source: City of Fresno FIGURE 3-2 Land Use Map for Plan Area

RESIDENTIAL EMPLOYMENT

MIXED-USE

PUBLIC FACILITIES OPEN SPACE

COMMERCIAL
O Office P Park
CZ Clear Zone
NP Neighborhood Park
CP Community Park
RP Regional Park
PB Ponding Basin
PBP Ponding Basin Park
NP* Neighborhood Park* CMX Corridor/Center Mixed-Use
NMX Neighborhood Mixed-Use
ol
C College
E Elementary School
PF Public Facility
M Middle School
A Airport
HOSP Hospital
PG&E PG&E Station NC Neighborhood Center
Water Recharge
Basin
WR
R Regional
CH Church
C Community
*The exact location of the parks within the Mission Ranch development will be determined in a future planning process.

Medium Density (5 - 12 du/ac)
Medium High Density (12 - 16 du/ac)
Urban Neighborhood (16 - 30 du/ac)
Medium Low Density (3.5 - 6 du/ac)
Low Density (1 - 3.5 du/ac)
’s “Reverse
y industrial
ermitted
City Limit Sphere of Influence
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
Plan Area
Note: Dual land use designations for proposed public facilities and open space are shown on Figure 3-3.

G General
OS Open Space
O
FIGURE 3-2 Land Use Map for Plan Area
41 41
180
99 99
NMX
NMX
O
O
O
O
R O
G
CMX

CMX CMX
C C
C
PB
PB
PB
PB

PB PBP PB
PB
PB
P
CP
CP
NP
NP
NP
CZ
RP
A
PG&E
HOSP
E
M
PB
PB
C
E
R C
NP*
NP*
E
C
NP
NP
E
M
NC
WR
NC
PBP
PF
PF
PF
C
NMX
C C
P
R
CZ
CMX
CMX
CMX
NMX
PF
OS OS
NP

WEST AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C ALIFORNIA CT TEILMAN AVE

JENSEN AVE VAGEDESAVE ATCHISON ST

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

NIELSEN AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE

BLOSSER AVE

GEORGEAVE

ILA AVE

CALWA AVE

LORENA AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

BELG RAVIAAVE

DELNOAVE

HAWESAVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

GARRETT AVE

FLORENCEAVE

TE ILMAN I C R

PLEASANT AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

LAFAYETTE AVE

SAMSON AVE

FRUIT AVE

THORNE AVE

BARDELL ST

LA SIERRADR

ELM AVE

KIRK ST

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

ROEDING DR

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

DIVISADERO ST

MERCED ST
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

MONTEREYST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

BLACKSTONE AVE BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE
H ST

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTACLARA ST

STROTHER AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

FAIRVIEW AVE
B ST

ARTHUR AVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST

LEMON AVE

ONEILAVE

GENEVA AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

CHINA ALY F ST

EUNICE AVE

HOME RUN ALY
L ST

COLLINS AVE
S ST

A/B ALY

FAGAN ALY
Q ST

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

WAYTE LN

NAPA AVE

LOTUS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

AIRPORT RD

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

WALNUT AVE

VAN NESS AVE

TRINITY ST

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

MADDY DR

PALM AVE

OC LL GE E V/ ANNESSALY

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

FARRIS AVE

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

VALENTINE AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

ELM AVE

HUGHES AVE HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

VALENTINE AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

CENTRAL AVE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE
Source: City of Fresno FIGURE 3-2 Land Use Map for Plan Area

RESIDENTIAL EMPLOYMENT

MIXED-USE

PUBLIC FACILITIES OPEN SPACE

COMMERCIAL
O Office P Park
CZ Clear Zone
NP Neighborhood Park
CP Community Park
RP Regional Park
PB Ponding Basin
PBP Ponding Basin Park
NP* Neighborhood Park* CMX Corridor/Center Mixed-Use
NMX Neighborhood Mixed-Use
chool
C College
E Elementary School
PF Public Facility
M Middle School
A Airport
HOSP Hospital
PG&E PG&E Station NC Neighborhood Center
Water Recharge
Basin
WR
R Regional
CH Church
C Community
*The exact location of the parks within the Mission Ranch development will be determined in a future planning process.

Medium Density (5 - 12 du/ac)
Medium High Density (12 - 16 du/ac)
Urban Neighborhood (16 - 30 du/ac)
Medium Low Density (3.5 - 6 du/ac)
Low Density (1 - 3.5 du/ac)
Fresno’s “Reverse
h heavy industrial
are permitted
City Limit Sphere of Influence
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
Plan Area
Note: Dual land use designations for proposed public facilities and open space are shown on Figure 3-3.

G General
OS Open Space
O
Chapter 3 | Land Use 3-5
41 41
180
99 99

WEST AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C ALIFORNIA CT TEILMAN AVE

JENSEN AVE VAGEDESAVE ATCHISON ST

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

NIELSEN AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE

BLOSSER AVE

GEORGEAVE

ILA AVE

CALWA AVE

LORENA AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

BELG RAVIAAVE

DELNOAVE

HAWESAVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

GARRETT AVE

FLORENCEAVE

TE ILMAN I C R

PLEASANT AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

LAFAYETTE AVE

SAMSON AVE

FRUIT AVE

THORNE AVE

BARDELL ST

LA SIERRADR

ELM AVE

KIRK ST

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

ROEDING DR

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

DIVISADERO ST

MERCED ST
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

MONTEREYST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

BLACKSTONE AVE BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE
H ST

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTACLARA ST

STROTHER AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

FAIRVIEW AVE
B ST

ARTHUR AVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST

LEMON AVE

ONEILAVE

GENEVA AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

CHINA ALY F ST

EUNICE AVE

HOME RUN ALY
L ST

COLLINS AVE
S ST

A/B ALY

FAGAN ALY
Q ST

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

WAYTE LN

NAPA AVE

LOTUS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

AIRPORT RD

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

WALNUT AVE

VAN NESS AVE

TRINITY ST

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

MADDY DR

PALM AVE

OC LL GE E V/ ANNESSALY

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

FARRIS AVE

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

VALENTINE AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

ELM AVE

HUGHES AVE HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

VALENTINE AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

CENTRAL AVE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE
FIGURE 3-3 Dual Land Use Designation Map for Plan Area

RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE EMPLOYMENT
CMX Corridor/Center Mixed-Use O Office
Medium Density (5 - 12 du/ac)
Medium High Density (12 - 16 du/ac)
Urban Neighborhood (16 - 30 du/ac)
Medium Low Density (3.5 - 6 du/ac)
City Limit Sphere of Influence
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
Plan Area
O

CMX CMX
O
O
O
Source: City of Fresno FIGURE 3-3 Dual Land Use Designation Map for Plan Area

WEST AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C ALIFORNIA CT TEILMAN AVE
J

VAGEDESAVE ATCHISON ST

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

BLOSSER AVE

GEORGEAVE

ILA AVE

CALWA AVE

LORENA AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

BELG RAVIAAVE

DELNOAVE

HAWESAVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

GARRETT AVE

FLORENCEAVE

TE ILMAN I C R

LAFAYETTE AVE

SAMSON AVE

FRUIT AVE

THORNE AVE

BARDELL ST

LA SIERRADR

NORTH AVE
A

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

ROEDING DR
G
S

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

MERCED ST
C ST

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

STANISLAUS ST
B

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

STROTHER AVE

FAIRVIEW AVE
B ST

TUPMAN ST

LEMON AVE

ONEILAVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST
C
F ST

COLLINS AVE

A/B ALY
FAGAN

WELLER ST

AIRPORT RD

WALNUT AVE

TRINITY ST

MODOC ST

CHANNING
WAY

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

STEPHENS AVE

FARRIS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

VALENTINE AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE
H
U
G
HES A
VE
WEST A
VE

BRAWLEY AVE

CENTRAL AVE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS A
VE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE
FIGURE 3-3 Dual Land Use Designation Map for Plan Area

CMX CMX
O
O
O
3-6 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Medium-low Density
The Medium Low Density designation is intended
to provide for single-family detached housing with
densities of 3.5 to 6 units per acre.

The scale of Office uses can be compatible with existing residential neighborhoods.

Urban Neighborhood residential creates compact
development with multi-family dwellings.

Medium Density
Medium Density Residential covers developments
of 5 to 12 units per acre and is intended for areas
with predominantly single-family residential
development, but can also accommodate a mix of
housing types, including small-lot starter homes,
zero-lot-line developments, duplexes, and townhouses. Much of the city’s established neighborhoods fall within this designation.

Medium-high Density
Medium High Density Residential is intended
for neighborhoods with a mix of single-family
residences, townhomes, garden apartments, and
multi-family units intended to support a fine-grain,
pedestrian scale. This land use accommodates
densities from 12 to 16 units per acre overall.

Urban Neighborhood
Urban Neighborhood Residential covers densities
from 16 to 30 units per acre, which will generally
require multi-family dwellings but still allow for a
mix of housing types including single-family houses.

This land use is intended to provide for a compact
community that includes community facilities
and walkable access to parkland and commercial
services; it also supports efficient, frequent transit
service. Urban Neighborhood is designated for
targeted areas with complementary land uses
adjacently located.

Employment
Office
The Office designation is intended for administrative, financial, business, professional, medical, and public offices. This designation is mainly intended
to apply to existing office uses on smaller lots,
generally located on arterial roadways. This designation is also considered compatible with existing residential neighborhoods given the smaller
level of noise and traffic generated compared to
commercial uses. Retail uses would generally be
limited to business services, food services, and
convenience goods for those who work in the area.

The maximum FAR is 2.0.

Chapter 3 | Land Use 3-7
Community Commercial uses are intended to serve local
residents within a smaller neighborhood.

Office Restricted
The Office Restricted designation only exists in the
SOI; it allows all of the uses allowed in the Office
designation with the exception of auto/vehicle services and rentals to limit potential negative impacts related to aesthetics, noise, odor, and air quality to
affect surrounding residential neighborhoods and
employment areas. The maximum FAR is 2.0.

Commercial
Commercial land use designations allow a wide
range of retail and service establishments intended
to serve local and regional needs.

Community
Community Commercial is intended for commercial
development that primarily serves local needs such
as convenience shopping and small offices. Many of
the city’s current commercial districts fall into this
designation. Specific uses allowed include mediumscale retail, office, civic and entertainment uses, supermarkets, drug stores and supporting uses.

The maximum FAR is 1.0.

Regional
The Regional Commercial designation is intended
to meet local and regional retail demand, such
as large-scale retail, office, civic and entertainment uses; shopping malls, with large format or “big-box” retail allowed. It allows supporting uses
such as gas stations, and hotels. Buildings typically
have relatively large footprints. Development and
design standards will create a pedestrian orientation within centers and along major corridors. The maximum FAR is 1.0.

General
The General Commercial designation is intended
for a range of retail and service uses that are
not appropriate in other areas because of higher
volumes of vehicle traffic and potential adverse
impacts on other uses. Examples of allowable uses
include: building materials, storage facilities with
active storefronts, equipment rental, wholesale
businesses, and specialized retail not normally
found in shopping centers. The maximum FAR is

2.0. Regional Commercial development with surface
parking.
3-8 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Mixed-Use
Mixed-use designations are based on commercial
uses and also require a residential or office component.

Neighborhood Mixed-Use
This designation allows a minimum of 50 percent
residential uses and provides for mixed-use districts
of local-serving, pedestrian-oriented commercial
development, such as convenience shopping and
professional offices in two- to three-story buildings.

Development is expected to include ground-floor
neighborhood retail uses and upper-level housing
or offices, with a mix of small -lot single-family
houses, townhomes, and multi-family dwelling
units on side streets, in a horizontal or vertical
mixed-use orientation. The built form will have a
scale and character that is consistent with pedestrian orientation, to attract and promote a walk-in clientele, with small lots made accessible by closely
spaced connections for pedestrians, bicyclists, and
vehicular traffic; these connections will provide
convenient access from residences to commercial
space. Automobile-oriented uses are not permitted. Residential densities range between 12 and 16 units per acre and the maximum FAR is 1.5.

Corridor/Center Mixed-Use
The Corridor/Center Mixed-Use designation is
higher intensity than Neighborhood Mixed-Use,
and is intended to allow for horizontal and vertical
mixed-use development in multiple story buildings
along key circulation corridors where height and
density can be easily accommodated. Ground-floor
retail and upper-floor residential or offices are
the primary uses, with personal and business
services and public and institutional space as
supportive uses. Development will facilitate the
transformation of existing transportation corridors
into active, highly walkable areas with broad,
pedestrian- friendly sidewalks, trees, landscaping,
and local-serving uses with new buildings that step
down in relationship to the scale and character
of adjacent neighborhoods. This designation will
largely apply along major roadways, at targeted
locations between regional Activity Centers as
defined in the General Plan. Residential densities
Neighborhood Mixed-use emphasizes pedestrianoriented commercial development.

Corridor/Center Mixed-use with ground-floor office
space and multi-family housing above.

Chapter 3 | Land Use 3-9
range between 16 and 30 units per acre with a
minimum 40 percent residential uses, and the
maximum FAR is 1.5.

Public Facilities
This designation applies to public facilities, such as
City Hall, county buildings, schools, colleges, the
municipal airports, and hospitals. It also includes
public facilities, such as fire and police stations,
City-operated recycling centers, and sewage treatment plants. The following public facility land uses are within the Plan Area: Public Facility (General),
K to 12 Schools (such as Elementary, Middle, and
Special Schools), Airport, Church, Hospital, Neighborhood Center, PG&E Station, Water Recharge Basin, and College.

Open Space
The Open Space designation applies to open space
areas, such as parks, golf courses, ponding basins,
riparian corridors, and the clear zone around
airports. The following open space land uses are
within the Plan Area: Park (General), Neighborhood Park, Community Park, Regional Park, Clear Zone, Ponding Basin, and Ponding Basin Park. Of
these, Parks, Neighborhood Parks, Community
Parks, Regional Parks, and Ponding Basin Parks are
considered parkland space for purposes of General
Plan goals. Further explanation about the parkland
definition can be found in Chapter 6, Public Facilities.

The Clear Zone land use designation is for land
that is within close proximity to the airport and is
limited to use of ten people per acre. Any potential
development within the Clear Zone could conflict
with flight sightlines and movements. The Southwest Fresno area contains a number of ponding basins, which are used to collect and reuse stormwater. The Ponding Basin Park land use designation is for certain ponding basins that are also accessible to the public as park space. However, park access is not open year-round and only accessible
during seasons where the ponding basin will not be
used to collect stormwater.

Open Space can include larger community and
regional parks.

Open Space can include neighborhood-serving open
space.

Housing abutting residential open space and
playgrounds.
3-10 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
C. DEVELOPMENT

CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The following development capacity analysis
describes the number of single-family and multifamily housing dwelling units; square feet of commercial, office, and public facility development;
and park acreage anticipated in the Plan Area in the
30-year timeframe of the Plan. Development capacity numbers were calculated for the Plan based on the Plan’s land uses, using the General Plan’s
dwelling units per acre and FAR capacity numbers.

Table 3-1 describes only the development capacity
for development within the Plan Area boundary.

LAND USES DEVELOPMENT

CAPACITY
Single-family housing 4,083 dwelling units
Multi-family housing 1,840 dwelling units
HOUSING TOTAL 5,923 dwelling units
Commercial 1,546,888 square feet
Employment 748,820 square feet
Parks/Open Space 75 acres
Public Facilities
118 acres or
1,443,814 square feet
TABLE 3-1 Development Capacities for the
Plan Area
It should be noted that, like the General Plan, the
development capacities in Table 3-1 are for new development and only take into account the development of parcels that have higher opportunities for development, such as parcels that are vacant, open
agriculture, or rural residential (partially vacant).

These opportunity sites for development are
highlighted in Figure 3-4.

The development capacity analysis of the Plan Area
is described below:
■ Housing. The community and Steering
Committee desire a shift in the ratio of
single-family housing to multi-family housing
from the residential land uses identified in
the General Plan for Southwest Fresno. The
Plan shows a larger amount of single-family
housing compared to multi-family housing
when compared to the General Plan. The Plan’s
ratio is 70 percent single-family housing to
30 percent multi-family housing in the Plan
Area, while the ratio citywide is 62 percent
single-family housing to 38 percent “other”
units, including multi-family and attached
single-family housing.
■ Commercial. The amount of commercial
development in the Plan Area accounts for new
Corridor/Center Mixed-Use, Neighborhood
Mixed-Use, Regional Commercial, and
Community Commercial areas.
■ Employment. Employment areas consist of
purely Office land uses rather than a mix of
Office, Industrial, and Business Park uses.
■ Parks/Open Space. The amount of Parks/Open
Space accounts for new neighborhood parks
to serve complete neighborhoods and a larger
park adjacent to the community college to
support the MLK Activity Center magnet core.
■ Public Facilities. The amount of public facilities
accounts for new schools that would serve
complete neighborhoods, a future community
college in the MLK Activity Center magnet core,
and a public facility buffer between residential
neighborhoods and industrial uses south of
North Avenue.

Although the surrounding SOI is not a part of the
Plan Area (with the exception of the MLK Activity
Center), as a part of the visioning process, the SOI’s
land uses were considered since the General Plan
includes the SOI for its development capacity. The
surrounding SOI has a large amount of development potential because it is mostly undeveloped and therefore contains a large amount of opportunity sites. The Plan’s vision includes the following amount of development in the SOI: about 9,400
housing units, with approximately 80 percent of
those units as single-family housing and 20 percent
as multi-family housing; a moderate amount of
commercial space at about 840,000 commercial
building square feet; a high amount of employment
space at about 3.9 million employment building
square feet; a moderate amount of parks/open
space; and a moderate amount of public facilities
space.

Chapter 3 | Land Use 3-11

WEST AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C ALIFORNIA CT TEILMAN AVE

JENSEN AVE VAGEDESAVE ATCHISON ST

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE

BLOSSER AVE

GEORGEAVE

ILA AVE

CALWA AVE

LORENA AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

BELG RAVIAAVE

DELNOAVE

DANRONQUILLO DR

HAWESAVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

GARRETT AVE

FLORENCEAVE

TE ILMAN I C R

PLEASANT AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

LAFAYETTE AVE

SAMSON AVE

FRUIT AVE

WEST AVE

FRUIT AVE

THORNE AVE

BARDELL ST

LA SIERRADR

ELM AVE

KIRK ST

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

ROEDING DR

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

MERCED ST
R ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST
MONTE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

STANISLAUS ST
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

BELGRAVIA AVE
H ST

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTACLARA ST

STROTHER AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

FAIRVIEW AVE
B ST

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

FULTON MALL

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST

LEMON AVE

ONEILAVE

GENEVA AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

CHINA ALY F ST

EUNICE AVE

HOME RUN ALY
L ST

COLLINS AVE

A/B ALY

FAGAN ALY
Q ST

WELLER ST

POPPY AVE

LOTUS AVE

AIRPORT RD

WALNUT AVE

VAN NESS AVE

TRINITY ST

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

MADDY DR

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

FARRIS AVE

MARKS AVE

CHURCH AVE

JENSEN AVE

VALENTINE AVE

MADISON AVE
FIG AVENUE MLK JR. BLVD

HUGHES AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

CENTRAL AVE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
Plan Area
Sphere of Influence
Opportunity Sites
City Limit
Existing Development
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
FIGURE 3-4 Opportunity Sites in the Plan Area and Existing Development 41 180
99 41
180
Source: City of Fresno
FIGURE 3-4 Opportunity Sites in the Plan Area and Existing Development 3-12 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
D. GOALS AND POLICIES
The following goals and related policies support
the framework for the development of the Plan’s
land uses and urban form, implementing the Plan’s
vision as described in Chapter 2. The Plan’s goals
and polices are intended to work in tandem with
and refine those of the General Plan.

Goal LU-1 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 retail, services, jobs, and recreation uses to Southwest Fresno residents and visitors.

Policy LU-1.1 Establish two magnet cores – a
southern magnet core at the MLK
Activity Center and a northern
magnet core at Marks and Whites
Bridge Avenues – that attract a
significant amount of new development and accommodate regional retail stores, educational and/or
medical facilities, and a range of
housing types.

Policy LU-1.2 Following the Fresno General Plan
amendment to approve the Plan
Area’s proposed land uses, amend
the Fresno General Plan to approve
the proposed land uses located
outside of the Plan Area and in
the SOI as shown in the Vision for
Southwest Fresno for the purposes
of future annexation.

Goal LU-2 Revitalize existing key corridors in
Southwest Fresno, building off the
existing character and potential of
the streets, to strengthen neighborhood identity and appeal, attract new development, and
to connect neighborhoods and
magnets.

Policy LU-2.1 Capitalize on the Downtown HighSpeed Rail (HSR) station, Fresno Area Express (FAX) transit hub,
and future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
lines to promote transit-oriented
development along corridors.

Policy LU-2.2 Improve the visual appeal of
corridors through streetscape
improvements, new development,
and the renovation of existing
development.

Policy LU-2.3 Attract and encourage regionalserving, big box retail, housing and park uses along Whites Bridge
Avenue to support a Regional Retail
Corridor.

Policy LU-2.4 Attract and encourage low-density
residential development with
enhanced design and landscaping
standards along Kearney Boulevard
to support a Historic Corridor,
while preserving the corridor’s
scenic quality.

Policy LU-2.5 Attract and encourage higher-density mixed use development along California Avenue, connecting to
Downtown Fresno, FAX, and HSR
with a future BRT line, to support a
Mixed-Use Corridor.

Policy LU-2.6 Attract and encourage office uses
along Jensen Avenue, connecting
the magnet core west of MLK Jr.

Boulevard to Highway 41, in order
to support a Jobs Corridor.

Policy LU-2.7 Attract and encourage lowerdensity mixed use, commercial, and office uses along Elm Avenue
to support a Mixed-Use and Jobs
Corridor with the potential of a
future BRT line to connect the
southern portion of the Specific
Plan Area to Downtown.

Chapter 3 | Land Use 3-13
Goal LU-3 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.

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.

Policy LU-3.2 Encourage complete neighborhoods to be located at the intersections of major streets for
easy access and high visibility,
while ensuring safe ingress and
egress (e.g., use of frontage roads).

For existing neighborhoods, nodes
should be created or strengthened
with additional uses such as retail
and/or parks. For potential new
neighborhoods, nodes should be
sited at a location accessible to
both nearby residents in the new
neighborhood and visitors from
outside the neighborhood.

Policy LU-3.3 Implement Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design
(CPTED) principles and strategies in
new residential, commercial, and
open space development to help
provide better safety and security.

Goal LU-4 Maintain the use and character
of existing residential neighborhoods, while improving the quality of housing and encouraging homeownership, and remediate
Southwest Fresno’s blighting
conditions to improve the community’s image, attract private investment, and create a pleasant
living environment.

Policy LU-4.1 Encourage programs that allow
Southwest Fresno residents to
become homeowners.

Policy LU-4.2 Preserve the residential nature of
existing residential neighborhoods
in the Plan Area.

Policy LU-4.3 Encourage programs that help
fund the rehabilitation of old and
deteriorating single-family and
multi-family housing stock targeting the most blighted properties and areas.

Policy LU-4.4 Ensure minimum quality standards
for rental housing and require all
rental properties to comply with
the City’s Rental Housing Improvement Act.

Policy LU-4.5 Create design standards that
promote high-quality, aestheticallyattractive, and architecturally-consistent building design for building improvements.

Policy LU-4.6 Encourage prioritization of infill
development within existing neighborhoods above new development in undeveloped areas.

Policy LU-4.7 Promote and adhere to the City’s
“Restore Fresno” program that
requires property owners to clean
up visible blight, register vacant
properties, and adhere to City
codes.

Goal LU-5 Provide a diverse range of housing types in Southwest Fresno, preserving Southwest Fresno’s
character as a primarily singlefamily residential community while providing higher-density
housing in high activity areas.

Policy LU-5.1 Encourage new residential
development to be primarily
single-family residences, especially
in areas outside of magnet cores
and corridors.
3-14 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Policy LU-5.2 Encourage new multi-family
condominiums and apartments to
be located in various contexts such
as close to neighborhood nodes,
near magnet cores, and along
corridors so that higher-density
housing is not concentrated in a
single location within Southwest
Fresno.

Policy LU-5.3 Create affordable new single-family
housing through the provision of
smaller housing types on smaller
lots.

Goal LU-6 Provide opportunities for quality
retail shopping at regional and
neighborhood levels.

Policy LU-6.1 Attract and encourage larger
regional retail development at key
locations that have good proximity,
visibility, and access from the
greatest number of people and
neighborhood stores in neighborhood nodes and along corridors.

Key locations include within the
Regional Retail magnet core and
College magnet core, which is also
known as the MLK Activity Center.

Policy LU-6.2 Discourage the expansion and/or
development of potentially controversial retail uses such as pay day loans and liquor stores.

Policy LU-6.3 Increase access to fresh, affordable, and nutritious food sources with an emphasis on attracting
and encouraging small and large
food retailers such as grocery
stores, farmers’ markets, nutrition
programs, community gardens,
and food stands to provide fresh,
affordable, and nutritious foods.

Policy LU-6.4 Encourage projects and programs
to partner with local schools to
increase healthy food choices for
residents.

Goal LU-7 Promote Southwest Fresno as an
employment center with a mix of
employment opportunities and
types for residents and commuters.

Policy LU-7.1 Promote a substantial increase in
office uses to provide an environment that fosters and serves the community’s business and professional needs.

Policy LU-7.2 Encourage large-scale office
and institutional uses, including
educational facilities, and medical
facilities, to be located where
vehicles and transit have access,
and where they will attract other
similar uses.

Policy LU-7.3 Encourage smaller scale employment uses such as professional offices to be located in more remote locations and along corridors.

Goal LU-8 Address and mitigate West
Fresno’s top ranking as most
burdened by multiple sources of
pollution by protecting the health
and wellness of Southwest Fresno
residents through regulating and
reducing the negative impacts of
industrial businesses and other
sources of pollution.

Policy LU-8.1 Plan and zone employment areas
in Southwest Fresno for nonindustrial businesses. All previously designated Light Industrial, Heavy
Industrial, Business Park, and
Regional Business Park land uses
should be planned and zoned
Office.

Policy LU-8.2 Prioritize the “Reverse Triangle,”
bounded by Jensen Avenue,
Central Avenue, Highway 41, and
Highway 99, as the City’s targeted
area for new industrial development.

Chapter 3 | Land Use 3-15
Policy LU-8.3 When 85 percent of the “Reverse
Triangle,” bounded by Jensen Avenue, Central Avenue, Highway 41, and Highway 99, is developed with
Heavy Industrial uses designate
parcels along the east side of Elm
Avenue south of North Avenue for
future Light Industrial uses, mixed
with the Plan’s planned Office uses.

Policy LU-8.4 In collaboration with the appropriate local, State, and/or federal agency, regularly enforce
and evaluate performance and
performance standards on the
operation of existing industrial
activity related to air quality, odor,
and noise in order to maintain
compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods and uses.

Policy LU-8.5 Assess the compatibility of industrial and heavy commercial land uses with existing neighborhoods
through the completion of the
Industrial Land Use Compatibility
Study. The study should identify
and adopt long-term solutions
to address the findings from the
assessment. The study is to be
completed by December 8, 2017.

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

Policy LU-8.7 Provide transparency and create a
forum between government staff,
government and elected officials,
community members, business
owners, and other stakeholders
regarding existing and proposed
industrial operations.

Goal LU-9 Locate higher intensity development in magnet cores and along corridors to support a vibrant and
pedestrian-friendly atmosphere.

Policy LU-9.1 Create active street frontages by
providing wide sidewalks with
pedestrian-scaled streetscape
amenities and orienting building
entrances toward the street.

Policy LU-9.2 Encourage parking to be consolidated into parking structures and discourage large areas to be
dominated by surface parking
visible from the street. Screen
parking lots with buildings and/or
vegetation and tree planning.

Policy LU-9.3 Design storefronts and street
elevations to be inviting, interesting, and varied, especially at the ground level.

Goal LU-10 Encourage development within
complete neighborhoods to be
convenient for residents and enhance a sense of community.

Policy LU-10.1 Provide a walkable environment
within neighborhoods by slowing
down traffic, providing wide
sidewalks with drought-tolerant
vegetation and street trees, and
creating an interconnected pedestrian network.

Policy LU-10.2 Encourage buildings within
neighborhoods to be compatible in
scale with surrounding residential
development.
3-16 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Chapter 4 | Development Regulations 4-1

DEVELOPMENT

REGULATIONS
A. INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the regulations and
standards for new development to achieve the
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan (the Plan)’s guiding
principles (described in Chapter 2, Vision) and land
use policies in Chapter 3, Land Use. Throughout the
planning process, the Southwest Fresno community
provided guidance on the type of development
they desired. These regulations support that vision.

This chapter first describes the allowable land uses
in each zoning district.

In addition to the use regulations, two overlays
are identified to ensure compatibility with the
Plan’s vision and existing conditions. To support
the development of special corridors, two active
magnet cores, and new complete neighborhoods,
the chapter outlines their objectives. Projects that
strive to meet these guidelines will be favorably
received during the application and permit process.

Last, the chapter addresses ways to prevent crime
using four key principles of environmental design.

The Chapter is organized into the following
sections:

A. Introduction
B. Use Regulations
C. Kearney Boulevard Historic Corridor
Overlay
D. California Mixed-Use Corridor Overlay
E. Objectives for Special Corridors, Magnet
Cores, and Complete Neighborhoods
F. Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design
4 4-2 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
The Plan Area includes the following residential
zoning base districts (as shown in Figure 4-1):
■ Residential Single-Family, Low Density (RS-3)
■ Residential Single-Family, Medium Low Density
(RS-4)
■ Residential Single-Family, Medium Density
(RS-5)
■ Residential Multi-Family, Medium High Density
(RM-1)
■ Residential Multi-Family, Urban Neighborhood
(RM-2)
The previous chapter described the land uses
allowed in each of these zones, as well as the
character within each district. The zoning requirements for the RS-3, RS-4, and RS-5 districts are addressed in Article 9 - Residential Single-Family
Districts of the Citywide Development Code. The
RM-1 and RM-2 districts are addressed in Article
10 - Residential Multi-Family Districts. The Plan
is recommending that some additional uses be
allowed in certain zone districts. Implementation of
these revisions could occur as part of a future text
amendment to the Development Code. The City
should consider Citywide zoning amendments to
accommodate the changes in the future as part of
a separate process after the Plan’s adoption. They
are described as follows.

B. USE REGULATIONS
The following section describes the various
zoning base districts that fall within the Plan
Area and specifies what types of land uses are
permitted in specific base districts, and which
land uses are considered “conditional,” that is,
only allowed if they follow a more specific set of
rules. The Citywide Use Regulation categories are
as follows:
■ Permitted Uses. Those uses permitted in the
base district, subject to the limitations and
conditions set forth therein.
■ Uses Subject to a Conditional Use Permit.

Those uses permitted in the base district,
subject to the limitations and conditions set
forth therein.
■ Uses Not Permitted. The uses expressly
prohibited by the provisions of the base
district.

The Use Regulations in this chapter follow the Citywide Development Code’s base districts categories and, unless otherwise specified, are unchanged.

Multifamily housing.

Single-family housing.

Chapter 4 | Development Regulations 4-3
Medium-high Density Residential (RM-1)
The Specific Plan zoning for Medium-high Density
Residential use regulations differs from the base
zoning in the Citywide Development Code in regard
to Corner Commercial. Per the Citywide Development Code, the purpose of Corner Commercial is to “allow for the development of small-scale,
neighborhood-serving commercial establishments
that can provide convenient, walkable access to
important amenities and that can increase the
sense of community and value to the surrounding
neighborhood.” It is currently Not Permitted in
the Medium-High Density Residential district; the
Specific Plan recommends Corner Commercial
shall be a Conditional Use if it meets the following
requirements:
■ Not on a local street
■ Sales area is 1,500 square feet or less
■ Provides fresh fruits and vegetables
■ Does not provide alcohol
Urban Neighborhood Residential (RM-2)
The Specific Plan zoning for Urban Neighborhood
Residential use regulations differs from the base
zoning in the Citywide Development Code in regard
to Corner Commercial. It is currently Not Permitted
in the Urban Neighborhood Residential district;
the Specific Plan recommends Corner Commercial
shall be a Conditional Use if it meets the following
requirements:
■ Not on a local street
■ Sales area is 1,500 square feet or less
■ Provides fresh fruits and vegetables
■ Does not provide alcohol

MIXED-USE DISTRICTS
The Specific Plan Area includes the following
mixed-use districts (as shown in Figure 4-1):
■ Neighborhood Mixed-Use (NMX)
■ Corridor/Center Mixed-Use (CMX)
The previous chapter described the land uses
allowed in these two zones, as well as the character
within each district. These mixed-use districts are
addressed in Article 11 of the Citywide Zoning
Code. However, there is one change to the use
regulations in the Citywide Development Code in
the Plan Area described as follows.

Corridor/Center Mixed-Use (CMX)
Specific Plan zoning for Corridor/Center Mixed-use
use regulations differs from the base zoning in the
Citywide Development Code in regard to Elderly
and Long-term Care. The Citywide Development
Code defines Elderly and Long-term Care as
“establishments that provide 24-hour medical,
convalescent, or chronic care to individuals who,
by reason of advanced age, chronic illness, or
infirmity, are unable to care for themselves, and
is licensed as a skilled nursing facility by the State
of California, including, but not limited to, rest
homes and convalescent hospitals, but not Residential Care, Hospitals, or Clinics.” It is currently Not Permitted in the Corridor/Center Mixed-use
district; the Specific Plan recommends Elderly and
Long-term Care be a Conditional use.

COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
The Specific Plan Area includes the following
commercial districts (as shown in Figure 4-1):
■ Commercial − Community (CC)
■ Commercial − Regional (CR)
The previous chapter described the land uses
allowed in these two zones, as well as the character
within each district. These commercial districts are
addressed in Article 12 of the Citywide Development Code. 4-4 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan

EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS
The Specific Plan Area includes the Office (O)
employment zoning district (as shown in Figure
4-1). However, the Sphere of Influence (SOI)
outside the Plan Area includes the following
“specific limitations” to the employment zoning
district, designated as:
■ Office Restricted (O-No Auto)
■ Office* (O*)
The Office district is addressed in Article 13. The
previous chapter described the land uses allowed
in the Office district and the specific limitations of
Office Restricted within the SOI, (shown in Figure
3-1). However, there are some changes to the use
regulations in the Citywide Development Code in
the SOI. They are described as follows.

Office Restricted (O-No Auto) Overlay
A number of parcels along the south side of
Jensen Avenue in the SOI have been identified as
Office-No Auto. The Specific Plan recommends
that a future amendment be considered to
create an Office Restricted Overlay to be
applied to specific Office parcels that restrict
auto uses. The parcels designated as Office
Restricted (O-No Auto) are identical to the Office
zone, however have the following “specific
limitations”: Automobile/Vehicle Sales and

USE CLASSIFICATIONS BASE ZONING SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING
Automobile Rentals Permitted Not Permitted
Automobile/Vehicle Repair,
Major Permitted Not Permitted
Automobile/Vehicle Repair,
Minor Permitted Not Permitted
Large Vehicle and Equipment
Sales, Service and Rental Permitted Not Permitted
Service Station Permitted Not Permitted
Veterinary Services Conditional Permitted if indoor only Healthy Food Grocer Conditional Permitted
TABLE 4-1 Office Restricted (O-No Auto) Use Regulations in the Specific Plan vs. Base Zoning Services are prohibited. Table 4-1 indicates
“special limitations” for Office Restricted use
classifications that differ from the base zoning in
the Citywide Development Code.

Office* (O*)
The Office* zoning district refers to parcels within
the SOI zoned as Office, located south of North
Avenue and west of Highway 41, and shall allow
office and light industrial uses only after 85 percent
of the land in Fresno’s “Reverse Triangle” area is
occupied with heavy industrial uses. Until then, the
requirements described in the Office section above
apply.

PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC DISTRICTS
The Specific Plan Area includes the following
public zoning districts:
■ Open Space (OS)
■ Parks and Recreation (PR)
■ Public and Institutional (PI)
The previous chapter described the land uses
allowed in the Open Space, Parks and Recreation,
and Public and Institutional districts, as well as the
desired character in each. The Public and Semipublic districts are addressed in Article 14.

Chapter 4 | Development Regulations 4-5
C. KEARNEY BOULEVARD

HISTORIC CORRIDOR

OVERLAY
Kearney Boulevard has been described as one of
the most “striking drives in all of California.”1
The
Kearney Boulevard Gateway (east of the Plan Area)
marks the entrance to this notably historic corridor,
and is recognized on the Local Register of Historic Resources. The Boulevard runs for 1.7 miles through the Plan Area where it is categorized as a
Scenic Collector in the General Plan; it continues
east and makes a dramatic s-curve in the SOI; here
it is categorized as a Scenic Drive.

PURPOSE
In order to preserve and enhance Kearney Boulevard’s historic character, it requires an historic corridor overlay to ensure new residential development and streetscape treatment is respectful of its character (see Figure 4-1). When developed
in 1900, the boulevard was planted with 50,000
eucalyptus and palm trees and oleander shrubs,
many of which continue to define the corridor today. New development should respond to the scale of existing residential development along Kearney
Boulevard. Large, single-family houses, duplexes, or
triplexes are encouraged. Frontages facing Kearney
Boulevard must be well-designed and use quality
building materials.

USES
The Kearney Boulevard Historic Corridor Overlay
includes the following abutting land uses (base
zoning):
■ Medium-high Density Residential (RM-1)
■ Medium-low Density Residential (RS-4)
■ Low Density Residential (RS-3)
■ Open Space (OS)
1 Historic Spots in California: Fifth Edition
Looking down the Historic Kearney Boulevard lined with
oleander bushes, palm trees, and eucalyptus trees (in
the distance).

The impressive tree-lined boulevard can be seen from a
distance.

Single-family housing lines the frontage roads in the
developed areas.
4-6 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan

DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN

STANDARDS
All development shall respect Kearney Boulevard’s
status as a Historic Resource on the Local Register
and as an eligible candidate for the National
Register of Historic Places and in so doing shall
follow any guidelines or requirements set forth
by those registers. The following Development
Standards apply to development within 100 feet of
the property line along Kearney Boulevard in the
Historic Corridor.
■ Street Trees and Landscaping. In keeping
with the historic character, the existing palm
trees shall remain unless they are causing a
health or safety threat. New development shall
plant new palm trees, eucalyptus trees, and
oleander bushes along Kearney Boulevard in
keeping with the historic tree pattern to fill in
gaps when trees and landscaping are missing
along front property lines. Eucalyptus trees
are not exempt from the Tree Removal Permit
along this corridor.
■ Frontage Road Configuration. All development
shall continue the historic configuration of the
boulevard with frontage roads on either side
separated by planted side medians.
■ Building Orientation. All new buildings shall
be oriented toward the Historic Corridor with
front doors facing it.

The residential neighborhoods along Historic Kearney Boulevard’s frontage roads are defined by street trees, front setbacks, and large ranch-style single-family homes facing the boulevard.

The boulevard’s right-of-way includes frontage roads
even in undeveloped areas.
■ Front Setback. All new buildings shall match
the existing front setback of neighboring
properties. If neighboring properties’ permitted
front setbacks vary, new building shall match
the setback of the majority of buildings on the
block.
■ Walls and Fences. Front fences shall be a
maximum of 3 feet in height and shall be
either: 1) made of wrought iron or tubular
steel and open a minimum of 80 percent (e.g.,
no more than 20 percent opaque) to allow
for the passage of light and air; or 2) a picket
fence made of wood and open a minimum
of 50 percent (e.g., no more than 50 percent
opaque). Walls and fences that do not meet
this description are not permitted within the
required front yard setback.

Chapter 4 | Development Regulations 4-7
41 41
180
99 99

REGIONAL

RETAIL MAGNET

REGIONAL

RETAIL CORRIDOR

KEARNEY

BOULEVARD

HISTORIC

CORRIDOR

OVERLAY

CALIFORNIA AVE

MIXED-USE

CORRIDOR

OVERLAY

COMMUNITY

COLLEGE MAGNET
JOBS

CORRIDOR

MIXED-USE/
JOBS

CORRIDOR
NMX
NMX
O
O
O
O
R O
G
CMX

CMX CMX
C C
C
PB
PB
PB
PB

PB PBP PB
PB
PB
P
CP
CP
NP
NP
NP
NP
RP
A
PG&E
HOSP
E
M
PB
PB
C
E
R C
NP*
NP*
E
C
NP
NP
E
M
NC
WR
NC
PBP
PF
PF
PF
C
NMX
C C
P
R
CZ
CMX
CMX
CMX
NMX
PF
OS OS

WEST AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C ALIFORNIA CT TEILMAN AVE

JENSEN AVE VAGEDESAVE ATCHISON ST

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

NIELSEN AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE

BLOSSER AVE

GEORGEAVE

ILA AVE

CALWA AVE

LORENA AVE

KNIGHT AVE

DUNN AVE

BELG RAVIAAVE

DELNOAVE

HAWESAVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

GARRETT AVE

FLORENCEAVE

TE ILMAN I C R

PLEASANT AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

LAFAYETTE AVE

SAMSON AVE

FRUIT AVE

THORNE AVE

BARDELL ST

LA SIERRADR

ELM AVE

KIRK ST

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

ROEDING DR

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

DIVISADERO ST

MERCED ST
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

MONTEREYST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

BLACKSTONE AVE BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE
H ST

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTACLARA ST

STROTHER AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

FAIRVIEW AVE
B ST

ARTHUR AVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST

LEMON AVE

ONEILAVE

GENEVA AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

CHINA ALY F ST

EUNICE AVE

HOME RUN ALY
L ST

COLLINS AVE
S ST

A/B ALY

FAGAN ALY
Q ST

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

WAYTE LN

NAPA AVE

LOTUS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

AIRPORT RD

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

WALNUT AVE

VAN NESS AVE

TRINITY ST

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

MADDY DR

PALM AVE

OC LL GE E V/ ANNESSALY

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

FARRIS AVE

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

VALENTINE AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

WALNUT AVE

FRUIT AVE

ELM AVE

HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

VALENTINE AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

CENTRAL AVE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
FIGURE 4-1 Land Uses with Overlays, Special Corridors, Magnet Cores, & Neighborhood Nodes Overlay 100 feet from the
Property Line along Corridor
Street

RESIDENTIAL

EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE OPEN SPACE

PUBLIC FACILITIES

COMMERCIAL
O Office P Park
CZ Clear Zone
NP Neighborhood Park
CP Community Park
RP Regional Park
PB Ponding Basin
PBP Ponding Basin Park
Neighborhood Park* NP*
CMX Corridor/Center Mixed-Use
NMX Neighborhood Mixed-Use C College
E Elementary School
PF Public Facility
M Middle School
A Airport
HOSP Hospital
NC Neighborhood Center
PG&E PG&E Station
Water Recharge
Basin
WR
R Regional
C Community
*The exact location of the parks within the
Mission Ranch development will be
determined in a future planning process.

Medium Density (5 - 12 du/ac)
Medium-high Density (12 - 16 du/ac)
Urban Neighborhood (16 - 30 du/ac)
Medium-low Density (3.5 - 6 du/ac)
Low Density (1 - 3.5 du/ac)
Plan Area City Limit Sphere of Influence
G General
OS Open Space
¼-mile from Complete
Neighborhood Nodes
Magnet Core Area
Special Corridors
Source: City of Fresno
FIGURE 4-1 Land Uses with Overlays, Special Corridors, Magnet Cores, & Neighborhood Nodes 4-8 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Wide sidewalks, pedestrian-scaled lighting, and varied
storefronts and building entries activate mixed-use streets.

Multifamily residential facing the street.

D. CALIFORNIA AVENUE

MIXED-USE CORRIDOR

OVERLAY

PURPOSE
California Avenue runs east-west through the
Plan Area connecting to Downtown Fresno.

The mixed-use corridor overlay is intended to
encourage a mix of uses along the bus rapid
transit (BRT) corridor. As a transit corridor, it
shall be developed with active uses that provide
jobs and services; development shall create a
pleasant walkable environment so people using
transit can easily get from place to place.

USES
The California Avenue Mixed-Use Corridor Overlay
includes the following abutting land uses (base
zoning):

Corridor/Center Mixed-Use (CMX)
■ Urban Neighborhood Residential (RM-2)
■ Medium Density Residential (RS-5)
■ Medium-low Density Residential (RS-4)
■ Public and Institutional (PI)
■ Parks and Recreation (PR)

DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN

STANDARDS
■ Residential Building Orientation. Where new
residential uses are built along the corridor,
residences shall face the corridor.
■ Walls. Walls are not permitted within the
required front yard setback nor between
residential uses and California Avenue.

Single-family residential facing the street without walls.

Chapter 4 | Development Regulations 4-9
E. OBJECTIVES FOR

SPECIAL CORRIDORS,

MAGNET CORES,

AND COMPLETE

NEIGHBORHOODS
As Southwest Fresno grows and introduces more
types of development into the area, regulating its
urban form will be an important aspect to ensuring quality development that fosters a vibrant, convenient, safe, and healthy environment. Urban
form is the term used to describe the design and
character of an urban environment; urban form
is governed by development standards in the
Citywide Development Code, including standards
for building heights, spacing between buildings,
whether they face the street or a parking lot, and
how many doors and windows they have. Chapter
2, the Vision Chapter, introduced how the Plan
Area will be developed around corridors, magnet
cores, and complete neighborhoods. The following
sections describe the objectives of these areas in
more detail. These objectives are conceptual and
are not standards or requirements.

The Complete Street Guidelines in Chapter 5
illustrate the necessary streetscape improvements
to enhance the public realm of these corridors,
magnet cores, and complete neighborhood nodes,
including sidewalks, crossings, bicycle facilities,
transit, streetscape amenities, and green infrastructure. All public right-of-way guidelines are addressed in Chapter 5.

CORRIDORS
In addition to the Kearney Boulevard Historic Corridor Overlay and the California Boulevard MixedUse Overlay, three special corridors were identified as key streets with their own distinct character in
the Vision for Southwest Fresno (Chapter 2). They
are lined with higher, more concentrated development types and/or have multimodal improvements such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities.

The urban form along these special corridors will
be defined by the area’s most intensive and tallest
developments, especially in areas with mixed-use
buildings. Development along these special corridors will be compact to create a dynamic, transitand pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. Buildings and their main entrances will be oriented towards the
street.

Each corridor’s objective is described in the following sections; their locations are noted in Figure 4-1.

Each corridor shall be prioritized as a complete
street, as described in Chapter 5’s Complete Streets
Design Guidelines section.

New, high-quality development will have a variety of stores, architectural features, landscaping, and lighting. 4-10 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Regional Retail Corridor Objective
The Regional Retail Corridor is located along Whites
Bridge Avenue for almost the entire length of the
Plan Area, starting five parcels east of Valentine
Avenue and ending at Roeding Drive. It is the area
with the greatest opportunity to create a regional
retail center given its proximity to the Highway 180
and Marks Avenue interchange. Because it will be
a regional draw, the Regional Retail Corridor will
accommodate regional traffic and be well-signed.

Given the anticipated housing and office along the
corridor, the uses along the corridor will be developed to provide easy pedestrian access between developments and to the public right-of-way.

Mixed-Use/Jobs Corridor Objective
A Mixed-Use/Jobs Corridor along Elm Avenue
running north-south through the Plan Area from
Downtown Fresno is intended to encourage a lively
mix of uses with an emphasis on employment
uses. The Mixed-Use/Jobs Corridor Elm Avenue will
benefit from a future BRT line or enhanced transit
service connecting Downtown to the southern
portion of the Plan Area, and California Avenue BRT
along the way, as well as the existing Class II bike
lanes along the corridor. Development will create
an environment that invites pedestrian activity. In
areas where residential uses are in close proximity
to commercial uses, development will be designed
to be compatible.

Jobs Corridors Objective
A Jobs Corridors is identified as an employment focus area along Jensen Avenue throughout the Plan Area, connecting the heart of Southwest Fresno
to Highway 41. These corridors will be Southwest
Fresno’s employment areas and will be home to
office uses, services, and non-industrial employers. Development will include Class I bike paths, as described in Chapter 5’s section on Bicycles &
Trails, to allow people to bike to work and access
commercial services before and after work.

An office complex wraps around an open space area
and includes amenities such as seating and pedestrianscaled lighting.

A mixed-use building with ground-floor retail facing
the street, bicycle parking, and upper story balconies
encourage pedestrian activity.

Landscaped shoping center parking lot with designated
pedestrian sidewalk and lighting.

Chapter 4 | Development Regulations 4-11

MAGNET CORES
As described in the Vision for Southwest Fresno
(Chapter 2), magnet cores are home to high
intensity uses that attract other supporting higher
intensity uses. There are two magnets within the
Plan Area: 1) A Regional Retail Magnet Core is centered between Whites Bridge Avenue and Highway 180; and 2) A Community College Magnet Core is
centered on the parcels between Church Avenue,
Walnut Avenue, Jensen Avenue, and Martin Luther
King Jr. Boulevard focused on a college and associated mix of uses.

Regional Retail Magnet Core Objective
The Regional Retail Magnet Core is envisioned as
Southwest Fresno’s regional retail center. Taking
advantage of the proximity to the Whites Bridge
Avenue exit on Highway 180, this magnet core will
not only attract shoppers from Southwest Fresno,
but also regional shoppers via Highway 180. It is
targeted for the highest concentration of regional
retail uses.

Community College Magnet Core
Objective
The Community College Magnet Core is envisioned
to be a hub of new activity in the area of Southwest
Fresno referred to as the “MLK Activity Center.”
The community has a preference to see this area
become a community college campus with a mix
of adjacent uses to support it, including housing and commercial. It could also be a hub for medical facilities or a combination of compatible
high-activity magnet uses. This magnet core is
envisioned to be similar in character to the MixedUse Corridor because of its mix of active land uses and pedestrian environment. The new campus,
whether it is educational or medical, will be the
heart of this magnet. Like the special corridors, the
urban form around this magnet core will be defined
by the area’s most intensive and tallest developments. Development will be compact to create a dynamic, transit village atmosphere. Buildings and
their entrances will be oriented towards the street
or public open spaces and be complemented by a
pedestrian-friendly atmosphere.

Shopping center with entryway, pedestrian plaza,
lighting, attractive materials, and signage.

A community college campus with central open space
linked to pedestrian pathways, academic buildings, and
the neighborhood.

Source: Atomic Taco
A medical campus with landscaping and quality
architectural features.
4-12 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
F. CRIME PREVENTION

THROUGH

ENVIRONMENTAL
DESIGN
Urban form impacts how people interact with
public spaces, affects their sense of safety and
security in the public realm, and encourages or
discourages how they get around, among many
other behaviors. As Southwest Fresno is developed,
streets, parks, and buildings should be designed
using the principles of Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design (CPTED). CPTED is a crime
prevention philosophy based on the theory that
the proper design and effective use of the built
environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and
incidence of crime, as well as an improvement in
the quality of life. CPTED is a process and a way of
thinking about crime. It is not a program or system
of ready-made solutions. CPTED emphasizes understanding and changing the physical environment in an effort to reduce crime at particular locations.

CPTED is effective because of the concept of
“defensible space”. This concept suggests that all
space in the human environment is defendable;
a guardian can take responsibility for the space
and take action to defend it from non-legitimate,
criminal, or unintended use. To help defend a location, there are four overlapping CPTED strategies that need to be employed: 1) Natural Surveillance,
2) Territorial Reinforcement, 3) Access Control, and
4) Maintenance. The Citywide Development Code
enforces each of these strategies.

COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS

OBJECTIVE
Development further away from magnet cores and
corridors will consist of lower-intensity complete
neighborhoods. These complete neighborhoods
will have housing, services, employment, and
recreation all within walking distance. Although
smaller in scale, development at the heart of each
complete neighborhood will still be compact to
allow residents to reach commercial services and
public facilities in a walkable, pedestrian-friendly
environment. Rather than large retail establishments, each neighborhood will have small commercial establishments to provide services to their community.

As Southwest Fresno transitions from its agricultural and industrial roots, residential neighborhoods will be designed in a manner that supports health
and wellness. It is essential to develop complete
neighborhoods that include an efficient and diverse
mix of residential densities, building types, and affordability. The communities will be designed to be healthy, attractive, and centered by schools, parks,
and public and commercial services to provide a
sense of place and provide as many services as possible within walking distance. At the heart of each neighborhood will be a cluster of commercial uses,
parks, and schools located to serve the surrounding
residents. These neighborhood nodes located at
key intersections will be visible, accessible, and
inviting to passersby traveling on foot, bike, bus, or
private vehicle (see Figure 4-1).

Houses looking over a neighborhood park and
pedestrian crossings put more eyes on the public realm.

Neighborhood-serving retail with trees, landscaping,
lighting, small public plaza, and pedestrian zones will be in every complete neighborhood node.

Chapter 4 | Development Regulations 4-13

NATURAL SURVEILLANCE
Design buildings and open space so they are in
view of residents, workers, shoppers, and passersby. Putting more eyes on the street provides natural surveillance. Place physical features,
activities, and people in locations that maximize
the ability to see what is occurring in a given space.

Properly trim and maintain landscaping to allow for
visibility. Scale lighting for the pedestrian environment. Site new fire and police stations adjacent to parks, trails, and schools.

TERRITORIAL REINFORCEMENT
Design spaces that clearly define boundaries and
ownership. Define as public, private, or semipublic/semi-private. Install low decorative fencing around the semi-private outdoor patio of a business. Install proper signage that communicates the ownership of a space and the rules of its use.

ACCESS CONTROL
Design physical controls to limit physical movement
to and from a space; use strategic placement of
entrances, exits, fencing, landscaping, locks, and
other barriers. Design well-marked pedestrian
pathways through parking lots to give direction to
its users, and create a safer path of travel by alerting drivers to pedestrian zones. Place bollards near the entrance of a park to prevent vehicle entry but
allow pedestrian entry.

MAINTENANCE
Ensure the upkeep of an area or building over time
to demonstrate that someone cares about a space,
is watching, and will defend the property against
crime.

Outdoor dining, clear pedestrian zone, and well-kept
sidewalk signal that this area is looked after.

Pedestrian pathways through parking areas help people
feel safer walking to destinations.

Housing overlooking a neighborhood park can provide
natural surveillance.
4-14 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Chapter 5 | Transportation 5-1

TRANSPORTATION
A. INTRODUCTION
Since Southwest Fresno has a relatively low level
of development, there is significant opportunity
for future transportation improvements. Currently,
Southwest Fresno’s patchwork pattern of development, with residential neighborhoods separated by vacant or agricultural lands, has created a
sporadic street infrastructure network. This has
led to disconnected neighborhoods in the Plan
Area and transportation inefficiencies. To increase
mobility within the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Area (Plan Area), transportation improvements for
various modes of travel are critical to improve the
convenience and facilitation of how people travel
within and beyond Southwest Fresno. Improvements to the transportation network will not only help bring existing Southwest Fresno neighborhoods up to par with the rest of the city, but will also serve future anticipated development and
residents in Southwest Fresno.

This chapter describes proposed improvements to
the transportation network in Southwest Fresno to
support all modes of travel, including transit, active
forms of transportation like walking and biking,
automobile, and goods movement. Considering all
modes of travel for Southwest Fresno will enable
a comprehensive and balanced network of streets
that thoughtfully considers traffic congestion,
greenhouse gas emissions, and the abilities of all
users of the transportation network.

The Chapter is organized into the following
sections:

A. Introduction
B. Transportation Improvements
C. Complete Streets Design Guidelines
D. Goals and Policies
5 5-2 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Existing sidewalk with street trees.

Inconsistent sidewalks in a Southwest Fresno
neighborhood.

B. TRANSPORTATION

IMPROVEMENTS
This section describes the existing, planned, and
recommended improvements to the transportation
network in Southwest Fresno. Planned improvements are referenced from completed plans, including the Fresno General Plan (General Plan),
the Fresno Active Transportation Plan (ATP), and
the Highway 41 + North Corridor Complete Streets
Plan.

PEDESTRIAN
The Plan Area has inconsistent sidewalks; they are
most notably absent in undeveloped areas and on
streets that transition between the City of Fresno
and the unincorporated County (see Figure 5-1).

Inconsistent sidewalks can limit neighborhood access and walkability. The Fresno ATP identifies one “underserved neighborhood” within the Plan Area
that lacks sidewalks (see Figure 5-1). Since this area
is considered a “high priority area,” the City should
prioritize implementing sidewalk infrastructure and
improvements in these neighborhoods to improve
pedestrian travel.

The Fresno ATP also prioritizes sidewalk improvements on arterials and collectors with land uses and socioeconomic characteristics that generate
higher pedestrian travel demand. Currently, there
is a lack of sidewalks along the Plan’s proposed
major corridors (Whites Bridge Avenue, California
Avenue west of West Avenue, and Jensen Avenue),
notably in areas that are undeveloped. As development occurs in areas around corridors, and within magnet cores and complete neighborhoods,
continuous and wide sidewalks should be implemented accordingly to provide pedestrian access and create a pedestrian-friendly environment.

These improvements are described in detail in the
next section (Complete Streets Design Guidelines).

Lesser pedestrian improvements (i.e. standard
sidewalks) should be provided on other roadways
between magnet cores and along routes with less
pedestrian demand.

The recently completed Highway 41 + North
Corridor Complete Streets Plan proposes several pedestrian improvements in the Plan Area’s underserved neighborhood identified in the Fresno
ATP, including:
■ High-visibility crosswalks at Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard, South Clara Avenue (recently
installed), and South Elm Avenue along North
Avenue
■ A pedestrian activated signal (i.e., pedestrian
hybrid beacon) at the intersection of North and
South Clara Avenues
■ A temporary asphalt sidewalk on the south side
of North Avenue between Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard and South Elm Avenue
■ A completed sidewalk network, particularly
on North Avenue, South Clara Avenue, Martin
Luther King Jr. Boulevard, South Ivy Avenue,
and East Annadale Avenue
Chapter 5 | Transportation 5-3
180
99 99
41 41

WEST AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C ALIFORNIA CT TEILMAN AVE

JENSEN AVE VAGEDESAVE ATCHISON ST

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

NIELSEN AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE

BLOSSER AVE

GEORGEAVE

ILA AVE

CALWA AVE

LORENA AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

BELG RAVIAAVE

DELNOAVE

HAWESAVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

GARRETT AVE

FLORENCEAVE

TE ILMAN I C R

PLEASANT AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

LAFAYETTE AVE

SAMSON AVE

FRUIT AVE

THORNE AVE

BARDELL ST

LA SIERRADR

ELM AVE

KIRK ST

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

ROEDING DR

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

DIVISADERO ST

MERCED ST
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

MONTEREYST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

BLACKSTONE AVE BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE
H ST

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTACLARA ST

STROTHER AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

FAIRVIEW AVE
B ST

ARTHUR AVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST

LEMON AVE

ONEILAVE

GENEVA AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

CHINA ALY F ST

EUNICE AVE

HOME RUN ALY
L ST

COLLINS AVE
S ST

A/B ALY

FAGAN ALY
Q ST

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

WAYTE LN

NAPA AVE

LOTUS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

AIRPORT RD

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

WALNUT AVE

VAN NESS AVE

TRINITY ST

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

MADDY DR

PALM AVE

OC LL GE E V/ ANNESSALY

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

FARRIS AVE

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

VALENTINE AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD
H

FRUIT AVE

WALNUT AVE

ELM AVE

UGHES AVE

HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

VALENTINE AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

CENTRAL AVE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE
Sphere of Influence
City Limit
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
Plan Area
FIGURE 5-1 Existing and Planned Sidewalk Network
Existing Sidewalk
Missing Sidewalk
Underserved Neighborhood/
Priority Pedestrian Area within
Plan Area
Source: City of Fresno; 2017 Fresno Active Transportation Plan FIGURE 5-1 Existing and Planned Sidewalk Network
5-4 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Jogger using a frontage road as a running trail along
Kearney Boulevard.

In addition to sidewalk infrastructure, measures
that improve the walking experience and address
pedestrian accessibility and walkability should
be encouraged throughout the Plan Area. These
improvements may include, but are not limited to:
high-visibility crosswalks, curb bulbouts, trees, and
landscaping to provide shade and buffer between
sidewalks and higher speed traffic, rectangular
rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), and pedestrian
hybrid beacons (PHBs), where applicable (such
as at uncontrolled crosswalks between signalized
intersections in high pedestrian activity areas).

These types of improvements are particularly
important near schools, parks, and shopping areas,
within magnet cores, along transit corridors, and
on the high intensity corridors where pedestrian
activity is greatest. In these areas, traffic calming
measures should be implemented to reduce travel
speeds, which will reduce collision frequency
and severity. These are discussed further in the
Complete Streets Design Guidelines section later in
this chapter.

BICYCLE AND TRAILS
The Plan Area has a very limited bicycle and trail
network, which in turn does not support bicycling
as an alternative to vehicle travel. There are a few
bike lanes in the east-west direction, but they run
in short segments and are often discontinuous. The
Plan Area has one continuous bike lane along Elm
Avenue, which connects to the bicycle network in
Downtown Fresno. “Trails” as described within this
Plan refer to Class I bike paths, which are multi-use
pathways separated from vehicle traffic and shared
between bicyclists and pedestrians. Currently,
there are no existing trails within the Plan Area; just outside of the Plan Area, there is an existing trail
along Kearney Boulevard west of Brawley Avenue
to Kearney Park.

The Fresno ATP, which incorporates recommendations from the General Plan, recommends a bikeway system that is primarily comprised of Class
II bike lanes and follows the natural grid network
of arterial and collector streets within the Plan
Area (see Figure 5-2). Descriptions of the different
classes of bikeways can be found on page 5-24 in
the Complete Streets Design Guidelines section.

The provision of Class II bike lanes on every arterial
within the Plan Area would create a well-connected
bicycle network and provide continuous travel
through complete neighborhoods, within magnet
cores, and along corridors. Bicycle facilities should
be prioritized along corridors and other streets that
provide connections to high intensity activity areas.

The Fresno ATP also indicates that planned Class II
bike lanes could be considered for Class IV treatment during the project development phases. The ongoing Fresno Council of Governments’ Separated
Bikeway Feasibility Study may identify additional
corridors for Class IV implementation.

The recently completed Highway 41 + North
Corridor Complete Streets Plan proposes buffered
bike lanes on either side of the street along North
Avenue, focused between Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard and Elm Avenue (see Figure 5-3 taken
from the Highway 41 + North Complete Streets
Corridor Plan). Planned future right-of-way (ROW)
expansion can also accommodate this improvement when the existing roadway is widened. The City is preparing an official plan line for North
Existing Class II bike lane in Southwest Fresno.

Chapter 5 | Transportation 5-5
180
99 99
41 41

WEST AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C ALIFORNIA CT TEILMAN AVE

JENSEN AVE VAGEDESAVE ATCHISON ST

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

NIELSEN AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE

BLOSSER AVE

GEORGEAVE

ILA AVE

CALWA AVE

LORENA AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

BELG RAVIAAVE

DELNOAVE

HAWESAVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

GARRETT AVE

FLORENCEAVE

TE ILMAN I C R

PLEASANT AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

LAFAYETTE AVE

SAMSON AVE

FRUIT AVE

THORNE AVE

BARDELL ST

LA SIERRADR

ELM AVE

KIRK ST

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

ROEDING DR

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

DIVISADERO ST

MERCED ST
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

MONTEREYST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

BLACKSTONE AVE BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE
H ST

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTACLARA ST

STROTHER AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

FAIRVIEW AVE
B ST

ARTHUR AVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST

LEMON AVE

ONEILAVE

GENEVA AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

CHINA ALY F ST

EUNICE AVE

HOME RUN ALY
L ST

COLLINS AVE
S ST

A/B ALY

FAGAN ALY
Q ST

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

WAYTE LN

NAPA AVE

LOTUS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

AIRPORT RD

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

WALNUT AVE

VAN NESS AVE

TRINITY ST

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

MADDY DR

PALM AVE

OC LL GE E V/ ANNESSALY

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

FARRIS AVE

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

VALENTINE AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

FRUIT AVE

WALNUT AVE

ELM AVE

HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

VALENTINE AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

CENTRAL AVE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE
Sphere of Influence
City Limit
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
Plan Area
FIGURE 5-2 Existing and Planned Bicycle and Trail Network Existing Class I
(Multi-Use Trail)
Existing Class II
Existing Class III
Planned Class I Priority Bikeways
(Multi-Use Trail)
Planned Class II
Planned Class III
Planned Class IV
Sources: City of Fresno; 2017 Fresno Active Transportation Plan; Fresno General Plan Figure MT-2 Path and Trails (2017) FIGURE 5-2 Existing and Planned Bicycle and Trail Network 5-6 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Avenue to establish the long-term ROW, which will
determine which existing property lines will require
assessment for potential parcel acquisition. Figure
5-3 shows planned long-term improvements for
North Avenue, which includes buffered bike lanes
on both sides of the street, no on-street parking,
two travel lanes, a center two-way left-turn lane,
and a wide sidewalk on the south side of the North
Avenue. This improvement was reflected in the
Fresno ATP, designating North Avenue as a Class II
facility.

The proposed Class I bike paths/multi-use trails in
Figure 5-2 were identified in the Fresno ATP and
recently amended General Plan Path and Trails
Map. These separated bikeways provide more
attractive facilities for the greater population, and
are particularly beneficial along major corridors
and connecting magnet cores where traffic volume
is anticipated to be greatest. Proposed Class I trails
in the Plan Area are included along arterials, such
as Marks, Jensen, and North Avenues, as well as
pathways along irrigation canals that travel in a
diagonal direction across the Plan Area. The canal
pathways provide a more scenic and low-traffic
option for travel. Trails along the canals connect
to the east-west and north-south trails system to
provide continuity and access to major destinations. For the trail along Jensen Avenue (the Jobs Corridor), it is recommended that the location of
the separated pathway not conflict with proposed
office development, associated office service
activities (e.g., loading and unloading), and high
intensity traffic. For example and if appropriate, the
separated pathway could be a parallel pathway on
private office development.

TRANSIT
Due to the Plan Area’s limited development, not
all of the Plan Area is served by fixed route Fresno
Area Express (FAX) bus transit. Existing transit lines
are focused around existing residential neighborhoods and provide connections to Downtown (see Figure 5-4). However, there are a few residential
neighborhoods that are not within walking distance
of a transit line such as the neighborhood west of
Marks Avenue and north Kearney Boulevard, as
well as the neighborhood north of North Avenue
and west of Walnut Avenue. It should also be noted
that the current FAX service does not provide access to the Plan Area’s regional park, the Regional Sports Complex.

Source: 2016 Highway 41 + North Corridor Complete Streets Plan FIGURE 5-3 North Avenue Long-term Alternative Cross Section: Class II Buffered Bike Lanes Chapter 5 | Transportation 5-7
1 3
2 2
2 2
1 3
180
99 99
41 41
MAGNET
MAGNET

WEST AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C ALIFORNIA CT TEILMAN AVE

JENSEN AVE VAGEDESAVE ATCHISON ST

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

NIELSEN AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE

BLOSSER AVE

GEORGEAVE

ILA AVE

CALWA AVE

LORENA AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

BELG RAVIAAVE

DELNOAVE

HAWESAVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

GARRETT AVE

FLORENCEAVE

TE ILMAN I C R

PLEASANT AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

LAFAYETTE AVE

SAMSON AVE

FRUIT AVE

THORNE AVE

BARDELL ST

LA SIERRADR

ELM AVE

KIRK ST

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

ROEDING DR

TULARE ST
G ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

DIVISADERO ST

MERCED ST
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

MONTEREYST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

BLACKSTONE AVE BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE
H ST

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTACLARA ST

STROTHER AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

FAIRVIEW AVE
B ST

ARTHUR AVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST

LEMON AVE

ONEILAVE

GENEVA AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

CHINA ALY F ST

EUNICE AVE

HOME RUN ALY
L ST

COLLINS AVE
S ST

A/B ALY
Q ST

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

WAYTE LN

NAPA AVE

LOTUS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

AIRPORT RD

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

WALNUT AVE

VAN NESS AVE

TRINITY ST

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

MADDY DR

PALM AVE

OC LL GE E V/ ANNESSALY

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

FARRIS AVE

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

VALENTINE AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD
H

FRUIT AVE

WALNUT AVE

ELM AVE

UGHES AVE HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

VALENTINE AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

CENTRAL AVE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE
T
Sphere of Influence
City Limit
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
Plan Area
FIGURE 5-4 Existing and Potential Transit Routes
Existing FAX Routes
Other FAX Routes
30 32
34 38
Recommended Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Corridors
1 2
3 Planned BRT Corridor per Fresno General Plan
Recommended BRT Corridors per FAX
Recommended BRT Corridor per the Plan
Potential Restructured Routes per FAX
Potential Removal of Existing Route
29 (BRT)
38 31
T
T Transit Center
Other FAX Routes
Sources: City of Fresno; Fresno Area Express (FAX); 2015 FAX Final Service Plan Layout T Future Transit Center with HSR
FIGURE 5-4 Existing and Potential Transit Routes
5-8 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
FAX transit stop with basic amenities in Southwest Fresno.

The General Plan states that Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) is envisioned on California Avenue connecting Southwest Fresno with Downtown as part of the second phase of BRT implementation. As the
Plan Area becomes more developed, the Plan
recommends that in addition to California Avenue
(the Mixed-Use Corridor), transit service should
be prioritized on the other proposed high intensity
corridors, which include Whites Bridge Avenue,
Church Avenue, and Elm Avenue, in order to
provide better access between existing and new
residential areas to employment, retail, and commercial uses. The Plan recommends that enhanced transit services also be implemented along Elm
Avenue to provide an improved connection for
commuters between Elm Avenue’s anticipated
office uses to and from Downtown, the FAX bus
terminal, and the High-Speed Rail (HSR) station.

Transit routes should also be considered on connecting streets between the major corridors and activity centers such as supermarkets, commercial
areas, and employment areas. Additional transit
routes would need to be provided and connect
to magnet cores and Downtown. There could be
potential for a local transit circulator connecting
areas of higher density within Southwest Fresno,
in addition to the existing transit service that
connects Southwest Fresno’s magnet cores with
Downtown Fresno. There could be a potential
transit center linking multiple transit routes at one
or more of the magnet cores.

Additional service locations are established
through a public process as defined by the Federal
Transportation Administration under Title VI. FAX
will undergo this type of planning effort in spring
or summer of 2017 to restructure routes, extend
night service, and extend weekend service with
the intention of adding more neighborhood-based
services in areas west of Highway 99, including
Southwest Fresno. FAX recently prepared a potential restructured service plan layout for better enhanced and more reliable service. Figure 5-4
shows FAX’s potential routes compared to existing
FAX service, which includes new BRT service along
Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard from Jensen
Avenue to the northern boundary of the Plan
Area. This BRT line would serve the MLK Activity
Center to its west. The Plan proposes to maintain
FAX service along C and Santa Clara Streets so that
the recommended enhanced transit service along
Elm Avenue can continue south connecting to
Downtown. As the Plan Area develops, regular and
rapid transit routes within Southwest Fresno should
be routinely evaluated to consider whether any
routes should be rerouted and/or expanded to link
existing and new residential areas to existing and
new commercial, employment, parks, and public
facility uses.

VEHICLES
Southwest Fresno’s existing low traffic volumes
allow more opportunities for streets to accommodate additional traffic from future development within the current roadway ROW. There is also
opportunity to potentially repurpose additional
roadway ROW from existing streets, especially in
undeveloped areas, to provide bicycle, pedestrian,
and transit facilities.

The General Plan proposed several roadway widenings to the Plan Area’s existing roadway network and the completed Highway 41 + North Corridor
Complete Streets Plan also proposes roadway
modifications for North Avenue from Martin Luther
King Jr. Boulevard to Elm Avenue to have two travel
lanes with a center turning lane. These planned
roadway improvements are reflected in Figure 5-5.

Based on the Fresno General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report (GP MEIR) and the Highway Chapter 5 | Transportation 5-9
Existing Number of Lanes
1 2
3 4
MAGNET
MAGNET
180
99 99
41 41

WEST AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C ALIFORNIA CT TEILMAN AVE

JENSEN AVE VAGEDESAVE ATCHISON ST

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

NIELSEN AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE

BLOSSER AVE

GEORGEAVE

ILA AVE

CALWA AVE

LORENA AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

BELG RAVIAAVE

DELNOAVE

HAWESAVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

GARRETT AVE

FLORENCEAVE

TE ILMAN I C R

PLEASANT AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

LAFAYETTE AVE

SAMSON AVE

FRUIT AVE

THORNE AVE

BARDELL ST

LA SIERRADR

ELM AVE

KIRK ST

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

ROEDING DR

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

DIVISADERO ST

MERCED ST
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

MONTEREYST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

BLACKSTONE AVE BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE
H ST

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTACLARA ST

STROTHER AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

FAIRVIEW AVE
B ST

ARTHUR AVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST

LEMON AVE

ONEILAVE

GENEVA AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

CHINA ALY F ST

EUNICE AVE

HOME RUN ALY
L ST

COLLINS AVE
S ST

A/B ALY

FAGAN ALY
Q ST

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

WAYTE LN

NAPA AVE

LOTUS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

AIRPORT RD

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

WALNUT AVE

VAN NESS AVE

TRINITY ST

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

MADDY DR

PALM AVE

OC LL GE E V/ ANNESSALY

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

FARRIS AVE

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

VALENTINE AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD
H

FRUIT AVE

WALNUT AVE

ELM AVE

UGHES AVE HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

VALENTINE AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

CENTRAL AVE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE
Sphere of Influence
City Limit
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
Plan Area
FIGURE 5-5 Existing and Planned Number of Roadway Lanes Number of Roadway Lanes*
1 Lane
2 Lanes
3 Lanes
4 Lanes
Potential additional roadway lanes; four or six lanes may be required for Regional Retail Corridor
1 1
2 3
2 2
2 3
Potential additional roadway lanes for key connections
near magnet cores
Potential reduction in roadway lanes (to two lanes) on
Mixed-Use Corridor
Sources: City of Fresno; 2035 Fresno General Plan
Southwest Fresno Specific Plan’s Proposed Modifications *Based on Fresno General Plan (i.e., Figure MT-1) and Fresno General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report Analysis
FIGURE 5-5 Existing and Planned Number of Roadway Lanes 5-10 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
41 + North Corridor Complete Streets Plan, the
following roadways within the Plan Area are to be
widened to four lanes:
§ California Avenue: Fruit Avenue to Martin
Luther King Jr. Boulevard
§ Jensen Avenue: Marks Avenue to Martin
Luther King Jr. Boulevard
§ North Avenue: Elm Avenue to SR 41
§ Marks Avenue: Whites Bridge Avenue to
Jensen Avenue
§ Roeding Drive: Whites Bridge Avenue to
Kearney Boulevard
§ Walnut Avenue: California Avenue to Jensen
Avenue
In addition to these proposed improvements, the
Plan recommends a few additional or alternative improvements to accommodate the Plan’s proposed development patterns and capacity.

Figure 5-5 shows the Plan’s recommendations to
key streets within the Plan Area, which are also
described below:
■ Additional roadway lanes may be required
on the Regional Retail Corridor along Whites
Bridge Avenue compared to the planned
number of lanes identified in the GP MEIR. The
GP MEIR shows a planned two-lane roadway
(one lane each direction) on Whites Bridge
Avenue, and instead, four or six lanes could
be needed depending on the intensity of the
regional retail.
■ Additional roadway lanes for key connections
near magnet cores may be necessary, such
as along Hughes Avenue around the Regional
Retail Magnet Core and along Walnut Avenue
and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard around
the Community College Magnet Core.
■ A complete streets approach is recommended
for all of the Plan’s identified corridors. Existing
and planned four-lane facilities and could
instead be reduced to two lanes if additional
capacity is provided on parallel facilities.

There may be opportunities for fewer roadway
lanes in areas further away from magnet cores
than the planned number of lanes identified in the
GP MEIR. Also, depending on the exact locations
of magnet uses, the magnet use’s entrances, and
where the most intensive traffic-generating uses
are concentrated, the number of lanes required on
roadways within the Plan Area may differ slightly
from the other planned number of lanes identified
in the GP MEIR. [Note: All of the above changes in
roadway lanes will be confirmed once Fehr & Peers
runs their traffic model for the EIR. Therefore,
these descriptions will be subject to change.]
TRUCKS
With the significant amount of industrial uses
situated within Southwest Fresno, multiple truck
routes pass directly through existing residential
areas. The frequent truck traffic reduces comfort
levels for residents, especially for pedestrians and
bicyclists who share the roadway with truck drivers.

Figure 5-6 shows a map of existing truck routes
that pass through the Plan Area and the existing
industrial uses within the Plan Area and Sphere of
Influence (SOI) that these routes serve. Existing
residential areas are also shown on the map to
highlight the proximity of truck traffic to many
existing residential neighborhoods in Southwest
Fresno. Existing truck routes are located along city
and county streets.

The Plan recommends the rerouting of existing
truck routes that pass through large swaths of existing residential neighborhoods. These eliminated routes should be rerouted to street segments that
do not or minimally intersect existing residential
areas, while still providing access and service to
existing industrial businesses. Recommended truck
reroutes are shown in Figure 5-6 and include the
following:
■ The truck route on California Avenue should be
eliminated to avoid existing residential areas
and to provide a more pedestrian-, bicycle-,
and transit-friendly environment along the
Mixed-Use Corridor.

Chapter 5 | Transportation 5-11
ting Truck Routes
County Permit Route
Existing Truck Route

FUTURE PLANNED TRUCK ROUTE
Existing Industrial Land Use
180
99 99
41 41

WEST AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C ALIFORNIA CT TEILMAN AVE

JENSEN AVE VAGEDESAVE ATCHISON ST

OLEANDER AVE

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

NIELSEN AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE

BLOSSER AVE

GEORGEAVE

ILA AVE

CALWA AVE

LORENA AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

DELNOAVE

HAWESAVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

EDEN AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

GARRETT AVE

TE ILMAN I C R

PLEASANT AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

LAFAYETTE AVE

SAMSON AVE

FRUIT AVE

THORNE AVE

BARDELL ST

LA SIERRADR

ELM AVE

KIRK ST

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

ROEDING DR

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

DIVISADERO ST

MERCED ST
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

MONTEREYST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

BLACKSTONE AVE BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE
H ST

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTACLARA ST

STROTHER AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

FAIRVIEW AVE
B ST

ARTHUR AVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST

LEMON AVE

ONEILAVE

GENEVA AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

CHINA ALY F ST

EUNICE AVE

HOME RUN ALY
L ST

COLLINS AVE
S ST

A/B ALY

FAGAN ALY
Q ST

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

WAYTE LN

NAPA AVE

LOTUS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

AIRPORT RD

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

WALNUT AVE

VAN NESS AVE

TRINITY ST

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

MADDY DR

PALM AVE

OC LL GE E V/ ANNESSALY

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

FARRIS AVE

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

VALENTINE AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

FRUIT AVE

WALNUT AVE

ELM AVE

HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

VALENTINE AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

CENTRAL AVE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE
Sphere of Influence
City Limit
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
Plan Area
FIGURE 5-6 Existing, Planned, and Recommended Truck Routes Existing Truck Route
Existing Residential Land Use
in Plan Area
Existing Industrial Land Uses Served
by Truck Routes in Southwest Fresno
Recommended Elimination of
Existing Truck Route
Recommended New Truck Route

CARGILL

MEAT SOLUTIONS

BUSSETO
FOODS
FOSTER

POULTRY
FARMS
FRESNO

CHANDLER

EXECUTIVE

AIRPORT
Source: City of Fresno
FIGURE 5-6 Existing, Planned, and Recommended Truck Routes 5-12 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
■ The truck route on North Avenue should be
eliminated to avoid existing residential areas.

Trucks should be rerouted from Highway 41 to
Central, West, and Fig Avenues. This reroute
is consistent with the recommendation from
the recently completed Highway 41 + North
Corridor Complete Streets Plan.
■ A new or rerouted truck route along Marks
Avenue should be considered to provide a
direct connection from State Route 180 to
existing industrial uses connecting to a new
extended truck route along Church Avenue; the
GP MEIR plans to widen Marks Avenue to have
four lanes of travel.
■ The truck route along Jensen Avenue between
Knight and Elm Avenues should be eliminated
to avoid passing through multiple residential
neighborhoods. Parallel truck routes along
Church and Central Avenues should be used
as an alternative. Jensen Avenue east of Elm
Avenue should remain a truck route so that
trucks can access Highway 41 and the industrial
areas in the “reverse triangle” between
Highways 41 and 99. Jensen Avenue west of
Knight Avenue should remain a truck route to
service existing industrial and future office uses
south of Jensen Avenue.
■ The existing truck route along Elm Avenue
should be extended south to Central Avenue
to serve existing industrial uses and provide
better connectivity between Elm Avenue and
the recommended Central Avenue truck route.
■ A new truck route along Roeding Drive from
Whites Bridge Avenue to Channing Way should
be considered to provide truck service access
to the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport the
GP MEIR plans to widen Roeding Drive to
have four lanes of travel. Establishment of this
truck route is necessary for Fresno Chandler
Executive Airport and the surrounding
businesses.
■ North-south truck routes that connect to
recommended eliminated truck routes, such
as Thorne Avenue, Walnut Avenue, and West
Avenue from California Avenue to Florence
Avenue, should also be eliminated.

The recommended rerouting of truck traffic should
be thoroughly discussed between existing industrial
business stakeholders, existing residents, potentially affected agencies such as County of Fresno and Caltrans, and the City’s traffic engineers. The
recommended streets that would accommodate
new truck traffic should be evaluated to determine
whether the roadway’s current pavement condition
can withstand truck traffic over time and whether
the roadway’s width can accommodate truck
movement.

If it is determined that new truck routes cannot
accommodate these factors, the City should
prioritize the recommended street(s) for the
needed improvements or should determine
sufficient alternative routes that are agreeable
among existing residents, industrial stakeholders,
and agency stakeholders. Since this Plan proposes
to eliminate some existing truck routes, the City
should reconsider any future planned truck routes
that extend or connect to these eliminated truck
routes.

Truck traffic through Southwest Fresno.

Chapter 5 | Transportation 5-13
C. COMPLETE STREETS

DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following Complete Streets Design Guidelines
aim to create a high-quality pedestrian and bicycle
environment while accommodating vehicle access
needs. They provide direction for the envisioned
character of streets. Implementation of these
Complete Streets Design Guidelines should be
prioritized along streets within magnet cores
and complete neighborhoods, and along special
corridors specified in Chapter 2, Vision, and
Chapter 4, Development Regulations: (1) Regional
Retail Corridor, (2) Mixed-Use Corridor, (3) Jobs
Corridor, and (4) Mixed-Use/Jobs Corridor. Streets
other than these should have a lower priority for
complete streets implementation. These guidelines
may be implemented differently along streets, due
to varying street dimensions, adjacent land use,
and modal priorities. For example, if a corridor is
planned for BRT, complete streets improvements
should focus on transit mobility and pedestrian
access; on the other hand, if a corridor will act as a
key bicycle route, complete streets improvements
should prioritize bicycle facilities. The guidelines
are compatible with the streetscape enhancement
standards contained in the Citywide Development
Code. All improvements will need to be reviewed
and approved by City of Fresno Public Works.

They are categorized into the following categories:
■ Pedestrian
■ Streetscape Amenities
■ Green Infrastructure
■ Bicycle
■ Transit
Sidewalk with street trees in curb zone.

Street with Class II bicycle facilities and a high-visibility crosswalk.

Bulbout with streetscape amenities and furnishings.
5-14 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan

PEDESTRIAN
Sidewalks
Wherever possible, existing sidewalks should be
widened through a public easement for pedestrian
purposes on the adjacent private property to
accommodate a throughway zone along with a
curb zone and a frontage zone, as illustrated in
Figure 5-7. This should be accommodated as vacant
parcels are developed and existing buildings are
redeveloped; buildings should be set back from the
back of walk to accommodate the following zones
and widths. New sidewalks should also provide
these three zones and be no less than 12 feet in
width.
■ Throughway Zone. Maintain 5- to 6-foot
minimum pedestrian-through zones that are
completely clear of obstructions (e.g., tree
grates, planters, light poles, etc.) and meet
all applicable Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) regulations. Relocate utility boxes out of
the pedestrian-through zone, where feasible.

For new sidewalks adjacent to residential-only
projects, provide a 7-foot throughway zone
adjacent to the private parcel.
■ Curb Zone. Place street furniture, including
light poles, benches, and trash receptacles, in
the outer 2-foot minimum zone adjacent to the
curb. Landscape strips are also appropriate in
this zone and should be at least 5 feet wide,
and 6 to 8 feet wide where landscaped with
larger trees.
■ Frontage Zone. In areas with mixed-use
development, improve facades of adjacent
commercial buildings with awnings and
other pedestrian-scale enhancements. New
commercial development should be built
close to the property line, with setbacks for
wider throughway zones and frontage zones.

Frontage zones can accommodate sidewalk
cafés, store entrances, retail displays, and/
or landscaping. They are not needed on
low-density, residential streets. Acquire public
access easements on private property to
expand sidewalks and useable pedestrian areas
and/or add street trees and landscaping for
common open space.

Throughway
Zone
Curb Zone for utilities
and street furnishings Curb Zone Throughway
Zone
Frontage
Zone
Frontage
Zone
FIGURE 5-7 Zones on a Sidewalk
Chapter 5 | Transportation 5-15
Crossings
All existing and new marked crosswalks should
employ markings consistent with the California
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD). High-visibility crosswalk markings
should be prioritized at uncontrolled locations.

High visibility marking patterns include ladder,
continental, bar pairs, and triple-four markings (see
Figure 5-8). It is recommended that the lines in
these patterns are spaced to avoid the wheel path
of vehicles, since making this minor adjustment will
increase the durability of the markings and reduce
maintenance costs.

Additionally, crosswalks may employ special colors,
markings, and/or materials to create a sense of
place or increase visibility, as long as the crosswalk
is marked consistent with the California MUTCD.

Note that some textured materials may be a
hindrance to people with physical disabilities (e.g.,
people who use in wheelchairs or are blind/visually
impaired).

Stop lines should be placed 3 to 7 feet in advance
of crosswalks at controlled intersections to reduce
occurrences of drivers encroaching into the
crosswalks. Additional space may be required to accommodate special bicycle intersection treatment, such as bike boxes.

Turning lanes and inside travel lanes may be
narrowed to 10 feet, while outside travel lanes may
be narrowed to 11 feet in width where feasible
to facilitate the provision of curb bulbouts, and
bicycle facilities.

High-visibility Crosswalk Locations
In addition to the existing marked crosswalks in the
Plan Area, new high-visibility crosswalks should be
considered to improve pedestrian accessibility and
mobility. The following should be considered when
identifying new crosswalk locations:

Signalized Intersections
■ All signalized intersections along the corridor
should include high-visibility crosswalks. If
an intersection in the Plan Area becomes
signalized in the future, high-visibility
crosswalks should be provided.

Continental marked crosswalk.

LADDER MARKED CROSSWALK

TRIPLE-FOUR MARKED CROSSWALK

BAR PAIR MARKED CROSSWALK

CONTINENTAL MARKED CROSSWALK
1’-0” to 2’-0”
1’-0” to 2’-0”
Stripe
1’-0” to 5’-0”
Spacing Spacings should not exceed

2.5 times stripe width
6’-0”
Min.
1’-0” to 2’-0”
Stripe
1’-0” to 5’-0”
Spacing
6’-0”
Min.
2’-0”
Stripe
2’-0” Min.

Spacing
4’-0”
Consider aligning negative
spaces with car wheel base
to reduce maintenance
needs
4’-0”
4’-0”
0’-8”
Stripe
0’-8”
Spacing
2’-0” to 5’0”
Spacing
FIGURE 5-8 High-visibility Crosswalk Types
5-16 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Uncontrolled Intersections
■ At uncontrolled locations, a marked crosswalk
may be considered if the following conditions
exist:
§ There is sufficient pedestrian activity and
demand to cross the corridor. This typically
would be about 20 pedestrians per hour.
§ It is a convenient location to cross with
excellent visibility.
§ Drivers are aware of the pedestrian crossing.
§ A transportation engineer determines
that a marked crosswalk would provide an
improved crossing over unmarked crosswalk
conditions.
■ Heavy and fast-moving traffic conditions may
indicate that providing only a marked crosswalk
at an uncontrolled location may be insufficient
along the corridor. If a marked crosswalk at
an uncontrolled intersection is warranted,
RRFBs should be considered as a minimum
improvement. PHBs should also be considered
as an option to increase driver awareness of
the crosswalk. At uncontrolled crosswalks (e.g.,
mid-block crossings), advanced yield limit lines
should be provided 20 to 50 feet in advance of
the crosswalk to notify drivers to slow down
as they approach the upcoming crossing.

These suggested improvements are subject to
approval by the City of Fresno Public Works
Department.
■ Areas with higher levels of pedestrian activity
that may be candidates for new crosswalks at
uncontrolled locations include:
§ Near high-use transit stops/stations not
adjacent to a signalized intersection
§ Along a walking route to a school
§ Near major activity centers such as
retail, offices, schools, parks, complete
neighborhood nodes, and magnet cores
■ In addition, marked crosswalks at uncontrolled
locations should employ California MUTCD
compliant signage to increase driver awareness
to the crosswalk’s presence.

Marked crosswalk using different pavement materials.

Signalized crosswalk with decorative paving to enhance
visibility and neighborhood character.

Advanced “shark teeth” yield line before a pedestrian
crossing.

GR FIX
Chapter 5 | Transportation 5-17
Additional Crossing Improvement
■ Curb Bulbouts. Curb bulbouts should be
installed on corridor intersections with
crosswalks where feasible to increase
pedestrian visibility and shorten crossing
distances, as well as provide space for street
trees, landscaping, and street furniture, such as
bike racks and benches. Curb bulbouts should
be closely coordinated with adjacent bicycle
facility design to ensure adequate space is
provided for bicyclists.

STREETSCAPE AMENITIES
■ Lighting. Energy-efficient street light poles
and pedestrian lights (e.g., solar, LED) should
be consistently spaced every 20 to 30 feet to
provide sufficient lighting for pedestrians on
the sidewalk and bicyclists in the street; they
should alternate with street trees.
§ Where the sidewalk is adjacent to the street,
pedestrian lights should be attached to the
street light poles.
§ Where the sidewalk is separated from the
street, pedestrian lights should be installed
as separate units every 20 to 30 feet.
§ Lighting on alleys should be incorporated
and coordinated with the adjacent property
owners to ensure improved visibility and light
pollution is avoided.
§ Up-lighting of trees in medians and
on sidewalks should be considered in
pedestrian-oriented areas for additional
visibility and beautification purposes.
■ Themed Banners. Banners that emphasize the
identity of a corridor and/or the surrounding
neighborhoods should be attached to the
street light poles to unify those areas. These
banners should be designed with the input of
the community and neighborhood schools and
organizations. The process by which designs
are chosen and replaced should be established
prior to the design selection. The location and
content of banners should be approved by the
City’s Department of Public Works.

Energy-efficient street lights.

Themed banners attached to street light poles.
5-18 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
■ Parklets. Parklets should be considered in
areas with high-pedestrian activity and/or
eating establishments to provide additional
public space for gathering.
§ Parklets can take up one to two on-street
parking spaces, are built at the level of the
sidewalk, and offer seating, landscaping, and
additional amenities by extending the street
furniture/curb zone.
§ Parklet designs should include sustainable
furnishings and plantings that are lacking on
a block (e.g., seating areas on a block where
there are not sufficient benches or bus stops,
or landscaping on a block where there is little
sidewalk space for landscaping).
§ Parklets should be designed with the
neighboring business owners and users
to ensure the design is compatible and
desirable for the community.

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
■ Landscaping and Street Trees. Plant street
trees to provide shade for pedestrians on
sidewalks, reduce the heat island effect, and
beautify the street. Space trees 20 to 30 feet
apart in between street lights. If trees are
planted in bulb-outs or a parking lane, they
should be spaced to allow for parking stalls in
between. Install tree grates that are flush with
the sidewalk to protect the trees’ roots and are
not tripping hazards.
■ Plant Selection. All trees and landscaping
should be plant drought-tolerant species that
are appropriate for the site and the climate.
§ Invasive Species. Always avoid invasive
species; California Invasive Plant Council’s
(CAL-IPC’s) “Don’t Plant a Pest” list for the
Central Valley should be used as a reference.
§ Irrigation. Selecting native and low-wateruse species will reduce the need for irrigation and increase the species probability of
survival. The majority of California native and
climate-adapted plants do not like overhead
water in the summer; where necessary, low
volume irrigation systems should be installed
Parklet acting as an extension of the sidewalk to provide more seating.

Street tree bulbout in an angled parking lane.

Landscaped median with low planting and street trees.

Chapter 5 | Transportation 5-19
with weather-based or soil-based controllers,
with a rain-sensing shutoff device, and
recycled water should be utilized where
possible.
§ Root System. Appropriate tree selection is
important to ensure tree health and avoid
damage to the surrounding hardscape with
large root systems.
■ Plant Height. Consider sightlines and
groundcover/shrub heights. When planting
along the roadway, consider the full maturity
of the plant and provide sufficient setbacks
to avoid conflict with pedestrian, bicycle, and
vehicle circulation. Plants within sightline
zones should grow no higher than 24 inches
at maturity. Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) principles
encourage visual corridors to be maintained
throughout the public realm. Groundcovers
and shrubs should be maintained to remain
below 36 inches, and tree canopies should be
maintained to be above head height (7 feet
above ground).
■ Additional Landscape Improvements. Look
for opportunities for additional planting and
drought-tolerant street trees in the medians,
furnishing zone of widened sidewalks, bulbouts, and parking lanes. Partner with adjacent land owners and Tree Fresno to increase
the urban canopy and beautify the area by
planting trees and additional drought-tolerant
landscape improvements on private property.
■ Biofiltration Features. Rain gardens in the
diagonal curb banks and curb bulbouts, as
well as narrow biofiltration trenches along
the sidewalk, are an effective way to treat
stormwater runoff and reduce the heat island
effect. Constructing these elements in the
streetscape introduces plants to capture the
stormwater pollutants and allows for the
water to infiltrate through the soil and into the
groundwater below, rather than flow directly
into storm drains and into Fresno’s rivers and
streams. These areas also provide space to
plant street trees. Hardscape should be graded
to drain toward these treatment areas.

Landscaping as biofiltration feature.
■ Permeable Pavement. Consider installing
permeable paving materials, such as porous
asphalt or concrete, open-grid paving systems,
and infiltration trenches, to allow water to
move through the surface and into the soil
below to reduce stormwater runoff consistent
with the California Building Code and ADA
standards. For example, parking lanes may be
paved with unit pavers. Utilizing permeable
hardscape within the street corridor with existing storm drains will likely result in cost-savings when the storm drain system is replaced. They
can also reduce the heat island effect common
with traditional asphalt lots.

Permeable pavers can be used in parking areas/
driveways.
5-20 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan

BICYCLING
These guidelines are based on the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM), the California MUTCD, the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities, National Association of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide, as well as best practices in
other communities. Bikeway planning and design
in California typically relies on the guidelines
and design standards established by Caltrans as
documented in “Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning
and Design” of the HDM. Chapter 1000 follows
standards developed by AASHTO and the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), and identifies
specific design standards for various conditions.

These standards provide a good framework for
future implementation, but may not always be
feasible given specific constraints. Bikeway design
and planning standards are continually changing
and expanding. Despite this, most agencies adopt
the Caltrans or AASHTO standards as a minimum.

Based on the California Streets and Highways Code,
Caltrans currently identifies four types of bikeways,
as described below.
■ Class I – Bike Paths. Also known as shareduse paths, these are bikeways that provide a completely separated ROW and are located off
the roadway for the exclusive use of bicycles
and pedestrians with crossflows by motor
vehicle traffic minimized. Since crossflows by
motor vehicle traffic should be minimized,
Class I bike paths are best implemented along
waterways (such as canals or creeks) that
have few cross streets, or along roadways with
strict access controls that limit the number of
driveways and cross streets.
■ Class II – Bike Lanes. These lanes are
demarcated in the roadway for the exclusive
or semi-exclusive use of bicycles. Vehicle and
pedestrian cross-flow are permitted. The
striping is supported by pavement markings
and signage.
§ Buffered Bike Lanes. Buffered bike lanes are
on-street bike lane facilities with additional
striping, which creates a buffer that increases
the separation between bicyclists and
Broken Class II green bike lane to allow vehicles to cross through.

Class I bike path shared for both pedestriand and
bicyclists.

Standard Class II bike lane.

Sharrow marking on a street with off-street parking.

Chapter 5 | Transportation 5-21
vehicles. The striped buffer should be a
minimum of 3 feet wide, where feasible.

Buffered bike lanes provide more separation
than standard Class II bike lanes, but less
separation than Class IV separated bikeways.
§ Green Bike Lanes. Green colorized pavement
may be used for Class II bike lanes in conflict
zones along corridors to heighten driver
awareness of cyclists. These conflict zones
occur at intersections and bus stops. For
example, a broken green bike lane would
alert drivers to the presence of bicyclists
when merging prior to making a right turn.
■ Class III – Bike Route. These are bikeways
that are shared with motor vehicle traffic. Bike
routes are designated by signage and/or shared
roadway bicycle markings, including sharrows.
§ Shared Bicycle/Vehicle Lanes (Sharrows).

Shared-lane markings, or sharrows, are a
common Class III pavement marking that
alerts drivers that bicyclists are sharing the
road. They are best used on streets with
less than 3,000 average daily traffic (ADT).

Sharrows should be painted near the center
of the travel lane, out of the parked vehicle
“door zone” in which a driver may open their
door and hit a bicyclist.

Sharrows may also be appropriate to alert
drivers to the presence of bicyclists in
locations where there may be insufficient
pavement width for Class II bike lanes. For
example, at intersections where Class II bike
lane markings may stop due to the addition
of a right turn lane and insufficient width for
a striped Class II bike lane, sharrow markings
could be added to facilitate bike travel
through the intersection. Shared bicycle
and vehicle lanes should include sharrows,
special materials, and other techniques to
slow vehicle traffic and integrate bicycle and
vehicle improvements.
■ Class IV – Cycle Tracks or Separated Bikeways.

These bikeways provide a ROW designated
exclusively for bicycle travel on a roadway and
are separated from vehicular traffic. Separated
bikeways are not shared with pedestrians or
motorized traffic except for brief mixing zones
Class IV cycle track with a physical barrier providing
separation from traffic.
where necessary and at intersections. Types
of separation include, but are not limited to,
grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible
physical barriers such as bollards, raised curbs,
or a landscaped area, or on-street parking.

Separated bikeways can be either one-way or
two-way, accommodating a single direction of
travel or both.
§ The implementation of Class IV separated
bikeways should consider the presence and
frequency of vehicle crossflows. Where a
corridor includes numerous and/or heavily
trafficked cross-streets or driveways, there
is an increase in vehicle-bicycle interactions,
which increases the possibility of collisions.

Additionally, the placement of vertical
separators should consider the locations of
building access points, access from parked
vehicles to the sidewalk, and commercial
and residential driveways/alleys. Vertical
separators should not hinder access to these
driveways.
§ The preferred bikeway width for a separated
bikeway is 7 feet to allow for passing and
maintenance (i.e., street sweepers). The
recommended minimum buffer width should
be 3 feet.
■ Special Bicycle Intersection Markings. Bicycle
crossings should be separate from pedestrian
crossings. Intersection designs should consider
special improvements, such as broken bike lane
extensions, shared lane markings, colorized
conflict areas, and other markings to clarify
bicycle crossing paths and identify conflict
zones to motorists.
5-22 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
■ Bicycle-Sensitive Detection. At traffic signals,
there should be bicycle-sensitive detection
at the limit line to detect bicycle traffic
consistent with the California MUTCD; bicyclist
push-buttons may be used to supplement the
required limit line detection.
■ Bicycle Parking. Secure bicycle parking is a
critical component to most bicycle trips, and
thus in promoting bicycle use (see Figures 5-9
to 5-11). Bicycle racks should be visibly located
at each FAX bus stop, especially at BRT stations,
and near active destinations, such as shopping
areas, schools, parks, and offices to promote
multi-modal transportation. They should be
visibly located near destinations and installed
either on the sidewalk outside the throughway
zone, such as in bulbouts, the curb zone,
frontage zone, or in plaza spaces.

TRANSIT
Transit improvements will be focused along corridors with BRT or enhanced transit service along California Avenue, Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard,
and Elm Avenue.
■ Transit Integration. Pedestrian and bicycle
improvements should be integrated with
transit facilities and be compliant with the
ADA. Special design focus may be necessary
to coordinate improvements at major bus
stations, as these will be high-conflict zones
between buses, vehicles, and bicyclists. For
example, major bus/BRT stations could be
designed as platforms adjacent to the outside
travel lane, with bicyclists traveling between
the platform and adjacent sidewalk. This
reduces conflicts between buses and bicyclists.
■ Outside Travel Lane. The outside travel lane
may be painted to denote it is a lane for bus
travel. This outside travel lane should be at
least 11 feet wide to accommodate buses,
especially where a Class II Bike Lane or Class III
Bike Route is present.
2’-6”
3’-0”
(2’-8” Min.)
3’-0” Min.
(4’-0” Rec.)
20’-0”
2’-8” Min.

Main
Pedestrian
Circulation
6’-0” Min.

Clearance
7’-0”
Min.

Clearance
8’-0”
Min.

Clearance
4’-0” Min. Clearance
Bike Lockers

BIKE LOCKERS
5’-0”
Min.
4’-0”
Min. 2’-0” Min. or aligned
with street trees
Inverted U-rack
Street Furniture

BIKE CORRAL BIKE RACK SPACING RECOMMENDATIONS
Wheel Stops or
Striping
for visibility
Throughway Zone
5’-0” Min.

Curb Zone
2’-0” Min.
2’-6”
3’-0”
(2’-8” Min.)
3’-0” Min.
(4’-0” Rec.)
20’-0”
2’-8” Min.

Main
Pedestrian
Circulation
6’-0” Min.

Clearance
7’-0”
Min.

Clearance
8’-0”
Min.

Clearance
40 Min. Clearance
Bike Lockers

BIKE LOCKERS
5’-0”
Min.
4’-0”
Min. 2’-0” Min. or aligned
with street trees
Inverted U-rack
Street Furniture

BIKE CORRAL BIKE RACK SPACING RECOMMENDATIONS
Wheel Stops or
Striping
for visibility
Throughway Zone
5’-0” Min.

Curb Zone
2’-0” Min.

FIGURE 5-10 Bike Corral
FIGURE 5-11 Bike Rack Spacing
FIGURE 5-9 Bike Lockers
Main
Pedestrian
Circulation
-0”
Min.
arance
5’-0”
Min.
4’-0”
Min. 2’-0” Min. or aligned
with street trees
Inverted U-rack
Street Furniture

BIKE RACK SPACING RECOMMENDATIONS
Throughway Zone
5’-0” Min.

Curb Zone
2’-0” Min.

Chapter 5 | Transportation 5-23
D. GOALS AND POLICIES

PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
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.

Policy T-1.3 Prioritize sidewalk improvements
on streets that connect to and
from Downtown.

Policy T-1.4 Encourage the provision of
new wide sidewalks in new
development areas or widen
existing sidewalks where ROW is
available to provide an adequate
and clear path of travel for
accessibility, consistent with the
California Building Code and ADA.

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.

Bike lockers and bike corral at a transit station.

Colored outside travel lane designated for buses.

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.

Policy T-2.2 Utilize banners and signage, such
as wayfinding, to strengthen an
area’s distinct character.
5-24 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Goal T-3 Reduce conflicts between pedestrians and drivers, especially on streets with high speeds and
limited pedestrian crossings.

Policy T-3.1 Identify intersections and/or
mid-block locations to improve
pedestrian crossings. Crossing
improvements may include highvisibility crosswalks, bulb-outs, RRFBs or PHBs, in-pavement lights,
and signage.

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-3.3 Limit the number of driveways
along sidewalks by consolidating
existing driveways and minimizing
new driveways.

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

Policy T-3.5 Work with Southwest Fresno public
and charter schools to implement
Safe Routes to School projects and
programs that increase the comfort
of students walking and biking
to school and encourages the
frequency and number of students
to walk and bike to school.

BICYCLE NETWORK
Goal T-4 Create a comprehensive, wellconnected, 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-4.3 Prioritize the implementation of
bicycle facilities that connect to
and from Downtown.

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

Policy T-4.5 Provide secure, high-quality
bicycle parking per the Citywide
Development Code’s Section 15-
2429 on Bicycle Parking, such as
racks and lockers, at key locations
along the bicycle network,
including transit stops, in front of
retail and services, for employment
offices, parks, and schools.

Policy T-4.6 Coordinate with County of Fresno
and FAX to improve regional bicycle
connections.

TRAILS NETWORK
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.

Chapter 5 | Transportation 5-25
Policy T-5.2 Prioritize trails that connect to and
from Downtown.

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.

Policy T-5.5 Provide understory landscaping
and/or tree canopy as shade where
appropriate to enhance the natural
character of the trail.

Policy T-5.6 Ensure good visibility from public
streets and private businesses
and residences to enhance public
surveillance in accordance with
CPTED principles.

TRANSIT
Goal T-6 Develop the Southwest Fresno
transit network into a viable
transportation alternative to
single-occupancy vehicles.

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

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.

Policy T-6.3 Encourage transit ridership by all
people, including students and
youth, through incentive programs,
education, and outreach.

Policy T-6.4 Provide transit options that
equitably serve all residents,
including those of lower incomes,
of older age, and with disabilities.

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-7.1 Consider enhanced transit service
along Elm Avenue to connect to
future BRT routes and the FAX and
HSR stations in Downtown when
there is demand from development
along the Mixed-Use and Jobs
Corridor.

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.

VEHICLES
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-8.1 Consider and prioritize the
comfort of pedestrians, bicyclists,
and transit riders when planning
vehicular improvements
on roadways through the
implementation of complete
streets improvements.

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.
5-26 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
TRUCKS
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-9.2 Mitigate alternative truck routes
that would require potential
widening of streets to allow
adequate width for two-way truck
traffic and turning movements
as well as repair/maintenance of
roadways to ensure satisfactory
pavement conditions that can
withstand truck traffic.

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.

COMPLETE STREETS
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-10.1 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.

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.

Chapter 5 | Transportation 5-27
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.

Policy T-11.2 Develop adult and youth bicycle
and pedestrian education programs
within Southwest Fresno that help
educate the public and promote
bicycling and walking.

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.

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

Policy T-12.1 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.

Policy T-12.2 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 T-12.3 Work with FMFCD to reduce or
waive development impact fees if
LID development is implemented
onsite.

MAINTENANCE
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-13.1 Perform routine street
maintenance to clear debris
from sidewalks, bike lanes, and
roadways, including regular
sweeping, pavement repairs,
restriping, maintenance of traffic
control devices, and landscape
maintenance.

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.

Policy T-13.3 Monitor the effectiveness of street
lights to ensure they are lit brightly
enough to improve visibility and
enhance visibility and security.

Chapter 6 | Public Facilities 6-1
PUBLIC

FACILITIES
A. INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the public facilities in
Southwest Fresno that achieve the Southwest
Fresno Specific Plan’s (the Plan) vision and guiding
principles (described in Chapter 2, Vision). In
keeping with that vision, as well as the General
Plan’s vision, Southwest Fresno is to be made up of
a network of complete neighborhoods, designed
to be healthy and attractive. Centered by schools,
parks, and public and commercial services, these
complete neighborhoods will have a sense of place
and provide as many services as possible within
walking distance. The Plan prioritizes the need for
quality schools, parks, open space, and other public
facilities in Southwest Fresno and increases land
dedicated to public facilities from the General Plan.

B. PARKS AND OPEN
SPACE
This section provides an inventory of existing parks
and needs, states the community’s criteria for
parkland, and describes proposed desired improve-
ments to existing parks and new parks.

EXISTING PARKLAND INVENTORY
Table 6-1 provides information on the existing parks
and open space within walking distance of South-
west Fresno residents, which includes all parkland
less than 40 acres in size owned and/or maintained
by the City of Fresno, San Joaquin River Parkway,
and Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s
(FMFCD) ponding basin parks within or just outside
the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan Area (Plan
Area). Parkland over 40 acres in size is considered a
regional park, such as the Regional Sports Complex.

Policy POSS-1-a on page 5-20 of the General Plan 6
6-2 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Parks should have more trees to provide shade.

Ponding basins collect water to manage stormwater
runoff.
states that the City’s parkland standard is three
acres per 1,000 residents for Pocket, Neighborhood, and Community parks, with an aspirational goal of five acres per 1,000 residents for all parks
throughout the city, if additional funding for regional parks and trails is identified. Using the City’s methodology of counting open space as parkland,
Table 6-1 shows that the existing parks listed meets
and even exceeds the General Plan’s parkland
standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents at a ratio
of 3.45 acres per 1,000 residents. The parkland-toresident ratio calculation uses a Southwest Fresno population of 12,649 people. Note that the table
does not include Southwest Fresno’s Regional
Sports Complex since it is a regional park and more
than 40 acres in size.

There has been extensive discussion from the
community about what types of open space meet
the community’s criteria for usable parkland. The
community has expressed that there are certain
types of open space that fall short from the
community’s parkland criteria and should not be
considered usable parkland, described below:
■ Ponding Basins and Ponding Basin Parks.

Some of Fresno’s ponding basins are used
seasonally as parkland. The Plan Area’s ponding
basins (Basin FF and Basin TT2) are retention
basins, which are designed to retain and
infiltrate water. The community, however, does
not consider ponding basins/ponding basin
parks as adequate parkland because they
have limited amenities and access. The west
section of Basin FF (west of West Avenue) is
for recharge only and has no public access.

The east section of Basin FF has a tot lot at the
southeast corner, which is open to the general
public year-round, but access to the rest of the
basin is used as a driving range and limited to
the Fresno-Greater San Joaquin Valley Junior
Golf Foundation. Basin TT2’s “upper level”
play area is generally closed during the winter
depending on the conditions affected by the
winter season’s rain.

Community park with playground structures
surrounded by housing.

Chapter 6 | Public Facilities 6-3
PARK
NAME

EXISTING

ACREAGE NOTES EXISTING AMENITIES
Chandler* 2.00 Mini park surrounded on all sides by housing; located west of Chandler Airport
Barbecues, Basketball Courts,
Children’s Play Area, Picnic Tables
CFD11_
TR5549_04* 0.35 Surrounded on all sides by housing;
unnamed Benches
Habitat* 1.30 Surrounded on all sides by housing None
Sunset* 0.98 Located next to the Sunset Neighborhood
Center and Sunset Elementary School
Barbecues, Children’s Play Area,
Community Center, Computer
Lab, Kitchen, Picnic Tables,
Restrooms, Social Hall, Wading
Pool
Mary Ella
Brown* 4.25 Located next to the Mary Ella Brown Community Center Baseball/Softball Fields, Children’s
Play Area, Community Center,
Computer Lab, Football/Soccer
Field, Kitchen, Parking Lot,
Restrooms, Social Hall, Swimming
Pool
Neilsen* 4.15 Neighborhood park adjacent to Fresno Park Barbecues, Baseball/Softball Fields,
Basketball Courts, Children’s Play
Area, Football/Soccer Field, Picnic
Tables, Restrooms
Almy Park* 0.41 New pocket park built by Habitat for
Humanity
Benches, Canopy Tent, Picnic
Tables/Benches, Play Structures
Hinton* 6.18
Just outside of the Plan Area, but within
walking distance of Plan Area residences;
located next to Cecil C. Hinton Community
Center
Barbecues, Baseball/Softball Fields,
Basketball/Tennis/Hockey Court,
Children’s Play Area, Football/
Soccer Field, Picnic Tables, Tennis
Courts
Bigby-Villa* 2.09
Pocket park just outside of the Plan Area,
but within walking distance of Plan Area
residences; near Bigby Villa Apartments
Children’s Play Area
Pride Park* 0.38
Pocket park just outside of the Plan Area,
but within walking distance of Plan Area
residences and near Franklin School
Benches, Trash Can, Porta Potty
Ponding
Basin/Park FF 1.47
Owned by FMFCD; this acreage only
accounts for the portion that is usable yearround
Barbecue Grills, Benches, Canopy
Structure, Drinking Fountains, Picnic
Tables, Play Structures
Ponding
Basin/Park
TT2

4.00 Owned by the FMFCD; this acreage only
accounts for the portion that is most
accessible with amenities during non-rainy
seasons; closed during rainy season
Benches, Canopy Structures, Play
Structures
Hyde* 16.03 Neighborhood park near toxic site; on landfill None TOTAL
ACREAGE 43.59 acres
Parklandto-Residents
Ratio

3.45 acres per 1,000 residents
TABLE 6-1 Existing Parkland Inventory Counted Toward the General Plan’s 3 Acres per 1,000 Residents Standard
Source: Acreage and list of amenities from City of Fresno. * Parks owned by the City of Fresno.
6-4 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan

INCREASING WALKABILITY TO
PARKS
The Plan designates locations for new parks,
taking into consideration whether the park would
be within walking distance to nearby residences
and focusing on areas where existing residences
lack convenient access to parkland. In general,
new parks are located at the nodes of complete
neighborhoods. Figure 6-1 shows the locations of
existing and new parks relative to all types of existing and new residential uses within the Plan Area.

Residential areas within the dashed blue circles
are within a half-mile-radius walking distance from
existing parks; residential areas within the dashed
white circles are within a half-mile-radius walking
■ Hyde Park. The community expressed that
open space located on or close to a landfill or
toxic site, such as Hyde Park, should not be
counted as parkland due to concerns for the
community’s environmental health and the
limited uses allowed on the land.
■ The Regional Sports Complex. The community
thinks that the Regional Sports Complex is
inadequate parkland because it is not within
walking distance of most existing Southwest
Fresno residential neighborhoods and requires
an entry fee.

When following the community’s parkland criteria
and excluding the types of unusable parkland
previously described such as ponding basin park
areas with limited access and Hyde Park, existing
parkland in Southwest Fresno equals a total of

22.09 acres, which yields a parkland-to-resident
ratio of 1.74 acres per 1,000 residents. 1.74 acres
per 1,000 residents is well below the three acres
per 1,000 residents standard.

The Plan recommends providing new parkland
to increase total acreage as well as the following
mitigations that would improve the conditions of
inadequate parks so that the existing parkland
in Southwest Fresno better fits the community’s
parkland criteria:
■ Increase access and improve amenities at
ponding basin parks. To improve the usability
of ponding basin parks, the Plan recommends
increasing amenities and access so that these
parks can function better as parkland in order
to serve nearby residents. Furthermore,
parkland acreage for ponding basin parks
should be limited to the upper and/or middle
levels of the park that are usable as parkland;
this method of counting acreage will improve
the accuracy of the parkland-to-resident ratio.

These acreage totals are already reflected in
Table 6-1.
■ Re-designate Hyde Park’s land use from
Community Park to general Open Space.

Because Hyde Park is located on a landfill, park
amenities and development on the land are
limited. Re-designating Hyde Park as a different
type of land use will improve the accuracy of
the parkland-to-resident ratio in Southwest
Fresno.
■ Increase accessibility to the Regional
Sports Complex. Currently, the Regional
Sports Complex is located away from existing
residential neighborhoods and has limited
walkable or bikeable access. As described in
Chapter 5, Transportation, the Plan proposes to
connect all Southwest Fresno neighborhoods
to the Regional Sports Complex via new
bikeways and multi-use trails. The Plan’s overall
land use vision also locates new residential
neighborhoods in the Sphere of Influence (SOI)
within walkable distance of the Regional Sports
Complex.

Entry signage to the Regional Sports Complex.

Chapter 6 | Public Facilities 6-5
FIGURE 2-1 Conceptual Vision for Southwest Fresno
41 41
180
99 99

WEST AVE

CRYSTAL AVE

C ALIFORNIA CT TEILMAN AVE

JENSEN AVE

ATCHISON ST

ARTHUR AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

NIELSEN AVE

HOLLY AVE

CLARA AVE

WOODWARD AVE

LEAD AVE

LILY AVE

BLOSSER AVE

GEORGEAVE

ILA AVE

CALWA AVE

LORENA AVE

KNIGHT AVE

CHURCH RD

DUNN AVE

BELG RAVIAAVE

DELNOAVE

HAWESAVE

MYERS AVE

GEARY ST

VALENCIA AVE

BYRD AVE

KAVILAND AVE

GROVE AVE

GARRETT AVE

FLORENCEAVE

TE ILMAN I C R

PLEASANT AVE

VINE AVE

DOROTHY AVE

LAFAYETTE AVE

SAMSON AVE

FRUIT AVE

THORNE AVE

BARDELL ST

LA SIERRADR

ELM AVE

KIRK ST

NORTH AVE

ANNADALE AVE

ALMY AVE

ROY AVE

ROEDING DR

TULARE S
G
T
ST

PLUMAS ST

PICKFORD AVE

DIVISADERO ST

MERCED ST
R ST

LOS ANGELES ST

NICHOLAS AVE
C ST

MONTEREYST

BRALY AVE

TUOLUMNE ST
A ST

SAN BENITO ST

STANISLAUS ST

WOODWARD AVE
M ST

CALAVERAS ST

BROADWAY PLZ

VENTURA ST

RAILROAD AVE

MARIPOSA ST

SANTA FE AVE

PARKWAY DR

ROOSEVELT AVE

ANNA ST

BLACKSTONE AVE BELGRAVIA AVE

ILLINOIS AVE

GRANT AVE
H ST

AMADOR ST
E ST

WATERMAN AVE

MAYOR AVE
U ST

KLETTE AVE

MARIPOSA ST

JONES AVE

IRWIN AVE

KERN ST

INYO ST

MONO ST

SANTACLARA ST

STROTHER AVE

IVY AVE
O ST

FAIRVIEW AVE
B ST

ARTHUR AVE

FRUIT AVE

EL DORADO ST

CHERRY AVE

PACIFIC AVE

FULTON MALL

TUPMAN ST

CAPITOL ST
T ST

LEMON AVE

ONEILAVE

GENEVA AVE

SAN JOAQUIN ST

CHINA ALY F ST

EUNICE AVE

HOME RUN ALY
L ST

COLLINS AVE
S ST

A/B ALY

FAGAN ALY
Q ST

WELLER ST

FERGER AVE

POPPY AVE

HUMBOLDT AVE

WAYTE LN

NAPA AVE

LOTUS AVE

FERGER/PALM ALY

EDGAR AVE

AIRPORT RD

GOLDEN STATE BLVD

WALNUT AVE

VAN NESS AVE

TRINITY ST

MODOC ST

CHANNINGWAY

FULTON ST

FRESNO ST POTTLE AVE

ECHO AVE

MARTIN AVE

MAUD AVE
P ST
N ST

CHANDLER AVE LEE AVE

ROSE AVE

MADDY DR

PALM AVE

OC LL GE E V/ ANNESSALY

SARAH ST

GLENN/SAN PABLO ALY

BROADWAY

STEPHENS AVE

FARRIS AVE

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

VALENTINE AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD

FRUIT AVE

WALNUT AVE

ELM AVE
MLK JR. BLVD
H

FIG AVE

UGHES AVE

HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

VALENTINE AVE

BRAWLEY AVE

CENTRAL AVE

ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
New Parks
Existing Neighborhood/
Community Center with Park Facilities
Existing Schools
New Schools
Residential Areas Underserved
by Existing Parks
Existing Parks
Existing Residential Areas
New Residential Areas
½-mile Walkable Radius
Around New Parks
½-mile Walkable Radius
Around Existing Parks
Source: City of Fresno
Sphere of Influence
City Limit
Plan Area
FIGURE 6-1 Residential Areas Served by Existing and New Parks 2 1
3 4
5 CHANDLER
PARK

REGIONAL
SPORTS

COMPLEX

MARY ELLA
BROWN

COMMUNITY
CTR.

SUNSET NBHD. CTR.

HINTON
PARK
BIGBYVILLA
PARK
PRIDE
PARK

WEST FRESNO
MIDDLE

WEST FRESNO

ELEMENTARY

RUTHERFORD
B. GASTON
MIDDLE

WEB DUBOIS

PUBLIC CHARTER

BETHUNE

ELEMENTARY
SUNSET

ELEMENTARY
CFD11_TR5549_04
PARK

HABITAT
PARK
PARK
TT2
PARK
FF

NEILSEN
PARK
ALMY
PARK
FIGURE 6-1 Residential Areas Served by Existing and New Parks 6-6 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
distance from new parks. At full build-out, existing
and new parks within the Plan Area will serve all
existing and new residential areas within a half-mile
walking distance. A few parcels west of Highway
41 are located just beyond the half-mile radius
of proposed and existing public parks, however
they are zoned Neighborhood Mixed-Use, which
requires on-site open space.

The prioritization of creating new parks should
be based on whether its location will benefit an
existing residential neighborhood that currently
is not within walking distance of a park. Figure
6-1 sheds light on which existing residential
neighborhoods are currently not within walking
distance of a park, including the following areas
numbered and outlined in orange on the map: (1)
the area bounded by Marks, Madison, Lead, and
Chandler Avenues; (2) the area bounded by MLK Jr.

Boulevard, Kaviland, Garrett, Bardell, Grove, Clara,
and Jensen Avenues; (3); the area/new apartment
complex along Jensen Avenue near Elm Avenue;
(4) the area bounded by Highway 41, Elm, Church,
and Jensen Avenues; and (5) the area bounded by
the Plan Area boundary to the west, and Walnut,
Samson, and North Avenues. The construction of
new parks located within half-mile radius distance
of these aforementioned neighborhoods should
be prioritized over the construction of other new
parks.

The locations of existing and new schools are also
shown on the map to highlight opportunities for
joint-use park space that could be accessible to the
public during after-school hours. The City recently
amended its joint-use agreements with the Central
Unified School District and Fresno Unified School
District to expand the community use of school
sites in order to improve the opportunities for
public and community recreational activity.

Park with enhanced pedestrian crossing.

Pocket park in the center of a residential neighborhood.

Chapter 6 | Public Facilities 6-7

PARK IMPROVEMENTS
In addition to providing an adequate amount of
parkland within the Plan Area, existing parks should
be renovated and new parks should be designed
so that they have appropriate amenities that are
considered valuable to the community. Improvements to existing parks should be prioritized over the construction of new parks. Amenities include
not only infrastructure, but also landscaping,
programs, and activities. As described earlier in
the chapter, the Plan proposes to also increase
existing park amenities at Southwest Fresno’s
ponding basin parks, which include Park FF and
Park TT2. Table 6-2 provides a list of essential
and recommended amenities for parks. Each park
should uniquely serve its nearby community by
providing opportunities for desired activities and
catering to the community’s social makeup (e.g.,
youth, elderly, dog owners, sports players). Park
infrastructure should be in good condition and
regularly maintained and cleaned. Parks should
also feel safe and secure with adequate fencing and
lighting as well as surveillance from enforcement
officials and community members, as noted in
Chapter 4, Development Regulations, under the
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
(CPTED) section.

Playground with overhead shade structure.

AMENITY TYPE ESSENTIAL RECOMMENDED
Infrastructure
■ Restrooms
■ Water fountains
■ Lighting
■ Trash cans
■ Benches or other forms of seating
■ Playground equipment with shade
structure
■ Stage for cultural performances
■ Community center for community
parks and larger
Activities
■ At least one of the activities in the
adjacent “Recommended” column
■ Outdoor places to gather
Two or more of the following:
■ Baseball fields
■ Basketball courts
■ Tennis courts
■ Soccer fields
■ Bike and walking trails
■ Barbecue areas
■ Skate/BMX parks
■ Off-leash dog area
■ Water feature
Landscaping
■ Drought-tolerant trees for shade and
vegetation
■ Canopies with benches and tables
■ Drought-friendly turf areas that can
withstand heavy traffic
TABLE 6-2 Essential and Recommended Park Amenities
6-8 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
C. EDUCATION
This section provides an overview of the school
districts, an inventory of existing schools, and
describes proposed improvements to existing
schools and new schools. The Plan Area is made up
of three unified school districts, but predominantly
Fresno Unified in the northern half and Washington
Unified in the southern half (see Figure 6-2). The
Central Unified School District is located to the
west of the Plan Area, but overlaps a minimal number of existing residential properties within the Plan Area. Near the freeway intersection of Highway 41
and Highway 99, the school district boundaries of
Fresno Unified and Washington Unified alternate in
the east-west and north-south directions. It is likely
that residents in this area may live in close proximity of each other, but are assigned to different school districts, and thus attend different schools.

The Plan Area consists of two elementary schools
(Sunset and West Fresno), two middle schools
(Rutherford B. Gaston and West Fresno), and
no high schools. Rutherford B. Gaston (Gaston)
Middle School was recently constructed. There
are two charter schools, Bethune (elementary)
and WEB Dubois (K to 12) within the Plan Area.

Refer to Figure 6-1 for the locations of existing and
proposed schools.

Edison High School is located outside, but very
proximate to the Plan Area, and is located within
two districts, but belongs to Fresno Unified School
District. Washington Union High School serves the
Washington Unified District, but is located outside
of the Plan Area and approximately four miles
south of the Plan Area’s southern edge.

Recently constructed Gaston Middle School.

As described in the Community Environmental
Health section in Chapter 1, Introduction, in Southwest Fresno, a large percentage of adults have not completed high school and few have earned a
college degree. Edison High and several elementary
schools score below Academic Performance Index’s
statewide standards. These academic indicators
indicate a need for greater academic achievement
among children and youth living in Southwest
Fresno.

EDUCATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
In the 2009 West Fresno Asset Map: Community
Plan, the Southwest Fresno community identified
improving financial literacy and promoting higher
education/training for residents as a top priority,
along with increasing funding for area schools. In
2010, the California Endowment launched its Building Healthy Communities (BHC) initiative, a 10-year strategic plan designed to improve health systems
and the physical, social, economic and service
structures that support healthy living and healthy
behaviors in central, southeast, and southwest
sectors of Fresno. BHC recognizes the importance
of schools as providing anchors in the communities
they serve, as well as promoting healthy behaviors
and serving as gateways for resources and services.

It should be noted that educational facilities are
provided by entities that have a special mission
and financial structure to do so, such as a school
district. The City of Fresno, as a local government,
does not have direct control over schools; however,
the City can partner with educational institutions to
work toward common goals.

Chapter 6 | Public Facilities 6-9
FIGURE 6-2 Schools and School Districts
Sunset Elementary School
Bethune Elementary School
Edison High School
Big Picture High School
Columbia Elementary School
Lincoln Elementary School
King Elementary School
Rutherford B. Gaston Middle School
WEB Dubois Public Charter School
West Fresno Middle School
West Fresno Elementary School
Kirk Elementary School
Acel Fresno Charter High School
Lowell Elementary School
Yokomi Elementary School
Jefferson Elementary School
Pershing Continuation High School
Anchor Academy Charter School
West Park Elementary School
41 41
180
99 99
0 0.25mi 0.25mi

EXISTING UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Fresno Unified
Washington Unified
Central Unified
Existing School
FIGURE 6-2 Schools and School Districts
Sphere of Influence
City Limit
Plan Area
Sunset Elementary School
Bethune Elementary School
Edison High School
Big Picture High School
Columbia Elementary School
Lincoln Elementary School
King Elementary School
Rutherford B. Gaston Middle School
WEB Dubois Public Charter School
West Fresno Middle School
West Fresno Elementary School
Kirk Elementary School
Acel Fresno Charter High School
Lowell Elementary School
Yokomi Elementary School
Jefferson Elementary School
Pershing Continuation High School
Anchor Academy Charter School
West Park Elementary School
Computech Middle School

MARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD
H

FRUIT AVE

WALNUT AVE

ELM AVE

UGHES AVE

HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

VALENTINE AVE ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE
Source: City of Fresno
Sunset Elementary School
Bethune Elementary School
Edison High School
Big Picture High School
Columbia Elementary School
Lincoln Elementary School
King Elementary School
Rutherford B. Gaston Middle School
WEB Dubois Public Charter School
West Fresno Middle School
West Fresno Elementary School
Kirk Elementary School
Acel Fresno Charter High
Lowell Elementary School
Yokomi Elementary School
Jefferson Elementary S
Pershing Continuation High School
Anchor Academy Charter School
West Park Elementary School
41 41
180
99 0 0.25mi 0.25mi

EXISTING UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Fresno Unified
Washington Unified
Central Unified
Existing School
FIGURE 6-2 Schools and School Districts
Sphere of Influence
City Limit
Plan Area
Sunset Elementary School
Bethune Elementary School
Edison High School
Big Picture High School
Columbia Elementary School
Lincoln Elementary School
King Elementary School
Rutherford B. Gaston Middle School
WEB Dubois Public Charter School
West Fresno Middle School
West Fresno Elementary School
Kirk Elementary School
Acel Fresno Charter High
Lowell Elementary School
Yokomi Elementary School
Jefferson Elementary S
Pershing Continuation High School
Anchor Academy Charter School
West Park Elementary School
Computech Middle School
M

ARKS AVE

JENSEN AVE

CHURCH AVE

MADISON AVE

KEARNEY BLVD
H

FRUIT AVE

WALNUT AVE

ELM AVE

UGHES AVE

HUGHES AVE

WEST AVE

VALENTINE AVE ANNADALE AVE

NORTH AVE

MARKS AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

WHITES BRIDGE AVE
MLK JR. BLVD FIG AVE
Source: City o
6-10 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
K to 12 Schools
The Plan envisions each complete neighborhood
with at least one or more grade schools so students
can walk to school. This includes four elementary
schools within the Plan Area (a total of nine in the
Plan Area and SOI combined), two middle schools
within the Plan Area (a total of five in the Plan
Area and SOI combined), and one new middle/high
school/special school within the SOI. Each school is
either adjacent to or within one-eighth-mile from a
nearby park.

Community College
The area identified as the “MLK Activity Center” in
the Fresno General Plan (General Plan), bounded
by Church Avenue, Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Jensen Avenue, and Knight Avenue, is envisioned as the future home to an educational use, particularly a community college campus. While it
is not certain that a community college campus will
be funded and built in Southwest Fresno, the land
use map proposes Public Facility - College to allow
this type of development. The areas surrounding
it are planned for housing, community commercial
uses, mixed use, and a park in order to facilitate
compatible uses.

Training Centers
To offer more opportunities for residents to increase their skills and improve overall employment in Southwest Fresno, the Plan identifies locations
for public facilities which can be used for training
centers for young people and adults. This priority
is tied to the City’s healthy community goal. When
communities can obtain quality education and job
training, secure employment with living wages that
allow self-sufficiency, and feel safe within one’s
neighborhood, they are likelier to enjoy healthy
lives.

D. OTHER PUBLIC

FACILITIES
Other public facilities with dedicated land area
within the Plan Area include hospital/clinic, neighborhood centers, and PG&E stations. As described in the Community Environmental Health section
in Chapter 1, Introduction, the choices to access
medical care have improved in recent years. Medical care facilities that serve the Southwest Fresno community include Easton Community Health
Center, Elm Community Health Center (Clinic Sierra
Vista), West Fresno Community Health Center, and
Gaston Middle School’s on-site health clinic.

California State University, Fresno college campus serves as a community college magnet use.

Chapter 6 | Public Facilities 6-11
E. GOALS AND POLICIES
The following goals and related polices address
Parks and Open Space, Education, and other Public
Facilities, and are intended to work in tandem with
and refine those of the General Plan.

The 2017 Fresno Parks Master Plan, which is now
being developed, identifies parks-related citywide
challenges that are similar to those in Southwest
Fresno and in response, contains efficiency and
quality standards for Fresno parks citywide. The
Fresno Parks Vision document completed in
December 2016 envisions a citywide parks system
that provides parks that are accessible, equitable,
healthy, safe, beautifully designed, and innovative.

The identified citywide challenges include poor
conditions of parks; lack of accessibility; crime and
safety; and lack of shade. The following Parks and
Open Space goals and policies strive to address
these challenges and realize the Plan’s vision.

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.

Policy PF-1.2 Provide a sense of safety and
security at existing parks by addressing delinquent activities and occupation by transient populations through enforcement and community design in keeping with
CPTED principles.

Policy PF-1.3 Remediate toxic sites on and/or
directly adjacent to existing parkland to improve the environmental health of the community.

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-2.2 If possible, site new parks to have
maximum visibility by surrounding
residences to increase “eyes on
the street” and thus create natural
surveillance in keeping with CPTED
principles.

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
6-12 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
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.

Goal PF-3 Enhance the natural landscape
and character of Southwest
Fresno by integrating the natural
environment with the built environment.

Policy PF-3.1 Promote tree planting on private
and public property, including
parks and parking lots, to increase
the amount of tree canopy and
enhance the aesthetic of Southwest Fresno.

Policy PF-3.2 Provide a network of multi-use
trails, including along the Fresno
Irrigation District (FID) canal rightof-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.

Policy PF-3.3 Utilize landscaping as buffers
between sensitive uses such as
residential areas and schools from
higher intensity development and
transportation per the Citywide
Development Code.

Policy PF-3.4 Encourage the use of low wateruse plant materials and water efficient landscaping initiatives for
the Plan Area.

Goal PF-4 Provide adequate access to medical facilities to support the mental and physical health of Southwest
Fresnans.

Policy PF-4.1 Work with the County of Fresno
Health Department and hospitals
to increase siting and development
of small-scale medical clinics and
larger-scale medical facilities,
particularly within magnet cores.

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.

Goal PF-6 Provide public educational and
training facilities that help foster the pursuit and achievement of higher education and higher
skilled vocations.

Policy PF-6.1 Provide new adult and youth
educational and job training
programs in existing and new
public facilities or institutions, such
as offices and schools within the
Plan Area or in close proximity, that
prepare residents for medium- and
high-wage jobs.

Policy PF-6.2 Support the current initiative to
locate a new job training center
accessible to Southwest Fresno
residents.

Policy PF-6.3 Work with the State Center Community College District’s Board to fund and develop a community
college campus within the Plan’s
southern magnet core/MLK Activity
Center.

Chapter 6 | Public Facilities 6-13
Policy PF-6.4 Work with youth-oriented community organizations to develop programs that help nurture leadership and ambition in the youth of Southwest Fresno.

Goal PF-7 Increase opportunities for residents to improve their job skills and employment options.

Policy PF-7.1 Coordinate existing training
programs with the Fresno Regional
Workforce Investment Board,
educational institutions, and public
charter schools to identify program
gaps and areas of overlap.

Policy PF-7.2 Work with local schools, community groups, and non-profits to connect students and residents to
existing training programs.

Policy PF-7.3 Partner with the Workforce Investment Board, or other interested organizations, businesses, schools,
and residents to expand opportunities for youth jobs for after school and summer work, volunteer positions, and other skills development opportunities.

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 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, jointuse opportunities to site parks near other City service facilities.

Policy PF-8.3 Work with hospitals and the
County of Fresno Health Department to site medical clinics and medical facilities.

Goal PF-9 Support programs, leadership,
and opportunities for Fresno’s
youth of all ages and abilities.

Policy PF-9.1 Work with public agencies,
community-based organizations,
and school districts to provide
afterschool programs for youth.

Policy PF-9.2 Facilitate connections to schools
and community resources.

Policy PF-9.3 Involve youth directly in planning
for services and programs to
increase program innovation and
youth ownership and interest.

Chapter 7 | Utilities 7-1

UTILITIES
A. INTRODUCTION
Utility services in the vicinity must be enhanced to
support the development of the Southwest Fresno
Specific Plan Area (Plan Area). This area is a mixture
of undeveloped and developed agricultural,
residential, public, commercial and industrial land
uses. Utility providers currently serving existing
needs have plans in place to serve future needs in
accordance with the Fresno General Plan (General
Plan) for the area. Water and sewer services are
provided by the City of Fresno; storm water
drainage systems are constructed and maintained
by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
(FMFCD); irrigation water is supplied by the Fresno
Irrigation District (FID); electricity and gas utilities are provided by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E);
and telephone, fiber, and cable service is provided
by AT&T/Comcast/Xfinity. Recycled water is not yet
utilized in the Plan Area, but is planned and will be
provided by the City of Fresno. Land use categories
in the Plan Area are listed with total acreage for
both existing and planned land uses in Table 7-1. 7

METHODOLOGY
As described in Chapter 3, Land Use, the City
of Fresno assigns dual land use designations to
new parks, open space, and public facilities land.

Many of the dual land use designations are more
intensive than the primary planned land use. To
best understand and plan for future utility needs,
the utilities analysis compares the Plan Area’s
most intensive land use designations with the
General Plan’s least intensive designations since
this comparison will result in the greatest possible
change in water usage and basin volume.
7-2 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
TABLE 7-1 Total Acreage by Land Use Classification for General Plan (GP) and Specific Plan (SP)

LAND USE

CLASSIFICATION

AND ABBREVIATION
GP
(ACRES)
SP
(ACRES)
AREA
Δ (%)
Employment -
Business Park cbp 169.77 0.00 -100%
Commercial -
Community cc 59.85 109.82 83%
Commercial -
General cgh 0.37 0.37 0%
Corridor/Center
Mixed-Use cmx 69.12 96.29 39%
Employment -
Office co 16.11 194.26 1110%
Commercial -
Regional cr 38.20 63.53 66%
Clear Zone cz 0.00 13.86 100%
Commercial -
Highway & Auto hwy 43.26 0.00 -100%
Industrial -
Heavy ih 36.41 0.00 -100%
Industrial - Light il 108.49 0.00 -100%
Neighborhood
Mixed-Use nmx 0.00 136.25 100%
Open Space -
Ponding Basin obp 204.89 209.39 2%
Open Space -
Park orp 3.49 1.61 -54%
Open Space -
Community Park orpc 48.11 1.94 -96%
Open Space -
Neighborhood
Park
orpn 44.36 4.5 -96%
Open Space -
Regional Park orpr 246.17 134.64 -45%
Public Facilities -
Airport pa 1.95 1.95 0%
Public Facilities -
College pc 0.00 23.61 100%
Public Facilities pf 30.03 137.39 358%
Public Facilities
- Neighborhood
Center
pnc 5.44 5.44 0%
Public Facilities -
Church pqch 2.05 0.00 -100%
Public Facilities -
PG&E Substation pqge 3.84 3.84 0%

LAND USE

CLASSIFICATION

AND ABBREVIATION
GP
(ACRES)
SP
(ACRES)
AREA
Δ (%)
Public Facilities -
Hospital pqmh 5.08 5.08 0%
Public Facilities
- Elementary
School
pse 37.59 17.96 -52%
Public Facilities -
Middle School psm 63.66 38.94 -39%
Public Facilities -
Water Recharge pwrb 6.66 6.66 0%
Residential High
Density rh 22.05 0.00 -100%
Residential Low
Density rl 41.39 41.39 0%
Residential
Medium Density rm 828.25 873.82 6%
Residential
Medium High
Density
rmh 32.13 33.79 5%
Residential
Medium Low
Density
rml 534.56 511.80 -4%
Residential
Urban
Neighborhood
Density
run 90.91 107.32 18%
Note: The symbol Δ indicates the delta or change compared between the General Plan and Southwest Fresno Specific Plan.

Sewer and Water Utility Analysis
Land use comparisons between the General Plan
and the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan (the Plan)
were used to estimate changes to planned sewer
and water systems for the Plan Area. The General
Plan considers existing capacity, enhancements to
existing system, as well as future sewer and water
systems anticipated to meet future demand; the
General Plan provided the baseline for the analysis.

Changes in sewer and water demand were derived
from acreage changes by land use with adoption of
the Plan.

Chapter 7 | Utilities 7-3
Constructed utility lines are sized and planned to
meet the requirements of the area at full buildout
as well as other known requirements of the utility
owners. Construction of utility improvements will
depend on sequence and schedule of development. Each land use was given a demand value in million gallons per day (MGpd) for both sewer and
water. Demand calculations per land use under the
General Plan and the Plan were summed separately
and compared individually and the aggregate totals
were checked. These calculations were broken
down for the area within the Plan Area and outside
the Plan Area but within the General Plan Sphere of
Influence (SOI).

Total aggregate capacity is one factor and
largely determines the cost of water supply capital
improvements and treatment plant capacity. In
addition, spatial changes in land use and densities
can have an impact on the water distribution and
wastewater collection system requirements on a
smaller scale. For example, single-family residences
create a far different utility footprint and cost
profile than an urban high density residential
housing complex. These differences were captured
through comparison of expected system designs for
each type of land use.

Storm Drainage Impacts
Total aggregate capacity is important but for storm
drainage cost determination, a far more crucial
capacity is the required capacity for each storm
water basin. There are currently 14 basin areas
in the Plan Area and each of these areas was
analyzed to determine changes from the General
Plan baseline. Pivot table information based on the
GIS analysis provided the acreages by flood control
basin for analysis.

B. WET UTILITIES NEEDS

ANALYSIS AND

IMPROVEMENTS

WATER SUPPLY
The City of Fresno Water Department will serve
the Plan Area. Two water wells in the area and six
wells outside the area supply water to a pipeline
distribution network of more than 47 miles varying
in size from four inches to 14 inches. Current
system capacity, General Plan forecast required
capacity, and the Plan required capacity are 2 MGD,

7.1 MGD, and 7.4 MGD, respectively. Utilizing the
General Plan as the base for comparison, the Plan
requires a 5 percent increase in water demand over
the General Plan buildout. Figure 7-1 illustrates the
existing and proposed water systems.

The utilities are planned on expected future
consumption. Future for water related capital
improvements will need to comply with applicable
federal, state and local requirements, including
the City of Fresno Water Conservation Act. Future
projects are required to consume lower than
expected consumption.

New municipal wells and water delivery pipelines
will be required in the Plan Area to serve new
growth; these new wells and pipelines were already
identified as necessary in the General Plan. Facilities will be sized to provide delivery capacity to meet water demands during peak conditions and at
the same time meet fire protection needs. Peaking
factors, fire flow requirements, and a system
pressure range, which must be utilized in designing
the facilities, are set out in the City’s standard
specifications. Table 7-2 compares the anticipated
water usage per land use in the Plan to those in the
General Plan.
7-4 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Plan Area Proposed Water Lines - 12” or Greater
Existing Water Lines Proposed Water Lines - 8”
Proposed Water Well
NOTE: STREET LINE WORK OMITTED FOR CLARITY
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
FIGURE 7-1 FIGURE 7-1 Proposed Water Improvements Proposed Water Improvements Note: Street line work omitted for clarity.

Chapter 7 | Utilities 7-5
TABLE 7-2 Comparison of General Plan (GP) and Specific Plan (SP) Anticipated Water Usage per Land Use Classification

LAND USE

CLASSIFICATION

AND ABBREVIATION
GP
WATER
USAGE
(MGPD)
SP
WATER
USAGE
(MGPD)
USAGE
Δ (%)
Public Facilities -
PG&E Substation pqge 0.007 0.007 0%
Public Facilities -
Hospital pqmh 0.027 0.027 0%
Public Facilities
- Elementary
School
pse 0.098 0.047 -52%
Public Facilities -
Middle School psm 0.166 0.101 -39%
Public Facilities -
Water Recharge pwrb 0.000 0.000 0%
Residential High
Density rh 0.079 0.000 -100%
Residential Low
Density rl 0.066 0.066 0%
Residential
Medium Density rm 3.106 3.277 6%
Residential
Medium High
Density
rmh 0.143 0.000 -100%
Residential
Medium Low
Density
rml 1.443 1.382 -4%
Residential
Urban
Neighborhood
Density
run 0.482 0.569 18%
Total 7.063 7.411 5%

LAND USE

CLASSIFICATION

AND ABBREVIATION
GP
WATER
USAGE
(MGPD)
SP
WATER
USAGE
(MGPD)
USAGE
Δ (%)
Employment -
Business Park cbp 0.289 0.0 -100%
Commercial -
Community cc 0.102 0.187 83%
Commercial -
General cgh 0.001 0.001 0%
Corridor/Center
Mixed-Use cmx 0.118 0.164 39%
Employment -
Office co 0.027 0.331 1110%
Commercial -
Regional cr 0.065 0.108 66%
Clear Zone cz 0.000 0.000 0%
Commercial -
Highway & Auto hwy 0.000 0.000 0%
Industrial -
Heavy ih 0.044 0.000 -100%
Industrial - Light il 0.195 0.000 -100%
Neighborhood
Mixed-Use nmx 0.000 0.409 100%
Open Space -
Ponding Basin obp 0.051 0.052 2%
Open Space -
Park orp 0.005 0.002 -54%
Open Space -
Community Park orpc 0.072 0.002 -96%
Open Space -
Neighborhood
Park
orpn 0.067 0.007 -90%
Open Space -
Regional Park orpr 0.369 0.202 -38%
Public Facilities -
Airport pa 0.003 0.003 0%
Public Facilities -
College pc 0.000 0.066 100%
Public Facilities pf 0.051 0.234 358%
Public Facilities
- Neighborhood
Center
pnc 0.007 0.007 0%
Public Facilities -
Church pqch 0.002 0.000 -100%
Note: The symbol Δ indicates the delta or change compared between the General Plan and Southwest Fresno Specific Plan.
7-6 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan

WASTEWATER
The Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) serves the Plan Area.

Wastewater generated from homes and businesses
in the Fresno/Clovis metro area travels through
1,500 miles of sanitary sewer lines to the facility. The RWRF is located at Jensen and Cornelia Avenues near Southwest Fresno, approximately
three miles west of the Plan Area. Currently, the
City of Fresno’s wastewater collection in the Plan
Area has over 100 miles of sewer lines ranging in
size from six inches to 60 inches in diameter and
four sewage lift stations. The Plan Area is currently
planned to be served by four separate sewer areas.

A Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Study may be required
prior to development. Cost of this planning effort
is not included in the cost estimates provided in
this section of the report. Figure 7-2 illustrates the
existing and proposed wastewater systems.

Some areas in the Plan Area utilize septic systems.

New development in the Plan Area will provide
outlying areas, which are not currently served with
sewer collection, the opportunity to connect to the
City’s sewer system. Developers will be required to
build, or contribute towards design and construction, of collection systems sufficient to serve the ultimate required capacity at Plan buildout.

For purposes of preparing the Plan, the existing
systems and the added sewer requirements, based
upon proposed land uses, have been considered.

A combination gravity flow and force main system
is assumed and reflected in the estimates. The
current configuration utilizes four lift stations in
the service area. The existing four stations will be
upgraded and two additional stations have been
included for this Plan. Alternative wastewater
conveyance systems will also be explored. One
such alternative will be a combined gravity and lift
station system where the majority of the Plan Area
would gravity flow to the regional treatment plant.

Table 7-3 compares the anticipated wastewater
generated per land use in the Plan to those in the
General Plan.

RECYCLED WATER USE
Recycled water, an important water source for the
City of Fresno, is not yet utilized in the Plan Area.

The Plan presents an opportunity to integrate recycled water use into the associated improvements with buildout of the City of Fresno’s recycled water
system. Green field installation of a distribution
system at the initial development stage provides
opportunity to plan optimum recycled water
utilization within the Plan Area. The conceptual
plans for the recycled water distribution system are
shown in Figure 7-3. The recycled water plans are
one area where the planned system was increased.

The City park in the southwest portion of the Plan
Area was not planned to be served by the recycled
water system. Cost of a line to service this property
has been included in the cost estimate.

STORM SYSTEM
The FMFCD serves both the existing City and
County area with inlets, pipes and storage basins
which provide flood control for the area. There are
currently 14 drainage areas established in whole
or part within the Plan Area. The drainage analysis
covers 5,246 acres of the Plan Area and adjacent
Sphere of Influence area. An additional area of 613
acres was studied and comprised of (1) upstream
tributary areas which drain into the Plan Area and
(2) additional drainage basin area downstream
of the Plan Area where Plan Area water flows to
basins outside the Plan Area. Figure 7-4 illustrates
the existing and proposed storm water systems.

FMFCD has based planning for the 14 drainage
areas using the General Plan land use classifications
for each drainage area. Beyond planning, the basins
have been located, sized and in most cases basin
property acquisition has been completed. The Plan
must be analyzed and evaluated for impacts on
the aggregate area as well as for each of the 14
planned basin areas. FMFCD guidelines allow a 20
percent change in required volume before FMFCD
is required to resize the basin and either enlarge
or change the location of the affected basin. The
analysis in Table 7-4 shows all of the 14 FMFCD
drainage basins are sized sufficiently for the Plan as
compared to the General Plan.

Chapter 7 | Utilities 7-7
Proposed Wastewater Lines - 12” or Greater
Existing Wastewater Lines Proposed Sewer Capital Enhancement Existing Wastewater
Lift Station
Proposed Wastewater Lines - 8”
Plan Area
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
FIGURE 7-2 FIGURE 7-2 Proposed Wastewater Improvements Proposed Wastewater Improvements Note: Street line work omitted for clarity.
7-8 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
TABLE 7-3 Comparison of General Plan (GP) and Specific Plan (SP) Anticipated Wastewater Usage per Land Use Classification

LAND USE

CLASSIFICATION

AND ABBREVIATION
GP
WATER
USAGE
(MGPD)
SP
WATER
USAGE
(MGPD)
USAGE
Δ (%)
Employment -
Business Park cbp 0.136 0.000 -100%
Commercial -
Community cc 0.048 0.088 83%
Commercial -
General cgh 0.000 0.000 0%
Corridor/Center
Mixed-Use cmx 0.249 0.347 39%
Employment -
Office co 0.016 0.195 1110%
Commercial -
Regional cr 0.036 0.060 66%
Clear Zone cz 0.000 0.000 0%
Commercial -
Highway & Auto hwy 0.000 0.000 0%
Industrial - Heavy ih 0.042 0.000 -100%
Industrial - Light il 0.130 0.000 -100%
Neighborhood
Mixed-Use nmx 0.000 0.273 100%
Open Space -
Ponding Basin obp 0.051 0.052 2%
Open Space -
Park orp 0.001 0.000 -100%
Open Space -
Community Park orpc 0.024 0.001 -96%
Open Space -
Neighborhood
Park
orpn 0.000 0.000 0%
Open Space -
Regional Park orpr 0.369 0.229 -38%
Public Facilities -
Airport pa 0.001 0.001 0%
Public Facilities -
College pc 0.000 0.033 100%
Public Facilities pf 0.018 0.082 358%
Public Facilities
- Neighborhood
Center
pnc 0.002 0.002 0%
Public Facilities -
Church pqch 0.001 0.000 -100%

LAND USE

CLASSIFICATION

AND ABBREVIATION
GP
WATER
USAGE
(MGPD)
SP
WATER
USAGE
(MGPD)
USAGE
Δ (%)
Public Facilities -
PG&E Substation pqge 0.002 0.002 0%
Public Facilities -
Hospital pqmh 0.020 0.020 0%
Public Facilities
- Elementary
School
pse 0.026 0.013 -52%
Public Facilities -
Middle School psm 0.045 0.027 -39%
Public Facilities -
Water Recharge pwrb 0.000 0.000 0%
Residential High
Density rh 0.075 0.000 -100%
Residential Low
Density rl 0.025 0.025 0%
Residential
Medium Density rm 0.745 0.786 6%
Residential
Medium High
Density
rmh 0.090 0.095 5%
Residential
Medium Low
Density
rml 0.909 0.870 -4%
Residential
Urban
Neighborhood
Density
run 0.364 0.429 18%
Total 3.118 3.436 10%
Note: The symbol Δ indicates the delta or change compared between the General Plan and Southwest Fresno Specific Plan.

Chapter 7 | Utilities 7-9
Proposed Recycled Water Lines
Existing Street Existing Basins
Plan Area
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
FIGURE 7-3 Proposed Recycled Water Improvements FIGURE 7-3 Proposed Recycled Water Improvements Note: Street line work omitted for clarity.
7-10 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Note: Street line work omitted for clarity.

Proposed Storm Drain Lines
Existing Street Existing Basins
Plan Area
0 0.25mi 0.25mi
FIGURE 7-4 Proposed Stormwater Improvements
AS
NN
ZZ
RR3
RR1
FFFF
OO
TT1
TT2
II1
SS AU
KK
LL
CQ
AV
AW2
FIGURE 7-4 Proposed Stormwater Improvements
Chapter 7 | Utilities 7-11

IRRIGATION
The FID currently serves portions of the Plan Area.

Irrigation water is provided by six FID facilities
including the Kearney Avenue Basin No. 189 and
five canal and/or pipeline facilities. While no
additional capacity is required with implementation
of the Plan, the irrigation system remains a factor
and in place for three important reasons.

1. Existing service is required throughout
the development period. In-holdings and
undeveloped parcels still require irrigation
water.

2. Irrigation facilities serve as a water
transmission function across the area.

This transmission capacity will be required
following full buildout of the Plan.

3. The FID irrigation system serves a dual
function: A) delivery of irrigation water,
and B) storm water transmission during the
wet season. The irrigation facilities serve a
vital role in the storm water system as that
capacity for conveying irrigation water is
utilized to convey storm water during the
wet season.

Improvements in the irrigation system will be
required with implementation of the Plan.

As a rule, the FID easement generally remains
but whether a canal is preserved as-is, improved,
or replaced with a pipeline is determined by the
developer of the project. FID is an interested
participant and remains the facility owner involved
in planning, design, and approving improvements,
but scope and costs for these improvements are
included in the development projects.

TABLE 7-4 Comparison of Existing and
Required Basin Volumes for General
Plan (GP) and Specific Plan (SP)
DRAINAGE
AREA
BASIN
SIZE
(ACRES)
GP

REQUIRED
BASIN
VOLUME
(ACREFEET)
SP

REQUIRED
BASIN
VOLUME
(ACREFEET)
Δ(%)
Basin AR 0.5 0.23 0.23 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%
Note: The symbol Δ indicates the delta or change compared between the General Plan and Southwest Fresno Specific Plan.
7-12 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
C. DRY UTILITIES NEEDS

ANALYSIS AND

IMPROVEMENTS

ELECTRICAL
The Plan Area is currently serviced by PG&E, who
operates and maintains transmission, switching
substation(s), and distribution lines to serve
the Plan Area. Implementation of the Plan will
require expansion of the electrical distribution
and transmission related facilities; this is not a
change from what was anticipated in the General
Plan. In addition to adding new distribution feeds,
the range of electric system improvements
needed to accommodate growth may include
upgrading existing substation and transmission
line equipment, expanding existing substation(s)
to their ultimate build-out capacity, building new
substations and interconnecting transmission lines.

The new development will be responsible for the
costs associated with the necessary expansion and
upgrading of the systems.

GAS SYSTEMS
PG&E also operates and maintains natural gas
transmission and distribution lines within the
project site. Implementation of the Plan will require
the expansion of distribution and gas transmission
and related facilities to serve the Plan Area. The
new development will be responsible for the costs
associated with the necessary expansion and
upgrading of these systems.

D. COMMUNICATIONS
AT&T, Comcast, and Xfinity (all AT&T companies)
provide telephone, fiber, and cable services to
the Plan Area. Implementation of the Plan will
require expansion of communications systems to
serve the Plan Area. The new development will be
responsible for the costs associated with the necessary expansion and upgrading of any authorized systems.

Chapter 7 | Utilities 7-13
E. GOALS AND POLICIES
Goal U-1 Maintain, and if necessary,
upgrade and augment utilities
to support new development
within the Plan Area and protect
the health, safety, and welfare of
existing and new residents and
businesses.

Policy U-1.1 Coordinate the installation and
upgrading of utilities between the
City and County.

Policy U-1.2 Connect utilities, especially in
previously undeveloped outlying
areas, to the City’s existing utility
system as a part of new development.

Policy U-1.3 Require developers to build or
contribute towards the design
and construction of expanded and
upgraded utilities to serve new
development projects such as
sewer collection systems, electric
system improvements, communication systems, and natural gas transmission and distribution lines.

Policy U-1.4 Maintain a sustainable, safe and
effective wet utilities system,
including wastewater, recycled
water, and irrigation, to provide a
high level of wet utilities while also
meeting high environmental quality
standards.

Policy U-1.5 Provide adequate sewage treatment and disposal by utilizing the City of Fresno’s regional wastewater treatment plant for all existing and new development within the
Plan Area.

Policy U-1.6 Explore the opportunity to
integrate recycled water use into
the associated improvements with
buildout of the City’s recycled water system, including the potential installation of a distribution system
on green field.

Policy U-1.7 Require that all new arterial street
construction include undergrounding of electrical service and communications lines.
7-14 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Chapter 8 | Implementation 8-1

IMPLEMENTATION
A. INTRODUCTION
Private property owners and developers will
undertake much of the work and make most of
the investment needed to realize the vision for
the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan (the Plan).

Chapter 3, Land Use, and Chapter 4, Development
Regulations, of the Plan will guide and regulate
new development to ensure that it achieves the
community’s vision.

The private development, however, will require
investments in public facilities and infrastructure—
complete streets, water and sewer, stormwater
drainage, and community parks. This chapter establishes the funding and financing strategies that the City will use to ensure that new development pays
its fair share of the costs for public facilities and
services. The provisions included in this chapter
incorporate existing City requirements, including
development impact fees and community facilities
districts for development projects.

The community’s vision includes not just areas
planned for new development but also the existing neighborhoods and commercial corridors.

However, without development impact fees, the
existing neighborhoods could be waiting a long
time for their share of the City’s general fund
to pay for improvements to public facilities and
infrastructure. Thus, this chapter also identifies
tools with which neighborhoods can help pay to get
improvements sooner rather than later.

Finally, the community that residents experience is
much more than streets and buildings, even though
the Plan, by its nature, focuses on the built environment. Therefore, this chapter presents several economic development strategies through which
residents can increase their economic security and
enhance the community’s quality of life.
8 This chapter is organized into the following
sections:

A. Introduction
B. General Implementation Strategy
C. Funding and Financing Tools
D. Economic Development Strategies
E. Implementation Action Plan
This chapter provides a framework for
implementation. Even though parts of it provide
specific details, it is still just a framework. It is fully expected that as conditions and market forces
change over time, the City may adjust the details
as needed to keep working toward the vision for
Southwest Fresno.
8-2 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
B. GENERAL

IMPLEMENTATION

STRATEGY

PRINCIPLES
The general approach to implementing the Plan
incorporates several guiding principles:
■ Development Needs to Pay Its Own Way.

The City of Fresno will not subsidize new
development. Development projects will pay
their fair share for public facilities and services
using developer-constructed improvements,
development impact fees (DIFs), community
facilities districts (CFDs), or other funding and
financing mechanisms.
■ The Purpose of the Specific Plan is to Attract
Investment and Development. The community
wants new investment and new development:
attractive neighborhoods, vibrant commercial
districts, and a pleasant and appealing public
realm. Development standards, DIFs, and other
requirements should not be so onerous as to
inhibit or discourage the new development
that the community desires.
■ Public Facility and Infrastructure
Improvements are Needed in Existing
Neighborhoods. The Plan should provide
ways to improve the public facilities and
infrastructure in existing neighborhoods
and commercial areas to a similar quality as
will be required for new neighborhoods and
commercial areas. However, it is recognized
that there are funding constraints and
improvements to existing neighborhoods and
commercial areas may take time.
■ Implementation Should be Coordinated with
the Annual Budget Process. To avoid being
the proverbial plan on a shelf, implementation
must be coordinated with the City’s annual
budget process. The implementation
framework should be laid out by fiscal year to
ensure that individual implementation actions
can be programed into departmental work
programs and that adequate funding can be
budgeted each year.
■ Infill Development Projects Are Important
to Catalyze Buildout of the Specific Plan. The
City should incentivize initial infill development
projects to prove the market demand for
infill projects in the plan area. Incentives
could include fee waivers, support for grant
applications, and shifting of some costs to
assessment districts.
■ Programs and Services are as Important
to the Vision as Streets and Buildings. The
implementation plan should include necessary
programs and services, not just capital
investments for facilities and infrastructure.
■ Ongoing Operations and Maintenance is as
Important as Constructing Improvements. The
Plan needs to provide a mechanism to pay for
ongoing operations and maintenance for new
or improved public facilities and services.
■ Development of the Plan Does Not Require
the Use of Eminent Domain. The Plan does
not contemplate the broad-spread use of
eminent domain as an implementation tool as
there is an abundant amount of vacant land to
accommodate proposed new uses. However
sometimes eminent domain may be used as a
last resort to widen a street or acquire a school
site, for example.

INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
To oversee the implementation of the Plan, the
City should establish an implementation oversight
committee comprised of residents, businesses, and
representatives of civic organizations in the Plan
Area. At a minimum, this committee should collaborate with City staff to prepare an annual report to the Mayor and City Council on the progress of
implementation and recommending subsequent
implementation measures, including future capital
improvements. Beyond the annual report, the
City may want to consider tasking this committee
with reviewing and commenting on proposed
development projects. The City could also task this
committee with responsibilities related to branding
and marketing the Southwest Fresno community.

Chapter 8 | Implementation 8-3
C. FUNDING AND

FINANCING TOOLS
This section identifies the funding and financing
tools that are anticipated to be used for implementing the Plan. This list is not exhaustive, and new tools may be made available by the legislature.

If a new or different funding or financing tool is
available at the time of implementation, the most
effective tool should be used.

ESTIMATED INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS
In preparing the Plan, the costs to provide major
infrastructure were estimated. Table 8-1 below
provides the rough cost estimates for the Plan
Area. In addition, Table 8-1 provides rough cost
estimates to provide infrastructure for buildout of
the adjacent areas that are within the City’s Sphere
of Influence (SOI). The funding and financing tools
and the implementation action plan are focused on
the infrastructure and estimated costs in the Plan
Area.

However, the cost for infrastructure in the adjacent
SOI areas are provided for context in case future
applications are filed to annex SOI areas into the
city limit. Specific costs and the mechanism to
pay for those costs will need to be decided on a
case-by-case basis for each annexation that is filed.

NEW DEVELOPMENT
Developer-Constructed/Funded
Improvements
For public facilities and infrastructure on or
adjacent to a site proposed for development or
new construction, the preferred method to pay for
the improvements is for the developer to construct
or pay for the improvement as a condition of
approval.

In some cases, the development of one or more
parcels in the Plan Area may require the construction of off-site infrastructure improvements, the size of which may be larger than what is needed
to serve just the proposed development. In such
cases, if the City does not have the funds available
to pay for the additional infrastructure capacity, the
property owner or developer may agree, through a
development agreement, to pay for the full cost of
the off-site infrastructure improvement and to be
repaid as additional development occurs.

The development agreement would stipulate the
terms of such repayment. If the cost of infrastructure improvements is to be repaid to a property owner, developer, or other entity that paid the
upfront cost, the City may prohibit other development under the Plan until the project applicant has paid the required infrastructure cost repayment fee
in accordance with the terms of the development
agreement.

TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE ESTIMATED COST (PLAN AREA) ESTIMATED COST (SOI) Water $21,611,000 $22,289,000
Recycled Water $2,336,000 $2,184,000
Storm Drain $13,722,000 $6,862,000
WasteWater $22,951,000 $24,711,000
General Costs $6,062,000 $5,605,000
TOTAL $66,682,000 $61,651,000
TABLE 8-1 Estimated Wet Infrastructure Costs
8-4 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Development Impact Fees
Development impact fees (DIFs) are a one-time
charge to new development imposed under the
Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code,
Section 66000, et seq.). These fees are charged
to new development to mitigate impacts resulting
from the development activity, and cannot be used
to fund existing deficiencies. This means that new
development can only pay for part of the improvement cost for projects that benefit existing uses as well as new development and the City must find
another funding source to cover the costs for the
improvements that benefit the existing uses.

Impact fees must be adopted based on findings
of reasonable relationships between the development paying the fee, the need for the fee, and the use of fee revenues. The City of Fresno has DIFs
for police, fire, parks, and streets impacts. The
implementation plan calls for the City to update
the impact fees for the Plan Area based on updated
infrastructure cost estimates.

The City can allow for credits and reimbursements
for capital projects funded by an impact fee that
are constructed privately by developers and
dedicated to the City. Depending on the specific
implementation guidelines of the fee program,
a development project could choose to dedicate
land or make certain improvements and receive
a credit against the impact fee due. A “credit” is
the amount counted against the developer’s fee
obligation. A “reimbursement” is the amount that
exceeds the developer’s fee obligation.

Because each development pays only for its fair
share of a public facility or infrastructure improvement, the City may not have the necessary funding to pay for improvements until other developments
are approved and constructed. If the City has funds
available, it can construct the improvements and
get repaid over time. If the City does not have
funds available, it might be the case that a community facilities district, which can bond against future revenue, would be a better funding mechanism
than a DIF.

Community Facilities District
Community facilities districts (CFDs) can fund the
planning, design, purchase, construction, expansion, improvement, or rehabilitation of capital facilities, defined as having a useful life of five or
more years. CFDs can also fund the provision of
a variety of public services, such as public safety,
parks and recreation, schools, library and cultural
facilities, landscape maintenance and lighting, flood
control, and site remediation.

The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of
1982 (Government Code Section 53311 et seq.)
authorizes the establishment of CFDs. CFDs levy a
special tax. This tax may be applied to the value of
each property, rather than assessed based on the
level of special benefit received. However, because
it is a special tax, a two-thirds majority vote is
required to approve the levy of the special tax. If
the district has twelve or more registered voters,
the election polls voters, with each having an equal
vote. If there are less than twelve registered voters,
the election polls property owners, with each vote
weighted by acreage owned within the district
boundary. Properties within the district need not
necessarily be contiguous. Finally, establishing
a CFD requires only a general description of the
facilities, services, and costs associated with the
district, not the detailed engineer’s report required
for assessment districts.

CFDs may fund the construction of the following
types of facilities:
■ Local park, recreation, parkway, and openspace facilities ■ Elementary and secondary school sites and
structures
■ Libraries
■ Childcare facilities
■ Transmission/distribution facilities for water,
natural gas, telephone, electrical energy, and
cable television
■ Flood, storm protection, and storm drainage
facilities
Chapter 8 | Implementation 8-5
■ Other governmental facilities the legislative
body creating the district is authorized by law
to contribute revenue toward, construct, own,
or operate
■ Work to bring public or private buildings or real
property into compliance with seismic safety
standards and regulations
■ CFDs may also fund the following types of
services:
■ Police protection services
■ Fire protection and suppression services and
ambulance and paramedic services
■ Recreation program services, library services,
maintenance services for elementary and
secondary school sites and structures, and the
operation and maintenance of museums and
cultural facilities
■ Maintenance of parks, parkways, and open
space
■ Flood and storm protection services including,
but not limited to, the operation and
maintenance of storm drainage systems and
sandstorm protection systems
■ Removal or remedial action services for the
cleanup of any hazardous substance released
or threatened to be released into the environment
One key advantage of a CFD is that it can issue
bonds, secured by the anticipated future tax
revenue. This allows improvements to be constructed sooner, rather than later. They can also be beneficial to developers because they do not
have to recoup the cost of the improvements from
the sales price of each new house or building. In
contrast, with DIFs, the developer borrows the
cost of the DIFs and must reflect that cost in the
sales price. Finally, unlike other types of bonds,
it is the CFD and ultimately the property owners
responsible for repaying the bonds. The City is not
directly liable.

Enhanced Infrastructure Finance Districts
Legislation in 2015 enabled the formation of
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts
(EIFDs). An EIFD diverts local property tax revenues
(through tax-increment financing) to either pay
directly for the construction of infrastructure and
public facility improvements, or to issue bonds to
finance those improvements. No public vote is required to establish an EIFD, but a 55 percent voter approval is required to issue bonds. However, EIFDs
cannot divert property tax increment revenues
from schools and can only capture tax increment
from taxing jurisdictions that agree to forego their
incremental property tax revenue. In the case of
Southwest Fresno, the City of Fresno would need
to agree to forego the increase in property tax
revenue that is generated by increase in property
values in the EIFD.

EIFDs can fund:
■ Roads, highways and bridges
■ Parking facilities
■ Transit stations
■ Sewage and water facilities
■ Flood control and drainage projects
■ Solid waste disposal
■ Parks and libraries
■ Child care facilities
■ Brownfield restoration
■ Environmental mitigation
■ Military base reuse projects
■ Affordable housing
■ Private industrial buildings
■ Transit oriented development projects
■ Projects carrying out sustainable community
strategies
8-6 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
The preceding funding and financing mechanisms
can technically be used for improvements in
existing neighborhoods and commercial areas.

However, the developer constructed/funded
improvements and DIFs would only apply to new
infill development projects, and CFDs and EIFDs
may prove unworkable because they must be approved by voters in the district. The tools described below have more relevance for funding and
financing improvements in existing neighborhoods
and commercial areas.

General Fund
The most direct way to fund public facilities and
infrastructure improvements in existing neighborhoods and commercial areas is through the City’s general fund. However, implementation projects
in Southwest Fresno must compete with demands
for general fund investment in every other part of
the City. Furthermore, the amount of funding that
might be available through the general fund could
be quite limited.

Assessment Districts
In existing neighborhoods and commercial areas,
groups of property owners may desire to have
public facilities and infrastructure improvements
sooner rather than waiting for general fund monies
to become available. Assessment districts could
help finance the construction of public improvements on public property, public rights-of-way, and public easements in these areas.

The public must pay for the portions of the
improvements that provide general benefit to the
public at large, but real property that receives
a special benefit may be assessed for the costs,
proportional to the level of benefit received. Three
different provisions of state law authorize assessment:
■ Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Streets and
Highways Code Sections 8500 et seq.)
■ Improvement Act of 1911 (Streets and Highways Code Sections 5000 et seq.) ■ Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Streets
and Highways Code Sections 10000 et seq.),
which contains only provisions for establishing
assessment districts
Assessment districts are intended to finance
construction of physical improvements. They
cannot pay for operations and maintenance or
additional services. If additional improvements are
desired after an assessment district is established,
the entire process is required for those additional
improvements.

Assessment districts may be used to finance
improvements in one of two general ways: 1) the
assessments may repay the City for the upfront
costs of improvements and 2) the City may also
issue bonds pursuant to an assessment district
and use the proceeds to fund the infrastructure
improvements and use the assessments to repay
the bonds.

Generally, assessment districts can be used to
finance these improvements:
■ Local streets
■ Streetlights
■ Parks
■ Water supply and distribution facilities
■ Gas and electric power
■ Landscaping
■ Sidewalks
■ Sanitary sewers
■ Flood control and drainage improvements
■ Parking facilities
The authorizing statutes referenced above set forth
procedures for establishing assessment districts.

Under existing State law, however, establishment of
an assessment district cannot occur if a majority of
the affected property owners object (weighted by
the value of the proposed assessment).

Prior to holding a vote on an assessment district,
the City must pay for engineering design and
construction documents and bid the project out. If
a majority of property owners rejects the assessment district, then the City is responsible for the Chapter 8 | Implementation 8-7
cost of developing the construction documents.

Thus, establishing an assessment district usually
requires a great deal of time working with property
owners so that the City is relatively certain that
they will not vote against establishing the district.

Contractual Assessment District
In a typical assessment district, a municipality
determines the cost of public improvements and
places a levy on each property in the area unless
a majority of property owners object. In contrast,
a contractual assessment district is completely
voluntary. A contractual assessment district could
be an alternative when a majority of property owners in an area do not want to pay for public facility and infrastructure improvements, but a sizeable
number of them do.

A municipality establishes a contractual assessment
district program, creating guidelines that identify
the types of improvements, costs, and locations. If
and when a property owner wants to participate,
the owner can voluntarily enter into a contractual
assessment. Because the program is completely
voluntary and because it applies to only one
property at a time, there is no voting, balloting,
or engineer’s report, as is required with a conventional assessment district. Typically, the program authorizes the City Manager or some other staff
position to execute the contract on behalf of the
City, thus eliminating the need for a public hearing.

These assessments are authorized by Contractual
Assessments (part of the Improvement Act of 1911)
(Streets and Highways Code Sections 5898.10 et
seq.). Although this authority has existed for 100
years, this code section became better known
with the passage of AB 811 (2008, Levine), which
amended the code to allow contractual assessments to pay for energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements, most commonly for residential solar energy retrofits.

To establish a contractual assessment district,
the City Council would first adopt a resolution
indicating its intention to do so. The resolution of
intention should:
■ Include a statement that the City proposes
to make voluntary contractual assessment
financing available to property owners
■ Identify the kinds of public works that may be
financed
■ Describe the boundaries of the area within
which voluntary contractual assessments may
be entered into
■ Briefly describe the proposed arrangements
for financing the program, including a brief
description of criteria for determining the
creditworthiness of a property owner
Prior to the public hearing to adopt a resolution,
which establishes the contractual assessment
district, the City would have to prepare a report
containing:
■ A map showing the boundaries of the
territory within which voluntary contractual
assessments are proposed to be offered
■ A draft contract specifying the terms and
conditions that would be agreed to by
a property owner within the voluntary
contractual assessment area and the City
■ A statement of City policies concerning
voluntary contractual assessments including:
■ Identification of types of improvements that
may be financed through the use of contractual
assessments
■ Identification of a City official authorized to
enter into voluntary contractual assessments
on behalf of the City
■ A maximum aggregate dollar amount of
voluntary contractual assessments
■ A method for setting requests from property
owners for financing through voluntary
contractual assessments in priority order in the
event that requests appear likely to exceed the
authorization amount
■ A plan for raising a capital amount required to
pay for work performed pursuant to voluntary
contractual assessments. The plan may include
8-8 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
amounts to be advanced by the public agency
through funds available to it from any source.

The plan may include the sale of a bond or
bonds or other financing relationship.
■ The plan shall include a statement of or
method for determining the interest rate and
time period during which contracting property
owners would pay any assessment. The plan
shall provide for any reserve fund or funds.

The plan shall provide for the apportionment
of all or any portion of the costs incidental to
financing, administration, and collection of
the voluntary contractual assessment program
among the consenting property owners and
the City.

The authorizing statue provides other requirements
as well as the standards for noticing and conducting
a required public hearing.

ONGOING OPERATIONS AND

MAINTENANCE
Whether in new development areas or existing
neighborhoods, public facility and infrastructure
improvements will require ongoing operations and
maintenance. Landscaping and lighting maintenance districts (LLMD) can fund the construction of certain public improvements and the operation and
maintenance of public improvements. A landscaping and lighting maintenance district is one alternative to the general fund for paying those costs.

Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance
District
LLMDs could be an effective way to fund the
ongoing maintenance (or even the construction) of
public realm improvements. LLMDs are authorized
by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972
(Streets and Highways Code Section 22500 et seq.).

An LLMD requires an annual assessment process
for any assessments other than previously approved assessments to pay previously approved and issued debt. The annual assessment process
is similar to that used to establish assessment
districts.

The improvements and services provided by
LLMDs include:
■ Landscaping
■ Statuary, fountains, and other ornamental
structures
■ Public lighting, including traffic signals
■ Appurtenant facilities, including grading,
clearing, and removal of debris; the installation
or construction of curbs, gutters, walls,
sidewalks, or paving; or water, irrigation,
drainage, or electrical facilities
■ Park or recreational improvements
■ Land preparation
■ Lights, playground equipment, play courts, and
public restrooms
■ The maintenance or servicing or both of any of
the foregoing
■ Acquisition of land for park, recreational, or
open-space purposes
■ Acquisition of existing improvements
■ Acquisition or construction of any community
center, municipal auditorium or hall, or similar
public facility for the indoor presentation of
performances, shows, stage productions, fairs,
conventions, exhibitions, pageants, meetings,
parties, or other group events, activities, or
functions, whether those events, activities, or
functions are public or private
LLMDs can be expanded over time, following a
process similar to that used to establish the district.

The City may condition development activity in
the Plan Area on annexation into a LLMD if one
is established for all or a part of the Plan Area.

An LLMD may also be established to generate
revenues from throughout the Plan Area to fund
the operation and maintenance of a public open
space in or around the Plan Area.

Chapter 8 | Implementation 8-9

STATE FUNDING SOURCES
The following describes state funds that could be
used for transportation-related projects. They are
available from the Transportation Development
Act (TDA) and from various state programs and
agencies, including the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) and the California Office
of Traffic Safety (OTS).

Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant
Program – Sustainable Communities
The Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant is a
new program consolidating and realigning previous
Caltrans funding programs. Caltrans Environmental
Justice & Community-Based Transportation Planning Grants, and Transit Planning Grants merged into one program, “Sustainable Communities.”
Similar to the previous programs, transportation
planning projects that are intended to improve a
multimodal transportation network and reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, such as complete
street plans and pedestrian and bicycle safety
enhancement plans, are eligible. Construction
and maintenance projects are not eligible.

Eligible applicants include Metropolitan Planning
Organizations and Regional Transportation Planning
Agencies (MPO/RTPAs), Transit Agencies, Cities,
Counties, and Native American Tribal Governments.

This program is funded by the Federal Transit
Administration and the State Highway Account.

Approximately $8.3 million was available for the
grant cycle (Fiscal Year 2015-16). At least an 11.47
percent local match is required.

More information is available at: http://www.dot.
ca.gov/hq/tpp/grants.html/.

Office of Traffic Safety Grants
The Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) administers federal
traffic safety grant funds that are apportioned
to California under the National Highway Safety
Act. The OTS has several priority areas for grant
funding, including alcohol and other drugs, police
traffic services, occupant protection, traffic records, emergency medical services, roadway safety,
pedestrian and bicycle safety (including education,
enforcement, and engineering), and motorcycle
safety. The OTS supports a wide variety of traffic
safety programs, including pedestrian and bicycle
safety programs for children; child passenger safety
outreach; and support for increased law enforcement services and resources, such as safety helmet distribution, and court diversion programs for
safety helmet violators. State government agencies,
state colleges, and state universities, local city
and county government agencies, school districts,
fire departments, and public emergency services
providers are eligible to apply for and receive OTS
grant funding. Grants are awarded on a competitive
basis.

More information is available at: http://www.ots.
ca.gov/ots_and_traffic_safety/About_OTS.asp./
Environmental Enhancement and
Mitigation Program
The Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation
Program (EEMP) is a state fund established by
Caltrans to mitigate the effects of transportation
projects. It offers up to $7 million each year for
grants to local, state, and federal government agencies and to nonprofit organizations for projects to mitigate the environmental impacts caused by new
or modified public transportation facilities. Eligible
projects must be directly or indirectly related to
the environmental impact of the modification of an
existing transportation facility or construction of
a new transportation facility. Typical grants range
from $200,000 to $250,000. Up to 25 percent local
matching is usually required. Grants are awarded
in the categories of urban forestry, resource lands,
and mitigation projects beyond the scope of the
lead agency. Grants are awarded on a competitive
basis.

More information is available at: http://resources.
ca.gov/bonds_and_grants/eemp/.

Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities Program
Managed by California’s Strategic Growth Council,
the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program is intended to reduce GHG emissions by supporting infill and compact
development projects that improve non-motorized
transportation options and decrease reliance
on auto vehicle uses. Eligible projects include 1)
8-10 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
transit-oriented development (TOD) projects that
include affordable housing development in conjunction with transportation infrastructure, and 2) integrated connectivity projects that include one or
more transit stop and would result in a significant
increase in transit ridership.

As of January 2015, the program guidelines for the
AHSC program are in the process of development,
and the draft of the guidelines is available here:
http://sgc.ca.gov/docs/Draft_AHSC_Guidelines_for_posting_082314.pdf/.

More information is available at: http://sgc.
ca.gov/s_ahscprogram.php/.

Urban And Community Forestry Grants
The California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL FIRE) administers the Urban &
Community Forestry Grant Program to fund urban
forestry projects that focus on reducing GHG emissions, including urban tree planting, urban forest management for GHG reduction, urban wood and
biomass utilization, reclamation of blighted urban
lands, and green innovations projects. On-going
management or maintenance activities are not
eligible.

D. ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT

STRATEGIES

BUSINESS STARTUP AND BUSINESS

DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
Empirical evidence indicates that small businesses
and young businesses are the most productive job
creators.1
This suggests that investments in existing
businesses and startup businesses would be an
efficient approach to expand job opportunities in
the Plan Area and for Plan Area residents, to raise
household incomes and build household wealth,
and to help drive and sustain demand for nonresidential buildings and development.

Business Assistance
The federal and State governments already fund
the vast majority of investment in developing the
capacity of small businesses and startup businesses
through the organizations outlined in this section.

Although some additional funding may be necessary, the real value that local government and community organizations provide is connecting
small businesses and budding entrepreneurs with
economic development service providers.

The core economic development services that
assist small businesses and business startups are:
■ Creating and Updating Business Plans.

Perhaps the most overlooked, yet essential tool
small and new businesses lack is a business
plan. With a three- to five-year horizon, the
typical business plan provides: a description
of the firm and its organizational structure; a
description of products and services, including
lifecycle stage; an analysis of the market,
market trends going forward, and competition;
and strategies for product development,
marketing, and sales. A current business plan is
1 See, for example: Neumark, David, Brandon Wall, and Junfu Zhang, 2011, “Do Small Businesses Create More Jobs? New Evidence for the United States from the National Establishment Time Series”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(1), 16–29; and Haltiwanger, John C., Jarmin, Ron S., and Miranda, Javier, 2010, “Who Creates Jobs? Small vs. Large vs. Young”, NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper 16300, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.

Chapter 8 | Implementation 8-11
necessary for businesses seeking financing, but
they are also critical for any business seeking to
grow revenues.
■ Business Management Training. Many small
business owners are experts in their product or
service, but lack formal business management
training and expertise. Business management
training covers a range of topics, including
bookkeeping and accounting, hiring and
retention, workforce training, healthcare and
other employee benefits, work place safety,
and compliance with human resource, taxes,
and other regulatory requirements.
■ Marketing and Advertising. Large businesses
have dedicated budgets and full-time staff,
as well as outside consultants, for market
research in order to identify and understand
customers and their needs and desires.

They also have dedicated budgets for paid
advertising to promote their brand and their
products or services. Small businesses usually
lack the internal resources, but marketing and
advertising are still important components for
growing revenues.
■ Financing. Whether updating current business
premises, replacing machinery and equipment,
or expanding, most small businesses at some
point to need to access financing. Small
businesses often turn to banks for conventional
loans or Small Business Administration (SBA)-
guaranteed loans. Many of these businesses,
however, can benefit from assistance in putting
together the documentation needed to obtain
loans. Furthermore, conventional loans,
even when guaranteed by the SBA, require
equity from the business. Some economic
development service providers have programs
to help cover the gap between the equity
the business has available and that required
amount, and some providers also have direct
loan programs.
■ Workforce Hiring and Training. Most
businesses handle hiring and training in-house.

However, the Fresno Regional Workforce
Development Board (described in more detail
in the Existing Economic Development Service
Providers and the Labor Force Education and
Training sections of this chapter) can assist
businesses with a range of hiring services.

In addition, many businesses may be eligible
for workforce training provided through the
workforce development board when upgrading
equipment and processes.
■ Mentoring. Some businesses, and especially
business startups, benefit from mentoring.

Seasoned professionals and retired executives
can provide insights on putting together all the
pieces mentioned above, on leadership, and on
big-picture strategy.
■ Local Ombudsman. Small businesses
complying with municipal and county
regulations is less a matter of will and more a
matter of being able to navigate City Hall. Local
ombudsman services provide a single point
of contact to help businesses comply with
business licensing, health department permits,
zoning and code enforcement compliance
and other regulations administered at the
municipal and county level.
■ Starting a Business. Existing small businesses
may only need the service described above one
at a time. In contrast, entrepreneurs starting
businesses have to accomplish all these tasks
at once. In addition, startup businesses must
choose and establish a business structure,
register their business, select and secure a
location to operate their business, and obtain
required permits and licenses. Finally, new
businesses face more challenges obtaining
financing than do existing businesses with a
financial track record.

In addition to the core business assistance services
described above, there is wide variety of more
targeted businesses assistance services that can
assist some small businesses. Some of these other
services include technology transfer, patents and
trademarks, pricing practices, government procurement and contracts, and social media strategies.

These additional services will probably not be
applicable on a wide scale in the Plan Area, but
may be valuable to some individual businesses.
8-12 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
Existing Economic Development Service
Providers
There are several economic development service
providers through which Plan Area businesses and
entrepreneurs can obtain the business assistance
services described in the preceding section. In
general, most of the services are funded through
the federal and State governments, although some
programs do have fees.
■ Fresno State Small Business Development
Center. The Fresno State Small Business
Development Center (SBDC) provides one-onone business consulting and training services for entrepreneurs in the counties of Fresno,
Madera, Tulare and Kings. Fresno State SBDC
is part of the UC Merced Small Business
Development Center Regional Network.

Fresno State SBDC assists existing businesses
with being competitive in a complex
marketplace and helps new entrepreneurs
realize their dream of business ownership.

It provides business consulting and training
in the following areas: business planning
and management, marketing, financial
management, specialized assistance with
international trade, technology transfer
and commercialization, distribution and
manufacturing, and business training
workshops, all at no cost to small businesses.

Fresno State SBDC would most likely be the
primary provider of most of the services
described in the Business Assistance section
above. More information about Fresno State
SBDC is available on its website: http://
fresnostate.edu/academics/sbdc/index.html/.
■ Fresno Regional Workforce Development
Board. The Fresno Regional Workforce
Development Board (FRWDB) provides
oversight and policy direction for the use of
federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act (WIOA) funds in Fresno Area. The FRWDB
is a business-led body, appointed by the
Fresno County Board of Supervisors. The
FRWDB, whose composition is defined by the
WIOA, includes 23 individuals representing
business, one-stop partners, communitybased organizations, local education entities, economic development agencies, and labor.

Under WOIA, the FRWDB provides services to
individuals seeking employment (described in
more detail in the Labor Force Education and
Training section) and to businesses, through its
Business Service Center. It can help businesses
to attract, hire, and retain employees,
specifically including:
§ Securing qualified, pre-screened job
candidates to meet a business’ hiring
specifications and goals;
§ Coordinating and customizing recruitment
events;
§ Locating labor market information and
current Fresno County employment
projections; and
§ Collecting information, such as wage data,
for job descriptions.

The FRWDB can provide information and
resources on starting a business, business
expansion, layoff aversion and business
transition strategies, one-on-one assistance
with business questions, and more. Like the
SBA (described below), the FRWDB provides
a large variety of online tutorials and tools,
ranging from industry specific toolkits, forms,
videos, e-newsletter notifications of trainings
and regulations, interactive assessments, online training courses and funding information.

The FRWDB can work with businesses facing
potential layoffs to develop transition strategies
and explore avenues to avert layoffs or
closures. If layoffs do occur, they can help make
the situation less traumatic for employees
and less costly for the business. Finally, the
FRWDB can help businesses with less than
100 employees create training courses and
reimburse costs under certain criteria.

The FRWDB operates its Business Services
Center at 7475 N. Palm Avenue in Fresno. More
information is available on the website, at
http://www.workforce-connection.com/.

Chapter 8 | Implementation 8-13
■ Fresno Economic Development Corporation.

The Economic Development Corporation
serving Fresno County (Fresno EDC) is a
nonprofit organization established to market
Fresno County to and facilitate site selection
for new businesses within Fresno County.

Fresno EDC also assists in the retention and
expansion of businesses that are already
located in the area.
■ Fresno EDC collaborates with other economic
development service providers, including many
of those described in this chapter, to enhance
the stability and growth of Fresno County’s
existing companies by connecting them with
specific resources, information, and services.

These services include, but are not limited to:
§ Site selection assistance
§ Workforce development, screening, and
employee recruitment services
§ Financing and microloan programs
§ Customized training program development
§ Internship program information and referrals
§ Performance enhancement/skill building/skill
attainment training programs
§ Building contracting
§ Strategic/marketing/formal succession
planning
§ Lucrative business tax incentive information:
enterprise zone, empowerment zone, MRZ,
hub zone, and foreign trade zone
§ Utilities – incentives, rebates, special
programs, and energy rate analysis assistance
§ Assistance with city permits, zoning, and
licensing; other municipal services
§ Structure deterioration & blight aversion and
improvement of existing infrastructure
§ Research and development assistance
§ Certified Public Accountant (CPA) services
Fresno EDC is a membership organization with
investors from a wide variety of industries
and areas of Fresno County. Their office is at
906 N Street, Suite 120, in Downtown Fresno.

More information is available on the website at
http://www. fresnoedc.com/.
■ Mayor’s Office for Economic Development.

The City of Fresno facilitates economic
development through the Mayor’s Office for
Economic Development. The City provides
services and assistance across a variety of
economic development fronts. The City’s
approach to economic development includes:
§ Ensuring availability of land and
infrastructure for industrial development
§ Industrial business retention and expansion
program
§ Incentives for industrial development
§ Targeting the food production cluster
§ Marketing Fresno to potential new
businesses and investors
§ Establishing an export commission
§ Investments in workforce development and
adult education
§ Buy local initiative
§ Supporting and incentivizing infill and
redevelopment
§ Improving quality of life to attract and retain
professionals to live in Fresno
§ Using City-owned land for catalyst projects
§ Collaborating with regional economic
development partners
Several of the City’s economic development
services are relevant to business assistance
for existing businesses in the plan and for
Plan Area residents who may be interested
in starting a business. More importantly,
staff from the Mayor’s Office for Economic
Development may be the key staff for
overseeing and coordinating implementation
measures related to economic development.
■ U.S. Small Business Administration. The
US Small Business Administration (SBA)
is an independent agency of the federal
government. Its mission is to aid, counsel,
assist and protect the interests of small
business concerns, to preserve free
competitive enterprise and to maintain and
strengthen the overall national economy. The
SBA is most well-known for assisting with small
8-14 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
business loans, but it also provides federal
contract procurement assistance, management
assistance, and specialized outreach to women,
minorities and armed forces veterans. SBA also
provides loans to victims of natural disasters
and specialized advice and assistance in
international trade.

Under its most common program, the SBA
Advantage 7(a) loans, the SBA does not provide
a loan to an eligible business. Rather, the SBA
guarantees repayment of the loan, which is
provided by a participating local bank. The
SBA guarantee reduces the risk to the lender.

The applications can be downloaded from the
SBA website, but the applicant submits the
application directly to the local bank, not the
SBA.The SBA’s district office is at 801 R Street
in downtown Fresno. Loan applications forms
and a wide variety of business assistance and
training resources are available on the SBA
website, https://www.sba.gov/.
■ Fresno Community Development Financial
Institution. The Fresno Community
Development Financial Institution (FCDFI) is a
small business loan fund that assists with the
growth of businesses and jobs in underserved
communities. FCDFI provides small business
and micro loans from $10,000 to $300,000 for
expanding existing businesses or starting a new
business.
■ The FCDFI office is at 1920 Mariposa Mall
in downtown Fresno. More information and
loan applications are available on its website,
https://fresnocdfi.com/.
■ Service Core of Retired Executives. Central
Valley Service Core of Retired Executives
(SCORE) fosters vibrant small business
communities through mentoring and
education. SCORE is a nonprofit association
dedicated to helping small businesses get
off the ground, grow and achieve their goals
through education and mentorship. Supported
by the SBA, and a network of volunteers,
SCORE provides services at no charge or at very
low cost. These services include:
§ Volunteer mentors who share their expertise
across 62 industries
§ Free, confidential business mentoring in
person or via email
§ Free business tools, templates and tips here
online
§ Inexpensive or free business workshops
(locally) and webinars (online 24/7)
SCORE’s local office is at 801 R Street in
downtown Fresno. More information
is available on its website at https://
centralvalley.score.org/.
■ Fresno Chamber of Commerce. With a
membership of more than 1,400 businesses
and organizations, the Fresno Chamber of
Commerce is the leading voice and advocate
for the business community. The Chamber
promotes economic opportunity, business
education and successful business relationships
throughout the region.
■ In addition to networking opportunities, the
Chamber helps its members stay informed
about business practices and changes in
legislation. The Chamber also provides
information about a variety of business-related
topics from employer legal requirements to
marketing strategies through its monthly Small
Business University program.
■ The Fresno Chamber of Commerce is at 2331
Fresno Street in downtown Fresno. More
information is available on the Chamber’s
website, http://www.fresnochamber.com/.
■ Fresno Metro Black Chamber of Commerce.

The Fresno Metro Black Chamber of Commerce
(FMBCC) facilitates and serves as an advocate
for the creation, development, growth, and
general welfare of the African American
business community in the greater Fresno area.

The FMBCC pursues its mission by:
§ Advocating on behalf of members and the
general Black business community
§ Informing membership of problems affecting
businesses in the greater Fresno community
§ Increasing public awareness of the black
business community and the impact of the
Fresno’s black buying power
Chapter 8 | Implementation 8-15
§ Promoting black-owned businesses within
the Black and mainstream community
§ Increasing the capacity of current and
potential members through education and
training services
The FMBCC is located at 1444 Fulton Street
in downtown Fresno. More information is
available on the FMBCC website, http://www.
fmbcc.com/.

Implementation of Business Development
and Business Startup Assistance
The key to effectively providing business development and business startup assistance in the Plan Area is connecting existing businesses and
residents interested in starting a business with the
service providers described above. In most cases,
the services are free or at a nominal cost because
the State and federal government invest in the
service providers. Thus, the critical role is coordination.

Although there are a variety of ways to provide
coordination, the coordination of business development and business startup assistance should be accomplished through a collaboration of staff from
the District 3 Councilmember’s Office and staff
from the Mayor’s Office of Economic Development.

The three components to this effort are:
■ Business Survey. The first step is to survey
existing businesses in the Plan Area to find out
what they perceive to be the challenges and
opportunities for operating a business in the
area and what they believe to be their needs
for business assistance. The survey should be
conducted in the first year after adoption of
the Plan and then repeated once every two or
three years.
■ The survey need not be elaborate, and there
are many samples of such surveys available
online. Although the survey can be conducted
online, a better response rate would likely be
achieved by in-person surveys. City staff should
design the survey, but it could be administered
by community volunteers.
■ Business Assistance Workshop. Based on the
results of the survey, a business assistance
workshop can be conducted in the Plan
Area. This workshop would allow the service
providers described in the preceding section
to meet with existing businesses and residents
interested in starting a business and to talk
about the types of services and programs they
offer. The service providers would also have
an opportunity to hear from businesses about
their needs. This workshop could be repeated
on an annual basis.
■ Provide Business Assistance. Many of the
business development and business startup
assistance services are provided in an online
or one-on-one format. However, many other
services are provided in a group, classroom, or
workshop format. For these services, the City
should seek to facilitate the provision of these
services at a location in the Plan Area. These
programs would be provided on a periodic
basis throughout the year.

LABOR FORCE EDUCATION AND

TRAINING
Whereas the business development in Business
Startup and Business Development Assistance
section focuses on businesses in the Plan Area, this
Labor Force Education and Training section focuses
on the human capital of individuals living in the
Plan Area. Improving the skills and education of
resident who would like to be employed or would
like to improve their earning potential can increase
income, household wealth, and consumer spending
in the Plan Area. The key service providers for labor
force education and training include:
■ Fresno Regional Workforce Development
Board. The FRWDB provides services to
individuals through two programs:
§ Adult and Dislocated Worker Services.

Under the leadership of the Fresno Regional
Workforce Development Board (Workforce
Connection), adults and dislocated workers
can access employment, education,
and training services through a unique
combination of six Workforce Connection
8-16 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
One-Stop Centers. The center nearest the
Plan Area is located at 1900 Mariposa Mall
in Downtown Fresno. The One-Stop System
provides universal core services (such as
universal access to informational, selfdirected core services, individual assessment, job search, and employment assistance)
as well as access to other programs and
services available from partner agencies,
including the Employment Development
Department, Department of Rehabilitation,
California Indian Manpower Consortium,
Proteus, Inc., Fresno County Economic
Opportunities Commission, Department
of Employment and Temporary Assistance,
State Center Community College District,
Fresno Adult School, Clovis Adult School,
West Hills Community College, and Fresno
Housing Authority. More information is
available at the FRWDB website at http://
www.workforce-connection.com/jobseekers/
index.cfm?pg=adult_services/.
§ Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
(WIOA) Year-Round Youth Services. Under
the direction and oversight of the Fresno
Regional Workforce Development Board
Youth Council, Fresno County eligible youth,
ages 14 through 21, can access services
designed to increase educational options
and opportunities, develop job skills, explore
career options, develop leadership qualities,
participate in adult and peer mentoring and
counseling, and take advantage of work
experiences. The location near the Plan Area
where these services are available is the
Fresno Economic Opportunities Commission
at 1920 Mariposa Mall in Downtown
Fresno. More information is available at the
FRWDB website at http://www.workforceconnection.com/youthServices/index. cfm?pg=ythindex/.
■ Fresno Unified School District, Fresno Adult
School. Fresno Adult School offers a variety
of courses and programs for adult learners.

To meet the diverse learning needs of adults,
courses are offered in the morning, afternoon,
evenings, and weekends. The adult school
offers the following programs:
§ Adult basic education
§ English as a second language
§ Career and technical education
§ High school equivalency prep
§ High school diploma
§ Community education
The nearest location at which these programs
are provided is at the main campus at 2500
Stanislaus Street in Downtown Fresno. More
information is available at the website, http://
www.fas.edu/.
■ Central Unified School District, Central
Learning Adult School Site. The Central
Learning Adult School Site offers a variety of
courses and programs for adult learners. The
programs are provided in the morning and
evening at 2698 N. Brawley Avenue in Fresno.

The programs offered include:
§ Adult basic education
§ English as a second language
§ Career and technical education
§ GED and HiSET prep
§ Adult High school diploma
More information is available at the website,
http://central-learning-adult-school-site.
echalksites.com/home_page/.

Chapter 8 | Implementation 8-17
■ State Center Community College District,
Fresno City College. Fresno City College
(FCC) is a comprehensive learning community
offering innovative instructional programs in
anticipation of and responsive to the lifelong
learning needs of our diverse population. FCC
offers Associate’s Degrees, and students can
earn a Certificate of Completion, or transfer to
a 4-year university of their choice. In addition,
FCC offers a variety of non-degree programs,
including:
§ Arts, audio visual technology and
communication
§ Business, finance and computer information
technology
§ Education and training
§ Food service
§ Health care
§ Human services
§ Manufacturing, construction, and technology
§ Public safety, corrections and security
§ Science and technology
§ Transportation
§ Customized training
Implementation of Labor Force Education
and Training
It is likely that many residents in Southwest
Fresno are unaware of the employment services,
education, and training programs and assistance
available to them. Community organizations and
the City can play a vital economic development
role by acquainting residents with these services.

Staff from the District 3 Councilmember’s Office
could collaborate with staff from the Mayor’s Office
of Economic Development to conduct an annual
workshop. The workshop would provide an opportunity for the service providers described above to introduce the range of programs and services
that Plan Area residents can access. This workshop
should be an annual event, and it could be held in
conjunction with another community event, such
as a health and wellness fair.

E. IMPLEMENTATION

ACTION PLAN
Tables 8-2 through 8-6 set forth the implementation action plan for the Southwest Fresno Specific Plan. The actions are organized into five categories:
■ Community Resources
■ Economic Development
■ Infrastructure
■ Mobility
■ Parks
Under each topic there are a set of actions. The
first column provides a unique identification
number for each action. When a number ends with
a letter (e.g., M-2A, M-2B, and M2-C) it indicates
that those actions are related, and the first action
needs to be completed before the second action
commences. In the funding column, “General fund,
redirection of existing resources” indicates that
the action would likely be completed with existing
budgeted resources and with in-house staff. In
contrast, “General fund, $10,000” indicates that
the action would either require additional funding
or that it is an action that the City would likely be
contracted out.

The implementation action plan identifies four
actions as priorities. These relatively focused
measures are intended to be implemented or at
least started around the time the Plan is adopted to
demonstrate to the community the City’s commitment to the Plan. These actions are highlighted as “easy short-term wins” for the Southwest Fresno
community. The priority actions, identified with a
“P” are:
■ CR-P1: Implementation Oversight Committee
■ ED-P1: Employment Skills and Training
Workshop
■ M-P1: Sidewalk Demonstration Project
■ P-P1: New Park Priority Project
The implementation action plan is a framework.

It is fully anticipated that, over time, the City will
make adjustments to this plan.
8-18 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
TABLE 8-2 Implementation Action Plan Matrix: Community Resources TABLE 8-3 Implementation Action Plan Matrix: Economic Development SP
GOAL/
POLICY

MEASURE
NUMBER

MEASURE

NAME DESCRIPTION

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY;

SUPPORT PARTIES
TIME

FRAME FUNDING
Plan-wide CR-P1 Implementation
Oversight
Committee
Establish a
committee of Plan
Area residents,
businesses, and
civic organizations
to oversee
implementation of
the Plan.

Councilmember’s
Office
FY2018 and
annually
thereafter
General fund,
redirection
of existing
resources
Policy
PF-5.1
CR-2 Adequate School
Facilities
Conduct an
annual meeting
with Fresno Unified,
Central Unified, and
Washington Unified
School Districts and
review development
activity and projects
in the entitlement
process to ensure
the provision of
adequate school
facilities
Planning and
Development
FY2019 and
annually
thereafter
General fund,
redirection
of existing
resources
Policy
PF-4.1
CR-3 Adequate Health
Care Services
Conduct an annual
meeting with the
Fresno County Public
Health Department
and hospitals to
review the need for
health clinics and
medical facilities to
serve residents of the
Plan Area
Planning and
Development
FY2019 and
annual
thereafter
General fund,
redirection
of existing
resources
Policy
PF-6.1
ED-P1 Employment
Skills and Training
Workshop
In collaboration
with education
and job training
partners, conduct
an employment
skills and training
workshop to
acquaint Plan Area
residents with the
opportunities for
lifelong learning and
jobs skills training
Councilmember’s
Office; Economic
Development
FY2018 and
biennially
thereafter
General fund,
$10,000
N/A ED-2A Business Survey Conduct a survey of
existing businesses
and use the results
to prepare a SWOT
analysis and identify
assistance needs
Councilmember’s
Office; Economic
Development
FY2018 and
biennially
thereafter
Redirection
of existing
resources
SP
GOAL/
POLICY

MEASURE
NUMBER

MEASURE

NAME DESCRIPTION

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY;

SUPPORT PARTIES
TIME

FRAME FUNDING
Chapter 8 | Implementation 8-19
TABLE 8-3 (CONTINUED) Implementation Action Plan Matrix: Economic Development SP
GOAL/
POLICY

MEASURE
NUMBER

MEASURE

NAME DESCRIPTION

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY;

SUPPORT PARTIES
TIME

FRAME FUNDING
N/A ED-2B Business Assistance
Workshop
In collaboration
with economic
development service
providers, conduct a
business assistance
workshop for
existing businesses
and entrepreneurs
interested in starting
a business
Councilmember’s
Office; Economic
Development
FY2018 and
biennially
thereafter
General fund,
$10,000
Policy
LU-4.1
ED-3 Home Ownership
Workshop
In collaboration with
banks and housing
organizations,
conduct a workshop
to acquaint Plan
Area residents with
programs and
services to assist firsttime home buyers
and to assist existing
homeowners facing
financial hardship
Councilmember’s
Office; Housing
and Community
Development
FY2018 and
biennially
thereafter
General fund,
$10,000
Goal LU-1 ED-4 Development
Potential
Marketing
Develop marketing
collateral and
conduct a workshop
to acquaint
developers, real
estate brokers,
and potential
new businesses
with development
opportunities in the
Plan Area
Economic
Development
FY2019 and
annually
thereafter
Redirection
of existing
resources
Policy
PF-6.4
ED-5 Youth
Development
In collaboration
with education
and community
organization
partners, develop
programs that help
nurture leadership,
skills, and ambition in
Plan Area youth
Councilmember’s
Office
FY2019 and
annually
thereafter
General fund,
$10,000
Policy
PF-6.3
ED-6 Community
College Campus
Advocate for State
Center Community
College District to
fund and develop a
community college
campus within the
Plan’s southern
magnet core/MLK
Activity Center
Mayor’s Office /
City Manager
FY2020 and
annually
thereafter
until complete
Redirection
of existing
resources
8-20 Southwest Fresno Specific Plan
SP
GOAL/
POLICY

MEASURE
NUMBER

MEASURE

NAME DESCRIPTION

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY;

SUPPORT PARTIES
TIME

FRAME FUNDING
TABLE 8-4 Implementation Action Plan Matrix: Infrastructure Policy
U-1.4
I-1A Water and Sewer
Master Plan
Update the water
and sewer master
plan to incorporate
improvements
identified in the Plan
Public Utilities FY2018 General fund,
TBD
Policy
U-1.3
I-1B Impact Fees Update
development
impact fees as
necessary to
facilitate the
water and sewer
improvements
identified in the Plan
Public Utilities;
Finance
FY2018 General fund,
redirection
of existing
resources
Policy
U-1.4
I-1C Construct Water
and Sewer
Improvements
Construct water and
sewer improvements
as needed pursuant
to existing City
standards
Public Utilities 2 to 15 years DIF, $163M
Policies
T-12.2 and
U-1.3
I-2B Construct
storm drain
improvements
Developers to
construct necessary
storm drain
improvements,
coordinated with the
Fresno Metropolitan
Flood Control District
Developers 1 to 15 years Developer
funded,
$1,211,000
Policy
T-12.1
I-3 Low-Impact
Development
Coordinate with the
Fresno Metropolitan
Flood Control District
to consider potential
development
code amendments
for Low-Impact
Development
(LID) storm water
management
techniques with
curb, gutter,
and sidewalk
improvements
Planning and
Development in
coordination with
FMFCD
FY2018 General fund,
redirection
of existing
resources
Chapter 8 | Implementation 8-21
TABLE 8-5 Implementation Action Plan Matrix: Mobility
SP
GOAL/
POLICY

Fresno City CouncilApril 4, 2024

Fresno City Council
April 4, 2024