Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c: Conduct Western Pond Turtle Preconstruction Surveys, Implement Avoidance Measures, and Relocate Individuals
If it is determined through implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4 -1a that habitat suitable for western pond turtle is present within a particular project site, the following measures shall be implemented:
Within 24 hours of commencement of ground disturbing activities in aquatic habitat or in grasslands within 1,600 feet from aquatic habitat, a qualified biologist familiar with the life history of western pond turtle and experienced in performing surveys for western pond turtle shall conduct a focused survey of aquatic and upland habitat suitable for the species within the project site. The qualified biologist shall inspect the project site for western pond turtles as well as suitable burrow habitat.
If western pond turtles are not detected during the focused survey, the qualified biologist shall submit a report summarizing the results of the survey to the applicant and the City of Fresno, and further mitigation shall not be required.
If western pond turtles are detected, a no-disturbance buffer of at least 100 feet shall be established around any identified nest sites or overwintering sites until the nest is no longer active as determined by a qualified biologist, and no project activities would occur within the no-disturbance buffer. A qualified biologist with an appropriate CDFW Scientific Collecting Permit that allows handling of reptiles shall be present during initial ground disturbance activities and shall inspect the project site before initiation of project activities. If western pond turtles are detected, the qualified biologist shall move the turtles to an area that provides suitable aquatic habitat.
Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.4-21
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Conduct Burrowing Owl Survey, Implement Avoidance Measures, and Compensate for Loss of Occupied Burrows
If it is determined through implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4 -1a that habitat suitable for burrowing owl is present within a particular project site, the following measures shall be implemented:
If proposed projects within the Plan Area are implemented in habitat suitable for burrowing owls, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused survey for burrowing owls in areas of habitat suitable for the species on and within 1,640 feet (500 meters) of the Plan Area no less than 14 days before initiating ground disturbance activities using survey methods described in Appendix D of the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prepared by the California Department of Fish and Game (now CDFW) (CDFG 2012). If no occupied burrows are found, the qualified biologist shall submit a report documenting the survey methods and results to the City of Fresno, and no further mitigation shall be required. If an active burrow is found within 1,640 feet of pending construction activities during the nonbreeding season (September 1 through January 31), the project proponent shall establish and maintain a minimum protection buffer of 164 feet (50 meters) around the occupied burrow throughout construction. The actual buffer size shall be determined by the qualified biologist based on the time of year and level of disturbance in accordance with guidance provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDF G 2012). The protection buffer may be adjusted if, in consultation with CDFW, a qualified biologist determines that an alternative buffer shall not disturb burrowing owl use of the burrow because of particular site features or other buffering measures. If occupied burrows are present that cannot be avoided or adequately protected with a no -disturbance buffer, a burrowing owl exclusion plan shall be developed, as described in Appendix E of the 2012 Staff Report. Burrowing owls shall not be excluded from occupied burrows until the project burrowing owl exclusion plan is approved by CDFW.
The exclusion plan shall include a compensatory habitat mitigation plan (see below). If an active burrow is found during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), occupied burrows shall not be disturbed and shall be provided with a protective buffer at a minimum of 164 feet unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive means that either:
(1) the birds have not begun egg laying, or
(2) juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. The size of the buffer may be adjusted depending on the time of year and level of disturbance as outlined in the 2012 Staff Report. The size of the buffer may be reduced if a broad-scale, long-term, monitoring program acceptable to CDFW is implemented so that burrowing owls are not adversely affected. Once the fledglings are capable of independent survival, the owls can be evicted, and the burrow can be destroyed per the terms of a CDFW-approved burrowing owl exclusion plan developed in accordance with Appendix E of 2012 Staff Report. If burrowing owls are evicted from burrows and the burrows are destroyed by implementation of project activities, the project proponent shall mitigate the loss of occupied habitat in accordance with guidance provided in the 2012 Staff Report, which states that permanent impacts on nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows, and burrowing owl habitat (i.e., grassland habitat with suitable burrows) shall be mitigated such that habitat acreage and number of burrows are replaced through permanent conservation of comparable or better habitat with similar vegetation communities and burrowing mammals (e.g., ground squirrels) present to provide for nesting, foraging, wintering, and dispersal. The project proponent shall retain a qualified biologist to develop a burrow ing owl mitigation and management plan that incorporates the following goals and standards:
Mitigation lands shall be selected based on comparison of the habitat lost to the compensatory habitat, including type and structure of habitat, disturbance levels, potential for conflicts with humans, pets, and other wildlife, density of burrowing owls, and relative importance of the habitat to the species throughout its range. If feasible, mitigation lands shall be provided adjacent or proximate to the project site so that displaced owls can relocate with reduced risk of injury or mortality. Feasibility of providing mitigation adjacent or proximate to the Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.4-22 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
project site depends on availability of sufficient habitat to support displaced owls that may be preserved in perpetuity.
If habitat suitable for burrowing owl is not available for conservation adjacent or proximate to the project site, mitigation lands can be secured offsite and shall aim to consolidate and enlarge conservation areas outside of planned development areas and within foraging distance of other conservation lands. Mitigation may be also accomplished through purchase of mitigation credits at a CDFW-approved mitigation bank, if available.
Alternative mitigation sites and acreages may also be determined in consultat ion with CDFW. If burrowing owl habitat mitigation is completed through permittee-responsible conservation lands, the mitigation plan shall include mitigation objectives, site selection factors, site management roles and responsibilities, vegetation management goals, financial assurances and funding mechanisms, performance standards and success criteria, monitoring and reporting protocols, and adaptive management measures.
Success shall be based on the number of adult burrowing owls and pairs using the site and if the numbers are maintained over time. Measures of success, as suggested in the 2012 Staff Report, shall include site tenacity, number of adult owls present and reproducing, colonization by burrowing owls from elsewhere, changes in distribution, and trends in stressors.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e: Conduct Focused Surveys for Special-Status Birds, Nesting Raptors, and Other Native Nesting Birds, and Implement Protective Buffers
If it is determined through implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4 -1a that habitat for special-status birds, nesting raptors, or other native nesting birds is present within a particular project site, the following measures shall be implemented:
To minimize the potential for loss of special-status bird species, raptors, and other native birds (including Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, and white-tailed kite), project activities (e.g., tree removal, vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, staging) shall be conducted during the nonbreeding season (approximately September 1-January 31, as determined by a qualified biologist), if feasible. If project activities are conducted during the nonbreeding season, no further mitigation shall be required. This measure applies to project activities that occur where habitat suitable for nesting is present, as determined by a qualified biologist. Birds may nest on the ground, in bushes, in trees, in structures, and in cavities; therefore, habitat suitable for bird nesting may include portions of the Plan Area that qualify as annual grassland, agricultural land, or riparian habitat. Within 14 days before the onset of project activities during the breeding season (approximately February 1 through September 15, as determined by a qualified biologist), a qualified biologist familiar with birds of California and with experience conducting nesting bird surveys shall conduct focused surveys for special- status birds, other nesting raptors, and other native birds. Surveys shall be conducted in acc essible areas within 0.5 mile of the project site for Swainson’s hawk, within 500 feet of the project site for other raptor species (white-tailed kite) and special-status birds (tricolored blackbird), and within 50 feet of the project site for non-raptor common native bird nests, unless determined otherwise by a qualified biologist . If no active nests are found, the qualified biologist shall submit a report documenting the survey methods and results to the applicant and the City of Fresno, and no further mitigation shall be required. If active nests are found, impacts on nesting birds shall be avoided by establishing appropriate buffers around active nest sites identified during focused surveys to prevent disturbance to the nest. Project activity shall not commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or reducing the buffer would not likely result in nest abandonment. Buffers typically shall be 0.25 mile (or increased to 0.5 mile in areas away from urban development) for Swainson’s hawk, and 500 feet for other raptors. Buffer size for non-raptor bird species shall be determined by a qualified biologist. Factors to be considered for determining buffer size shall include presence of natural buffers provided by vegetation or topography, nest height above ground, baseline levels of noise and human activity, species sensitivity, and proposed project activities. Generally, buf fer size for these species shall be at least 20 feet. The size of the buffer may be adjusted if a qualified biologist determines that such Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.4-23
an adjustment shall not be likely to adversely affect the nest. Any buffer reduction for a special- status species shall require consultation with CDFW.
Periodic monitoring of the nest by a qualified biologist during project activities shall be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest, the buffer has been reduced, or if birds within active nests are showing behavioral signs of agitation (e.g., standing up from a brooding position, flying off the nest) during project activities, as determined by the qualified biologist.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1f: Conduct Pallid Bat Focused Surveys, and Implement Avoidance Measures If it is determined through implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4 -1a that habitat suitable for pallid bat is present within a particular project site, the following measures shall be implemented:
For project activities in habitat suitable for pallid bat roosting (i.e., existing unused or abandoned buildings, large diameter trees), the following measure will apply. Before the start of project activities, a qualified biologist familiar with bats and bat ecology, and experienced in conducting bat surveys, shall conduct surveys for bat roosts in suitable habitat (e.g., abandoned buildings, large tree crevices, tree cavities) within and adjacent to the project site. If no evidence of bat roosts is found, the qualified biologist shall submit a report summarizing the results of the survey to the City of Fresno, and no further study shall be required. If evidence of bat roosts is observed, the species and number of bats using the roost shall be determined by a qualified biologist. Bat detectors shall be used if deemed necessary to supplement survey efforts by the qualified biologist.
A no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet shall be established around active pallid bat roosts, and project activities shall not occur within this buffer until after the roosts are unoccupied. If roosts of pallid bat are determined to be present and must be removed, the bats shall be excluded from the roosting site before the building is removed. A program addressing compensation, exclusion methods, and roost removal procedures shall be developed in consultation with CDFW before implementation.
Exclusion methods may include use of one-way doors at roost entrances (bats may leave but not reenter) or sealing roost entrances when the site can be confirmed to contain no bats. Exclusion efforts may be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young). The loss of each roost (if any) shall be replaced in consultation with CDFW and may require construction and installation of bat boxes suitable to the bat species and colony size excluded from the original roosting site. If determined necessary during consultation with CDFW, replacement roosts shall be implemented before bats are excluded from the original roost sites. Once the replacement roosts are constructed and it is confirmed that bats are not present in the original roost site by a qualified biologist, the roost structure may be removed.
Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a would reduce significant impacts on California jewelflower and Sanford’s arrowhead by requiring protocol-level surveys and implementation of avoidance measures and compensation for impacts if they are present in the Plan Area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-1b would reduce potential impacts on western pond turtle by requiring focused surveys for the species, implementation of measures to avoid injury or mortality of western pond turtles if detected, and relocation of individual turtles by a qualified biologist with an appropriate CDFW Scientific Collecting Permit. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4- 1c would reduce potential impacts on burrowing owl by requiring focused surveys for the species, imple mentation of measures to avoid injury or mortality of burrowing owl and destruction of active burrows if detected, and compensation if burrows cannot be avoided. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4- 1d would reduce potential impacts on special-status birds, raptors, and other native nesting birds by requiring focused surveys for the nesting birds and implementation of measures to avoid disturbance, injury, or mortality of the species if nests are detected. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e would reduce potential impacts on pallid bat by requiring focused surveys for bat roosts and implementation of no-disturbance buffers around active roosts if feasible, or by excluding bats from the roost during non-sensitive time periods and providing compensatory mitigation with Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.4-24 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
approval by CDFW. In combination, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4-1a (project-level biological reconnaissance survey), 4.4-1b (for California jewelflower and Sanford’s arrowhead), 4.4-1c (for western pond turtle),
4.4-1d (for burrowing owl), 4.4-1e (for special-status birds, raptors, and other native nesting birds), and 4.4-1f (for pallid bat) would reduce the potential for impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special-status plant and wildlife species to a less-than-significant level within the Plan Area.
Impact 4.4-2: Result in a Substantial Adverse Effect on Any Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community Identified in Local or Regional Plans, Policies, or Regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Although aquatic habitat is relatively rare in the Plan Area, development under the proposed plan could affect these areas. Implementation of such projects would result in land conversion and development activities that may include ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and construction, which could result in the degradation or loss of riparian habitat (e.g., reduction of vegetation cover, trampling, alteration of root structure), if it is present on a particular project site. This impact would be potentially significant. No other sensitive natural communities have been identified in the Plan Area, and therefore, there is no potential for impacts to other sensitive natural communities.
As described in Section 4.4.2, “Environmental Setting,” riparian habitat in the Plan Area is sparse but includes agricultural canals, ponds, and wetlands. Additional aquatic features may be present that were not included in spatial imagery available for review or visible through a review of aerial imagery. Aquatic features in the Plan Area generally are heavily disturbed and support little to no emergent vegetation. However, if sufficient vegetation becomes established over time to provide habitat and shelter suitable for riparian wildlife, areas around the canals may be considered riparian habitat. Collectively, aquatic habitat represents less than 1 percent of the Plan Area. While uncommon in the Plan Area, where aquatic habitats with sufficient vegetative cover are present, they may provide riparian habitat and any disturbance of this habitat would be a significant impact. No other sensitive natural communities have the potential to occur in the Plan Area, and therefore, there is no potential for impacts to sensitive natural communities.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2: Conduct Surveys for Riparian Habitat and Implement Avoidance Measures If it is determined through implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4 -1a that riparian habitat is present within a particular project site, the following measures shall be implemented before implementation of project activities:
If it is determined that disturbance or fill of state protected streams or riparian habitat cannot be avoided, the project proponent will notify CDFW before commencing activity that may divert the natural flow or otherwise alter or use materials from the bed, bank, or riparian corridor of any waterway that supports fish or wildlife resources. If project activities trigger the need for a Streambed Alteration Agreement, the proponent will obtain an agreement from CDFW before the activity commences. The applicant will conduct project construction activities in accordance with the agreement, including implementing reasonable measures in the agreement necessary to protect fish and wildlife resources, when working within the bed or bank of waterways or in riparian habitats associated with those waterways. These measures may include demarcation of the construction area, biological monitoring, environmental awareness training for construction crews, and compensatory measures (e.g., restoration, long-term habitat management). If riparian habitat is determined to be present within a particular project site and the habitat cannot be avoided, the following measures shall be implemented: A Streambed Alteration Notification will be submitted to CDFW, pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. If proposed project activities are determined to be subject to CDFW jurisdiction, the project proponent will abide by the measures to protect fish and wildlife resources required by any executed agreement prior to any vegetation removal or activity that may affect the resource. Measures to protect fish and wildlife resources shall include, at a minimum, a combination of the following mitigation. The project proponent will compensate for the loss of riparian habitat such that no net loss of habitat function and values occurs by:
Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.4-25
restoring riparian habitat function and value within the project site; restoring degraded riparian habitat outside of the project site; purchasing riparian habitat credits at a CDFW-approved mitigation bank; or preserving existing riparian habitat of equal or better value to the affected riparian habitat through a conservation easement at a sufficient ratio to offset the loss of riparian habitat function (at least 1:1). The project proponent will prepare and implement a Compensatory Mitigation Plan that will include the following:
For preserving existing riparian habitat outside of the project site in perpetuity, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a summary of the proposed compensation lands (e.g., the number and type of credits, location of mitigation bank or easement), parties responsible for the long -term management of the land, and the legal and funding mechanism for long-term conservation (e.g., holder of conservation easement or fee title). The project proponent will provide evidence in the plan that the necessary mi tigation has been implemented or that the project proponent has entered into a legal agreement to implement it and that compensatory habitat will be preserved in perpetuity.
For restoring or enhancing riparian habitat within the project site or outside of the project site, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a description of the proposed habitat improvements, success criteria that demonstrate the performance standard of maintained habitat function has been met, legal and funding mechanisms, and parties responsible for long-term management and monitoring of the restored or enhanced habitat.
Compensatory mitigation may be satisfied through compliance with permit conditions, or other authorizations obtained by the project proponent (e.g., Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement), if these requirements are equally or more effective than the mitigation identified above.
Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 would reduce significant impacts on riparian habitat to a less-than- significant level by requiring surveys of projects under the proposed plan to determine the likelihood of presence of riparian habitat, implementation of avoidance measures, and if impacts cannot be avoided, compensation for permanent loss of these habitats such that there is no net loss.
Impact 4.4-3: Result in a Substantial Adverse Effect on State or Federally Protected Wetlands (e.g., Emergent Wetlands etc.) through Direct Removal, Filling, Hydrological Interruption, or Other Means
Project implementation may include activities resulting in ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and land development, which could result in the loss of state or federally protected wetland habitat, which includes seasonal wetlands. Any project-related loss or alteration or fill of state or federally protected wetlands would be potentially significant.
Aquatic habitat within the Plan Area includes ponds, canals, and mapped emergent wetlands (Table 4.4-1). Additional aquatic features may be present that were not included in spatial data available for review or visible through a review of aerial imagery. Canals in the Plan Area may be regulated by the State Water Board under the Porter-Cologne Act.
Additionally, CDFW may regulate activities affecting the canals pursuant to California Fish and Game Code 1600 et seq. depending on their habitat value to fish and wildlife resources. Wetlands in the Plan Area would likely be considered state-protected wetland habitat.
Implementation of individual projects under the proposed plan would result in development and possible land cover conversion within the 5,567-acre Plan Area, approximately 61 percent of which would occur within urban/developed land cover types, where wetlands, seeps, and streams are less likely to occur than in agricultural or annual grassland portions of the Plan Area (Table 4.4-1). Ponds, emergent wetlands, and agricultural canals in the Plan Area have a Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.4-26 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
history of disturbance and generally lack of vegetative cover. Collectively, aquatic habitat represents less than 1 percent of the Plan Area.
Implementation of projects under the proposed plan may include ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and land development. These activities could adversely modify state or federally protected wetlands resulting in loss of wetland function and value by altering wetland hydrology, directly removing wetland vegetation, or filling or dredging wetlands, if these features are present within an individual project area. This would be a potentially significant impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3: Identify State or Federally Protected Wetlands, Implement Avoidance Measures, and Obtain Permits for Unavoidable Impacts on Wetlands
If it is determined through implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4 -1a that state or federally protected wetlands may be present within a particular project site, the following measures shall be implemented:
The project proponent will retain a qualified biologist, hydrologist, or wetland ecologist to prepare a formal delineation of the boundaries of aquatic resources within the project site according to methods established in the USACE wetlands delineation manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Arid West regional supplement (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2008). The qualified biologist will also delineate the boundaries of wetlands that may not meet the definition of waters of the United States but that would qualify as waters of the state, according to the state wetland procedures (SWRCB 2021). This delineation report will be submitted by the City of Fresno to USACE and a preliminary jurisdictional determination will be requested. If state or federally protected wetlands are found to be present within a particular project site, the following measures shall be implemented before implementation of project activities:
If state or federally protected wetlands are determined to be present within a project site that can be avoided, the qualified biologist will establish a buffer around wetlands and mark the buffer boundary with high-visibility flagging, fencing, stakes, or clear, existing landscape demarcations (e.g., edge of a roadway).
The buffer will be a minimum width of 25 feet but may be larger if deemed necessary. The appropriate size and shape of the buffer zone will be determined in coordination with the qualified biologist and will depend on the type of wetland present (e.g., stream, seep, pond), the timing of project activities (e.g., wet or dry time of year), whether any special-status species may occupy the wetland and the species’ vulnerability to the project activities, environmental conditions and terrain, and the project activity being implemented. Project activities (e.g., ground disturbance, vegetation removal, staging) will be prohibited within the established buffer. The qualified biologist will periodically inspect the materials demarcating the buffer to confirm that they are intact and visible, and wetland impacts are being avoided. If it is determined that fill of waters of the United States would result from project implementation, the project applicant will submit an aquatic resources delineation report to USACE and the RWQCB and request an approved or preliminary jurisdictional determination. Based on the jurisdictional determination, the project applicant will determine the exact acreage of waters of the United States and waters of the state that would be dredged or filled as a result of project implementation. Authorization for dredge or fill activities will be secured from USACE through the Section 404 permitting process. In association with the Section 404 permit (if applicable) and prior to the issuance of any grading permit, Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Central Coast RWQCB will be obtained. For impacts on waters of the state that may not be covered by the 401 Water Quality Certification, the project proponent will secure Waste Discharge Requirements, which are described in Section 4.10, “H ydrology and Water Quality.”
The project applicant will replace on a “no-net-loss” basis (minimum 1:1 ratio) (in coordination with USACE and/or RWQCB) the acreage and function of all wetlands and other waters that would be removed, lost, or degraded as a result of project implementation. Wetland habitat will be replaced at an acreage and location Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.4-27
agreeable to USACE and the RWQCB, and as determined during the CWA Section 401 and Section 404 permitting processes or the waste discharge report.
Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 would reduce significant impacts on state and federally protected wetlands to a less-than-significant level by requiring a delineation of aquatic resources, implementation of avoidance measures, and permitting and compensation for unavoidable impacts on state or federally protected wetlands such that there is no net loss of these resources.
Impact 4.4-4: Result in Substantial Interference with the Movement of Any Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or with Established Native Resident or Migratory Wildlife Corridors or Impede the Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites The majority of the Plan Area is urban and agricultural land cover types, with limited areas of natural vegetation. No known wildlife movement corridors or native wildlife nurseries occur within the Plan Area. Project activities under the proposed plan are not likely to substantially interfere with wildlife movement or impede the use of nursery sites. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
A wildlife movement corridor is generally a topographical/landscape feature or movement zone that connects two or more natural habitat areas. Wildlife corridors link areas of suitable wildlife habitat that are separated by variation in vegetation, rugged terrain, human disturbance and habitat fragmentation, or other biophysical factors. Movement corridors may provide favorable locations for wildlife to travel between different habitat areas, such as foraging sites, breeding sites, cover areas, and preferred summer and winter range locations. They may also function as dispersal corridors allowing animals to move between various locations within their range. Therefore, wildlife movement and migration corridors are considered an important ecological resource by CDFW and other agencies and are protected by many local governments in California. Some important areas for habitat connectivity in California were mapped as Essential Connectivity Areas for the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project, which was commissioned by the California Department of Transportation and CDFW with the purpose of making transportation and land-use planning more efficient and less costly, while helping reduce dangerous wildlife-vehicle collisions (Spencer et al. 2010).
According to the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project, the Plan Area is not located within a Natural Landscape Block or Essential Habitat Connectivity area (Spencer et al. 2010). Urban or developed land and agricultural land comprise the majority of the Plan Area (see Section 4.4.2, “Environmental Setting”). Urban and agricultural land use areas generally do not provide quality habitat for wildlife migration, as they lack vegetation which wildlife may use for refuge and foraging. Ponds and emergent wetlands in the Plan Area may provide localized habitat for wildlife, but they are isolated and divided by areas of urban or agricultural land use, and therefore do not provide suitable migratory habitat for wildlife. Future development under the proposed plan in urban and agricultural land areas would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species because the Plan Area does not currently provide an important connection between any areas of natural habitat that would otherwise be isolated. While wildlife may use the Plan Area for nesting and roosting or may pass through the site occasionally, it is unlikely that the Plan Area functions as a significant wildlife movement corridor or wildlife nursery site due to the lack of high-quality natural habitat and existing development. Therefore, implementation of future development within the Plan Area in associated with the proposed plan would result in less-than-significant impacts on wildlife movement corridors and wildlife nursery sites.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.
Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.4-28 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impact 4.4-5: Conflict with Any Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources, Such as a Tree Preservation Policy or Ordinance
The City of Fresno Municipal Code, Chapter 13, Article 3, Streets Trees and Parkways , applies to trees in the Plan Area.
Future project activities under the proposed plan associated with the proposed plan would comply with the Municipal Code Section 13-305, Tree Preservation, and Section 13-306, Special Tree List. Compliance with Article 3 of Chapter 13 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code would reduce any impacts related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Therefore, potential impacts to local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, including the City’s public tree ordinance would be less than significant.
Future project development under the proposed plan may result in the removal or alteration of existing street and public trees within the boundaries of the Plan Area. Existing preserved trees and landscaped trees within public property, including parkways, must be preserved to beautify the City, purify its air, and provide shade for its inhabitants. Project development within the Plan Area could have the potential to impact trees on public property; however, the future development would be required to comply with Article 3 of Chapter 13 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code, which provides for plans and establishes regulations governing the preservation of trees in public property. Section 13-305, Tree Preservation, of the Municipal Code establishes a policy to utilize whatever techniques, methods, and procedures are required to preserve, whenever feasible, all trees in the C ity. Section 13-306, Special Tree List, authorizes the Director to develop and maintain a Special Tree List to give such trees special treatment and care to retain and protect them. Compliance with Article 3 of Chapter 13 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code would reduce any impacts related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Therefore, potential impacts to local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, including the City’s public tree ordinance would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.
Impact 4.4-6: Conflict with the Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or Other Approved Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan
The Plan Area is not located within the boundaries of any approved or draft Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other adopted local, regional or state HCP that applies to projects covered under the proposed plan. Therefore, the impact related to conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP or NCC P would be less than significant.
The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) covers portions of nine counties, including the P lan Area (PG&E 2007). PG&E’s O&M HCP applies only to work conducted by PG&E and does not apply to projects conducted under the City of Fresno’s South Central Specific Plan. PG&E’s O&M HCP proposes some habitat mitigation sites in the region, however, none overlap the Plan Area. Therefore, this HCP does not apply to the proposed plan, and actions conducted under the proposed plan would not result in any conflict with PC&E’s HCP.
No other HCPs or NCCP areas overlap the Plan Area, therefore, implementation of projects under this plan would have no impact on adapted HCP, NCCP, or other local plans.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.
Ascent Environmental Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.5-1
4.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section analyzes and evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed plan on known and unknown cultural resources. Cultural resources include districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects generally older than 50 years and considered to be important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or other reasons. They include archaeological resources, historic resources, and “tribal cultural resources” (the latter as defined by Assembly Bill [AB] 52, Statutes of 2014, in CEQA Section 21074). Archaeological resources are locations where human activity has measurably altered the earth or left deposits of precontact (e.g., prehistoric) or historic-era physical remains (e.g., stone tools, bottles, former roads, house foundations).
Historic (or built-environment) resources include standing buildings (e.g., houses, barns, outbuildings, cabins) and intact structures (e.g., dams, bridges, roads, districts), or landscapes. A cultural landscape is defined as a geographic area (including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife therein), associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values. Tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places , and objects with cultural value to a tribe.
The above definitions are more general definitions of cultural resources , but as discussed below in “Regulatory Setting”, CEQA has specific definitions for each of these terms.
During the public scoping period for the Draft EIR, comments related to cultural and tribal cultural resources were received (see Appendix A). The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) requested AB 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18 compliance information. SB 18 applies to the proposed plan because it would require a General Plan amendment (the trigger for SB 18 compliance), but compliance with SB 18 is not a CEQA requirement and therefore is not discussed in this section. AB 52 compliance is described below. Other comments were received noting that tribal cultural and other potential cultural resources that may occur in the Plan Area that should be evaluated.
4.5.1 Regulatory Setting
FEDERAL
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the nation’s master inventory of known historic properties. It is administered by the National Park Service and includes listings of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeolog ical, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level.
The formal criteria (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 60.4) for determining NRHP eligibility are as follows:
1. The property is at least 50 years old (however, properties under 50 years of age that are of exceptional importance or are contributors to a district can also be included in the NRHP);
2. It retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and associations; and
3. It possesses at least one of the following characteristics:
Criterion A Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history (events).
Criterion B Is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past (persons).
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
4.5-2 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Criterion C Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant, distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (architecture).
Criterion D Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (information pote).
Listing in the NRHP does not entail specific protection or assistance for a property, but it does guarantee consideration in planning for federal or federally assisted projects, eligibility for federal tax benefits, and qualification for federal historic preservation assistance. In addition, project effects on properties listed in the NRHP must be evaluated under CEQA.
The National Register Bulletin series was developed to assist evaluators in the application of NRHP criteria. For example, National Register Bulletin #36 provides guidance in the evaluation of archaeological site significance. If a property cannot be placed within a particular theme or time period, and thereby lacks “focus,” it will be unlikely to possess characteristics that would make it eligible for listing in the NRHP.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
Federal protection of cultural resources is legislated by (a) the National Historic Preservation Act ( NHPA) of 1966 as amended by 16 U.S. Code 470, (b) the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979, and (c) the Advisory Council on Historical Preservation. Section 106 of the NHPA and accompanying regulations (36 CFR Part 800) constitute the main federal regulatory framework guiding cultural resources investigations and require consideration of effects on properties that are listed in or may be eligible for listing in the NRHP. These laws and organizations maintain processes for determination of the effects on historical properties that are listed or determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP.
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards) provides guidance for working with historic properties. The Secretary’s Standards are used by lead agencies to evaluate proposed rehabilitative work on historic properties. The Secretary’s Standards are a useful analytic tool for understanding and describing the potential impacts of proposed changes to historic resources. Projects that comply with the Secretary’s Standards benefit from a regulatory presumption that they would not result in a significant impact on a historic resource.
In 1992 the Secretary’s Standards were revised so they could be applied to all types of historic resources, including landscapes. They were reduced to four sets of treatments to guide work on historic properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. The four distinct treatments are defined as follows:
Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. It focuses on the maintenance and repair of existing historic materials and retention of a property’s form as it has evolved over time.
Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. It acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the property’s historic character.
Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. It depicts a property at a particular period in its history, while removing evidence of other periods.
Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. It re-creates vanished or non-surviving portions of a property for interpretive purposes.
Ascent Environmental Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.5-3
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation are as follows:
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used.
The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
STATE
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires public agencies to consider the effects of their actions on “historical resources,” “unique archaeological resources,” and “tribal cultural resources.” Pursuant to CEQA Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” Section 21083.2 requires agencies to determine whether projects woul d have effects on unique archaeological resources. CEQA Section 21084.2 establishes that “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment." These are the definitions used by the City when determining whether such resources exist and, if they do exist, evaluating the project’s impacts on such resources.
Historical Resources
“Historical resource” is a term with a defined statutory meaning (CEQA Section 21084.1; State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5[a] and [b]). Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), historical resources include the following:
1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is considered a historical resource (PRC Section 5024.1).
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
4.5-4 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g), will be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. 3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource will be considered by the lead agency to be historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1). 4) The fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to PRC Section 5020.1[k]), or not identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in PRC Section 5024.1[g]) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
Unique Archaeological Resources
CEQA also requires lead agencies to consider whether projects would affect unique archaeological resources. CEQA Section 21083.2(g) states that “unique archaeological resource” means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
Tribal Cultural Resources
CEQA also requires lead agencies to consider whether projects would affect tribal cultural resources. CEQA Section 21074 states:
a) “Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:
1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1. 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape. c) A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).
Ascent Environmental Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.5-5
CEQA Section 21080.3
AB 52, signed by the California Governor in September of 2014, established a new class of resources under CEQA:
“tribal cultural resources,” defined in CEQA Section 21074. Pursuant to CEQA Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, and 21082.3, lead agencies undertaking CEQA review must, upon written request of a California Native American t ribe, begin consultation before the release of an EIR, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration. CEQA Sections 21080.3.1 and 21080.3.2 state that within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete, or to undertake a project, the lead agency must provide formal notification, in writing, to the tribes that have requested notification of proposed projects in the lead agency’s jurisdiction. If it wishes t o engage in consultation on the project, the tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification. The lead agency must begin the consultation process with the tribes that have requested consultation within 30 days of receiving the request for consultation. Consultation concludes when either (1) the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource, or ( 2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.
If the lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource, and measures are not otherwise identified in the consultation process, provisions under CEQA Section 21084.3(b) describe mitigation measures that may avoid or minimize the significant adverse impacts. Examples include:
(1) Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.
(2) Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
(A) Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. (B) Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
(C) Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
(3) Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. (4) Protecting the resource.
CEQA Section 21083.2
Treatment options under CEQA Section 21083.2(b) to mitigate impacts to archaeological resources include activities that preserve such resources in place in an undisturbed state. CEQA Section 21083.2 states:
(a) As part of the determination made pursuant to Section 21080.1, the lead agency shall determine whether the project may have a significant effect on archaeological resources. If the lead agency determines that the project may have a significant effect on unique archaeological resources, the environmental impact report shall address the issue of those resources. An environmental impact report, if otherwise necessary, shall not address the issue of nonunique archaeological resources. A negative declaration shall be issued with respect to a project if, but for the issue of nonunique archaeological resources, the negative declaration would be otherwise issued.
(b) If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. Examples of that treatment, in no order of preference, may include, but are not limited to, any of the following:
(1) Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites. (2) Deeding archaeological sites into permanent conservation easements.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
4.5-6 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
(3) Capping or covering archaeological sites with a layer of soil before building on the sites. (4) Planning parks, greenspace, or other open space to incorporate archaeological sites. (c) To the extent that unique archaeological resources are not preserved in place or not left in an undisturbed state, mitigation measures shall be required as provided in this subdivision. (d) Excavation as mitigation shall be restricted to those parts of the unique archaeological resource that would be damaged or destroyed by the project.
(e) In no event shall the amount paid by a project applicant for mitigation measures required pursuant to subdivision (c) exceed the following amounts:
(1) An amount equal to one-half of 1 percent of the projected cost of the project for mitigation measures undertaken within the site boundaries of a commercial or industrial project. (2) An amount equal to three-fourths of 1 percent of the projected cost of the project for mitigation measures undertaken within the site boundaries of a housing project consisting of a single unit. (3) If a housing project consists of more than a single unit, an amount equal to three -fourths of 1 percent of the projected cost of the project for mitigation measures undertaken within the site boundaries of the project for the first unit plus the sum of the following:
(A) Two hundred dollars ($200) per unit for any of the next 99 units. (B) One hundred fifty dollars ($150) per unit for any of the next 400 units. (C) One hundred dollars ($100) per unit in excess of 500 units. (f) Unless special or unusual circumstances warrant an exception, the field excavation phase of an approved mitigation plan shall be completed within 90 days after final approval necessary to implement the physical development of the project or, if a phased project, in connection with the phased portion to which the specific mitigation measures are applicable. However, the project applicant may extend that period if he or she so elects. Nothing in this section shall nullify protections for Indian cemeteries under any other provision of law.
California Register of Historical Resources
All properties in California that are listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are also listed in the CRHR. The CRHR is a listing of State of California resources that are significant in the context of California’s history. It is a Statewide program with a scope and with criteria for inclusion similar to those used for the NRHP. In addition, properties designated under municipal or county ordinances are also eligible for listing in the CRHR.
California Historical Landmarks—buildings, structures, sites, or places that have been determined to have statewide historical significance—are also automatically listed in the CRHR. California Points of Historical Interest are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of local (city or county) significance. Points of Historical Interest designated after December 1997 and recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission are also listed in the CRHR.
A historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the criteria defined in CCR Title 15, Chapter 11.5, Section 4850 to be included in the CRHR. The CRHR criteria are tied to CEQA because any resource that meets the criteria listed below is considered a significant historical resource under CEQA. As noted above, all resources listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR.
The CRHR uses four evaluation criteria:
Criterion 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or to the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
Criterion 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.
Criterion 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of a master; or possesses high artistic values.
Ascent Environmental Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.5-7
Criterion 4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.
Similar to the NRHP, a historical resource must meet one of the above criteria and retain integrity to be listed in the CRHR. The CRHR uses the same seven aspects of integrity used by the NRHP.
California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act The California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act (PRC Section 5097.9) applies to both State and private lands. The act requires, upon discovery of human remains, that construction or excavation activity cease and that the county coroner be notified. If the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must notify NAHC, which notifies and has the authority to designate the most likely descendant of the deceased. The act stipulates the procedures the descendants may follow for treating or disposing of the remains and associated grave goods.
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If they are determined to be those of a Native American, the coroner must contact NAHC.
Public Resources Code Section 5097
PRC Section 5097 specifies the procedures to be followed if human remains are unexpectedly discovered on nonfederal land. The disposition of Native American burials falls within the jurisdiction of NAHC. Section 5097.5 of the code states:
No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
LOCAL
City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno General Plan contains the following policies that are relevant to cultural resources (City of Fresno 2020):
Objective HCR-1: Maintain a comprehensive, citywide preservation program to identify, protect and assist in the preservation of Fresno’s historic and cultural resources. Policy HCR-1-c: Historic Preservation Ordinance. Maintain the provisions of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, as may be amended, and enforce the provisions as appropriate.
Objective HCR-2: Identify and preserve Fresno’s historic and cultural resources that reflect important cultural, social, economic, and architectural features so that residents will have a foundation upon which to measure and direct physical change.
Policy HCR-2-a: Identification and Designation of Historic Properties. Work to identify and evaluate potential historic resources and districts and prepare nomination forms for Fresno’s Local Register of Historic Resources and California and National registries, as appropriate. Policy HCR-2-b: Historic Surveys. Prepare historic surveys according to California Office of Historic Preservation protocols and City priorities as funding is available.
Policy HCR-2-c: Project Development. Prior to project approval, continue to require a project site and its Area of Potential Effects (APE), without benefit of a prior historic survey, to be evaluated and reviewed for the potential for historic and/or cultural resources by a professional who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Qualifications. Survey costs shall be the responsibility of the project developer. Council may, but is not required, to adopt an ordinance to implement this policy.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
4.5-8 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Policy HCR-2-d: Native American Sites. Work with local Native American tribes to protect recorded and unrecorded cultural and sacred sites, as required by State law, and educate developers and the community -at- large about the connections between Native American history and the environmental f eatures that characterize the local landscape.
Policy HCR-2-f: Archaeological Resources. Consider State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines when establishing CEQA mitigation measures for archaeological resources. Policy HCR-2-g: Demolition Review. Review all demolition permits to determine if the resource scheduled for demolition is potentially eligible for listing on the Local Register of Historic Resources. Consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance, refer potentially eligible resources to the Historic Preservation Commission and as appropriate to the City Council.
Policy HCR-2-k: City-owned Resources. Maintain all City-owned historic and cultural resources in a manner that is consistent with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, as appropriate.
Policy HCR-2-n: Property Database and Informational System. Identify all historic resources within the city designated on the Local, State, or National register, and potential significant resources (building, structure, object or site) in existence for at least 45 years, and provide this information on the City’s website. Objective HCR-3: Promote a “New City Beautiful” ethos by linking historic preservation, public art, and planning principles for Complete Neighborhoods with green building and technology. Policy HCR-3-c: Context Sensitive Design. Work with architects, developers, business owners, local residents and the historic preservation community to ensure that infill development is context -sensitive in its design, massing, setbacks, color, and architectural detailing.
Objective HCR-4: Foster an appreciation of Fresno’s history and cultural resources. Policy HCR-4-c: Training and Consultation. Provide training, consultation, and support in collaboration with Historic Preservation Commissioners to community members regarding Fresno’s history, use of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and the California Historical Building Code, as time and resources allow.
Policy HCR-4-f: Context Sensitive Design. Work with architects, developers, business owners, local residents and the historic preservation community to ensure that infill development is context -sensitive in its design, massing, setbacks, color, and architectural detailing.
Municipal Code
Historic Preservation Ordinance
The City of Fresno has established a Local Register of Historic Resources through the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Fresno Municipal Code, Chapter 12, Article 16). The Local Register of Historic Resources encompasses the adopted designations of Historic Resources and Local Historic Districts. The Historic Preservation Ordinance is used to provide local levels of control over the historical aesthetics of cultural resources within the C ity and to ensure that the potential impact on locally significant historical resources that may be the subject of redevelopment is given reasonable consideration. The purpose of the ordinance is to:
continue to preserve, promote and improve the historic resources and districts of the City of Fresno for educational, cultural, economic and general welfare of the public; to continue to protect and review changes to these resources and districts which have a distinctive character or a special historic, architectural, aesthetic or cultural value to this city, state and nation; to continue to safeguard the heritage of this city by preserving and regulating its historic buildings, structures, objects, sites and districts which reflect elements of the city’s historic, cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history; to continue to preserve and enhance the environmental quality and safety of these landmarks and districts; to continue to establish , stabilize and improve property values and to foster economic development. (Article 16 Section 12-1602[a]) Ascent Environmental Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.5-9
The ordinance provides legislative mechanisms to protect certain historical resources. Local registers of identified historical resources are known, including:
1. Heritage Properties. These are defined as a resource which is worthy of preservation because of its historical, architectural or aesthetic merit but which is not proposed for and is not designated as an Historic Resource under the ordinance.
2. Historic Resources. These are defined as any building, structure, object or site that has been in existence more than fifty years and possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of city history, or is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, or embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or has yielded, or may be likely to yield, important information in prehistory or history; and has been designated as such by the Council pursuant to the provisions of the Ordinance.
3. Local Historic Districts. These are defined as any finite group of resources related to one another in a clearly distinguishable way or any geographically definable area which possesses a significant concentration, linkage or continuity of sites, buildings, structures or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. The Local Historic District must be
significant as well as identifiable and it must meet the Local Register Criteria for listing on that Register. Contributors to Historic Districts are defined as any Historic Resource that contributes to the significance of the specific Local Historic District or a proposed National Register Historic District under the criteria set forth in the Ordinance.
4. National Register of Historic Districts, which shall mean any finite group of resources related to one another in a clearly distinguishable way or any geographically definable area which possesses a significant concentration, linkage or continuity of sites, buildings, structures or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A National Register Historic District must be significant as well as identifiable and it must meet National Register Criteria for listing on that Regis ter. Contributors to a National Register Historic District are defined as any individual Historic Resource which contributes to the significance of a National Register Historic District under the criteria set forth in the Ordinance .
Certified Local Government
The Certified Local Government (CLG) Program is administered by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). When a lead agency becomes a CLG it agrees to carry out the intent of and serve as a local steward of the NHPA and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. In meeting those standards, SHPO serves as an advisor. The use of the NRHP/CRHR criteria and the Secretary of the Interior Standards integrates local, state, and federal levels of review. It brings clarity to the question of what resources are significant when it comes to CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA. Adopting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards will allow the use of categorical exemptions under CEQA, and likely result of findings of no adverse effect under Section 106. The use of these criteria and standards make environmental review faster, more efficient, and reduces costs and delays. The City has been certified as a CLG since September 1996.
4.5.2 Environmental Setting
The SCSP Area is approximately 5,567 acres located in the southern portion of the City of Fresno (Figure 4.5-1). Of the 5,567 acres, approximately 627 acres consists of roadways and infrastructure, leaving 4,940 acres of developed and developable land area. The Plan Area is generally located south of California Avenue, north of American Avenue, and between Fig and Peach Avenues. It is largely within the Fresno city limits and includes areas in unincorporated Fresno County within Fresno’s SOI. Land within the SOI is anticipated to become part of the city of Fresno in the future, but no annexation is currently proposed, nor would any of these areas be rezoned as part of the project. Instead, upon a proposal to annex unincorporated land into the city, the City of Fresno would prezone the land in a manner consistent with the General Plan land use designation. Once annexation occurs, County zoning would no longer apply, and the zoning established in the prezoning would take effect.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
4.5-10 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2023.
Figure 4.5-1 South Central Specific Plan Area
Ascent Environmental Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.5-11
The Plan Area includes a mix of land uses including industrial, warehouse, commercial, residential, religious, educational, and public. Major transportation networks such as SR 41, SR 99, and BNSF and UP rail lines traverse the Plan Area, and land has been cleared and construction is underway for the future state high speed rail line.
REGIONAL PRECONTACT HISTORY
The Plan Area is situated within the City of Fresno in California’s Central Valley, holds significant historic value .
The Central Valley region of California was one of the most densely populated areas in North America during precontact times. Early work conducted by Sacramento Junior College and the University of California, Berkeley in the first 40 years of the 20th Century within the region resulted in the development of the Central California Taxonomic System and a tripartite classification scheme (Early, Middle, and Late Periods). In 2007, this classification system was updated based on the findings of studies since the 1940s and results based on new technologies such as Carbon 14 dating and obsidian hydration. The resulting new classification system is briefly described below (NIC 2021: 8).
Paleo-Indian and Lower Archaic Period (11,500–5550 cal B.C.E.) sites are not well represented in the Central Valley. This is likely due to the fact that large segments of the Late Pleistocene landscape throughout the valley have been buried or removed by periodic episodes of deposition and erosion, in particular the formation of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta about 6,000 years ago. The archaeological evidence that is available for this early period is primarily defined by basally thinned, fluted projectile points found in sites located in and around Fresno and in Kern County on the ancient shoreline of Buena Vista Lake. These points are morphologically similar to well-dated Clovis points found elsewhere in North America (NIC 2021: 9). Middle Archaic Period/Windmiller Pattern (5550–550 cal B.C.E.) sites are characterized by extended burials orientated to the west, specialized grave goods, baked clay balls, charmstones, and exotic lithic materials. Year - round settlements with seasonal forays into the foothills resulted in the acquisition of a varied subsistence resource base that was dominated by fish and acorn acquisition. However, archaeological evidence shows heavy exploitation of elk, deer, antelope, rabbits, waterfowl, and numerous additional floral and faunal species (NIC 2021: 9).
Upper Archaic Period/Berkeley Pattern (550 cal B.C.E. – 1100 cal. C.E.) artifact assemblages show a dramatic increase in the use of mortar and pestle groundstone technology, possibly related to an expanded reliance on acorns as a staple food resource. Flexed burials, with various orientations are common, as well as specialize d bone tools, numerous distinctive shell beads and ornaments, and stone tools unique to the period frequently occur on sites dated to this time (NIC 2021: 9).
Emergent Period/Augustine Pattern (1100 cal. C.E. – Historic Era Contact) cultural manifestations are distinguished by the presence of shaped mortars and pestles, the use of bow and arrow technology and the introduction of the harpoon, particularly during early phases of this period. Bone awls are common. There is an increased usage of shell for decorative items and as money for exchange. Ground stone technologies included mundane items such as handstones and pestles as well as more exotic times such as tubular pipes and charmstones. Mortuary practices can be highly variable; pre-interment pit burning, cremations, and flex burials are all associated with this period (NIC 2021: 10).
ETHNOGRAPHY
The Plan Area is within the ethnographic territory of the Northern Valley Yokuts. The Northern Valley Yokuts primarily occupied the lands along the San Joaquin River, starting in the north at the Calaveras River and extending southward to the upper San Joaquin River, and from the crest of the Coast (Diablo) Range in the east to the Sierra Nevada foothills in the west.
The Northern Valley Yokuts diet was comprised of seasonally available resources obtained by hunting, fishing, and gathering. A wide variety of tools and implements were used by the Northern Valley Yokuts to collect, process, and cook their food. Fishing and hunting tools included harpoons, hooks, nets, bows and arrows, traps, and blinds, as well Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
4.5-12 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
as tule rafts for navigating waterways. Sharpened digging sticks and woven tools such as seed beaters, burden baskets, and carrying nets were used to collect plant resources. Stone mortars and pestles, bedrock and portable mortars, possibly wooden mortars, stone knives, and scrapers. Various bone tools were used to process resources, including hides for clothing, bedding, and other related household items. Clay was used for cooking, waterproofing basketry, and net weights. Additional items, such as marine shell beads, basketry materials, chalk, and obsidian were obtained through trade. Northern Valley Yokuts constructed many types of shelters and storage facilities, including conical huts, shade structures, sweat house pits, and acorn granaries. The primary building materials used were willow and tule.
Today, the descendants of these first peoples live throughout the Fresno area, including on the Tule River Reservation near Porterville, Picayune Rancheria at Coarsegold in Madera County, Santa Rosa Rancheria in Kings County, and Table Mountain Rancheria near Friant in Fresno County (NIC 2021: 12).
REGIONAL HISTORY
The historic evolution of Fresno, California, reflects the culture of the groups who settled in the region over time, which was first settled by the North Valley Yokuts, then followed by Euro-American settlement in the mid-1800s.
Fresno’s growing population was largely due to the construction of the Central Pacific Railroad, World War I, and World War II.
Early Settlements: The Yokuts were the first residents of the area that would become the City of Fresno, followed by the Mexicans and the Americans. There were no missions in the San Joaquin Valley but there were small Mexican era settlements such as Pueblo de las Junta, located at the confluence of the San Joaquin River and the Fresno Slough.
The Spanish and Mexican influence is indicated through place names such as “Fresno,” which means “ash tree” and which was first applied to the Fresno River (City of Fresno 2014: 8-4). Following the Gold Rush of 1849, miners were drawn to the southern gold fields, and cattle ranchers and dryland farmers moved into the area.
Development Stage: In 1870, the Central Pacific Railroad began its diagonal push down the San Joaquin Valley, reaching what is now Fresno in late April 1872. In that same year, the Contract and Finance Company, a subsidiary of the railroad, laid out the town of Fresno in a rigid “gridiron” plan. Fresno continued to grow slowly until extensive irrigation efforts, such as the 28-mile Enterprise Canal and Miller and Lux’s 67-mile San Joaquin and Kings River Canal were established. Soon after, people from around the United States and from Europe came by rail to settle in the region, establishing agricultural colonies and livestock operations, as well as numerous individual family farms serviced by a lacework of canals, laterals, and irrigation ditches. As a resu lt of this population boom, Fresno was incorporated as a city in 1885, and by 1890, had a population of over 10,000. By 1900, Fresno was the market center of what is now the richest farming region in the United States (City of Fresno 2014: 8-5).
Post-war Periods: Fresno continued to grow following World War I, and in 1930, the C ity had a population of 52,513.
While the Great Depression brought hardship to the City, it also resulted in the construction of a series of major civic buildings in the City, such as the complex of buildings at Fresno’s Chandler Airfield/Fresno Municipal Airport built by the Works Progress Administration between 1936 and 1937 (City of Fresno 2014: 8-5).
During and after World War II, a surge of returning servicemen and homeless transients arrived in the City, looking for agricultural work, creating a severe housing shortage. This led to the development of a series of suburban housing tracts and associated infrastructure outside of the City, including the Herndon–Kearney 230 kilovolt Transmission Line between 1943 and 1964 which brought power to agricultural, commercial, and residential to developments in the northwestern portion of the City (NIC 2021: 18–19).
Following World War II, the passage of the G.I. Bill (VA Home Loan Guaranty Program) enabled returning veterans to purchase homes and establish businesses, prompting another period of rapid expansion. The Mayfair subdivision, completed in 1947, included Fresno’s first suburban shopping mall and ushered in an era of development at the suburban fringe. Between 1940 and 1950, the city’s population grew by 30,000, with much of the growth accommodated in new auto-oriented suburbs. The Interstate Highway Act of 1956, which led to the development of Golden State Boulevard and SR 99, served to spur development of suburbs, and ultimately led to the economic decline of many inner cities. Manchester Center followed in 1955, with Fig Garden Village in 1956. Six blocks of the Ascent Environmental Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.5-13
Downtown were converted to a pedestrian mall in 1964, with a design by landscape architect Garrett Eckbo (City of Fresno 2014: 8-6). However, like so many other cities across the country, the suburban flight of the 1960s eventually lead to the decline of the downtown area.
Today, Fresno is home to a diverse population, which includes descendants from the C ity’s earliest pioneers and recently arrived immigrants. Although farming and ranching remain at the economic forefront, its place in the center of California has allowed it to also become a hub for industrial complexes and distribution centers, continuing the City’s legacy as a major center of commerce in California.
RECORDS SEARCHES AND CONSULTATION
Record Searches
On April 17, 2023, a records search of the Plan Area was conducted at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC), at California State University, Bakersfield. The following information was reviewed as part of the records search:
NRHP and CRHR,
California Office of Historic Preservation Historic Property Directory, California Inventory of Historic Resources, and
California State Historic Landmarks.
The records search review revealed that 27 previous studies of cultural resources have been conducted within the Plan Area. All studies were completed between 1981 and 2022 and are primarily small or linear efforts. Therefore, much of the Plan Area has not been subject to survey.
The records search at the SSJVIC also revealed that 33 resources comprised of three historic-era archaeological sites, one historic district (comprised of built-environment features), and 29 built-environment features have been previously recorded within the Plan Area. Although none of these resources have been evaluated for CRHR-eligibility, 24 of the 29 built environment features have been evaluated and determined ineligible for NRHP-listing.
In addition, the local register for the City of Fresno was reviewed for potential historical resources (City of Fresno 2024). No historical resources were identified within the Plan Area.
Native American Consultation
Pursuant to AB 52, the City mailed notification letters to the following 17 tribal representatives, as identified by NAHC, on June 26, 2023:
Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians; Elizabeth Kipp, Chairperson Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians; Carol Bill, Chairperson Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians; Jared Aldern
Dumna Wo-Wah Tribal Government; Robert Ledger, Chairperson Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe; Stan Alec
North Valley Yokuts Tribe; Katherine Perez, Chairperson North Valley Yokuts Tribe; Timothy Perez
Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians; Claudia Gonzales, Chairwoman Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians; Heather Airey, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe; Leo Sisco, Chairperson Table Mountain Rancheria; Brenda Lavell, Chairperson
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
4.5-14 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Table Mountain Rancheria; Bob Pennell, Cultural Resources Director Traditional Choinumni Tribe; David Alvarez, Chairperson Tule River Indian Tribe; Kerri Vera, Environmental Department Tule River Indian Tribe; Neil Peyron, Chairperson
Tule River Indian Tribe; Joey Garfield, Tribal Archaeologist Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band; Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson Table Mountain Rancheria responded to the City’s notification on July 20, 2023 , stating that the plan area lies within their cultural area of interest. The Rancheria did not formally request consultation, but requested the results of the SSJVIC records search be sent to them and that the City contact them to set a meeting date. The City made attempts to contact Table Mountain Rancheria by phone and email, but no responses were received. No responses from the other 16 tribal representatives were received for AB 52 consultation.
4.5.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
METHODOLOGY
To evaluate the potential impacts of the SCSP on archaeological, historical, and tribal cultural resources, the proposed activities of the plan were considered in relation to known resources or the potential for unknown resources. The analysis is informed by the provisions and requirements of federal, state, and local laws and regulations that apply to cultural resources. In determining the level of significance, the analysis assumes that the proposed plan would comply with relevant federal and state laws, regulations, and ordinances.
In addition, according to PRC Section 15126.4(b)(1), if a project adheres to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, the project’s impact “will generally be considered mitigated below the level of a significance and thus is not significant.”
For the purposes of the impact discussion, “historical resource” is used to describe built -environment historic-era resources. Archaeological resources (both precontact and historic-era), which may qualify as “historical resources” pursuant to CEQA, are analyzed separately from built-environment historical resources.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
An impact on cultural resources would be significant if implementation of the proposed plan would:
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 ; cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 ; disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
An impact on tribal cultural resources would be significant if implementation of the proposed plan would:
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe; and that is:
i) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or
ii) a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Ascent Environmental Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.5-15
ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
All the issues identified in the thresholds of significance are addressed in the following analysis.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.5-1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historical Resource Under the proposed plan, land use designations in the Plan Area would be revised. Development associated with implementation of the proposed plan could result in damage to or destruction of historic buildings and structures, thereby resulting in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. This impact would be
potentially significant.
Historical (or architectural) resources include standing buildings (e.g., houses, barns, cabins) and intact structures (e.g., dams, bridges). As discussed above in Section 4.5.2, “Environmental Setting,” the SSJVIC records search revealed one previously recorded historic-era district (comprised of built environment features) and 29 built-environment features within the Plan Area. Although none of these resources have been evaluated for CRHR -eligibility, 24 of the 29 built environment features have been evaluated and determined ineligible for NRHP-listing. The demolition, alteration, or disturbance of existing features, buildings, and structures could result in changes to or destruction of historic resources if they meet the definition of historical resource under Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Of the 4,940-acre Plan Area available for development, approximately 3,632 acres is developed as industrial, commercial, and other land uses, and approximately 1,308 acres is open space and farmland. Approximately 700 acres of the Plan Area would be developed or redeveloped with non-residential uses, primarily industrial, by the year 2040. These plan elements could be sited in areas with known, recorded historical buildings or structures, or in areas with resources that have not yet been evaluated for historical significance and/or resources that may become historic during the planning period.
While none of the identified historic structures are presently proposed for replacement, if in the course of subsequent development it is determined that renovation of any of the buildings is infeasible, replacement may become necessary. Therefore, there is the potential for new development to adversely affect buildings, structures, or other resources that are known to be or could potentially be historically significant.
As discussed in Section 4.5.1 above, the City has developed various objectives (HCR-1 through HCR-4) containing policies (HCR-1-c, HCR-2-a, HCR-2-b, HCR-2-c, HCR-2-g, HCR-2-k, HCR-2-n, HCR-3-c, HCR-4-c, and HCR-4-f) for the protection and preservation of historical resources, and to foster appreciation of history and cultural resources (see Section 4.5.1 for reference). In addition, the City has established a Local Register of Historic Resources through the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. Although no historical resources listed in the Local Register are located within the Plan area, it is possible that previously unrecorded buildings and structures could be listed as a local historical resource could potentially be historically significant.
Damage to or destruction of a building or structure that is a designated historic resource, eligible for listing as a historic resource, or a potential historic resource that has not yet been evaluated could result in a change in its historical significance. Therefore, impacts on historical resources would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1: Conduct Project-Specific Surveys and Identify and Implement Measures to Protect Identified Historic Resources
During project-specific environmental review of development under the proposed plan, before altering or otherwise affecting a building or structure that is 50 years old or older, the City shall require project applicants to retain a qualified architectural historian meeting the Secretary of Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards to record the building or structure on a California Department of Parks and Recreation DPR 523 form or equivalent documentation, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
4.5-16 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
if the building has not previously been evaluated. Its significance shall be assessed and documented by a qualified architectural historian in accordance with the significance criteria set forth for historic resources under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The evaluation process shall include the development of appropriate historical background research as context for the assessment of the significance of the structure in the history of the City and the region. For buildings, structures, and other resources determined through this evaluation process not to meet the CEQA historical resource criteria, no further mitigation is required.
For any building, structure, and or other resource that qualifies as a historic resource, the architectural historian and the future project-specific applicant shall consult to consider measures that would enable projects under the proposed plan to avoid direct or indirect impacts to the historic building or structure. These could include preserving the building on site, using it “as is,” or other measures that would not materially alter the historically significant components of the building or structure. If the project cannot feasibly avoid modifications to the historically significant features of the historic building or structure, the following measures shall be undertaken as appropriate:
1) If the building or structure can be preserved on-site, but remodeling, renovation or other alterations are required, this work shall be conducted in compliance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (NPS 2017).
2) If a significant historic building or structure is proposed for major alteration or renovation, or to be moved and/or demolished, the City shall ensure that a qualified architectural historian thoroughly documents the building and associated landscaping and setting. Documentation shall include still and video photography and a written documentary record of the building to the standards of the Historic American Building Survey or Historic American Engineering Record, including accurate scaled mapping, archit ectural descriptions, and scaled architectural plans, if available. A copy of the record shall be provided to the City. The record shall be accompanied by a report containing site-specific history and appropriate contextual information. This information shall be gathered through site specific and comparative archival research, and oral history collection as appropriate.
3) If preservation and reuse at the site are not feasible, the historical building shall be documented as described in item (2) and, when physically and financially feasible, be moved and preserved or reused.
Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts on historic resources because actions would be taken to record, evaluate, avoid, or otherwise treat the resource appropriately, in accordance with pertinent laws and regulations. However, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(2) notes that in some circumstances, documentation of a historical resource shall not mitigate the effects of demolition of that resource to a less-than-significant level because the historic resources would no longer exist. Therefore, because the potential for permanent loss of a historic resource or its integrity cannot be precluded, the proposed plan ’s impacts on historic resources would be
significant and unavoidable.
Impact 4.5-2: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of an Archaeological Resources
Future development under the proposed plan could be located in areas that contain known or unknown archaeological resources and ground-disturbing activities could result in discovery or damage of yet undiscovered archaeological resources as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. This impact would be potentially significant.
The SSJVIC records search revealed three previously recorded historic-era sites (comprised of foundations, trash scatters, wells, walls, railroad grade, and standing structures) within the Plan Area. No precontact archaeological sites have been previously recorded within the Plan Area. As previously described, much of the Plan Area has not been subject to survey; the following archaeological site types may be encountered throughout un-surveyed portions of the county:
Ascent Environmental Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.5-17
surface scatters of lithic artifacts and projectile points; bedrock milling stations;
historic artifact features and buried deposits of historic debris; building foundations and associated deposits (homes, businesses, barns, mills, etc.); water related (ditches, canals);
transportation (roads, trails); and
ranching and agriculture (terracing, fences, corrals, water troughs).
As discussed in section 4.5.1 above, the City has developed Objective HCR-2 containing policies (HCR-2-c, HCR-2-f, HCR-2-k, and HCR-2-n) for the protection and preservation of archaeological resources (see Section 4.5.1 for reference). Although previously unrecorded archaeological resources could be uncovered during ground disturbing activities, which could potentially be archaeologically significant.
The Plan Area includes a mix of land uses including industrial, warehouse, commercial, residential, religious, educational, and public. Future development under the proposed plan would result in ground disturbance within the Plan Area that could damage or destroy previously undiscovered archaeological resources (precontact and historic era), which would be a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 4.5-2a: Identify and Protect Unknown Archaeological Resources During project-specific environmental review of development under the proposed plan, the developer shall define each project’s area of effect for archaeological resources in consultation with a qualified archaeologist, as defined by the Secretary of Interior. Once the exact locations of project-specific areas have been determined and before commencement of earth-disturbing activities, a records search shall be conducted to determine if there are any known archaeological resources located in the disturbance area. A pedestrian survey shall also be conducted for archaeological resources. In the event of a surface find, materials will be evaluated and recorded on standard Department of Parks and Recreation primary record forms (DPR 523) in accordance with national and state criteria.
Avoidance of archaeological resources would be the preferred alternative to reduce impacts to un known archaeological resources. A recommendation of eligibility/ineligibility to the NRHP and CRHR shall be completed for any surface finds and for any resources identified by the records search. The survey and report shall be completed by a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualifications for Archaeology. The report will include recommendations for minimizing potential adverse effects to any significant resources identified.
The developer shall follow recommendations identified in the report, which may include activities such as subsurface testing, implementing a Worker Environmental Awareness Program, avoidance of sites, construction monitoring by a qualified archaeologist, or notification of the geographically and culturally affiliated Native American tribe to extend an invitation for construction monitoring.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-2b: Protect Known Unique Archaeological Resources For an archaeological site that has been determined by a qualified archaeologist to qualify as a unique archaeological resource through the process set forth under Mitigation Measure 4.5-2a, and where it has been determined under Mitigation Measure 4.5-2a that avoidance or preservation in place is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the City, and Native American tribes as applicable, shall:
1) Prepare a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the recovery that shall capture those categories of data for which the site is significant and implement the data recovery plan before or during development of the site.
2) Perform appropriate technical analyses, prepare a full written report and file it with the appropriate information center, and provide for the permanent curation of recovered materials.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
4.5-18 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
3) If, in the opinion of the qualified archaeologist and in light of the data available, the significance of the site is such that data recovery cannot capture the values that qualify the site for inclusion on the CRHR, the applicant shall reconsider project plans in light of the high value of the resource, and implement more substantial modifications to the project that would allow the site to be preserved intact, such as project redesign, placement of fill, or project relocation or abandonment. If no such measures are feasible, the City shall implement Mitigation Measure 4.5-2c.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-2c: For All Ground-Disturbing Construction Activities, Halt Ground Disturbance upon Discovery of Subsurface Archaeological Features
If any precontact or historic-era subsurface archaeological features or deposits, including locally darkened soil (“midden”), that could conceal cultural deposits are discovered during construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of the resources shall be halted and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained to assess the significance of the find. If the qualified archaeologist determines the archaeological material to be Native American in nature, the City shall contact the appropriate Native American tribe for their input on the preferred treatment of the find. If the find is determined to be significant by the archaeologist (i.e., because it is determined to constitute a unique archaeological resource), the archaeologist shall develop, and the City shall
implement, appropriate procedures to protect the integrity of the resource and ensure that no additional resources are affected. Procedures could include but would not necessarily be limited to preservation in place (which shall be the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites), archival research, subsurface testing, or contiguous block unit excavation and data recovery (when it is the only feasible mitigation, and pursuant to a data recovery plan).
No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the City approves the measures to protect these resources. Any precontact archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City- approved institution or person who is capable of providing long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.
Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-2a through 4.5-2c would reduce potentially significant impacts on archaeological resources to less-than-significant levels because mitigation would be developed in coordination with the appropriate federal, state, and/or local agency(ies) and tribes to avoid, move, record, or otherwise treat the archaeological resource appropriately, in accordance with pertinent laws and regulations. Therefore, the proposed plan’s impact would be less than significant.
Impact 4.5-3: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource
Pursuant to AB 52, the City sent letters inviting tribal consultation to the tribal contacts identified by NAHC. Table Mountain Rancheria responded. Although no tribal cultural resources, defined by CEQA Section 21074, have been identified within the Plan Area, it is possible that tribal cultural resources could be identified during analysis of subsequent projects. Compliance with CEQA Section 21080.3.2 and Section 21084.3(a) would render this impact less than significant.
As discussed above in Section 4.5.2, “Environmental Setting,” on June 26, 2023, the City sent letters providing formal notification of the opportunity for tribal consultation to the tribal representatives listed above. Table Mountain Rancheria responded, stating that the Plan Area lies within their cultural area of interest. Although the Rancheria did not formally request consultation under AB 52, the tribe requested a meeting. The City made attempts to contact the tribe, but response was received from Table Mountain Rancheria. No responses were received from the other 16 tribal contacts identified by the NAHC.
Although no tribal cultural resources, defined by CEQA Section 21074, have been identified within the Plan Area, it is possible that tribal cultural resources could be identified during analysis of subsequent projects. Implementation of projects contemplated in the proposed plan may require subsequent discretionary approvals and site-specific project-level analyses to fulfill CEQA requirements, which may include additional AB 52 consultation and identification of tribal cultural resources. California law recognizes the need to protect tribal cultural resources from inadvertent destruction, and the procedures for the treatment of tribal cultural resources are contained in CEQA Section 21080.3.2 and Section 21084.3(a).
Ascent Environmental Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.5-19
Within 14 days of the City determining that it may undertake a project not otherwise statutorily or categorically exempt from CEQA, the City must provide formal notification, in writing, to the California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project and /or that have requested notification of projects in the lead agency’s jurisdiction. If any affiliated tribe wishes to engage in consultation on the project, the tribe must respond within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification. The City would be required to begin the consultation process with the tribes that have requested consultation within 30 days of receiving the request for consultation. Consultation concludes when either: (1) the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect is determined to exist, on a tribal cultural resource, or (2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be re ached.
In addition, the City has developed Objective HCR-2 containing policies (HCR-2-c and HCR-2-d) for the protection of Native American sites (see Section 4.5.1 for reference).
While no specific resources have been identified through consultation with affiliated tribes, it is possible that unknown tribal cultural resources may be present within the Plan Area. Site-specific development projects would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis pursuant to CEQA which, for projects not otherwise exempt from CEQA, would include AB 52 consultation that could lead to the identification of potential site -specific tribal resources. All future development projects would be required to comply with local policy HCR-2-d which requires to work with local Native American tribes to protect recorded and unrecorded cultural and sacred sites. In addition, compliance with CEQA Section 21080.3.2 and Section 21084.3(a) site-specific project-level analyses shall continue to provide an opportunity to avoid or minimize the disturbance of tribal cultural resources, and to appropriately treat any remains that are discovered. Therefore, this impact would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.
Impact 4.5-4: Disturb Human Remains
Based on the records research, no evidence suggests that any precontact or historic-era marked or un-marked human interments are present within or in the immediate vicinity of the Plan Area. However, ground- disturbing construction activities could uncover previously unknown human remains. In the event that human remains are encountered, the impact would be
potentially significant.
Based on documentary research, no evidence suggests that any precontact or historic-era marked or un-marked human interments are present within or in the immediate vicinity of the Plan Area. However, the location of grave sites and Native American remains can occur outside of identified cemeteries or burial sites. Therefore, there is a possibility that unmarked, previously unknown Native American or other graves could be present within the Plan Area and could be uncovered by project-related construction activities. This impact would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 4.5-4: Protect Known and Unknown Human Remains If any human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future project developed under the proposed plan, all activity shall cease immediately within 50 meters (165) feet of the discovery. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the c ounty coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall notify NAHC within 24 hours. NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then serve as the consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(b), upon the discovery of Native American remains, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The landowner shall discuss and confer with the descendants all reasonable options regarding the descendants' preferences for treatment.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
4.5-20 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts on human remains to less- than-significant levels because mitigation would be developed in coordination with the appropriate federal, state, and/or local agency(ies) and tribes to avoid, move, record, or otherwise treat the discovery human remains appropriately, in accordance with pertinent laws and regulations. Therefore, the proposed plan's impact would be less than significant.
Ascent Environmental Energy
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.6-1
4.6 ENERGY
This section was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 and Appendix F of the CEQA guidelines, which require that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of projects. The analysis considers whether implementing the proposed plan would result in inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.
Comments on the NOP to this EIR expressed concerns regarding energy consumption during construction and operation of the proposed plan and recommended mitigation to minimize energy consumption and improve energy efficiency.
4.6.1 Regulatory Setting
Energy conservation is embodied in many federal, state, and local statutes and policies. At the federal level, energy standards apply to numerous products (e.g., the US Environmental Protection Agency’s [EPA’s] EnergyStar™ program) and transportation (e.g., fuel efficiency standards). At the state level, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations sets forth energy standards for buildings. Further, the state provides rebates/tax credits for installation of renewable energy systems and offers the Flex Your Power program that promotes conservation in multiple areas. At the local level, individual cities and counties establish policies in their general plans and climate action plans related to the energy efficiency of new development and land use planning and to the use of renewable energy sources.
FEDERAL
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and CAFE Standards
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 established nationwide fuel economy standards to conserve oil.
Pursuant to this act, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, part of the U S Department of Transportation, is responsible for revising existing fuel economy standards and establishing new vehicle economy standards.
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program was established to determine vehicle manufacturer compliance with the government’s fuel economy standards. Compliance with the CAFE standards is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the country. EPA calculates a CAFE value for each manufacturer based on the city and highway fuel economy test results and vehicle sales. The CAFE values are a weighted harmonic average of the EPA city and highway fuel economy test results. The most recent CAFE standards are for model years (MYs) 2024–2026. The amended CAFE standards increase in stringency for both passenger cars and light trucks, by 8 percent per year for MYs 2024– 2025, and by 10 percent per year for MY 2026. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration currently projects that the standards will require, on an average industry fleet-wide basis, roughly 49 miles per gallon in MY 2026 (49 Code of Federal Regulations Section 531 et seq.). Based on information generated under the CAFE program, the US Department of Transportation is authorized to assess penalties for noncompliance. Under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (described below), the CAFE standards were revised for the first time in 30 years.
Energy Policy Act of 1992 and 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was passed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign petroleum and improve air quality. EPAct includes several parts intended to build an inventory of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. EPAct requires certain federal, state, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light-duty AFVs capable of running on alternative fuels each year. In addition, financial incentives are also included in EPAct. Federal tax deductions are allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of AFVs. States are also required by the act to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides ren ewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, Energy Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.6-2 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
and loan guarantees for clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is designed to improve vehicle fuel economy and help reduce U S dependence on oil. It represents a major step forward in expanding the production of renewable fuels, reducing dependence on oil, and confronting global climate change. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 increases the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022, which represents a nearly five- fold increase over current levels; and reduces US demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 — an increase in fuel economy standards of 40 percent.
By addressing renewable fuels and the CAFE standards, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 builds upon progress made by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in setting out a comprehensive national energy strategy for the 21st century.
STATE
Warren-Alquist Act
The 1975 Warren-Alquist Act established the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, now known as the California Energy Commission (CEC). The act established state policy to reduce wasteful, uneconomical, and unnecessary uses of energy by employing a range of measures. The California Public Utilities Commission regulates privately owned utilities in the energy, rail, telecommunications, and water fields.
State of California Energy Action Plan
CEC is responsible for preparing the state energy plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The current plan is the 2003 California Energy Action Plan (2008 update). The plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero- emission vehicles and addressing their infrastructure needs; and encouragement of urban design that reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodates pedestrian and bicycle access.
California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan
September 18, 2008, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted California’s first Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, presenting a roadmap for energy efficiency in California.20 The Plan articulates a long -term vision and goals for each economic sector and identifies specific near-term, mid-term, and long-term strategies to assist in achieving those goals. The Plan also reiterates the following four specific programmatic goals known as the “Big Bold Energy Efficiency Strategies” that were established by the CPUC in Decisions D.07-10-032 and D.07-12-051:
in which the state has ambitious goals for the development of zero net energy buildings. These include:
All new residential construction will be zero net energy (ZNE) by 2020. All new commercial construction will be ZNE by 2030
50 percent of commercial buildings will be retrofit to ZNE by 2030 50 percent of new major renovations of state buildings will be ZNE by 2025.
Ascent Environmental Energy
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.6-3
Assembly Bill 2076: Reducing Dependence on Petroleum
Pursuant to AB 2076 (Chapter 936, Statutes of 2000), CEC and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) prepared and adopted a joint agency report in 2003, Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence. Included in this report are recommendations to increase the use of alternative fuels to 20 percent of on -road transportation fuel use by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030, significantly increase the efficiency of motor vehicles, and reduce per capita VMT (CEC and CARB 2003). A performance-based goal of AB 2076 was to reduce petroleum demand to 15 percent below 2003 demand by 2030.
Integrated Energy Policy Report
Senate Bill (SB) 1389 (Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) required CEC to “conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices. The Energy Commission shall use these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the state’s economy, and protect public health and safety” (Public Resources Code Section 25301[a]). This work culminated in the Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR).
CEC adopts an IEPR every 2 years and an update every other year. The 2021 IEPR is the most recent IEPR. The 2021 IEPR provides a summary of priority energy issues currently facing the s tate, outlining strategies and recommendations to further the state’s goal of ensuring reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible energy sources. The report contains an assessment of major energy trends and issues within California’s electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors. The report provides policy recommendations to conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure reliable, secure, and diverse energy supplies, enhance the state’s economy, and protect public health and safety. Topics covered in the 2021 IEPR include building decarbonization, coordination between state energy agencies, decarbonizing the state’s natural gas system, increasing transportation efficiencies, improving energy reliability and an assessment of the California Energy Demand Forecast (CEC 2022a).
Renewables Portfolio Standard
The state passed legislation referred to as the Renewables Portfolio Standard that requires increasing use of renewable energy to produce electricity for consumers. California utilities are required to generate 33 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020 (SB X1-2 of 2011); 52 percent by 2027 (SB 100 of 2018); 60 percent by 2030 (also SB 100 of 2018); and 100 percent by 2045 (also SB 100 of 2018). On September 16, 2022, SB 1020 was signed into law.
This bill supersedes the goals of SB 100 by requiring that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 90 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2035, 95 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2040, 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045, and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2035.
Senate Bill 350: Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) requires that the amount of electricity generated and sold to retail customers per year from eligible renewable energy resources be increased to 50 percent by December 31, 2030. It also establishes energy efficiency targets that achieve statewide, cumulative doubling of the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by the end of 2030.
Assembly Bill 1007: State Alternative Fuels Plan
AB 1007 (Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) required CEC to prepare a state plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan in partnership with CARB and in consultation with other state, federal, and local agencies. The plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of alternative nonpetroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes the costs to California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-state production. The plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuel use, reduce greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions, and increase in-state production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.
Energy Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.6-4 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green Building Standards (Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11)
The energy consumption of new residential and nonresidential buildings in California is regulated by the s tate’s Title 24, Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code). The California Energy Code was established by CEC in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and to provide energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. The CEC updates the California Energy Code every 3 years with more stringent design requirements for reduced energy consumption, which results in the generation of fewer GHG emissions.
The current California Energy Code will require builders to use more energy-efficient building technologies for compliance with increased restrictions on allowable energy use. The core focus of the building standards has been efficiency, but the 2019 Energy Code ventured into on-site generation by requiring solar photovoltaic (PV) on new homes, providing significant GHG savings. The most recent is the 2022 California Energy Code which advances the on-site energy generation progress started in the 2019 California Energy Code by encouraging electric heat pump technology and use, establishing electric-ready requirements when natural gas is installed, expanding solar PV system and battery storage standards, and strengthening ventilation standards to improve indo or air quality. CEC estimates that the 2022 California Energy Code will save consumers $1.5 billion and reduce GHG emissions by 10 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent over the next 30 years (CEC 2022b).
The California Green Building Standards Code, referred to as CALGreen, was added to Title 24 as Part 11, first in 2009 as a voluntary code, which then became mandatory effective January 1, 2011 (as part of the 2010 California Building Standards Code). The current version is the 2022 CALGreen Code, which took effect on January 1, 2023. As compared to the 2019 CALGreen Code, the 2022 CALGreen Code strengthened sections pertaining to EV and bicycle parking, water efficiency and conservation, and material conservation and resource efficiency, among other sections of the CALGreen Code. The CALGreen Code sets design requirements equivalent to or more stringent than those of the California Energy Code for energy efficiency, California Plumbing Code for water efficiency and waste diversion, and California Building Code for indoor air quality. These codes are adopted by local agencies that enforce building codes and used as guidelines by state agencies for meeting the requirements of Executive Order B-18-12.
AB 1279 and 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality On September 16, 2022, the state legislature passed AB 1279 which codified stringent emissions targets for the s tate of achieving carbon neutrality and an 85-percent reduction in 1990 emissions level by 2045. CARB released the Final 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) on November 16, 2022 , as also directed by AB 1279 (CARB 2022). The 2022 Scoping Plan traces the pathway for the state to achieve its carbon neutrality and an 85-percent reduction in 1990 emissions goal by 2045 using a combined top down, bottoms up approach using various scenarios. The 2022 Scoping Plan calls for the transition from fossil fuels to fully electric, decarbonized energy to power buildings and zero-emission vehicles. CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan on December 16, 2022.
Senate Bill 375 of 2008
SB 375, signed into law in September 2008, aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG emission reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. It requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy or Alternative Planning Strategy, showing prescribed land use allocation in each MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan. CARB, in consultation with the MPOs , is to provide each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks for 2020 and 2035. Implementation of SB 375 will have the co-benefit of reducing California’s dependency on fossil fuels and making land use development and transportation systems more energy efficient.
California Energy Efficiency Action Plan
The 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan has three primary goals for the s tate: double energy efficiency savings by 2030 relative to a 2015 base year (per SB 350), expand energy efficiency in low -income and disadvantaged communities, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from buildings. This plan provides guiding principles and recommendations on how the state would achieve those goals. These recommendations include:
Ascent Environmental Energy
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.6-5
identifying funding sources that support energy efficiency programs, identifying opportunities to improve energy efficiency through data analysis, using program designs as a way to encourage increased energy efficiency on the consumer end, improving energy efficiency through workforce education and training, and supporting rulemaking and programs that incorporate energy demand flexibility and building decarbonization. (CEC 2019).
LOCAL
City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno General Plan establishes the following policies related energy that is relevant to the proposed plan:
Policy RC-4-a: Support Regional Efforts. Support and lead, where appropriate, regional, State and federal programs and actions for the improvement of air quality, especially the SJVAPCD’s efforts to monitor and control air pollutants from both stationary and mobile sources and implement Reasonably Available Control Measures in the Ozone Attainment Plan.
Policy RC-4-e: Support Employer-Based Efforts. Support and promote employer implementation of staggered work hours and employee incentives to use carpools, public transit, and other measures to reduce vehicular use and traffic congestion.
Policy RC-5-c: GHG Reduction through Design and Operations. Increase efforts to incorporate requirements for GHG emission reductions in land use entitlement decisions, facility design, and operational measures subject to City regulation through the following measures and strategies:
Promote the expansion of incentive-based programs that involve certification of projects for energy and water efficiency and resiliency. These certification programs and scoring systems may include public agency “Green” and conservation criteria, Energy Star™ certification, CALGreen Tier 1 or Tier 2, Leadership in Energy Efficient Design (LEED™) certification, etc.
Promote appropriate energy and water conservation standards and facilitate mixed -use projects, new incentives for infill development, and the incorporation of mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian amenities into public and private projects.
Require energy and water audits and upgrades for water conservation, energy efficiency, and mass transit, pedestrian, and bicycle amenities at the time of renovation, change in use, change in occupancy, and change in ownership for major projects meeting review thresholds specified in an implementing ordinance. Incorporate the City’s “Guidelines for Ponding Basin/Pond Construction and Management to Control Mosquito Breeding” as conditions of approval for any project using an on -site stormwater basin to prevent possible increases in vector-borne illnesses associated with global climate change. Periodically evaluate the City’s facility maintenance practices to determine whether there are additional opportunities to reduce GHGs through facility cleaning and painting, parks maintenance, road maintenance, and utility system maintenance.
Periodically evaluate standards and mitigation strategies for highly vehicle-dependent land uses and facilities, such as drive-through facilities and auto-oriented development.
City of Fresno Climate Action Plan
The City of Fresno first adopted its Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHGRP) in 2014. The City updated its GHGRP in 2021 to extend its GHG reduction targets beyond 2020 to align with state reduction targets for 2030 (as mandated by SB 32) and 2035 (to align with the horizon year of the General Plan). The GHGRP estimates forecasted emissions in Energy Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.6-6 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
the City using a business-as-usual model that does not account for various statewide regulations that will reduce emissions in the City.
4.6.2 Environmental Setting
ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS USE
Electric services and natural gas are provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for the proposed plan. In 2021, PG&E provided its customers enrolled in PG&E’s base plan with an energy portfolio composed of 47. 7 percent eligible renewable energy, 4 percent large hydroelectric power, 18.9 percent natural gas, and 39.3 percent nuclear power (PG&E 2022). PG&E also offers its customers the option to enroll in a 50- or 100-percent renewable energy plan through its Solar Choice Program.
ENERGY USE FOR TRANSPORTATION
In 2021, the transportation sector comprised the largest end-use sector of energy in the state totaling 37.8 percent, followed by the industrial sector totaling 23.2 percent, the commercial sectors at 19 percent, and the residential sector of 20 percent. On-road vehicles use about 83 percent of the petroleum consumed in California (EIA 2023a).
According to CEC’s most recent California Annual Retail Fuel Outlet Report Results (CEC-A15), reported retail gasoline and diesel sales within Fresno County were 298 million gallons of gasoline and 65 million gallons of diesel in 2022 (CEC 2023). The California Department of Transportation projects that 522 and 168 million gallons of gasoline and diesel, respectively, will be consumed in Fresno County in 2025 (Caltrans 2008).
ENERGY USE AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Scientists and climatologists have produced substantial evidence that the burning of fossil fuels by vehicles, power plants, industrial facilities, residences, and commercial facilities has led to an increase of the earth’s temperature (IPCC 2014; OPR et al. 2018). For an analysis of GHG production and the proposed plan’s contribution to climate change, see Section 4.8, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change.”
COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ENERGY USE
Homes built between 2000 and 2015 used 14 percent less energy per square foot than homes built in the 1980s, and 40 percent less energy per square foot than homes built before 1950. However, the increased size of newer homes has offset these efficiency improvements. Primary energy consumption in the residential sector totaled 21 quadrillion British thermal units in 2009 (the latest year the US Energy Information Administration’s [EIA’s] Residential Energy Consumption Survey was completed), equal to 54 percent of consumption in the buildings sector and 22 percent of total primary energy consumption in the United States. Energy consumption increased by 24 percent from 1990 to 2009. When electrical system energy losses are included, the residential and commercial sectors accounted for about 22 percent and 18 percent respectively—40 percent combined—of total U.S. energy consumption in 2022 (EIA 2023b).
ALTERNATIVE FUELS
A variety of alternative fuels are used to reduce demand for petroleum-based fuel. The use of these fuels is encouraged through various statewide regulations and plans (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, AB 32 Scoping Plan).
Conventional gasoline and diesel may be replaced (depending on the capability of the vehicle) w ith many transportation fuels, including:
biodiesel,
electricity,
Ascent Environmental Energy
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.6-7
ethanol (E-10 and E-85),
hydrogen,
natural gas (methane in the form of compressed and liquefied natural gas), propane,
renewable diesel (including biomass-to-liquid),
synthetic fuels, and
gas-to-liquid and coal-to-liquid fuels.
California has a growing number of AFVs through the joint efforts of CEC, CARB, local air districts, federal government, transit agencies, utilities, and other public and private entities. In 2022, California contained approximately 45,000 alternative fueling stations (AFDC 2023).
4.6.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
METHODOLOGY
Levels of construction- and operation-related energy consumption by the proposed plan, measured in megawatt- hours of electricity, million British thermal units (MMBTU) of natural gas, gallons of gasoline, and gallons of diesel fuel. Energy consumption estimates were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.1.19 computer program. Where specific information was not known, CalEEMod default values based on the proposed plan’s location were used. VMT associated with the proposed plan was provided in the traffic study prepared for the proposed plan (TJKM 2023). See Appendix B for a detailed list of assumptions and calculations.
Construction of proposed plan development was modeled in two parts: a worst-case construction scenario in 2024 assuming 25 percent of Plan Area construction anticipated during the planning period would occur in a single year, and assuming the remainder of construction would be evenly distributed over the remaining years, between 2025 and 2040. (See Section 3.2, “Air Quality” for a detailed discussion of construction assumptions.)
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
An energy impact would be significant if implementation of the proposed plan would:
result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, during project construction or operation or
conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
PROPOSED SCSP POLICIES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The following policies from the proposed plan relate to energy.
Trucks
Policy T-3: Limit truck idling times.
Public Transit
Policy T-4: Expand bus area service and frequency.
Policy T-5: Provide van shuttles, transit and carpool incentives, and bicycle parking for employees.
Roadway Improvements
Policy T-9: Install traffic control or traffic safety measures to include bike lanes.
Energy Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.6-8 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Policy T-11: Install crosswalks and traffic calming measures near schools. Policy T-13: Improve and maintain sidewalks.
Vehicle/Equipment and Operation Standards
Policy AQ-4: Increase electric vehicle charging stations and alternative fuel stations. Policy AQ-5: Seek out funding sources to assist warehouses and industrial uses to transition to near -zero emissions technology.
Policy AQ-6: Consider construction of near zero fueling stations (i.e., CNG/Hydrogen). Policy AQ-7: Encourage commercial landscapers to use electric gardening equipment such as lawn mowers and leaf blowers.
Energy and Green Building
Policy EGB-1: Require the reduction of energy consumption and promote energy efficiency through education, conservation programs, building design/operation standards, and incentive programs. Policy EGB-2: Incentivize private solar installations by providing information about financing and by expediting the permit process.
Policy EGB-3: Encourage installation of solar panels, battery storage, and zero-emission backup electricity generators at distribution centers.
Water
Policy W-5: Require new development to implement water conservation measures and to contribute towards expanded and upgraded facilities.
Policy W-6: Reduce water consumption through education, conservation standards, landscaping standards, retrofit programs, and incentive programs.
In addition, the SCSP includes alternative energy development standards that would serve to reduce energy consumption. These include requirements for ZE (zero emission) motorized operational equipment; solar-ready building roofs and solar requirements for buildings over 400,000 square feet; solar -reflective roofing material; EV- ready passenger vehicle parking spaces, including some quick-charge EV; electric TRUs and provision of electrical infrastructure to accommodate them; bicycle racks with electric plugs for e-bikes; cool surface treatments; upsizing of electrical rooms to accommodate additional electrical panels; super-compliant VOC paints and coatings; recycling; and reasonable best efforts to deploy the highest rated CARB Tier technologies during construction .
ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
All the identified thresholds are addressed in the following analysis.
Ascent Environmental Energy
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.6-9
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.6-1: Result in Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy during Project Construction or Operation
Construction and operation of development under the proposed plan would result in an increase in energy demand, short-term during construction and long-term during individual project operations. Regarding construction, development of individual projects would involve typical construction methods and approaches. O nly the necessary amount of energy needed to complete individual projects would be used and there is no evidence to suggest any project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption. Operation of projects under the proposed plan would involve a mix of land uses (primarily industrial, retail, and office, with smaller amounts of residential) which would contribute to the local economy, create new jobs, and reduce VMT, and therefore fuel consumption, within the Plan Area compared to existing conditions, all of which are goals of the General Plan. Nevertheless, the proposed plan would allow for development that is not inherently energy efficient (i.e., decarbonized development, EV charging infrastructure to support use of EVs); therefore, operation of the proposed plan would result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. This impact would be significant.
Construction-Related Energy
Most of the construction-related energy consumption for developments under the plan though the planning period would be associated with the use of off-road equipment and the transport of equipment and materials using on-road haul trucks. An estimated 368,156 gallons of gasoline and 1,242,151 gallons of diesel fuel would be used during the construction of anticipated development. (See Appendix B for a summary of construction calculations.) The energy needs for construction of anticipated development would occur over the course of the planning period through 2040 are not anticipated to require additional capacity or substantially increase peak or base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy. Gasoline and diesel would also be consumed during worker commute trips. Energy would be required to transport demolition waste and excavated materials. All construction equipment exceeding 50 horsepower would comply with the statewide standard of restricting idling time to no more than 5 minutes. The one- time energy expenditure required to construct proposed plan development (spread over the planning period) would be nonrecoverable. However, there is no evidence to suggest that construction- related energy demand associated with the proposed plan would be atypical. Nonrenewable energy would not be consumed in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner during the proposed plan’s construction (which would be more costly and likely avoided) when compared to other construction activity in the region. Additionally, as shown in Appendix B , on-road gasoline and diesel fuel consumption associated with construction activity would go down each year as vehicle fleets become more fuel-efficient over time. Table 4.6-1 summarizes total construction gasoline and diesel fuel consumption.
Table 4.6-1 Construction Fuel Consumption by Year
Construction Year (worst-case) Diesel (Gallons) Gasoline (Gallons) 2024 442,135 95,886
2025–2040 800,016 272,270
Total 1,242,151 368,156
Source: Calculations prepared by Ascent Environmental in 2023.
Building Energy
Operation of developments under the proposed plan would involve the use of energy to operate various land uses (e.g., industrial land uses, office buildings, retail establishments, residences). Individual projects would, at a minimum, be built to comply with the 2022 California Energy Code, which includes standards for building energy efficiency. It requires the use of efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes, expands solar PV and battery storage standards, and strengthens ventilation standards (CEC 2022b). As the Plan Area is developed through 2040, the California Energy Code will continue to be updated on a triennial basis with the expectation that the mandatory requirements of the code will require increasingly more stringent energy efficiency requirements. This would result in increased building energy efficiency over time as the Plan Area continues to be Energy Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.6-10 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
developed. Indirect energy use would include wastewater treatment and solid waste removal. Total energy demand associated with proposed plan development through the horizon year of 2040 is estimated at 245,543 megawatt- hours per year. Natural gas demand for operation would be approximately 492,427 MMBTU. For a list of assumptions related to operational energy, see Appendix B. See Table 4.6-2 for an estimate of the proposed plan’s operational building energy needs.
Table 4.6-2 Operational Building Energy Consumption
Land Use/Energy Type Energy Consumption Units
Single Family Residential
Electricity 851 MWh/year
Natural Gas 3,541 MMBTU/year
Supermarket
Electricity 50,840 MWh/year
Natural Gas 28,913 MMBTU/year
Office Park
Electricity 13,571 MWh/year
Natural Gas 23,117 MMBTU/year
Industrial Park
Electricity 101,445 MWh/year
Natural Gas 172,804 MMBTU/year
General Heavy Industry
Electricity 74,147 MWh/year
Natural Gas 256,065 MMBTU/year
General Office Building
Electricity 4,689 MWh/year
Natural Gas 7,988 MMBTU/year
Total
Electricity 245,543 MWh/year
Natural Gas 492,427 MMBTU/year
Notes: MWh/year = megawatt-hours per year; MMBTU = million British thermal units.
Source: Calculations prepared by Ascent Environmental in 2023.
Transportation Energy
Operation of proposed plan developments would result in vehicle trips related to employee commutes from various land uses (e.g., industrial, retail, office) and trips generated by residences. Annual VMT associated with the proposed plan would be 412,612,060 and would result in additional fuel demand of 9,158,521 gallons of gasoline per year and 2,218,171 gallons of diesel per year. Operational transportation-related fuel estimates are summarized in Table 4.6-3.
Table 4.6-3 Operational Mobile Fuel Consumption
Source Gasoline (gal/year) Diesel (gal/year) Electricity (kWh/year) Natural Gas (gal/year) Mobile (Total for Project) 9,158,521 2,218,171 2,084,761 50,301 Notes: gal/year = gallons per year; kWh/year = kilowatt-hours per year.
Source: Calculations prepared by Ascent Environmental in 2023.
Ascent Environmental Energy
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.6-11
Implementation of the proposed plan would result in an increase in VMT compared to the baseline conditions, but because it would create jobs and reduce destination distances in the region, it would lead to a reduction in transportation-related energy consumption compared to existing conditions and 2040 no project conditions. As detailed in Table 4.15-1 of Section 4.15,“Transportation and Circulation,” the proposed plan is anticipated to generate
29.87 VMT per service population, a decrease from both 2015 existing conditions and 20 40 no project conditions.
Under the 2040 proposed plan scenario, VMT per service population would be approximately 15 VMT per service population lower, or 33 percent lower, than 2015 existing conditions. Because VMT in the Plan Area would decrease, less fuel would be consumed for transportation purposes resulting in increased transportation-related energy efficiency.
Conclusion
Construction and operation of proposed plan development would result in increased use of electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel. Development is anticipated to be typical of proposed industrial, retail, and office land uses and , similarly, energy consumption would by typical of such uses. Only the amount of fuel necessary to complete construction of proposed plan developments would be used. Operation of plan development would align with the goals of the General Plan by reducing VMT, creating jobs, and contributing to the local economy. Nevertheless, the proposed plan would allow for development that is not inherently energy efficient (i.e., decarbonized development, EV charging infrastructure to support use of EVs); therefore, operation of the proposed plan would result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. This impact would be significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b, 4.3-1c, 4.3-1g, 4.3-1h, 4.3-1i, 4.3-1j, 4.3-1k, and 4.3-1l.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1a: Require Electric Vehicle Infrastructure To reduce criteria air pollution and GHG emissions, all future commercial and residential development shall be designed to meet the most ambitious electric vehicle infrastructure voluntary requirements of the most recent version of the CALGreen Code in effect at the time of project approval. This measure is subject to change depending on future updates to the CALGreen Code. Compliance with this measure shall be demonstrated to the City prior to the issuance of building permits to construct and shall be subject to City approval.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1b: Incorporate Cool Communities Strategies Development under the proposed plan shall incorporate strategies to cool the urban heat island, reduce energy use and ozone formation, and maximize air quality benefits by requiring new development to implement four key strategies: plant trees, selective use of vegetation for landscaping, install cool roofing, and install cool pavements.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1c: Use Renewable Natural Gas
To reduce upstream GHG emissions and promote renewable energy resources, require proposed industrial land uses that are determined to require natural gas, to source renewable natural gas. Use of renewable natural gas reduces upstream GHG emissions by avoiding the potential for fugitive methane to be released from methane prod ucing facilities and actions. Consistency with this measure requires a site-specific feasibility assessment to demonstrate that natural gas is required, and to determine availability of renewable gas sources, subject to City review and approval.
Renewable natural gas is captured from wastewater treatment plants, dairies, and landfills and may be processed for uses that typically rely on fossil fuel natural gas, thus avoiding the global warming potential of fugitive met hane emissions from these sources.
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1d: Require On-Site Clean Energy Prior to future discretionary project approval, new developments shall demonstrate their capacity to include energy production and storage features on-site, including but not limited to, on-site solar, parking canopies with solar, and battery storage. The amount of on-site renewable energy that is needed for future development shall be based on the energy needs of the proposed development, and shall be capable of serving, at a minimum, 50 percent of the energy demand needed to operate the proposed project. Consistency with this measure shall be determined based Energy Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.6-12 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
on a site-specific study required at the time of development approval that demonstrates available and feasible technology appropriate for the specific proposed used, or cannot be met, subject to City approval.
Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b, 4.3-1c, 4.3-1g, 4.3-1h, 4.3-1i, 4.3-1j, 4.3-1k, and 4.3-1l, 4.6-1a, 4.6-1b,
4.6-1c, and 4.6-1dreduce the proposed plan’s energy demand through the provision of EV infrastructure that meets the Tier 2 requirements of the CALGreen Code; inclusion of low-emission vehicles, electric development, on-site renewable energy, and use of renewable biogas; and use of clean construction fleets.
While the City cannot guarantee future industrial businesses would source their natural gas from renewable resources due to limitations regarding enforceability and availability of renewable natural gas to power heavy industrial processes, which could comprise the majority of the proposed plan, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3 -1b,
4.3-1c, 4.3-1g, 4.3-1h, 4.3-1i, 4.3-1j, 4.3-1k, and 4.3-1l, 4.6-1a, 4.6-1b, 4.6-1c, and 4.6-1d would be sufficient to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level if otherwise not prescribed. Thus, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
Impact 4.6-2: Conflict with or Obstruct a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency
The proposed plan would result in a reduction in VMT per service population relative to existing conditions and 2040 no project conditions through the implementation of policies that would improve conditions for the use of alternative modes of transportation and, therefore, promote the reduction of VMT . Additionally, the proposed plan would meet the mandatory EV charging requirements of the CALGreen Code and therefore promote the use of EVs.
Implementing the proposed plan would also result in new development that would, at minimum, comply with 2022 California Energy Code Standards, and with the progressively more stringent requirements of future Energy Code standards. However, the proposed plan does not include any policies that address building zero net energy (ZNE) for future land uses. Because the proposed plan does not include policies pertaining to ZNE for residential and nonresidential development, the proposed plan would conflict with the energy-related measures of the City’s GHGRP, which requires that commercial projects achieve ZNE electricity. Therefore, the proposed plan would not be consistent with the GHGRP. This impact would be
significant.
As discussed in Section 4.6.1, “Regulatory Setting,” the City of Fresno adopted its most recent update to its GHGRP in 2021. The GHGRP includes GHG emission reduction targets, strategies, and implementation measures developed to help the City reach these targets. Reduction strategies address GHG emissions associated with transportation and land use, water, waste management and recycling, agriculture, open space, and energy. The GHGRP includes various policies that relate to energy consumption. The GHG reduction strategies identified in the GHGRP relies upon the General Plan and additional local measures as the basis of the development related strategies to reduce GHG emissions as well as energy consumption.
Development of the land uses under the proposed plan would meet the mandatory EV charging requirements of the CALGreen Code. This would be consistent with General Plan Policy RC-8-j.
A
s detailed in the discussion of Impact 4.6-1, implementing the proposed plan would result in a decrease in Plan Area VMT per service population and therefore fossil fuel combustion, relative to existing and no project conditions. This is because implementation of the proposed plan would create job-generating development that will reduce vehicle travel and fossil fuel consumption by shortening trips and potentially increasing the viability of alternate modes of transportation, including transit. This would be consistent with General Plan Policies RC- 2-
a, UF-1-c, UF-12-a, UF-12-b,
UF-12-d, LU-3-b, and Objective-UF 12 and would serve to reduce energy associated with gasoline and diesel fuel use Additionally, the proposed plan would be consistent with General Plan Policies MT-1-g, MT-2-c, and MT-8-a as they support the use of alternate modes of transportation to reduce VMT.
T
he proposed plan would be required, at minimum, to comply with the 2022 California Energy Code requirements for new development. As the California Energy Code is updated on a triennial basis, buildings would become more efficient over time as they are required to comply with the increasingly stringent standards of each iteration of the Ascent Environmental Energy
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.6-13
Energy Code. However, the GHGRP recommends that commercial projects (such as those included in the proposed plan) achieve ZNE electricity. The proposed plan does not include policies that achieve ZNE for residential and nonresidential development Therefore, the proposed plan would not be considered consistent with the GHGRP.
Conclusion
The proposed plan would be consistent with the GHGRP by including policies which would implement a mix of land uses (though mostly industrial), install EV chargers in quantities which would comply with the minimum CALGreen requirements, and reduce VMT. However, the proposed plan does not include policies that would achieve ZNE for residential and nonresidential development and would therefore not be consistent with the GHGRP which requires that commercial projects achieve ZNE electricity. Therefore, this impact would be significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b, 4.3-1c, 4.3-1g, 4.3-1h, 4.3-1i, 4.3-1j, 4.3-1k, 4.3-1l, 4.6-1a, 4.6-1b, 4.6-1c, and
4.6-1d.
Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b, 4.3-1c, 4.3-1g, 4.3-1h, 4.3-1i, 4.3-1j, 4.3-1k, and 4.3-1l, 4.6-1a, 4.6-1b,
4.6-1c, and 4.6-1dreduce the proposed plan’s energy demand through the provision of EV infrastructure that meets the Tier 2 requirements of the CALGreen Code; inclusion of low-emission vehicles, electric development, on-site renewable energy, and use of renewable biogas; and use of clean construction fleets.
While the City cannot guarantee future industrial businesses would source their natural gas from renewable resources due to limitations regarding enforceability and availability of renewable natural gas to power heavy industrial processes, which could comprise the majority of the proposed plan, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b,
4.3-1c, 4.3-1g, 4.3-1h, 4.3-1i, 4.3-1j, 4.3-1k, and 4.3-1l, 4.6-1a, 4.6-1b, 4.6-1c, and 4.6-1d would be sufficient to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level if otherwise not prescribed. Thus, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
Energy Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.6-14 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
This page is intentionally left blank.
Ascent Environmental Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.7-1
4.7 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERAL RESOURCES
This section describes applicable regulations and existing environmental conditions relative to geology, soils, mineral resources, and paleontological resources in the Plan Area. It also includes an analysis of environmental impacts on these resources that would result from implementation of the proposed plan and identifies recommended mitigation measures for any significant or potentially significant impacts. The primary sources of information used for this analysis are the City of Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno 2022), the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) prepared for the General Plan (City of Fresno 2020), and the Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (Fresno County 2018).
During the public scoping period for the Draft EIR, two comment letters were received regarding the topic of geology and soils. In response to the NOP, a comment letter from community members within the Plan Area expressed concerns regarding various environmental topics, including concerns related to septic system failures. In addition, the State of California Department of Justice submitted a comment letter that generally states that warehouse projects may result in significant environmental impacts to various resources, including geology, but does not identify any specific concerns related to this topic area.
4.7.1 Regulatory Setting
FEDERAL
No federal policies or regulations pertaining to geology, soils, and mineral resources are applicable to the proposed plan.
STATE
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 (Alquist-Priolo Act) (PRC Sections 2621–2630) intends to reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes by regulating construction in active fault corridors and by prohibiting the location of most types of structures intended for human occupancy across the traces of active faults. The act defines criteria for identifying active faults, giving legal support to terms such as “active” and “inactive,” and establishes a process for reviewing building proposals in earthquake fault zones. Under the Alquist-Priolo Act, faults are zoned and construction along or across these zones is strictly regulated if they are “sufficiently active” and “well defined.” A fault is considered sufficiently active if one or more of its segments or strands shows evidence of surface displacement during Holocene time (defined for purposes of the act as within the last 11,000 years). A fault is considered well defined if its trace can be clearly iden tified by a trained geologist at the ground surface or in the shallow subsurface, using standard professional techniques, criteria, and judgment (Bryant and Hart 2007). Before a project can be permitted in a designated Alquist ‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings would not be constructed across active faults. The law addresses only the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed tow ard other earthquake hazards.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The intention of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (PRC Section 2690–2699.6) is to reduce damage resulting from earthquakes. While the Alquist-Priolo Act addresses surface fault rupture, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act addresses other earthquake-related hazards, including ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides. The act’s provisions are similar in concept to those of the Alquist-Priolo Act: The State is charged with identifying and mapping areas at risk of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other corollary hazards, Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
4.7-2 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
and cities and counties are required to regulate development within mapped Seismic Hazard Zones. Under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, permit review is the primary mechanism for local regulation of development.
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC) (CCR Title 24) is based on the International Building Code. The CBC has been modified from the International Building Code for California conditions to include more detailed or more stringent regulations. Specific minimum seismic safety and structural design requirements are set forth in Chapter 16 of the CBC. The CBC identifies seismic factors that must be considered in structural design. Chapter 18 of the CBC regulates the excavation of foundations and retaining walls, whereas Chapter 18A regulates construction on unstable soils, such as expansive soils and areas subject to liquefaction. Appendix J of the CBC regulates drainage and erosion control during grading activities. The CBC contains a provision that provides for a preliminary soil report to be prepared to identify “the presence of critically expansive soils or other soil problems which, if not corrected, would lead to structural defects” (CBC Chapter 18 Section 1803.1.1.1).
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program As a result of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, subsequently known as the Clean Water Act , the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was established for the purpose of reducing point sources of water pollution, which may include eroded sediment from construction sites and disturbed areas. NPDES permits are required for any discharges of pollutants to navigable waters of the United States, which includes any discharge to surface waters, including lakes, rivers, streams, bays, the ocean, dry stream beds, wetlands, and storm sewers that are tributary to any surface water body. The NPDES permit program in California is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board and by the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) that issue NPDES permits and enforce regulations within their respective regions. The following discussion includes a summary of NPDES permits applicable to the proposed plan, as they relate to geology and soils. Section 4.10, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” provides additional discussion of the NPDES permit program as it relates to water quality.
NPDES Construction General Permit
Dischargers whose projects disturb one or more acres of soil or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ (Construction General Permit). Construction activity subject to the Construction General Permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility.
The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which outlines controls designed to prevent harmful pollutants, including soil erosion, from being washed by stormwater runoff into local water bodies. For projects in Fresno County, the SWPPP must be submitted to the Central Valley RWQCB. Examples of erosion control measures that may be implemented at construction sites include covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. Sediment control best management practices (BMPs) are a secondary means of preventing storm water contamination and may include installing silt fences or placing straw wattles below slopes. All measures must be periodically inspected, maintained, and repaired to ensure that receiving water quality is protected.
NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Permit
The City of Fresno is covered under the General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4), Order R5-2016-0040 (MS4 Permit). The MS4 permit specifies “Planning and Land Development Requirements,” which are intended to minimize the generation and discharge of pollutants in storm water from the MS4 system and minimize the potential of storm water discharges from causing altered flow regimes and excessive downstream erosion in receiving waters. The MS4 permit identifies control measures for new and redevelopment projects, which include defined criteria for Priority Development Projects, source and treatment control measures, numeric sizing Ascent Environmental Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.7-3
criteria, erosion control and sediment management, maintenance agreement and transfers, low impact development, hydromodification management practices, coordination, enforcement and tracking, and the implementation of best management practices to promote infiltration. Mitigation funding, regional storm water mitigation and alternatives to onsite low impact development and hydromodification measures options are also described.
Under the MS4 Permit, Priority Development Projects are required to incorporate appropriate storm water mitigation measures into the respective design plans. Priority Development Projects include the following: (1) single-family hillside residences, including development on any natural slope that is twenty-five percent or greater); (2) residential subdivisions of ten or more units; (3) 100,000-square-foot industrial/commercial development; (4) automotive repair shops; (5) restaurants; (6) parking lots with 5,000 square feet or more or with 25 or more parking space ; and (7) redevelopment projects that are within one of these categories are included if the redevelopment adds or creates at least 5,000 square feet of impervious surface to the original developments; if the addition constitutes less than 50 percent of the original development, the design standard only applies to the addition. For these Priority Development Projects, the MS4 Permit specifies minimum management practices, control techniques, and design and engineering methods to reduce pollutant discharges from areas of new development and redevelopment. These stormwater management strategies are intended to reduce water pollution from point sources, such as pollution caused by soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Project applicants must demonstrate that post-project conditions are expected to approximate the pre-project erosive effect of sediment transporting flows in receiving waters. In addition, project applicants must demonstrate that project design features will be protective of the natural drainage systems from erosion, incision, and sedimentation that can occur as a result of flow increases from impervious surfaces and damage stream habitat in natural drainage systems.
State Laws Pertaining to Paleontological Resources
Section 5097.5 of the California Public Resources Code prohibits “knowing and willful” excavation, removal, destruction, injury, and defacement of any “vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints,” on public lands, except where the agency with jurisdiction has granted express permission. As used in this section, “public lands” means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.
LOCAL
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules and Regulations As discussed in Section 4.3, “Air Quality,” the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has adopted rules and regulations regarding dust control. Although these rules and regulations were adopted for the purpose of reducing air pollutant emissions in the form of fugitive dust, these rules and regulations have the added benefit of stabilizing soils at construction sites in a manner that reduces the potential for wind erosion and sedimentation. The following discussion includes a summary of SJVAPCD rules applicable to the proposed plan, as they relate to geology and soils. Section 4.3, “Air Quality,” provides additional discussion of these rules as they relate to air pollution. The following rules and regulations are applicable to the proposed plan:
Regulation VIII/Rule 8011: This rule requires project proponents to control fugitive dust emissions from sources that include construction sites; excavation and earthmoving activities; bulk material handling, storage, and transport; and vehicle movement on unpaved roads. Dust control may be achieved by applying water before and during earthwork and onto unpaved traffic areas, phasing work to limit dust, setting up wind fences to limit wind - blown dust, applying dust suppressants and establishing vegetative cover on areas of disturbed land , and limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads.
Rule 8021: This rule requires project proponents to obtain approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing construction activities for any project that meets the following thresholds: (1) n on-residential projects that include 5 or more acres of disturbed surface area; (2) residential projects that include 10 or more acres of disturbed surface area; and (3) projects that involve the movement of 2,500 cubic yards or more of bulk material on any three days of the project, consecutive or otherwise, regardless of disturbed surface area. Projects subject to Dust Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
4.7-4 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Control Plan requirements must also maintain records of the implemented dust control practices. Projects that do not meet these thresholds, but will disturb more than one acre of surface area require the submittal of a construction notification at least 48 hours prior to commencing construction activities.
City of Fresno General Plan
The Noise and Safety Element of the General Plan identifies natural safety hazards, including geologic and seismic hazards, that exist within the city and establishes preventative and responsive objectives, policies, and programs to mitigate potential impacts. The following objective and policies are applicable to the proposed plan:
Objective NS-2: Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic risks. Policy NS-2-a: Seismic Protection. Ensure seismic protection is incorporated into new and existing construction, consistent with the Fresno Municipal Code.
Policy NS-2-b: Soil Analysis Requirement. Identify areas with potential geologic and/or soils hazards, and require development in these areas to conduct a soil analysis and mitigation plan by a registered civil engineer (or engineering geologist specializing in soil geology) prior to allowing on-site drainage or disposal for wastewater, stormwater runoff, or swimming pool/spa water.
The Public Utilities and Services Element of the General Plan provides a framework for the City to manage infrastructure and services, including septic systems. While this objective and policies were adopted for purposes of protecting groundwater quality, they also serve to prevent contamination of soils. The following objective and policies are applicable to the proposed plan:
Objective PU-5: Preserve groundwater quality and ensure that the health and safety of the entire Fresno community is not impaired by use of private, on-site disposal systems. Policy PU-5-a: Mandatory Septic Conversion. Continue to evaluate and pursue where determined appropriate the mandatory abatement of existing private wastewater disposal (septic) systems and mandatory connection to the public sewage collection and disposal system.
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 nonregional 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.
The Resource Conservation and Resilience Element of the General Plan establishes objectives and policies for the conservation of natural resources in the city, including mineral resources. The following objective and policy are applicable to the proposed plan:
Objective RC-10: Conserve aggregate mineral resources within the Planning Area, as identified by the Division of Mines and Geology, and allow for responsible extraction to meet Fresno’s needs. Policy RC-10-d: Manage MRZ-2 Areas. Prohibit land uses and development projects that preclude mineral extraction in potential high-quality mineral resource areas designated MRZ-2 by the California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology.
Fresno Municipal Code
The City of Fresno Municipal Code includes various sections related to geologic and soil hazards and erosion control, which are summarized as follows:
Sections 11-101 and 11-102 include, by incorporation, the adopted 2022 CBC and the City’s amendments. Sections 12-1022 and 12-1023 require subdividers to submit grading plans and a soils report to the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department for verification prior to Final Map approval. Section 15-2304 requires that landscape plans be submitted with permit applications, which would identify proposed landscape elements and measures to control erosion.
Ascent Environmental Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.7-5
4.7.2 Environmental Setting
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The Plan Area is within the Great Valley geomorphic province, which is an alluvial plain that is approximately 50 miles wide and 400 miles long in central California. The Great Valley is a trough in which sediments have been deposited almost continuously since the Jurassic period (about 160 million years ago). The Plan Area is within the southern extent of the Great Valley, which is comprised of the San Joaquin Valley and is drained by the San Joaquin River (CGS 2002). The San Joaquin Valley is bordered to the north by the Sacramento Valley portion of the Great Valley, to the east by the Sierra Nevada, to the west by the Coast Ranges, and to the south by the Transverse Ranges. The San Joaquin sedimentary basin is separated from the Sacramento basin to the north by the bu ried Stockton arch and associated Stockton Fault (City of Fresno 2020).
LOCAL GEOLOGY
The Plan Area is located in the southern and southeastern portion of the city of Fresno, which is set on gently southwest-sloping alluvial fans and plains formed by the San Joaquin and Kings rivers (City of Fresno 2020). Based on geologic mapping by the California Geological Survey, the Plan Area is underlain with Quaternary Period (2.58 million years ago to present) deposits, consisting of (1) alluvium, lake, playa and terrace deposits; unconsolidated and semi- consolidated and (2) older alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits (CGS 2015).
TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE
The majority of the Plan Area is relatively flat, with the natural topography generally trending from the northeast towards the southwest. Elevations range from approximately 260 to 320 feet above mean sea level. The historically natural, agricultural, and constructed flow for drainage channels predominately follows the northeast to southwest trend. However, because portions of the Plan Area were historically developed for agricultural use, there are also many subchannels designed to transport water in a northwest-southeast direction.
GROUNDWATER
Within the city of Fresno, groundwater has been encountered near the surface in the vicinity of existing ponds, lakes, ditches, and canals, to depths greater than 100 feet below the ground surface. Review of groundwater elevation data from the California Department of Water Resources dating from the 1950s to 2019 indicates that depth to groundwater in the City of Fresno ranged from 0 feet to greater than 100 feet below the ground surface (City of Fresno 2020).
SOILS
Table 4.7-1 presents a summary of the soil series present in the Plan Area. As shown in Table 4.7-1, the dominant soil series are Hesperia, which makes up 64 percent of the Plan Area, and Hanford, which makes up 22 percent of the Plan Area. Both of these soil series have a negligible to low surface runoff potential and moderately rapid to rapid permeability. Soil types in the Plan Area are shown in Figure 4.7-1.
Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
4.7-6 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Table 4.7-1 Soil Types
Soil Series Description Permeability Surface Runoff
Potential
Percent of
Plan Area
Atwater Very deep, well-drained soils formed in granitic alluvium. Moderately rapid Slow <1%
Borden Moderately well- to well-drained fine-loamy soil. Moderately slow to slow Slow 3%
Delhi
Very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils formed in wind -modified material weathered from granitic rock sources and found on floodplains, alluvial fans, and terraces.
Rapid Negligible to
slow <1%
Dello Very deep, very poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium from granitic rock sources. Rapid Slow <1%
Exeter
Moderately deep, moderately well-drained soils that formed in alluvium mainly from granitic sources and found on alluvial fans and stream terraces.
Slow to
moderately slow
Slow to
medium <1%
Greenfield
Deep, well-drained soils that formed in moderately coarse and coarse textured alluvium derived from granitic and mixed rock sources and fount on alluvial fans and terraces.
Moderately
rapid
Slow to
medium 5%
Hanford
Very deep, well-drained soils that formed in moderately coarse textured alluvium dominantly from granite and found on stream bottoms, floodplains, and alluvial fans.
Moderately
rapid
Negligible to
low 22%
Hesperia Very deep, well-drained soils that formed in alluvium derived primarily from granite and related rocks and found on alluvial fans Rapid Negligible to low 64%
Madera
Moderately deep to hardpan, well- or moderately well-drained soils that formed in old alluvium derived from granitic rock sources and found on undulating low terraces.
Very slow Medium to
very slow 3%
Pachappa Well-drained soils developed from moderately coarse textured alluvium and found on gently sloping alluvial fans and flood plains. Moderate Very slow <1% Ramona Well-drained, fine-loamy soil. Moderately slow Slow to Rapid <1% Tujunga
Very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in alluvium from granitic sources and found on alluvial fans and floodplains, including urban areas.
NA Negligible to
low <1%
Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service n.d.
Ascent Environmental Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.7-7
Source: adapted by Ascent in 2023
Figure 4.7-1 Soil Types in the South Central Specific Plan Area
Ascent Environmental Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.7-9
EROSION
Erosion is the general process whereby rocks and soils are broken down, removed by weathering, or fragmented and then deposited in other places by water or air. The rate of erosion depends on many variables, including the soil or rock texture and composition, soil permeability, slope, extent of vegetative cover, and precipitation amounts and patterns. Erosion increases with increasing slope and precipitation and with decreasing vegetative cover, which includes areas where protective vegetation has been removed by fire, construction, or cultivation.
Based on maps provided in the Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Plan Area is not within an area of steep slopes or within a generalized erosion hazard area (Fresno County 2018: Figure 4.25 and Figure 4.26). Areas with moderately high to high erosion potential in Fresno County include areas of certain soil types in the Sierra Nevada and the foothills that generally coincide with slopes that exceed 30 percent . Within the valley, areas with severe erosion potential include areas around and east of the Fresno Slough and areas along the San Joaquin River Bluff. In western Fresno County, areas located primarily west of Interstate 5 in the Coast Range foothills are also subject to moderate to severe erosion potential.
SUBSIDENCE
Land subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of an area with very little horizontal motion. Subsidence can be induced by both natural and human phenomena. Natural phenomena include shifting of tectonic plates and dissolution of limestone resulting in sinkholes. Subsidence related to human activity includes pumping water, oil, and gas from underground reservoirs; collapse of underground mines; drainage of wetlands; and soil compaction.
Based on maps provided in the Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Plan Area is not within an area of subsidence. The nearest areas of subsidence are located in western Fresno County, over 20 miles west and southwest of the Plan Area (Fresno County 2018: Figure 4.23).
EXPANSIVE SOILS
Expansive soils (also known as shrink-swell soils) are soils that contain expansive clay minerals that can absorb significant amounts of water. The presence of these clay minerals makes the soil prone to large changes in volume in response to changes in water content. When an expansive soil becomes wet, water is absorbed and it increases in volume, and as the soil dries it contracts and decreases in volume. This repeated change in volume over time can produce enough force and stress on buildings, underground utilities, and other structures to damage foundations, pipes, and walls.
The Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies generalized locations within Fresno County where soils exhibit moderately high to high expansion potential. Expansive soils within Fresno County generally occur in a northwest-southeast-trending belt approximately parallel to the Friant-Kern Canal and Sierra Nevada foothills in Kings Canyon National Park in the Sierra Nevada, along the Fresno Slough from Madera County to Kings County, and roughly parallel to the San Luis Drain west of the community of Tranquility and the City of San Joaquin. Soils with moderately high to high expansion potential are not located within the Plan Area (Fresno County 2018: Figure 4.29).
MASS WASTING AND LANDSLIDES
Mass wasting refers to the collective group of processes that characterize down slope movement of rock and unconsolidated sediment overlying bedrock. These processes include landslides, slumps, rockfalls, flows, and creeps.
Many factors contribute to the potential for mass wasting, including geologic conditions as well as the drainage, slope, and vegetation of the site.
The Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies areas within Fresno County with moderate to high risk of landslide hazards. Landslide hazard areas within Fresno County are concentrated in the foothill and mountain areas where fractured and steep slopes are present (i.e., the Sierra Nevada), areas where less consolidated or weathered Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
4.7-10 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
soils overlie bedrock (e.g., the Coast Range), and areas where inadequate ground cover accelerates erosion (e.g., along the San Joaquin River). The central portion of Fresno County, including the Plan Area, is at low risk for landslides (Fresno County 2018: Figure 4.23). The topography within the Plan Area is relatively flat; therefore, the probability of a landslide is considered nonexistent.
SEISMICITY
Most earthquakes originate along fault lines. A fault is a fracture in the Earth’s crust along which rocks on one side are displaced relative to those on the other side due to shear and compressive crustal stresses. Most faults are the result of repeated displacement that may have taken place suddenly and/or by slow creep (Bryant and Hart 2007).
The state of California has a classification system that designates faults as either active, potentially active, or inactive, depending on how recently displacement has occurred along them. Faults that show evidence of movement within the last 11,000 years (the Holocene epoch) are considered active, and faults that have moved between 11,000 and 1.6 million years ago (comprising the later Pleistocene geologic period) are considered potentially active.
Seismic hazards resulting from earthquakes include surface fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and lateral spreading. Each of these potential hazards is discussed in the sections below.
Surface Fault Rupture
Surface rupture is the surface expression of movement along a fault. Structures built over an active fault can be torn apart if the ground ruptures. The potential for surface rupture is based on the concepts of recency and recurrence.
Surface rupture along faults is generally limited to a linear zone a few meters wide. The Alquist-Priolo Act (see Section 4.7.1, “Regulatory Setting”) was created to prohibit the location of structures designed for human occupancy across, or within 50 feet of, an active fault, thereby reducing the loss of life and property from an earthquake. Based on mapping by the California Geological Survey, no known active faults have been identified within or adjacent to the city of Fresno. The nearest active fault is the Nunez Fault, an Alquist-Priolo fault trace that is located over 50 miles southwest of the Plan Area centered near Coalinga (CGS 2021).
Ground Shaking
The intensity of seismic shaking, or strong ground motion, during an earthquake is dependent on the distance and direction from the epicenter of the earthquake, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the geologic conditions of the surrounding area. Ground shaking could potentially result in the damage or collapse of buildings and other structures.
According to the Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, most of Fresno County is situated within an area of relatively low seismic activity. The faults and fault systems that lie along the eastern and western boundaries of Fresno County, as well as other regional faults, have the potential to produce high -magnitude earthquakes and moderate intensity ground shaking throughout Fresno County. Two historic earthquakes that caused very strong ground shaking in the region are the Owens Valley Earthquake of 1872 and the Coalinga Earthquake of 1983 (Fresno County 2018).
The valley portion of Fresno County is located on alluvial deposits, which tend to experience greater ground shaking intensities than areas located on hard rock. Therefore, structures in the valley areas would tend to suffer greater damage from ground shaking than those located in the foothill and mountain areas. Most of Fresno County, from approximately Interstate 5 east, is located in Seismic Zone 3, as defined by the most recent CBC (Fresno County 2018).
Seismic ground shaking is expected in the Plan Area over the lifetime of the proposed plan implementation.
Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
Liquefaction is a process whereby soil is temporarily transformed to a fluid form during intense and prolonged ground shaking. Areas most prone to liquefaction are those that are water saturated (e.g., where the water table is less than 30 feet below the surface) and consist of relatively uniform sands that are loose to medium density. In addition to necessary soil conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must be of sufficient energy to induce liquefaction. Scientific studies have shown that the ground acceleration must approach 0.3g (where Ascent Environmental Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.7-11
g is defined as the acceleration due to Earth's gravity, equivalent to g-force) before liquefaction occurs in a sandy soil with relative densities typical of the San Joaquin alluvial deposits.
According to the Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, no specific countywide assessments to identify liquefaction hazards have been performed. Review of groundwater elevation data from the California Department of Water Resources dating from the 1950s to 2019 indicates that depth to groundwater in the City of Fresno ranged from 0 feet to greater than 100 feet below the ground surface (City of Fresno 2020). However, soil types in the region are generally not conducive to liquefaction, because they are either too coarse or too high in clay content. Within Fresno County, areas subject to 0.3g acceleration or greater are located in a small section of the Sierra Nevada along the Fresno-Inyo border and along the Coast Range foothills in western Fresno County (Fresno County 2018).
The predominant soils within the city of Fresno consist of varying combinations of loose/very soft to very dense/hard silts, clays, sands, and gravels. Groundwater has been encountered near the ground surface in close proximity to water-filled features such as canals, ditches, ponds, and lakes. Based on these characteristics, the potential for soil liquefaction within the city ranges from very low to moderate due to the variable density of the subsurface soils and the presence of shallow groundwater (City of Fresno 2020).
Liquefaction may also lead to lateral spreading. Lateral spreading (also known as expansion) is the horizontal movement or spreading of soil toward an “open face,” such as a streambank, the open side of fill embankments, or the sides of levees. Lateral spreading often occurs in response to liquefaction of soils in an adjacent area. The potential for failure from lateral spreading is highest in areas where there is a high groundwater table, where there are relatively soft and recent alluvial deposits, and where creek banks are relatively high. Because the Plan Area is on flat terrain and relatively distant from the San Joaquin River, lateral spreading caused by liquefaction is not expected to be a concern within the Plan Area.
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Based on a review of geological maps, the city of Fresno is underlain with Quaternary alluvium with two primary surficial deposits: 1) Pleistocene non-marine and, 2) Quaternary non-marine fan deposits. The Pleistocene non-marine deposits have been more recently referred to as the Riverbank Formation, and are considered to have hi gh paleontological sensitivity. The Quaternary non-marine terrace deposits consist of undifferentiated Pleistocene- Holocene alluvial sediments and are also considered to have high paleontological sensitivity. Paleontological specimens have been recorded in surrounding Fresno County, but none have been recorded within the Fresno metropolitan area, including the Plan Area (City of Fresno 2020).
MINERAL RESOURCES
The Plan Area is included in a mineral land classification report for the Fresno region, as mapped by the California Division of Mines and Geology (now the California Geological Survey). The Plan Area is classified under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 as MRZ-3, which encompasses areas that contain mineral deposits, but the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data (California Division of Mines & Geology 1986).
Under Fresno’s Citywide Development Code, the Mining (M) Overlay District was established to allow ongoing mineral extraction in the San Joaquin River bottom in conjunction with open space uses. The City of Fresno permits mining and quarrying only within this overlay district, which is concentrated along the San Joaquin River corridor. The Plan Area is located approximately 9 miles south of the nearest point of the San Joaquin River and is not within the City’s Mining (M) Overlay District. No portions of the Plan Area are currently used for mineral resource extraction.
Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
4.7-12 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.7.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
METHODOLOGY
The examination of geology, soils, and mineral resources is based on information obtained from reviews of:
the description of the proposed plan;
available literature, including documents published by the City of Fresno, Fresno County, State and federal agencies, and published information dealing with geotechnical conditions in the San Joaquin Valley; and applicable elements from the City of Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno 2022) and the PEIR prepared for the General Plan (City of Fresno 2020).
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
An impact related to geology, soils, and mineral resources would be significant if implementation of the proposed plan would:
directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death through the rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic shaking, seismic- related ground failure, soil liquefaction, or landslides;
result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse ; be located on expansive soil, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property; have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water; directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state; or
result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
Septic Tanks and Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems Septic tanks and alternative wastewater systems would not be installed within the P lan Area. In compliance with Fresno Municipal Code Section 6-303 – Sewer Connection Required, future development would connect with the City of Fresno’s municipal sewer system. Therefore, implementation of the proposed plan would not have any significant impacts related to soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. This issue is not discussed further in this Draft EIR.
Mineral Resources
As described in Section 4.7.2, “Environmental Setting,” the Plan Area is not within the City’s Mining (M) Overlay District and no portions of the Plan Area are currently used for mineral resource extraction. Land use designations within the Plan Area include a mixture of industrial, commercial, agriculture, public facility, and open space land uses, which preclude the extraction of mineral resources within the Plan Area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Ascent Environmental Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.7-13
plan would not have any significant impacts related to the loss of availability of mineral resources or important mineral resource recovery sites. This issue is not discussed further in this Draft EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.7-1: Directly or Indirectly Cause Potential Substantial Adverse Effects Involving Fault Rupture, Strong Seismic Ground Shaking, or Seismic Related Ground Failure The Plan Area is not susceptible to surface fault rupture and landslides. Development under the proposed plan would be required to comply with CBC and the City of Fresno’s Municipal Code requirements, which include preparing and incorporating the recommendations of site-specific geotechnical and engineering reports. Compliance with the CBC and the City of Fresno’s Municipal Code would minimize hazards from seismic ground shaking and seismic- related ground failure. Therefore, the impact related to the potential to expose people or structures to substantial adverse impacts from seismic ground-shaking or related ground failure would be less than significant.
The following sections describe the potential for implementation of the proposed plan to expose people or structures to substantial adverse impacts from seismic hazards, including rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic shaking, seismic-related ground failure, soil liquefaction, and landslides.
Surface Fault Rupture
As discussed in Section 4.7.2, “Environmental Setting,” there are no active faults within the Plan Area. The nearest active fault is the Nunez Fault, an Alquist-Priolo fault trace that is located over 50 miles southwest of the Plan Area (CGS 2021). Therefore, implementation of the proposed plan would not place new development within an active fault zone and would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse impacts from surface fault rupture. No impact would occur.
Strong Seismic Shaking
As discussed in Section 4.7.2, “Environmental Setting,” seismic ground shaking is expected in the Plan Area over the lifetime of proposed plan implementation. Proposed projects in the Plan Area would be designed to withstand strong ground shaking, because all built projects are required to comply with the CBC , as incorporated in Section 11-101 of the City of Fresno’s Municipal Code, along with the City’s amendments included in Municipal Code Section 11 -102. In addition, development within the Plan Area would be required to comply with General Plan Policy NS-2-a, which requires new construction to incorporate seismic protection in accordance with the Fresno Municipal Code, and Policy NS-2-b, which requires the preparation of a soil analysis and mitigation plan for development in areas with potential geologic and soils hazards. Implementation of these requirements would be enforced through the City’s building permit process. Compliance with these regulatory requirements would ensure that structures are built to meet seismic building codes and that the potential effects of seismic ground shaking from development under the proposed plan would be minimized. Therefore, implementation of the proposed plan would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse impacts from seismic ground shaking and t his impact would be less than significant.
Seismic-Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction
As discussed in Section 4.7.2, “Environmental Setting,” no specific countywide assessments to identify liquefaction hazards have been performed, but the potential for soil liquefaction within the c ity of Fresno is expected to range from very low to moderate due to the variable density of the subsurface soils and the presence of shallow groundwater (City of Fresno 2020).
As noted above, all built projects would be required to comply with the CBC, as incorporated in Section 11-101 of the City of Fresno’s Municipal Code, along with the City’s amendments included in Municipal Code Section 11 -102. The CBC requires preparation of a site-specific geotechnical engineering investigation for new development, which would contain recommendations to reduce seismic, geologic, and soils hazards. Based on the findings of the geotechnical engineering investigation, new development would incorporate appropriate standard engineering practices and specifications to minimize risk of structural failure in a seismic event and would reduce secondary effects that may Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
4.7-14 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
occur as a result. Implementation of these standard engineering practices and specifications would be enforced through the City’s building permit process. Compliance with these regulatory requirements would ensure that the potential effects of seismic-related ground failure from development under the proposed plan would be minimized.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed plan would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse impacts from seismic-related ground failure and this impact would be less than significant.
Landslides
As discussed in Section 4.7.2, “Environmental Setting,” the central portion of Fresno County, including the Plan Area , is at low risk for landslides (Fresno County 2018: Figure 4.23). The topography within the Plan Area is relatively flat and the probability of a landslide is considered nonexistent. Therefore, implementation of the proposed plan would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse impacts from landslides. No impact would occur.
Summary
Based on the above discussion, implementation of the proposed plan would have no impact related to surface fault rupture and landslides. Because the proposed project would comply with the requirements of the CBC, which include preparing a site-specific geotechnical and engineering report and incorporating the appropriate standard engineering practices and specifications, hazards related to seismic ground shaking and seismic- related ground failure would be minimized. Therefore, the potential to expose people or structures to substantial adverse impacts from seismic or geologic hazards would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.
Impact 4.7-2: Result in Substantial Soil Erosion or the Loss of Topsoil Development associated with implementation of the proposed plan could result in soil erosion. For any construction activities that disturb greater than one acre of soil, project proponents would be required to prepare a SWPPP and implement BMPs designed to control stormwater runoff and reduce erosion from construction sites. In addition, construction activities would be subject to SJVAPCD rules regarding dust control, which would reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation. Further, individual projects meeting specific criteria would be required to incorporate post-construction stormwater management strategies to reduce the potential for erosion from new development and redevelopment. Therefore, the impact related to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than
significant.
As discussed in Section 4.7.2, “Environmental Setting,” the Plan Area is not within an area of steep slopes or within a generalized erosion hazard area. However, development under the proposed plan involving substantial ground disturbance and earth-moving activities or changes to drainage patterns would have potential to result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The following sections describe the potential for implementation of the proposed plan to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during construction and operation of new development or redevelopment projects.
Construction
Future construction activities that would occur as a result of individual projects implemented under the proposed plan would be subject to compliance with the Clean Water Act. For any projects that disturb greater than one acre of soil, project proponents would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit. As described in Section 4.7.1, “Regulatory Setting,” the NPDES Construction General Permit requires development and implementation of a SWPPP that identifies BMPs designed to control stormwater runoff and reduce erosion and sedimentation. Specifically, BMPs may include silt fences, sedimentation ponds, erosion control blankets, vegetative covers, and soil binders. A SWPPP may also identify sediment and erosion controls for areas where permanent or post-construction stormwater controls (e.g., bioretention ponds and swales) would be constructed.
Construction activities would also be subject to SJVAPCD Regulation VIII/Rule 8011 and Rule 8021 governing dust control, as described in Section 4.7.1, “Regulatory Setting.” Although these rules were adopted for the purpose of Ascent Environmental Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.7-15
reducing air pollutant emissions in the form of fugitive dust, these rules and regulations have the added benefit of stabilizing soils at construction sites in a manner that reduces the potential for wind erosion and sedimentation. In compliance with Rule 8011, project proponents would be required to implement dust control measures at construction sites, prior to any excavation and earthmoving activities, during bulk material handling, storage, and transport, and prior to vehicle movement on unpaved roads. Dust control measures may include applying water before and during earthwork and onto unpaved traffic areas, phasing work to limit dust, applying dust suppressants and establishing vegetative cover on areas of disturbed land, and limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads. Under Rule 8021, projects meeting certain criteria (identified in Section 4.7.1) would also be required to implement a Dust Control Plan.
Because project proponents would be required to comply with Central Valley RWQCB and SJVAPCD requirements, which include implementation of a project-specific SWPPP with BMPs designed to control stormwater runoff and reduce erosion and implementation of dust control measures, substantial soil erosion would not result during construction of projects implemented as part of the proposed plan.
Operation
Areas of new development or redevelopment implemented under the proposed plan would generally be hardscaped and landscaped, which would minimize the area of bare ground that could be subject to wind erosion. However, projects that increase impervious surfaces within the Plan Area could alter topographic features at individual project sites. The alteration of topographic features could lead to increased erosion by creating unstable rock or soil surfaces, changing the permeability or runoff characteristics of the soil, or modifying or creating new pathways for drainage.
Because much of the Plan Area is relatively flat and the locations of projects that would substantially alter topography are limited, there would be minimal geotechnical effects related to erosion.
Implementation of the proposed plan could result in larger development or redevelopment projects that would meet the criteria of a Priority Development Project (e.g., 100,000-square-foot industrial/commercial development, automotive repair shops, parking lots with 5,000 square feet or more or with 25 or more parking space ). Under the NPDES MS4 Permit, these projects would be required to implement minimum management practices, control techniques, and design and engineering methods to reduce pollutant discharges from areas of new development and redevelopment. These stormwater management strategies are intended to reduce water pollution from point sources, such as pollution caused by soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Under the NPDES MS4 Permit, project applicants must also demonstrate that post-project conditions would approximate the pre-project erosive effect of sediment transporting flows in receiving waters. As also required under the NPDES MS4 Permit , project applicants must demonstrate that project design features would be protective of the natural drainage systems from erosion, incision, and sedimentation that can occur as a result of flow increases from impervious surfaces and damage stream habitat in natural drainage systems. Examples of stormwater management strategies include low impact development design features intended to maintain natural drainage and reduce pervious surfaces (e.g., bioretention planters, vegetated swales, infiltration basins, and porous pavement).
As applicable, project proponents would also be required to comply with provisions of the City of Fresno Municipal Code governing erosion. For example, Sections 12-1022 and 12-1023 require subdividers to submit grading plans and a soils report to the City of Fresno Planning and Development Department for verification prior to Final Map approval. Section 15-2304 requires that landscape plans be submitted with permit applications, which would identify proposed landscape elements and measures to control erosion.
Because project proponents would be required to implement design features that would reduce the potential for erosion or loss of topsoil in accordance with the NPDES MS4 permit and applicable municipal regulations, substantial soil erosion would not result during the operation of projects implemented as part of the proposed plan.
Summary
Based on the above discussion, compliance with existing regulations would ensure the construction and operation of individual development projects implemented under the proposed plan would reduce the potential of erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, the potential to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
4.7-16 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.
Impact 4.7-3: Be Located on a Geologic Unit or Soil That Is Unstable, or That Would Become Unstable as a Result of Specific Plan Development Resulting in Landslide, Lateral Spreading, Subsidence, Liquefaction, or Collapse
Based on its topography and soil characteristics, the Plan Area is not susceptible to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. Development under the proposed plan would be required to comply with CBC and the City of Fresno’s Municipal Code requirements, which include preparing and incorporating the recommendations of site - specific geotechnical and engineering reports. Compliance with the CBC and the City of Fresno’s Municipal Code, enforced through the City’s building permit process, would minimize potential hazards related to liquefaction.
Therefore, the impact related to the potential for these hazards would be less than significant.
As discussed in Section 4.7.2, “Environmental Setting,” the Plan Area is not susceptible to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse because of its soil characteristics and relatively flat topography. Impact 4.7-1 above discusses the potential for implementation of the proposed plan to result in hazards related to liquefaction. As noted above, all built projects are required to comply with the CBC, as incorporated in Section 11 -101 of the City of Fresno’s Municipal Code, along with the City’s amendments included in Municipal Code Section 11 -102. The CBC requires preparation of site-specific geotechnical engineering investigations for new development, which contain recommendations to reduce seismic, geologic, and soils hazards. Based on the findings of project-specific geotechnical engineering investigations, new development would incorporate appropriate standard engineering practices and specifications to minimize risk of structural failure from landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse.
Implementation of these standard engineering practices and specifications would be enforced through the City’s building permit process. Compliance with these regulatory requirements would ensure that the potential effects of unstable geologic units or soils from development under the proposed plan would be minimized. Therefore, implementation of the proposed plan would not locate new development on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the development, such that landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse would result. This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.
Impact 4.7-4: Be Located on Expansive Soil, Creating Substantial Direct or Indirect Risks to Life or Property
Based on source materials reviewed, there is no evidence that the Plan Area contains soils with moderately high to high expansion potential. Regardless, future development implemented in accordance with the proposed plan would comply with CBC and the City of Fresno’s Municipal Code requirements, which include preparing and incorporating the recommendations of a site-specific geotechnical and engineering report. Compliance with the CBC and the City of Fresno’s Municipal Code, enforced through the City’s building permit process, would minimize hazards related to expansive soils, if found to be present. Therefore, the potential to create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property from locating project facilities on expansive soils would be less than significant.
As discussed in Section 4.7.2, “Environmental Setting,” the Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies generalized locations of expansive soils within the county and none were identified within the Plan Area. Regardless, all built projects would be required to comply with the CBC, as incorporated in Section 11-101 of the Fresno Municipal Code, and amendments included in Municipal Code Section 11-102. The CBC requires preparation of a site-specific geotechnical engineering investigation for each new development, which would contain recommendations to reduce seismic, geologic, and soils hazards. Based on the findings of the geotechnical engineering investigation, new development would incorporate appropriate standard engineering practices and specif ications to minimize risks from Ascent Environmental Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.7-17
expansive soils, if expansive soils are determined to be present. Implementation of these standard engineering practices and specifications would be enforced through the City’s building permit process. Compliance with these regulatory requirements would ensure that the potential effects from development on expansive soils under the proposed plan would be minimized. Therefore, implementation of the proposed plan would not create substantial risks to life or property from locating development on expansive soil and this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.
Impact 4.7-5: Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site or Unique Geologic Feature
Construction of future development projects under the proposed plan could require ground disturbance within previously undisturbed soils and in areas of high sensitivity for paleontological resources. Such development has the potential to destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. This impact would be potentially significant.
As discussed in Section 4.7.2, “Environmental Setting,” paleontological specimens have not been recorded within the Fresno metropolitan area, including the Plan Area (City of Fresno 2020). However, geologic deposits that underlie the Plan Area (Pleistocene non-marine deposits and Quaternary non-marine terrace deposits) may have a high paleontological sensitivity.
Future development under the proposed plan would require ground-disturbing activities throughout the Plan Area. It is anticipated that excavation would be primarily limited to areas of previous ground disturbance, including areas that have been previously developed with industrial, commercial, agriculture, and public facility land uses. However, future development may occur in areas of high paleontological sensitivity and within previously undisturbed soils. If previously undiscovered paleontological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, damage to or destruction of a paleontological resource would be considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 4.7-5: Follow Procedures to Protect Paleontological Resources After preliminary review by the City of grading plans for development within the Plan Area, if there is evidence that a project will include excavation or construction activities within previously undisturbed soils, a field survey and literature search for unique paleontological resources and unique geologic features shall be conducted. The following procedures shall be followed:
If paleontological resources and unique geologic features are not found during either the field survey or literature search, excavation and/or construction activities can commence. In the event that paleontological resources or unique geologic features are discovered during excavation and/or construction activities, construction shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified paleontologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified paleontolo gist shall make recommendations to the City on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds. If the resources are determined to be significant, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any paleontological resources and unique geologic features recovered as a result of mitigation shall be provided to a City -approved institution or person who is capable of providing long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. If paleontological resources or unique geologic features are found during the field survey or literature review, the resources shall be inventoried and evaluated for significance. If the resources are found to be significant, the Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
4.7-18 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
qualified paleontologist shall identify mitigation measures. Such measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds. In addition, appropriate mitigation for excavation and construction activitie s in the vicinity of the resources found during the field survey or literature review shall include a paleontological monitor.
The qualified paleontologist shall determine the monitoring period. If additional paleontological/geological resources are found during excavation and/or construction activities, the procedure identified above for the discovery of unknown resources shall be followed.
Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation 4.7-5 would require project proponents to conduct paleontological records searches and surveys for any project activities that would disturb native soils and to follow specific procedures in the event that paleontological resources and unique geologic features are found, which would minimize the potential for damage or destruction of a paleontological resource or unique geologic feature. Therefore, Mitigation 4.7 -5 would reduce project impacts on paleontological resources and unique geologic features to a less-than-significant level.
Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.8-1
4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
This section presents a summary of regulations applicable to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a summary of climate change science and GHG sources in California, quantification of the estimated GHG emissions from assumed development under the plan, and discussion about their contribution to global climate change.
Comments were submitted during the NOP comment period from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the California Department of Justice. Both CARB and the California Department of Justice recommended measures that would reduce the contribution of GHG emissions from future plan development to global climate change. Impacts related to GHG emissions from implementation of the proposed plan are discussed in Section 4.8.3, “Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures,” and mitigation is recommended for significant impacts.
4.8.1 Regulatory Setting
FEDERAL
There are no federal laws that pertain to the GHG analysis for the proposed plan. All laws pertaining to the assessment of GHG emissions come from State and local agencies, as described below.
STATE
Statewide GHG Emission Targets and Climate Change Scoping Plan Reducing GHG emissions in California has been the focus of the state government for approximately two decades.
GHG emission targets established by the state legislature include reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (AB 32 of 2006) and reducing them to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (SB 32 of 2016). Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 calls for statewide GHG emissions to be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This target was superseded by AB 1279 in 2022, which codifies a goal for carbon neutrality and reduction of emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. These targets are in line with the scientifically established levels needed in the U.S. to limit the rise in global temperature to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, the warming threshold at which major climate disruptions, such as super droughts and rising sea levels, are projected; these targets also pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius (United Nations 2015).
CARB adopted the Final 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) on December 16, 2022, which traces the state’s the pathway to achieve its carbon neutrality and an 85 percent reduction from 1990 emissions goal by 2045 using a combined top-down, bottom-up approach under various scenarios. It identifies the reductions needed by each GHG emission sector (e.g., transportation [including off -road mobile source emissions], industry, electricity generation, agriculture, commercial and residential, pollutants with high global warming potential, and recycling and waste) to achieve these goals.
The state has also passed more detailed legislation addressing GHG emissions associated with transportation, electricity generation, and energy consumption, as summarized below.
Transportation-Related Standards and Regulations
CARB certified the Advanced Clean Cars II Program (ACC II Program) on August 25, 2022. The ACC II Program builds upon the existing ACC program and established more stringent zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) sales requirements for future benchmark years. As part of its Advanced Clean Cars program, CARB established more stringent GHG emission standards and fuel efficiency standards for fossil fuel–powered on-road vehicles than the US Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, the program’s ZEV regulation requires battery, fuel cell, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (EVs) to account for up to 15 percent of California’s new vehicle sales by 2025 (CARB 2018a). The ACC II Program also sets sales requirements for ZEVs to ultimately reach the goal of 100 percent ZEV sales in the state by 2035.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.8-2 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Executive Order B-48-18, signed into law in January 2018, requires all state entities to work with the private sector to have at least 5 million ZEVs on the road by 2030, as well as 200 hydrogen -fueling stations and 250,000 EV-charging stations installed by 2025. It specifies that 10,000 of these charging stations must be direct-current fast chargers.
CARB adopted the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) in 2007 to reduce the carbon intensity (CI) of California’s transportation fuels. Low-CI fuels emit less carbon dioxide (CO2) than other fossil fuel–based fuels such as gasoline and fossil diesel. The LCFS applies to fuels used by on-road motor vehicles and off-road vehicles, including construction equipment (Wade, pers. comm., 2017).
In addition to regulations that address tailpipe emissions and transportation fuels, the state legislature has passed regulations to address the amount of driving by on-road vehicles. Since passage of SB 375 in 2008, CARB requires metropolitan planning organizations to develop and adopt sustainable communities strategies (SCSs) as a component of the federally-prepared regional transportation plans (RTPs) to show reductions in GHG emissions from passenger cars and light-duty trucks in their respective regions for 2020 and 2035 (CARB 2018b). These plans link land use and housing allocation to transportation planning and related mobile -source emissions.
The Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) serves as the metropolitan planning organization for Fresno County. The FCOG was tasked by CARB to achieve a 5-percent per capita reduction compared to 2012 emissions by 2020 and a 10-percent per capita reduction by 2035, both of which CARB confirmed the region would achieve by implementing the RTP/SCS (CARB 2019). In March 2018, CARB promulgated revised targets tasking the FCOG to achieve a 6-percent and a 13-percent per capita reduction by 2020 and 2035, respectively (CARB 2018b). FCOG has not yet prepared an RTP/SCS to demonstrate that it will meet these targets.
CARB has also adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, which sets requirements for the transition of diesel trucks and vans to zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. CARB estimates that the regulation will lower related premature deaths.
Executive Order B-48-18, signed into law in January 2018, requires all state entities to work with the private sector to have at least 5 million ZEVs on the road by 2030, as well as 200 hydrogen -fueling stations and 250,000 EV-charging stations installed by 2025. It specifies that 10,000 of these charging stations must be direct-current fast chargers.
CARB adopted the LCFS in 2007 to reduce the CI of California’s transportation fuels. Low -CI fuels emit less CO 2 than
other fossil fuel–based fuels such as gasoline and fossil diesel. The LCFS applies to fuels used by on -road motor vehicles and off-road vehicles, including construction equipment (Wade, pers. comm., 2017).
SB 743 of 2013 required that the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) propose changes to the State CEQA Guidelines to address transportation impacts in transit priority areas and other areas of the state. In response, Section 15064.3 was added to CEQA in December 2018, requiring that transportation impacts no longer consider congestion but instead focus on the impacts of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). In support of these changes, OPR published its Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, which recommends that the transportation impact of a project be based on whether the project would generate a level of VMT per capita (or VMT per employee or some equivalent metric) that is 15 percent lower than that of existing development in the region, or that a different threshold is used based on substantial evidence (OPR 2017). OPR’s technical advisory explains that this criterion is consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21099, which states that the criteria for determining significance must “promote the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions” (OPR 2017). This metric is intended to replace the use of delay and level of service to measure transportation -related impacts. More detail about SB 743 is provided in the “Regulatory Setting” section of Section 3.12, “Transportation and Circulation.” Legislation Associated with Electricity Generation
The state has passed legislation requiring the increasing use of renewables to produce electricity for consumers.
California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program was established in 2002 (SB 1078) with the initial requirement that 20 percent of electricity retail sales be served by renewable sources by 2017, 33 percent by 2020 (SB X1-2 of 2011), 52 percent by 2027 (SB 100 of 2018), 60 percent by 2030 (also SB 100 of 2018), and 100 percent by 2045 (also SB 100 of 2018).
Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.8-3
Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) The energy consumption of new residential and nonresidential buildings in California is regulated by the California Energy Code. The code was established by California Energy Commission ( CEC) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and provide energy -efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. CEC updates the California Energy Code every 3 years, typically including more stringent design requirements for reduced energy consumption, which results in the generation of fewer GHG emissions.
The 2022 California Energy Code went into effect on January 1, 2023. The 2022 California Energy Code advances the on-site energy generation progress started in the 2019 California Energy Code by encouraging electric heat pump technology and use, establishing electric-ready requirements when natural gas is installed, expanding solar photo voltaic system and battery storage standards, and strengthening ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality.
CEC estimates that the 2022 California Energy Code will save consumers $1.5 billion and reduce GHGs by 10 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO
2e) over the next 30 years (CEC 2021).
California Green Building Standards (Title 24, Part 11) The California Green Building Standards Code, also known as CALGreen, is California’s first green building code and the nation’s first state-mandated green building code, and it applies to every newly constructed building or structure.
The current version is the 2022 CALGreen Code, which took effect on January 1, 2023. As compared to the 2019 CALGreen Code, the 2022 CALGreen Code strengthened sections pertaining to EV and bicycle parking, water efficiency and conservation, and material conservation and resource efficiency, among other sections of the CALGreen Code. The CALGreen Code sets design requirements equivalent to or more stringent than those of the California Energy Code for energy efficiency, water efficiency, waste diversion, and indoor air quality. These codes are adopted by local agencies that enforce building codes and used as guidelines by state agencies for meeting the requirements of Executive Order B-18-12.
Cap-and-Trade Program
In 2011, CARB adopted the cap-and-trade regulation thus creating the cap-and-trade program. The program covers sources of GHG emissions that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO 2e) per year in the State such as refineries, power plants, industrial facilities, and transportation fuels. The cap-and-trade program includes an enforceable state-wide emissions cap that declines approximately 3 percent annually. CARB distributes allowances, which are tradable permits, equal to the emissions allowed under the cap. Sources that reduce emissions more than their limits can auction carbon allowances to other covered entities through the cap- and-trade market.
Sources subject to the cap are required to surrender allowances and offsets equal to their emissions at the end of each compliance period (CARB 2012). The cap-and-trade program took effect in early 2012 with the enforceable compliance obligation beginning January 1, 2013. The cap-and-trade program was initially slated to sunset in 2020 but the passage of SB 398 in 2017 extended the program through 2030. Investments made by the cap-and-trade program are specifically designated to alleviate pollution burdened communities located in disadvantaged communities. The Plan Area is classified as a heavily pollution–burdened community by the California Environmental Protection Agency. See Section 4.3, “Air Quality,” for discussion of the existing air quality in the Plan Area.
LOCAL
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is the primary agency responsible for addressing air quality concerns in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which includes the City of Fresno. Its role is discussed further in Section 4.5, “Air Quality.” SJVAPCD also recommends methods for analyzing project-generated GHGs in CEQA analyses and offers multiple potential GHG reduction measures for land use development projects. SJVAPCD developed thresholds of significance to provide a uniform scale to measure the significance of GHG emissions from land use and stationary source projects in compliance with CEQA and AB 32. SJVAPCD’s goals in developing GHG thresholds include ease of implementation, use of standard analysis tools, and emissions mitigation consistent with Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.8-4 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
AB 32. However, SJVAPCD has not developed new thresholds since the passage of SB 32, which mandates a statewide emissions target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno 2022) establishes the following policies related to GHG and climate change that are relevant to the proposed plan:
Policy RC-5-c GHG Reduction through Design and Operations. Increase efforts to incorporate requirements for GHG emission reductions in land use entitlement decisions, facility design, and operational measures subject to City regulation through the following measures and strategies:
Promote the expansion of incentive-based programs that involve certification of projects for energy and water efficiency and resiliency. These certification programs and scoring systems may include public agency “Green” and conservation criteria, Energy Star™ certification, CALGreen Tier 1 or Tier 2, Leadership in Energy Efficient Design (LEED™) certification, etc.
Promote appropriate energy and water conservation standards and facilitate mixed -use projects, new incentives for infill development, and the incorporation of mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian amenities into public and private projects.
Require energy and water audits and upgrades for water conservation, energy efficiency, and mass transit, pedestrian, and bicycle amenities at the time of renovation, change in use, change in occupancy, and change in ownership for major projects meeting review thresholds specified in an implementing ordinance. Incorporate the City’s “Guidelines for Ponding Basin/Pond Construction and Management to Control Mosquito Breeding” as conditions of approval for any project using an on -site stormwater basin to prevent possible increases in vector-borne illnesses associated with global climate change. Periodically evaluate the City’s facility maintenance practices to determine whether there are additional opportunities to reduce GHGs through facility cleaning and painting, parks maintenance, road maintenance, and utility system maintenance.
City of Fresno Climate Action Plan
The City adopted its first greenhouse gas reduction plan (GHGRP) in 2014 and updated it in 2021 to extend its GHG reduction targets beyond 2020 to align with state reduction targets for 2030 as mandated by SB 32 , and 2035 to align with the horizon year of the general plan. The GHGRP forecasts emissions in the City using a business-as-usual (BAU) model that does not account for various statewide regulations that will reduce emissions in the City. To establish GHG reduction targets, an adjusted BAU (ABAU) that accounts for such regulations was also estimated.
Following this exercise, an emissions reduction target of reducing emissions by an additional 29,316 and 209,463 MTCO2e for 2030 and 2035, respectively, through local GHG reduction measures was established (City of Fresno 2020). These reductions represent a 1.5 and 11.6 percent reduction in all GHG emissions for 2030 and 2035, respectively. The GHGRP was prepared prior to the passage of AB 1279 (discussed above), which amended the previous targets under SB 32 to become more stringent (i.e., achieve carbon neutrality and an 85 percent reduction from a 1990 statewide GHG inventory by 2045). Future updates to the GHGRP would likely amend targets in consideration of this most recent statewide legislation; however, because the proposed plan has an extended operation year beyond 2030 and 2035, consistency with the GHGRP has not been used in this analysis, though it is appropriate for projects with a build-out year prior these targets. Rather, for this analysis, the 2022 Scoping Plan comprises the most appropriate plan for reducing GHG emissions and requests projects implement project design features that are comparable to what is currently required in the GHGRP.
Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.8-5
4.8.2 Environmental Setting
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface, and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected toward space. The absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth.
Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are CO 2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are found to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a tr end of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. The Sixth Assessment Report contains the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s strongest warnings to date on the causes and impacts of climate change. Importantly, the report notes that, in terms of solutions, “We need transformational change operating on processes and behaviors at all levels: individual, communities, business, institutions, and governments.
We must redefine our way of life and consumption.”
Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas most pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (approximately 1 day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (1 year to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere long enough to be dispersed around the globe. Although the lifetime of any GHG molecule depends on multiple variables and cannot be determined with any certainty, it is understood that more CO
2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, and other forms of sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions, approximately 55 percent are estimated to be sequestered through ocean and land uptake every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO
2 emissions remain stored in the atmosphere (IPCC 2013).
The quantity of GHGs in the atmosphere responsible for climate change is not precisely known, but it is considered to be enormous. No single project alone would measurably contribute to an incremental change in the global average temperature or to global or local climates or microclimates. From the standpoint of CEQA, GHG impacts relative to global climate change are inherently cumulative.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION SOURCES
The total GHG inventory for California in 2020 was 370 MMTCO2e (CARB 2022a). This is less than the 2020 target of 431 MMTCO2e. Table 4.8-1 summarizes the statewide GHG inventory for California by percentage. As shown in Table
4.8-1, transportation, industry, and in-state electricity generation are the largest GHG emission sectors.
Emissions of CO2 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from off - gassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices, landfills, and forest fires. Nitrous oxide is also largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. CO
2 sinks, or reservoirs, include vegetation and the ocean, which absorb CO2 through sequestration and dissolution (CO2 dissolving into the water) and are two of the most common processes for removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
Table 4.8-1 Statewide GHG Emissions by Economic Sector
Sector MMTCO2e Percent
Transportation 141 38%
Industrial 85 23%
Electricity (in state) 41 11%
Residential 33 9%
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.8-6 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Sector MMTCO2e Percent
Agriculture and Forestry 30 8%
Commercial 22 6%
Electricity (Imports) 19 5%
Total 370 100%
Note: MMTCO2e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Source: CARB 2022a.
A GHG inventory and emissions forecast for the City of Fresno is provided in the City’s GHGRP and summarized in Table 4.8-2. These emissions inventories demonstrate the business-as-usual projections for the City without consideration of statewide regulatory measures to reduce GHG emissions. Similar to statewide emissions trends, the transportation sector comprises the greatest GHG emission sector in the City.
Table 4.8-2 City of Fresno 2016 Inventory Update and Business-as-Usual Projections Emissions Sector
2016 2020 2030 2035
MTCO2e
Transportation 1,520,052 1,594,888 1,798,498 1,909,582
Commercial Energy 524,838 557,142 627,373 657,379
Residential Energy 479,371 514,053 579,546 603,951
Fugitive Emissions 270,130 288,573 335,316 357,008
Solid Waste 119,167 127,303 147,923 156,493
Industrial Energy 10,055 10,506 11,528 12,035
Agriculture Energy 20 20 20 20
Total 2,923,633 3,092,486 3,500,204 3,697,738
Notes: Totals may not equal the sum of the numbers because of independent rounding.
MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Source: City of Fresno 2020.
EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE ENVIRONMENT
The global average temperature is expected to increase by 3 to 7°F by the end of the century, depending on future GHG emission scenarios (IPCC 2014). According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, depending on future GHG emissions scenarios, average annual maximum daily temperatures in Californi a are projected to increase between 3.6 and 5.8°F by 2050 and by 5.6 to 8.8°F by 2100 (OPR et al. 2018).
Other environmental resources could be indirectly affected by the accumulation of GHG emissions and resulting rise in global average temperature. In recent years, California has been marked by extreme weather and its effects.
Climate model projections for California demonstrate that impacts will vary throughout the state and show a tendency for the northern part of the state to become wetter while the southern portion of California to become drier (Pierce et al. 2018).
According to California Natural Resources Agency’s (CNRA’s) report, Safeguarding California Plan:
2018 Update (CNRA 2018), California experienced the driest 4-year statewide precipitation on record from 2012 through 2015; the warmest years on average in 2014, 2015, and 2016; and the smallest and second smallest Sierra snowpack on record in 2015 and 2014 (CNRA 2018). Climate model projections included in California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment demonstrate that seasonal summer dryness in California may be prolonged due to earlier spring soil drying and would last longer into the fall and winter rainy season. Increases in temperature are also predicted to result in changes to California’s snowpack. Based on climate model projections, the mean snow water equivalent, a common measurement which indicates the amount of water contained within snowpack , in California is anticipated to Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.8-7
decline to two-thirds of its historic average by 2050 and between less than half and less than one-third of historic average by 2100, depending on future emissions scenarios (OPR et al. 2018).
Climate model projections demonstrate that California will experience variation in precipitation patterns as well. The Northern Sierra Nevada experienced its wettest year on record in 2016 (CNRA 2018). As temperatures increase, the increase in precipitation falling as rain rather than snow also could lead to increased potential for floods because water that would normally be held in the snowpack of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade mountains until spring will flow into the Central Valley concurrently with winter rainstorm events. This scenario will place more pressure on California’s levee/flood control system (CNRA 2018). As the climate continues to warm, extreme precipitation events in California will increase and could, subsequently, increase the probability of ‘mega-flood” events (Polade et al. 2017).
Climate change is also projected to result in tertiary impacts on energy infrastructure throughout California. Changes in temperature, precipitation patterns, extreme weather events, and sea -level rise have the potential to affect and decrease the efficiency of thermal power plants and substations, decrease the capacity of transmission lines, disrupt electrical demand, and threaten energy infrastructure with the increased risk of flooding (CNRA 2018).
According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, climate change will create impacts on the State’s transportation network that will have ‘ripple effects’ including direct and indirect impacts on inter -dependent infrastructure networks as well as negative impacts on the economy. Without appropriate adaptations strategies for roadway materials (i.e., asphalt and pavement), researchers estimate that the median total cost to California for 2040 - 2070 will be between $1 billion and $1.25 billion (OPR et al. 2018). The California Department of Transportation owns and operates more than 51,000 miles along 265 highways, as well as three of the busiest passenger rail lines in the nation. Sea level rise, storm surge, and coastal erosion are imminent threats to hi ghways, roads, bridge supports, airports, transit systems and rail lines near sea level and seaports. Shifting precipitation patterns, increased temperatures, wildfires, and increased frequency in extreme weather events also threaten transportation sy stems across the state. Temperature extremes and increased precipitation can increase the risk of road and railroad track failure, decrease transportation safety, and increase maintenance costs (CNRA 2018). Modeling for flood events in California demonstrates that approximately 370 miles of highways are susceptible to flooding in a 100 -year storm event by the year 2100 (OPR et al. 2018).
Water availability and changing temperatures affect the prevalence of pests, disease, and species, which will directly impact crop development, forest health, and livestock production. Other environmental concerns include decline in water quality, groundwater security, and soil health (CNRA 2018). Vulnerabilities of water resources also include risks to degradation of watersheds, alteration of ecosystems, and loss of habitat (OPR et al. 2018).
California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment also identifies the impacts climate change will have on public health and social systems. Average temperature increases in California are estimated to have impacts on human mortality, with 6,700 to 11,300 additional annual deaths in 2050, depending on higher or lower emissions scenarios ( Ostro et al. 2011). Studies have also shown that impacts from climate change can also have indirect impacts on public health, such as increased vector-borne diseases, and stress and mental trauma due to extreme events, economic disruptions, and residential displacement (Gould and Dervin 2012; McMichael and Lindgren 2011; US Global Change Research Program 2016).
4.8.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The issue of global climate change is inherently a cumulative issue because the GHG emissions of individual projects cannot be shown to have any material effect on global climate. Thus, the proposed plan ’s impact on climate change is addressed only as a cumulative impact.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 and relevant portions of Appendix G recommend that a lead agency consider a project’s consistency with relevant, adopted plans and discuss any inconsistencies with applicable regional plans, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.8-8 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
including plans to reduce GHG emissions. Under Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, implementing a project may result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to climate change if it would:
generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
With respect to GHG emissions, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 provides guidance to lead agencies for determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions. Section 15064.4(a) provides that a lead agency will make a good-faith effort based, to the extent possible, on scientific and factual data to describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project. Section 15064.4(a) further provides that a lead agency will have the discretion to determine, within the context of a particular project, whether to quantify GHG emissions from a project or rely on qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines in Section 15064.4(a), the analysis presented herein quantifies GHG emissions resulting from anticipated development under the plan through the planning horizon of 2040, and describes, calculates, and estimates those emissions. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b) provides that when assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions, a lead agency should focus the analysis on the incremental contribution of the project’s emissions to the effects of climate change and consider an appropriate timeframe for the project. The lead agency’s analysis should reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes and consider (1) the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions compared with existing conditions, (2) whether the project’s GHG emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project, and (3) the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. The analysis of the potential impacts from the proposed plan’s GHG emissions follows this approach.
The CEQA Guidelines do not provide numeric or quantitative thresholds of significance for evaluating GHG emissions.
Instead, they leave the determination of threshold significance up to the lead agency and provide it the discretion to consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or experts, provided that the lead agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.7[b] and 15064.7[c]). Additionally, any public agency may also use an environmental standard as a threshold of significance, as it would promote consistency in significance determination and integrate environmental review with other environmental program planning and regulations (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7[d]) .
In California, when numerical GHG thresholds are established, they are developed based on the overall statewide GHG emissions reduction targets that have been legislated but are adjusted based on anticipated growth and development in a particular region such that when a project meets the established threshold, it can be said that the project would also be consistent with the established state’s GHG target for which the threshold was based. The State’s targets are based on future milestone years (i.e., 2030, 2045, and 2050); thus, by default the local thresholds must also be based on the same targets.
EO B-55-18 establishes a goal to achieve statewide carbon neutrality as soon as possible and no later than 2045, and EO S-03-05 has set forth a long-term reduction target to reduce GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
AB 1279, which was signed into law on September 16, 2022, requires the state to achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced to at least 85 percent below the 1990 levels.
The proposed plan would develop over many years, with a planning horizon of 2040 established for meaningful environmental analysis. As mentioned above, SJVAPCD does not have GHG thresholds tied to future GHG target years (i.e., 2045, 2050); thus, given that the plan is anticipated to be built out beyond 2030, compliance with SJVAPCD’s GHG guidance alone would not be sufficient to demonstrate consistency with the established milestone years beyond 2030, so SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance are not applied to the GHG analysis.
Courts have ruled that although there are various potential thresholds and methodologies for evaluating project -level GHG emissions consistent with CEQA, use of statewide emission reduction goals is a permissible criterion of significance, so long as substantial evidence and reasoned explanation is provided to close the analytical gap Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.8-9
between the level of effort required at one scale (state level) to the level of effort required at another scale (e.g., a project level). The plan to achieve these statewide emission reduction goals is the 2022 Scoping Plan; comparing a project to the 2022 Scoping Plan can demonstrate whether a project is consistent or conflicts with statewide reduction targets and goals.
CEQA case law has identified the need to analyze both near-term and post-2020 emissions, as applicable, with the court stating that an “EIR taking a goal-consistency approach to CEQA significance may in the near future need to consider the project’s effects on meeting longer-term emissions reduction targets.” Moreover, analyses must use the best scientific information available and to determine whether planning decisions are consistent with state goals.
SJVAPCD’s thresholds are based on AB 32 statewide GHG target of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 as established by AB 32; however, AB 1279, which was signed into legislation in 2022, establishes a statewide target of achieving net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced to at least 85 percent below the 1990 levels.
As discussed in Section 4.8.1, “Regulatory Setting,” the City has an adopted GHGRP with established numerical targets for 2030 and 2035. The GHGRP was developed prior to the passage of AB 1279, which extends the state’s long-term GHG reduction targets beyond 2035. While future updates to the GHGRP would likely amend targets in consideration of this most recent statewide legislation, because the proposed plan has an extended operation year beyond 2030 and 2035, consistency with the GHGRP has not been used in this analysis, though it is appropriate for projects with a build-out year prior these targets. Rather, for this analysis, the 2022 Scoping Plan comprises the most appropriate plan for reducing GHG emissions and requests projects implement project design features that a comparable to what is currently required in the GHGRP.
The recently adopted 2022 Scoping Plan assesses progress toward the state’s statutory 2030 target, outlining different scenarios for achieving statewide carbon neutrality by 2045. In addition, the 2022 Scoping Plan identifies key GHG emissions sectors (i.e., building energy, transportation energy) for which local development should focus on reducing, referred to as priority areas. Appendix D, “Local Actions,” of the 2022 Scoping Plan provides lead agencies with guidance for the necessary project design features (or mitigation measures) needed in new development to further the state’s long-term GHG reduction goals established in AB 1279 including the elimination of on-site natural gas infrastructure, incorporation of the most recent version of the CALGreen Code’s Tier 2 EV charging requirements for residential and nonresidential land uses, and increasing VMT efficiency. These development standards are paramount as they provide the infrastructure needed to support California’s transition from fossil- fuel powered buildings and vehicles to ensure that the state can meet its long-term GHG reduction targets.
Notably, Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan is best applied to residential and mixed -use commercial projects rather than industrial development. Other air districts, such as SMAQMD, recommend a 10,000 MTCO 2e/year
threshold for stationary sources based on the reporting requirements of the Cap- and-Trade Program; however, while development under the proposed plan largely comprises industrial development, some of which could be regulated under the Cap-and-Trade Program, future industrial development may not be characterized as a stationary source subject to this reporting requirement (e.g., logistics centers, warehouses, distribution centers, some research and development). Therefore, SMAQMD’s 10,000 MTCO
2e/year threshold is not an applicable metric for determining the proposed plan’s overall significance. Thus, in lieu of an available numerical threshold, the Priority Areas of Appendix D have been applied in this analysis to determine the proposed plan’s potential to conflict with the state’s long-term GHG reduction goals.
Given the lack of an applicable threshold consistent with the state’s long-term GHG goals beyond 2030 and the lack of an applicable adopted local plan for the reduction of GHGs consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 with targets extending beyond 2035, the proposed plan’s GHG emissions are evaluated using the following approach as suggested by CARB in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan. GHG emissions that would be generated by development under the proposed plan are evaluated for each major emission sector identified by the 2022 Scoping Plan as primary focus areas that local development can address. To evaluate the significance of the proposed plan ’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.8-10 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
GHG emissions, the two CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist questions were applied. A GHG emissions impact would be significant if implementation of the proposed plan would:
generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (measured based on consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan), or conflict with any applicable plan (i.e., 2022 Scoping Plan), policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
It must also be considered that the proposed plan is programmatic in nature and would govern individual development projects. The policies included in the proposed plan meant to reduce GHG emissions, as well as the mitigation measures recommended herein, would be applied to future development projects once specific land use proposals have been developed. This analysis is intended to provide applicable mitigation that may be applied at the project level to ensure that future projects constructed within the purview of the proposed plan contribute their fair share in assisting the state in meeting its long-term GHG reduction goals as outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan.
METHODOLOGY
GHG emissions associated with the proposed plan would be generated during construction and during operation after the full buildout of the proposed plan’s land uses. Estimated levels of construction- and operation-related GHG emissions are presented below. The proposed project is evaluated for its consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan.
Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction-generated GHG emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2022.4.17 as recommended by SJVAPCD. Modeling was based on development assumptions (e.g., land use type, square footage); assumptions based on typical construction activities; and default values in CalEEMod that are based on the location of the Plan Area and land use types. Based on the anticipated construction period of 2024– 2040, annual average and worst-case annual development was modeled, using the anticipated square footage and land use types.
Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operation-related emissions of GHGs were estimated for the following sources: area sources (e.g., landscape maintenance equipment), energy use (i.e., electricity and natural gas consumption), water use, solid waste generated, and mobile sources. Operational mobile-source GHG emissions were modeled based on the estimated level of VMT for the Plan Area. VMT estimates were derived from data generated during the traffic impact analysis conducted for the proposed plan (see Section 4.15, “Transportation”). Mobile-source emissions were calculated using CalEEMod and project-specific trip generation and VMT. Indirect emissions associated with electricity and natural gas consumption were estimated using GHG emissions factors for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The proposed plan’s level of electricity and natural gas use, solid waste generation, and wastewater generation was based on CalEEMod defaults.
Detailed model assumptions and inputs for these calculations are presented in Appendix B.
PROPOSED SCSP POLICIES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The following policies from the proposed plan relate to the reduction of GHG emissions.
Trucks
T-3: Limit truck idling times.
Public Transit
T-4: Expand bus area service and frequency.
T-5: Provide van shuttles, transit and carpool incentives, and bicycle parking for employees.
Roadway Improvements
T-9: Install traffic control or traffic safety measures to include bike lanes Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.8-11
T-11: Install crosswalks and traffic calming measures near schools. T-13: Improve and maintain sidewalks
Vehicle/Equipment and Operation Standards
AQ-4: Increase electric vehicle charging stations and alternative fuel stations. AQ-5: Seek out funding sources to assist warehouses and industrial uses to transition to near-zero emissions technology.
AQ-6: Consider construction of near zero fueling stations (i.e., CNG/Hydrogen). AQ-7: Encourage commercial landscapers to use electric gardening equipment such as lawn mowers and leaf blowers.
Energy and Green Building
EGB-1: Reduce energy consumption and promote energy efficiency through education, conservation programs, building design/operation standards, and incentive programs. EGB-2: Incentivize private solar installations by providing information about financing and by expediting the permit process.
EGB-3: Encourage installation of solar panels, battery storage, and zero-emission backup electricity generators at distribution centers.
Water
W-5: Require new development to implement water conservation measures and to contribute towards expanded and upgraded facilities.
W-6: Reduce water consumption through education, conservation standards, landscaping standards, retrofit programs, and incentive programs.
In addition, the SCSP includes alternative energy development standards that would serve to reduce GHG emissions .
These include requirements for ZE (zero emission) motorized operational equipment; solar-ready building roofs and solar requirements for buildings over 400,000 square feet; solar-reflective roofing material; EV-ready passenger vehicle parking spaces, including some quick-charge EV; electric TRUs and provision of electrical infrastructure to accommodate them; bicycle racks with electric plugs for e-bikes; cool surface treatments; upsizing of electrical rooms to accommodate additional electrical panels; super-compliant volatile organic compound paints and coatings; recycling; and reasonable best efforts to deploy the highest rated CARB Tier technologies during construction .
ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
All issues pertaining to GHG emissions are evaluated in this EIR.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.8-12 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.8-1: Generate GHG Emissions, Either Directly or Indirectly, That May Have a Significant Impact on the Environment
The proposed plan would result in GHG emissions during both construction and operation of plan development implemented over the planning period. It would result in a less-than-significant VMT impact (i.e., 33 percent below a 2015 baseline), which would align with CARB’s direction in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan to reduce VMT statewide. However, the proposed plan would allow for natural gas usage for commercial, residential, and industrial land uses and does not provide a standard for future land uses to meet the Tier 2 voluntary requirements of the CALGreen Code. (Mitigation measures for air quality impacts [see section 4.3, “Air Quality] recommend prohibiting or severely reducing use of natural gas in plan development, but this analysis is based on potential effects prior to implementation of mitigation.) Therefore, the proposed plan would not align with CARB’s direction to decarboniz e buildings or electrify the mobile source sector. Therefore, the proposed plan would not be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan and would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with state GHG reduction goals. This impact would be significant.
GHG emissions associated with the proposed plan would be generated during both construction and operational activities, which are discussed separately, below.
Construction
Construction-related activities would generate GHG emissions from the use of heavy-duty off-road equipment, materials transport, and worker commute trips. Construction of assumed land uses under the proposed plan are anticipated to be built over a period of years, as described in more detail in Chapter 3, “Project Description.” Because no specific developments are proposed, modeling is based on reasonable assumptions relative to grading, paving, typical construction activities, and default values in CalEEMod that are based on the location of the proposed plan and land use types. Based on the extended period of development over the planning horizon (approximately 2024 – 2040) and guidelines developed by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), modeling conservatively assumed that 25 percent of the total development would be constructed in year 2024 (worst-case year), and construction of the remaining 75 percent would be evenly distributed over the remaining planning horizon, 2025 to 2040 (SMAQMD 2021). While SMAQMD is not the air district that governs air permitting and regional air quality planning in the Plan Area, its guidance regarding program -level analyses for general plans and area plans can be reasonably applied to projects outside of its jurisdiction.
This assumption was made to characterize a worst-case construction year in the absence of known projects and specific construction phasing. While it is unlikely that 25 percent of all the proposed land uses would be fully constructed within the span of one year, GHG emissions estimates were generated to provide a meaningful, albeit conservative representation of the level of emissions that could occur from highly intensive construction activity.
Moreover, 2024 was determined to be the most conservative year for estimating this buildout scenario as heavy-duty and on-road vehicle emissions associated with construction are anticipated to decline into the future from the deployment of various statewide regulations such as the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation and ACC II Program, among others, and can be used to represent the highest level of construction activity and highest emissions for any given year during buildout of the proposed plan. This methodology was also used for the analysis of construction - related criteria pollutants and ozone precursors (see Section 3.2, “Air Quality.”) Table 4.8-3, below, summarizes emissions for the worst-case and more average construction years, and provides an annual average, and annual maximum emissions estimate. Refer to Appendix B for construction assumptions and detailed input parameters and results.
Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.8-13
Table 4.8-3 Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Generated under the Proposed Plan Construction Year1 Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)
2024 2,999
2025-2040 507
Total 11,106
Average Annual 653
Maximum Annual 2,999
Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. 1 A worst-case construction year was identified by assuming 25 percent of the development projected over the planning period is constructed in year 2024; construction of remaining development was assumed to be evenly distributed through the remaining years.
Refer to Appendix B for construction assumptions and detailed input parameters and results.
Source: Modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2023.
As shown in Table 4.8-3, the maximum level of GHG emissions generated by development under the proposed plan in a worst-case single year of construction would be 2,999 MTCO2e and the annual average emissions would be 653 MTCO2e, based on reasonable assumptions. While neither CARB nor SJVAPCD have recommended thresholds for determining the significance of construction-generated emissions, other air districts, such as SMAQMD recommend that construction emissions be compared to a 1,100 MTCO2/year threshold of significance. SMAQMD’s threshold is tied to the state’s long-term GHG reduction goals, and, unlike air pollution which has localized and regional implications, GHGs are pollutants of global concern. Therefore, the location of where a GHG is emitted is irrelevant to its contribution to global climate change. Therefore, SMAQMD’s thresholds comprise a reasonable threshold for evaluating the magnitude of the proposed plan’s construction GHG emissions. In the absence of a district -specific or statewide threshold, 1,100 MTCO2/year is a reasonable metric by which to define significance as it is tied to meeting the state’s long-term GHG reduction targets set by EO B-30-15. While construction-related development standards would serve to reduce GHG emissions during the construction of future projects, it is unknown whether they would be sufficient to reduce emissions below this applicable threshold.
Operations
Operation of development under the proposed plan would generate long-term GHG emissions as a result of truck and vehicle trips, energy-source emissions from the consumption of natural gas, water-related energy consumption associated with water use and the conveyance and treatment of wastewater, and waste- generated emissions from disposal of solid waste.
Individual projects would be incrementally constructed and operational over the duration of the planning period, and for the purposes of analysis, the assumed level of development would be fully operational in 2040. Table 4.8-4 summarizes the projected operational GHG emissions for 2040.
Table 4.8-4 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Generated under the Proposed Plan (2040) Emissions Source1 GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/year)
Area 236
Energy 49,144
Mobile 124,035
Waste 5,871
Water 4,663
Refrigerant 30,205
Total Operational GHG Emissions 214,156
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding; GHG = greenhouse gas; MTCO2e/year = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. 1 Refer to Appendix B for operational assumptions and detailed input parameters and results.
Source: Modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2023.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.8-14 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
As shown above, when fully operational, the proposed plan would emit 214,156 MTCO2e/year through the planning period. As discussed under “Thresholds of Significance,” there is no numeric threshold developed by the City or SJVAPCD to evaluate a project’s contribution to climate change; therefore, the proposed plan’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan is used to determine whether implementing the plan would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to climate change.
Scoping Plan Consistency
As discussed under “Thresholds of Significance,” above, the 2022 Scoping Plan, the state’s adopted GHG reduction plan/strategy, is the applicable GHG reduction plan used to evaluate GHG emissions of the proposed plan. The 2017 Scoping Plan laid out the framework for achieving the 2030 statewide GHG reduction target of reducing statewide emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels and integrates various CARB regulations and strategies, including Cap - and-Trade, LCFS, SB 350, the Sustainable Freight Action Plan, the Mobile Source Strategy, and the Short -Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy. The 2022 Scoping Plan assesses progress towards achieving the SB 32 2030 target and builds upon earlier plans with a target of reducing anthropogenic emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels, as well as providing the framework to achieve statewide carbon neutrality by 2045 through the implementation of zero- emission technologies in every GHG-emitting sector, a substantial reduction in fossil fuel dependence, combined with investments in carbon capture and sequestration and nature-based solutions.
The 2022 Scoping Plan identified key actions necessary to achieve the state’s goals, including moving to zero - emission transportation; phasing out the use of fossil gas for heating homes and buildings; transitioning to low -GWP chemicals and refrigerants; providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit to reduce reliance on cars; continued investment in solar powered–infrastructure, wind turbine capacity, and other resources that provide clean, renewable energy to displace fossil-fuel fired electrical generation; and scaling up new renewable energy options that are available or may be available in the future.
Based on these key actions, Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan includes local action recommendations that align with the state’s climate strategies. Land use development projects that are consistent with these, either through on- site project design features or mitigation strategies, would support state-level measures to contain the growth of GHG emissions associated with the transportation system and built environment, which comprise the two largest GHG emissions sectors over which local governments (or in the context of the proposed plan, the City of Fresno) have the authority to govern.
The 2022 Scoping Plan categorizes the priority areas into Transportation Electrification, VMT Reduction, and Building Decarbonization and provides project attributes associated with each that are intended as a guide to help local jurisdictions qualitatively identify projects that are consistent with the state’s climate goals. The priority areas and associated attributes are summarized below in Table 4.8-5.
Using this qualitative approach, projects that include all of these key attributes would be consistent with the state’s climate goals; however, projects that incorporate some, but not all, of these attributes can also demonstrate consistency with the state’s climate goals. There are different pathways for the overarching priority areas, which can vary from project to project. Notably, these project attributes were developed for residential and residential mixed - use project types only, which are not emphasized in the proposed plan; thus, there may be project attributes associated with other project types that, if implemented, could also align with the overall intent of the 2022 Scoping Plan to reduce GHGs from the identified priority areas. Based on the above, the following analysis provides context as to whether development under the plan would align with the state’s overarching, long- term GHG reduction goals.
Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.8-15
Table 4.8-5 2022 Scoping Plan Key Project Attributes That Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Priority Areas Project Attribute
Transportation
Electrification
Provides EV charging infrastructure that, at minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary standard in the California Green Building Standards Code at the time of project approval VMT Reduction
Is located on infill sites that are surrounded by existing urban uses and reuses or redevelops previously undeveloped or underutilized land that is presently served by existing utilities and essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer)
Does not result in the loss or conversion of natural and working lands Consists of transit-supportive densities (minimum of 20 residential dwelling units per acre), 50 or Is in proximity to existing transit stops (within a half mile), or satisfies more detailed and stringent criteria specified in the region’s SCS Reduces parking requirements by:
Eliminating parking requirements or including maximum allowable parking ratios (i.e., the ratio of parking spaces to residential units or square feet); or
Providing residential parking supply at a ratio of less than one parking space per dwelling unit; or For multifamily residential development, requiring parking costs to be unbundled from costs to rent or own a residential unit.
Building
Decarbonization
Uses all-electric appliances without any natural gas connections and does not use propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking.
Source: CARB 2022b.
Transportation Electrification
This priority area aims at reducing fossil fuel consumption and GHG emissions from the transportation sector by promoting the installation of EV charging facilities to promote the widespread use of EVs as well as provide the electrical infrastructure during the development phase of a project that allows future expansion of electrical EV facilities. Developing land use projects in this way now will help the state achieve longer -term EV adoption targets.
The proposed plan includes air quality policies AQ-4, Increase electric vehicle charging stations and alternative fuel stations and AQ-6, Consider construction of near zero fueling stations (i.e., CNG/Hydrogen) and development standards which support transportation electrification. Development of the land uses under the proposed plan would meet the mandatory EV charging requirements of the CALGreen Code (Part 11, Title 24, California Code of Regulations). However, the proposed plan does not necessarily include policies or standards for future development to exceed these mandatory requirements. Using guidance from the 2022 Scoping Plan, local jurisdictions can demonstrate that they are doing their “fair share” in assisting the state in meeting its long-term GHG reduction goals by providing EV infrastructure at the project level to facilitate that transition to ZEV or near-zero vehicles (e.g., electric, hydrogen, plug-in hybrid). Merely complying with the mandatory provisions of the CALGreen Code, which is a statutory requirement to which all projects must adhere, CARB recommends that projects make additional commitments to meet the Tier 1 or Tier 2 voluntary requirements of the CALGreen Code. The proposed plan does not include any policies that explicitly state that future development would be required to provide EV charging meeting the Tier 1 or Tier 2 voluntary requirements of the CALGreen Code for residential and nonresidential development, and thus does not fulfill the requirement of “meeting the most ambitious voluntary standard of California Green Building Standards Code” (CARB 2022b). Therefore, the proposed plan would not align with the guidance provided in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan for this priority area.
VMT Reduction
This priority area aims at reducing fossil fuel consumption and GHG emissions from the transportation sector by promoting land use planning principles and project design features that can reduce VMT. It is important to note that although GHG emissions associated with vehicles in California will decrease over time as the use of EVs increase (especially beyond the year 2035 when, as a result of EO N-79-20, all new vehicles sold in the state would be required to be electric), all the non-EVs in the state would continue to operate until the end of their usable life, thus reducing over time the VMT generated by non-EVs that are still operational.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.8-16 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
The Mobility and Transportation Element of the General Plan includes a long list of policies that would enhance bicycle and pedestrian mobility. Development under the proposed plan would increase employment opportunities within the Plan Area and reduce the distance between destinations. Moreover, the proposed plan includes policies and development standards that support alternative modes of transportation (see Section 4.15, “Transportation,” for a list of transportation-related policies). Collectively, the proposed plan would result in a 33 percent decrease in VMT compared to existing conditions at the plan horizon year resulting in a less-than-significant VMT impact, consistent with the guidance of OPR in SB 743 and CARB in Appendix D. Therefore, the proposed plan would be consistent with this priority area. These project design commitments align with the guidance provided in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan for this priority area.
Building Decarbonization
The proposed plan would result in GHG emissions from the combustion of natural gas and electricity consumption.
Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan recommends that all residential development (of which very little would be developed under the proposed plan) should be constructed to be fully electric, and allows commercial development a 2029 target year to become fully electric. Appendix D does not address industrial use of natural gas and does not provide guidance for how industrial processes may continue to operate without natural gas usage. However, CARB identifies biogas and biomethane as a renewable alternative to conventional natural gas. From a scientific perspective, biogas and biomethane function identically to fossil natural gas (i.e., producing the same level of energy from combustion).
The proposed plan includes development standards that support increased electrification and building decarbonization for future land uses. The elimination of natural gas from the building sector is a key action identified by CARB to reduce statewide emissions and contribute to the ability of the state to meet its climate change objectives. CARB provides a target year of 2035 to initiate decarbonizing of industrial processes with the understanding that the industrial sector is a more challenging GHG sector to electrify; however, decarbonizing new commercial and residential development is considered a feasible requirement for projects proposed now. Many jurisdictions in the state have adopted reach codes that prohibit natural gas infrastructure for new construction.
Development under the proposed plan would include commercial land some residential uses that would otherwise use natural gas. While the proposed plan includes policies and development standards pertaining to building decarbonization, it is unknown whether they would be sufficient to align with the guidance provided in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan for this priority area.
Summary
As discussed above, the proposed plan would not generate VMT to the degree that the plan would conflict with OPR’s targets under SB 743. For this reason, the proposed plan would align with the VMT Reduction Priority Area.
However, the plan does not include policies that direct future development to provide EV charging consistent with the highest voluntary tier of the most recent CALGreen Code, which would be out of alignment with the Transportation Electrification Priority Area of the 2022 Scoping Plan. Finally, the proposed plan does not include policies that prohibit the use of natural gas for commercial and residential land uses. For this reason, the proposed plan does not align with the Building Decarbonization Priority Area.
Because it would not align with the Transportation Electrification and Building Decarbonization Priority Areas, the proposed plan would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with state GHG reduction goals. This impact would be significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b, 4.3-1c, 4.3-1g, 4.3-1h, 4.3-1i, 4.3-1j, 4.3-1k, 4.3-1l, 4.3-1m, 4.6-2a, 4.6-2b, 4.6- 2c, and 4.6-2d.
Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.8-17
Mitigation Measure 4.8-1a: Use Low-Carbon Concrete
Use low-carbon concrete, minimize the amount of concrete used and produce concrete on- site if it is more efficient and lower emitting than transporting ready-mix.
Mitigation Measure 4.8-1b: Use Locally Sourced or Recycled Materials Use locally sourced or recycled materials for construction materials (goal of at least 20 percent based on costs for building materials and based on volume for roadway, parking lot, sidewalk and curb materials). Wood products used should be certified through a sustainable forestry program.
Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b, 4.3-1c, 4.3-1g, 4.3-1h, 4.3-1i, 4.3-1l, 4.3-1m, 4.6-2c, 4.6-2d, 4.8-1a, and
4.8-1b would reduce the proposed plan’s operational GHG emissions through providing EV infrastructure meeting the Tier 2 requirements of the CALGreen Code, inclusion of low-emissions vehicles, electric development, and use of renewable biogas, use of clean construction fleets, use of recycled materials for building construction, and use of low carbon concrete, where possible. Mitigation Measures 4.3-1j, 4.3-1k, and 4.6-2awould ensure that future development under the proposed plan would align with the Transportation Electrification and Building Decarbonization Priority Areas of Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan.
However, the City cannot guarantee future industrial businesses would source their natural gas from renewable resources due to limitations regarding enforceability. Given that heavy industrial comprises the majority of the proposed plan and would generate substantial emissions during operation, implementation of Mitigation Measures
4.3-1b, 4.3-1c, 4.3-1g, 4.3-1h, 4.3-1i, 4.3-1l, 4.3-1m, 4.6-2a, 4.6-2b, 4.6-2c, 4.6-2d, 4.8-1a, and 4.8-1b would not be sufficient to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Thus, this impact is significant and unavoidable.
Impact 4.8-2: Conflict with Any Applicable Plan, Policy or Regulation of an Agency Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of GHGs
The proposed plan would have a less-than-significant VMT impact, thus aligning with CARB’s direction to reduce statewide VMT. However, it would not prohibit natural gas usage for commercial and residential land uses and would not provide a standard for future land uses to meet the Tier 2 voluntary requirements of the C ALGreen Code.
Therefore, the proposed plan would not align with CARB’s direction to decarbonization buildings or electrify the mobile source sector. Therefore, the proposed plan would not be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan. This impact would be
significant.
As discussed above under Impact 4.8-1, the proposed plan includes policies and development standards that serve to reduce GHG emissions, but they may not be sufficient to demonstrate that plan implementation would not conflict with the statewide goals of the 2022 Scoping Plan. This is due to the proposed plan’s lack of sufficient policies to ensure that future development would meet the Tier 2 EV charging requirements of the C ALGreen Code and would be fully electric for commercial and residential development. Moreover, heavy industrial uses , which are substantial GHG-emitting land use types, would comprise the greatest portion of development under the plan. For these reasons, the proposed plan would conflict with the 2022 Scoping Plan and would cumulatively contribute to global climate change. This impact would be
significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b, 4.3-1c, 4.3-1g, 4.3-1h, 4.3-1i, 4.3-1l, 4.3-1m, 4.6-2a, 4.6-2b, 4.6-2c, 4.6-2d, 4.8- 1a, and 4.8-1b.
Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b, 4.3-1c, 4.3-1g, 4.3-1h, 4.3-1i, 4.3-1l, 4.3-1m, 4.6-2c, 4.6-2d, 4.8-1a, and
4.8-1b would reduce the proposed plan’s operational GHG emissions through providing EV infrastructure meeting the Tier 2 requirements of the CALGreen Code, inclusion of low-emissions vehicles, electric development, and use of renewable biogas, use of clean construction fleets, use of recycled materials for building construction, and use of low Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.8-18 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
carbon concrete, where possible. Mitigation Measures 4.3-1j, 4.3-1k, and 4.6-2awould ensure that future development under the proposed plan would align with the Transportation Electrification and Building Decarbonization Priority Areas of Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan.
However, the City cannot guarantee future industrial uses and businesses would source their natural gas from renewable resources due to limitations regarding enforceability. Given that heavy industrial uses comprise the majority of the Plan Area and would generate substantial emissions during operation, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b, 4.3-1c, 4.3-1g, 4.3-1h, 4.3-1i, 4.3-1l, 4.3-1m, 4.6-2a, 4.6-2b, 4.6-2c, 4.6-2d, 4.8-1a, and 4.8-1b would not be sufficient to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Thus, this impact would be significant and
unavoidable.
Ascent Environmental Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.9-1
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section describes the existing hazards and hazardous materials in the Plan Area and identifies the applicable federal and state plans, policies, and laws and local plans, policies, and regulations. The analysis identifies the potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that could occur under the proposed plan and identifies mitigation measures to reduce the level of impact to less than significant.
Hazards associated with air quality and human health are discussed in Section 4.3, “Air Quality.” Geologic hazards, including hazards associated with landslides, faulting, and expansive soils, are discussed in Section 4.7, “Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources.” Risks associated with flooding are discussed in Section 4.10, “Hydrology and Water Quality.” Impacts on fire protection services are addressed in Section 4.14, “Public Services and Recreation.” During the public scoping period for the Draft EIR in response to the Notice of Preparation, comments were received expressing concerns related to public health and impacts to nearby schools associated with hazardous materials and contaminated areas.
4.9.1 Regulatory Setting
FEDERAL
Management of Hazardous Materials
Various federal laws address the proper handling, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as requiring measures to prevent or mitigate injury to health or the environment if such materials are accidentally released. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the agency primarily responsible for enforcement and implementation of federal laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. Applicable federal regulations pertaining to hazardous materials are primarily contained in CFR Titles 29, 40, and 49. Hazardous materials, as defined in the Code, are listed in 49 CFR 172.101. Management of hazardous materials is governed by the following laws. The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (15 U.S. Code [USC] Section 2601 et seq.) regulates the manufacturing, inventory, and disposition of industrial chemicals, including hazardous materials. Section 403 of the Toxic Substances Control Act establishes standards for lead-based paint hazards in paint, dust, and soil. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 USC 6901 et seq.) is the law under which EPA regulates hazardous waste from the time the waste is generated until its final disposal (“cradle to grave”). The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (also called the Superfund Act or CERCLA) (42 USC 9601 et seq.) gives EPA authority to seek out parties responsible for releases of hazardous substances and ensure their cooperation in site remediation. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99 -499; USC Title 42, Chapter 116), also known as SARA Title III or the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), imposes hazardous materials planning requirements to help protect local communities in the event of accidental release. The Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule includes requirements for oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response to prevent oil discharges to navigable waters and adjoining shorelines. The rule requires specific facilities to prepare, amend, and implement SPCC Plans. The SPCC rule is part of the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation, which also includes the Facility Response Plan rule.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.9-2 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Transport of Hazardous Materials
The U.S. Department of Transportation regulates transport of hazardous materials between states and is responsible for protecting the public from dangers associated with such transport. The federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 USC 5101 et seq. (formerly the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act 49 USC 1801 et seq.) is the basic statute regulating transport of hazardous materials in the United States. Hazardous materials transport regulations are enforced by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Federal Highway Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Federal Aviation Administration.
Worker Safety
The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the agency responsible for assuring worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals identified in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-596, 9 USC 651 et seq.). OSHA has adopted numerous regulations pertaining to worker safety, contained in CFR Title 29. These regulations set standards for safe workplaces and work practices, including standards relating to the handling of hazardous materials and those required for excavation and trenching.
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) (also known as Title III of the Federal Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, or “SARA Title III”) (42 United States Code 11001 et seq.), was established by the EPA to allow for emergency planning at the State and local level regarding chemical emergencies, to provide notification of emergency release of chemicals, and to address community right -to-know regarding hazardous and toxic chemicals. SARA Title III was designed to increase community access and knowledge about chemical hazards as well as facilitate the creation and implementation of State/Native American tribe emergency response commissions, responsible for coordinating certain emergency response activities and for appointing loc al emergency planning committees. Section 1910.1200(c) Title 29 of the CFR defines “chemicals or hazardous materials” for the purposes of SARA Title III.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (seven United States Code 136 et seq.) was originally passed in 1947. It has been amended several times, most extensively in 1972 and in 1996 by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, and in 2012 by the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act. The purpose of FIFRA is to establish federal jurisdiction over the distribution, sale, and use of pesticides. It also gives EPA the authority to study the effects of pesticide use. Other key provisions of FIFRA require pesticide applicators to pass a licensing examination for status as “qualified applicators,” create a review and registration process for new pesticide products, and ensure thorough and understandable labeling that includes instructions for use.
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act authorizes the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety to regulate pipeline transportation of natural (flammable, toxic, or corrosive) gas and other gases as well as the transportation and storage of liquefied natural gas. The Office of Pipeline Safety regulates the design, construction, inspection, testing, operation, and maintenance of pipeline facilities. While the federal government is primarily responsible for developing, issuing, and enforcing pipeline safety regulations, the pipeline safety statutes provide for State assumption of the intrastate regulatory, inspection, and enforcement responsibilities under an annual certification. To qualify for certification, a state must adopt the minimum federal regulations and may adopt additional or more stringent regulations as long as they are not incompatible.
STATE
Management of Hazardous Materials
In California, both federal and state community right-to-know laws are coordinated through the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. The federal law, SARA Title III or EPCRA, described above, encourages and supports emergency planning efforts at the state and local levels and to provide local governments and the public with information about Ascent Environmental Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.9-3
potential chemical hazards in their communities. Because of the community right -to-know laws, information is collected from facilities that handle (e.g., produce, use, store) hazardous materials above certain quantities. The provisions of EPCRA apply to four major categories:
emergency planning,
emergency release notification,
reporting of hazardous chemical storage, and
inventory of toxic chemical releases.
The corresponding state law is Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code (Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory). Under this law, qualifying businesses are required to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, which would include hazardous materials and hazardous waste management procedures and emergency response procedures, including emergency spill cleanup supplies and equipment. At such time as the applicant begins to use hazardous materials at levels that reach applicable state and/or federal thresholds, the plan is submitted to the administering agency.
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), a division of the California Environmental Protection Agency, has primary regulatory responsibility over hazardous materials in California, working in conjunction with EPA to enforce and implement hazardous materials laws and regulations. As required by Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code, DTSC maintains a hazardous waste and substances site list for the State, known as the Cortese List. Individual regional water quality control boards (RWQCBs) are the lead agencies responsible for identifying, monitoring, and cleaning up leaking underground storage tanks (USTs). The Central Valley RWQCB has jurisdiction over the Plan Area.
Transport of Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan The State of California has adopted U.S. Department of Transportation regulations for the movement of hazardous materials originating within the state and passing through the state; state regulations are contained in 26 CCR. State agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing state regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies are the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Together, these agencies determine container types used and license hazardous waste haulers to transport hazardous waste on public roads.
California has developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local governments and private agencies. Response to hazardous materials incidents is one part of the plan. The plan is managed by the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, which coordinates the responses of other agencies in the Plan Area.
Management of Construction Activities
Through the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, RWQCBs have the authority to require proper management of hazardous materials during project construction. For a detailed description of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, the NPDES program, and the role of the Central Valley RWQCB, see Section 4.10, “Hydrology and Water Quality.” The State Water Board adopted the statewide NPDES General Permit in August 1999. The state requires that projects disturbing more than one acre of land during construction file a Notice of Intent with the RWQCB to be covered under this permit. Construction activities subject to the General Permit include clearing, grading, stockpiling, and excavation. Dischargers are required to eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) must be developed and implemented for each site covered by the permit. The SWPPP must include best management practices (BMPs) designed to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and keep products of erosion from moving off ‐site into receiving waters throughout the construction and life of the project; the BMPs must address source control and, if necessary, pollutant control.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.9-4 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Worker Safety
The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations within the state. Cal/OSHA standards are typically more stringent than federal OSHA regulations and are presented in Title 8 of the CCR. Cal/OSHA conducts onsite evaluations and issues notices of violation to enforce necessary improvements to health and safety practices.
Title 8 of the CCR also includes regulations that provide for worker safety when blasting and explosives are utilized during construction activities. These regulations identify licensing, safety, storage, and transportation requirements related to the use of explosives in construction.
California Health and Safety Code
The California Environmental Protection Agency has established rules governing the use of hazardous materials and the management of hazardous wastes. California Health and Safety Code Section 25531 et seq. incorporate the requirement of Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act and the Clean Air Act as they pertain to hazardous materials. Health and Safety Code Section 25534 directs facility owners storing or handling acutely hazardous materials in reportable quantities to develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP). The RMP must be submitted to the appropriate local authorities, the designated local administering agency, and the EPA for review and approval.
California Code of Regulations Title 22 and Title 26
CCR Title 22 provides state regulations for hazardous materials, and CCR Title 26 provides regulation of hazardous materials management. In 1996, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) established the “Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program” (Unified Program) which consolidated the six administrative components of hazardous waste and materials into one program.
LOCAL
City of Fresno General Plan
The General Plan (City of Fresno 2014) is a set of goals, objectives, and policies that form a blueprint for the physical development of the City. For a description of each of the elements within the General Plan, refer to Chapter 3, “Project Description.” The following objective and policies related to hazards and hazardous materials are presented in the General Plan:
Objective NS-4: Minimize the risk of loss of life, injury, serious illness, and damage to property resulting from the use, transport, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Policy NS-4-a: Processing and Storage. Require safe processing and storage of hazardous materials, consistent with the California Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by the City. Policy NS-4-b: Coordination. Maintain a close liaison with the Fresno County Environmental Health Department, Cal-EPA Division of Toxics, and the State Office of Emergency Services to assist in developing and maintaining hazardous material business plans, inventory statements, risk management prevention plans, and contingency/emergency response action plans.
Policy NS-4-c: Soil and Groundwater Contamination Reports. Require an investigation of potential soil or groundwater contamination whenever justified by past site uses. Require appropriate mitigation as a condition of project approval in the event soil or groundwater contamination is identified or could be encoun tered during site development.
Policy NS-4-d: Site Identification. Continue to aid federal, State, and County agencies in the identification and mapping of waste disposal sites (including abandoned waste sites), and to assist in the survey of the kinds, amounts, and locations of hazardous wastes.
Policy NS-4-e: Compliance with County Program. Require that the production, use, storage, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials conform to the standards and procedures established by the County Division of Ascent Environmental Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.9-5
Environmental Health. Require compliance with the County’s Hazardous Waste Generator Program, including the submittal and implementation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, when applicable. Policy NS-4-f: Hazardous Materials Facilities. Require facilities that handle hazardous materials or hazardous wastes to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable hazardous materials and waste management laws and regulations.
Policy NS-4-g: Hazmat Response. Include policies and procedures appropriate to hazardous materials in the City’s disaster and emergency response preparedness and planning, coordinating with implementation of Fresno County’s Hazardous Materials Incident Response Plan.
Policy NS-4-h: Household Collection. Continue to support and assist with Fresno County’s special household hazardous waste collection activities, to reduce the amount of this material being improperly discarded. Policy NS-4-i: Public Information. Continue to assist in providing information to the public on hazardous materials.
Objective NS-6: Foster an efficient and coordinated response to emergencies and natural disasters. Policy NS-6-a: County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan. Adopt and implement the Fresno County Multi- Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan and City of Fresno Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex . Policy NS-6-b: Disaster Response Coordination. Maintain coordination with other local, State, and Federal agencies to provide coordinated disaster response.
Policy NS-6-c: Emergency Operations Plan. Update the City’s Emergency Operations Plan periodically, using a whole community approach which integrates considerations for People with access and functional needs in all aspects of planning.
Policy NS-6-d: Evacuation Planning. Maintain an emergency evacuation plan in consultation with the Police and Fire Departments and other emergency service providers, which shows potential evacuation routes and a list of emergency shelters to be used in case of catastrophic emergencies. Policy NS-6-e: Critical Use Facilities. Ensure critical use facilities (e.g. City Hall, police and fire stations, schools, hospitals, public assembly facilities, transportation services) and other structures that are important to protecting health and safety in the community remain operational during an emergency. Site and design these facilities to minimize their exposure and susceptibility to flooding, seismic and geological effects, fire, and explosions.
Work with the owners and operators of critical use facilities to ensure they can provide alternate sources of electricity, water, and sewerage in the event that regular utilities are interrupted in a disaster. Policy NS-6-f: Emergency Vehicle Access. Require adequate access for emergency vehicles in all new development, including adequate widths, turning radii, hard standing areas, and vertical clearance. Policy NS-6-g: Emergency Preparedness Public Awareness Programs. Continue to conduct programs to inform the general public, including people with access and functional needs, of the City’s emergency preparedness and disaster response procedures.
Fresno Municipal Code
Various provisions of the City of Fresno Municipal Code are relevant to hazards and hazardous materials, including portions of Chapter 15, Chapter 10, and Chapter 11. Discussion of these relevant portions of the Fresno Municipal Code are provided below.
Chapter 15 of the Fresno Municipal Code is known as “Citywide Development Code (CDC).” The purpose of the CDC is to implement the General Plan, if applicable, operative plans, to protect and promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the City of Fresno. Mor e specifically, the CDC is Hazards and Hazardous Materials Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.9-6 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
adopted to achieve the following consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and any other operative plan.
Article 25 (Performance Standards) of the CDC has the following purposes: 1) Establish permissible limits and allow objective measurement of nuisances, hazards, and objectionable conditions; and 2) Ensure that all uses will provide necessary control measures to protect the community from nuisances, hazards, and objectionable conditions. The General Standard of Article 25 is stated as follows: “Land or buildings shall not be used or occupied in a manner creating any dangerous, injurious, or noxious conditions, chemical fires, explosive, blight, or other hazards that could adversely affect the surrounding area.”
Article 27 (Standards for Specific Uses and Activities) of the CDC states: “The purpose of this article is to establish standards for specific uses and activities that are permitted or conditionally permitted in some or all districts. These provisions are supplemental standards and requirements to minimize the impacts of these uses and activities on surrounding properties and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their occupants and of the general public.” This article specifies regulations governing the operation of various types of facilities and activities, including hazardous waste management facilities, recycling facilities, and hazardous materials storage activities.
Section 15-2727, Development of Former Landfill Sites and Hazardous Sites, states “A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for the development of all former Landfill Sites and other sites deemed hazardous, regardless of the proposed use. As part of the application, the applicant shall at a minimum, provide a geotechnical report that provides a complete analysis of on-site soil conditions, fault hazards, underground water conditions, and recommendations as well as a post-closure plan that outlines remediation measures. Applicants shall comply with all State and federal regulations related to operation, post-closure remediation, and monitoring.” Separately, Chapter 10, Regulations Regarding Public Nuisances and Real Property Conduct and Use, includes:
Article 14, Hazardous Spills Expense Recovery. The intent of Article 14 is stated as follows: “Surface waters, groundwater, soils, vegetation, and atmosphere inside the City of Fresno are susceptible to damage from the handling, storage, use, processing and disposal of hazardous material and the expense incurred by the taxpayers as a result of the City of Fresno or its Designee having to respond in an emergency to protect life, property and the environment when there has been a release of hazardous materials should be recovered from the person responsible for the emergency.” In conjunction with Chapter 15, Article 27 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code, Article 14 pertains to the recovery of expenses associated with hazardous spills. Specifically, the code states that “Any person causing a release or threatened release which results in an emergency action shall be liable to the City of Fresno for the recoverable costs resulting from the emergency action.” Additionally, Chapter 11, Building Permits and Regulations, includes Article 2, Section 11-218, Debris and Excavations, which requires of demolition projects that the permit holder properly cap the sanitary sewer house connection, and to properly fill or otherwise protect all basements, cellars, septic tanks, wells, and other excavations, and said lot or parcel shall be left level and in a condition to be disked for control of weeds.
City of Fresno Fire Department Hazardous Materials Response Team The City of Fresno Fire Department recognizes the potential for a large chemical release to occur which could expose thousands of people to hazardous or toxic vapors. The City of Fresno Fire Department Hazardous Materials Response Team has embraced an all-hazards approach to emergency response to ensure that the City receives effective protection from the risk of hazardous materials releases.
City of Fresno Emergency Operations Plan
In addition to emergency response to hazardous materials incidents, both the City of Fresno and Fresno County implement programs to facilitate emergency preparedness for other types of incidents within the Plan Area.
Specifically, the City of Fresno has an Emergency Operations Plan that describes what the City’s actions will be during a response to an emergency. This plan also describes the role of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and the coordination that occurs between the EOC, City departments, and other response agencies. The plan establishes a requirement for the emergency management organization to mitigate any significant emergency disaster affecting Ascent Environmental Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.9-7
the City of Fresno. The plan also identifies the policies, responsibilities, and procedures required to protect the health and safety of City communities, public and private property, and the environmental effects of natural or technological disasters. In addition, the plan establishes the operation concepts and procedures associated within initial response operations (field response) to emergencies, the extended response operations (City of Fresno Emergency Operations Center Activities), and the recovery process. Furthermore, the plan complies with the State of California Emergency Operations Plan “Cross Walk” checklist for determining whether an emergency plan has addressed critical elements of California’s Standardized Emergency Management System and the National Incident Management System .
Fresno County Hazardous Materials Management Plan/Hazardous Materials Business Plan The Fresno County Environmental Health Department maintains a hazardous materials management plan/hazardous materials business plan (HMMP/HMBP). The HMMP/HMBP describes agency roles, strategies and processes for responding to emergencies involving hazardous materials. The Environmental Health Department maintains a Hazardous Materials Database and Risk and Flood Maps available to the public on its website.
County of Fresno Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan The purpose of a local hazard mitigation plan (LHMP) is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to human life and property resulting from hazards. A local hazard mitigation plan recognizes risks before they occur, as well as identifies resources, information, and strategies for emergency response. Fresno Count y, with participation from 17 jurisdictions, is the lead agency on the Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP). In 2018, the Fresno County Board of Supervisors adopted the MHMP, which includes a Fresno Annex listing information that pertains to the City in the areas of health, infrastructure, housing, government, environment, and land use (Fresno County 2018).
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has regulations that require compliance with the asbestos demolition and renovation requirements developed by EPA in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulation, 40 CFR, Part 61, Subpart M.
Certified Unified Program Agency
The California Environmental Protection Agency designates specific local agencies as Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs), typically at the county level. The Fresno County Department of Environmental Health is the CUPA designated for Fresno County. The Fresno County Department of Environmental Health is responsible for the implementation of statewide programs within its jurisdiction, including USTs, Hazardous Materials Business Plan requirements, California Accidental Release Prevention program, etc. Implementation of these programs involves permitting, inspecting, providing education/guidance, investigations, and enforcement. The Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) is the local CUPA.
4.9.2 Environmental Setting
For purposes of this section, the term “hazardous materials” refers to both hazardous substances and hazardous wastes. A “hazardous material” is defined in the CFR as “a substance or material that … is capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property when transported in commerce ” (49 CFR 171.8). California Health and Safety Code Section 25501 defines a hazardous material as follows:
“Hazardous material” means any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. “Hazardous materials” include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material which a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.9-8 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
“Hazardous wastes” are defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 25141(b) as wastes that:
because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, [may either] cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness [or] pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.
CCR Title 22 categorizes hazardous waste into hazard classes according to specific characteristics of ignitibility, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. Hazardous waste with any of these characteristics is also known as a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste.
Hazardous materials can be categorized as hazardous non-radioactive chemical materials, radioactive materials, toxic materials, and biohazardous materials. The previous definitions are adequate for non -radioactive hazardous chemicals. Radioactive and biohazardous materials are further defined as follows:
Radioactive materials contain atoms with unstable nuclei that spontaneously emit ionizing radiation to increase their stability.
Radioactive wastes are radioactive materials that are discarded (including wastes in storage) or abandoned. Toxic wastes are harmful or fatal when ingested or absorbed (e.g., containing mercury, lead). When toxic wastes are land disposed, contaminated liquid may leach from the waste and pollute groundwater. Biohazardous materials include materials containing certain infectious agents (microorganisms, bacteria, molds, parasites, and viruses) that cause or significantly contribute to increased human mortality or organisms capable of being communicated by invading and multiplying in body tissues. Medical wastes include both biohazardous wastes (byproducts of biohazardous materials) and sharps (devices capable of cutting or piercing, such as hypodermic needles, razor blades, and broken glass) resulting from the diagnosis, treatment, or immunization of human beings, or research pertaining to these activities.
There are several categories of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes that could be found on any given property based on past uses. Some common examples include agrichemicals (chlorinated herbicides, organophosphate pesticides, and organochlorine pesticides, such as such as Mecoprop (MCPP), Dinoseb, chlordane, dichloro- diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and dichloro-diphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), petroleum-based products (oil, gasoline, diesel fuel), a variety of chemicals including paints, cleaners, and solvents, and asbestos-containing or lead- containing materials (e.g., paint, sealants, pipe solder).
Historical Use Information
Historical information was reviewed to understand the history of previous uses within the Plan Area and surrounding lands so as to evaluate the Plan Area and adjoining properties for evidence of environmental concerns. Standard historical sources reviewed during the preparation of this report included the following references, as available.
EnviroStor Data Management System
DTSC maintains the EnviroStor Data Management System, which provides information on hazardous waste facilities (both permitted and corrective action) as well as any available site cleanup information. There are six active sites listed in the database within the Plan Area (Table 4.9-1).
Ascent Environmental Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.9-9
Table 4.9-1 DTSC Known Hazardous Material Release Sites within the Plan Area Site Location Type Status
Schnitzer-Fresno 2727 South Chestnut Avenue DTSC Corrective Action Site Active Potential Release Southeast of Golden
State Boulevard and East Avenue
Southeast of Golden State Boulevard
and South East Avenue
DTSC State Response Site Active
FMC Corporation 2501 South Sunland Avenue DTSC State Response Site Active FMC Corporation-RCRA Post-Closure 2501 South Sunland Avenue DTSC Voluntary Cleanup Site Active FMC Corporation 2501 South Sunland Avenue DTSC Hazardous Waste-RCRA Site Undergoing Closure Valley Foundry and Machine Works 2510 South East Avenue DTSC State Response Site Active South Fresno Regional Groundwater
Plume
North of Church Avenue at South East
Avenue
DTSC State Response Site Active
South Fresno PCE Groundwater Plume 2376 South Railroad Avenue DTSC State Response Site Active Largent H M Company Inc. 3252 South Cedar Avenue DTSC Evaluation Site Inactive-Needs Evaluation
New Idria Mining and Chemical 3457 South Cedar Avenue DTSC Evaluation Site Inactive-Needs Evaluation
Orange Avenue Disposal Site 3280 South Orange Avenue DTSC Evaluation Site In Remediation Under RWQCB
TSE Brakes 3183 South Parkway Drive DTSC Evaluation Site Inactive-Needs Evaluation
Wilbur & Ellis 2903 South Cedar Street DTSC Evaluation Site Inactive-Needs Evaluation
Former Dow Brands Facility-Fresno 4787 East Drive Avenue DTSC Evaluation Site In Remediation Under RWQCB
Autoline Industries West 2696 South Maple Avenue DTSC Evaluation Site In Remediation Under RWQCB
Kearney's Metals 4371 East Vine Avenue DTSC Evaluation Site Inactive-Needs Evaluation
PG&E Fresno Service Center California and Orange Avenues DTSC Voluntary Cleanup Site In Remediation Under RWQCB
PDM Steel Service Center 4005 East Church Avenue DTSC Voluntary Cleanup Site Certified Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Former Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Ice House
3090 East Church Ave DTSC State Response Site No Further Action Weir Floway Inc. 2494 South Railroad Avenue, P.O. Box
164
DTSC State Response Site Certified Operations and
Maintenance (O&M)
South Fresno VOC Discovery Project Highway 99 and Jensen Avenue DTSC Evaluation Site Inactive-Needs Evaluation
Aquachlor 2885 East Jensen Avenue DTSC Voluntary Cleanup Site In Remediation Under RWQCB
Pick N Pull Auto Dismantler 3230 East Jensen Avenue DTSC Voluntary Cleanup Site Inactive-Needs Evaluation
TSG Recycling Disposal, Incorporated,
DBA Western Metal Company
2910 South Cherry Avenue DTSC Corrective Action Active
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.9-10 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Cortese Database
The State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (also known as the “Cortese List”) is a planning document used by the state, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements for providing information about the location of hazardous materials sites. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires Cal EPA to annually update the Cortese List. DTSC is responsible for preparing a portion of the information that comprises the Cortese List. Other state and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information that is part of the complete list. The Cortese database identifies public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, sites with known toxic material identified through the abandoned site assessment program, sites wit h USTs having a reportable release, and all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is known hazardous substance migration. The source of this database is the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). No portion of the Plan Area is listed in this database.
GeoTracker
GeoTracker provides online access to environmental data and is the interface to the Geographic Environmental Information Management System, a data warehouse which tracks regulatory data about underground fuel tanks, fuel pipelines, and public drinking water supplies. GeoTracker has replaced past databases, such as the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System and the UST database.
Searches of the GeoTracker database identified one active and one inactive hazardous material site located within the Plan Area known to handle and store hazardous materials that are associated with a hazardous material related release or occurrence. The terms "release" or “occurrence” include any means by which a substance could harm the environment: by spilling, leaking, discharging, dumping, injecting, or escaping.
Table 4.9-2 displays the known hazardous material sites located within the Plan Area with a description of the type, status, and address. As shown, the sites are designated as completed and case closed, or open with an additional status descriptor: site assessment, remediation, eligible for closure, or inactive.
Table 4.9-2 GeoTracker Known Hazardous Material Release Sites within the Plan Area Site Location Type Status
Southern Pacific Pipe Lines, Inc. 4149 South Maple Avenue SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Completed; Case Closed Former Chevron Fuel Terminal 4073 South Maple Avenue SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Completed; Case Closed Wilbur Ellis Co. 2903 South Cedar SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Completed; Case Closed DOW Brands Facility 4787 East Date Avenue SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Completed; Case Closed DOW Brands Facility II 4787 East Date Avenue SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Open; Site Assessment Ashland Chemical Co. 4525 East Commerce Street SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Completed; Case Closed Flemming Foods 2626 South Maple SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Completed; Case Closed American Warehouse 2702 South Maple Avenue SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Completed; Case Closed Former Fruehauf Trailer Service Facility 2727 South East Avenue SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Completed; Case Closed Chevron Chemical Co. (Ag Chem
Warehouse)
2882 East Annadale Avenue SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Completed; Case Closed Nisshinbo Facility 2885 South Cherry Avenue SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Completed; Case Closed Market Express Transportation 2449 South Cherry Avenue SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Completed; Case Closed Currie Bros Inc. Fresno Bulk Plant Parcel 3 2191 South East Avenue SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Completed; Case Closed Currie Bros Inc. Fresno Bulk Plant Parcel 2 3217 East Lorena Avenue SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Completed; Case Closed Currie Bros Inc. Fresno Bulk Plant Parcel 1 2150 South Third Street SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Completed; Case Closed Birk Petroleum 4000 East California Avenue SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Completed; Case Closed Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control Basin II -2 Bisceglia and California Avenues SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Open; Site Assessment Ascent Environmental Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.9-11
Site Location Type Status
Univar 4465 East Florence SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Completed; Case Closed BNSF (Former Ice House) 3090 East Church Avenue SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Open; Remediation FMC Corporation 2501 South Sunland Avenue SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Open; Remediation Weir Floway, Inc. 2494 South Railroad Avenue SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Open; Remediation Ametek Valley Foundry 2510 South East Avenue SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Open; Site Assessment Former Fruehauf Trailer Service Facility 2727 South East Avenue SWRCB Clean Up Program Site Completed; Case Closed RMW-Champion Parts Rebuilders, Inc. 2696 South Maple SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Open; Remediation Wingate Chemical Co. 4791 East Date Avenue SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Open; Remediation North and Elm Excavation Corner of North and Elm SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Completed; Case Closed The Christian Bros 2202 South Cedar Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Qual-T-Truck 3767 East Church Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Pacific Forest Products 3355 East Lorena Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Guild Winery 3223 East Church Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Fresno Wire Rope & Rigging 2360 South East Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Anderson Clayton 2396 South Railroad Street SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Roadway Express, Inc. 2440 Church Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Fred Horn 2320 East Church SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Ryder Truck Rental 2701 East Byrd Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Ryder 2701 East Byrd Avenue SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Open; Eligible for Closure Allied Fasteners 2540 South Sarah Street SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Weird (Peabody) Floway 2494 South Railroad Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Daylen Inc. 2559 South East Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Calif-Fresno Oil Co. 2585 South East Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Shell Service Station 2595 South East Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Private Shop 2865 East Jensen Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Aquachlor 2885 East Jensen Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed American Transfer Co. 2810 East Jensen Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed M&S Texaco AKA Fleetcard Fuels #992 2619 South East Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Growers Packaging 3751 East Calwa Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Jensen Auto Parts 3230 East Jensen Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Consolidated Freightways 2737 South East Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Royal Express 2774 South Orange Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Truck City 2768 South Railroad Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed American Warehouse 2702 South Maple Avenue SWRCB Clean Up Program Site Completed; Case Closed Cal Sesame Inc. 4620 East Vine Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Fresno Pallet Inc. 4707 East Vine Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Associated Compressor 4651 East Date Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Pacific Choice Brands 4667 East Date Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Red Triangle 2809 South Chestnut Avenue SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Open; Inactive Hazards and Hazardous Materials Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.9-12 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Site Location Type Status
Red Triangle Oil Co. 2809 South Chestnut Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Bergen & Brunswick 4586 East Commerce Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Producers Cotton Oil Warehouse 2907 South Maple Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Ace Sprinkler Co. 2803 South Orange Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Cal Trans Fresno 2796 South Railroad Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed KBK Oil 2874 Golden State Boulevard SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Manna Pro 2962 South Cedar SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed General Tire Service 2099 East North Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Smith Tank Lines 2999 South Orange Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. 1150 East North Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Shane Industries 2724 East Annadale Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed TED Smith (TSE Brakes) 3187 South Parkway Drive SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed General Petroleum-Fresno Cardlock 3220 South Parkway Drive SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Cleim-Crown Pumps 3087 South Elm Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Dunavant-Fambro Warehouse 3600 South Cedar Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Orange Ave Disposal Site 3280 South Orange Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed R.V. Jensen Inc. 4021 South Maple Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed SFPP,LP 4149 South Maple Avenue SWRCB Cleanup Program Site Open; Site Assessment Fresno Truck Center 4194 South Orange Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Malaga Food Center 4412 South Maple Avenue SWRCB LUST Cleanup Site Completed; Case Closed Source: State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker (2023).
Locations of hazardous materials sites within the Plan Area that are listed in the GeoTracker and EnviroStor databases are shown in Figure 4.9-1.
Emergency Response
The City of Fresno Fire Department (FFD) provides fire prevention, suppression and investigation services, airport fire and rescue, urban search and rescue, response to medical emergencies, and response to hazardous materials incidents. The FFD service area consists of the City of Fresno and extra-territorial services via contracts to provide services to the Fig Garden Fire Protection District, Fresno Yosemite International Airport, and surrounding areas through mutual aid and automatic aid requests. The Plan Area contains two fire departments, City of Fresno Fire Station 7 is located at 2571 S. Cherry Avenue, north of Jensen Avenue, and Fresno County Fire Station 87 is located at 4706 E Drummond Avenue, southeast of the intersection of Jensen and Maple Avenues.
Transportation of Hazardous Materials
The nearest roadway and transportation route approved for the transportation of explosives, poisonous inhalation hazards, and radioactive materials in the City is SR 99.
Wildfire Hazards
No part of the Plan Area is located within or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA). The Plan Area is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). The Plan Area is located in the “LRA Unzoned” Fire Hazard Severity Zone. There are no very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ) located within or near the Plan Area (CAL FIRE 2023).
Ascent Environmental Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.9-13
Source: Data downloaded from State Water Resources Control Board in 2023 and Department of Toxic Substances Control in 2023.
Figure 4.9-1 Hazardous Material Sites
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.9-14 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.9.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
METHODOLOGY
The following reports and data sources document potential hazardous conditions in the Plan Area and were reviewed for this analysis:
Cortese List Data Resources (Cal EPA 2019),
Fresno General Plan Public Review Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (City of Fresno 2020) , West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (City of Fresno 2022a), EnviroStor Data Management System (DTSC 2023),
Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission 2018) , Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno 2022b),
Fresno Municipal Code (City of Fresno 2023), and
GeoTracker (SWRCB 2023).
The impact analysis involved a review of applicable law, plans and policies, regulations, and database searches to identify the existing environmental setting and requirements pertaining to construction and operation related hazards and hazardous materials. Existing on-site hazardous materials and the potential for other safety or hazardous conditions were reviewed based on publicly available hazard and hazardous materials information. The impact analysis considered potential changes in the nature, extent, and presence of hazardous conditions with the implementation of the proposed plan that would create a significant hazard to the public or environment.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
An impact related to hazards and hazardous materials would be significant if implement ing the proposed plan would:
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment ; emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;
be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ; for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area;
impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or
expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
Ascent Environmental Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.9-15
ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
Airport Hazards
The closest airport to the Plan Area is Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, approximately 2.1 miles from the Plan Area.
The Plan Area is located outside of the nearest airport land use plan area. Therefore, no impacts related to being located within an airport land use plan area, within 2 miles of an airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip would occur. No further analysis is required by CEQA.
Wildland Fires
The Plan Area is not located in or near to any SRA or land classified as VHFHSZs. The Plan Area is largely industrialized with little agricultural land within the Plan Area boundaries. Implementation of the proposed plan would increase industrial land uses within the Plan Area, reducing the potential for wildland fires to occur. The City of Fresno is also largely categorized as a little or no threat or moderate fire hazard, largely attributed to developed and disturbed areas. Therefore, no impacts related to wildland fires within the Plan Area would occur. No further analysis is required by CEQA.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.9-1: Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment through the Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials or through the Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment
Construction and operation of development under the proposed plan would involve the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials. All such hazardous materials and activities would be typical for such uses, and would occur in compliance with local, state, and federal regulations, which would minimize but not eliminate the potential for upset or accident conditions. Site-specific studies for future projects under the plan could reveal as-yet unknown environmental conditions during construction or operation. The impact to the public and the environment from exposure to these unknown hazardous materials and other hazards during construction, and/or from accidental release of hazardous materials during the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be potentially significant.
Unauthorized releases of hazardous materials can occur in areas that treat, store, transport , and use hazardous materials and have the potential to create environmental impacts to properties, the natural environment, and human health. The extent of the risk would depend in large part on the release location, the quantity and nature of the substance released, and the mechanism of release. In the event of an accidental release of hazardous materials/substances, emergency response measures must be implemented to address potential risks and ensure the protection of human health and the natural environment.
Construction Activities
Construction activities would occur through indirect implementation of the proposed plan. Construction equipment and materials would likely require the use of petroleum-based products (oil, gasoline, diesel fuel), and a variety of chemicals including paints, cleaners, and solvents. The use of these materials at a construction site could pose a risk of release into the environment if not properly handled, stored, and transported.
Properties within the Plan Area could have residual soil (and potentially groundwater) contamination that may require remediation, and potentially hazardous building materials (e.g., asbestos containing materials, lead -based paint) could be encountered during demolition of existing structures to accommodate new development. A release into the environment could pose significant impacts to the health and welfare of people and wildlife and could result in contamination of water (groundwater or surface water), habitat, and other important resources.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.9-16 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Like most agricultural and farming operations in the Central Valley, agricultural practices in the area have used agricultural chemicals including pesticides and herbicides as a standard practice. Residual concentrations of pesticides may be present in soil as a result of historic agricultural application and storage. Continuous spraying of crops over many years can potentially result in a residual buildup of pesticides in farm soils. Of highest concern relative to agrichemicals are chemicals such as chlorinated herbicides, organophosphate pesticides, and organochlorine pesticides, such as MCPP, DDT, and DDE (City of Fresno 2022a). Other chemicals may also be present. As described in the “Environmental Setting,” there is a historical record of soil contamination at the Schnitzer-Fresno site, and aquifer and groundwater contamination at the FMC Corporation site, Valley Foundry and Machine Work site, South Fresno Regional Groundwater Plume site, and South Fresno PCE Groundwater Plume site. Therefore, there is the potential for other sites to be contaminated or have a history of hazardous materials being used as part of previous or current operations. Future development under the proposed plan could involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials associated with construction and/or remediation activities. Use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials and any potential remediation activities would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations.
CHP and Caltrans regulate transport of hazardous materials. BMPs and other measures would be identified and implemented as part of the SWPPP to prevent, contain, or clean-up any released hazardous materials. Development projects proposed in the Plan Area would be required to comply with applicable General Plan objectives and policies, including Objective NS-4 and Policy NS-4-a, NS-4-e, and NS-4-g, and SCSP policies, including GB-1, GB-2, and CBD-3, to reduce the impacts to the public and the environment from exposure of hazardous materials during construction activities through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Operational Activities
During operation, the storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be associated with industrial and, to a lesser degree, commercial, and residential uses. Hazardous materials such as cleaners, paint, landscape maintenance chemicals, and hazardous materials similar to those used during construction could also be used periodically as part of operation, maintenance, and repair of facilities and infrastructure. Facilities that would use hazardous materials on site would be required to obtain any required permits and comply with appropriate regulatory agency standards designed to ensure proper use and storage and avoid hazardous materials releases. Chemicals used for landscape maintenance, such as fertilizers and pesticides, would be used in limited quantities, in accordance with instructions provided by the manufacturer. Pursuant to the State of California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law of 1985 (Business Plan Act, California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6. 95, Article 1), operators of commercial and industrial facilities would be required to prepare and implement a Hazardous Materials Business Plan and inventory of hazardous materials, if inventory would exceed threshold quantities, or include extremely hazardous substances. The Hazardous Materials Business Plan would be prepared before occupancy of subject buildings and would include:
an inventory of hazardous materials handled,
facility floor plans showing where hazardous materials are stored, an emergency response plan, and
provisions for employee training in safety and emergency response procedures.
Major transportation corridors, including State Route (SR) 41, SR 99, and Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific rail lines traverse the Plan Area. All classes of hazardous materials except for some high-level radioactive materials, poisons, and explosives, unless a Hazardous Materials Safety Permit is obtained, are legally permitted to be transported on SR 99, SR 41, and major roadways both adjacent to and within the Plan Area. In addition, the rail lines would continue to transport hazardous materials through the Plan Area. An accident involving release of hazardous materials along highways or rail lines is possible in Fresno as it is in any jurisdiction through which they pass.
Intensification of industrial development in the Plan Area could increase the amount of hazardous material and waste being produced and transported along SR 99, SR 41, and other major surrounding roadways and railways, but there is no evidence to suggest that risk of an accident would be substantially increased. The SCSP would meet the requirements of Section 31303 of the California Vehicle Code, in accordance with Title 49 of the U.S. Code, Section Ascent Environmental Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.9-17
5101 et seq., to protect against the risks to life, property, and the environment that are inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials.
The City’s Emergency Operation Plan and County Multi-Jurisdictional LHMP provide detailed and unified guidance for mitigation of hazard events and a coordinated response with surrounding jurisdictions in the event of an emergency related to hazards. As described in the “Regulatory Setting” section, EPA and either DTSC or CVRWQCB would manage the regulation of hazardous materials handling and disposal. These federal and state agencies create and enforce the standards for the handling, storage, and spill response requirements of all hazardous materials. Development projects proposed in the Plan Area would be required to comply with applicable General Plan objectives and policies, including Objective NS-4 and Policy NS-4-a, NS-4-e, and NS-4-g, and SCSP policies, including GB-1, GB-2, and CBD-3, to reduce the impacts to the public and the environment from exposure of hazardous materials during operational activities through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Conclusion
Compliance with federal, state, and local regulations and implementation of BMPs would minimize but not eliminate the risk of a spill or accidental release of hazardous materials during construction of development pursuant to the plan. Similarly, operation of primarily industrial development in the plan area would involve use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, the risks of which would be reduced, but not eliminated, through compliance with applicable regulations. The impact on the public and the environment from exposure to hazardous materials and other hazards during construction and operation would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1a: Submit Hazardous Materials Business Plan Before issuance of grading permits or improvement plans, project applicants for all future development projects within the Plan Area shall submit an HMBP to Fresno County Environmental Health Division (CUPA) for review and approval. If during the construction process the applicant or their subcontractors generates hazardous waste, the applicant must register with the CUPA as a generator of hazardous waste, obtain an EPA ID# and accumulate, ship, and dispose of the hazardous waste per Health and Safety Code Ch. 6.5. (California Hazardous Waste Control Law).
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1b: Conduct a Phase I ESA
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, project applicants for all future development projects within the Plan Area shall complete a Phase I ESA (performed in accordance with the current ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process [E 1527]) for each individual property prior to development or redevelopment to ascertain the presence or absence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HRECs), and Potential Environmental Concerns (PECs). The findings and conclusions of the Phase I ESA shall become the basis for potential reco mmendations for follow-up investigation, if found to be warranted.
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1c: Conduct a Phase II ESA
If the findings and conclusions of the Phase I ESA for a property result in evidence of RECs, HRECs and/or PECs warranting further investigation, applicants for those projects shall complete a Phase II ESA. The Phase II ESA may include but may not be limited to the following: (1) Collection and laboratory analysis of soils and/or groundwater samples to ascertain the presence or absence of significant concentrations of constituents of concern; (2) Collection and laboratory analysis of soil vapors and/or indoor air to ascertain the presence or absence of significant concentrations of volatile constituents of concern; and/or (3) Geophysical surveys to ascertain the presence or absence of subsurface features of concern such as USTs, drywells, drains, plumbing, and septic systems. The findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA shall become the basis for potential recommendations for follow -up investigation, site characterization, and/or remedial activities, if found to be warranted.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.9-18 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1d: Conduct a Site Characterization In the event the findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA reveal the presence of significant concentrations of hazardous materials warranting further investigation, project applicants for all future development within the Plan Area shall ensure that site characterization shall be conducted in the form of additional Phase II ESAs in order to characterize the source and maximum extent of impacts from constituents of concern. The findings and conclusions of the site characterization shall become the basis for formation of a remedial action plan and/or risk assessment .
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1e: Conduct a Site Remediation and Potential Risk Assessment If the findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA(s), site characterization and/or risk assessment demonstrate the presence of concentrations of hazardous materials exceeding regulatory threshold levels, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, project applicants for such projects shall complete site remediation and potential risk assessment with oversight from the applicable regulatory agency including, but not limited to, CalEPA DTSC or RWQCB, and FCEHD. Potential remediation could include the removal or treatment of water and/or soil. If removal occurs, hazardous materials shall be transported and disposed of at a hazardous materials permitted facility.
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1f: Prepare Environmental Site Management Plan Prior to the issuance of a future building permit for an individual property within the Plan Area with residual environmental contamination, the agency with primary regulatory oversight of environmental conditions at such property ("Oversight Agency") shall have determined that the proposed land use for that property, including proposed development features and design, does not present an unacceptable risk to human health, if applicable, through the use of an environmental site management plan (ESMP) that could include institutional controls, site- specific mitigation measures, a risk management plan, and deed restrictions based upon applicable risk -based cleanup standards. Remedial action plans, risk management plans and health and safety plans shall be required as determined by the Oversight Agency for a given property under applicable environmental laws, if not already completed, to prevent an unacceptable risk to human health, including workers during and after construction, from exposure to residual contamination in soil and groundwater in connection with remediation and site development activities and the proposed land use.
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1g: Conduct a Vapor Intrusion Assessment For those sites with potential residual volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil, soil gas, or groundwater that are planned for future redevelopment with an overlying occupied building, a vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed by a licensed environmental professional. If the results of the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the potential for significant vapor intrusion into the proposed building, the project design shall include vapor controls or source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with RWQCB, DTSC, or FCEHD requirements. Soil vapor mitigation measures or controls could include passive venting and/or active venting. The vapor intrusion assessment as associated vapor controls or source removal can be incorporated into the ESMP .
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1h: Conduct Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Surveys In the event of future planned renovation or demolition of structures in the Plan Area, prior to the issuance of demolition permits, asbestos and lead-based paint (LBP) surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and/or LBP. Removal of friable ACM, and non-friable ACMs that have the potential to become friable during demolition and/or renovation shall conform to the standards set forth by the NESHAPs. SJVAPCD is the responsible agency on the local level to enforce the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) and shall be notified by the property owners and/or developers of properties (or their designee(s)) prior to any demolition and/or renovation activities. If asbestos-containing materials are left in place, an Operations and Maintenance Program shall be developed for the management of asbestos containing materials.
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1i: Conduct Soil Sampling
Prior to the import of a soil to a particular property within the Plan Area as part of that property’s site development, such soils shall be sampled for toxic or hazardous materials to determine if concentrations exceed applicable Ascent Environmental Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.9-19
Environmental Screening Levels for the proposed land use at such a property, in accordance with RWQCB, DTSC , or FCEHD requirements.
Significance after Mitigation
The proposed plan would be required to implement Mitigation Measures 4.9-1a through 4.9-1i, which require submittal of Hazardous Materials Business Plans; require Phase I and Phase II site assessments, and other remediation activities including surveys and assessments, cleanup plans, programs, and activities, as applicable; and requires actions to ensure that developing a property within the Plan Area does not present an unacceptable risk to human health, through the use of an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) , as applicable. Therefore, the potential for existing or new hazards generated by development under the proposed plan would be limited. Additional requirements include those related to evaluation of potential asbestos and lead prior to planned renovation or demolition of residential and/or commercial structures in the Plan Area, and soil sampling for hazardous materials.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9-1a through 4.9-1j and compliance with federal, state, and local regulations would reduce potential impacts associated with the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment to a
less-than-significant level.
Impact 4.9-2: Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials, Substances, or Waste within One-Quarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School Orange Center School on S. Cherry Avenue is the only school located within the Plan Area, but three other schools, Calwa Elementary, Kirk Elementary, and Sequoia Middle School are located within a quarter mile of the Plan Area boundary. Although the nature and location of specific developments under the proposed plan are yet unknown, it is likely they would result in the routine transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during construction and operation. Such use, though not expected to generate hazardous emissions or handle acutely hazardous materials our waste, could be proposed or could result through accident or upset conditions within one-quarter mile of a school. This impact would be potentially significant.
Development under the proposed plan has the potential to result in the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, as described under Impact 4.9-1. The Orange Center School, a school consisting of both elementary and middle school grades, on S. Cherry Avenue between E. North and E. Central Avenues is the only school located within the Plan Area. Other schools within 0.25 mile from the Plan Area include Calwa Elementary School on E. Jensen Avenue between S. Cedar and S. Rowell Avenues, Kirk Elementary School on E. Belgravia Avenue between S. Holly and S. Lily Avenues, and Sequoia Middle School on E. Hamilton Avenue between S. Orange and S.
Cedar Avenues.
As discussed in Impact 4.9-1, construction and operation of future development in the Plan Area would result in the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. Any such handling of hazardous materials, even with compliance with existing laws, regulations, and manufacturer’s specifications for handling and storage, can pose a risk of release to the environment and human exposure, and children are more vulnerable than adults to exposure to hazardous materials. Development projects proposed in the Plan Area would be required to comply with applicable General Plan objectives and policies, including Objective NS-4 and Policy NS-4-a, NS-4-e, and NS-4-g, and SCSP policies, including GB-1, GB-2, and CBD-3, which would reduce the potential for hazardous emissions or inappropriate handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. However, as described in Impact 4.9-1, compliance with federal, state, and local regulations and City policies would minimize but not eliminate the risk of a spill or accidental release of hazardous materials during construction and operation of development pursuant to the plan. The potential for hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9-1a through 4.9-1i as detailed under Impact 4.9-1 above would be required.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.9-20 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Significance after Mitigation
The proposed plan would be required to implement Mitigation Measures 4.9-1a through 4.9-1i, detailed under Impact
4.9-1. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9-1a through 4.9-1i, as well as compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, would reduce potential impacts associated with emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school.
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures 4.9-1a through 4.9-1i, impacts would be reduced to a less-than- significant level.
Impact 4.9-3: Be Located on a Site Which Is Included on a List of Hazardous Materials Sites Compiled Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5
The Plan Area contains several hazardous materials sites that are listed in the Geographic Environmental Information Management System’s GeoTracker and DTSC EnviroStor databases. Potential future development under the plan could be located on one or more of these sites. This would be a potentially significant impact.
As summarized in the “Environmental Setting,” there are properties within the Plan Area that are known to have contaminated groundwater, aquifers, and soils. Substances identified on these properties include various metals, PCBs, VOCs, pesticides, and other chemicals. For most of these properties, soil and/or water testing has been performed and documented in accordance with regulatory requirements and with agency oversight. The Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and applicable federal, state, and local regulations require sites contaminated with hazardous materials to be cleaned up. For many of these sites, remedial action programs to mitigate potential impacts are recommended, planned, ongoing, or complete. Remediation programs are designed to clean up sites such that residual contamination is below specific numerical concentrations corresponding to acceptable human health risk thresholds for chemical contaminants of concern. The cleanup process also would be subject to case-by-case considerations, with regulatory actions and oversight subject to agency -owner interactions and negotiations. Thus, development can proceed only after appropriate property remediation has occurred and the regulatory agency with jurisdictional oversight has affirmed the site is cleaned up to safe levels. It should be noted that soils, groundwater, and/or property decontamination and remediation are currently being managed for each individual property with residual contamination in accordance with applicable federal, State (e.g., RWQCB and DTSC), and local (e.g., FCEHD) procedures, protocols, and standards. While the Plan Area includes known contaminated properties, there is also the potential for other future sites where hazardous materials are currently unknown and not listed within databases to be found within the Plan Area, potentially creating a significant impact to future occupants of the Plan Area and/or construction workers through the proposal of development or redevelopment. Therefore, this impact would be
potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9-1c through 4.9-1i as detailed under Impact 4.9-1 above would be required.
Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9-1c through 4.9-1i, detailed under Impact 4.9-1, would require Phase I and Phase II site assessments and remediation activities such as surveys and assessments, cleanup plans, programs, and activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9-1c through 4.9-1i, as well as federal, state, and local regulations, would reduce potential impacts associated with future development located on a hazardous materials site that could create hazards to the public or environment. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures 4.9-1c through 4.9-1i, impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Ascent Environmental Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.9-21
Impact 4.9-4: Impair Implementation of or Physically Interfere with an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
The City’s Emergency Preparedness Officer (EPO) is responsible for ensuring that Fresno's emergency response plans are up-to-date and implemented properly and communicating with other agencies for emergency response operations. The City’s Emergency Operations Plan and County Multi-Jurisdictional LHMP provides detailed guidance for mitigating hazard events and ensures a coordinated response provided in cooperation with the City ’s departments and other local, State, and federal agencies. As part of project operation of future development of the proposed plan, adequate emergency access routes to and from the development area would be established and emergency response would not be impaired. However, construction activities associated with future development within the Plan Area would involve truck traffic and temporary land/shoulder closures in work zones that could result in temporary land closures on certain roads, increased traffic, and other roadway conditions that could interfere with or slow down emergency vehicle access and services. This could create a potentially significant impact with response
to the implementation of an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation area.
The City of Fresno has an Emergency Operations Plan that describes what the City’s actions will be during a response to an emergency. The Fresno Police Department and FFD are the lead agencies for all local emergency response efforts. The City's full-time EPO is responsible for ensuring that Fresno's emergency response plans are up- to-date and implemented properly. The EPO also facilitates cooperation between City departments and other local, State and federal agencies that would be involved in emergency response operations. The City of Fresno’s EOC will serve as the coordination and communication between the City of Fresno and Fresno County Operational Area EOC .
Development of the Plan Area would increase the development of primarily industrial uses, with some retail, office and residential uses.
Public health and safety is of particular concern in the Plan Area because of the emphasis of industrial development and the potential for such development to affect the health and safety of the people who live and work in the area. The City’s Emergency Operation Plan and County Multi- Jurisdictional LHMP provide detailed and unified guidance for mitigation of hazard events and a coordinated response with surrounding jurisdictions in the event of an emergency related to hazards. All new development within the City is subject to review and approval by the City of Fresno Public Works Department, the Fresno Fire Department, and Fresno Police Department to ensure compliance with the Emergency Operation Plan and LHMP. Compliance with existing regulations and the City’s review process ensure that operation of future development within the Plan Area would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans and would therefore have a less- than-significant impact.
Construction within the Plan Area during implementation of the proposed plan could result in temporary lane closures on certain roads, increased traffic and other roadway conditions that could interfere with or slow down emergency vehicle access and services. This impact would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 4.9-4: Prepare and enforce a Construction Traffic Management Plan Before construction of any project within the Plan Area, the project proponent shall submit to the City for review and approval a Construction Traffic Management Plan to minimize traffic impacts on all roadways at and near the work site affected by construction activities. The plan shall include construction and public (if applicable) access points, procedures for notification of road closures, construction materials delivery plan, a description of emergency personnel access routes during road closures, This plan shall reduce potential traffic safety hazards and ensure adequate access for emergency responders.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.9-22 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Significance after Mitigation
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9-3, the risk of interference with emergency vehicle access during construction in the Plan Area would be minimized by requiring all construction work to adhere to the construction traffic management plan. The specified elements outlined in this mitigation measure would ensure that construction in the Plan Area would not cause substantial interference or impairment with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. This impact would be
less than significant.
Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.10-1
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section describes the existing water resources in the Plan Area and identifies the applicable federal and state plans, policies, and laws and local plans, policies, and regulations. The analysis identifies and describes the potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality.
Potential impacts to riparian and wetland habitats are discussed in Section 4. 4, “Biological Resources,” and effects related to water supply are addressed in Section 4.16, “Utilities and Service Systems.” During the public scoping period for the Draft EIR, comments were received expressing concerns related to storm drainage and water quality. These comments are addressed below.
4.10.1 Regulatory Setting
FEDERAL
Clean Water Act
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead federal agency responsible for water quality management.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law that governs and authorizes water quality control activities by EPA as well as the states. Various elements of the CWA address water quality. These are discussed below.
CWA Water Quality Criteria/Standards
Pursuant to federal law, EPA has published water quality regulations under Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all surface waters of the United States. As defined by the act, water quality standards consist of designated beneficial uses of the water body in question and criteria that protect the designated uses. Section 304(a) requires EPA to publish advisory water quality criteria that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge on the kind and extent of all effects on health and welfare that may be expected from the presence of pollutants in water. Where multiple uses exist, water quality standards must protect the most sensitive use. As described in the discussion of state regulations below, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and its nine regional water quality control boards (RWQCBs) have designated authority in California to identify beneficial uses and adopt applicable water quality objectives.
CWA Section 404
In accordance with Section 404 of the CWA, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States and their lateral limits are defined in Title 33, Part 328.3(a) of the CFR to include navigable waters of the United States, interstate waters, all other waters where the use or degradation or destruction of the waters could affect interstate or foreign commerce, relatively permanent tributaries to any of these waters, and wetlands that are connected to these waters. Waters of the United States are often categorized as “jurisdictional wetlands” (i.e., wetlands over which USACE exercises jurisdiction under Section 404) and “other waters of the United States” when habitat values and characteristics are being described. “Fill” is defined as any material that replaces any portion of a water of the United States with dry land or that changes the bottom elevation of any portion of a water of the United States. Any activity res ulting in the placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the United States requires a permit from USACE. In accordance with Section 401 of the CWA, projects that apply for a USACE permit for discharge of dredged or fill material must obtain wat er quality certification from the appropriate RWQCB indicating that the project would uphold state water quality standards.
Wetland protection elements of the CWA administered by USACE are further discussed in Section 4.4, “Biological Resources,” of this Draft EIR.
Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.10-2 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
CWA Section 401 and 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was established in the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States. NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges, including point source municipal waste discharges and nonpoint source stormwater runoff. Each NPDES permit identifies limits on allowable concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge. Sections 401 and 402 of the CWA contain general requirements regarding NPDES permits. “Nonpoint source” pollution originates over a wide area rather than from a definable point. Nonpoint source pollution often enters receiving water in the form of surface runoff and is not conveyed by way of pipelines or discrete conveyances. Two types of nonpoint source discharges are controlled by the NPDES program: discharges caused by general construction activities and the general quality of stormwater in municipal stormwater systems. The goal of the NPDES nonpoint source regulations is to improve the quality of stormwater discharged to receiving waters to the maximum extent practicable. The RWQCBs in California are responsible for implementing the NPDES permit system (see the discussion of state regulations below).
CWA Section 303(d) Impaired Waters List
Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, states are required to develop lists of water bodies that do not attain water quality objectives after implementation of required levels of treatment by point source dischargers (municipalities and industries). Section 303(d) requires that the state develop a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for each of the listed pollutants. The TMDL is the amount of the pollutant that the water body can receive and still comply with water quality objectives. The TMDL is also a plan to reduce loading of a specific pollutant from various sources to achieve compliance with water quality objectives. In California, implementation of TMDLs is achieved through water quality control plans, known as Basin Plans, of the State RWQCBs (see the discussion of state regulations below).
National Toxics Rule
In 1992, EPA issued the National Toxics Rule (40 CFR 131.36) under the CWA to establish numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants in 14 states and jurisdictions, including California, to protect human health and aquatic life. The rule established water quality standards for 42 pollutants for which water quality criteria exist under CWA Section 304(a) but for which the respective states had not adopted adequate numeric criteria. EPA issued the California Toxics Rule in May 2000. This rule establishes numeric water quality criteria for 130 priority pollutants for which EPA has issued Section 304(a) numeric criteria that were not included in the National Toxics Rule.
Federal Antidegradation Policy
The federal antidegradation policy, established in 1968, is designed to protect existing uses and water quality and national water resources. The federal policy directs states to adopt a statewide policy that includes the following primary provisions:
existing instream uses and the water quality necessary to protect those uses shall be maintained and protected; where existing water quality is better than necessary to support fishing and swimming conditions, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the state finds that allowing lower water quality is necessary for important local economic or social development; and
where high-quality waters constitute an outstanding national resource, such as waters of national and state parks, wildlife refuges, and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, that water quality shall be maintained and protected.
National Flood Insurance Act
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is tasked with responding to, planning for, recovering from , and mitigating against disasters. The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration within FEMA is responsible for administering the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and administering programs that aid with mitigating future damages from natural hazards. The City of Fresno is a participant in the NFIP. Participants in the NFIP must satisfy certain mandated floodplain management criteria. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 has adopted a desired level of protection, an expectation that developments should be protected from floodwater damage of the Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.10-3
Intermediate Regional Flood (IRF). The IRF is defined as a flood that has an average frequency of occurrence on the order of once in 100 years, although such a flood may occur in any given year. Communities are occasionally audited by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and FEMA to insure the proper implementation of FEMA floodplain management regulations. Special Flood Hazard Areas are the areas identified as having a one percent chance of flooding in each year (otherwise known as the 100-year flood). In general, the NFIP mandates that development is not to proceed within the regulatory 100-year floodplain if the development is expected to increase flood elevation by 1 foot or more.
Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was established to protect the quality of drinking water in the United States.
This SDWA focuses on all waters either designed or potentially designed for drinking water use, whether from surface water or groundwater sources. The SDWA and subsequent amendments authorized EPA to establish health- based standards, or maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), for drinking water to protect public health against both natural and anthropogenic contaminants. All owners or operators of public water systems are required to comply with these primary (health-related) standards. State governments, which can be approved to implement these primary standards for EPA, also encourage attainment of secondary (nuisance-related) standards. At the federal level, EPA administers the SDWA and establishes MCLs for bacteriological, organic, inorganic, and radiological constituents (United States Code Title 42, and Code of Federal Regulations Title 40). At the state level, California has adopted its own SDWA , which incorporates the federal SDWA standards with some other requirements specific only to California (California Health and Safety Code Section 116350 et seq.).
STATE
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
California’s primary statute governing water quality and water pollution issues with respect to both surface waters and groundwater is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Porter-Cologne Act). The Porter-Cologne Act grants the State Water Board and each of the nine RWQCBs power to protect water quality, and is the primary vehicle for implementation of California’s responsibilities under the Clean Water Act. The applicable RWQCB for the proposed project is the Central Valley RWQCB. The State Water Board and the Central Valley RWQCB have the authority and responsibility to adopt plans and policies, regulate discharges to surface and groundwater, regulate waste disposal sites, and require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other p ollutants. The Porter- Cologne Act also establishes reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substances, sewage, or oil or petroleum products.
Under the Porter-Cologne Act, each RWQCB must formulate and adopt a water quality control plan (known as a “Basin Plan”) for its region. The Basin Plan for the Central Valley Region includes a comprehensive list of waterbodies within the region and detailed language about the components of applicable Water Quality Objectives (WQOs). The Basin Plan recognizes natural water quality, existing and potential beneficial uses, and water quality problems associated with human activities throughout the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. Through the Basin Plan, the Central Valley RWQCB executes its regulatory authority to enforce the implementation of TMDLs, and to ensure compliance with surface WQOs. The Basin Plan includes both narrative, and numerical WQOs de signed to provide protection for all designated and potential beneficial uses in all its principal streams and tributaries. Applicable beneficial uses include municipal and domestic water supply, irrigation, non -contact and contact water recreation, groundwater recharge, fresh water replenishment, hydroelectric power generation, and preservation and enhancement of wildlife, fish, and other aquatic resources.
The Central Valley RWQCB also administers the adoption of waste discharge requirements (WDRs), manages groundwater quality, and adopts projects within its boundaries under the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (General Permit).
Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.10-4 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins presents water quality standards and control measures for surface water and groundwater for a significant portion of the Central Valley Region, including the watersheds within the Plan Area. The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River designated beneficial uses for water bodies and established water quality objectives, waste discharge prohibitions, and other implementation measures to protect those beneficial uses. The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River contains both narrative and numeric water quality objectives for the region. Ambient water quality standards are set as objectives for a body of water and effluent limits (or discharge standards) are conditions in state or federal wastewater discharge perm its, such as the NPDES permits.
Land uses and activities that could degrade water quality and BMPs that could be used to address various nonpoint sources of pollution are identified in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River .
Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin (Basin Plan), one of the two basin plans for the Central Valley Region, presents water quality standards and control measures for surface water and groundwater for a significant portion of the Central Valley Region, including the watersheds within the Plan Area. The Basin Plan designated beneficial uses for water bodies and established water quality objectives, waste discharge prohibitions, and other implementation measures to protect those beneficial uses. The Basin Plan contains both narrative and numeric water quality objectives for the region. Ambient water quality standard s are set as objectives for a body of water and effluent limits (or discharge standards) are conditions in state or federal wastewater discharge permits, such as the NPDES permits. Land uses and activities that could degrade water quality and BMPs that cou ld be used to address various nonpoint sources of pollution are identified in the Basin Plan.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits SWRCB and the Central Valley RWQCB require specific NPDES permits for a variety of activities that have potential to discharge pollutants to waters of the state and adversely affect water quality. To receive an NPDES permit, a notice of intent to discharge must be submitted to Central Valley RWQCB, and design and operational BMPs must be implemented to reduce the level of contaminated runoff. BMPs can include the development and implementation of regulatory measures (e.g., require local approval of drainage facility design), educational measures (e.g., implement public information campaigns about effects of discharge to storm drains), public policy measures (e.g., label storm drain inlets as to impacts of dumping on receiving waters), and structural measures (e.g., filter strips, grass swales, and retention basins). All NPDES permits also have inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity SWRCB adopted the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit (CGP) in August 1999. The CGP was updated in 2009 with adopted order 2009-0009-DWQ and amended in 2010 and 2012. The current CGP is order 2012-0006- DWQ. The state requires that projects disturbing more than 1 acre of land during construction file a notice of intent with RWQCB to be covered under this permit. Construction activities subject to the CGP include clearing, grading, stockpiling, and excavation. Dischargers are required to eliminate or reduce non- stormwater discharges to storm drainage systems and other waters. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) must be developed and implemented for each site covered by the permit. The SWPPP must include BMPs designed to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and to keep products of erosion from moving off -site into receiving waters throughout construction and the life of the project; the BMPs also must address source control and, if necessary, pollutant control.
State Nondegradation Policy
In 1968, as required under federal antidegradation policy, SWRCB adopted a nondegradation policy aimed at maintaining high quality for waters in California. The nondegradation policy states that the disposal of wastes into state waters shall be regulated to achieve the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the state and to promote the peace, health, safety, and welfare of the people of the state. The policy provides as follows:
Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.10-5
a) Where the existing quality of water is better than required under existing water quality control plans, such quality would be maintained until it has been demonstrated that any change would be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the state and would not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial uses of such water.
b) Any activity which produces waste or increases the volume or concentration of waste and which discharges to existing high-quality waters would be required to meet waste discharge requirements.
California Water Code
The California Water Code is enforced by DWR. The mission of DWR is “to manage the water resources of California in cooperation with other agencies, to benefit the State’s people, and to protect, restore, and enhance the natural and human environments.” DWR is responsible for promoting California’s general welfare by ensuring beneficial water use and development statewide.
Groundwater Management is outlined in the California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.75, Chapters 1 –5, Sections 10750 through 10755.4. The Groundwater Management Act was first introduced in 1992 as Assembly Bill (AB) 3030, and has since been modified by Senate Bill (SB) 1938 in 2002, AB 359 in 2011, and the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SB 1168, SB 1319, and AB 1739) in 2014. The intent of the Acts is to encourage local agencies to work cooperatively to manage groundwater resources within their jurisdictions and to provide a methodology for developing a Groundwater Management Plan.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) became law on January 1, 2015, and applies to all groundwater basins in the state (Water Code Section 10720.3). By enacting the SGMA, the legislature intended to provide local agencies with the authority and the technical and financial assistance necessary to sustainably manage groundwater within their jurisdiction (Water Code Section 10720.1).
Pursuant to SGMA, any local agency that has water supply, water management or land use responsibilities within a groundwater basin may elect to be a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) for that basin (Water Code Section 10723). The City of Fresno is part of the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NKGSA), a Joint Powers Authority consisting of ten public agencies. The North Kings GSA is authorized under SGMA to develop, adopt, and implement a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the sustainable management of groundwater in a portion of the Kings Subbasin.
LOCAL
City of Fresno General Plan
The approved General Plan is a set of policies and programs that form a blueprint for the physical development of the City. For a description of each of the elements within the approved General Plan, refer to Chapter 3, “ Project Description.” The following objectives and policies related to hydrology and water quality are presented in various elements of the approved General Plan.
Noise and Safety Element
Objective NS-3: Minimize the risks to property, life, and the environment due to flooding and stormwater runoff hazards.
Policy NS-3-a: Stormwater Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan. Support the full implementation of the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan, the completion of planned flood control and drainage system facilities, and the continued maintenance of stormwater and flood water retention and conveyance facilities and capacities. Work with the FMFCD to make sure that its Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan is consistent with the General Plan.
Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.10-6 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Policy NS-3-b: Curb and Gutter Installation. Coordinate with FMFCD to install curbing, gutters, and other drainage facilities with priority to existing neighborhoods with the greatest deficiencies and consistent with the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan.
Policy NS-3-c: Dual Use Facilities. Support multiple uses of flood control and drainage facilities as follows:
Use, wherever practical, FMFCD facilities for groundwater management and recharge; and Promote recreational development of ponding basin facilities located within or near residential areas, compatible with the stormwater and groundwater recharge functions. Policy NS-3-d: Landscaped Buffer. City will support the development of FMFCD ponding basins including the landscaping and irrigation for the top one third of the side sloped areas consistent with the FMFCD Basin Design Criteria.
Policy NS-3-e: Pollutants. Work with FMFCD to prevent and reduce the existence of urban stormwater pollutants pursuant to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems Act. Policy NS-3-g: Essential Facilities Siting Outside of Floodplains. Avoid siting emergency response and essential public facilities, such as fire and police stations, within a 100-year floodplain, unless it can be demonstrated that the facility can be safely operated and accessed during flood events. Policy NS-3-h: Runoff Controls. Implement grading regulations and related development policies that protect area residents from flooding caused by urban runoff produced from events that exceed the capacity of the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan system of facilities. Place all structures and/or flood -proofing in a manner that does not cause floodwaters to be diverted onto adjacent property, increase flood hazards to other property, or otherwise adversely affect other property. Policy NS-3-i: New Development Must Mitigate Impact. Require new development to not significantly impact the existing storm drainage and flood control system by imposing conditions of approval as project mitigation, as authorized by law. As part of this process, closely coordinate and consult with the FMFCD to identify appropriate conditions that will result in mitigation acceptable and preferred by FMFCD for each project. Policy NS-3-k: 100-Year Floodplain Policy. Require developers of residential subdivisions to preserve those portions of development sites as open space that may be subject to 100- year flood events, unless the flood hazard can be substantially mitigated by development project design. Policy NS-3-l: 200-Year Floodplain Protection. Promote flood control measures that maintain natural conditions within the 200-year floodplain of rivers and streams and, to the extent possible, combine flood control, recreation, water quality, and open space functions. Discourage construction of perman ent improvements that would be adversely affected by periodic floods within the 200-year floodplain, particularly in the San Joaquin river bottom.
Public Utilities and Services Element
Objective PU-5: Preserve groundwater quality and ensure that the health and safety of the entire Fresno community is not impaired by use of private, on-site disposal systems.
Objective PU-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-f: Water Quality. Continue to evaluate and implement measures determined to be appropriate and consistent with water system policies, including prioritizing the use of groundwater, installing wellhead treatment facilities, constructing above-ground storage and surface water treatment facilities, and enhancing transmission grid mains to promote adequate water quality and quantity.
Resource Conservation and Resilience Element
Objective RC-6: Ensure that Fresno has a reliable, long-range source of drinkable water.
Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.10-7
Policy RC-6-g: Protect Recharge Areas. Continue to protect areas of beneficial natural groundwater recharge by preventing uses that can contaminate soil or groundwater.
City of Fresno Municipal Code
Chapter 6, Municipal Services and Utilities, Article 7, Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control, of the Fresno Municipal Code (FMC) establishes provisions regarding stormwater discharges. The purpose of the City’s Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance is to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of citizens and protect the water quality of watercourses and water bodies in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the CWA (33 US Code Section 1251 et seq.) by reducing pollutants in urban stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable and by effectively prohibiting non -stormwater discharges to the storm drain system.
Chapter 11, Building Permits and Regulations, Article 6, Fresno Flood Plain Ordinance establish es methods of reducing flood losses by: restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards or flood heights or velocities; requiring that uses vulnerable to floods be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction; controlling filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage; preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood water or which may increase flood hazards in other areas; and controlling the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters.
Fresno Municipal Flood Control District Post-Development Standards Technical Manual Water quality treatment for post-construction discharges to stormwater in the FMFCD Master Plan Area is provided by detention and retention basins (henceforth referred to as retention basins) that are parts of FMFCDs stormwater drainage system. The FMFCD manages urban stormwater runoff in the Fresno-Clovis area. The City of Fresno Public Works Department maintains streets and gutters that convey stormwater to storm drain inlets. Storm drainage improvements are funded by local drainage fees paid by developments and are built by the FMFCD, by developers, or both. Basins are highly effective at reducing average concentrations of a broad range of contaminants, including several polyaromatic hydrocarbons, total suspended solids, and most metals. Pollutants are re moved by filtration through soil, and thus don’t reach the groundwater aquifer. Basins are built to design criteria exceeding Statewide Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) standards. The urban flood control system provides treatment for all types of development.
The FMFCD published a Post-Development Standards Technical Manual in 2014 to provide development and redevelopment standards to address stormwater quality requirements for projects in areas that do not drain to the Regional Stormwater Management Basin System. Per the manual, five drainage areas in the FMFCD service area do not drain into a stormwater management basin and two areas outside the service area do not drain into a regional stormwater management basin. These post-development requirements were developed to comply with the MS4 Permit maintained for stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from MS4 to waters of the United States. The manual provides guidance and recommendations for implementing stormwater quality BMPs with the intention of improving water quality and mitigating potential water quality impacts from stormwater and non -stormwater discharges.
Regionwide MS4 Permit (2016)
The Central Valley RWQCB issued a region-wide permit (Order No. R5-2016-0040) covering the entire Central Valley RWQCB Region and storm drainage systems in cities as small as 10,000 population, in June 2016. The MS4 Permit for Fresno County, Order No. R5-2016-0040-015, was issued on May 17, 2018.
Permittees must develop and implement a Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) including the following elements:
Illegal Connection and Illicit Discharge Elimination Program Construction Storm Water Runoff Control Program
Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.10-8 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Industrial/Commercial Storm Water Runoff Control Program Municipal Operations Storm Water Runoff Control Program (Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping) Public Involvement and Participation Program
Planning and Land Development/Post Construction Storm Water Management Program Priority development projects, identified below, are required to incorporate storm water mitigation measures:
Single-family hillside residences
Residential subdivisions of ten or more units
100,000-square-foot industrial/commercial development Automotive repair shops
Restaurants
Parking lots with 5,000 square feet or more or with 25 or more parking spaces Redevelopment projects that are within one of above categories and that add or create at least 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface
Stormwater management strategies include:
Site Design Measures: Emphasize conservation and use of existing natural site features integrated with distributed, small-scale storm water controls to mimic natural drainage. Source Control Measures: Intended to keep pollutants from mixing with runoff, and thus minimize the transport of urban runoff and pollutants off-site and into storm drains. Source control measures include standards for design and operation of outdoor areas where substances that could contaminate stormwater are used, such as fueling areas, loading areas, material storage areas, and work areas. Treatment Control Measures: remove pollutants from site runoff; measures include bioretention planters, vegetated swales, and infiltration trenches and basins. Low Impact Development (LID) Measures: emphasize conservation and use of existing natural site features integrated with distributed, small-scale storm water controls to mimic natural drainage. LID measures include stream setbacks and buffers, soil amendments, tree planting and preservation, rooftop and impervious area disconnection, porous pavement, eco roofs, bioretention planters, and rain barrels or cisterns. Monitoring Program.
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District Storm Drainage Master Plan The Storm Drainage Master Plan, administered by the FMFCD, contains proposed elevations for tops of curbs in undeveloped areas, delineation of storm drain inlet watershed areas, collection system pipeline alignments and sizes, and retention basin or urban detention (water quality) basin locations and geometry. Th e development of land in conformance with the Storm Drainage Master Plan ensures that development is graded to drain to storm drainage facilities that are designed to collect and dispose of stormwater from the planned development.
Fresno Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan
As part of a partnership of local municipal water purveyors, irrigation districts, a flood control district, and the overlying county, the Fresno Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan (FARGMP) was prepared in conformance with AB 3030 and SB 1938, the SGMA, as amended. The objectives of the FARGMP have been developed to monitor, protect, and sustain groundwater within the region. The City of Fresno and the other participating agencies subsequently adopted the groundwater management plan in 2006.
Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.10-9
North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan The NKGSA was formed through the adoption of a Joint Powers Agreement by the Fresno Irrigation District, the County of Fresno, the City of Fresno, the City of Clovis, the City of Kerman, Biola Community Services District, Garfield Water District, and the International Water Company (NKGSA 2023). The FMFCD is also a member of the NKGSA. The NKGSA is authorized under the SGMA to develop, adopt, and implemen t a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the sustainable management of groundwater in a portion of the Kings Subbas in. The NKGSA’s Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) was submitted to DWR on January 28, 2020. The GSP was revised and submitted in 2022, following DWR’s 2-year review and determination. The revised GSP was recommended for approval in March 2023 (NKGSA 2023).
The sustainability goal of the Kings Subbasin and the NKGSA is to ensure that by 2040 the basin is being managed to maintain a reliable water supply for current and future beneficial uses without experiencing undesirable results. The NKGSA will reach sustainability by 2040 if groundwater flows form within the NKGSA to neighboring GSAs and basins are reduced and projects are developed to mitigate present and future projected effects. Actions to meet sustainability goals include education and outreach, well head requirements, groundwater allocation, and groundwater pumping restrictions. The City of Fresno is charged with implementing several projects to meet sustainability goals, including construction of the Southwest Reclamation Facility and Distribution System and Southeast Reclamation Facility and expansion of the Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility. The City has already completed implementation of residential water meter retrofit projects, expansion of the City’s water treatment plan, expansion of the City’s groundwater recharge program, and construction of the new Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility (NKGSA 2023):
Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (plan) was originally developed in 2007-2008 and FEMA approved it in 2009. The plan was comprehensively updated in 2017-2018. Fresno County and the other participating jurisdictions developed this multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan to make the county and its residents less vulnerable to future hazard events. The plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 so that Fresno County would be eligible for the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants, including Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Hazard Mitigation Grant programs as well as lower flood insurance premiums (in jurisdictions that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating System) (Fresno County 2018).
Recharge Fresno
The City of Fresno had adopted the Recharge Fresno program in 2014 with the intention to improve the pipelines and water system facilities that capture, treat, and deliver water to Fresno homes and businesses, including surface water from the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The programs objectives are to ensure a reliable and sustainable water supply for Fresno’s present and future prosperity by increasing the available water supply; bring new, treated surface water from the Sierra Nevada Mountains to our community; improve natural and intentional groundwater recharge; maintain focus on conservation and its role in ensuring a sustainable water supply for Fresno; and ensure a safe and reliable water supply (Recharge Fresno 2023).
4.10.2 Environmental Setting
REGIONAL HYDROLOGY
Fresno County, including the Plan Area, is located in the San Joaquin Valley Basin. The basin is bounded to the north by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Sacramento Valley, to the east by the Sierra Nevada Mountains, to the south by the San Emigdio and Tehachapi Mountains, and to the west by the Coast Ranges. More specifically, the Plan Area is located within the Kings Subbasin, which is located in the southern half of the San Joaquin Valley Basin, bounded to the north by the San Joaquin River and to the south by the Kings River (City of Fresno 2021). The San Joaquin and the Kings Rivers are the principal rivers that influence the hydrology in the Plan Area. The western slopes Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.10-10 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
of the Sierra Nevada drain to the west via the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers. The Kings River is connected to the San Joaquin River by the James Bypass, a manmade canal. Floodwater from the Kings River is diverted to the San Joaquin River. Three dams control flows on the two rivers. The Friant and Mendota Dams are located on the San Joaquin River and provide some flood control; however, these two dams were not designed for the purpose of flood control. The Pine Flat Dam, located on the Kings River, was built for the purpose of flood control. In addition to the dams on the two rivers, there are reservoirs and detention basins that have been constructed to prevent flooding, including the Redbank Dam and the Redbank-Fancher Creeks Flood Control Project (Fresno County 2003).
Hydrologic Region
Fresno County is located in the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region. The Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region covers approximately 10.9 million acres (17,000 square miles) and includes all of Kings and Tulare C ounties and most of Fresno and Kern Counties. Significant geographic features include the southern half of the San Joaquin Valley, the Temblor Range to the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the southern Sierra Nevada to the east. The region has 12 distinct groundwater basins and seven subbasins of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin.
Groundwater has historically been important to both urban and agricultural uses, accounting for 41 percent of the region’s total annual supply and 35 percent of all groundwater use in the State. Groundwater use in the region represents about 10 percent of the State’s overall supply for agricultural and urban uses. In general, groundwater quality throughout the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region is suitable for most urban and agricultural uses with only local impairments. The City currently receives water from four water supply sources; surface water delivered to the City by either the Fresno Irrigation District (FID) Agreement for Kings River water or the US Bureau of Reclamation Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division Contract for San Joaquin River water, groundwater pumped from wells located within the City, or recycled water treated at the Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RWRF) and North Fresno Wastewater Reclamation Facility (NFWRF) (West Yost 2023). Figure 4.10-1 displays where the Plan Area is located within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region and the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin.
GROUNDWATER
The Plan Area is underlain by the Kings River Subbasin, which, along with six other subbasins, comprises the San Joaquin Valley Basin. In turn, the San Joaquin Basin is located within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region, shown in Figure 4.10-1. The Kings River Subbasin is 1,530 square miles of central Fresno County and small areas of northern Kings and Tulare Counties. Groundwater levels in the City have declined from less than 0.5 feet per year in the southwest portion of the downtown area, to a rate of 1.5 per year for northern and southern areas of the City, to a maximum of 3 feet per year in the northeastern area of the City since 1990 (City of Fresno 2020). The Kings Subbasin groundwater aquifer supplies the City, other municipalities, agriculture, and rural residential areas with a consistent source of water. The Kings Subbasin has been identified as critically over drafted, with groundwater being pumped out of the subbasin faster than water is recharged into the subbasin. The City has historically relied on groundwater as its main supply source prior to the construction of the Surface Water Treatment Facility (SWTF). However, with the operation of the SWTF, the City has relied more on surface water, rather than ground water , and therefore, groundwater levels have begun to increase in certain areas of the City in the last few years. Currently, subsurface recharge occurs from the movement of groundwater from external sources such as the Sierra Nevada moving into the local aquifer. Because the groundwater table surrounding the City is higher than inside the City, subsurface water tends to flow from surrounding areas with a higher groundwater table into the aquifer within the city that has a lower groundwater table. However, the City estimates that by 2025, groundwater operations (i.e., subsurface inflows and outflows) would be balanced and subsurface flows will not be directed to the C ity (City of Fresno 2021).
Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.10-11
Source: Data downloaded from CA DWR in 2022; adapted by Ascent in 2023 Figure 4.10-1 Hydrologic Region of Plan Area
Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.10-12 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
The City has over 270 municipal wells and is actively operating approximately 202 municipal wells , which have a production capacity of approximately 403 million gallons per day (mgd). The wells are located within the northern part of the Kings Subbasin. While the wells are located throughout the City to provide equitable distribution throughout the City’s water system, six active wells are located within the Plan Area (City of Fresno 2021). However, groundwater quality is a concern due to the groundwater basin containing several major contaminant plumes involving organic compounds, inorganic compounds, solvents, pesticides, and other contaminants. Several of the City wells are being treated or blended to address the various contaminants (West Yost 2023). Groundwater pumping data provided by the City indicates that approximately 83,360 acre-feet (AF) was pumped in 2015. Between 2011 and 2015, the City pumped an average of approximately 111,522 acre-feet per year (AF/year). This average groundwater pumping has exceeded the current estimated groundwater safe yield of approximately 72,500 AF/year (City of Fresno 2020). The City expects to continue to operate its three SWTFs and pump groundwater at a lower rate than historically so that the groundwater basin can recover. One of the primary objectives for the City as described in the Fresno Metropolitan Water Resource Management Plan, which is currently being prepared, is to maximize the use of available surface water treatment supplies to reduce overall reliance on groundwater (City of Fresno 2021).
Groundwater will continue to be an important part of the City’s supply but will not be relied upon as heavily.
Groundwater Recharge
Groundwater is recharged through natural recharge from rainfall and surface water , subsurface inflow from surrounding areas, and intentional recharge. Natural recharge in the Fresno metropolitan area was about 24,970 AF/year in 2020. The natural recharge is anticipated to be about 25,480 by the year 2025, according to the 2020 UWMP (City of Fresno 2021).
Groundwater is intentionally recharged in the Fresno metropolitan area through Leaky Acres, the City’s main recharge facility; FMFCD retention basins throughout the region; the Alluvial Groundwater Recharge System owned and operated by the City of Clovis; and percolation basins recharging treated wastewater from the Fresno -Clovis Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility.
The City of Fresno has an adopted program, Recharge Fresno, intended to improve the pipelines and water system facilities that will capture, treat, and deliver water to Fresno homes and businesses, including surface water from the Sierra Nevada. This program has the following objectives: ensure a reliable and sustainable water supply for Fresno’s present and future prosperity by increasing the available water supply; bring new, treated surface water from the Sierra Nevada to the community; improve natural and intentional groundwater recharge; maintain focus on conservation and its role in ensuring a sustainable water supply for Fresno; and ensure a safe and reliable water supply (Recharge Fresno 2023). The Plan Area currently contains impermeable surfaces as a result of existing development. However, the Plan Area also contains open spaces, allowing for permeable surfaces to contribute to groundwater recharge, particularly in the southern and eastern portions of the Plan Area. Implementation of the SCSP would reduce the acreage of permeable surfaces through additional development, creating more impermeable surfaces.
Groundwater Quality
Groundwater quality throughout the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region meets the primary and secondary drinking water standards for municipal use (City of Fresno 2020). Groundwater within the Fresno Irrigation District, in which the Plan Area is located, is generally good quality, however there are areas of concern due to contaminants (Fresno Irrigation District 2006). Known contaminants include dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), ethylene dibromide (EDB), trichloropropane (TCP), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE), nitrate, manganese, radon, chloride, and iron. Most of the groundwater contaminants in the Fresno area are being addressed by responsible parties through assessment and remediation, and some are i n advanced stages of mitigation. The responsible parties of many of the point source contaminants (i.e., hydrocarbons and VOCs) are working with State (Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control) and local (Fresno County Environmental Health Department) agencies to remediate the contaminants. Area wide contaminants are being addressed via wellhead treatment (DBCP) and plans are underway to address others, such as nitrate (Fresno Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.10-13
Irrigation District 2006). There are several contaminated groundwater sites within the Plan Area. Further discussion of these sites is located in Section 4.9, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials.”
SURFACE HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE
The City of Fresno is located in the alluvial fans of numerous foothill streams and creeks that drain the western slope of the Sierra Nevada foothills. These streams include Big Dry Creek, Alluvial Drain, Pup Creek, Dog Creek, Redbank Creek, Mud Creek, and Fancher Creek. The City has hot dry summers and cool mild winters, with temperatures of mid-90°F in the summer and 60°F in the winter. The precipitation averages 11 inches per year and occurs almost entirely in the fall, winter, and spring.
As mentioned above, the Plan Area is within the Tulare Lake Hydraulic Region. The primary direction of water flow in most of the Tulare Lake Hydraulic Region is northeast to southwest from the Sierra Nevada, west into the Coast Ranges, and south into the Tehachapi Mountains. The Tulare Lake Hydraulic Region is divided into several subbasins, and the Plan Area is located in the Upper Dry Subbasin. The Upper Dry Subbasin spans approximately 2,126 square miles, extending from the foothills of the Sierra Nevada west across the San Joaquin Valley to the eastern Coast Ranges. Three dams control flows on the San Joaquin River and Kings River. The Friant and Mendota Dams on the San Joaquin River impound Millerton Lake and the Mendota Pool, respectively, waters that provide for municipal and agricultural irrigation supply and some flood control. The Friant Dam is about 20 miles north and upstream of the Plan Area and the Mendota Dam is approximately 32 miles west and downstream from the Plan Area. Other flood control reservoirs and detention basins in the Upper Dry Subbasin include the Redbank Dam and the Redbank - Fancher Creeks Flood Control Project, which consists of two dams (Big Dry Creek Dam and Fancher Creek Dam); three detention basins (Redbank Creek, Pup Creek, and Alluvial Drain Detention Basins); and canals to convey discharges in and around the City of Fresno. These facilities were designed to protect developed areas from a 200 - year storm event. Figure 4.10-2 displays the location of the mentioned dams and detention basins in retrospect of the Plan Area.
The storm drainage facilities within the Fresno-Clovis metropolitan area are planned, implemented, operated, and maintained by the FMFCD. The storm drainage facilities within the drainage area consist of storm drain inlets, pipeline, retention basins, urban detention (water quality) basins, and stormwater pump stations. The Plan Area is within the FMFCD’s urban flood control system consisting of 158 drainage areas, each 1 to 2 squ are miles in area; all but five of the drainage areas are served by a detention or retention basin (FMFCD 2017).
The FMFCD has primary responsibility for managing the local stormwater flows for the City, as well as a large area beyond the City’s boundaries. The City’s stormwater drains to urban stormwater basins, where it is retained for groundwater recharge or pumped to local irrigation canals owned by Fresno Irrigation District (FID) and then conveyed away from the municipal area. Locally, the FMFCD drainage system consists of approximately 680 miles of pipeline and more than 150 stormwater retention basins. The storm drainage pipeline system is designed to accept the peak flow rate of runoff from a 2-year intensity storm event (a storm that has a 50 percent probability of occurring in any given year) (City of Fresno 2022a).
As described in Chapter 3, “Project Description,” the Plan Area currently contains primarily industrial and commercial development, with some residential neighborhoods, rural residential, public facilities, open space, and vacant land.
When storm events occur that exceed the 2-year intensity, ponding begins to occur in the streets until the pipeline system can remove the water. In the event of larger storms, “major storm breakover ,” the FMFCD has planned for streets or other conveyance to move the excess runoff to the basins.
Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.10-14 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2023
Figure 4.10-2 Location of Dams and Detention Basins near Plan Area.
Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.10-15
FLOOD CONTROL
Flooding events can result in damage to structures, injury or loss of human and animal life, exposure of waterborne diseases, and damage to infrastructure. In addition, standing floodwater can destroy agricultural crops, undermine infrastructure and structural foundations, and contaminate groundwater. Regionally, the City is protected by USACE’s Redbank-Fancher Creeks Flood Control Project. This project includes dams, detention basins, and levees designed to control upstream flood flows to approximately the 200-year storm event. Major facilities of this project include levee systems, the Big Dry Creek, Fancher Creek, and Redbank Creek dams and reservoirs, and the Alluvial Drain, Redbank Creek, Pup Creek, Fancher Creek, Big Dry Creek, Pup Creek Enterprise, and Dry Creek Extension detention basins.
Predicted flood conditions in the vicinity of the Plan Area are shown on the FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) map. A majority of the Plan Area is designated as shaded Zone X, a zone with a 0.2 percent chance of flooding in any given year and is within the limits of the 100-year and 500-year floodplain; however, there are certain portions of the Plan Area designated as Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), Zone A, Zone AE, and Zone AH. Portions of Zone A and Zone AE are located in the south portion of the Plan Area. Areas designated Zone A have a one percent chance of flooding in any given year, whereas areas designated as Zone AE are base floodplains where base flood elevations are provided. Zone AH covers areas in the northern portion of the Plan Area, which has a one percent annual chance of shallow flooding. All zones are considered SFHAs because flood risks are generally high and flooding could occur once every 100 years. SFHAs require the NFIP’s floodplain management regulations to be enforced, requiring the purchase of flood insurance (FEMA 2023). Figure 4.10-3 displays the flood zone locations within the Plan Area.
Dam Inundation
Dam failure is generally a result of structural instability caused by improper design or construction, instability resulting from seismic shaking, or overtopping and erosion of the dam. Larger dams that are higher than 25 feet or with storage capacities over 50 acre-feet of water are regulated by the California Dam Safety Act, which is implemented by the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (DSD). The DSD is responsible for inspecting and monitoring these dams. The Act also requires that dam owners submit to the California Office of Emergency Services inundation maps for dams that would cause significant loss of life or pe rsonal injury as a result of dam failure.
The northern portion of the Plan Area is in the dam inundation area for Fancher Creek, and Fancher Creek Detention.
The nearest inundation area of Big Dry Creek Dam is approximately 0.40 miles west of the Plan Area, so the Plan Area is not in the direct area of Big Dry Creek Dam inundation. Depth of potential inundation across the northern portion of the Plan Area varies with geography and with each potential dam failure. A majority of the inundation areas located within the Plan Area have a maximum depth of 1 to 4 feet; however, along the borders of State Route (SR) 99, maximum inundation depth ranges from 5 feet to greater than 18 feet. Due to the location of the Plan Area in relation to these dams, peak inundation would be reached around 14 hours after dam failure in inundation areas more northeast in the Plan Area, with peak inundation being reached around 24 hours after dam failure in inundation areas more southwest in the Plan Area (FMFCD 2019, 2020a, 2020b). Potential inundation areas from these dams are shown in Figure 4.10-4.
Seiche
A seiche is a standing wave created when an inland water body is shaken, usually by an earthquake. The nearest water body to the Plan Area capable of generating a seiche is Big Dry Creek Reservoir, located about 14 miles to the northeast. Therefore, the Plan Area is not subject to seiche.
Tsunami
A tsunami is an ocean wave caused by a sudden displacement of the ocean floor, most often due to earthquakes. The Plan Area is located over 108 miles (inland) from the Pacific Ocean and is at an elevation ranging from about 263 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the southwest corner to 283 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the east boundary of the Plan Area. There is no potential for tsunami flood hazards within the Plan Area.
Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.10-16 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Source: Data downloaded from FEMA in 2022
Figure 4.10-3 Flood Zones Located Within the Plan Area
Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.10-17
Source: Data downloaded from DWR in 2023
Figure 4.10-4 Dam Breach Inundation Areas Within the Plan Area
Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.10-18 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.10.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
METHODOLOGY
The impact analysis is based on a review of applicable plans, policies, and assessments that were used to identify the current hydrology and water quality conditions of the Plan Area. In determining the level of significance, the analysis assumes that future development within the Plan Area would comply with relevant federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations. The following reports and data sources document potential hydrology and water quality conditions within the Plan Area and were reviewed to determine potential impacts:
Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno 2022b);
California’s Groundwater Update 2020 (DWR 2021); and
South Central Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment (West Yost 2023).
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
An impact on hydrology and water quality would be significant if implementation of the project would:
violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality;
substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin; substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- site or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on -site or off-site;
create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater - drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; impede or redirect flood flows;
in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation; or conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
PROPOSED SCSP POLICIES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The following policies are relevant to hydrology and water quality:
W-1: Protect groundwater and surface water by regulating sewage disposal facilities and preventing contaminating uses.
W-2: Implement a periodic water quality testing program in areas where contamination has been an issue. W-3: Provide supplemental water resources to areas already impacted by groundwater quality and quantity degradation.
W-4 Identify funding tools to expand water system access in and near the Plan Area. W-5: Require new development to implement water conservation measures and to contribute towards expanded and upgraded facilities.
Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.10-19
W-6: Reduce water consumption through education, conservation standards, landscaping standards, retrofit programs, and incentive programs.
W-7: Seek funding to expand water facilities to neighbors within the Plan Area.
ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
Tsunami or Seiche
As discussed above, the Plan Area is approximately 108 miles from the coast, which is sufficiently distant to preclude effects from a tsunami, and not adjacent to any lakes or standing water bodies that pose significant a risk from a seiche event. Therefore, these issues are not discussed further.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.10-1: Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements or Otherwise Substantially Degrade Surface or Ground Water Quality Construction activities associated with future development under the proposed plan could degrade the quality of stormwater flows and potentially degrade downstream surface water quality. Further, contaminants generated by urban development within the Plan Area could be carried in stormwater runoff and could reach surface waters and degrade water quality. Development under the proposed plan would be required to comply with applicable requirements related to water quality, including on-site stormwater detention/retention and materials handling, during construction and operation. Compliance with these regulations would reduce the potential for construction and operation of development associated with the proposed plan to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, the proposed plan would have a
less-than-significant impact related to water quality.
Short-term Construction Impacts
Clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with future development under the proposed plan could degrade water quality through soil erosion and increase silt and debris discharged into runoff.
Additionally, the use of construction materials such as solvents, fuels, and paints may present a risk to surface water quality, if they were to come into contact. Temporary storage of construction materials and equipment in work areas or staging areas could involve a release of hazardous materials, trash, or sediment into the storm drain system.
Construction activities could result in soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas. Construction activities have the potential to adversely affect the water quality of local surface waters and groundwater beneath the construction sites.
Individual developments would be required to comply with state and local water quality laws and regulations implemented to protect surface water and groundwater resources. Future construction activities under the proposed plan that would disturb one acre or more of soil would be governed by the NPDES Stormwater Program and Construction General Permit, Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ, and would be required to prepare a SWPPP containing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and sediments to meet water quality standards. The SWPPP would be designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil, to the extent practicable, using BMPs that the Central Valley RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The SWPPP would be prepared by a qualified SWPPP practitioner and/or a qualified SWPPP developer and would identify water quality controls consistent with Central Valley RWQCB requirements and would ensure that runoff quality meets water quality objectives and maintains the beneficial uses of the Plan Area streams. The BMPs identified in the SWPPP would be implemented during all site development activities and may include temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover. The SWPPP would be submitted to the Central Valley RWQCB and the City of Fresno. The SWPPP, once approved, is kept on site and implemented during Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.10-20 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
construction activities and must be made available upon request to representatives of the Central Valley RWQCB and/or the City of Fresno.
Additionally, construction activities would be required to comply with Chapter 6, Municipal Services and Utilities and Article 7, Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control of the FMC during construction. These existing laws and regulations requiring erosion and sediment controls; implementation and maintenance of temporary construction BMPs to capture, detain, and allow infiltration or otherwise control and properly manage site runoff; waste control measures to prevent leakage or spill of hazardous materials into soils and surface waters; and management controls for stormwater runoff to prevent erosion and off-site transport of earth materials. If properly implemented, these existing protective policies and regulations would reduce the potential for construction activities to adversely affect water quality.
Long-term Operational Impacts
The long-term operation of future projects developed under the proposed plan could result in long-term impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff. The proposed plan would result in new additional impervious areas associated with roadways, driveways, parking lots, buildings, and other hardscape areas. The majority of development under the proposed plan would be within areas currently developed with urban uses, resulting in runoff conditions similar to current conditions within the developed areas. However, while there are areas covered by the SCSP that have been historically developed, there are portions of the Plan Area that are undeveloped and pervious, such as lands that are currently vacant or used for agricultural operations. With implementation of the SCSP, the undeveloped areas would become developed, resulting in new impervious surfaces throughout the Plan Area. Typical operational activities in developed areas would include the use of various automotive petroleum products (i.e., oil, grease, and fuel), common household hazardous materials, heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and sediment. Pollutant levels would vary based on factors such as time between storm events, volume of storm event, type of uses, and density of activity. Future increases in impervious surfaces would result in increased urban runoff, pollutants, and first flush roadway contaminants, as well as an increase in nutrients and other chemicals from landscaped areas. Without proper management, these constituents could adversely affect quality of surface water and groundwater in the Plan Area and vicinity.
The Plan Area is in areas served by FMFCD retention basins. Water quality treatment for post -construction discharges to stormwater in the FMFCD urban flood control system area is provided by retention basins. In addition, the Plan Area is within the regulatory area of FMFCD’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan, and future projects within the Plan Area would be subject to the postconstruction stormwater control requirements.
The Plan Area would continue to support similar industrial land uses that are currently allowed under the General Plan. Industrial projects would be required to obtain an Industrial General Stormwater Permit (NPDES No.
CAS000001), which is similar to the Statewide NPDES CGP. Some industrial and other uses that require water for processing may discharge treated wastewater to land or surface waters. These projects would be required to obtain a separate and additional wastewater NPDES permit through the Central Valley RWQCB. Wastewater NPDES permits contain facility-specific water discharge requirements that protect beneficial uses, ensure that discharges meet the water quality objectives of the water body to which wastewater is discharged, and meet federal and state nondegradation policies in instances in which existing water quality is better than required by law. The wastewater NPDES permit also specifies the location and frequency of effluent monitoring. Monitoring intervals vary depending on what is being tested and may be continuous (for flow), daily (for pH and temperature), weekly (e.g., for oxygen demand, total suspended solids, electrical conductivity), monthly (for hardness, nitrate, total dissolved solids), or quarterly or annually for more complex tests, such as total mercury or acute toxicity. The types of monitoring test required will depend on the characteristics of the wastewater and the receiving water. Self -monitoring reports are typically required to be submitted monthly.
Similar to construction, the NPDES Stormwater Program would be applicable to operational activities, as well as the specific policies such as those mentioned above in the City General Plan, and FMC regarding water quality. Future projects within the Plan Area would comply with these regulations, policies, and permit conditions requiring the implementation of stormwater BMPs to prevent urban pollutants from being carried into surface waters. Additional Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.10-21
permitting and compliance measures would be required for stormwater runoff from industrial facilities and for industrial projects that would generate wastewater, including facility-specific discharge requirements and regular monitoring and reporting. If properly implemented, these existing protections would reduce the potential for urban development within the Plan Area to create a substantial adverse impact on water quality.
Conclusion
Future development under the proposed plan would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction or operation because these future development projects would be required to comply with the FMFCD’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan, NPDES Permit, City General Plan policies, and City Municipal Code requirements. Through compliance with these regulations and policies, the proposed plan would have a less-than-significant impact related water quality.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.
Impact 4.10-2: Substantially Decrease Groundwater Supplies or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater Recharge Such That the Project May Impede Sustainable Groundwater Management of the Basin
The City overlays the Kings Subbasin, a high-priority and critically overdrafted basin managed by NKGSA. A GSP for the Kings Subbasin was adopted in 2023 and contains projects and management actions that would bring the subbasin into sustainability by 2040. Future development in the Plan Area would not impede implementation of projects or management actions included in the NKGSA GSP. Additionally, land uses included in the proposed plan would demand less water supply, including groundwater, than the land uses assumed in the 2014 General Plan, which was used to develop assumptions included within the NKGSA GSP. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
As discussed in more detail in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, t he City pumps groundwater from a portion of the Kings Subbasin underlying the City. Per the City’s 2020 UWMP, the City has over 270 municipal wells and is actively operating approximately 202 of those wells. Groundwater quality is a concern because the groundwater basin has several major contaminant plumes involving organic compounds, inorganic compounds, solvents, pesticides, and other contaminants. Several City wells are currently being treated or blended to address various contaminants. When the City’s 2014 Water Master Plan was prepared, the total well capacity was approximately 460 million gallons per day (mgd) (West Yost 2023).
The City had historically relied on groundwater as its main source of supply prior to the construction of its surface water treatment facilities. With the recent investments in surface water infrastructure, the City has been able to significantly reduce its groundwater pumping. Groundwater production has decreased from 82,500 af/yr in 2015 to 55,000 af/yr in 2020 (City of Fresno 2021). The amount of groundwater pumped during dry years is not projected to differ from the amount pumped during normal years.
The City’s future groundwater production is projected to increase substantially from regional growth, from 138,090 af/year in 2025 to 154,490 af/year in 2040, which is the sum of the Kings Subbasin sustainable yield and the volume intentionally recharged by the City. While the projected future groundwater production increases significantly from recent historical groundwater production, it remains sustainable. The City’s 2020 UWMP addresses the sufficiency of the City’s groundwater supplies, in conjunction with the City’s other existing and additional water supplies, to meet the City’s existing and planned future uses. Together with the City’s other existing and planned future water supplies, the City’s groundwater supplies is sufficient. The UWMP uses General Plan land use designations as a basis for future water demand. The development proposed under the SCSP is similar to that included in the General Plan for the Plan Area.
Future development projects under the proposed plan would result in new impervious surfaces and w ould reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge in those areas. Future developments would also include water quality BMPs, detention basins, and retention basins designed to minimize or eliminate increases in runoff from these new impervious surfaces entering existing surface water courses and existing storm drains. Peak runoff and total volume Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.10-22 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
of runoff would be managed through such facilities that retain and treat water and provide for groundwater infiltration.
The City overlies the Kings Subbasin, which is designated as a high-priority basin under SGMA. A GSP for the Kings Subbasin was adopted in 2023 and contains projects and management actions that would bring the subbasin into sustainability by 2040. The City has already implemented actions identified in the GSP including implementation of residential water meter retrofit projects, expansion of the City’s water treatment plant, expansion of the City’s groundwater recharge program, and construction of the new Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility. Actions remaining for the City to implement consist of construction of the Southwest Reclamation Facility and Distribution System, Southeast Reclamation Facility, and expansion of the Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility. The proposed plan would not impede implementation of these projects, nor would it be inconsistent with management actions associated with the GSP (i.e., education and outreach, well head requirements, groundwater allocation, and groundwater pumping restrictions). Furthermore, land use changes associated within the City’s 2014 General Plan were used, in part, to develop the GSP’s goals, projects, and management actions. These land use assumptions were used to determine the degree to which groundwater would be used as a water supply. Based on the Water Supply Assessment developed for the SCSP (West Yost 2023), water demand within the Plan area would be reduced relative to the land use scenario assumed in the 2014 General Plan. Therefore, groundwater demand would be less than assumed in the GSP. In addition, as discussed further in Impact 4.10-1 above, future development within the Plan Area would be required to comply with FMFCD’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan, NPDES Permit, City General Plan policies, and City Municipal Code requirements, which would provide for infiltration of stormwater and reduce the potential for Plan Area development to adversely affect groundwater resources. Therefore, the impact related to groundwater supplies and recharge would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.
Impact 4.10-3: Substantially Alter the Existing Drainage Pattern in a Manner Which Would Result in Substantial Erosion or Siltation On- or Off-Site, Substantially Increase the Rate or Amount of Surface Runoff in a Manner Which Would Result in Flooding On- or Off-Site, Create or Contribute Runoff that would Exceed Capacity of Storm Drainage Systems, or Impede or Redirect Flood Flows
Implementation of development under the proposed plan would increase impervious surfaces in the Plan Area, which could subsequently increase stormwater runoff volumes and velocities, exceed capacity of existing drainageways, and create downstream flooding. The protective General Plan policies and MS4 permit conditions would require any future development in the Plan Area to implement stormwater management measures to reduce stormwater runoff such that peak runoff flow rates are reduced; stormwater runoff is infiltrated, evapotranspired, and/or captured and used on-site to reduce site runoff for smaller storm events into municipal systems; and increases in volumetric runoff would be retained to prevent increased downstream flooding. Additionally, the SCSP storm drain system would be designed to accommodate buildout conditions, so that new development would not generate runoff that could exceed the capacity of the system. Therefore, future development under the proposed plan would not result in substantial erosion, siltation, flooding, polluted runoff, or redirect flood flows. This impact would be less than significant.
The volume and rate of stormwater runoff generated from an area are affected by development through conversion of vegetated or pervious surfaces to impervious surfaces and by the development of drainage systems that connect these impervious surfaces to streams or other water bodies. In this way, development can increase the rate of runoff and eliminate storage and infiltration that would naturally occur along drainage paths. As water runs off the land surface, it collects and carries materials and sediment, which can be potentially harmful to downstream receiving waters. Additionally, runoff from impervious surfaces can become concentrated, overwhelming existing storm drain systems, causing erosion and increasing sediment transport and downstream deposition. The increased extent of impervious surfaces in upper watershed areas may also create flooding concerns for lower watershed areas.
Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.10-23
Of the 5,567-acre Plan Area, approximately 4,321 acres is developed as industrial, commercial, residential and other land uses, and approximately 1,308 acres is open space and farmland. Approximately 700 acres of the Plan Area is conservatively assumed to be developed with non-residential uses, primarily industrial, by the year 2040. While it is not possible to identify where future development would occur, it is reasonable to assume that —in addition to some redevelopment—open space, farmland, and vacant areas would be developed. Bare soil on farmland (such as between rows or trees) is more susceptible to erosion than developed urban land. Thus, while future development under the plan could reduce erosion in some portions of the Plan Area, it would also create substantial areas of impervious surfaces, such as roadways, parking lots, driveways, and roofs, and would increase stormwater runoff to receiving creeks and storm drains. All future development would be required to include water quality BMPs, and detention/retention basins, as appropriate, designed to minimize or eliminate increases in runoff entering existing surface water courses and storm drains. Peak runoff and total volume of runoff would be managed by storm drainage design, which would retain water and promote infiltration to groundwater. As discussed in Section 4.16 Utilities and Service Systems, storm drainage facilities in the Plan Area are planned, implemented, operated, and maintained by the FMFCD. Specific upgrades may include new streets and gutters, storm drain inlets, storm drain pipelines, detention and retention basins, pump stations, and outfall facilities that collect and drain runoff from developed land areas.
FMFCD retention basins are highly effective at removing total suspended solids including sediment. The proposed plan would not alter drainage patterns in a manner that would cause flooding, erosion, or siltation. The drainage pattern in the Plan Area would remain similar to current conditions, but would be expanded over time in compliance with the FMFCD Storm Drain Master Plan as development occurs over the planning period. Surface runoff from the area would be managed via parcel-based LID measures, detention/retention basins, and flow reducing BMPs to prevent local flooding within the site. These features would also reduce peak flows from the Plan Area to receiving creeks and storm drains to amounts equal to or less than flows under existing conditions. Sediment in the stormwater flows would be captured in detention ponds designed to prevent siltation.
Regulatory requirements such as the City’s grading plan check process, the FMFCD Storm Drain Master Plan, and the NPDES Construction General Permit would also reduce the impacts of construction activities on drainage patterns and erosion. Development within the Plan Area would be required to comply with the grading plan check process.
Developers must submit grading plans in compliance with the California Building Standards Code (CBC), the Storm Drain Master Plan, and the NPDES Construction General Permit and obtain approval from the FMFC.
The Storm Drain Master Plan includes proposed elevation of curbs in undeveloped areas, delineation of storm drain inlet watershed areas, collection system pipeline alignments and sizes, and retention basin or urban detention basin locations and sizing. Development in conformance with the Storm Drain Master Plan would require that the Plan Area is graded to drain into storm drainage facilities, which collect and convey stormwater from the planned development. Retention and urban detention basins intercept an d remove silt from stormwater before it is discharged to surface water s.
The grading plan review process for future individual development projects in the Plan Area would identify any plan to alter the course of any creek, stream, or irrigation canal. In this case, the City would require additional other reviews, permits, and agreements with agencies such as the USACE, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the CDFW, the Central Valley Flood Protection Agency, the State Water Board, the Central Valley RWQCB, the FMFCD, and the FID. Possible permits and agreements include the CWA Section 401 and 403 permits, Endangered Species or Habitat Plan, Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement, and Irrigation Canal Encroachment permit. Agreements would need to be made prior to the issuance of grading permits.
The NPDES Construction General Permit program is administered for the City by the Central Valley RWQCB. It regulates sources of erosion at construction sites that would result in the discharge of silt -laden stormwater from the site and into subsequent receiving waters during both construction and operation activities.
The proposed plan would not alter existing drainage patterns in a manner that would result in substantial erosion, siltation, flooding, polluted runoff, or redirection of flood flows. With the implementation of applicable policies and compliance with existing regulatory requirements that pertain to water quality and runoff, and with the design and Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.10-24 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
construction of the improvements included in the proposed storm drainage system, the proposed plan would have a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.
Impact 4.10-4: Release Pollutants Due to Plan Area Inundation by Flood Hazard The Plan Area contains flood hazard and dam inundation areas. However, compliance with the Fresno Flood Plain Ordinance, General Plan policies, and existing safety regulations would be required for the implementation of development under the proposed plan, resulting in low-risk release of pollutants due to inundation. This impact would be less than significant.
As discussed in Section 4.10.2, “Environmental Setting,” above, the majority of the Plan Area is designated shaded and unshaded Zone X, which has only a 0.2 percent annual chance of flood and is within the limits of the 100-year and 500-year floodplain. Lands designated as unshaded Zone X are outside of the SFHAs. Changes to land surfaces in these areas do not trigger map revisions and no flood insurance requirements are imposed on structures in these areas. However, there are certain portions of the Plan Area designated as SFHAs, Zone A, Zone AE, and Zone AH.
Portions of the northern Plan Area are located within the dam failure inundation area for the Fancher Creek Detention and Fancher Creek dams. The DSD is responsible for inspecting and monitoring these dams annually to reduce the potential risk of dam failure, in accordance with the California Dam Safety Act.
As discussed above, areas designated as Zones A and AE are located in small portions in the southern area of the Plan Area. These zones are considered SFHA because flood risks are generally higher and flooding could occur once every 100 years. In the northern portion of the Plan Area, areas are designated as Zone AH. Zone AH is designated in an area where there is a one percent annual chance of shallow flooding. In addition, Portions of the northern Plan Area are located within the dam failure inundation area for the Fancher Creek Detention and Fancher Creek dams.
The DSD is responsible for inspecting and monitoring these dams annually to reduce the potential risk of dam failure, in accordance with the California Dam Safety Act.
The City participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) which adopts Floor Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), appoints a trained Floodplain Administrator, adopts a floodplain ordinance modeled after the Flood Insurance Program model ordinance, and enforces the ordinance and the requirements of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Protection of Environment), Subchapter D (Water Programs, Parts 100–149). The City enforces these requirements through Chapter 11, Article 6 of the Fresno Municipal Code (Fresno Flood Plain Ordinance), which outlines specific requirements for floodproofing of structures. The proposed plan includes developments that would be located within these SFHAs; development within these areas would require substantial floodproofing, and any required review and approval of the developments by the City, FMFCD, FEMA, and any other governing body. Compliance with the floodplain ordinance and General Plan objectives and policies are implemented, impacts associated with flooding of developments within the 100- year floodplain would be less than significant.
Provided that the storm drain system and detention/retention facilities installed as part of future development are adequately sized and properly installed and maintained as discussed in detail in Impact 4.10-3, as well as compliance with existing regulations and policies stated above, additional flooding would not be induced by the proposed plan.
Therefore, the proposed plan would have a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.
Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.10-25
Impact 4.10-5: Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
Future development under the proposed plan would be required to comply with the Basin Plan (Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin) groundwater sustainability plans, and stormwater best management practices.
The proposed plan is also not anticipated to exceed the City’s water supply. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin, one of the two basin plans for the Central Valley Region of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the GSP are two guiding documents for water quality and sustainable groundwater management in the Plan Area. The Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin includes a summary of beneficial water uses, water quality objectives needed to protect the identified beneficial uses, and implementation measures. Water quality standards are established for all the ground and surface waters of the region within the Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin. As discussed in Impact 4.10-1, impacts related to water quality during construction and operation of future projects in the Plan Area would be less than significant.
As discussed in Section 4.10.1, “Regulatory Setting,” and Impact 4.10-2, as part of a partnership of local municipal water purveyors, irrigation districts, a flood control district, and the overlying county, the FARGMP was prepared in conformance with AB 3030 and SB 1938. The objectives of the FARGMP have been developed to moni tor, protect, and sustain groundwater within the region. The City falls within a portion of the Kings Subbasin, a high-priority basin under the jurisdiction of the NKGSA. The NKGSA has prepared and adopted an approved GSP, by which the basin is managed under as part of compliance with the SGMA and FARGMP. Development under the proposed plan would be consistent with the GSP and would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the proposed plan would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The required stormwater BMPs and retention basins would be designed to reduce runoff below that which occurs currently during storm events and provide for groundwater recharge. Additionally, the SCSP’s water demand is not expected to exceed the City’s supplies in any normal, single dry, or multiple dry year through the year 2045, and the proposed plan would not conflict with a sustainable ground management plan. Through compliance with the FMFCD’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan, SWPPPs, SGMA, FARGMP, General Plan policies, and FMC requirements, the proposed plan would have a
less-than-significant impact related to conflicting or obstructing implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.
Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.10-26 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.
Ascent Environmental Land Use and Planning
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.11-1
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This section describes the regulatory and environmental setting related to land use and planning and evaluates the environmental impacts of implementing the proposed plan. The physical environmental effects associated with the plan, many of which pertain to issues of land use compatibility (e.g., aesthetics, air quality , noise), are evaluated in other sections of Chapter 4 of this Draft EIR. Potential conflicts with habitat conservation efforts are evaluated in Section 4.4, “Biological Resources,” of this Draft EIR.
In response to circulation of the notice of preparation, comments related to land use and planning received expressed concern about changes to land use designations and zoning, including already developed areas; potential effects of required buffers on land uses; and responsiveness of the land use plan to public input .
4.11.1 Regulatory Setting
FEDERAL
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to land use are applicable to the proposed plan.
STATE
California Government Code
California Government Code Section 65300 et seq. establishes the obligation of cities and counties to adopt and implement general plans. The general plan is a comprehensive, long-term, and general document that describes plans for the physical development of the city or county and of any land outside its boundaries that, in the City’s or County’s judgment, bears relation to its planning. The general plan addresses a broad range of topics, including, at a minimum, land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. In addressing these topics, the general plan identifies the goals, objectives, policies, principles, standards, and plan proposals that support the City’s or county’s vision for the area. The general plan is a long-range document that typically addresses the physical character of an area over a 20-year period. Although the general plan serves as a blueprint for future development and identifies the overall vision for the planning area, it remains general enough to allow for flexibility in the approach taken to achieve the plan’s goals.
California Government Code Section 65453 states, “A specific plan shall be prepared, adopted, and amended in the same manner as a general plan, except that a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body.” It also states that a specific plan “may be repealed in the same manner as it is required to be amended.” The State Zoning Law (California Government Code Section 65800 et seq.) establishes that zoning ordinances, which are laws that define allowable land uses within a specific district, are required to be consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plans. When amendments to the general plan are made, corresponding changes in the zoning ordinance may be required within a reasonable time to ensure that the land uses designated in the general plan also would be allowable by the zoning ordinance (Section 65860[c]).
LOCAL
City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno General Plan, which was originally adopted on December 18, 2014, and was amended most recently on October 13, 2022, articulates a vision for the city and presents a set of implementing policies to achieve that vision (City of Fresno 2022). The following objectives and implementing policies from the general plan are relevant to this discussion of land use and planning.
Land Use and Planning Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.11-2 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Economic Development and Fiscal Sustainability Element
Objective ED-1: Support economic development by maintaining a strong working relationship with the business community and improving the business climate for current and future businesses. Implementing Policy ED-1-d: Strategic Land Regulation. Explore increasing the amount of land properly zoned, consistent with the General Plan, and ready to be expeditiously developed, redeveloped, and/or revitalized for economic development and job creation purposes. Establish a priority infill development p rogram for sites and districts.
Implementing Policy ED-1-e: Ready to Go Sites. Establish a list of “ready-to-go” or “shovel-ready” sites in consultation with property owners and provide the list to interested developers and businesses seeking sites in the city.
Urban Form, Land Use, and Design Element
Objective LU-7: Plan and support industrial development to promote job growth. Implementing Policy LU-7-a: Incentives for a Diversity of Industries, Increased Food Processing and Manufacturing, and Related Employment Opportunities in Fresno . Use the City’s Capital Improvement Program to set priorities for locations and timing of water, sewer, and transportation infrastructure investments by the City and initiate implementation programs to encourage development of targeted industries as ident ified under Policy ED-3-c, in employment land use areas designated on Figure LU-1: Land Use Diagram. Implementing Policy LU-7-b: Business and Industrial Parks. Promote business and industrial park sites that are of sufficient size, unified in design, and diversified in activity to attract a full range of business types needed for economic growth.
Implementing Policy LU-7-c: Efficiency of Industrial Uses. Promote industrial land use clusters to maximize the operational efficiency of similar activities.
Provide access to a range of transportation modes through plans and incentives, ensuring that local, regional, and national connections are available to industrial uses; Develop a strategy to promote rail-accessible sites for industries that need such capability; and Ensure timely access to the full range of urban services for industrial development by coordinating proposed plans with the annual and long-range City infrastructure planning.
Mobility and Transportation Element
Objective MT-1: Create and maintain a transportation system that is safe, efficient, provides access in an equitable manner, and optimizes travel by all modes.
Implementing Policy MT-1-d: Integrate Land Use and Transportation Planning. Plan for and maintain a coordinated and well integrated land use pattern, local circulation network and transportation system that accommodates planned growth, reduces impacts on adjacent land uses, and preserves the integrity of established neighborhoods.
City of Fresno Zoning Ordinance
The purpose of the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code) is to implement the general plan and, if applicable, other operative plans to protect and promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the city of Fresno. More specifically, it was adopted to, among other things, provide a guide for the physical development of the city in a manner that progressively achieves the arrangement of land uses depicted in the general plan, foster a harmonious and workable relationship among land uses, support economic development and job creation, and promote the stability of existing land uses that conform to the general plan, consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the general plan and any other operative plan.
Ascent Environmental Land Use and Planning
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.11-3
4.11.2 Environmental Setting
PLAN AREA
The approximately 5,567-acre Plan Area, located in the southern and southeastern portion of downtown Fresno, is largely composed of land within the City limits. However, it also includes land in the City’s sphere of influence (SOI) (Figure 3-1). The Plan Area is generally located south of California Avenue, north of American Avenue, and between Fig and Peach Avenues. The portion of the Plan Area in the SOI is anticipated to become part of the city of Fresno in the future. The parcels currently in the unincorporated county will not be rezoned at this time. Instead, upon a proposal to annex the land into the City limits, the City of Fresno would prezone the land to a zone consistent with the general plan land use. After annexation occurs, the County zoning would no longer apply to the parcel, and the zoning established in the prezoning would take effect.
EXISTING LAND USES
Existing land uses in the Plan Area include a mix of industrial and commercial development, residential neighborhoods, public facilities (e.g., fire station, post office, elementary school, college, church), open space, and vacant land (Figure 3-4). Heavy industrial (42 percent), open space (27 percent), vacant land (11 percent), and light industrial (9 percent) are the predominant land uses in the Plan Area. Agriculture makes up 85 percent of the open space with the rest consisting of ponding basins for surface water runoff and recharge to the aquifer and canals. The Plan Area is traversed by State Route (SR) 41 and SR 99; by BNSF, Union Pacific, and spur rail lines that serve industrial uses in the area; and by irrigation canals. Land has been cleared and construction of structures is underway for the California High-Speed Rail line.
The current land uses in the Plan Area are as follows:
Rural residential: Approximately 3 percent, or 160 acres, of the land in the Plan Area is developed with rural residential uses. All but less than 1 acre of this land is located in unincorporated Fresno County. Other residential: Approximately 2 percent, or 82 acres, of the land in the Plan Area is developed with low-, medium low–, medium-, medium high–, or high-density residential uses. Two-thirds of this land is located in unincorporated Fresno County.
Commercial: Less than 1 percent, or 29 acres, of the land in the Plan Area is developed with commercial uses. All this land is located within City limits.
Heavy industrial: Approximately 42 percent, or 2,056 acres, of the land in the Plan Area is developed with heavy industrial uses. Most of this land is located within City limits. Light industrial: Approximately 9 percent, or 427 acres, of the land in the Plan Area is developed with light industrial uses. Most of this land is within the City’s SOI, located in unincorporated Fresno County. Public facilities: Approximately 1 percent, or 66 acres, of the land in the Plan Area is developed with public facility uses. Most of this land is located in unincorporated Fresno County. Streets: Less than 1 percent, or 4 acres, of the land in the Plan Area is streets. Nearly all this land is located within City limits.
Open space: Approximately 27 percent, or 1,308 acres, of the land in the Plan Area is open space. Three-quarters of this land is located in unincorporated Fresno County. Vacant: Approximately 11 percent, or 566 acres, of the land in the Plan Area is vacant. Most of this land is located within City limits.
Other: Approximately 5 percent, or 242 acres, of the land in the Plan Area is other land uses. Most of this land is located within City limits.
Land Use and Planning Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.11-4 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING
Land Use Designations
As shown in Figure 3-5 and Table 3-2, general plan land use designations in the Plan Area include a mixture of industrial, commercial, agriculture, public facility, and open space land uses. The portion of the Plan Area located within City limits is devoted primarily to employment-generating land uses, such as agriculture, industrial, and commercial, given its proximity to rail service and highways. However, sensitive land uses, such as residential and public facilities, are located throughout the Plan Area.
The current land use designations in the Plan Area are as follows:
Residential - 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.
Residential - 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. Residential - 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. Residential - Medium High Density. Medium High Density residential is intended for neighborhoods with a mix of single-family residences, townhomes, garden apartments, and multifamily units intended to support a fine -grain, pedestrian scale. This land use accommodates densities from 12 to 16 units per acre overall. 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 retails uses and upper-level housing or offices, with a mix of small-lot single-family houses, townhomes, and multifamily dwelling units on side streets, in a horizontal or ve rtical 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 and frequent roadway and pedestrian connections permitting convenient access from residences to commercial space. The minimum residential density is 12 units per acre with no maximum. Commercial - General. The Commercial - General 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 storage facilities with active storefronts, equipment rental, wholesale businesses, and specialized retail not normally found in shopping centers. Employment - Business Park. The Business Park designation provides for office/business parks in campus -like settings that are well suited for large offices or multitenant buildings. This designation is intended to accommodate and allow for the expansion of small businesses. Given its proximity to residential uses, only limited outdoor storage will be permitted, whereas adequate landscaping is imperative to minimize the visual impacts. Typical land uses include research and development, laboratories, administrative and general offices, medical offices and clinics, professional offices, prototype manufacturing, testing, r epairing, packaging, and printing. No free-standing retail is permitted, except for small uses serving businesses and employees. Employment - Regional Business Park. The Regional Business Park designation is intended for large or campus- like office and technology development that includes office, research and development, manufacturing, and other large-scale, professional uses, with limited and properly screened outdoor storage. Permitted uses include incubator-research facilities, prototype manufacturing, testing, repairing, packaging, and printing, as well as offices and research facilities. Small-scale retail and service uses serving local employees and visitors are permitted as secondary uses.
Ascent Environmental Land Use and Planning
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.11-5
Employment - Light Industrial. The Light Industrial designation accommodates a diverse range of light industrial uses, including limited manufacturing and processing, research and development, fabrication, utility equipment and service yards, wholesaling, warehousing, and distribution activities. Small-scale retail and ancillary office uses are also permitted. Light Industrial areas may serve as buffers between Heavy Industrial and other land uses and otherwise are generally located in areas with good transportation access, such as along railroads and state routes.
Employment - Heavy Industrial. The Heavy Industrial designation accommodates the broadest range of industrial uses, including manufacturing, assembly, wholesaling, distribution, and storage activities, that are essential to the development of a balanced economic base. Small-scale commercial services and ancillary office uses are also permitted.
Public Facilities. This designation applies to public facilities, such as fire and police stations, City-operated recycling centers, and sewage treatment plants.
Open Space. The Open Space designations (Parks and Recreational Facilities, Other Public Open Space, Agriculture) apply to open space areas that are not parks or trails, such as ponding basins.
Zoning
The City’s Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code) establishes development standards and other general provisions to ensure consistency between general plan land use designations and proposed development projects.
Consistent with the City’s general plan land use map, the following zoning districts are located in the Plan Area:
CG – Commercial - General
IL – Industrial - Light
IH – Industrial - Heavy
OS – Open Space
PI – Public and Institutional
SURROUNDING LAND USES
Areas southeast, southwest, and south of the Plan Area are located in unincorporated Fresno County, and areas north, east, and west of the Plan Area are located within the city of Fresno. The Plan Area is bordered by residences, SR 99, and the Union Pacific Railroad on the northwest; industrial uses, residences, SR 41, and San Joaquin Valley Railroad on the north; residences and commercial uses on the northeast; the communities of Calwa and Malaga, farmland, industrial uses, and the Union Pacific Railroad on the east (the southern portion of Calwa is located in the Plan Area); primarily farmland with a few residences and SR 41 and SR 99 on the south; and farmland, commercial uses, and residences on the west.
4.11.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
METHODOLOGY
Evaluation of potential land use impacts is based on a review of project materials and documents pertaining to the Plan Area and areas adjacent to it, including the City of Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno 2022), City of Fresno Municipal Code, and Fresno County General Plan Policy Document (Fresno County 2003).
These documents were reviewed to determine whether implementation of the proposed plan would impede or conflict with those plans such that an environmental impact would occur. In determining the level of significance, this analysis assumes that the plan would comply with relevant state regulations and local planning policies, where feasible.
Land Use and Planning Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.11-6 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
A land use impact would be significant if implementation of the proposed plan would:
physically divide an established community or
cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
All the identified thresholds are addressed in the following analysis.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.11-1: Physically Divide an Established Community Development under the proposed plan would not physically divide an established community. Approximately 5 percent of the Plan Area is occupied by residential uses, and the residences are located primarily in pockets of development along the outer edges of the area. The locations and extent of residences in the Plan Area would not change substantially under the proposed plan. No major roadways or any other development that could divide a community is proposed under the plan. In addition, the network of bicycle paths and trails and the network of sidewalks would be expanded under the plan, providing greater connectivity throughout the Plan Area. This impact would be less than significant.
The land uses in the Plan Area are largely industrial, open space, and vacant land. Approximately 5 percent of the Plan Area is occupied by residential uses. The residences, characterized as rural residential or small subdivisions, are located primarily in pockets of development along the outer edges of the area, although some residences (such as Daleville) are spread across the southern portion of the Plan Area, between Central Avenue and American Avenue.
The closest communities are Calwa and Malaga, which are located east of the Plan Area, with the southern portion of Calwa located in the Plan Area.
The locations and extent of residences in the Plan Area would not change substantially under the proposed plan.
Under the SCSP, although the plan will generate up to 91 residential units the percentage of the Plan Area and locations devoted to residential uses would be essentially unchanged. Five percent of the area would continue to be planned for residential uses. No major roadways or any other development that could divide a community is proposed under the SCSP. In addition, as described in Chapter 3, “Project Description,” and shown in Figure 3-9 and Figure 3-10, respectively, the network of bicycle paths and trails and the network of sidewalks would be expanded under the proposed plan, providing greater connectivity throughout the Plan Area.
Because implementation of the proposed plan would not physically divide an established community , this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.
Ascent Environmental Land Use and Planning
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.11-7
Impact 4.11-2: Cause a Significant Environmental Impact Due to a Conflict with Any Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect
Implementing the proposed plan would require a general plan amendment to allow for the proposed land use changes, as some of the proposed land uses differ from the general plan. With the approval of the amendment , the SCSP would be consistent with the City of Fresno General Plan. Also, the proposed plan includes policies, development regulations, and use regulations to reduce potential impacts on sensitive uses located adjacent to industrial areas. In addition, the SCSP would not conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. This impact would be less than significant.
The City of Fresno General Plan and Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code) are the primary planning documents for the City of Fresno. Both emphasize the importance of ensuring the compatibility of adjacent land uses as a means of protecting the health and safety of the community. As discussed in Chapter 3, “Project Description,” the Fresno City Council would be required to approve a general plan amendment to allow for minor land use changes proposed under the SCSP. A rezone in the city would be required to implement the proposed plan. (The portion of the Plan Area in the SOI is anticipated to become part of the city of Fresno in the future. Upon a proposal to annex the land into the City limits, the City of Fresno would prezone the land to a zone consistent with the g eneral plan land use. After annexation occurs, the county zoning would no longer apply to the parcel, and the zoning established in the prezoning would take effect.)
As depicted in Figure 3-15, an overlay zone is proposed to ensure compatibility between the proposed plan’s vision and existing conditions. The overlay zone would be applied over each zoning district in the Plan Area, adding a layer of development standards and use regulations that would govern all future private development actions in the Plan Area, including new construction, additions, and renovations to existing structures and new land uses proposed for existing facilities. In accordance with the purpose of the proposed plan, sensitive uses are defined as residential, school, park, and day care uses. The development standards and use regulations, which are identified in Chapter 5, “Development Standards,” of the proposed plan, address buffering and screening, signage and traffic patterns, the use of alternative energy, and operation and construction. Specific development standards and use regulations include:
prohibiting rendering plants and slaughterhouses;
prohibiting certain uses within 1,000 feet of a sensitive use, including service stations, freight/truck terminals and warehouses, and waste transfer facilities;
requiring a conditional use permit for certain uses when they would be located within 1,000 feet of a sensitive use, including construction and material yards and warehousing, storage, and distribution for indoor warehousing and storage, outdoor storage, or wholesaling and distribution ; and applying building setback standards to industrial uses that adjoin residential, school, church , and civic uses (e.g., buildings should be set back a minimum of 100 feet when they share the same property line; the minimum 50- foot landscape buffer should include a tree density canopy that covers 100 percent of the buffer area within 10 years of planting).
As discussed in other technical sections in Chapter 4 of this Draft EIR, the proposed plan also includes numerous policies to guide implementation of the SCSP’s vision and guiding principles, many of which are designed to reduce environmental impacts associated with implementing the plan. The following policies are among those that would reduce such impacts:
Noise Policies
N-1: Establish noise standards that are protective of residential and other noise -sensitive uses. N-3: Require the protection of noise-impacted areas through effective noise mitigation measures such as barriers, berms, design and placement of buildings, sound absorbing materials, and vegetation.
Land Use and Planning Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.11-8 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
N-4: Require new sources of noise to use the best available technology to minimize noise.
Green Barriers/Tree Coverage/Beautification Policies
GB-1: Require buffers between new industrial development and existing neighborhoods. GB-2: Require the installation of solid barriers or vegetative buffers between emissions sources and schools, daycares, medical offices, and homes.
GB-7: Establish landscaping and site design standards for new businesses and industry, especially next to existing neighborhoods.
Potential impacts of locating industrial uses adjacent to residential uses are addressed throughout this EIR ( e.g., Section 4.1, “Aesthetics”; Section 4.3, “Air Quality”; Section 4.9, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials”; Section 4.12, “Noise”; and Section 4.15, “Transportation and Circulation”).
As described in Section 4.4, “Biological Resources,” the Plan Area is not located o n land covered by a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan that would apply to activities conducted under the SCSP.
The area covered by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E’s) San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan encompasses the Plan Area, but the plan applies only to work conducted by PG&E. It would not apply to activities conducted under the SCSP. Therefore, implementing the proposed plan would not conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
While the proposed plan is not fully consistent with the proposed land uses of the current General Plan, the plan is consistent with the General Plan policies and vision for the Plan Area. The proposed plan would not create land use patterns that would cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with relevant plans, policies, or regulations. However, with implementation of the general plan amendment, the proposed plan would be consistent with the City of Fresno General Plan, and the application of the overlay would be more protective of sensitive uses than the existing land use designations. In addition, the Plan Area is not located on land covered by a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan that would apply to activities conducted under the S CSP.
This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.
Ascent Environmental Noise
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.12-1
4.12 NOISE
4.12.1 Introduction
This section addresses the potential noise and vibration impacts that would result from implement ing anticipated development under the proposed plan through the planning horizon of 2040. It describes the existing ambient noise levels in the Plan Area and identifies applicable federal and state plans, policies, and regulations as well as local plans, policies, and regulations. The analysis identifies the potential impacts that would result from implementing assumed plan development, including potential short-term, long-term, and cumulative impacts from noise and vibration, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts where identified. Additional data are provided in Appendix C, “Noise Modeling Data.”
Comments received in response to the NOP that pertain to noise include requests to analyze both individual and cumulative noise impacts that would result from implementing the proposed plan and to evaluate how noise generated from nearby agricultural activities would affect proposed development in the Plan Area.
ACOUSTIC FUNDAMENTALS
Prior to discussing the noise setting of the Plan Area, background information about sound, noise, vibration, and common noise descriptors is needed to provide context and a better understanding of the technical terms referenced throughout this section.
Sound, Noise, and Acoustics
Sound can be described as the mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a liquid or gaseous medium (e.g., air) to a human ear. Noise is defined as loud, unexpected, annoying, or unwanted sound.
In the science of acoustics, the fundamental model consists of a sound (or noise) source, a receiver, and the propagation path between the two. The loudness of the noise source and obstructions or atmospheric factors affecting the propagation path to the receiver determines the sound level and characteristics of the noise perceived by the receiver.
The field of acoustics deals primarily with the propagation and control of sound.
Frequency
Continuous sound can be described by frequency (pitch) and amplitude (loudness). A low -frequency sound is perceived as low in pitch. Frequency is expressed in terms of cycles per second, or hertz (Hz) (e.g., a frequency of 250 cycles per second is referred to as 250 Hz). High frequencies are sometimes more conveniently expressed in kilohertz, or thousands of hertz. The audible frequency range for humans is generally between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz.
Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels
The amplitude of pressure waves generated by a sound source determines the loudness of that source. Sound pressure amplitude is measured in micro-Pascals (mPa). One mPa is approximately one hundred billionth (0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric pressure. Sound pressure amplitudes for different kinds of noise environments can range from less than 100 to 100,000,000 mPa. Because of this large range of values, sound is rarely expressed in terms of mPa. Instead, a logarithmic scale is used to describe sound pr essure level (SPL) in terms of decibels (dB).
Addition of Decibels
Because decibels are logarithmic units, SPLs cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. Under the decibel scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3-dB increase. In other words, when two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness at the same time, the resulting sound level at a given distance would Noise Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.12-2 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
be 3 dB higher than if only one of the sound sources was producing sound under the same conditions. For example, if one idling truck generates an SPL of 70 dB, two trucks idling simultaneously would not produce 140 dB; rather, they would combine to produce 73 dB. Under the decibel scale, three sources of equal loudness together produce a sound level approximately 5 dB louder than one source.
A-Weighted Decibels
The decibel scale alone does not adequately characterize how humans perceive noise. The dominant frequencies of a sound have a substantial effect on the human response to that sound. Although the intensity (energy per unit area) of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response is determined by the characteristics of the human ear.
Human hearing is limited in the range of audible frequencies as well as in the way it perceives the SPL in that range.
In general, people are most sensitive to the frequency range of 1,000–8,000 Hz and perceive sounds within this range better than sounds of the same amplitude with frequencies outside of this range. To approximate the response of the human ear, sound levels of individual frequency bands are weighted, depending on the human sensitivity to those frequencies. Then, an “A-weighted” sound level (expressed in units of A-weighted decibels) can be computed based on this information.
The A-weighting network approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary sounds. When people make judgments of the relative loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgment correlates well with the A-scale sound levels of those sounds. Thus, noise levels are typically reported in terms of A-weighted decibels. All sound levels discussed in this section are expressed in A -weighted decibels (dBA). Table
4.12-1 describes typical A-weighted noise levels for various noise sources.
Table 4.12-1 Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dB) Common Indoor Activities — 110 — Rock band
Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet — 100 —
Gas lawn mower at 3 feet — 90 —
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 miles per hour — 80 — Food blender at 3 feet, garbage disposal at 3 feet Noisy urban area, daytime, Gas lawn mower at 100 feet — 70 — Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet, normal speech at 3 feet Commercial area, Heavy traffic at 300 feet — 60 —
Quiet urban daytime — 50 — Large business office, dishwasher next room Quiet urban nighttime — 40 — Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban nighttime — 30 — Library, bedroom at night Quiet rural nighttime — 20 —
— 10 — Broadcast/recording studio
Lowest threshold of human hearing — 0 — Lowest threshold of human hearing Source: Caltrans 2013: Table 2-5.
Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels
The doubling of sound energy results in a 3-dB increase in the sound level. However, given a sound level change measured with precise instrumentation, the subjective human perception of a doubling of loudness will usually be different from what is measured.
Under controlled conditions in an acoustical laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear can discern 1 -dB changes in sound levels when exposed to steady, single-frequency (“pure-tone”) signals in the mid-frequency (1,000–8,000 Hz) range. In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 and 5,000 Hz and perceives both higher and lower frequency sounds of the same magnitude with less intensity (Caltrans 2013: 2-18). In typical noisy environments, changes in noise of 1–2 dB are generally not perceptible. However, it is widely accepted that people Ascent Environmental Noise
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.12-3
can begin to detect sound level increases of 3 dB in typical noisy environments. Further, a 5 -dB increase is generally perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a 10-dB increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness (Caltrans 2013: 2-10). Therefore, a doubling of sound energy (e.g., doubling the volume of traffic on a highway) that would result in a 3-dB increase in sound would generally be perceived as barely detectable.
Vibration
Vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object with respect to a given reference point. Sources of vibration include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) and those introduced by human activity (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, (e.g., operating factory machinery) or transient in nature (e.g., explosions). Vibration levels can be depicted in terms of amplitude and frequency, relative to displacement, velocity, or acceleration.
Vibration amplitudes are commonly expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or root-mean-square (RMS) vibration velocity. PPV and RMS vibration velocity are normally described in inches per second (in/sec) or in millimeters per second. PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is typically used in the monitoring of transient and impact vibration and has been found to correlate well to the stresses experienced by buildings (FTA 2018; Caltrans 2013: 6).
Although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential for building damage, it is not always suitable for evaluating human response. It takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. In a sense, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude. The RMS of a signal is the average of the squared amplitude of the signal, typically calculated over a 1-second period. As with airborne sound, the RMS velocity is often expressed in decibel notation as vibration decibels (VdB), which serves to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration (FTA 2018; Caltrans 2020). This is based on a reference value of 1 micro inch per second.
The typical background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is approximately 50 VdB. Ground vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels (FTA 2018; Caltrans 2020).
Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground vibration are construction equipment, steel -wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration-velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur to fragile buildings. Construction activities can generate sufficient ground vibrations to pose a risk to nearby structures. Constant or transient vibrations can weaken structures, crack facades, and disturb occupants (FTA 2018).
Vibrations generated by construction activity can be transient, random, or continuous. Transient construction vibrations are generated by blasting, impact pile driving, and wrecking balls. Continuous vibrations are generated by vibratory pile drivers, large pumps, and compressors. Random vibration can result from jackhammers, pavement breakers, and heavy construction equipment.
Table 4.12-2 summarizes the general human response to different ground vibration-velocity levels.
Table 4.12-2 Human Response to Different Levels of Ground Noise and Vibration Vibration-Velocity Level Human Reaction
65 VdB Approximate threshold of perception.
75 VdB Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible. Many people find that transportation-related vibration at this level is unacceptable. 85 VdB Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day.
Notes: VdB = vibration decibels referenced to 1 micro-inch/second and based on the root-mean-square velocity amplitude.
Source: FTA 2018.
Noise Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.12-4 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Common Noise Descriptors
Noise in our daily environment fluctuates over time. Various noise descriptors have been developed to describe time- varying noise levels. The following are the noise descriptors used throughout this section.
Equivalent Continuous Sound Level (Leq): Leq represents an average of the sound energy occurring over a specified period. In effect, Leq is the steady-state sound level containing the same acoustical energy as the time-varying sound level that occurs during the same period (Caltrans 2013). For instance, the 1-hour equivalent sound level, also referred to as the hourly Leq, is the energy average of sound levels occurring during a 1-hour period and is the basis for noise abatement criteria used by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (Caltrans 2013; FTA 2018).
Percentile-Exceeded Sound Level (LX): LX represents the sound level exceeded for a given percentage of a specified period (e.g., L10 is the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the time, and L 90 is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time) (Caltrans 2013).
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax): Lmax is the highest instantaneous sound level measured during a specified period (Caltrans 2013; FTA 2018).
Day-Night Level (Ldn): Ldn is the energy average of A-weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a 10-dB “penalty” applied to sound levels occurring during nighttime hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. (Caltrans 2013; FTA 2018).
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): CNEL is the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a 10-dB penalty applied to sound levels occurring during the nighttime hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and a 5-dB penalty applied to the sound levels occurring during evening hours between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. (Caltrans 2013).
Sound Propagation
When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The manner in which a noise level decreases with distance depends on the following factors:
Geometric Spreading
Sound from a localized source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Roads and highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources, thus propagating at a slower rate in comparison to a point source. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source.
Ground Absorption
The propagation path of noise from a source to a receiver is usually very close to the ground. Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling provides additional attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, this additional attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 feet. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receiver, such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an additional ground-attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the attenuation rate associated with cylindrical spreading, the additional ground attenuation results in an overall drop- off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance. This would hold true for point sources, resulting in an overall drop -off rate of up to 7.5 dB per doubling of distance.
Ascent Environmental Noise
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.12-5
Atmospheric Effects
Receivers located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels, as wind can carry sound. Sound levels can be increased over large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) from the source because of atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also affect sound attenuation.
Shielding by Natural or Human-Made Features
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Natural terrain features (e.g., hills and dense woods) and human-made features (e.g., buildings and walls) can substantially reduce noise levels. A barrier that breaks the line of sight between a source and a receiver will typically result in at least 5 dB of noise reduction (Caltrans 2013; FTA 2018). Barriers higher than the line of sight provide increased noise reduction (FTA 2018). Vegetation between the source and receiver is rarely effective in reducing noise because it does not create a solid barrier unless there are multiple rows of vegetation (FTA 2018).
4.12.2 Regulatory Setting
FEDERAL
US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Noise Abatement and Control was originally established to coordinate federal noise control activities. In 1981, EPA administrators determined that subjective issues such as noise would be better addressed at more local levels of government. Consequently, in 1982 responsibilities for regulating noise control policies were transferred to state and local governments. However, documents and research completed by the EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control continue to provide value in the analysis of noise effects.
Federal Transit Administration
The FTA Division of Environmental Analysis developed the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, which guides engineers, planners, and consultants in assessing vibration from construction, operation, and maintenance of projects. To address the human response to ground vibration, FTA has set forth guidelines for maximum-acceptable vibration criteria for different types of land uses. These guidelines are presented below in Table
4.12-3. In addition, FTA has also established construction vibration damage criteria, shown below in Table 4.12-4.
Table 4.12-3 Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment Land Use Category
GBV Impact Levels (VdB re 1 micro-inch/second)
Frequent Events1 Occasional Events2 Infrequent Events3
Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations. 65 4 65 4 65 4
Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. 72 75 80 Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime uses. 75 78 83 Notes: GBV = ground-borne vibration; VdB = vibration decibels referenced to 1 micro-inch/second and based on the root-mean-square velocity amplitude.
1 “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. 2 “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. 3 “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same source per day. 4 This criterion is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research would require detailed evaluation to define acceptable vibration levels.
Source: FTA 2018.
Noise Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.12-6 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Table 4.12-4 FTA Construction Damage Vibration Criteria Land Use Category PPV, in/sec
Reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5
Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Notes: PPV= peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second.
Source: FTA 2018.
In addition to vibration criteria, FTA has also established construction noise criteria based on the land use type affected by noise and depending on whether construction noise would occur during the daytime or nighttime. The FTA criteria are as follows:
Residential: 80 dB Leq (day) and 70 dB Leq (night)
Commercial/Industrial: 100 dB Leq (day and night)
Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
Noise level increases tend to result in different levels of annoyance under different ambient noise levels. To address this, the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) has set thresholds for noise level increases that typically lead to significant noise impacts under different ambient noise levels. These thresholds are presented in Table 4 .12-5.
As depicted, a noise level increase of 5.0 or greater would typically be considered to result in increased levels of annoyance where existing ambient noise levels are less than 60 dB. Within areas where the ambient noise level ranges from 60 to 65 dB, increased levels of annoyance would be anticipated at increases of 3 dB or greater.
Increases of 1.5 dB or greater could result in increased levels of annoyance in areas where the ambient noise level exceeds 65 dB. The rationale for the FICON-recommended criteria is that as ambient noise levels increase, a smaller increase in noise resulting from a project is sufficient to cause significant increases in annoyance (FICON 1992).
Table 4.12-5 Federal Interagency Committee on Noise–Recommended Criteria for Evaluation of Increases in Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient Noise Level Without Project Increase Required for Significant Impact <60 dB 5.0 dB, or greater
60–65 dB 3.0 dB, or greater
>65 dB 1.5 dB, or greater
Source: FICON 1992.
STATE
California General Plan Guidelines
The State of California General Plan Guidelines 2017, published by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR 2017), provide guidance for the compatibility of projects within areas of specific noise exposure.
Acceptable and unacceptable community noise exposure limits for various land use categories have been determined to help guide new land use decisions in California communities. In many local jurisdictions, these guidelines are used to derive local noise standards and guidance. Citing EPA materials and the State Sound Transmissions Control Standards, (e.g., class ratings) the state’s general plan guidelines recommend interior and exterior CNEL of 45 and 60 dB for residential units, respectively (OPR 2017: 378).
Ascent Environmental Noise
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.12-7
California Department of Transportation
In 2020, Caltrans published the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans 2020). The manual provides general guidance on vibration issues associated with construction and operation of projects in relation to human perception and structural damage. Table 4.12-6 presents recommendations for levels of vibration that could result in damage to structures exposed to continuous vibration.
Table 4.12-6 Caltrans Recommendations Regarding Levels of Vibration Exposure PPV (in/sec) Effect on Buildings
0.4-0.6 Architectural damage and possible minor structural damage
0.2 Risk of architectural damage to normal dwelling houses
0.1 Virtually no risk of architectural damage to normal buildings
0.08 Recommended upper limit of vibration to which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected
0.006-0.019 Vibration unlikely to cause damage of any type Notes: PPV= peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second.
Source: Caltrans 2020.
LOCAL
City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno General Plan Noise Element policies listed below are relevant to the proposed plan. In addition, the Noise Element sets the standards for transportation and stationary noise sources shown below in Tables 4.12-7 a nd
4.12-8,
respectively.
T
able 4.12-7 City of Fresno Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure for Transportation Noise Sources Land Use
Outdoor Activity Areas1 Interior Spaces
Ldn/CNEL, dB Ldn/CNEL, dB Leq, dB2
Residential 65 45 —
Transient Lodging 65 45 —
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 65 45 —
Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls — — 35
Churches, Meeting Halls 65 — 45
Office Buildings — — 45
Schools, Libraries, Museums — — 45
Notes: CNEL = community noise equivalent level; Ldn = day-night average noise level 1 Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown or is not applicable, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use.
2 As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use.
Source: City of Fresno 2014.
Noise Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.12-8 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Table 4.12-8 City of Fresno Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure for Stationary Noise Sources Daytime
(7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)
Hourly Equivalent Sound Level (L eq), dBA 50 45
Maximum Sound Level (L max), dBA 70 60
1 The Planning and Development Director, on a case-by-case basis, may designate land uses other than those shown in this table to be noise sensitive, and may require appropriate mitigation measures. 2 As determined at outdoor activity areas. Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown or not applicable, the noise exposure standard shall be applied at the property line of the receiving land use. When ambient noise levels exceed or equal the levels in this table, mitigation shall only be required to limit noise to the ambient plus 5 dB.
Source: City of Fresno 2014.
Policy NS-1-a: Establish 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL as the standard for the desirable maximum average exterior noise levels for defined usable exterior areas of residential and noise -sen
sitive uses for noise but designate 60 dBA Ldn
or CNEL (measured at the property line) for noise generated by stationary sources impinging upon residential and noise
-sensi
tive uses. Maintain 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL as the maximum average exterior noise levels for non- s
ensitive commercial land uses and maintain 70 dBA Ldn or CNEL as maximum average exterior noise level for industrial land uses, both to be measured at the property line of parcels where noise is generated which may impinge on neighboring properties.
Policy NS-1-b: Establish the conditionally acceptable noise exposure level range for residential and other noise sensitive uses to be 65 dB Ldn or require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determined by a site specific acoustical analysis to comply with the desirable and conditionally acceptable exterior noise level and the required interior noise level standards set in Table 9-2 o f the General Plan.
Policy NS-1-c: Establish the exterior noise exposure of greater than 65 dB L dn or CNEL to be generally unacceptable for residential and other noise sensitive uses for noise generated by sources in Policy NS -1-a
, and
study alternative less noise
-s
ensitive uses for these areas if otherwise appropriate. Require appropriate noise reducing mitigation measures as determined by a site-specific acoustical analysis to comply with the generally desirable or generally acceptable exterior noise level and the required 45 dB interior noise level standards set in Table 9-2
of the General Plan as conditions of permit approval.
NS-1-h: Comply with the State Code requirement that any new multifamily residential, hotel, or dorm buildings must be designed to incorporate noise reduction measures to meet the 45 dB L dn interior noise criterion, and apply this standard as well to all new single-family residential and noise sensitive uses. Policy NS-1-i: Require an acoustical analysis where new development of industrial, commercial or other noise generating land uses (including transportation facilities such as roadways, railroads, and airports) may result in noise levels that exceed the noise level exposure criteria established by Tables 9-2 and 9-3
of the General Plan to
determine impacts, and require developers to mitigate these impacts in conformance with Tables 9 -2 a nd 9
-3 o
f
the General Plan as a condition of permit approval through appropriate means. Noise mitigation measures may include:
The screening of noise sources such as parking and loading facilities, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment;
Providing increased setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings; Installation of walls and landscaping that serve as noise buffers; Installation of soundproofing materials and double-glazed windows; and Regulating operations, such as hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup; Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the prescribed noise level reduction may be approved by the City, provided a qualified Acoustical Consultant submits information demonstrating that the alternative designs will Ascent Environmental Noise
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.12-9
achieve and maintain the specific targets for outdoor activity areas and interior spaces. As a last resort, developers may propose to construct noise walls along roadways when compatible with aesthetic concerns and neighborhood character. This would be a developer responsibility, with no City funding. Policy NS-1-j: Establish, as a threshold of significance for the City’s environmental review process, that a significant increase in ambient noise levels is assumed if the project would increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity by 3 dB Ldn or CNEL or more above the ambient noise limits established in this General Plan Update. Policy NS-1-k: Review all new public and private development proposals that may potentially be affected by or cause a significant increase in noise levels, per Policy NS- 1-
c, to determine conformance with the policies of this
Noise Element. Require developers to reduce the noise impacts of new development on adjacent properties through appropriate means.
Policy NS-1-l: Continue to enforce applicable State Noise Insulation Standards and Uniform Building Code noise requirements, as adopted by the City.
Policy NS-1-m: For projects subject to City approval, require that the project sponsor mitigate noise created by new transportation and transportation-r
elated stationary noise sources, including roadway improvement projects, so that resulting noise levels do not exceed the City’s adopted standards for noise -s
ensitive land uses.
Policy NS-1-n: Require new noise sources to use best available control technology to minimize noise emissions. Policy NS-1-o: Acoustical studies and noise mitigation measures for projects shall specify the heights, materials, and design for sound walls and other noise barriers. Aesthetic considerations shall also be addressed in these studies and mitigation measures such as variable noise barrier heights, a combination of a landscaped berm with wall, and reduced barrier height in combination with increased distance or elevation differences between noise source and noise receptor, with a maximum allowable height of 15 feet. The City will develop guidelines for aesthetic design measures of sound walls, and may commission area wide noise mitigation studies that can serve as templates for acoustical treatment that can be applied to similar situations in the urban area. Policy NS-1-p: Implement the land use and noise exposure compatibility provisions of the adopted Fresno Yosemite International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport Master and Environs Specific Plan, and the Sierra Sky Park Land Use Policy Plan to assess noise compatibility of proposed uses and improvements within airport influence and environs areas.
City of Fresno Municipal Code
The Noise Control Ordinance in the City of Fresno Municipal Code establishes the following standards related to noise, which are applicable to the proposed plan:
SEC. 10-102. Definitions. (b) Ambient Noise. “Ambient noise” is the all -e ncompassing noise associated with a given environment, being usually a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. For the purpose of this ordinance, ambient noise level is the level obtained when the noise level is averaged over a period of fifteen minutes, without inclusion of the offending noise, at the location and time of day at which a comparison with the offending noise is to be made. Where the ambient noise level is less than what is presented in this section, however, the noise level specified herein shall be deemed to be the ambient noise level for that location. [The table included in the section is presented below as Table 4.12-9.] Table 4.12-9 City of Fresno Ambient Noise Thresholds
District Time Sound Level, dB
Residential
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50
7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 60
Commercial
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 60
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 65
Industrial Anytime 70
Source: City of Fresno Municipal Code Section 10-102(b).
Noise Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.12-10 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
SEC. 10-105. Excessive Noise Prohibited. No person shall make, cause, or suffer or permit to be made or caused upon any premises or upon any public street, alley, or place within the city, any sound or noise which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing or working in the area, unless such noise or sound is specifically authorized by or in accordance with this article. The provisions of this section shall apply to, but shall be limited to, the control, use, and operation of the following noise sources:
(a) Radios, musical instruments, phonographs, television sets, or other machines or devices used for the amplification, production, or reproduction of sound or the human voice. (b) Animals or fowl creating, generating, or emitting any cry or behavioral sound. (c) Machinery or equipment, such as fans, pumps, air conditioning units, engines, turbines, compressors, generators, motors or similar devices, equipment, or apparatus. (d) Construction equipment or work, including the operation, use or employment of pile drivers, hammers, saws, drills, derricks, hoists, or similar construction equipment or tools. SEC. 10-106: Prima Facie Violation. Any noise or sound exceeding the ambient level at the property line of any person offended thereby, or, if a condominium or apartment house, within any adjoining living unit, by more than five decibels shall be deemed to be prima facie evidence of a violation of Section 8 -305. SEC. 10-107. School, Hospitals, and Churches. No person shall create any noise on any street, sidewalk, or public place adjacent to any school, institution of learning, or church while the same is in use, or adjacent to any hospital, which noise unreasonably interferes with the workings of such institution or which disturbs or unduly annoys patients in the hospital, provided conspicuous signs are displayed in such street, sidewalk, or public place indicating the presence of a school, church, or hospital. SEC. 10-109. Exceptions. The provisions of this article shall not apply to:
(a) Construction, repair or remodeling work accomplished pursuant to a building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or other construction permit issued by the city or other governmental agency, or to site preparation and grading, provided such work takes place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday.
(b) Emergency work.
(c) Any act or acts which are prohibited by any law of the State of California or the United States.
In addition to the stationary noise standards presented above in table 4.12-9, Table 15-2506-B of the Municipal Code establishes maximum exterior noise level standards for transportation noise sources at various noise-sensitive land uses.
The standards there are identical to the ones presented above in Table 4.1-9, from the City of Fresno General Plan.
In accordance with section 15-2506 of the Municipal Code, a noise sensitive receptor is defined as residential, lodging, medical facilities, theatres/auditoriums, office buildings, and schools/libraries/museums uses (City of Fresno, 2014).
4.12.3 Environmental Setting
EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
Existing land uses within the Plan Area include a mix of industrial and commercial developments, rural and medium - density residential, public facilities, open space, and vacant land. Noise sources associated with existing land uses include vehicle and truck traffic; residential maintenance; parking lots; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; property operations and maintenance; truck loading and unloading; and agriculture-related noise.
Roadway Noise
The primary noise source in the community is vehicle traffic traveling on surface streets, on State Route (SR) 41 and SR 99. Existing modeled noise levels associated with acoustically significant roadways within the Plan Area are shown Ascent Environmental Noise
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.12-11
in Table 4.12-10. The modeled noise levels do not consider factors that may reduce (e.g., existing buildings, walls) or in some cases, amplify noise sources. Table 4.12-10 summarizes the modeled existing traffic noise levels at 100 feet from the centerline of each area roadway segment, and lists distances from each roadway centerline to the 75, 70, and 65 dBA CNEL traffic noise contours. For further details on traffic-noise modeling inputs and parameters, refer to Appendix C.
Table 4.12-10 Summary of Modeled Existing Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment/Segment Description Noise Levels @ 100 feet from Centerline
Distance (feet) from Roadway Centerline to Contour
75 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA
Jenson Avenue Bypass between Cherry Avenue and East
Avenue 74.6 65 205 648
Jenson Avenue Bypass between Sunset Avenue and Cedar
Avenue 75.0 71 224 708
North Avenue between Hayston Avenue and Maple Avenue 67.3 8 25 79 Central Avenue between Cherry Avenue and East Avenue 69.4 13 40 125 American Avenue between Orange Avenue and Cedar
Avenue 65.9 6 18 56
Cherry Avenue between Church Avenue and Byrd Avenue 69.6 13 42 132 Cherry Avenue between Central Avenue and North Avenue 68.1 9 29 93 East Avenue between Central Avenue and North Avenue 62.3 2 8 25 Cedar Avenue between Central Avenue and Parkway Drive 67.4 8 25 80 Maple Avenue between North Avenue and Annadale
Avenue 62.3 2 8 24
Willow Avenue between Jensen Parkway and Annadale
Avenue 67.4 8 25 80
Elm Avenue between Central Avenue and North Avenue 69.8 14 44 139 Notes: CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; dBA = A-weighted decibel.
All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow, and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. For additional details, refer to Appendix C for detailed traffic data, and traffic-noise modeling input data and output results.
Source: Modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2023.
Rail Noise
Noise associated with the existing BNSF and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line s also contribute to the noise levels in the Plan Area. The UPRR extends in a southeast/northwest direction and runs through the center of the Plan Area.
Also, land has been cleared and construction is underway for the future state high-speed rail line.
Airport/Aircraft Noise
There are no airports located within the Plan Area and the Plan Area is not located within any airport noise contours.
The Plan Area is, however, affected by fly-over noise associated with the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, the Fresno
-C
handler Downtown Airport, and the Sierra Sky Park Airport. Commercial jet aircraft operations are limited to the Fresno Yosemite International Airport. The Air National Guard is also stationed there and operates military jets and other aircraft. Private and commercial operations with smaller aircraft use the Fresno Chandler Downtown Airport, while only small private aircraft use the Sierra Sky Park Airport.
Noise Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.12-12 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
VIBRATION SOURCES IN THE PLAN AREA
The main sources of vibration in the Plan Area are related to vehicles and trucks, rail, and construction activities.
Typical roadway traffic, including heavy trucks, rarely generates vibration amplitudes high enough to cause structural or cosmetic damage. However, there have been cases in which heavy trucks traveling over potholes or other discontinuities in the pavement have caused vibration high enough to result in complaints from nearby residents.
4.12.4 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
METHODOLOGY
Construction Noise and Vibration
To assess potential short-term (construction-related) noise and vibration impacts, sensitive receptors and their relative exposure were identified. Construction source noise and vibration levels from estimated future development were determined based on methodologies, reference emission levels, and usage factors from FTA’s Guide on Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment methodology (FTA 2018) and the Federal Highway Administration’s Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide (FHWA 2006). Reference levels for noise and vibration emissions for specific equipment or activity types are well documented and the usage thereof common practice in the field of acoustics.
Operational Noise and Vibration
Assessment of long-term operational impacts from stationary (non-transportation) noise sources from future Plan Area development was based on reconnaissance data, reference noise emission levels, and measured noise levels for activities and equipment associated with such development (e.g., HVAC units, delivery/loading docks), and standard attenuation rates and modeling techniques.
To assess potential long-term operational noise impacts from project-generated increases in traffic, noise levels were estimated using calculations consistent with the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5 (FHWA 2004) and traffic data for the assumed level of Plan Area development (Appendix C). The analysis is based on the reference noise emission levels for automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and ground attenuation factors. Truck usage and vehicle speeds on area roadways were estimated from field observations and the SCSP traffic report. Note that the modeling conducted does not account for any natural or human-made shielding (e.g., the presence of walls or buildings) or reflection off building surfaces.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and adopted City of Fresno General Plan and Municipal Code noise standards, an impact from noise would be significant if development under the proposed plan would do any of the following:
Generate of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies
substantial temporary (i.e., construction) noise level that exceed exceeding City Noise Control Ordinance standards during the more noise-sensitive evening, nighttime, and early-morning hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m., Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday);
substantial permanent stationary or area noise sources that exceed the City Residential Noise Control Ordinance standards (e.g., 50 dBA Leq during the day and 45 dBA Leq at night); substantial permanent traffic noise levels that exceed the City Traffic Noise Standards (see Table 4.12 -7, above) or increase ambient noise levels in the vicinity by 3 dB L dn CNEL or more as established in the General Plan Update (Policy NS-1-j);
Ascent Environmental Noise
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.12-13
Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels construction or operational vibration levels exceeding FTA’s recommended standards with respect to the prevention of structural building damage (i.e., 0.2 PPV in/sec for non-engineered timber and masonry building) or FTA’s maximum-acceptable-vibration standard with respect to human response/sleep disturbance (i.e., 80 VdB for residential uses for infrequent events, 75 VdB for occasional events, and 72 VdB for frequent events) at nearby existing vibration-sensitive land uses; or For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the Plan Area to excessive noise levels.
ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
The closest airport to the Plan Area is Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, approximately 2.1 miles from the Plan Area.
The Plan Area is located outside of the nearest airport land use plan area. Therefore, no impacts related to exposure of people to excessive aviation noise would occur.
PROPOSED SOUTH CENTRAL SPECIFIC PLAN POLICIES
The proposed plan includes the following policies related to noise:
Policy N-1: Establish noise standards that are protective for residential and other noise-sensitive uses. Policy N-2: Identify noise-impacted areas in the Plan Area. (Note: A noise impacted area is an area that exceeds the City's noise standards.)
Policy N-3: Require the protection of noise-impacted areas through effective noise mitigation measures such as barriers, berms, design and placement of buildings, sound absorption materials, and vegetation. Policy N-4: Require new sources of noise to use the best available technology to minimize noise. (Note: New development projects that generate noise in excess of the noise thresholds will be subject to this policy.) Policy N-5: When designing and improving streets and highways, consider measures to reduce traffic noise.
In addition, the SCSP includes an overlay zone (Figure 3-15), regulations and development standards that prohibit certain uses within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors or require a conditional use permit for such uses (e.g., warehousing uses); require setbacks, screening, walls, and buffers between specific uses and sensitive receptors; and require truck routing plans from facility operators that emphasize protection of sensitive receptors.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.12-1: Substantial Temporary (Construction) Noise Levels That Exceed City Noise Control Ordinance Standards
It is anticipated that development of the Plan Area would occur gradually over time and that various levels of construction could occur throughout the Plan Area at any given time. While specific construction intensity, duration, and locations are not currently known, reference noise levels for typical construction equipment associated with land development were used to assess peak construction noise. Based on those reference levels, construction noise could reach levels of up to 82.9 dBA L
eq and 88.0 dBA Lmax. In addition, some construction work for utility installation. This impact would be significant.
The effects of construction noise resulting from the implementation of development under the proposed plan would depend on the type of construction activities occurring on any given day; noise levels generated by those activities; distances to noise-sensitive receptors; potential noise attenuating features such as topography, vegetation, and Noise Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.12-14 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
existing structures; and the existing ambient noise environment in the receptor’s vicinity. Construction generally occurs in several discrete stages, each phase requiring a specific complement of equipment with varying equipment type, quantity, and intensity. These variations in the operational characteristics of the equipment change the effect they have on the noise environment of the Plan Area and in the surrounding area for the duration of the construction process. Additionally, for evaluation of construction noise, activities that occur during the more noise- sensitive evening and nighttime hours are of greater concern than daytime noise. Because exterior ambient noise levels typically decrease during the late evening and nighttime hours as traffic volumes and commercial activities decrease, construction activities performed during these more noise-sensitive periods are more conspicuous and can result in increased annoyance and potential sleep disruption for occupants of nearby residences.
Development of the Plan Area is anticipated to occur gradually over time. The sequence and pace for constructing various land uses and facilities would be market driven; therefore, specific construction schedules for individual projects are yet unknown. During some years there may be several elements under construction simultaneously and during other years there may be very little construction activity. Construction activities in the Plan Area may initially be required on currently undeveloped lands for installation of new or expanded backbone infrastructure, such as storm drainage, water and wastewater improvements, roadway improvements, and new or expanded utilities (e.g., electrical distribution lines, wastewater drainage pipes).
Construction noise can be characterized based on the types of equipment that will be used. Reference noise levels for typical construction equipment that would be used for projects carried out under the proposed plan are shown in Table 4.12-11.
Table 4.12-11 Noise Emission Levels from Construction Equipment Equipment Type Typical Noise Level (Lmax dBA) @ 50 feet Backhoe 80
Concrete Mixer 85
Compactor 80
Crane/Lift 85
Dozer 85
Dump Truck 84
Excavator 85
Flat Bed Truck 84
Front End Loader 80
Generator 70
Grader 85
Impact Pile Driver 95
Paver 89
Roller 85
Pickup Trucks 55
Notes: Assumes all equipment is fitted with a properly maintained and operational noise control device, per manufacturer specifications. The noise levels listed are manufacture-specified noise levels for each piece of heavy construction equipment.
Source: FTA 2018.
Based on reference noise levels for typical construction equipment and activities, building construction noise without pile driving could reach up to 82.3 dBA Leq and 87.6 dBA Lmax (at 50 feet from the source), and with pile driving could reach up to 82.9 dBA Leq and 88.0 dBA Lmax. Refer to Appendix C for modeling inputs and results.
Construction activities would occur throughout the Plan Area with varying construction schedules and construction- noise levels depending on the specific scale and type of development under construction. Currently, about 400 Ascent Environmental Noise
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.12-15
residences are located within the Plan Area that, depending on proximity to a construction site or sites, could be affected by construction work. Off-site sensitive receptors near the Plan Area include rural residential land uses generally around the southern boundaries of the Plan Area and denser medium-density residential uses along the northern boundaries.
The 5,567-acre Plan Area includes approximately 3,693 acres of development (industrial, commercial, residential, and other uses), but also contains large areas of undeveloped open space and agricultural land. Existing ambient noise levels throughout the undeveloped portions of the Plan Area are relatively low. Depending on the type and locations of future development, construction activities generating noise levels of 82.3 dBA Leq or greater could result in substantial (i.e., 5 dB) increases in temporary noise at nearby off-site and on-site residences.
With the development of the Plan Area taking place gradually over time, additional sensitive land uses could be constructed that could be exposed to noise levels associated with the construction of subsequent development.
Although individual construction activity location, duration, and intensity for subsequent development are unknown, road improvements, and building construction of future development could occur close to future sensitive receptors, exposing them to construction-noise levels of up to 82.9 dBA Leq and 88.0 dBA Lmax. In addition, some construction work, such as utility installation and roadway improvements may occur during nighttime hours, as is typical with this type of construction, to reduce traffic impacts, and could expose proposed future sensitive receptors to noise levels that may disrupt sleep and exceed City of Fresno nighttime noise limits of 45 dBA Leq and 60 dBA Lmax.
The proposed plan would impose conditions on new development within the Plan Area that would limit construction noise levels to protect sensitive receptors from excessive construction noise. Policy N-1, for example, would establish noise standards that are protective of residential and other noise-sensitive uses. Policy N-3 would protect noise- affected areas through effective noise attenuation measures such as barriers, berms, design and placement of buildings, sound absorption materials, and vegetation.
Noise reduction would be achieved with the implementation of proposed plan policies and implementation programs. However, depending on individual construction-noise levels and proximity to sensitive receptors, achieving nighttime standards of 45 dBA Leq may not always be feasible. Future construction activities could result in a substantial (i.e., 5 dB) temporary or periodic increase in noise during daytime or nighttime hours at existing and future sensitive land uses. This impact would be significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 4.12-1: Implement Construction Noise Reduction Requirements The City shall require the following noise reduction measures to be implemented for all construction activities, as best management practices, that would be the responsibility of the construction contractors to implement:
All construction equipment and equipment staging areas shall be located as far as possible from nearby noise - sensitive land uses (residences, schools, playgrounds, child-care centers, churches, hospitals, retirement homes, and convalescent homes).
Idling of construction equipment for extended periods (i.e., 5 minutes) of time shall be prohibited . All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and equipped with noise reduction intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations. Equipment engine shrouds shall be closed during equipment operation.
Noise-intensive construction operations and techniques that cause noise levels to exceed City Noise Control Ordinance standards at sensitive receptors during the more noise-sensitive times of day (10 p.m. to 7 a.m., Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday) shall be replaced with quieter procedures (e.g., using welding instead of riveting, mixing concrete off site instead of on site) where such technology exists and would accomplish the same desired outcome compared to traditional construction methods . For construction activities required to occur at night within 3,900 feet of residential uses, noise attenuating buffers such as structures, truck trailers, temporary noise curtains, or sound walls shall be located between noise Noise Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.12-16 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
sources and the receptor to shield sensitive receptors from construction noise to achieve a nighttime noise level of 45 dBA at the receptor.
Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.12-1 would provide substantial reductions in daytime and nighttime construction noise levels by including noise reduction measures such as ensuring proper equipment use; locating equipment away from sensitive land uses; and requiring the use of barriers and berms . Even with these measures, however, construction noise could temporarily reach high levels and disrupt sensitive receptors, depending on their proximity. Thus, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Impact 4.12-2: Substantial Permanent Stationary or Area Noise Sources That Exceed the City Residential Noise Control Ordinance Standards
Future development in the Plan Area is assumed to be primarily industrial, commercial, and retail, with some additional residential in designated portions of the Plan Area. Noise sources associated with these land uses include mechanical equipment, such as HVAC units, backup emergency generators, vehicular and human activity, par king lots, loading dock and delivery activities at commercial/industrial land uses. The plan is designed to buffer residentially designated areas with less intensive land uses (e.g., Business Park) such that new industrial uses would not be located within distances that could expose existing sensitive receptors to excessive stationary noise levels.
However, exact types of development, locations, building footprints, and building orientations are yet unknown; therefore, it is possible that new stationary noise sources could result in excessive noise levels at sensitive receptors and exceed applicable City of Fresno standards. This impact would be significant.
This impact assesses the long-term exposure of existing sensitive receptors to increased non-transportation noise sources that could occur with development under the proposed plan. Transportation -generated noise is addressed separately below in Impact 4.12-3.
Future development in the Plan Area is assumed to be primarily industrial, commercial, and retail, with some additional residential in designated portions of the Plan Area. This analysis focuses on stationary sources, such as HVAC units, mechanical equipment such as generators and other industrial equipment, loading docks, and parking lots associated, and new transmission lines and substations.
Mechanical Equipment
Mechanical equipment could be a primary noise source associated with new industrial, commercial, and retail land uses. The noise sources could take the form of fans, pumps, air compressors, chillers, or cooling towers. Noise levels associated with HVAC units and diesel backup generators would be similar to noise levels associated with other mechanical equipment such as pumps, air compressors, and exhaust pipes. Thus, this analysis of mechanical equipment is representative of typical noise sources associated with commercial and industrial land uses.
Noise levels from HVAC equipment vary substantially depending on unit efficiency, size, and location, but generally range from 45 to 70 dB L
eq at a distance of 50 feet (EPA 1971). Assuming the higher, more conservative value of these reference noise levels, HVAC units located within 500 feet of noise-sensitive land uses could exceed the City’s noise standard for daytime noise (i.e., 50 dBA Leq). In addition, HVAC units located within 890 feet of noise-sensitive land uses could exceed the City’s noise standard for nighttime noise (i.e., 45 dBA L eq).
The nature and location of new development in the Plan Area is yet unknown, so specific locations of new HVAC units on future structures are also unknown. However, because of the amount of proposed new construction, and the potential proximity of housing to nonresidential uses, it is possible that HVAC units located on new structures within the industrial, office, and business park land uses could result in substantial noise exposure to existing or future sensitive land uses.
Backup generators may be used to supply necessary power requirements to vital systems within facilities constructed on commercial/industrial and mixed-use land uses. Reference noise-level measurements of emergency generators with rated power outputs from 50 to 125 kilowatts result in noise levels ranging from 61 to 73 dB L eq and 63–84 dB
Lmax at a distance of 45 feet (EPA 1971; FHWA 2006). Assuming the higher, more conservative value of these reference Ascent Environmental Noise
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.12-17
noise levels, emergency electrical generators located within 650 feet of noise-sensitive land uses could exceed the City’s noise standard for daytime noise (i.e., 50 dBA L eq). In addition, generators located within 1,300 feet of noise- sensitive land uses could exceed the City’s noise standard for nighttime noise (i.e., 45 dBA L eq).
Proposed development includes various land uses that could result in the placement of new mechanical equipment close (i.e., within 1,150 feet) to existing sensitive land uses. Although specific building footprint locations, building orientations, and specific location of stationary equipment are not known at this time, considering the density of proposed development, it is possible that new emergency electrical generators could be located within distances that could expose existing sensitive receptors to noise levels that exceed the City of Fresno daytime and nighttime noise standards for sensitive receptors
.
Parking Lot Activities
Development under the proposed plan would result in new parking facilities to serve new industrial, commercial, and business-oriented land uses. Noise levels from parking lots can vary depending on the number of vehicles at any given time in the parking lot, the speed at which vehicles are traveling, and the types of vehicles present. Typical noise sources include car engines, car doors, car alarms, honking, and the like. Based on available reference noise levels, typical noise levels from parking lot activities could reach approximately 60 L eq at 15 feet from the noise source
(i.e., car door slamming). Therefore, based on this information and the reference noise level for a parking lot, noise from new parking facilities could exceed the City of Fresno daytime noise standard (i.e., 50 dBA L eq) within 50 feet and the nighttime standard (i.e., 45 dBA L eq) within 85 feet of existing sensitive receptors. Although this noise source is unlikely to result in substantial increases in noise, depending on the location and size of new development, there remains a potential to result in nighttime noise standard exceedances.
Loading Dock and Delivery Activity
Noise sources associated with loading dock and delivery activities include trucks idling, on -site truck circulation, trailer-mounted refrigeration units, pallets dropping, and the operation of forklifts. These activities could occur primarily within industrial, commercial, and mixed-use land uses. Some developments constructed under the proposed plan may include loading docks or designated areas for sending and receiving shipments by trucks. Noise sources from truck activity associated with delivery areas are usually short-term and can include activities such as engine revving, and the release of air brakes on heavy trucks. Based on measurements taken at an existing warehouse distribution center, loading/unloading activities involving trucks could result in noise levels of 59.3 dBA L eq
and 79.6 dBA Lmax at 100 feet from the source (see Appendix C for measurement data). Applying standard attenuation rates for these activities, loading docks could exceed the City of Fresno’s daytime noise standard (i.e., 50 dBA L
eq) within 300 feet and the nighttime standard (i.e., 45 dBA L eq) within 522 feet of sensitive receptors.
Transmission Corona Noise and Electric Substations
Audible noise from power lines is primarily attributable to point source corona effect (crackling and hissing hum -like sound) resulting from small variability in the conductor materials. Such noise is common and not harmful and routinely occurs when air is ionized around a gap, a burr (raised area), a small irregularity, or some non-insulated component during the conductance of electricity through power lines. Corona is also produced when power lines break down over time and their fastener components loosen, resulting in an air gap. Corona noise is most prominent during periods of rain, fog, or high humidity.
In addition to new transmission lines, development within the Plan Area may require additional PG&E electrical substations. At substation sites, the primary sources of operating noise would be the on-site transformers. Noise from transformers is similar to coronal noise from power lines (i.e., a slight humming sound) and thus a reference noise level for a 230-kV transmission line of 49.6 dBA at 18 feet is used in this analysis (PG&E 2010). Based on this reference noise level, City of Fresno nighttime noise standards of 45 dBA L eq would be exceeded if a new transmission line or substation were located within 31 feet of a sensitive land use. The California Public Utilities Commission requires a minimum vertical clearance of 12 feet from structures for transmission lines from 22.5 to 300 kV (General Order 95). Thus, new transmission lines could potentially result in noise levels that exceed City of Fresno standards at sensitive receptors, depending on final design and location.
Noise Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.12-18 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Conclusion
The land use development that could occur within the Plan Area would include various new stationary sources, as described above. Specific locations of new HVAC units, mechanical equipment, loading docks/industrial equipment, or electricity transmission facilities associated with new commercial structures are not known at this time. Thus, because of the amount of proposed new construction and mix of various land uses, it is possible that new stationary sources associated with new development could result in noise exposure of sensitive land uses to levels that exceed City of Fresno daytime and nighttime noise limits. This impact would be significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 4.12-2a: Conduct Acoustic Study
In accordance with General Plan Policy NS-1-i, all new development applications that would include new stationary or mobile noise sources, significant remodels requiring discretionary review, and redevelopment adjacent to noise- sensitive land uses, will be required to prepare an acoustical analysis that evaluates potential noise impacts and recommends noise abatement mitigation to ensure compliance with the City’s General Plan and Noise Ordin ance.
The City will require acoustical analyses for the purpose of identifying project-specific noise effects and required noise abatement measures.
Mitigation Measure 4.12-2b: Require Consistency with Noise Code For future noise-generating developments proposed in the Plan Area, the City will require findings of consistency with SCSP noise policies and development standards; Fresno General Plan goals, objectives, policies, and implementation actions; Zoning Ordinance; Municipal Code; Building Code; and other local, federal, state, and regional regulations applicable to noise impacts as conditions of project approval and entitlement.
Mitigation Measure 4.12-2c: Require Noise-Reducing Design Elements New non-residential projects adjacent to residential uses will be required to incorporate noise-reducing features (e.g., siting and orienting noise-intensive elements such as loading docks and HVAC units as far possible from sensitive receptors, use of soundproofing materials, noise barriers) into the project design to minimize impacts to nearby residential uses and other noise-sensitive land uses.
Mitigation Measure 4.12-2d: Minimize Stationary Noise near Sensitive Uses New buildings proposed adjacent to existing and/or planned residential or other noise -sensitive land uses will be required to site and operate stationary equipment in a manner that limits adverse noise impacts and complies with adopted Municipal Code noise standards.
Mitigation Measure 4.12-2e: Minimize Parking Lot Noise near Sensitive Uses Parking areas for new or redeveloped non-residential developments near sensitive receptors shall be buffered and shielded by noise-attenuating features and structures such as solid walls, solid fences, and/or adequate landscaping.
Significance after Mitigation
The implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.12-2a through 4.12-2e would reduce noise exposure from existing and new stationary sources; however, because the specific noise sources and available noise reducing technology/design features for each cannot be determined at this time, it is possible that even with all the available noise reducing design considerations that noise standards be exceeded. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Ascent Environmental Noise
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.12-19
Impact 4.12-3: Substantial Permanent Traffic Noise Levels That Exceed City Traffic Noise Standards
Development of the Plan Area could result in new and expanded roadways to serve future development as well as increases in long-term truck and passenger vehicle traffic and associated noise increases on existing affected roadways. Existing and future development within and near the Plan Area could be exposed to substantial increases in traffic noise levels that exceed City residential noise standards of 65 dBA L dn/CNEL. While the focus of the SCSP is industrial development, it is possible that future development could result in the construction of sensitive uses (e.g., houses, schools, churches) near existing or future roads that generate substantial traffic noise. In addition, while the potential is limited, new development of sensitive uses could occur near the existing UPRR and BNSF tracks, exposing these new receptors to noise levels that exceed applicable noise standards. This impact would be significant.
Future development would generate additional vehicle and truck traffic on new and existing roadways in the Plan Area. Increases in traffic could expose sensitive receptors to increased traffic noise levels that exceed maximum allowable transportation noise levels established in the City of Fresno General Plan and Noise Ordinance.
Traffic noise modeling was conducted using project-specific average daily trip volumes for affected roadways.
Reported traffic noise levels in this discussion represent additional traffic that would occur with assumed development in the Plan Area. Table 4.12-12 summarizes roadway segments that, under Plan Area development assumptions, would generate exterior noise levels that exceed 65 dBA L dn/CNEL. Note that, per City policies (see
Table 4.12-7), this standard only applies to sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, lodging, hospitals, churches) and several modeled segments neither contain such uses, nor would they be allowed under proposed land use designations. Impacts on sensitive receptors, specifically, are discussed separately.
Table 4.12-12 Summary of Traffic Noise Levels from Existing to Existing Plus Project Conditions Roadway Segment Ldn/CNEL (dB) at 100 feet from Roadway Centerline Net Change
(dB) Road From To Existing
Conditions
Existing
Plus Project Conditions
Jenson Avenue Bypass Cherry Avenue East Avenue 74.6 76.5 +1.9 Jenson Avenue Bypass Sunset Avenue Cedar Avenue 75.0 77.0 +1.9 North Avenue Hayston Avenue Maple Avenue 67.3 68.2 +0.9 Central Avenue Cherry Avenue East Avenue 69.4 72.7 +3.3 American Avenue Orange Avenue Cedar Avenue 65.9 65.9 +0.0 Cherry Avenue Church Avenue Byrd Avenue 69.6 70.3 +0.7
Cherry Avenue Central Avenue North Avenue 68.1 69.4 +1.3 East Avenue Central Avenue North Avenue 62.3 69.5 +7.2
Cedar Avenue Central Avenue Parkway Drive 67.4 69.2 +1.7 Maple Avenue North Avenue Annadale Avenue 62.3 64.4 +2.2 Willow Avenue Jensen Parkway Annadale Avenue 67.4 71.0 +3.6 Elm Avenue Central Avenue North Avenue 69.8 70.3 +0.5
Notes: CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; dB = A-weighted decibels; Ldn = day-night average noise level; “Project” means assumed levels of Plan Area development through 2040.
The net change may not be the exact difference between existing and existing plus project conditions because of rounding.
Source: Data modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2023.
Existing Sensitive Receptors
Traffic noise modeling was conducted for existing and existing plus project (i.e., existing plus assumed levels of development in the Plan Area through 2040) traffic conditions. The City of Fresno has maximum allowable exterior and interior transportation-noise limits for various land uses. Noise increases would occur on existing and newly Noise Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.12-20 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
expanded roads that could affect new and existing receptors. Impacts were identified where maximum allowable residential noise standards would be exceeded as a result of traffic noise increases. Existing residential land uses are located within 100 feet of some of the identified road segments that would experience substantial increases in noise.
Thus, noise levels on some of the identified roadway segments would increase from below the residential maximum exterior noise limit to above it. All new/extended roads except Maple Avenue would result in exceedances of 65 dBA L
dn/CNEL at 100 feet from the roads centerline (Table 4.12-12).
Future Sensitive Receptors
As development occurs over time, new sensitive land uses could be placed in proximity to new or existing roads that could be exposed to noise levels that exceed City of Fresno allowable noise limits for various land uses. Existing noise levels on project-affected roadways are shown above in Table 4.12-12 and Appendix C. Future projected traffic noise levels were modeled based on traffic increases that would result from buildout of the proposed plan, shown above in Table 4.12-12.
New land uses in the Plan Area would primarily be those allowed under the Heavy Industrial, Light Industrial, Business Park, and Regional Business Park land use designations. The SCSP designates existing residential uses under Low - Medium-Low, and Medium-Density Residential, as appropriate, but no new residential land use designations are proposed (with the exception of a few scattered parcels to eliminate the potential for “spot” zoning; for example, a vacant parcel between two residences). It is possible, however, that existing residential areas could be redeveloped with new residential uses, and other sensitive uses (e.g., places of worship, day care centers) would be allowed in areas designated as Business Park. Although proximity to specific roadway seg ments and associated noise levels are not known at this time, based on the noise modeling conducted, new sensitive receptors could be exposed to noise levels of up to 77.0 dBA L
dn/CNEL. These are the highest modeled noise levels to which a receptor could be exposed (Appendix C). Modeled increases in noise would be as much as 7.2 dBA on a roadway segment that does not support existing or future sensitive receptors, and as much as 3.6 dBA on a roadway segment that does have such receptors).
These noise increases would be clearly noticeable, resulting in a substantial increase in long- term noise. Thus, sensitive receptors could be exposed to noise levels that exceed exterior noise limits. Exterior noise levels of above 65 dBA L
dn/CNEL could, in turn, result in exceedances of interior noise standards of 45 dBA.
Conclusion
Although sensitive land uses are less prominent and scattered throughout the Plan Area, modeling suggests that traffic generated from projected development could result in noise levels that exceed City of Fresno standards for such uses. Depending on the specific location of future land development and specific land uses located close to high-volume roads, exterior and interior noise limits could be exceeded at existing and future sensitive land uses. This impact would be
significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.12-2b.
Mitigation Measure 4.12-3a Reduce Transportation Noise Exposure All new transportation noise sources shall be evaluated for consistency with adopted transportation noise exposure levels (Table 15-2506-B of the City of Fresno Municipal Code).
Mitigation Measure 4.12-3b: Reduce Noise Levels Associated with New, Expanded, or Extended Roads Before finalizing roadway design for any new or expanded roadway, along which sensitive land uses currently exist or could be allowed in the future based on proposed land use designation, a design- level acoustical study shall be prepared to identify specific noise-abating roadway design considerations, which shall be incorporated into final road design and approved by the City of Fresno. Design considerations may include, but are not limited to, minimum setback distances, the use of quiet pavement materials, sound barriers, and building/window retrofits for existing structures.
Ascent Environmental Noise
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.12-21
Significance after Mitigation
New sensitive land uses would be designed to meet interior noise standards thus minimizing noise exposure during the more sensitive times of the day. However, the addition of transportation noise generated by future development under the plan could result in exceedance of the 65 dBA L dn/CNEL transportation noise standard for sensitive uses on many roads. Exterior noise levels at existing noise-sensitive residences could be remediated by implementing such actions as building sound walls, retrofitting buildings (including windows), and relocating sensitive receptors, but in the case of the proposed plan, these measures may not be feasible in all areas. For example , concrete cinderblock noise barriers would be less effective with gaps (e.g., for residential driveway access). Also, property owners of existing residential uses affected by increased traffic noise may not agree to the installation of sound walls on their properties. In addition, the traffic noise reduction from the use of “quiet” pavement would diminish over time because of normal wear and tear from traffic and weather. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Impact 4.12-4: Construction or Operational Vibration Levels That Exceed FTA’s Recommended Standards with Respect to the Prevention of Structural Damage and Human Response
Potential vibration impacts could occur when project-related construction activities are close (i.e., within 550 feet) to sensitive land uses. Because the nature and locations of future development in the Plan Area are unknown at this time, the vibration impacts of pile-driving and other vibration-causing activities are similarly unknown. Given the emphasis on industrial development, however, it is possible that pile-driving and other vibration-inducing construction activities could occur near sensitive land uses. Specifically, the potential exists for pile driving to occur within 100 feet of a structure, exceeding FTA-recommended levels for structural damage (i.e., 0.2 in/sec PPV), and within 550 feet of a sensitive land use, exceeding FTA-recommended levels for vibration annoyance (i.e., 72 VdB). In addition, while most of the land adjacent to existing railroad tracks is designated Heavy Industrial under the plan, there are three areas adjacent to railroad tracks with Business Park and Residential land use designations. If sensitive uses were to be constructed in these areas within 350 feet of the railroad tracks, new sensitive receptors could be exposed to levels of vibration that exceed FTA-recommended levels of 65 VdB for infrequent events, such as passing trains. This impact would be
significant.
Construction
Construction activities generate varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and activities involved. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with distance from the source. The effects of ground vibration may be imperceptible at the lowest levels, result in low rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations at moderate levels, and, at high levels, can cause annoyance and sleep disturbance.
When considering new construction, pile driving generates the highest vibration levels and is, therefore, of greatest concern when evaluating construction-related vibration impacts. According to FTA, vibration levels associated with pile driving are 1.518 in/sec PPV at 25 feet. Based on FTA’s recommended procedure for applying a propagation adjustment to these reference levels, vibration levels from pile driving could exceed the threshold of significance of
0.2 in/sec PPV for structural damage within 100 feet of pile-driving activities (refer to Appendix C for modeling details).
Vibration levels can also result in interference or annoyance impacts for residences or other land uses where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals. According to FTA, vibration levels associated with pile driving are 112 VdB at 25 feet (FTA 2018). FTA vibration annoyance potential criteria depend on the frequency of the vibration events. When vibration events occur more than 70 times per day, as would likely be the case with pile driving, they are considered “frequent events.” Frequent events in excess of 72 VdB are considered to result in a significant vibration impact. Based on FTA’s recommended procedure for applying propagation adjustments to these reference levels, vibration levels from pile driving could exceed threshold of significance for “frequent events” within 550 feet of a sensitive land use (refer to Appendix C for modeling details).
Noise Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
4.12-22 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Existing residential and other sensitive land uses (e.g., places of worship) are located within and in proximity to the Plan Area and could be exposed to vibration activities associated with new construction if they were to occur near these uses. Potential vibration impacts could also occur at any future sensitive uses, if constructed in the Plan Area. It is unknown at this time where specific pile-driving activities would be required and to what extent they would occur.
Therefore, it is possible that pile-driving and other vibration-inducing construction activities could occur near future sensitive land uses. Specifically, the potential exists for pile driving to occur within 100 feet of a structure, exceeding the threshold of significance for structural damage, and within 550 feet of a sensitive land use, exceeding threshol ds of significance for vibration annoyance.
Operation
Operation of development resulting from implementation of development under the proposed plan would not result in any new or additional major sources of ground vibration, such as commercial railways, passenger rail transit lines, or major transit stations; therefore, the focus of this analysis is on the placement of new sensitive land uses or structures near the existing UPRR and BNSF tracks as well as new potential stationary and mobile vibration sources from industrial uses. Regarding vibration impacts on proposed development that could be located near the UPRR and/or BNSF tracks, human disturbance (rather than structural damage) is the primary concern. This is because all new development that could potentially be located close to existing rail would be constructed in accordance with all current building code requirements and new materials that would not be prone to damage from vibration levels associated with passing trains. In addition, depending on the specific land use at industrial sites, operational activities could result in vibration sources such as from heavy-duty trucks traveling on truck routes or from new stationary equipment. At this time, specific information regarding the locations of such sources and associated vibration levels cannot be determined, however, depending on the daily activity, type of equipment, and proximity to existing or future sensitive land use, could result in excessive vibration levels that cause disturbance people.
Based on FTA guidance, sensitive land uses such as schools and places of worship located within 150 feet of the centerline of the UPRR and BNSF tracks could be exposed to levels that exceed 75 VdB. Land uses that are even more sensitive, such as laboratories and medical facilities located within 350 feet of the centerline of UPPR and BNSF track s could be exposed to levels that exceed 65 VdB. While most of the land adjacent to existing railroad tracks is designated Heavy Industrial under the plan, there are three areas adjacent to railroad tracks with land designated as Business Park and Residential: a parcel near Sunset Avenue and E. Vine Avenue in the north-central portion of the Plan Area, parcels along E. Annadale Avenue in the eastern portion of the Plan Area, and parcels adjacent to the north-south trending tracks between S. Cedar and S. Maple Avenues, and between E. Malaga and E. American Avenues. If sensitive uses were to be constructed in these areas within 350 feet of the railroad tracks, new sensitive receptors could be exposed to levels of vibration that exceed FTA-recommended levels of 65 VdB for infrequent events, such as passing trains. Thus, while unlikely given the small amount of land designated as Business Park and Residential (versus Heavy Industrial) adjacent to the railroad tracks, new sensitive land uses located within 350 feet of the existing railroad tracks could be exposed to excessive vibration-noise levels.
Because operation of future projects could result in truck-generated vibration impacts on sensitive receptors and— though unlikely—sensitive uses could be developed within the small areas of land in the proposed Business Park and Residential land use designations adjacent to existing railroad tracks, operational vibration impacts would be significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 4.12-4a: Reduce Construction Vibration For construction activities that would require high-impact equipment (e.g., pile-driving, vibratory equipment, jackhammers) occurring within 100 feet of any building, to reduce the potential for structural damage, and within 550 feet of an occupied residence/building, to minimize disturbance from impact equipment, a vibration control plan shall be developed by the project applicant and construction contractors to be submitted to and approved by Fresno prior to approval of issuance of grading permits for development under the proposed plan. The plan shall be developed to achieve recommended vibration limits for structural damage and human disturbance, depending on site-specific structure type and vibration source, in accordance with Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Ascent Environmental Noise
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.12-23
Vibration Impact Assessment Manual methods and guidance, or more appropriate and available guidance at the time of development review. The plan may include measures such as, but not limited to, alternatives to impact pile driving and restrictions on pile driving activity.
Mitigation Measure 4.12-4b: Reduce Rail Operations Vibration Exposure Construction of sensitive uses (e.g., residences, places of worship, day care centers) shall be prohibited within 350 feet of railroad tracks that are actively used or that could be used in the future. For sensitive uses proposed within 500 feet of an existing rail line, the City will require a project-level vibration assessment conducted by a qualified acoustical engineer or noise specialist in accordance to determine vibration levels at specific building locations and recommend feasible structural mitigation measures (e.g., isolation strip foundations, insulated windows and walls, sound walls or barriers, distance setbacks, or other construction or design measures), if necessary, to reduce vibration-noise to acceptable levels.
Mitigation Measure 4.12-4c: Reduce Truck Operation Vibration Exposure The City shall formally designate truck routes in the Plan Area that avoid streets with existing and future sensitive receptors. The City shall implement physical improvements (e.g., relative to turning radii, lane widths, access management), signage, enforcement and other appropriate measures to limit truck traffic to approved routes.
Mitigation Measure 4.12-4d: Reduce Vibration Exposure from Operational Stationary Equipment New industrial uses that would include vibration-generating stationary equipment within 550 feet of sensitive land uses shall be required to conduct site-specific noise and vibration assessments to determine potential vibration levels at sensitive receptors. If vibration levels are found to exceed FTA thresholds at any such receptor, the vibration- generating equipment shall be relocated such that the standard is achieved at the receptor, or the use shall be prohibited.
Significance after Mitigation
The implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.12-4a through 4.12-4d would reduce construction and operational vibration impacts to the extent feasible and require future development to be designed and located in a manner that minimizes vibration exposure to existing and new sensitive receptors. However, given that the details of future developments under the plan and potential truck routes are yet unknown, it is possible that such uses, even with mitigation, could disrupt sensitive receptors. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.