Exhibit O - Draft EIR — Fresno City Council, December 5, 2024 (part 1 of 4)

Exhibit O
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Appendices can be downloaded from this link:
https://cityoffresno.sharefile.com/public/share/web-
s2a5d4b829bf04c8eb852945d05462d17
This page intentionally left blank

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Fresno South Central Specific Plan
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.: 2019079022
Prepared for:

City of Fresno
May 2024

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Fresno South Central Specific Plan
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.: 2019079022
Prepared for:

City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Contact:

Sophia Pagoulatos
Planning Manager
559.907.5221
Prepared by:

Ascent Environmental
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Contact:

Sydney Coatsworth
Principal and Project Director
916.444.7301
Kathie Washington
Project Manager
619.717.8655
May, 2024
180110181.01

City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... vi 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1-1

1.1 Project Location ..................................................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Purpose and Intended Uses of this Draft EIR............................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Environmental Review Process ..................................................................................................................................... 1-2

1.4 Scope of this Draft EIR ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.5 Draft EIR Organization ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-4

1.6 Terminology Used in this EIR ........................................................................................................................................ 1-5 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 2-1

2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Summary Description of the Project ........................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Required Permits and Approvals ................................................................................................................................ 2-3

2.4 Summary of Alternatives ................................................................................................................................................ 2-3

2.5 Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved .................................................................................................. 2-4

2.6 Issues to be Resolved ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-5

2.7 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Measures ........................................ 2-5 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 3-1

3.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.3 Background ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.4 Specific Plan Objectives .................................................................................................................................................. 3-5

3.5 Land use .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3-6

3.6 Specific Plan Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................ 3-10

3.7 Potential Permits and Approvals Required ............................................................................................................ 3-36

3.8 Subsequent Entitlements and Approvals ............................................................................................................... 3-36 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................... 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ....................................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4.3-1

4.4 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................................................... 4.4-1

4.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.6 Energy................................................................................................................................................................................ 4.6-1

4.7 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................................................ 4.8-1

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................................................................... 4.9-1

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................................................................4.10-1

4.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................................................... 4.11-1

4.12 Noise .................................................................................................................................................................................4.12-1

4.13 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................................................4.13-1

4.14 Public Services and Recreation ............................................................................................................................... 4.14-1

4.15 Transportation and Circulation ................................................................................................................................4.15-1

4.16 Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................................................................................4.16-1 Table of Contents Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
ii South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 5-1

5.1 CEQA Requirements ......................................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Cumulative Impact Approach ....................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.3 Cumulative Setting ............................................................................................................................................................ 5-1

5.4 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 5-2 6 ALTERNATIVES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........6-1

6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Considerations for Selection of Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 6-2

6.3 Alternative Considered but not evaluated further ................................................................................................ 6-6

6.4 Alternatives Selected for Detailed Analysis ............................................................................................................. 6-6

6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 6-42 7 OTHER CEQA-MANDATED SECTIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 7-1

7.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes ............................................................................................ 7-2

7.3 Growth Inducement ......................................................................................................................................................... 7-3 8 REPORT PREPARERS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .8-1 9 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 9-1

Appendices
Appendix A Notices of Preparation (2019 and 2021) and Comments Appendix B Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gases Emissions Modeling Data Appendix C Noise Modeling Data
Appendix D Transportation Impact Analysis
Appendix E Water Supply Assessment
Appendix F Transportation Impact Analysis, Supplemental Alternatives Analysis

Figures
Figure 3-1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-2 Figure 3-2 South Central Specific Plan Area ................................................................................................................................. 3-3 Figure 3-3 Sphere of Influence .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-4 Figure 3-4 Existing Land Use .............................................................................................................................................................. 3-7 Figure 3-5 Adopted General Plan Planned Land Use................................................................................................................ 3-9 Figure 3-6 Proposed Land Use ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-13 Figure 3-7 Developed and Undeveloped Land Within the Plan Area ............................................................................... 3-16 Figure 3-8 Existing and Planned Bicycle and Trail Network .................................................................................................. 3-21 Figure 3-9 Existing and Planned Sidewalk Network ................................................................................................................ 3-22 Figure 3-10 Existing and Planned Transit Routes ........................................................................................................................ 3-24 Figure 3-11 Roadway Classifications ............................................................................................................................................... 3-25 Figure 3-12 Planned Number of Roadway Lane Changes ....................................................................................................... 3-26 Figure 3-13 Water Distribution .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-28 Figure 3-14 Sewer Collection System .............................................................................................................................................. 3-29 Figure 3-15 South Central Overlay Zone ....................................................................................................................................... 3-34 Figure 3-16 SPLU Proposed Buffers ................................................................................................................................................. 3-35 Ascent Environmental Table of Contents
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR iii
Figure 4.1-1 Photograph Viewpoints ............................................................................................................................................... 4.1-7 Figure 4.1-2a Representative Photographs of Plan Area ............................................................................................................ 4.1-9 Figure 4.1-2b Representative Photographs of Plan Area ...........................................................................................................4.1-10 Figure 4.1-2c Representative Photographs of Plan Area ........................................................................................................... 4.1-11 Figure 4.2-1 Williamson Act Contract Lands ................................................................................................................................. 4.2-5 Figure 4.2-2 FMMP Farmland Designations .................................................................................................................................. 4.2-6 Figure 4.3-1 South Central Specific Plan CalEnviroScreen.04 Results ................................................................................ 4.3-14 Figure 4.4-1 Land Cover Types Mapped in the Plan Area ....................................................................................................... 4.4-7 Figure 4.5-1 South Central Specific Plan Area ............................................................................................................................ 4.5-10 Figure 4.7-1 Soil Types in the South Central Specific Plan Area ............................................................................................ 4.7-7 Figure 4.9-1 Hazardous Material Sites .......................................................................................................................................... 4.9-13 Figure 4.10-1 Hydrologic Region of Plan Area ............................................................................................................................ 4.10-11 Figure 4.10-2 Location of Dams and Detention Basins near Plan Area. ............................................................................ 4.10-14 Figure 4.10-3 Flood Zones Located Within the Plan Area ...................................................................................................... 4.10-16 Figure 4.10-4 Dam Breach Inundation Areas Within the Plan Area .................................................................................... 4.10-17 Figure 4.14-1 Law Enforcement ......................................................................................................................................................... 4.14-5 Figure 4.14-2 Fire Protection .............................................................................................................................................................. 4.14-7 Figure 4.14-3 Existing Schools and School District Boundaries .............................................................................................. 4.14-8 Figure 4.14-4 Existing and Planned Parks and Ponding Basins .............................................................................................. 4.14-9 Figure 6-1 No Project/General Plan Land Use Alternative: Planned Land Use .............................................................. 6-10 Figure 6-2 Farmland Conservation Alternative .......................................................................................................................... 6-16 Figure 6-3 Reduced Plan Area Alternative .................................................................................................................................. 6-22 Figure 6-4 Community Plan Option: Proposed Land Use ..................................................................................................... 6-27 Figure 6-5 Parcels Changing Under Community Plan Option ............................................................................................. 6-28 Figure 6-6 Community Plan Option with Proposed Buffers ................................................................................................. 6-30 Figure 6-7 Business Plan Option: Proposed Land Use ............................................................................................................ 6-35 Figure 6-8 Parcels Changing Under Business Plan Option ................................................................................................... 6-36 Figure 6-9 Business Plan Option with Proposed Buffers ........................................................................................................ 6-37

Tables
Table 2-1 Assumed Development for the Proposed Plan Compared to Existing Conditions ................................... 2-2 Table 2-2 Required Approvals ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Table 2-3 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 2-6 Table 3-1 Existing Land Use Acreages in the Plan Area ......................................................................................................... 3-6 Table 3-2 General Plan Land Use Designations ......................................................................................................................... 3-8 Table 3-3 General Plan Land Use Designations within the Plan Area ............................................................................... 3-11 Table 3-4 Proposed Land Use Designation Changes ............................................................................................................ 3-14 Table of Contents Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
iv South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Table 3-5 Development Assumptions by General Plan Land Use Based on 2040 General Plan Buildout .......... 3-14 Table 3-6 Assumed Development for the Proposed Plan Compared to Existing Conditions ................................. 3-15 Table 3-7 Anticipated Job Growth 2022-2040 ......................................................................................................................... 3-15 Table 3-8 Required Approvals ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-36 Table 4.3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................................................................. 4.3-2 Table 4.3-2 Attainment Status Designations for Fresno County .........................................................................................4.3-11 Table 4.3-3 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants .......................................................................................4.3-11 Table 4.3-4 Maximum Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Precursors Associated with Construction of the Development under the Proposed Plan (Worst-Case Year [Earliest Year of Construction], 2024) .... 4.3-25 Table 4.3-5 Maximum Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Precursors Associated with Construction of Development under the Proposed Plan (2025–2040) ................................................................................... 4.3-26 Table 4.3-6 Maximum Annual Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Precursors Associated with Operation of Development under the Proposed Plan (2040) .......................................................................................... 4.3-27 Table 4.4-1 Land Cover Types in the Plan Area ........................................................................................................................ 4.4-4 Table 4.4-2 Special-Status Plants Known to Occur in the Region and Their Potential to Occur in the Plan Area .... 4.4-10 Table 4.4-3 Special-Status Wildlife Known to Occur in the Region and Their Potential to Occur in the Plan Area ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4.4-12 Table 4.6-1 Construction Fuel Consumption by Year .............................................................................................................. 4.6-9 Table 4.6-2 Operational Building Energy Consumption ....................................................................................................... 4.6-10 Table 4.6-3 Operational Mobile Fuel Consumption ............................................................................................................... 4.6-10 Table 4.7-1 Soil Types ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4.7-6 Table 4.8-1 Statewide GHG Emissions by Economic Sector .................................................................................................. 4.8-5 Table 4.8-2 City of Fresno 2016 Inventory Update and Business-as-Usual Projections ............................................... 4.8-6 Table 4.9-1 DTSC Known Hazardous Material Release Sites within the Plan Area ........................................................ 4.9-9 Table 4.9-2 GeoTracker Known Hazardous Material Release Sites within the Plan Area .......................................... 4.9-10 Table 4.12-1 Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels .......................................................................................................................... 4.12-2 Table 4.12-2 Human Response to Different Levels of Ground Noise and Vibration ..................................................... 4.12-3 Table 4.12-3 Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment ............................................................. 4.12-5 Table 4.12-4 FTA Construction Damage Vibration Criteria .................................................................................................... 4.12-6 Table 4.12-5 Federal Interagency Committee on Noise–Recommended Criteria for Evaluation of Increases in Ambient Noise Levels ............................................................................................................................................ 4.12-6 Table 4.12-6 Caltrans Recommendations Regarding Levels of Vibration Exposure ...................................................... 4.12-7 Table 4.12-7 City of Fresno Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure for Transportation Noise Sources .................... 4.12-7 Table 4.12-8 City of Fresno Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure for Stationary Noise Sources ............................. 4.12-8 Table 4.12-9 City of Fresno Ambient Noise Thresholds .......................................................................................................... 4.12-9 Table 4.12-10 Summary of Modeled Existing Traffic Noise Levels ........................................................................................ 4.12-11 Table 4.12-11 Noise Emission Levels from Construction Equipment .................................................................................. 4.12-14 Table 4.12-12 Summary of Traffic Noise Levels from Existing to Existing Plus Project Conditions .......................... 4.12-19 Table 4.13-1 Population Growth - Fresno .................................................................................................................................... 4.13-3 Ascent Environmental Table of Contents
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR v
Table 4.13-2 Housing Unit Growth – City of Fresno ................................................................................................................. 4.13-4 Table 4.15-1 SCSP VMT Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 4.15-15 Table 4.16-1 City of Fresno Historical and Projected Water Supplies (in acre-feet/year).......................................... 4.16-10 Table 4.16-2 City of Fresno Water Demand Versus Water Supply During Hydrologic Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years (in acre-feet/year) ........................................................................................................ 4.16-11 Table 4.16-3 Projected Average Day Water Demand for the Proposed Plan versus General Plan ........................ 4.16-18 Table 4.16-4 Solid Waste Generation Anticipated under the Proposed Plan ............................................................... 4.16-20 Table 5-1 Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................................. 5-2 Table 6-1 Development Projections for the Proposed Plan, Alternatives, and Options (2022 -2040) .................... 6-8 Table 6-2 Anticipated Population and Job Growth for the Proposed Plan and Alternatives (2022 -2040) ........... 6-8 Table 6-3 Development Projections for the No Project/General Plan Land Use Alternative and Proposed Plan (2022-2040) .......................................................................................................................................... 6-9 Table 6-4 Anticipated Population and Job Growth for the No Project/General Plan Land Use Alternative and Proposed Plan (2022-2040) ........................................................................................................... 6-9 Table 6-5 Development Projections for the Farmland Conservation Alternative and Proposed Plan (2022 2040) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6-15 Table 6-6 Anticipated Population and Job Growth for the Farmland Conservation Alternative and Proposed Plan (2022-2040) ........................................................................................................................................ 6-15 Table 6-7 Development Projections for the Reduced Plan Area Alternative and Proposed Plan (2022–2040) ........ 6-21 Table 6-8 Anticipated Population and Job Growth for the Reduced Plan Area Alternative and Proposed Plan (2022–2040) ............................................................................................................................................................ 6-21 Table 6-9 Development Projections for the Community Plan Option and Proposed Plan (2022 -2040) ............ 6-26 Table 6-10 Estimated Population and Employment for the Community Plan Option, as compared to the Proposed Plan (2022-2040) ........................................................................................................................................ 6-29 Table 6-11 Development Projections for the Business Plan Option and Proposed Plan (2022 -2040) ................... 6-34 Table 6-12 Anticipated Population and Job Growth for the Business Plan Option and Proposed Plan (2022-2040) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6-38 Table 6-13 Summary of Environmental Effects of the Alternatives Relative to the Proposed South Central Specific Plan ...................................................................................................................................................... 6-42 Table 6-14 Summary of Project Objectives Compared to the Proposed Plan Alternatives and Options .............. 6-43 Table 7-1 Anticipated Job Growth 2022-2040 ........................................................................................................................... 7-5

City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
°F degrees Fahrenheit
2022 Scoping Plan Final 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality

AAF average annual flows
AAQA ambient air quality analysis
AAQS ambient air quality standard
AB Assembly Bill
ABAU adjusted business-as-usual
ABM Activity-Based Model
ACC II Program Advanced Clean Cars II Program
ACM asbestos-containing materials
AF acre-feet
AF/year acre-feet per year
AFV alternative fuel vehicle
Alquist-Priolo Act The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 amsl above mean sea level
APE Area of Potential Effects
ATP Active Transportation Plan

BACT best available control technology
BAU business-as-usual
BMP best management practice

CAA federal Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standard
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Cal EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Building Standards
California Energy Code Title 24, Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CARTS Cedar Avenue Receiving and Transfer Station
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
Ascent Environmental List of Abbreviations
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR vii
CDC Citywide Development Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGP Construction General Permit
CHP California Highway Patrol
CI carbon intensity
CIWMA California Integrated Waste Management Act
CLG Certified Local Government
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
COG Council of Governments
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CVP Central Valley Project
CWA Clean Water Act
CWC California Water Code

dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibels
DDE dichloro-diphenyldichloroethylene
DDT Dinoseb, chlordane, dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane diesel PM diesel particulate matter
DOC California Department of Conservation
DPH California Department of Public Health
Draft EIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
DSD Division of Safety of Dams
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR California Department of Water Resources

EIR environmental impact report
EO Executive Order
EOC Emergency Operations Center
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
List of Abbreviations Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
viii South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
EPAct Energy Policy Act of 1992
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act EPO Emergency Preparedness Officer
EPS Economic Planning Systems, inc.

ESA federal Endangered Species Act
EV electric vehicle

FAR floor area ratio
FARGMP Fresno Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan FAX Fresno Area Express
FCEHD Fresno County Environmental Health Division
FCFD Fresno City Fire Department
FCOG Fresno Council of Governments
FCRTA Fresno County Rural Transit Agency
FCTA Fresno County Transportation Authority
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FFD City of Fresno Fire Department
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
FID Fresno Irrigation District
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Fire Department City of Fresno Fire Department
Fire Protection District Fresno County Fire Protection District FMC Fresno Municipal Code
FMFCD Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FPD Fresno Police Department
FSZ Farmland Security Zone
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FUSD Fresno Unified School District

GAMAQI Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts GHG greenhouse gas
GHGRP greenhouse gas reduction plan
GIS Geographic Information Systems
GSA groundwater sustainability agency

HAP hazardous air pollutant
HCD California Department of Housing and Community Development HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HMMP/HMBP hazardous materials management plan/hazardous materials business plan Hot Spots Act Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 Ascent Environmental List of Abbreviations
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR ix
HRA health risk assessment
HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Condition
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
Hz hertz

IEPR Integrated Energy Policy Report
in/sec inches per second
lb/day pounds per day

LBP lead-based paint
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Ldn Day-Night Level
Ldn/CNEL day-night average noise level Community Equivalent Noise Level Leq Hourly Equivalent Sound Level
LHMP local hazard mitigation plan
LID Low Impact Development
Lmax) Maximum Sound Level
LOS level of service
LRTP Long-Range Transit Plan

M Mining
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCL maximum contaminant level
MCPP Mecoprop
Metro Plan Fresno Metropolitan Water Resources Management Plan mgd million gallons per day
MHMP Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
MMBTU million British thermal units
MMTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent mPa micro-Pascals
MPO metropolitan planning organization
MS4 Permit Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, Order R5-2016-0040 MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MY model year

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NESWTF Northeast Surface Water Treatment Facility
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
List of Abbreviations Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
x South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
NFWRF North Fresno Water Reclamation Facility
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NKGSA North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOP notice of preparation
NOX oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
NRHP National Register of Historic Places

O&M Operation and Maintenance
OPR Technical Advisory Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA OPR California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PEC Potential Environmental Concern
PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Plan Area South Central Specific Plan area
plan Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
PM10 respirable particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less PM2.5 fine particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 or less Porter-Cologne Act Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 ppmw parts per million by weight
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
proposed plan proposed South Central Specific Plan project

REC Recognized Environmental Condition
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
RMS root-mean-square
ROG reactive organic gases
RSP Regional Safety Plan
RTP regional transportation plan
RWQCB regional water quality control board
RWRF Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility

SARA Title III Title III of the Federal Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SB Senate Bill
SCS sustainable communities strategy
SCSP TIA Transportation Impact Analysis: South Central Specific Plan SCSP proposed South Central Specific Plan project
Ascent Environmental List of Abbreviations
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR xi
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SESWTF Southeast Surface Water Treatment Facility
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Areas
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SIP state implementation plan
SIPA South Industrial Priority Area
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOI sphere of influence
SOX oxides of sulfur
SR State Route
SSJVIC Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center
State Water Board State Water Resources Control Board
SWPPP storm water pollution prevention plan
SWQMP Storm Water Quality Management Program
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SWTF Surface Water Treatment Facility

TAC toxic air contaminant
TCP traffic control plan
TISG Transportation Impact Study Guide
TMDL total maximum daily load
tpy ton per year
TRU transport refrigeration units

UP Union Pacific
UPRR Union Pacific Railroad
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
UWMP urban water management plan

VdB vibration decibels
VHFHSZ very high fire hazard severity zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound

List of Abbreviations Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
xii South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
WQO Water Quality Objectives
WSA water supply assessment
WSCP water shortage contingency plan
WUSD Washington Unified School District

ZEV zero-emission vehicle
ZNE zero net energy

City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed South Central Specific Plan project (proposed plan or SCSP). A key impetus for the proposed plan is to improve Fresno’s economic competitiveness and support employment opportunities for residents . Fresno is projected to grow by an estimated 176,000 to 216,000 new residents and nearly 70,000 new employees by 2040 (City of Fresno 2024). and it is an objective of the City to expand, retain, attract, and create businesses that support the regional economy and provide a wide variety of high-quality jobs.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The SCSP area (Plan Area), encompasses 5,567 acres located just south and southeast of Downtown Fresno. The Plan Area is generally located south of California Avenue, north of American Avenue, and between Fig and Peach Avenues. The area has a range of property types including residential, religious, educat ional, public, warehouse, and industrial.

1.2 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THIS DRAFT EIR
This environmental impact report (EIR) has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 1500, et seq.) to evaluate the physical environmental effects of the proposed plan. The City is the lead agency for consideration of this EIR and proposed project approval. CEQA requires that public agencies consider the potentially significant adverse environmental effects of projects over which they have discretionary approval authority before taking action on those projects (PRC Section 21000 et seq.). CEQA also requires that each public agency avoid or mitigate to less-than-significant levels, wherever feasible, the significant adverse environmental effects of projects it approves or implements. If a project would result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts (i.e., significant effects that cannot be feasibly mitigated to less -than-significant levels), the project can still be approved, but the lead agency decision makers, in this case the Fresno City Council must articulate and adopt findings and issue a “statement of overriding considerations” explaining in writing the specific economic, social, or other considerations that they believe, based on substantial evidence, make those significant effects acceptable (PRC Section 21002; State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093).

According to the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064[f][1]), preparation of an EIR is required whenever a project could result in a significant adverse environmental impact. An EIR is an informational document used to inform public agency decision makers and the general public of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify feasible ways to mitigate or avoid those effects, and describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project while substantially lessening or avoiding any of the significant environmental impacts. Public agencies are required to consider the information presented in the EIR when determining whether to approve a project.

This EIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with implementing the proposed plan. This document also functions as a Program EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines S ection 15168, that examines the environmental impacts of a series of actions (e.g., specific plan). This type of EIR focuses on the changes in the environment that would result from the issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria attributable to a continuing program. In accordance with section 15168, a program EIR must examine the environmental effects of the entire program and potential actions carried out as part of the program, including construction and operational activities.

The purpose of this EIR is to identify and assess the anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed plan, with a focus on significant and potentially significant environmental impacts. Its role is not to recommend approval or denial of the proposed plan but to provide environmental information sufficient to allow meaningful comment and Introduction Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
1-2 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
participation by public agencies, interest groups, and the public, which will allow the Fresno Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the Fresno City Council, which is the final decision -making body.

1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
This Draft EIR is being circulated for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. During this period, comments from the general public as well as organizations and agencies may be submitted to the lead agency.

Upon completion of the public review and comment period, a Final EIR (Final EIR) will be prepared that will include both written and verbal comments on the Draft EIR received during the public -review period, responses to those comments, and any revisions to the Draft EIR made in response to public comments. The Draft EIR and Final EIR will comprise the EIR for the project.

Before adopting the proposed project, the lead agency is required to certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the EIR, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency.

1.3.1 Notice of Preparation and Scoping
The environmental review process began with efforts to gather information to establish the breadth, or scope, of environmental review. A notice of preparation (NOP) was issued to inform agencies and the public that an EIR was being prepared for the project and to solicit views of agencies and the public regarding the scope and content of the document. Scoping meetings were held to allow written and oral expression of those views, provide information about the proposal, and answer questions. A summary of the written and oral comments and the issues raised by the public, agencies, and organizations, as well as the comment letters in their entirety, are included in Appendix A.

An NOP was initially distributed on July 8, 2019, to responsible agencies, interested parties, and organizations, as well as private organizations and individuals that may have an interest in the project. The NOP was available at the City of Fresno offices, Fresno County Library, and online at https://www.fresno.gov/cityclerk/notices -publications. A public scoping meeting was held on July 8, 2019, from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at the City Council Chambers , 2600 Fresno Street.

A revised NOP was recirculated on April 14, 2021, to reflect revisions to the South Central Specific Plan, formerly referred to as the South Industrial Priority Area Specific Plan. Again, the NOP was made available to responsible agencies and interested parties, organizations, and individuals, and an additional scoping meeting was held virtually on April 6, 2021, from 6 to 8 p.m. The revised NOP is consistent with the project description in Chapter 3 of this EIR.

The purpose of the NOPs was to provide notification that an EIR for the South Central Specific Plan project was being prepared and to solicit input on the scope and content of the document. Numerous responses were received, offering meaningful guidance to the City on the scope and content of the EIR, expressing environmental and other concerns, presenting opinions on the merits of the project, and suggesting revisions to the land use plan. Chapter 4 provides a summary of comments received for each related environmental issue.

1.3.2 Draft EIR
This Draft EIR is being made available for 45 days to allow public review and comment. Copies of the Draft EIR and proposed plan may be reviewed online at, or downloaded from, https://www.fresno.gov/planning/plans- projects- under-review/#south-central-specific-plan-scsp, or may be reviewed at the following location:

City of Fresno
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
Ascent Environmental Introduction
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 1-3
Fresno County Public Library
2420 Mariposa Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Mosqueda Branch Library
4670 E Butler Ave
Fresno, CA 93702
West Fresno Branch Library
188 California Avenue
Fresno, CA 93706
City offices and libraries are open during normal business hours.

Agencies, organizations, and interested parties have the opportunity to comment on the Draft PEIR during the 45- day public review period. Written comments on this Draft PEIR should be addressed to:

Jennifer Clark, Director
Planning and Development Department
c/o Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
Planning and Development Department
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
[email protected]
[email protected]
Submittal of electronic comments in Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF format is encouraged. Following the public and agency review and comment period, comments relating to the environmental analysis will be reviewed, and written responses will be prepared. Together, this Draft EIR, the responses to comments, and other CEQA -mandated information will constitute the Final EIR. The Final EIR will be considered for certification by the Fresno City Council and if it is certified, the Council may consider taking action on the SCSP.

1.4 SCOPE OF THIS DRAFT EIR
This Draft EIR includes an evaluation of the following 16 environmental issue areas as well as other CEQA-mandated issues (e.g., cumulative impacts, growth-inducing impacts, significant unavoidable impacts, alternatives):
 aesthetics;
 agriculture and forestry resources;
 air quality;
 biological resources;
 cultural and tribal cultural resources;
 energy;
 geology, soils, and mineral resources;
 greenhouse gas emissions and climate change;
 hazards and hazardous materials;
 hydrology and water quality;
 land use and planning;
 noise;
 population and housing;
 public services and recreation;
 transportation and circulation; and
 utilities and service systems.

City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 1-4

1.5 DRAFT EIR ORGANIZATION
This Draft EIR is organized into chapters, as identified and briefly described below.  Chapter 1, “Introduction”: briefly describes the proposed plan and project location; describes agency roles and the purpose of this EIR, the environmental review process, this EIR’s intended uses, and the organization of this EIR; and defines terminology used in this EIR.
 Chapter 2, “Executive Summary”: This chapter introduces the project; provides a summary of the environmental review process, effects found not to be significant, and key environmental issues; and lists significant impacts and mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to less-than-significant levels.  Chapter 3, “Project Description”: This chapter presents a detailed description of the proposed project evaluated in this EIR.
 Chapter 4, “Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures”: The sections within this chapter describe the approach to the impact analysis and analyze the impacts identified for the 16 environmental resource areas listed above. Each section includes the following subsections:
 “Environmental Setting” describes the existing conditions as they relate to the attributes of the environment that may be affected by implementing the project.
 “Regulatory Setting” describes the applicable regulatory framework, including the federal, state, regional, and local laws and regulations.
 “Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures” identifies and describes the methods and assumptions used in the environmental impact analysis. The anticipated changes to the existing environmental conditions resulting from construction and operation of the project are evaluated for each resource. The level of significance is identified for each impact based on a comparison with the relevant standards of significance.

For any significant or potentially significant impact that would result from project implemen tation, mitigation measures are presented with a discussion of the residual level of significance. Environmental impacts are numbered sequentially in each chapter (e.g., Impact 4.1-1, Impact 4.1-2, etc.). Any required mitigation measures are numbered to correspond to the impact; therefore, the mitigation measure for Impact 4.1-1 would be Mitigation Measure 4.1-1. Cumulative impacts also are described in this section.  Chapter 5, “Cumulative Impacts”: This chapter provides information required by CEQA regarding cumulative impacts that would result from implementation of the project together with other past, present, and probable future projects.
 Chapter 6, “Alternatives”: This chapter identifies the alternatives to the proposed plan and evaluates the environmental effects of each alternative. The discussion of each alternative also includes analysis of the alternative’s ability to meet the project objectives.
 Chapter 7, “Other CEQA Sections”: This chapter addresses growth-inducing impacts, the relationship between short-term uses of the environment and maintenance and enhancement of long- term productivity, irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, a summary of the significant environmental ef fects that cannot be avoided, and a summary of the CEQA environmentally superior alternative.  Chapter 8, “List of Preparers”: This chapter identifies the City of Fresno and consultant staff who prepared this EIR.  Chapter 9, “References”: This chapter identifies the organizations and persons consulted during preparation of this Draft EIR and the documents and individuals used as sources for the analysis.

Ascent Environmental Introduction
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 1-5

1.6 TERMINOLOGY USED IN THIS EIR
This EIR includes the following terminology regarding the significance of environmental impacts of the proposed plan and alternatives:
 No Impact: Implementing the project would not result in an adverse effect.  Less-than-Significant Impact: The impact would be adverse but would not exceed the defined standard of significance. Less-than-significant impacts do not require mitigation.  Significant Impact: The impact would exceed the defined standard of significance and would or could cause a substantial adverse change in the environment. Potentially feasible mitigation measures or alternatives are recommended to eliminate the impact, reduce it to a less-than-significant level, or reduce it to the degree feasible.
 Potentially Significant Impact: The impact may be or is likely to be significant. Because information is limited, the conclusion is not definitive. For purposes of the EIR analysis, a potentially significant impact is equivalent to a significant impact and requires feasible mitigation measures or alternatives.  Significant and Unavoidable Impact: The substantial adverse effect on the environment cannot be feasibly mitigated to a less-than-significant level or reduced to a less-than-significant level by adoption of a feasible alternative.
 Standard of Significance: This standard is established by the lead agency to define at what level an impact would be considered significant. That is, if an impact exceeds the defined standard, it would be considered significant.  Mitigation Measure: The measure could feasibly avoid, minimize, or compensate for a significant impact.

Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments. Compliance with City of Fresno codes, state and federal laws, or other regulations, including potential actions to achieve such compliance, may be sufficient mitigation in instances in which compliance would be reasonably expected to avoid, minimize, or compensate for the environmenta l impact.

Introduction Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
1-6 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-1
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 INTRODUCTION
This executive summary is provided in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines) Section 15123. As stated in Section 15123(a), an EIR shall contain a brief summary of the proposed action and its consequences. The language of the summary should be as clear and simple as reasonably practical. Section 15123(b) of the guidelines states, “The summary shall identify: 1) [e]ach significant effect with proposed mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce or avoid that effect; 2) [a]reas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public; and 3) [i]ssues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects.” Accordingly, this su mmary includes a brief synopsis of the SCSP and alternatives; environmental impacts and mitigation; areas of known controversy; and issues to be resolved during environmental review.

2.2 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

2.2.1 Project Location
The Plan Area encompasses 5,567 acres located just south and southeast of Downtown Fresno. The Plan Area is generally located south of California Avenue, north of American Avenue, and between Fig and Peach Avenues. The area has a range of property types including industrial, warehouse, commercial, residential, religious, educational, and public.

2.2.2 Background and Need for the Project
The City of Fresno is proposing to adopt the South Central Specific Plan (proposed plan or SCSP). The SCSP would facilitate opportunities for economic growth and job creation and promote development of underutilized lands within the planning area. The purpose of the proposed plan is to serve as a policy and regulatory document that seeks to balance economic benefit, environmental impacts, and quality of life. Buildout of the SCSP would result in approximately 18.5 million square feet of industrial uses (less than the General Plan), 10 million square feet of commercial/office uses, and 1.2 million square feet of retail and public facilities. Economic analysis projects that, based on market demand and absorption rates, this level of development would not occur in the near term, and may not occur for many decades. To ensure a meaningful assessment, the City determined—based on a market study prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)—that 2040 represents a reasonable planning horizon for EIR analysis. To estimate the level of development that could occur by 2040, buildout numbers were recalibrated to conservatively reflect twice the nonresidential market demand estimated by EPS. Therefore, while development levels considered in this EIR may be higher than what may actually occur by 2040, they are reasonable for purposes of environmental evaluation and to ensure that the analysis is appropriately conservative. It is estimated that an additional 12 million square feet of nonresidential uses and 91 dwelling units would be constructed by 2040.

2.2.3 Project Objectives
The overarching vision of the SCSP is to improve the City’s overall economic competitiveness, support employment opportunities for residents, and maintain and improve community livability. The objectives that would help realize this vision are as follows:
 Stimulate economic development. Promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth and attract development that focuses on emerging markets and new technologies.

Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
2-2 South Central Plan Draft EIR
 Provide diverse employment. Create diverse employment opportunities, including an accessible and resilient employment zone.
 Minimize environmental and neighborhood impacts. Consider project-specific environmental effects (e.g., truck traffic, air emissions, noise and vibration) on existing and potential future sensitive receptors and impose measures to minimize such impacts.
 Preserve existing operations: Preserve the viability of existing industrial and manufacturing operations in the Plan Area.
 Protect against incompatible uses. Protect existing and future development from adverse impacts associated with incompatible uses.
 Implement infrastructure improvement: Improve Plan Area infrastructure (e.g., transportation, sewer, water) to expand the supply of “shovel-ready” sites.
 Be a good neighbor. Participate in “good neighbor” policies to provide residents with clear and transparent access to information regarding community development and assist in addressing disputes and concerns.  State Routes 99 and 41 as Gateways. Transform State Routes 99 and 41 as gateways into the City. Utilize landscaping and architectural design to improve the visual quality when entering the P lan Area.

2.2.4 Characteristics of the Project
The SCSP proposes land use designation changes for certain areas, requiring a General Plan amendment and rezone of the same properties. The changes are proposed primarily to 1) reconcile land use designations with existing conditions, 2) to buffer sensitive uses (e.g., residential areas, Orange Center School) with less intensive uses (e.g., business park instead of industrial), and 3) to provide more opportunities for neighborhood -serving general commercial uses near residential areas. The SCSP would result in substantial reductions in acreage of Heavy Industrial land uses and a modest decrease in Regional Business Park, with corresponding increases in acreage of Business Park, Single-Family Residential, Public, Light Industrial, and General Commercial uses.

The Plan Area currently supports nearly 19.6 million square feet of nonresidential development and 400 residential units. It is estimated that an additional 12 million square feet of nonresidential uses and 91 dwelling units would be constructed by 2040 (Table 2-1). Growth in the Plan Area would be primarily industrial, with smaller amounts of office and retail uses. Other land uses would be permitted in accordance with General Plan land use designations, but are not the focus of the SCSP.

Table 2-1 Assumed Development for the Proposed Plan Compared to Existing Conditions Land Use Designation Existing (square footage) Proposed Plan (square footage) 2022-2040 Retail 0 866,676
Office 10,912 578,790
Industrial 19,624,154 10,576,278
Total Non-residential 19,635,0661 12,021,744
Residential Units 400 dwelling units 91 dwelling units 1 Existing development only reflects the employment land use categories within the Specific Plan Area.

Source: Ascent 2023.

A primary impetus for the SCSP is economic development and job growth. As discussed in Chapter 3 “Project Description,” more than 14,000 new jobs would be created by 2040 with anticipated development, primarily in the industrial sector, with lesser but still substantial growth in office and retail jobs.

Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-3

2.3 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The Fresno City Council is the CEQA lead agency responsible for considering adoption and implementation of the proposed plan. As the lead agency under CEQA, Fresno is responsible for considering the adequacy of the EIR and determining if the project should be approved (Table 2-2).

Table 2-2 Required Approvals
Project Approval Approving Authority
Repeal of the North Avenue Industrial Triangle Specific Plan Fresno City Council Replace overlapping portion of the plan areas for the Roosevelt Community Plan and the South Central Plan with the South Central Specific Plan
Fresno City Council
Approval of the General Plan Amendment, Development Code Amendment, and Rezone
Fresno City Council
Adoption of the South Central Specific Plan Fresno City Council Certification of the EIR Fresno City Council
Notes: The EIR is intended to apply to all listed project approvals as well as to any other approvals necessary or desirable to implement the project.

2.4 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15123.6 mandates that all EIRs include a comparative evaluation of the proposed plan with alternatives to the plan that are capable of attaining most of the plan’s basic objectives but that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. CEQA requires an evaluation of a “range of reasonable” alternatives, include the “no project” alternative. The following provides brief descriptions of the alternatives evaluated in this Draft EIR.
 No Project/General Plan Land Use Alternative. This alternative assumes that the SCSP would not be approved and that buildout of the planned land uses in the adopted General Plan occurs. The total level/acreage of development for this alternative would be the same as the SCSP, but the mix of land uses would be different. No residential uses are included in this alternative.
 Farmland Conservation Alternative. This alternative would reduce the proposed plan’s significant impact related to conversion of farmland by conserving specific parcels of farmland within the Plan Area. No future development would be permitted on farmland designated for conservation. This would reduce the total amount of development allowed in the Plan Area by about 18 percent compared with the SCSP and would include a similar mix of land uses, including some residential.
 Reduced Plan Area Alternative. This alternative would reduce the Plan Area acreage and not provide for development within the sphere of influence outside the existing City boundary. The acreage of the Plan Area would be reduced by approximately 2,343 acres, for a total of 3,224 acres, instead of 5,567 acres as compared to the proposed plan, resulting in a commensurate reduction in development capacity.

In addition to the CEQA alternatives, the alternatives section includes analysis of two project options put forward by various community members and businesses. The following options are provided to compare the impacts from these options to the project for purposes of full disclosure:
 Community Plan Option. This option reflects the community’s desire to increase quality of life in the Plan Area by decreasing land use intensity. This option would include more residential units (739 units compared with 91 units under the SCSP) and would decrease land use intensity surrounding sensitive uses. Additionally, this alternative would increase the amount of office and retail, while reducing the amount of industrial land use.  Business Plan Option. This option reflects the business community’s desire to maximize economic growth in the Plan Area by designating industrial as the primary land use. No new residential uses are included in this option.

Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
2-4 South Central Plan Draft EIR

2.4.1 Environmentally-Superior Alternative
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15123.6 states that an EIR should identify the “environmentally superior” alternative. As discussed in Section 6, “Alternatives,” implementing the No Project/General Plan Land Use Alternative would not avoid or substantially reduce any of the significant impacts of the proposed plan and it would not meet most of the project objectives.

The Reduced Plan Area Alternative would result in a reduction of impacts specifically for air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and noise due to its reduced footprint and reduced level of development. However, this alternative would not avoid or substantially reduce any of the significant impacts of the proposed plan.

The Farmland Conservation Alternative is considered environmentally superior because it would eliminate the proposed plan’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to the conversion of farmland and conflicts with Williamson Act contracts. However, this alternative would not meet several of the City’s objectives for the SCSP.

2.5 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
A notice of preparation (NOP) was issued to inform agencies and the public that an EIR was being prepared for the project and to solicit views of agencies and the public regarding the scope and content of the document. Scoping meetings were held to allow written and oral expression of those views, provide information about the proposal, and answer questions. A summary of the written and oral comments and the issues raised by the public, agencies, and organizations, as well as the comment letters in their entirety, are included in Appendix A.

The purpose of the NOP and the scoping meetings were to provide notification that an EIR was being prepared for the project and to solicit input on the scope and content of the environmental document. Appendix A of this Draft EIR contains the NOP and all comments received during and after the scoping period, including late comments.

Based on the comments received during the NOP comment periods, the major areas of controversy associated with the plan are:
 Air Quality impacts (including construction and operational air quality impacts, compliance with AB 617 and AB 686, Health Risk Assessment)
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts
 Human Health Risk (related to air quality/diesel)
 Noise impacts
 Public safety
 Truck traffic and safety hazards
 Environmental justice and social concerns
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-5

2.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Section 15123 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the summary section of a Draft EIR to identify issues to be resolved in the EIR, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant project effects. The major issues to be resolved by the City regarding the project are whether:
 recommended mitigation measures should be adopted or modified;  additional mitigation measures need to be applied to the proposed project; and  the proposed project should or should not be approved or an alternative approved .

2.7 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED

MITIGATION MEASURES
Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15382, a significant effect on the environment is defined as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area a ffected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of h istoric or aesthetic significance.” The technical sections in Chapters 4 and 5 of this draft EIR describe in detail the significant environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts, that would result from implementing the proposed plan . Table 2-3 presents a summary of environmental impacts, their level of significance without mitigation, the mitigation measures, and the level of significance following the implementation of mitigation measures.

Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-6 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Table 2-3 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation

4.1 Aesthetics
Impact 4.1-1: Result in a Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista Implementation of the proposed plan would result in additional industrial, commercial, and to a lesser degree, residential development and supporting infrastructure in the Plan Area. New development would be visually consistent with existing uses in the Plan Area. As noted above, there are no designated scenic vistas in the Plan Area so no adverse effect would result. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Impact 4.1-2: Damage Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway Development under the proposed plan would not occur along an eligible or designated state scenic highway, and no project components would be visible from any designated or eligible state scenic highway. Consequently, development under the proposed plan would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Therefore, there would be no impact.

NI No mitigation is required for this impact. NI
Impact 4.1-3: Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of Public Views of the Site and Its Surroundings
Implementation of the proposed plan would facilitate future development and result in a substantial alteration to the existing visual character and quality of the Plan Area. Specifically, implementation of the proposed plan would result in increases of densities and intensification primarily of industrial and commercial land uses within the Plan Area. Substantial changes in the existing visual character would result in a significant impact.

S No feasible mitigation measures are available to substantially reduce the impact. SU Impact 4.1-4: Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare Which Would Adversely Affect Day or Nighttime Views
The proposed plan would facilitate future development and would introduce new sources of light and glare associated with new buildings and facilities. Although residential development is limited in the Plan Area and the SCSP proposes relatively little residential development that could be affected by additional light and glare, such lighting could nonetheless contribute to indirect lighting/g lare on adjacent land uses that could adversely affect daytime or nighttime views and result in additional skyglow. This impact would be significant.

S Mitigation Measure 4.1-1: Use Nonreflective Materials To reduce the potential for glare from new and redeveloped buildings and structures within the Plan Area, the Preliminary and Final Design Review plan(s) for all future projects in the Plan Area shall show that the use of reflective building materials that have the potential to result in glare that would be visible from sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the project sites is prohibited. The City of Fresno Planning and Development Department shall ensure that the approved project uses appropriate building materials with low reflectivity to minimize potential glare nuisance to off-site receptors. These requirements shall be included LTS
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-7
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
in future project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Fresno.

Mitigation Measure 4.1-2: Prepare a Lighting Plan
A lighting plan for all future projects in the Plan Area subject to section 15 -2508 and section 15-2015 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code shall be prepared prior to approval of each project. The lighting plan shall demonstrate that the lighting systems and other exterior lighting throughout the project area have been designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties to the greatest extent feasible, consistent with section 15-2508, Lighting and Glare and section 15-2015, Outdoor Lighting and Il
lumination of the City of Fresno Municipal Code. Use of LED lighting or other proven energy efficient lighting shall be required for facilities to be dedicated to the City of Fresno for maintenance. These requirements shall be included in future project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Fresno.

Cumulative Impact 5.4-1: Contribution to cumulative visual character or quality impacts
SU No mitigation is available. SU

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Impact 4.2-1: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to Non-agricultural Use
Implementation of the proposed plan would accommodate development of additional industrial, commercial, and a small amount of residential land uses.

While the locations of specific developments cannot be known at this time, it is likely that development would result in conversion of existing Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. The conversion of existing Farmland to non-agricultural use would result in a significant impact.

S Mitigation Measure 4.2-1: Preserve Farmland
In compliance with General Plan Policy RC -9-c, until the City’s Farmland Preservation Program is implemented, future development that would convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the Plan Area shall be analyzed on a project-by-project basis at the time a project application is submitted. Project proponents shall mitigate the loss at a 1:1 ratio.

One of the following mitigation options shall be utilized to mitigate the loss:

Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, Land Use Regulation, or other feasible mitigation. The mitigation shall be verified by the City of Fresno for each such project during improvement plan review.

SU
Impact 4.2-2: Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract
The plan area includes lands outside the Fresno city limits, in unincorporated Fresno County, but within the City’s SOI. While no lands within the City of Fresno are under Williamson Act contracts, approximately 153 acres within the SOI are so S No mitigation is available. SU
Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-8 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
enrolled. Although no proposals for annexation have been submitted (and none are assessed as part of the SCSP), implementation of the proposed plan is likely to result in conversion of existing Farmlands that are enrolled in Williamson Act contracts to non-agriculture uses. Therefore, this impact would be significant.

Impact 4.2-3: Involve Other Changes in the Existing Environment That Would Lead to the Abandonment of Agricultural Operations and Conversion of Farmland or Forest Land to Non-Agricultural or Non-Forest Land Use
The proposed plan would result in the conversion of farmland and designated agricultural land into non-agricultural use. However, the proposed plan would not result in other changes in the existing environment other than those discussed under Impacts 4.2-1 and 4.2-2. Therefore, impacts would be considered less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Cumulative Impact 5.4-2: Contribution to cumulative impacts related to farmland conversion and conflicts with Williamson Act contracts
SU No mitigation is available. SU

4.3 Air Quality
Impact 4.3-1: Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan
Development under the proposed plan would introduce new operational sources of emissions that would exceed SJVAPCD’s mass emissions thresholds of significance which would, in turn, interfere with SJVAPCD’s long -term regional air quality planning. This impact would be significant.

S Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a: Prepare an Ambient Air Quality Analysis and Mitigation Plan or Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement
Prior to future discretionary project approval, and once all feasible on -site reduction measures have been incorporated, development project applicants shall prepare and submit to the Director of the Fresno Planning and Development Department, or designee, an AAQA to determine whether any SJVAPCD annual mass emissions thresholds are exceeded or if a future project’s emissions may result in the violation of an AAQS. If no thresholds are exceeded, no further action is necessary. If one or more thresholds are exceeded, prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, future development will engage in a voluntary emissions reduction agreement (VERA) through coordination with SJVAPCD to reduce emissions to meet SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds for an y pollutant that exceeds the respective threshold. The project applicant shall engage in a discussion with SJVAPCD prior to the adoption of the VERA to ensure that feasible mitigation has been identified to reduce emissions to a less- than-significant level consistent with the direction given in SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI. As allowed by SJVAPCD, the project applicant shall be provided the opportunity to perform an additional quantification of the project’s operational emissions to estimate the type of LTS
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-9
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
reduction needed to reduce emissions to meet SJVAPCD’s annual thresholds of significance.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b: Use Clean Fleets during Construction Prior to issuance of future construction contracts, to reduce impacts from construction-related diesel exhaust emissions resulting from development under the SCSP, construction contractors shall demonstrate that they shall use the cleanest available fleet of heavy-duty equipment. This can be accomplished through submitting Construction Clean Fleet paperwork to SJVAPCD. All on -site yard trucks and forklifts shall be powered by electricity where such equipment is readily available in the marketplace as reasonably determined by the City. Electric forklifts will continue to become more available as the requirements of CARB’s proposed Zero-Emissions Forklifts Regulation stimulate the production of these forklifts over time. For any on-site equipment that cannot be electric-powered, and diesel-powered equipment is the only available option, construction contractors shall use equipment that either uses only high -performance renewable diesel or meets EPA Tier 4 emissions standards.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1c: Prohibit Portable Diesel Engines To reduce diesel exhaust emissions, portable diesel engines shall be prohibited during construction of plan-related development where access to alternative sources of power (e.g., electricity) are available. The applicability of this measure is contingent upon the infrastructure available to support electric -powered diesel engines as well as the availability of such equipment at the time of development application review. This measure shall be enforced through City conditions of approval prior to issuance of construction/building permits for individual development applications.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1d: Implement Dust Control Measures To reduce impacts from construction-related fugitive dust emissions resulting from plan-related development, construction contractors shall be required to implement the following dust control measures in accordance with SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII including additional dust reducing measures:
 All soil being actively excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive dust. Watering shall occur as needed with complete coverage of disturbed soil areas. Watering shall take place a minimum of three times daily on disturbed soil areas with active construction activities operations unless dust is otherwise controlled by rainfall or use of a dust suppressant.

Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-10 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
 After active construction activities, soil shall be stabilized with a non -toxic soil stabilizer or soil weighting agent, or alternative soil stabilizing methods.  All unpaved construction and operation/maintenance site roads, as they are being constructed, shall be stabilized with a non -toxic soil stabilizer, water, or soil weighting agent.
 All clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation activities shall cease during periods of winds greater than 20 miles per hour (averaged over one hour), or when dust plumes of 20 percent or greater opacity impact public roads, occupied structures, or neighboring property or as identified in a plan approved by the SJVACD.
 All trucks leaving construction sites will cover all loads of soils, sands, and other loose materials, or be thoroughly wetted with a minimum freeboard height of six inches.
 Areas disturbed by clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be minimized at all times.
 Stockpiles of soil or other fine loose material shall be stabilized by watering or other appropriate method to prevent wind
-b
lown fugitive dust.
 All soil storage piles and disturbed areas that remain inactive for longer than 10 days shall be covered or shall be treated with appropriate dust suppressant compounds.
 Prior to construction, wind breaks (such as chain -link fencing including a wind barrier) shall be installed where appropriate.
 Where applicable, mowing will be utilized to clear construction areas instead of disking or grading.
 The proponents/operators of future projects shall use GPS or lasers to level posts, generally avoiding grading except when elevation changes exceed design requirements.
 When grading is unavoidable, grading is to be phased and done with the application of a non-toxic soil stabilizer or soil weighting agent, or alternative soil stabilizing methods.
 Where feasible, plant roots shall be left in place where possible to stabilize the soil.
 Reduce and/or phase the amount of the disturbed area (e.g., grading, excavation) where possible.

During all phases of construction, the following vehicular control measures shall be implemented:
 On-s ite vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 miles per hour on unpaved areas within individual project sites. Vehicles may travel up to 25 miles per hour on paved roads.
 Visible speed limit signs shall be posted at main ingress point(s) on site.  Streets used by projects during construction shall be kept clean, and project - r
elated accumulated silt shall be removed a minimum of once daily, or as necessary to prevent substantial off-site fugitive dust releases. The use of dry rotary brushes (unless prior wetting) and blower devices is prohibited.  If site soils cling to the wheels of the vehicles, then a track out control device, or other such device shall be used on the road exiting the project site, immediately prior to the pavement, to remove most of the soil material from vehicle tires.

This shall be enforced by the City with verification by SJVAPCD.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1e: Implement Exhaust Control Measures To reduce impacts from construction-related exhaust emissions, for all construction activities occurring from projects under the proposed plan, construction contractors shall implement the following measures, as recommended by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, among other air districts:
 Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to 5 minutes [ CCR Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485] as enforced by an identified compliance officer within the construction crew. Idling restrictions shall be enforced by highly visible posting at the site Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-12 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
entry, posting at other on-site locations frequented by truck drivers, conspicuous inclusion in employee training and guidance material and owner, operator or tenant direct action as required.
 Maintain construction equipment and provide current certificate(s) of compliance for CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation [CCR Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2449.1] to SJVAPCD.
 Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition according to manufacturer’s specifications. The equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition before it is operated. Documentation of a certified mechanic’s inspection and determinations shall be maintained by the Construction Manager and available for City inspection upon reasonable request.

This shall be enforced by the City.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1f: Reduce Emissions from Architectural Coatings During construction, to reduce impacts from construction -related ROG emissions leading to ozone formation, for all construction activities occurring from development under the proposed plan, construction contractors shall use low -VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond SJVAPCD’s mandatory requirement (i.e., Regulation VIII, Rule 3, “Architectural Coatings”). This shall be enforced by the City with verification by SJVAPCD.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1g: Incorporate Cool Communities Strategies Prior to future discretionary project approval, development under the proposed plan shall demonstrate that it has incorporated strategies to cool the urban heat island effect, 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 (i.e., high - albedo), and install cool (i.e., high-albedo) pavements.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1h: Use Low- or Zero-Emission Heavy-Duty Trucks and Equipment
Future tenants of new and redeveloped commercial and industrial land uses (those over which the City will have discretionary approval) shall ensure that all heavy - duty
trucks (Class 7 and 8) domiciled on the project site are model year 2014 or later from start of operations and shall expedite a transition to zero- emission vehicles, with the fleet fully zero-emission by December 31, 2026, or when commercially Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-13
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
available for the intended application (as determined by the City based on substantial evidence), whichever date is later. For industrial uses or uses that would require deliveries to/from the site (i.e., at loading docks), all heavy -duty truck fleets associated with operational activities must utilize the cleanest available heavy -duty trucks, including zero and near-zero that meet 0.02 gram per brake horsepower - hour NOx technologies. For industrial uses or any other use that requires operational on-site equipment (cargo handling, yard hostlers, forklifts, pallet jacks), zero-emissions technologies shall be used. "Domiciled at the project site” shall mean the vehicle is either (i) parked or kept overnight at the project site more than 70 percent of the calen
dar year or (ii) dedicated to the project site (defined as more than 70 percent of the truck routes (during the calendar year) that start at the project site even if parked or kept elsewhere). Zero- emission, heavy-duty trucks which require service can be temporarily replaced with model year 2014 or later trucks. Replacement trucks shall be used for only the minimum time required for servicing fleet trucks.

Future tenants of commercial and industrial land uses shall ensure that adequate electrical infrastructure is provided to allow for the transition to electric heavy -duty trucks.

Owners, operators, or tenants shall prohibit the use of diesel generators, except in emergency situations, in which case such generators shall have Best Available Control Technology (BACT) that meets ARB Tier 4 emission standards.

This shall be enforced through oversight by the City and shall be included as part of contractual lease agreement language to ensure the tenants/lessees are informed of all ongoing operational responsibilities.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1i: Use Low- or Zero-Emission Vehicles Future tenants of new and redeveloped commercial and industrial land uses within the plan area (those over which the City will have discretionary approval) shall ensure use of a “clean fleet” of vehicles/delivery vans/trucks (Class 2 through 6) as part of
business operations as follows: For any vehicle (Class 2 through 6) domiciled at the project site, the following "clean fleet" requirements apply: (i) 33 percent of the fleet shall be zero emission vehicles at start of operations, (ii) 65 percent of the fleet shall be zero emission vehicles by December 31, 2027, (iii) 80 percent of the fleet shall be zero emission vehicles by December 31, 2029, and (iv) 100 percent of the fleet will be zero emission vehicles by December 31, 2031. "Domiciled at the project site” shall mean the vehicle is either (i) parked or kept overnight at the Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-14 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
project site more than 70 percent of the calendar year or (ii) dedicated to the project site (defined as more than 70 percent of the truck routes (during the calendar year) that start at the project site even if parked or kept elsewhere). Zero- emission, heavy-duty trucks which require service can be temporarily replaced with model year 2014 or later trucks. Replacement trucks shall be used for only the minimum time required for servicing fleet trucks.

Zero-emission vehicles which require service can be temporarily replaced with alternate vehicles. Replacement vehicles shall be used for only the minimum time required for servicing fleet vehicles. The property owner/tenant/lessee shall not be responsible to meet “clean fleet” requirements for vehicles used by common carriers operating under their own authority that provide delivery services to or from the project site. This shall be enforced through oversight by the City and shall be included as part of contractual lease agreement language to ensure the tenants/lessees are informed of all ongoing operational responsibilities.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1j: Decarbonize New Residential and Commercial Buildings To reduce criteria air pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and provide savings for project residents, the proposed plan will integrate special energy conservation and production features. All new residential, commercial, and other non-residential structures that do not include unique uses or processes where nonrenewable energy is required based on technological or availability limitation shall be all electric, with natural gas infrastructure extended only to industrial uses.

Fully electric development shall be demonstrated to the City prior to the issuance of building permits to construct and shall be subject to City approval.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1k: Decarbonize New Industrial Use Buildings For industrial uses that do not include major manufacturing or processing equipment requiring natural gas for processing purposes (e.g., logistics, warehouses, distribution, some research and development), no natural gas infrastructure shall be permitted. Consistency with this measure shall be determined at the development application stage, based on a site- specific feasibility study submitted to the City for approval.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1l: Reduce Areawide Source Emissions The use of gasoline-powered landscape equipment within the Plan Area shall be prohibited. This shall be enforced through verification through the City through a development agreement made between future project applicants and the City.

SJVAPCD’s annual thresholds are used for CEQA determinations, and these thresholds are inherently tied to long-term regional air quality planning (i.e., SJVAPCD’s air quality management plans) which demonstrates that the proposed plan would not conflict with the applicable air quality plans. Nevertheless, the proposed plan, which comprises many future individual development projects, would generate operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors exceeding SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds of significance and daily screening criteria. Operation-related emissions of ROG, NO X, CO, PM10,
and PM2.5 would exceed SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds of significance. This impact would be significant.

S Implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a through 4.3-1m. LTS Impact 4.3-3: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations As described in Impacts 4.3-1 and 4.3-2, construction and operation of development assumed in the Plan Area by 2040 would result in exceedance of SJVAPCD daily emissions screening criteria for ROG, NO
X, and CO during worst-
case construction, and annual mass emissions and daily screening thresholds for S Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a: Require Construction Health Risk Assessment A site-specific HRA shall be required for all construction projects anticipated to last more than six months and located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors (as defined by SJVAPCD) regardless of intensity of construction. All recommendations from the HRA shall be enforced as conditions of approval of the development. If SU
Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-16 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 during operation. This level of emissions can result in adverse human health outcomes, particularly for sensitive receptors, and is determined to be significant. With regard to TACs and resultant cancer risk, specifically, construction of new land uses under the proposed plan, transportation and utility improvements, and the development of new stationary sources of TACs subject to the permitting requirements of SJVAPCD would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to an incremental increase in cancer risk greater than 20 in 1 million or a hazard index greater than 1.0. The proposed plan would not result in development of new residential land uses or other sensitive receptors within 500 feet of a freeway or high-volume
roadway, which is the setback distance
recommended by CARB. The SCSP designates land near SR 99 as heavy industrial, and traffic volumes on SR 41 through the Plan Area do not exceed 100,000 vehicles per day, CARB’s threshold for requiring a minimum 500 -foo t setback. Nevertheless,
the development of land uses under the proposed plan with truck routes, operations, and loading near residences could result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to a level of cancer risk greater than 20 in 1 million. This impact would be significant.
the recommendations of the HRA are insufficient to reduce impacts to levels at or below SJVAPCD’s threshold of 20 in one million, such development with significant cancer risk (i.e., that exceed that threshold) shall be prohibited.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-3b: Require Operational Health Risk Assessment A site-specific HRA shall be required for the operation of projects that propose the use of TAC-emitting equipment or industrial processes located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors (as defined by SJVAPCD). All recommendations from the HRA shall be enforced as conditions of approval of the development. If the recommendations of the HRA are insufficient to reduce impacts to levels at or below SJVAPCD’s threshold of 20 in one million, such development with significant cancer risk shall be prohibited.

If the HRA determines that a nearby sensitive receptor would be exposed to an incremental increase in cancer risk greater than 20 in 1 million then design measures shall be incorporated to reduce the level of risk exposure to less than 20 in 1 million.

Design measures may include but are not limited to the following:
 All truck loading/unloading facilities to be equipped with one 110/208- volt power outlet for every two-truck loading/unloading facility. A minimum 2 - foot-by-3-foot sign shall be clearly visible at each loading dock that indicates, “Diesel engine idling limited to a maximum of 2 minutes.” The sign shall include instructions for diesel trucks idling for more than 2 minutes to connect to the 110/208-volt power to run any auxiliary equipment.  The use of electric-powered “yard trucks” or forklifts to move truck trailers around a truck yard or truck loading/unloading facility.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-3d: Protect New and Existing Sensitive Land Uses To minimize impacts from TAC exposure, for future subsequent development under the proposed plan, the following measures shall be implemented:
 Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet from the centerline of a freeway, unless such development contributes to smart growth, open space, or transit-oriented goals, in which case the development shall include feasible measures such as separation/setbacks, landscaping, barriers, ventilation systems, air filters/cleaners, and/or other effective measures to minimize potential impacts from air pollution.
 Require new sensitive land uses to include feasible measures such as separation/setbacks, landscaping, barriers, ventilation systems, air filters/cleaners, and/or other effective measures to minimize potential impacts from air pollution.
 For future development requiring the use of heavy -duty trucks, designate truck routes that avoid sensitive land uses.
 Require that zoning regulations provide adequate separation and buffering between existing and proposed residential and industrial uses (i.e., a minimum of 1,000 feet).
 Designate truck routes to avoid residential areas including low -income and minority neighborhoods.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
Cumulative Impact 5.4-3: Cumulative impacts to air quality in the SJVAB PS No mitigation is available. SU

4.4 Biological Resources
Impact 4.4-1: Result in Substantial Adverse Effect, Either Directly or through Habitat Modification, on Any Species Identified as a Candidate, Sensitive, or Special -Status Species in Local or Regional Plans, Policies, or Regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Future development under the proposed plan may include ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and overall conversion of land cover, which could result in disturbance, injury, or mortality of several special -status plant and wildlife species, if present; reduced reproductive productivity of these species; and contribute to loss of species habitat. This impact would be potentially significant.

PS Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a: Conduct Project-Level Biological Reconnaissance Sensitive Species and Habitats Survey
During the early planning stages of projects under the SCSP, the following measure shall apply:
 If a project site has natural land cover and is not within existing development with an urban landscape, a data review and biological reconnaissance survey will be conducted within a project site by a qualified biologist prior to project activities (e.g., ground disturbance, vegetation removal, staging, construction).

The survey will be conducted no more than one year prior to project implementation. The qualified biologist must be familiar with the life histories and ecology of species in the City of Fresno and must have experience conducting field surveys of relevant species or resources, including focused surveys for individual species, if applicable. The data reviewed will include the biological resources setting, species tables, and habitat information in this EIR.

It will also include review of the best available, current data for the area, including vegetation mapping data, species distribution/range information, CNDDB, CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, relevant Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) queries, and relevant general plans. BIOS is a web-based system that enables the management and visualization of biogeographic data collected by CDFW and partner organizations. The qualified biologist will assess t he habitat suitability of the project site for all special-status plant and wildlife species as well as sensitive habitats identified as having potential to occur in the SCSP area LTS
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-19
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
(refer to Section 4.4.2, “Environmental Setting”), and will identify bat maternity roosts within the SCSP area. The qualified biologist will also assess the potential for aquatic resources (e.g., wetlands, streams, seeps) or sensitive natural communities to be present within the project site. The biologist will provide a report to the City of Fresno with evidence to support a conclusion as to whether special-status species and sensitive habitats are present or are likely to occur within the project site.
 If the reconnaissance survey identifies no potential for special -status plant or wildlife species, and no potential sensitive habitats including riparian habitat or wetlands, the City of Fresno will not be required to apply any additional mitigation measures under Impact 4.4-1b through 4.4-1f, 4.4-2, or 4.4-3.  If the qualified biologist determines that there is potential for special -status species or sensitive habitats to be present within the project site, the appropriate biological mitigation measures, identified herein shall be implemented.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-1b: Conduct Special-Status Plant Surveys, and Implement Avoidance Measures and Mitigation
If it is determined through implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4 -1a that habitat suitable for special-status plant species is present within a particular project site, the following measures shall be implemented:
 Before implementation of future project activities in the Plan Area that could affect grasslands suitable for California jewelflower (within natural annual grassland areas), or when projects are proposed that could affect aquatic habitat suitable for Sanford’s arrowhead, a qualified botanist shall conduct protocol-level surveys of the project site following survey methods from CDFW’s
Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts on Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2018 or most recent version). The qualified botanist shall (1) be knowledgeable about plant taxonomy, (2) be familiar with plants of the Central Valley region, including special-status plants and sensitive natural communities, (3) have experience conducting floristic botanical field surveys as described in CDFW 2018, (4) be familiar with the
California Manual of Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009 or current version, including updated natural communities data at
http://vegetation.cnps.org/), and (5) be familiar with federal and state statutes and regulations related to plants and plant collecting.

Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-20 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
 If special-status plants are not found, the botanist shall document the findings in a report to the City of Fresno, and no further mitigation shall be required.
 If special-status plants are found during protocol surveys and cannot be avoided by project activities, the applicant shall, in consultation with CDFW or USFWS, as appropriate, depending on species status, develop and implement a site-specific mitigation strategy to compensate for loss of occupied habitat or individuals. Mitigation measures shall include, at a minimum, preserving and enhancing existing populations outside of the individual development area, establishing populations through seed collection or transplantation from the site that is to be affected, and/or restoring or creating habitat in sufficient quantities to offset loss of occupied habitat or individuals. Potential mitigation sites could include suitable locations within or outside of the project site.

Habitat and individual plants lost shall be mitigated at a ratio agreed upon in consultation with CDFW or USFWS, considering acreage as well as function and value at a population scale. Success criteria for preserved and compensatory populations shall include:
 The extent of occupied area and plant density (number of plants per unit area) in compensatory populations shall be equal to or greater than the affected occupied habitat.
 Compensatory and preserved populations shall be self -producing.

Populations would be considered self-producing when:
- plants reestablish annually for a minimum of five years with no human intervention such as supplemental seeding; and
- reestablished and preserved habitats contain an occupied area and flower density comparable to existing occupied habitat areas in similar habitat types in the project vicinity.
- If off-site mitigation includes dedication of conservation easements, purchase of mitigation credits, or other off -site conservation measures, the details of these measures shall be included in the mitigation plan, including information on responsible parties for long - term management, conservation easement holders, long -term management requirements, success criteria such as those listed above and other details, as appropriate to target the preservation of long - term viable populations.

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.

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 descri bed in Appendix D Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-22 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
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 biolog ist based on the time of year and level of disturbance in accordance with guidance provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 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 af fected.

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 Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-23
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
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 burrowing 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 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 Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-24 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
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 accessible areas within 0.5 mile of the project site for Swainson’s hawk, within 500 feet of the proj ect 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 .

Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-25
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
 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 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 Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-26 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
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.

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 PS 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:

LTS
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-27
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
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.  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:
 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:

Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-28 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
 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 mitigation 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.

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.

PS 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 tha t may not meet the definition of waters of the United States but that w ould 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 LTS
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-29
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
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.

Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-30 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
 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 agreeable to USACE and the RWQCB, and as determined during the CWA Section 401 and Section 404 permitting processes or the waste discharge report.

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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
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 Cit y 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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
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 NCCP would be less than significant.

4.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
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.

PS 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, 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).

SU
Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-32 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
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.

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.

PS 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 prefer red alternative to reduce impacts to unknown archaeological resources. A recommendation of eligibility/ineligibility to the NRHP and CRHR shall be completed for any surface fin ds 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 LTS
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-33
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
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.
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 Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-34 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
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.

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. Complia nce with CEQA Section 21080.3.2 and Section 21084.3(a) would render this impact less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
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.

PS 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 county coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98(a). If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall notify NAHC within 24 hours. NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall t hen 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 LTS
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-35
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
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.

Cumulative Impact 5.4-5: Contribution to cumulative impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources
PS No mitigation is available. SU

4.6 Energy
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.

Only 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 consumpt ion. 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 char ging 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.

S 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 CALGr een 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 producing 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 LTS
Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-36 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
natural gas, thus avoiding the global warming potential of fugitive methane 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 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.

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.

S 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.

LTS
Cumulative Impact 5.4.6: Contribution to cumulative energy impacts LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-37
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation

4.7 Geology and Soils
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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
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 lo ss of topsoil would
be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
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 LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-38 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
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.

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 buil ding 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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
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.

PS 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 excavatio ns of the LTS
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-39
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
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-a
pproved institution or person who is
capable of providing long-t
erm 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 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 activities 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.

Cumulative Impact 5.4.7: Contribution to cumulative geology, soils, and mineral resources impacts
LTS No mitigation is required. LTS

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
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 S 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.

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.

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.

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 CALGreen 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 c onsistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan.

This impact would be significant.

S 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.

SU
Cumulative Impact 5.4.8: Contribution to cumulative GHG impacts PS No mitigation is available. SU

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
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, st
ate, 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 ma terials would be potentially significant.

PS 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 LTS
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-41
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
Concerns (PECs). The findings and conclusions of the Phase I ESA shall become the basis for potential recommendations for follow -up investigation, if found to be warranted.

Mitigation Measure 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.

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.

Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-42 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
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 c ould 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 requ ired 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 conta
mination 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 environ
mental 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 l evel to enforce the National Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-43
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
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 Environmental Screening Levels for the proposed land use at such a property, in accordance with RWQCB, DTSC, or FCEHD requirements.

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.

PS Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9 -1a through 4.9-1i as detailed under Impact 4.9-1 above would be required.

LTS
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.

PS Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9 -1c through 4.9-1i as detailed under Impact 4.9-1 above would be required.

LTS
Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-44 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
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 coo rdinated 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.

PS 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.

LTS
Cumulative Impact 5.4.9: Contribution to cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazards materials
LTS No mitigation required. LTS

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
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 LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-45
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, the proposed plan would have a less-than-significant impact related to water quality.

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 us es 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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-46 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
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.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Cumulative Impact 5.4.10: Contribution to cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality
LTS No mitigation is required. LTS

4.11 Land Use and Planning
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.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
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 LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-47
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
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.

Cumulative Impact 5.4.11: Contribution to cumulative land use impacts LTS No mitigation is required. LTS

4.12 Noise
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 Leq and 88.0 dBA Lmax. In addition, some construction work for utility installation. This impact would be significant.

S 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 sources and the receptor to shield sensitive receptors from construction noise to achieve a nighttime noise level of 45 dBA at the receptor.

SU
Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-48 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
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, parking 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.

S 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 comp liance with the City’s General Plan and Noise Ordinance. 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.

SU
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-49
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
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.

S 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.

SU
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.

S 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 Administra tion’s Transit Noise and 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 a nd 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 SU
Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-50 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
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.

Cumulative Impact 5.4.12: Contribution to cumulative noise impacts PS No mitigation is available. SU

4.13 Population, Employment, and Housing
Impact 4.13-1: Directly or Indirectly Induce Substantial Unplanned Population Growth and Housing Demand
The proposed plan has the potential to generate future development of approximately 12,021,744 square feet (sf) of non -residential uses (including industrial, retail, and office) and 91 new residential dwelling units. Resulting in a minimal population increase of approximately 313 net new persons by 2040.

Consistent with the General Plan, the purpose of the proposed plan is to create jobs for the City. The City is projected to add nearly 70,000 employees between 2022 and 2040. Therefore, implementation of the proposed plan will create jobs for the City’s projected growth in population and employment. The proposed plan would not induce substantial unplanned population growth, either directly (i.e., by proposed new unplanned homes) or indirectly (i.e., by the extension of roads or other infrastructure). Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-51
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
Impact 4.13-2: Displace Substantial Numbers of People or Existing Housing Although some existing housing may be demolished and/or renovated as a result of the proposed plan, the addition of 91 new dwelling units would offset the potential loss of existing housing. Additionally, the proposed plan does not involve any actions that would permanently displace substantial numbers of people.

Therefore, implementing the proposed plan would not displace substantial numbers of people or housing. As a result, there would be no new significant effect, and the impact would not be more severe than the impact identified in the General Plan EIR. This impact would be less than s ignificant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
Cumulative Impact 5.4.13: Contribution to cumulative impacts to population and housing
LTS No mitigation is required. LTS

4.14 Public Services and Recreation
Impact 4.14-1: Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated with the Provision of New or Physically Altered Fire Facilities
Under the proposed plan, development would be intensified within the Plan Area and may increase demand for fire protection services that could require new or expanded facilities. Expansion of an existing fire station or construction of a new facility would involve minor land clearing, grading, installation of utilities, and building construction, generally on a modest -sized lot (approximately 2.5 acres).

Construction activities and duration would be typical of such facilities and would be required to comply with applicable City policies and regulatory requirements to reduce adverse environmental effects. For these reasons, there is no evidence to suggest that such construction would result in unmitigable, adverse effects on the environment. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
Impact 4.14-2: Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated with the Provision of New or Physically Altered Police Facilities Development under the SCSP (e.g., industrial, retail, office uses), would result in an increased demand for law enforcement services. A new centralized police headquarters and communications center building, two new police substations, and a new 911 emergency operations dispatch center are proposed in the city, but it is not clear if these would be sufficient to meet the demand for law enforcement services associated with the proposed plan. If new or physically altered police facilities are required to adequately serve development within the Plan Area, LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-52 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
expansion of an existing police station or construction of a new facility could involve minor land clearing, grading, installation of utilities, and building construction, generally on a modest-sized parcel. Construction activities and duration would be typical of such facilities and would be required to comply with applicable City policies and regulatory requirements to reduce adverse environmental effects. For these reasons, there is no evidence to suggest that such construction would result in unmitigable, adverse effects on the environment.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impact 5.4.14: Contribution to cumulative impacts to public services and recreation
LTS No mitigation is required. LTS

4.15 Transportation and Circulation
Impact 4.15-1: Conflict with a Program, Plan, Ordinance, or Policy Addressing the Circulation System, Including Transit, Roadway, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities The proposed plan is estimated to result in the future development of approximately 12 million square feet (sf) of non-residential (industrial, retail, and office) uses and approximately 91 new residential dwelling units by 2040. While no specific developments are currently proposed, individual projects would be reviewed for consistency with the City’s General Plan, ATP, and Municipal Code, and requirements established within those regulatory documents would be implemented, as applicable.

Proposed SCSP policies would encourage the construction of bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements and transportation demand management strategies for employees to support the use of alternative modes of transportation. There is no evidence to suggest that the SCSP or future development under the plan would conflict with any applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. The impact would be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Impact 4.15-2: Conflict or Be Inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b) Regarding Vehicle Miles Traveled
The proposed plan would substantially increase industrial uses within the Plan Area and some commercial and minor residential development. The industrial and commercial uses would increase employment opportunities, likely improving proximity between new jobs within the Plan Area and surrounding housing by reducing commute distances between them. The SCSP TIA found that under horizon year with project conditions, the proposed plan would result in a VMT per service population of 29.87 as compared to 44.88 VMT per service population LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-53
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
under existing conditions. Because the proposed plan would result in a 33 percent decrease in VMT, the proposed plan would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. The impact would be less than significant.

Impact 4.15-3: Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Geometric Design Feature (e.g., Sharp Curves or Dangerous Intersections) or Incompatible Uses (e.g., Farm Equipment)
Although the nature and location of specific development projects under the proposed plan cannot be known, the plan would substantially increase industrial uses in the Plan Area and implement commercial and minor residential development. Thus, the industrial and other uses would substantially increase traffic, including truck traffic, in the Plan Area. Subsequent projects under the plan would be required to comply with all applicable design standards and would be subject to review by City staff to ensure th ese requirements are met. Individual project contractors would be required to develop and implement a TCP in accordance with policy 210.01 (“Traffic Control Policies and Procedures”) of the City of Fresno Public Works Department Policies and Procedures to minimize hazards during construction. Chapter 5 of the SCSP identifies development standards with which individual projects would be required to comply. These include provisions for truck routing, parking, and internal project site signage and wayfinding. Finally, the City is engaged in a truck reroute study for the portion of Fresno subject to AB 617, which includes the Plan Area. The study is designed to address, among other things, truck transportation conflicts, accidents, and residential and school imp acts.

With implementation of existing requirements, there is no evidence to suggest that implementation of the proposed plan would substantially increase transportation hazards from design features or incompatible uses. While the truck reroute study is not yet complete, it is anticipated that its recommendations will be implemented by the City and would further reduce the potential for such hazards. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Impact 4.15-4: Result in Inadequate Emergency Access
Subsequent projects and transportation improvements that would be developed under the proposed plan would be required to meet State and local standards pertaining to emergency access including design and safety regulations provided in the 2022 California Fire Code and City Municipal Code. Additionally, individual projects associated with the proposed plan would be subject to review by City and responsible emergency service staff ensuring all standards are met during LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
2-54 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
construction and operations. There is no evidence to suggest that development under the proposed plan would result in inadequate emergency access. This impact would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impact 5.4.15: Contribution to cumulative transportation impacts LTS No mitigation is required. LTS

4.16 Utilities and Service Systems
Impact 4.16-1: Require or Result in the Relocation or Construction of New or Expanded Water, Wastewater Treatment or Storm Water Drainage, Electric Power, Natural Gas, or Telecommunications Facilities, the Construction or Relocation of Which Could Cause Significant Environmental Effects
Implementation of the proposed plan would require relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. New infrastructure would generally be constructed within existing roadways or would consist of short connections to existing pipelines and would be developed as part of buildout of the proposed plan. The impacts associated with such infrastructure connections would be typical of such construction and would result in are generally assessed as part of the proposed development under the SCSP (e.g., construction -related air, noise, GHG, and transportation effects), within the context of this EIR, and there is no evidence to suggest that such construction would result in additional significant environmental effects. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Impact 4.16-2: Have Insufficient Water Supplies Available to Serve the Project and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development During Normal, Dry, and Multiple Dry Years
As discussed in the Water Supply Assessment (Appendix E) prepared for the proposed plan, the City’s 2020 UWMP relied upon the City’s General Plan to project future water supply and demand and indicates that there would be surplus water during normal, dry, and multiple dry years through 2045. Future development of the proposed plan would demand less water than the currently approved General Plan land uses within the Plan Area. As such, there would be a greater surplus of water supply for the City during normal, dry, and multiple -dry years through 2045 with implementation of the proposed plan compared with the existing approved land uses considered in the 2020 UWMP. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
NI = No impact LTS = Less than significant PS = Potentially significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 2-55
Impacts
Significance
before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measures
Significance
after
Mitigation
Impact 4.16-3: Result in a Determination by the Wastewater Treatment Provider That Serves or May Serve the Project That It Has Inadequate Capacity to Serve the Project’s Projected Demand, in Addition to the Provider’s Existing Commitments Wastewater generation from development anticipated under the proposed plan would be approximately 11.6 mgd average annual flows (AAF), 13.4 mgd peak day dry weather flows, and 15.1 mgd for peak month wet weather flows. The RWRF, which has a remaining capac
ity of 23.5 mgd, would be able to accommodate these
wastewater flow rates in addition to existing commitments. Furthermore, wastewater flows from the Plan Area would be less than those estimated for the currently approved land uses under the General Plan, which would contribute 12.8 mgd for AAF, 14.7 mgd for peak day dry weather flows, and 16.6 mgd for peak month wet weather flows. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS No mitigation is required for this impact. LTS
Impact 4.16-4: Generate Solid Waste in Excess of State or Local Standards, or in Excess of the Capacity of Local Infrastructure, or Otherwise Impair the Attainment of Solid Waste Reduction Goals; or Fail to Comply with Federal, State, and Local Management and Reduction Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste Implementation of the proposed plan would allow for development of industrial, commercial office, retail, and residential uses, which would generate solid waste.

Development related to the proposed plan would implement programs to reduce landfill contributions, consistent with CIWMA, AB 341, SB 1374, AB 1826, and SB 1383. While General Plan Policy RC-11-b requires the City to develop a strategic and operations plan for fulfilling the City Council resolution committing the City to a Zero Waste goal, it is not clear if zero waste goals will be met. Without attainment of zero waste goals, development under the proposed plan may generate waste in excess of capacity at the American Avenue Landfill, which is planned for closure in 2031. This impact would be potent ially significant.

PS Mitigation Measure 4.16-4: Verify Landfill Capacity on a Project -by-Project Basis and Restrict Development Accordingly
Consistent with the Fresno General Plan, the City shall evaluate additional landfill locations at the time individual projects are submitted within the Plan Area and shall not approve development that could contribute to solid waste to a landfill that is at capacity until additional capacity is identified.

LTS
Cumulative Impact 5.4.16: Contribution to cumulative utilities and service systems impacts
LTS No mitigation is required. LTS
Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
2-56 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

This page intentionally left blank.

City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 3-1
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 OVERVIEW
The City of Fresno is proposing to adopt the South Central Specific Plan (proposed plan or SCSP). The SCSP would facilitate opportunities for economic growth and job creation and promote development of underutilized lands within the planning area. The purpose of the proposed plan is to serve as a policy and regulatory document that seeks to balance economic benefit, environmental impacts, and quality of life. The Plan Area has ample land for development and is prime for growth due to its central location in California and the San Joaquin Valley as well as its proximity to Fresno’s downtown, railway lines, and State Routes 41 and 99. Fresno is the 5th largest City in California, and the primary goal of the proposed plan is to improve Fresno’s economic competitiveness and support employment opportunities for residents. The proposed plan, including necessary entitlements and other approvals, is described below.

3.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The SCSP Area is approximately 5,567 acres located in the southern portion of the City of Fresno (Figures 3-1 and 3-2).

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 planning sphere of influence (SOI) (Figure 3-3). 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.

The Plan Area includes a mix of land uses including industrial, warehouse, commercial, residential, religious, educational, and public. Major transportation networks such as State Route (SR) 41, SR 99, and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific (UP) rail lines traverse the Plan Area, and land has been cleared and construction is underway for the future state high speed rail line.

3.3 BACKGROUND
Specific plans are planning documents that implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. They contain detailed development standards and implementation measures to which future projects located within a specified geographic area must adhere. Every county and city in California is required by state law to prepare and maintain a general plan. A general plan serves as the jurisdiction’s “constitution” or “blueprint” for future decisions concerning land use and resource conservation. All specific plans, subdivisions, public works projects, and zoning decisions must be consistent with the general plan. A specific plan addresses many of the same topics as a general plan, but it focuses on a smaller area, allowing communities to comprehensively address issues and opportunities in distinct areas.

The City of Fresno’s General Plan, adopted in 2014, outlines a long-range vision for the physical development of the City and provides a blueprint to guide economic development initiatives, as well as needed improvements to increase competitiveness and promote economic growth. Industries well-suited to Fresno’s location and workforce include agricultural technologies, supply chain management, agricultural services (brokering and export), food innovation and processing facilities, water technology, and other precision manufacturers. Other markets include medical industries and green industries such as solar, biofuels, recycling, and other forms of alternative energy . One way to support job creation in Fresno is to identify and reserve large areas of land with state route and railroad access for industrial development and provide infrastructure with access to water, sewer, roads, and Information Technology (IT) capability, including fiber connectivity.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
3-2 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

Source: Data received from the City of Fresno in 2023.

Figure 3-1 Regional Location

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 3-3

Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2023.

Figure 3-2 South Central Specific Plan Area

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
3-4 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

Source: 2023 City of Fresno South Central Specific Plan, adapted by Ascent in 2023.

Figure 3-3 Sphere of Influence

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 3-5
Most of the land within the Plan Area was included in the South Industrial Priority Area (SIPA) Specific Plan Area, for which a planning process for which was initiated by the City in 2019. The City’s 2014 General Plan and SIPA Specific Plan envisioned that the area would be prioritized for industrial development, fulfilling several General Plan goals related to attracting and retaining industrial firms needed to implement the City’s economic development strategy.

Land uses identified in the SIPA Specific Plan were consistent with the land use plan adopted as part of the 2014 General Plan Update. In response to community feedback received on the initial concept for the SIPA Specific Plan, the City initiated a new planning process and retitled the Plan Area the South Central Specific Plan. A community outreach and engagement process was conducted for the plan in 2020 to produce a vision and guiding principles centered around balancing the needs of industrial users, ensuring a diverse employment base, and minim izing impacts on the environment and neighborhoods. The outcome of the engagement process was development of three alternative land use maps: one reflecting a plan focused on residential and community-serving development (Community Alternative), a second focused almost exclusively on industrial development (Business Alternative), and a third that represents a blending of the Community and Business alternatives ( Blended Alternative and SCSP, the proposed plan). (See Section 6, “Alternatives,” for discussion and assessment of the Community and Business Alternatives.) The Blended Alternative is considered the proposed plan and is described below and analyzed in the forthcoming sections of this EIR.

Buildout of the SCSP would result in approximately 18.6 million square feet of industrial uses (less than the General Plan), 10 million square feet of commercial/office uses, and 1.2 million square feet of retail and public facilities (EPS 2022). Economic analysis projects that, based on market demand and absorption rates, this level of development would not occur in the near term, and may not occur for many decades. To ensure a meaningful assessment, the City determined—based on a market study prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)—that 2040 represents a reasonable planning horizon for EIR analysis. To estimate the level of development that could occur by 2040, buildout numbers were recalibrated to conservatively reflect twice the nonresidential market demand estimated by EPS.

Therefore, while development levels considered in this EIR may be higher than what may actually occur by 2040, they are reasonable for purposes of environmental evaluation and to ensure that the analysis is appropriately conservative.

3.4 SPECIFIC PLAN OBJECTIVES
The overarching vision of the SCSP is to improve the City’s overall economic competitiveness, support employment opportunities for residents, and maintain and improve community livability. The objectives that would help realize this vision are as follows:
 Stimulate economic development. Promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth and attract development that focuses on emerging markets and new technologies.
 Provide diverse employment. Create diverse employment opportunities, including an accessible and resilient employment zone.
 Minimize environmental and neighborhood impacts. Consider project-specific environmental effects (e.g., truck traffic, air emissions, noise and vibration) on existing and potential future sensitive receptors and impose measures to minimize such impacts.
 Preserve existing operations: Preserve the viability of existing industrial and manufacturing operations in the Plan Area.
 Protect against incompatible uses. Protect existing and future development from adverse impacts associated with incompatible uses.
 Implement infrastructure improvement: Improve Plan Area infrastructure (e.g., transportation, sewer, water) to expand the supply of “shovel-ready” sites.
 Be a good neighbor. Participate in “good neighbor” policies to provide residents with clear and transparent access to information regarding community development and assist in addressing disputes and concerns.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
3-6 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
 State Routes 99 and 41 as Gateways. Transform State Routes 99 and 41 as gateways into the City. Utilize landscaping and architectural design to improve the visual quality when entering the P lan Area.

3.5 LAND USE

3.5.1 Existing Land Use
Existing land uses and land use acreages in the Plan Area are shown in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-4, respectively. Heavy industrial (42 percent), open space (27 percent), vacant land (11 percent), and light industrial (9 percent) are the predominant existing land uses in the Plan Area. Agriculture makes up most of the open space area with the remainder consisting of canals and ponding basins for surface water runoff detention and groundwater recharge. The remainder of the Plan Area is composed of residential, commercial, and public facilities land uses.

Table 3-1 Existing Land Use Acreages in the Plan Area
Existing Land Use Approximate Acres Approximate Percent of Total Heavy Industrial 2,056 37
Open Space 1,308 23
Roadways and Infrastructure 627 11
Vacant 566 10
Light Industrial 427 8
Other 242 4
Rural Residential 160 3
Residential 82 1
Public Facilities 66 1
Commercial 29 <1
Streets 4 <1
Total 5567 100
Source: City of Fresno 2023.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 3-7

Source: 2023 City of Fresno South Central Specific Plan, adapted by Ascent in 2023.

Figure 3-4 Existing Land Use

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
3-8 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

3.5.2 Adopted Land Use Designations
Existing General Plan land use designations within the Plan Area are shown in Figure 3-5, and the acreage and proportion of each is shown in Table 3-2. This area of the City was primarily devoted to employment-generating land uses, such as agriculture, industrial, and commercial given its proximity to rail service and highways.

Table 3-2 General Plan Land Use Designations
General Plan Land Use Approximate Acreage Approximate Percent of Total Heavy Industrial 3,486 63
Roadways and Infrastructure 627 11
Light Industrial 685 12
Regional Business Park 350 6
Open Space – Ponding Basin 158 3
Business Park 144 3
Public 42 <1
Rail 32 <1
Single Family Residential 30 <1
General Commercial 10 <1
Open Space – Neighborhood Park 3 <1
Neighborhood Mixed-Use 0.25 <1
Total 5,567 100
Source: City of Fresno 2023.

Chapter 15, “Citywide Development Code,” of the City’s Municipal Code contains the City’s zoning and establishes development standards and regulations for each land use designation. Consistent with the City’s General Plan land use map the planning area includes the following zoning districts:
 CG – Commercial - General
 IL – Industrial - Light
 IH – Industrial - Heavy
 OS – Open Space
 PI – Public and Institutional
 RS – Residential Single-Family
 NMX – Neighborhood Mixed-Use Districts
 BP – Business Park
 RBP – Regional Business Park
Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 3-9

Source: 2023 City of Fresno South Central Specific Plan, adapted by Ascent in 2023.

Figure 3-5 Adopted General Plan Planned Land Use

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
3-10 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

3.5.3 Population
The Plan Area contains a small residential population comprised of approximately 400 housing units and an estimated 1,130 residents. Residential uses are largely characterized by rural residential and small subdivisions. Rural and low-density residential land uses are scattered throughout the Plan Area, and isolated medium-low residential areas are located in the northern portion of the Plan Area generally southwest of S. Peach and E. Jensen Avenues and northeast of E. Jensen Avenue and SR 41, and in the southern portion generally northeast of E. Central Avenue and S.

Cherry Avenue (Daleville), and a small area between S. Elm Avenue and SR 41, less than one-half mile north of W.

Central Avenue. In addition, the planning area is near or adjacent to two census-designated places in the unincorporated County, Calwa and Malaga, comprising approximately 720 dwelling units and 2,660 residents. The southern portion of Calwa community is within the City limits and within the Plan Area, and comprises 172 residential units, which is part of the existing 400 units within the Plan Area.

3.6 SPECIFIC PLAN CHARACTERISTICS

3.6.1 Organization of the Plan
The SCSP is a planning and regulatory document that would guide development activity within th e 5,567-acre planning area over the long term. It is intended—to build upon the policy framework established by the following previously adopted plans:
 Fresno General Plan (2014): long range plan that recommends strategies to support the community’s vision of Fresno as a vibrant, growing city, infused with a sense of heritage and community;  exposure in disadvantaged communities;
 Fresno Active Transportation Plan (2016): comprehensive guide to outlining the vision for active transportation in the City of Fresno, and a roadmap for achieving that vision;  Roosevelt Community Plan (1992): provides high level goals and policies for the Roosevelt Community to promote well-balanced, cohesive development; and,
 North Avenue Industrial Triangle Specific Plan (1973): a multiphase plan to develop agricultural land south of Jensen Avenue and north of the Central Canal between State Routes41 and 99 into a heavy industrial district; and  Fresno Parks Master Plan (2017): a community-based vision and road map for planning a complete and functional parks system.

Plans that contain recommendations for the SCSP area but were developed and adopted by other agencies include:
 Reverse Triangle Transportation Area Plan (2021, Fresno Council of Governments): explores opportunities to improve access and mitigate potential adverse effects from planned industrial development within the study area.

The Plan identifies transportation infrastructure improvements and mobility service programs and strategies so that future anticipated growth within the study area will provide opportunities to improve connectivity and accessibility; and
 Community Emissions Reduction Program: South Central Fresno (2019, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District): an emissions reporting, monitoring, and reduction plan that was developed under AB 617 to reduce air pollution exposure in disadvantaged communities.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 3-11
The SCSP document consists of eight chapters:
 Introduction, provides an overview of the proposed plan, plan purpose, structure and organization of the document, background information of the Plan Area, and plan requirements.  Planning Process & Community Engagement, summarizes the public participation process for the plan.  Vision, Guiding Principles and Policies, describes the vision, guiding principles, and proposed policies of the plan.  Land Use, provides the basis for planning in the Plan Area, existing land use conditions, proposed land use plan and alternatives, use regulations, and development standards to achieve the Plan’s vision.  Development Standards, describes the regulations, requirements, and standards proposed for the SCSP.  Circulation, describes the existing transportation network within the Plan Area as well as planned and recommended improvements.
 Public Facilities and Infrastructure, describes the existing and planned public facilities and infrastructure in the Plan Area, including parks and open space, schools, police and fire, and wet and dry utilities.  Implementation, provides the implementation strategies for the proposed plan.

3.6.2 Features of the Plan

LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The SCSP proposes uses within several land use designations as defined in the General Plan. Land use designations, descriptions, and allowable densities are shown in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3 General Plan Land Use Designations within the Plan Area General Plan Designation Density/ Intensity Description Residential - Low Density 1 – 3.5 DU/Acre The Low Density Residential 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

3.5 - 6 DU/Acre 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
5 – 12 DU/Acre Medium Density residential covers developments of 5 to 12 units per acre and is intended for areas with predominantly single-family residential development, but can also accommodate a mix of housing types, including small-lot starter homes, zero-lot line developments, duplexes, and townhouses. Much of the City’s established neighborhoods fall within this designation.

Residential – Medium
High Density
12 – 16 DU/Acre Medium High Density residential is intended for neighborhoods with a mix of single -family residences, townhomes, garden apartments, and multi -family units intended to support a fine-grained, pedestrian scale area.

Neighborhood Mixed-
Use
Min 12 – 16
DU/Acre
FAR 1.5
The Neighborhood Mixed-Use designation provides for mixed-use residential uses that include local-serving, pedestrian-oriented commercial development, such as convenience shopping and professional offices in two- to three-story buildings. Development is expected to include ground-floor neighborhood retail uses and upper -level housing or offices, with a mix of small -lot single-family houses, townhomes, and multi-family dwelling units on side streets, in a horizontal or vertical mixed-use orientation.

Residential densities establish 12 units per acre as the minimum and the maximum FAR is 1.5.

There is no density maximum for Neighborhood Mixed Use.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
3-12 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
General Plan Designation Density/ Intensity Description Commercial - General FAR 2.0 The Commercial - General designation allows for a wide range of commercial uses that are not appropriate in other areas because of higher volumes of vehicle traffic and potential adverse impacts on other uses. Examples of allowable uses include: building materials, storage facilities with active storefronts, equipment rental, wholesale businesses, and specialized retail not normally found in shopping centers.

Employment – Business
Park
FAR 1.0 The Business Park designation provides for office/business parks in campus -like settings that are well suited for large offices or multi - tenant 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, while 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, repairing, packaging, and printing. No free-standing retail is permitted, except for small uses serving businesses and employees.

Employment – Regional
Business Park
FAR 1.0 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.

Employment – Light
Industrial
FAR 1.5 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 a ctivities.

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
FAR 1.5 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 NA The Public Facilities designation applies to public facilities, such as fire and police stations, City-operated recycling centers, and sewage treatment plants. An example of a public facility located in the Plan Area is City of Fresno Fire Station #7.

Open Space NA The Open Space designations (Parks and Recreational Facilities; Other Public Open Space) apply to open space areas that are not parks or trails, such as ponding basins.

While the total area subject to development under the SCSP would be the same as the General Plan, the SCSP proposes land use designation changes for certain areas, requiring a General Plan amendment and rezone of the same properties. The changes are proposed primarily to 1) reconcile land use designations with existing conditions, 2) to buffer sensitive uses (e.g., residential areas, Orange Center School) with less intensive uses (e.g., business park instead of industrial), and 3) to provide more opportunities for neighborhood-serving general commercial uses near residential areas. The SCSP would result in substantial reductions in acreage of Heavy Industrial land uses and a modest decrease in Regional Business Park, with corresponding increases in acreage of Business Park, Single-Family Residential, Public, Light Industrial, and General Commercial uses. Figure 3-6 illustrates proposed SCSP land uses and Table 3-4 shows the proposed net change for each land use designation.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 3-13

Source: 2023 City of Fresno South Central Specific Plan, adapted by Ascent in 2023.

Figure 3-6 Proposed Land Use

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
3-14 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Table 3-4 Proposed Land Use Designation Changes
General Plan Land Use Designation Approximate Acreage Proposed SCSP Land Use Designations Net Change Heavy Industrial 3,486 2,650 -836
Roadways and Infrastructure 627 627 0
Light Industrial 685 715 +30
Regional Business Park 350 333 -17
Open Space – Ponding Basin 158 158 0
Business Park 144 653 +509
Public 42 78 +36
Rail 32 32 0
Single Family Residential 30 270 +240
General Commercial 10 47 +37
Open Space – Neighborhood Park 3 3 0
Neighborhood Mixed-Use 0.25 0.25 0
Total 5,567 5,567 0
Note: Slight variations in sums due to rounding.

DEVELOPMENT DENSITY
As described above, EPS was retained by the City to conduct a market analysis of demand for non -residential development in the Plan Area by 2040 to help inform the development assumptions to be used in the specific plan.

Growth projections for the SCSP were calculated using development assumptions and floor area ratios outlined in the General Plan for various land use types (Table 3-5).

Table 3-5 Development Assumptions by General Plan Land Use Based on 2040 General Plan Buildout Land Use Designation Density/
Intensity Range
Assumed Density/
Intensity Residential Food Industrial Medical Office Retail Medium Density Residential 5-12 du/ac 6.5 du/ac 100%
General Commercial 0-2.0 FAR 0.35 FAR 15% 5% 25% 55%
Business Park 0-1.0 FAR 0.4 FAR 40% 55% 5%
Regional Business Park 0-1.0 FAR 0.4 FAR 60% 35% 5%
Light Industrial 0-1.5 FAR 0.3 FAR 80% 20%
Heavy Industrial 0-1.5 FAR 0.3 FAR 80% 20%
Source: Fresno 2014.

The Plan Area currently supports nearly 19.6 million square feet of nonresidential development and 400 residential units. It is estimated that an additional 12 million square feet of nonresidential uses and 91 dwelling units would be constructed by 2040 (Table 3-6). Growth in the Plan Area would be primarily industrial, with smaller amounts of office and retail uses. Other land uses would be permitted in accordance with General Plan land use designations, but are not the focus of the SCSP.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 3-15
Table 3-6 Assumed Development for the Proposed Plan Compared to Existing Conditions Land Use Designation Existing (square footage) Proposed Plan (square footage) 2022-2040 Retail 0 866,676
Office 10,912 578,790
Industrial 19,624,154 10,576,278
Total Non-residential 19,635,0661 12,021,744
Residential Units 400 dwelling units 91 dwelling units 1 Existing development only reflects the employment land use categories within the Specific Plan Area.

Source: Ascent 2023.

Of the 5,567-acre Plan Area, approximately 3,693 acres is developed as industrial, commercial, residential and other land uses, and approximately 1,874 acres is open space, farmland, and vacant. 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. Figure 3 -7 shows developed and undeveloped land, within City limits and in the SOI, in the Plan Area.

A primary impetus for the SCSP is economic development and job growth. More than 14,000 new jobs would be created by 2040 with anticipated development, primarily in the industrial sector, with lesser but still substantial growth in office and retail jobs (Table 3-7).

Table 3-7 Anticipated Job Growth 2022-2040
Land Use Designations Proposed Job Growth
Food (Restaurants) 183 persons
Industrial 10,576 employees
Office 1,928 employees
Retail 1,624 employees
Source: Ascent 2023.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
3-16 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

Source: 2023 City of Fresno South Central Specific Plan, adapted by Ascent in 2023.

Figure 3-7 Developed and Undeveloped Land Within the Plan Area

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 3-17

3.6.3 Plan Policies
To implement the vision and guiding principles for the Plan Area, the SCSP includes the following policies, developed in coordination with the South Central Specific Plan Advisory Committee. (See Chapter 2, “Planning Process and Community Engagement” of the South Central Specific Plan for further information.)

TRANSPORTATION POLICIES
The transportation policies for the proposed plan are as follows:
 Trucks:
 T-1: Establish and enforce truck routes to avoid neighborhoods and consider existing roadway capacities and conditions.
 T-2: Ensure truck routes are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists.  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-6: Help school districts implement a “safe routes to school” program.  T-7: Build, repair and maintain roads in good condition.  T-8: Consider traffic calming studies.
 T-9: Install traffic control or traffic safety measures to include bike lanes.  T-10: Install street lighting for public safety and visibility.  T-11: Install crosswalks and traffic calming measures near schools.  T-12: Consider a funding mechanism to pre-fund infrastructure improvements. prior to allowing development to occur.
 T-13: Improve and maintain sidewalks.

AIR QUALITY AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following policies are intended to reduce environmental harm, increased quality of life, and encourage sustainable practices:
 Air Quality:
 AQ-1: Require the installation of air filtration systems in businesses to protect homes and schools.  AQ-2: Request additional 24-hour air monitors from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District around distribution centers, major roads near distribution centers, and at receptive school districts.  AQ-3: Require the implementation of dust reduction measures near sensitive uses, including the installation of wind barriers and regular street sweeping.
 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.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
3-18 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
 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.
 AQ-8: Ensure loading docks and emission-generating equipment are located away from homes and schools.  AQ-9: Incentivize all construction equipment to follow the “Construction Clean Fleet” standards as identified by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District under Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review (ISR).  AQ-10: Open a dialogue with businesses to encourage changing warehouse shift times so they do not overlap with commute and school traffic times.
 AQ-11: Conduct a traffic study during high peak times (ex. Tuesday and Saturdays due to Cherry Auction) to include potential road widening plans.
 Noise
 N-1: Establish noise standards that are protective of residential and other noise- sensitive uses.  N-2: Identify noise-impacted areas in the Plan Area. (A noise impacted areas is an area that exceeds the City’s noise standards.)
 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.  N-4: Require new sources of noise to use the best available technology to minimize noise. (New development projects that generate noise in excess of the noise thresholds will be subject to this policy.)  N-5: When designing and improving streets and highways, consider measures to reduce traffic noise.  Light and Glare
 L-1: Require the incorporation of measures such as shielding or dimming to reduce outdoor lighting impacts.  Green Barriers/Tree Coverage/Beautification
 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-3: Require the Increased coverage of parking lots to avoid the “heat island effect.”  GB-4: Create a Green Street Tree Planting Program, prioritizing areas with few trees.  GB-5: Coordinate with Tree Fresno on a Community Landscapes Plan.  GB-6: Support dual use of drainage facilities such as ponding basins and canals.  GB-7: Establish landscaping and site design standards for new businesses and industry, especially next to existing neighborhoods.
 GB-8: Transform Highways 99 and 41 into gateways into the Plan Area through landscaping and architectural design.
 Energy and Green Building
 EGB-1: Require the reduction of 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.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 3-19
 EGB-3: Encourage installation of solar panels, battery storage, and zero emission backup electricity generators at distribution centers.
 Water
 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.
 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.  Solid Waste and Illegal Dumping
 SW-1: Establish community sanitation programs to address litter clean-up and illegal dumping.

EMPLOYMENT/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
The following policies seek to balance economic benefit and environmental impact, as well as increase the quality of life of local stakeholders:
 Economic Development
 E-1: Coordinate a regional economic development strategy and monitor trends, emerging markets, and new technologies.
 E-2: Implement programs to attract diverse new businesses and industries.  E-3: Consider establishing a funding/ grant program for small businesses.  E-4: Develop incentives to attract lower emission and greener industries.  Job Training and Employment
 E-5: Promote job training programs such as Career Technical Education, adult education, internships, mentoring, and apprenticeship.
 E-6: Connect businesses with training, education, and local community partners.  E-7: Connect residents to existing training programs and to jobs in their neighborhoods.  E-8: Locate a new job training center accessible to job seekers.  E-9: Collaborate with Fresno City College local education institutions to establish a job training program that can serve as a source of readily-employable persons for surrounding businesses.  E-10: Prioritize hiring local residents.
 Internet Access and Computer Literacy
 E-11: Increase public access to quality internet service.  E-12: Prioritize fiber connectivity in the Plan Area.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
3-20 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
 E-13: Develop computer literacy programs and assist with online job applications.  Community Benefit District
 CBD-1: Consider a Community Benefit Fund to pay for measures such as air filtration systems, dual- paned windows, parks, job training programs, and job fairs near the Plan Area.  CBD-2: Encourage business and residential partnerships to assist in increasing communication and transparency and to provide a mechanism to raise concerns.  CBD-3: Investigate opportunities to develop resilient green buffers between existing industrial and residential uses.  CBD-4: Seek out funding to pay for dual-use ponding basins and green areas.  CBD-5: Research community benefit agreements around the country to determine how they could work and be funded in this Plan Area.
 Public Noticing
 PN-1: Establish new noticing requirements for all project types.

3.6.4 Circulation Improvements
As identified in the SCSP, circulation improvements will be carried out by private developments, the County of Fresno, and the City of Fresno. Roadway bicycle and trail facilities from Fresno ATP and safe routes to school improvements by the City would be programmed into the Capital Improvement Plan and constructed as funding is available. The following describes the proposed improvements within the Plan Area.

Pedestrian and Bicycle
The Plan Area has an incomplete bicycle and pedestrian network. There are many locations that lack bikeways and sidewalks or that have sidewalk gaps between developments. Inconsistent bicycle and pedestrian networks contribute to an unsafe and uninviting environment for pedestrians and cyclists. The Fresno A ctive Transportation Plan (ATP), adopted in 2016, proposes a long-term, comprehensive network of citywide bikeways, trails, and sidewalks that connect all parts of Fresno. Figures 3-8 and 3-9 show the existing and planned bikeways, trails, and sidewalks within the Plan Area.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 3-21

Source: 2023 City of Fresno South Central Specific Plan, adapted by Ascent in 2023.

Figure 3-8 Existing and Planned Bicycle and Trail Network

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
3-22 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

Source: 2023 City of Fresno South Central Specific Plan, adapted by Ascent in 2023.

Figure 3-9 Existing and Planned Sidewalk Network

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 3-23
Safe Routes to Schools
Safe Routes to School programs aim to make it safer for students to use active modes of transportation, such as walking and biking, to school. In January 2020, the Fresno City Council approved a Safer Sidewalks to School Resolution, which was one of the recommendations of the Fresno ATP. The resolution acknowledged that many parts of the City lack complete sidewalks, creating hazards to pedestrians, particularly to children around neighborhood schools and that a more complete system of sidewalks would improve safety, walkability, bikeability, and community health.

Orange Center Elementary School, the only school in the Plan Area, is located on Cherry Avenue, between North and Central Avenues, and is outside of City of Fresno limits. As discussed in the RTTAP, potential safety improvements for students could include Class IV protected bikeways and sidewalks along Cherry Avenue, when annexed into the City.

Transit
Transit service within the Plan Area is provided by Fresno Area Express (FAX). - Four of the 18 fixed routes provided by FAX are located immediately adjacent to and within the Plan Area. Figure 3 -10 shows the existing and planned transit routes within the Plan Area.

Roadway Capacity and Planned Projects
The public roadway network and State highway routes comprise the predominant transportation infrastructure in and around Fresno. The existing roadway network in South Central Fresno is predominantly a traditional grid network with major streets spaced at half-mile intervals. Figure 3-11 shows the planned roadway network within the Plan Area and Figure 3-12 shows three major east-west roadways and one major north-south roadway that are planned to be widened with additional lanes.

The City and the SJVAPCD are engaged in a truck reroute study (and companion health impact assessment) for the South Central Fresno AB 617 Community, which includes the Plan Area (see Chapter 1, “Introduction” of the SCSP for discussion of the Truck Reroute Study). The study is designed to address, among other things, truck transportation conflicts, accidents, and residential and school impacts. The truck reroute study is not yet complete, but it is anticipated that its recommendations will be implemented by the City and would further reduce the potential for transportation conflicts and hazards from incompatible land uses. Policies T-1 and T-2 of the SCSP would be implemented by the City’s Public Works Department through the South Central Fresno AB 617 Community Truck Reroute Study. Policy outcomes and recommendations that result from the truck reroute study shall be adopted by reference in the SCSP.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
3-24 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

Source: 2023 City of Fresno South Central Specific Plan, adapted by Ascent in 2023.

Figure 3-10 Existing and Planned Transit Routes

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 3-25

Source: 2023 City of Fresno South Central Specific Plan, adapted by Ascent in 2023.

Figure 3-11 Roadway Classifications

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
3-26 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

Source: 2023 City of Fresno South Central Specific Plan, adapted by Ascent in 2023.

Figure 3-12 Planned Number of Roadway Lane Changes

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 3-27

3.6.5 Proposed Utilities

WATER AND WASTEWATER
To assess the need for future water and wastewater infrastructure needs in the Plan Area, the City retained Akel Engineering Group, Inc to prepare a hydraulic analysis (Akel 2022). This study assesses the impacts of proposed Plan Area water distribution and sewer collection systems resulting from proposed land use amendments. Capacity deficiencies in the existing and future water and wastewater systems were identified utilizing the City’s exiting hydraulic model and information from the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, 2010 Water System Master Plan, and 2015 Sewer System Master Plan. The analysis concluded that water and sewer services within the Plan Area must be enhanced to support the development generated by the Specific Plan and maintain the target levels of service. As depicted on Figures 3-13, and 3-14 the following wet utility improvements are proposed as part of the SCSP:
 Water: The increase in surface water demand would require the installation of 14.7 miles of new 16-inch transmission grid mains and approximately eight new wells with a capacity of 2, 125 gallons per minute (gpm) within the Plan Area.
 Sewer: A network of sewer collection infrastructure would be installed throughout the Plan Area to serve development. The proposed wastewater collection system would include installation of new transmission grid mains, upsizing of conveyance pipelines located along North Avenue between Cedar Avenue and Parkway Drive, and lift station capacity upgrade to a 5.4 million gallons per day (mgd).

STORMWATER
The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) is a special-purpose district that acquires and constructs facilities for flood control and the drainage of flood and storm waters, and conserves waters within the City. The proposed plan will change ponding basin capacities and require up to two new basins within the planning area. In addition, specific upgrades as part of the proposed plan to maintain service 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. Development would be planned in accordance with r equirements set forth under the Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP).

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
3-28 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

Source: 2023 City of Fresno South Central Specific Plan, adapted by Ascent in 2023.

Figure 3-13 Water Distribution

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 3-29

Source: 2023 City of Fresno South Central Specific Plan, adapted by Ascent in 2023.

Figure 3-14 Sewer Collection System

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
3-30 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

3.6.6 Development Standards
The proposed plan includes proposed use regulations, permit requirements, and development standards. These regulations, requirements, and standards govern all future private development actions in the Plan Area, including new construction, additions, and renovations to existing structures and/or new land uses proposed for existing facilities. These regulations do not, however, govern legal non-conforming uses, structures, site features or lots. In addition, one overlay zone is identified to ensure compatibility with the proposed plan’s vision and existing conditions. The proposed overlay zone would be applied over each zoning district in the Plan Area, adding a layer of development standards and use regulations within the designed overlay boundary (see Figure 3- 15). Per the purpose of the SCSP, sensitive uses are defined as residential, school, park, and day care. Figure 3-16 identifies the proposed buffer zones implemented to protect these sensitive uses.

Development Regulations

1. Prohibit the following use classifications:
 Rendering
 Slaughterhouse

2. Prohibit the following use classifications within 1,000 feet of a sensitive use:
 Service Station
 Shooting/Archery Range
 Salvage and Wrecking
 Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution: Chemical and Mineral Storage  Freight/Truck/Terminals and Warehouses
 Waste Transfer Facility
 Mining and Quarrying

3. Require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the following use classifications that fall within 1,000 feet of a sensitive use:
 Motorcycle/Riding Club
 Construction and Material Yards
 Limited Industrial
 Dry cleaning plants would not be permitted
 Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution: Indoor Warehousing and Storage*  Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution: Outdoor Storage*  Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution: Wholesaling and Distribution* *Must meet CARB criteria for zero emission facilities, as defined in CA Sustainable Freight Action Plan (July 2016)

4. Apply building setback standards to industrial uses that adjoin sensitive uses (see Figure 5-3 of the SCSP). In this circumstance, the following standards shall apply:
 The buildings should be setback a minimum of 100 feet when sharing the same property line.  A wall or screen should be placed on the property line that is a minimum of 10 feet tall and be opaque for visual obscurity. Blank concrete or CMU walls without piers, caps and finishes are not allowed.  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. Native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers should be selected over Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 3-31
ornamental species. The property owner and any successors in interest shall maintain these trees for the duration of ownership, ensuring any unhealthy or dead trees are replaced timely as needed.  All landscaping shall be drought tolerant, and to the extent feasible, species with low biogenic emissions.

Palm trees shall not be utilized.
 All landscaping areas shall be properly irrigated for the life of the facility to allow for plants and trees to maintain growth.
 Uses within the 100-foot setback and outside of the landscape buffer area can include a fire lane and if necessary, limited employee parking, but no visitor parking or public entries, loading docks, service yards, trash areas/disposal, or truck parking and idling.

5. Buildings that face major public access streets and require employee and visitor parking and entries, shall be setback a minimum of 150 feet from the curb line of the adjoining street (see Figure 5 -3 of the SCSP). In this circumstance, the following standards should apply:
 A 45-foot minimum landscape buffer shall be provided from the back of the public sidewalk to a low wall or fence screen that hides the car parking lot. The height of the wall or fence should be no less than 3 feet.

Company signage can be incorporated into the wall as it faces the public right of way.  The landscaped buffer area should include 100 percent tree canopy coverage within 10 years of planting.

Native trees, shrubs and groundcovers should be selected over ornamental species.  No loading docks, service yards, trash areas, truck parking or idling is permitted.

6. In addition to the development standards outlined above, the City will amend its Development Code to meet, at minimum, the following:

Buffering & Screening:
 A solid decorative wall(s) of at least 10’ in height between warehouses & all sensitive uses.  Unless physically impossible, loading docks and truck entries shall be oriented away from abutting sensitive receptors.
 To the greatest extent feasible, loading docks, truck entries, and truck drive aisles shall be located away from nearby sensitive uses. In making feasibility decisions, the City must comply with existing laws and regulations and balance public safety and the site development’s potential impacts to nearby sensitive uses . Therefore, loading docks, truck entries, and drive aisles may be located nearby sensitive uses at the discretion of the Planning Director, but any such site design shall include measures designed to minimize overall impacts to nearby sensitive uses.
 For any Warehouse building larger than 400,000 square feet in size, the building’s loading docks shall be located a minimum of 300 feet away, measured from the property line of the sensitive receptor to the nearest dock door which does not exclusively serve electric trucks using a direct straight-line method.

Signage & Traffic Patterns
 Entry gates into the loading dock/truck court area shall be positioned after a minimum of 140 feet of total available stacking depth inside the property line. The stacking distance shall be increased by 70 feet for every 20 loading docks beyond 50 docks. Queuing, or circling of vehicles, on public streets immediately pre - or post-entry to an industrial commerce facility is strictly prohibited unless queuing occurs in a deceleration lane or right turn lane exclusively serving the facility.
 Applicants shall obtain approval of all turning templates to verify truck turning movements at entrance and exit driveways and street intersection adjacent to industrial buildings prior to entitlement approval.  Anti-idling signs indicating a 3-minute diesel truck engine idling restriction shall be posted at industrial commerce facilities along entrances to the site and in the dock areas and shall be strictly enforced by the facility operator.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
3-32 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
 Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, facility operators shall establish and submit for approval a Truck Routing Plan to and from the State Highway System based on the City’s latest Truck Route Map.  The plan shall describe the operational characteristics of the use of the facility operator, including, but not limited to, hours of operations, types of items to be stored within the building, and proposed truck routing to and from the facility to designated truck routes that avoids passing sensitive uses , to the greatest extent possible.
 The plan shall include measures, such as signage and pavement markings, queuing analysis and enforcement, for preventing truck queuing, circling, stopping, and parking on public streets.  Facility operator shall be responsible for enforcement of the plan.  A revised plan shall be submitted prior to a business license being issued by the City for any new tenant of the property.
 The Planning Director shall have discretion to determine if changes to the plan are necessary, including any additional measures to alleviate truck routing and parking issues that may arise during the life of the facility.  Signs and drive aisle pavement markings shall clearly identify the onsite circulation pattern to minimize unnecessary on-site vehicular travel.
 Facility operators shall post signs in prominent locations inside and outside of the building indicating that off -site parking for any employee, truck, or other operation related vehicle is strictly prohibited. The City may require facility operators to post signs on residential streets indicating that off-site truck parking is prohibited.  Signs shall be installed at all truck exit driveways directing truck drivers to the truck route as indicated in the Truck Routing Plan and State Highway System.
 Signs shall be installed in public view with contact information for a local designated representative who works for the facility operator and who is designated to receive complaints about excessive dust, fumes, or odors, and truck and parking complaints for the site, as well as contact information for the SJVAPCD’s complaint call-line: 1 - 800-870-1037. Any complaints made to the facility operator’s designee shall be answered within 72 hours of receipt.
 Prior to issuance of a business license, the City shall ensure for any facility with a building or buildings larger than 400,000 total square feet, that the facility shall include a truck operator lounge equipped with clean and accessible amenities such as restrooms, vending machines, television, and air conditioning.

Alternative Energy
 On-site motorized operational equipment shall be ZE (zero emission).  All building roofs shall be solar-ready, which includes designing and constructing buildings in a manner that facilitates and optimizes the installation of a rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) system at some point after the building has been constructed.
 The office portion of a building’s rooftop that is not covered with solar panels or other utilities shall be constructed with light colored roofing material with a solar reflective index (“SRI”) of not less than 78. This material shall be the minimum solar reflective rating of the roof material for the life of the building.  On buildings over 400,000 square feet, prior to issuance of a business license, the City shall ensure rooftop solar panels are installed and operated in such a manner that they will supply 100% of the power needed to operate all non-refrigerated portions of the facility including the parking areas.  At least 10% of all passenger vehicle parking spaces shall be electric vehicle (EV) ready, with all necessary conduit and related appurtenances installed. At least 5% of all passenger vehicle parking spaces shall be equipped with working Level 2 Quick charge EV charging stations installed and operational, prior to building occupancy.

Signage shall be installed indicating EV charging stations and specifying that spaces are reserved for clean air/EV vehicles. Unless superior technology is developed that would replace the EV charging units, facility operator and Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 3-33
any successors in interest shall be responsible for maintaining the EV charging stations in working order for the life of the facility.
 Unless the owner of the facility records a covenant on the title of the underlying property ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide chilled, cooled, or freezer warehouse space, a conduit shall be installed during construction of the building shell from the electrical room to 100% of the loading dock doors that have potential to serve the refrigerated space. When tenant improvement building permits are issued for any refrigerated warehouse space, electric plug-in units shall be installed at every dock door servicing the refrigerated space to allow transport refrigeration units (TRUs) to plug in. Truck operators with TRUs shall be required to utilize electric plug-in units when at loading docks.
 Bicycle racks are required per Section 15-2429 of the Fresno Municipal Code. The racks shall include locks and electric plugs to charge electric bikes and shall be located as close as possible to employee entrance(s). Nothing in this section shall preclude the warehouse operator from satisfying this requirement by utilizing bicycle parking amenities considered to be superior such as locating bicycle parking facilities indoors or providing bicycle lockers.

Operation & Construction
 Cool surface treatments shall be added to all drive aisles and parking areas, or such areas shall be constructed with a solar-reflective cool pavement such as concrete.  To ensure that warehouse electrical rooms are sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential need for additional electrical panels, either a secondary electrical room shall be provided in the building, or the primary electrical room shall be sized 25% larger than is required to satisfy the service requirements of the building or the electrical gear shall be installed with the initial construction with 25% excess demand capacity.  Use of super-compliant VOC architectural and industrial maintenance coatings (e.g., paints) shall be required.  The facility operator shall incorporate a recycling program.  The following environmentally responsible practices shall be required during construction:
 The applicant shall use reasonable best efforts to deploy the highest rated CARB Tier technology that is available at the time of construction. Prior to permit issuance, the construction contractor shall submit an equipment list confirming equipment used is compliant with the highest CARB Tier at the time of construction. Equipment proposed for use that does not meet the highest CARB Tier in effect at the time of construction, shall only be approved for use at the discretion of the Planning Director and shall require proof from the construction contractor that, despite reasonable best efforts to obtain the highest CARB Tier equipment, such equipment was unavailable.
 Use of electric-powered hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers.  Designation of an area in any construction site where electric powered construction vehicles and equipment can charge.
 Identification in site plans of a location for future electric truck charging stations and installation of a conduit to that location.
 Diesel-powered generators shall be prohibited except in case of emergency or to establish temporary power during construction.
 A Property Maintenance Program shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The program shall provide for the regular maintenance of building structures, landscaping, and paved surfaces in good physical condition, and appearance. The methods and maximum intervals for maintenance of each component shall be specified in the program.
 Property owner shall provide the facility operator with information on incentive programs such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program and shall require all facility operators to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay Program.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
3-34 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

Source: 2023 City of Fresno South Central Specific Plan, adapted by Ascent in 2023.

Figure 3-15 South Central Overlay Zone

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 3-35

Source: 2023 City of Fresno South Central Specific Plan, adapted by Ascent in 2023.

Figure 3-16 SPLU Proposed Buffers

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
3-36 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

3.7 POTENTIAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED
The Fresno City Council is the CEQA lead agency responsible for considering adoption and implementation of the proposed plan. As the lead agency under CEQA, Fresno is responsible for considering the adequacy of the EIR and determining if the project should be approved (Table 3-8).

Table 3-8 Required Approvals
Project Approval Approving Authority
Approval of the General Plan Amendment , Development Code Amendment, and Rezone
Fresno City Council
Adoption of the South Central Specific Plan Fresno City Council Certification of the EIR Fresno City Council
Repeal of the North Avenue Industrial Triangle Specific Plan Fresno City Council Replace the overlapping portion of the plan areas Fresno City Council The EIR is intended to apply to all listed project approvals as well as to any other approvals necessary or desirable to implement the project.

3.8 SUBSEQUENT ENTITLEMENTS AND APPROVALS
This Draft EIR has been prepared by the City to assess the potential environmental impacts that may arise in connection with actions related to implementation of the proposed plan. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, the City is the Lead Agency for the proposed plan and has discretionary authority over the plan and future project approvals. This Draft EIR is intended to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed plan to the greatest extent possible and is used as the primary environmental document to evaluate subsequent planning and permitting actions associated with projects in the Plan Area. Once certified, the City intends for this analysis to be used consistent with all available streamlining provisions in CEQA, including, but not limited to, Guidelines Section 15162- 15168, 15182 and 15183.

Other agencies may be consulted during the adoption process, however, their approval is not required for adoption of the proposed plan. Any subsequent development under the proposed plan may require approval of State, federal and Responsible Trustee Agencies that may rely on the analysis in this Draft EIR. These agencies may include but are not limited to:
 California Department of Transportation,
 California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board),  California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW),
 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB),  Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission,
 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District),  Fresno Municipal Flood Control District, and
 Fresno Irrigation District.

3.8.1 Discretionary and Ministerial Actions
The proposed project is a policy-level document and does not include any specific development proposals and may not fully evaluate the impacts of other future specific, individual development that may be approved under implementation of the proposed project. The Planning Commission and other decision-making bodies would review the proposed project and make recommendations to the City Council, who has approval authority for adoption of the proposed plan and related actions. Future projects may be tiered off this Draft EIR or be found consistent with Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 3-37
this Draft EIR pursuant to one or more of CEQA’s streamlining processes and may require additional, project-specific environmental analysis to secure the necessary discretionary development permits. Subsequent projects will be reviewed by the City for consistency with the General Plan, Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and this Draft EIR, and subsequent project-level environmental review will be conducted if required by CEQA. Adoption of the proposed project would be enacted by a resolution of the City Council for the following discretionary actions:
 Adoption of the Fresno South Central Specific Plan.
 Amendment of the Fresno General Plan, including amendments to the Land Use Map and text.  Approval of any future annexations would be subsequent to initial adoption of the Specific Plan.  Repeal of the North Avenue Industrial triangle Specific Plan.  Replace overlapping portion of the plan areas.

Adoption of the proposed project would be enacted by a City ordinance for the following discretionary actions:
 Rezoning of property for consistency with the General Plan Amendment and South Central Specific Plan.  Text Amendment of the Development Code to incorporate new overlay zone and other provisions called for in the South Central Specific Plan.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno
3-38 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4-1
4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES

4.0 APPROACH TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This Draft EIR evaluates and discloses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed plan, in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.). The potentially significant environmental impacts of implementation of the proposed plan, including assumed construction and operation, are evaluated in Sections 4.1 through 4.16, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2. A significant impact is defined in CEQA as a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change to the physical environment resulting from implementation of a project. Where significant environmental impacts are identified, feasible mitigation measures are described.

Mitigation measures may avoid, minimize, or compensate for significant adverse impacts and need to be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding means (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4[a]). Mitigation measures are not required for impacts that are found to be less than significant. In addition, Chapter 6, “Alternatives,” presents a reasonable range of alternatives that may reduce the project’s potentially significant or significant impacts on the environment.

4.0.1 Program-Level Environmental Review
The degree of specificity in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity in the underlying activity described in the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15146). For this reason, a program EIR, typically prepared for projects such as an area plan, should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from adoption of the plan, but the EIR need not be as detailed as a project-level EIR.

As described fully in Chapter 3, “Project Description,” the project involves implementation of the SCSP. The proposed plan is a policy document that, together with proposed development standards and design guidelines, will guide growth in the 5,567-acre Plan Area.

In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, this document is a program EIR. The C ity will use this document to make decisions based on its planning policies and statutory requirements. A program EIR enables a lead agency to examine the overall effects (direct, indirect, and cumulative) of a proposed project or course of action and to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures at an early time in the decision-making process, when the agency has greater flexibility. A program EIR under the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 evaluates the impacts of a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are:
 related geographically;
 related as logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions;  connected with issuances of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or
 related as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority that have generally similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways.

Approach to Environmental Analysis Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
4-2 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

4.0.2 Baseline
The State CEQA Guidelines (CCR Section 15125[a]) state that:

An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant.

As described in Chapter 1, “ Introduction, ” the City issued a notice of preparation (NOP) for the project on July 8, 2019 and revised NOP on April 14, 2021, and initiated preparation of the CEQA environmental review process.

While conditions in the Plan Area have not changed substantially since 2019, f or purposes of this analysis, the baseline conditions for this Draft EIR are generally the conditions that existed in 2021 . However, where appropriate, sections also address current conditions.

Sections 4.1 through 4.16 present the existing environmental conditions in the Plan Area and surrounding area as appropriate, in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (CCR Section 15125). This setting generally serves as the baseline against which environmental impacts are evaluated. The extent of the environmental setting area evaluated (the project study area) differs among resources, depending on the locations where impacts would be expected. For example, air quality impacts are assessed for the air basin (macroscale) as well as the site vicinity (microscale), whereas aesthetic impacts are assessed for the Plan Area vicinity only.

4.0.3 Significance Criteria
The State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15382) define a significant effect on the environment as:
…a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.

Sections 4.1 through 4.16 identify the standards used to determine the level of significance of the environmental impacts for each resource topic, in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15126, 15126.2, and 15143). The topics upon which these thresholds of significance were developed are based on the environmental checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines; best available data; and regulatory standards of federal, state, and local agencies. The significance of each impact is determined by comparing the effects of the proposed plan to the baseline condition and determining whether substantial, adverse physical changes would result. Methods and assumptions used to frame and conduct the impact analyses are also described in Sections 4.1 through 4.16 for each resource topic.

4.0.4 Contents of the Resource Chapters
Sections 4.1 through 4.16 of this Draft EIR each include the following components.

Regulatory Background: This subsection presents information on the laws, regulations, plans, and policies that relate to the issue area being discussed. Regulations originating from the federal, State, and local levels are each discussed as appropriate.

Existing Conditions: This subsection presents the existing environmental conditions of the Plan Area and in the surrounding area, as appropriate, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125. The discussions of the environmental setting focus on information relevant to the issue under evaluation. The extent of the environmental setting area evaluated (the plan study area) differs among resources, depending on the locations where impacts would be expected.

Ascent Environmental Approach to the Environmental Analysis City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4-3
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures: This subsection presents thresholds of significance and discusses potentially significant effects of the proposed plan on the existing environment, including the environment beyond the project boundaries, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2. The methodology for impact analysis is described, including technical studies upon which the analyses rely . The thresholds of significance are defined and thresholds for which the proposed plan would have no impact are disclosed and dismissed from further evaluation. Project impacts and mitigation measures are numbered sequentially in each subsection (Impact 4.2-1, Impact 4.2-2, Impact 4.2-3, etc.). A summary impact statement precedes a more detailed discussion of the environmental impact. The discussion includes the analysis, rationale, and substantial evidence upon which conclusions are drawn. The determination of level of significance of the impact is defined in bold text. A “less-than- significant” impact is one that would not result in a substantial adverse change in the physical environment. A “potentially significant” impact or “significant” impact is one that would result in a substantial adverse change in the physical environment; both are treated the same under CEQA in terms of procedural requirements and the need to identify feasible mitigation. Mitigation measures are identified, as feasible, to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for significant or potentially significant impacts, in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. Unless otherwise noted, the mitigation measures presented are recommended in the EIR for consideration by the City to adopt as conditions of approval.

Where an existing law, regulation, or permit specifies mandatory and prescriptive actions about how to fulfill the regulatory requirement as part of the project definition, leaving little discretion in its implementation, and would avoid an impact or maintain it at a less-than-significant level, the environmental protection afforded by the regulation is considered before determining impact significance. Where existing laws or regulations specify a mandatory permit process for future projects, performance standards without prescriptive actions to accomplish them, or other requirements that allow substantial discretion in how the they are accomplished, or have a substantial compensatory component, the level of significance is determined before applying the influence of the regulatory requirements. In this circumstance, the impact would be potentially significant or significant, and the regulatory requirements would be included as a mitigation measure.

This subsection also describes whether mitigation measures would reduce project impacts to less - than-significant levels. Significant-and-unavoidable impacts are identified as appropriate in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b). Significant-and-unavoidable impacts are also summarized in Chapter 7, “Other CEQA Sections.” References: The full references associated with the parenthetical references found throughout Sections 4 .1 through

4.16 can be found in Chapter 9, “References,” organized by section number.

Approach to Environmental Analysis Ascent Environmental City of Fresno
4-4 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

Ascent Environmental Aesthetics
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.1-1

4.1 AESTHETICS
This section provides a description of existing visual conditions (i.e., the physical features that make up the visible landscape) in the project area and an assessment of changes to those conditions that would occur from project implementation. The effects of the SCSP on the visual environment are generally defined in terms of the physical characteristics and potential visibility of development accommodated by the plan, the extent to which SCSP development would change the perceived visual character and quality of the environment, and the expected level of sensitivity that the viewing public may have where such development would alter existing views. This analysis evaluates effects on visual character and quality of the project area, scenic vistas, scenic resources within a state scenic highway view corridor, and light and glare, where applicable.

Comments received in response to the NOP that pertain to aesthetics address warehouse siting and design, the potential cumulative increase in light and glare and its effect on residential neighborhoods and other sensitive receptors, and impacts on currently vacant and/or agricultural parcels in rural and low-density residential areas related to buildout of the proposed plan.

4.1.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to aesthetics, light, and glare are applicable to the project.

STATE
California Scenic Highway Program
California’s Scenic Highway Program was created by the California Legislature in 1963 and is managed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The goal of this program is to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would affect the aesthetic value of the land adjacent to highways. A highway may be eligible or officially designated “scenic” depending on how much of the natural landscape travelers can see, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes on travelers’ enjoyment of the view (Caltrans 2023a).

Nighttime Sky – Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Standards
The California legislature passed a bill in 2001 requiring the California Energy Commission (CEC) to adopt energy efficiency standards for outdoor lighting for both the public and private sectors. In addition to improved energy efficiency standards, Title 24 standards regulate lighting characteristics such as maximum power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls to turn lighting on and off. Different lighting standards are set by classifying areas by lighting zone. The classification is based on population figures of the 2010 Census. Areas can be designated as LZ1 (dark), LZ2 (rural), or LZ3 (urban). Lighting requirements for dark and rural areas are stricter in order to protect the areas from new sources of light pollution and light trespass.

Aesthetics Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.1-2 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
LOCAL
City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno General Plan contains the following policies related to aesthetics that apply to the proposed plan .

These policies are contained in Chapter 3, “Urban Form, Land Use, and Design,” and in Chapter 4, “Mobility and Transportation (City of Fresno 2022).
 Policy UF-1-e: Unique Neighborhoods. Promote and protect unique neighborhoods and mixed use areas throughout Fresno that respect and support various ethnic, cultural and historic enclaves; provide a range of housing options, including furthering affordable housing opportunities; and convey a unique character and lifestyle attractive to Fresnans. Support unique areas through more specific planning processes that directly engage community members in creative and innovative design efforts.  Policy UF-13-a: Future Planning to Require Design Principles. Require future planning, such as Specific Plans, neighborhood plans or Concept Plans, for Development Areas and BRT Corridors designated by the General Plan to include urban design principles and standards consistent with the Urban Form, Land Use, and Design Element.  Policy UF-14-a: Design Guidelines for Walkability. Develop and use design guidelines and standards for a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment with a network of streets and connections for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as transit and autos.
 Policy LU-1-a: Promote Development within the Existing City Limits as of December 31, 2012 . Promote new development, infill, and rehabilitation of existing building stock in the Downtown Planning Area, along BRT corridors, in established neighborhoods generally south of Herndon Avenue, and on other infill sites and vacant land within the City.
 Policy LU-1-b: Land Use Definition and Compatibility. Include zoning districts and standards in the Development Code that provide for the General Plan land use designations and create appropriate transitions or buffers between new development with existing uses, taking into consideration the health and safet y of the community.  Policy LU-2-c: Infill Design Toolkit. Develop and distribute an infill design toolkit, consistent with the City's Infill Development Act to support and encourage infill development.  Policy LU-2-e: Neighborhood Preservation. Incorporate standards in the Development Code to preserve the existing residential quality of established neighborhoods.  Policy LU-4-a: Neighborhood Nuisance Abatement. Continue proactive and responsive code enforcement and nuisance abatement programs to improve the attractiveness of residential neighborhoods.  Policy LU-5-g: Scale and Character of New Development. Allow new development in or adjacent to established neighborhoods that is compatible in scale and character with the surrounding area by promoting a transition in scale and architectural character between new buildings and established neighborhoods, as well as integrating pedestrian circulation and vehicular routes.
 Policy LU-6-a: Design of Commercial Development. Foster high quality design, diversity, and a mix of amenities in new development with uses through the consideration of guidelines, regulations and design review procedures.  Policy LU-6-b: Commercial Development Guidelines. Consider adopting commercial development guidelines to assure high quality design and site planning for large commercial developments, consistent with the Urban Form policies of this Plan.
 Policy LU-6-d: Neighborhood and Community Commercial Center Design. Plan for neighborhood mixed use and community commercial uses to implement the Urban Form concepts of this Plan, promote the stability and identity of neighborhoods and community shopping areas, and allow efficient access without compromising the operational effectiveness of the street system.
 Neighborhoods will be anchored by community commercial centers with a mix of uses that meet the area’s needs and create a sense of place; and
Ascent Environmental Aesthetics
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.1-3
 Community commercial centers will be located within Activity Centers.  Policy LU-6-e: Regional Center Planning and Design. Promote economic growth with regional commercial centers.  New regional commercial centers will be located with access to State Routes and/or other major transportation facilities to ensure access from throughout the region;  Regional shopping centers will have internally-unified building design, landscaping, and signage standards.  Policy LU-6-f: Auto-Oriented Commercial Uses. Direct highway-oriented and auto-serving commercial uses to locations that are compatible with the Urban Form policies of the General Plan. Ensure adequate buffering measures for adjacent residential uses, noise, glare, odors, and dust.  Policy LU-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 .  Policy LU-9-e: Downtown Sightline. Require new development to preserve existing sightlines to Downtown to the extent feasible.
 Policy LU-9-f: View Corridors. Promote new view corridors that highlight the Downtown skyline.  Policy D-1-c: Privately Owned Public Spaces. Consider creating and adopting design standards and incentives for providing privately owned public open spaces and plazas for gathering to enhance the pedestrian realm and provide opportunities for social interaction.
 Policy D-1-d: Public Art. Continue to promote a citywide public art program that contributes to an awareness of the City’s history and culture.
 Policy D-1-e: Graphic Identity. Continue the preservation, promotion, procurement and strategic location of landmarks, monuments and artwork that provide orientation and represent Fresno's cultural heritage and artistic values.
 Policy D-1-f: Update Street Signs. Consider updating street sign regulations to create a way-finding system and graphic identity without dominating city and district appearance.  Policy D-1-g: Reducing Surface Parking. Consider adopting and implementing incentives to replace existing large surface parking lots in centers with parking structures, and to incorporate them into high -density mixed use developments.
 Policy D-1-h: Screening of Parking. Consider requiring all new development with parking in Activity Centers and along corridors to be screened or concealed. Locate principal pedestrian entrances to new non -residential buildings on the sidewalk; any entrances from parking areas should be incidental or emergency use only.  Policy D-1-j: Lighting Standards. Update lighting standards to reflect best practices and protect adjoining uses from glare and spillover light.
 Policy D-2-a: Design Requirements for Gateways. Create unified design requirements for gateways to welcome travelers to the City’s Activity Centers.
 Policy D-3-c: Local Streets as Urban Parkways. Develop local streets as "urban parkways,” where appropriate, with landscaping and pedestrian spaces.
 Policy D-3-d: Undergrounding Utilities. Partner with utility companies to continue to pursue the undergrounding of overhead utilities as feasible.
 Policy D-4-a: Design Review for Large Buildings. Consider adopting and implementing a streamlined design review process for new construction and visible exterior alterations of large and significant multi- family, mixed- use and non-residential development.

Aesthetics Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.1-4 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
 Policy D-4-c: Appropriate Day and Night Activity. Promote new residential, commercial and related forms of development that foster both day and appropriate nighttime activity; visual presence on the street level; appropriate lighting; and minimally obstructed view areas.  Policy D-4-d: Design for Safety. Continue to involve the City’s Police Department in the development review process to ensure new buildings are designed with security and safety in mind.  Policy D-4-f: Design Compatibility with Residential Uses. Strive to ensure that all new non- residential land uses are developed and maintained in a manner complementary to and compatible with adjacent residential land uses, to minimize interface problems with the surrounding environment and to be compatible with public facilities and services.
 Policy D-4-g: Development Code Update for Design Concepts. Ensure that standards in the Development Code implement General Plan design concepts for each land use type.  Policy D-4-h: Metal Buildings. Promote the establishment of standards and guidelines for metal buildings to be acceptable and economical forms of structures.
 New buildings with metal walls or metal roofs shall be painted or have other appropriate finishes, as approved by the City; and
 Mechanical equipment shall be screened with parapet walls, mechanical wells, or other means. Roof vent color must match that of the roof. The distinctive pattern of ribs and joints in standing seam and other metal roofing materials should coordinate dimensionally with similar elements in exterior walls.  Policy D-5-a: Code Enforcement. Continue enforcement of the Fresno Municipal Code to remove or abate public nuisances in a timely manner.
 Policy D-5-b: Clean Streets. Promote community partnerships and continued City efforts toward litter clean -up and abatement of trash stockpiles on public and private streets.  Policy D-5-d: Graffiti Prevention and Abatement. Seek ways to end graffiti, continue and expand the City's effective Graffiti Abatement Program.
 Policy D-6-a: Consult with neighboring populations, including non-English speaking groups, to inform the architecture, landscape, programming, and interior design of City-owned facilities such as parks, offices, street lighting, and other visible features.
 Policy D-6-b: Consider adopting and implementing incentives for, and support efforts by, private development to incorporate culturally-specific architectural elements in areas with a predominant ethnic population.  Policy MT-3-b: Preserve street trees lining designated scenic corridors or boulevards. Replace trees of the predominant type and in a comparable pattern to existing plantings if there is no detriment to public safety .

City of Fresno Municipal Code
Zoning Ordinance
The City’s Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code) is intended to provide a guide for the physical development of the city in order to achieve the arrangement of land uses depicted in the approved g eneral plan, as well as implement goals, objectives, and policies of the approved general plan. Ordinance Section 15-904 provides site design development standards. Among the aspects of development regulated by the Municipal Code are types of allowable land uses, setback and height requirements, landscaping, landscape buffers, lighting and glare, walls, fencing, signage, access, parking requirements, storage areas, and trash enclosures.

Fresno Outdoor Lighting and Illumination Ordinance
The City’s Zoning Ordinance contains Article 20, General Site Regulations, which provides standards for outdoor lighting in an effort to minimize light pollution, glare, and light trespass caused by inappropriate or misaligned light fixtures, while improving nighttime public safety, utility, security, and preserving the night sky as a natural resource Ascent Environmental Aesthetics
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.1-5
and thus facilitating people’s enjoyment of stargazing. Article 25, Performance Standards, of the Zoning Ordinance includes standards related to lighting and glare.

Fresno Tree Preservation Ordinance
The City’s Zoning Ordinance contains Article 3.5, Street Trees and Parkways, which contains policies regarding the preservation of trees within city limits. The Ordinance requires the City to plant, maintain, protect, preserve, and to regulate the planting, maintaining, protecting and preserving of public trees and landscaping; to eliminate dangerous conditions caused by trees and shrubs that may result in injuries to persons or property; to protect all trees within the city against the spread of disease or pests, and to provide for the special protection of heritage and landmark trees within the city limits. This portion of Fresno’s Municipal Code implements a comprehensive permitting process for new and existing development and property owners and provides feasible alternatives and options to tree removal where practicable.

4.1.2 Environmental Setting

REGIONAL SETTING
The Plan Area is located in the south-central portion of the city, generally south of the urban Downtown core and surrounded by agriculture and rural residential uses to the southwest and southeast. The Downtown area includes high-rise buildings, civic/institutional buildings, and industrial warehouses. Land uses within the city vary in visual character and height, although most of the structures in the city are between one and three stories in height with some taller structures, especially in the Downtown. The surrounding suburbs contain low-rise neighborhood buildings that are primarily dominated by single-family residential uses. Heavy industrial uses dominate the Plan Area. The San Joaquin River, which runs along the northern border of the city, consists of varied topography along the bluff, and is recognized as a scenic visual resource (City of Fresno 2022). The overall topography of the area is relatively flat with no significant landforms, offering a limited view of the surrounding region such as the mountains to the east and the developed areas in the periphery.

SCENIC RESOURCES
Scenic resources are defined as natural or man-made elements that contribute to an area’s scenic value and are visually pleasing. Scenic resources include landforms, vegetation, water, and adjacent scenery. The degree to which these resources are present in a community and their scenic value is subject to personal and cultural interpretation.

However, it is possible to qualify certain resources as having positive aesthetic characteristics and establish general guidelines for assessing the aesthetic impacts of new development.

Scenic resources within the Plan Area include landscaped open space on private property as well as surrounding rural and agricultural lands. Currently there are no parks within the Plan Area. Historic buildings in Downtown Fresno are considered scenic resources and Man-made scenic resources provide a unique skyline that can be partially seen from the Plan Area.

A scenic vista is a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valu ed landscape for the public’s benefit and is often viewed from some distance away. Aesthetic components of a scenic vista include (1) scenic quality; (2) sensitivity level; and (3) view access. Typical scenic vistas are locations where views of rivers, hillsides, and open space areas are accessible from public vantage points (City of Fresno 2020). No part of the Plan Area is designated as a scenic vista.

Scenic Highways
A scenic highway is generally defined by Caltrans as a public highway that traverses an area of outstanding scenic quality, containing striking views, flora, geology, or other unique natural attributes. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler's enjoyment of the view.

Aesthetics Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.1-6 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
There are no officially designated state scenic highways located in the c ity of Fresno (City of Fresno 2022; Caltrans 2023b). Fresno County has four eligible State Scenic Highways, and the nearest eligible highway is located nort heast of the Plan Area along State Route 168 (approximately 3 miles northeast of the Plan Area) (Caltrans 2023b). The Plan Area is not visible from any of the eligible State Scenic Highways.

Scenic Corridors
A scenic corridor is the view from a roadway that may include a distant panorama and/or the immediate roadside area and encompass the outstanding natural features and landscapes that are considered scenic. The City’s G eneral Plan designates 12 roadway segments in the city as scenic corridors, none of which are located in the Plan Area. The nearest, Kearney Boulevard, is located approximately 1.4 miles northwest of the Plan Area. The Plan Area is not visible from Kearney Boulevard or any other designated scenic corridor.

VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE PLAN AREA
Visual quality is defined as the overall visual impression or attractiveness of an area as determined by the landscape characteristics, including landforms, rock forms, water features, and vegetation patterns. The attributes of line, form, and color combine in various ways to create landscape characteristics whose variety, vividness, coherence, uniqueness, harmony, and pattern contribute to the overall visual quality of an area.

Visual quality is assessed through determining the degree of vividness, unity, and intactness of the view :
 Vividness: the visual power or memorability of landscape components as they combine in striking or distinctive visual patterns.
 Unity: the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as a whole; it frequently attests to the careful design of individual components in the landscape.  Intactness: the visual integrity of the natural and human-built landscape and its freedom from encroaching, incongruous elements; this factor can be present in well-kept urban and rural landscapes, as well as in natural settings.

Additionally, views are rated based on viewer groups and sensitivity. Viewer groups include (1) motorists, such as those who are commuting, touring, or transporting goods on roadways, and (2) neighbors, such as those occupying residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Viewer sensitivity is affected by p roximity (i.e., the distance from the viewer to the scene), extent (i.e., number of viewers observing the scene), and duration (i.e., how long viewers spend looking at the scene).

The Plan Area consists primarily of industrial, agriculture, ponding basins, vacant land, and some residential. Large low-rise buildings with manufacturing, processing, and warehouse uses, as well as utility equipment and service yards, characterize the industrial area. Four single-family neighborhoods are located in the Plan Area; three along the northern border and one along the southern border. Rural residential and agricultural lands are located along the southern, southwest, and eastern perimeter.

Significant sources of light and glare throughout the Plan Area include streetlights, lighting within parking lots, interior lights from buildings, exterior lighting associated with industrial facilities, and light emitted from residential and non-residential buildings. Rural residential and agricultural areas are not characterized by significant sources of light and glare.

Representative Viewpoints
Six vantagepoints were chosen to represent publicly accessible views of the Plan Area and to characterize the visual environment. These viewpoints also serve as a basis for describing the kinds of aesthetic changes that would occur with implementation of development under the SCSP. It should be noted that these viewpoints are not intended to represent important views or specific visual characteristics, nor were they chosen to identify any specific development proposal or type. They are intended solely to depict the visual character and environment of the Plan Area and offer examples of how future development could appear. Descriptions of views from these viewpoints, as well as an assessment of visual quality and character of the views, are provided below. Viewpoint locations and photographs from each viewpoint are illustrated in Figures 4.1-1 and 4.1-2, respectively.

Ascent Environmental Aesthetics
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.1-7

Source: Image produced and provided by the City of Fresno, Adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2023.

Figure 4.1-1 Photograph Viewpoints

Aesthetics Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.1-8 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Viewpoint 1: Amazon Distribution Center (Looking West)
The area pictured in the view from Viewpoint 1 is located in a primarily industrial and rural portion of the Plan Area (Figure 4.1-2a, Viewpoint 1). The roads in this area are wide and bordered with sidewalks and landscaped strips. The building is a large, two-story Amazon distribution facility. A large employee parking lot is located along the eastern and southern perimeter and is visible along South Orange Avenue. Additionally, there are no scenic resources in the area. The visual character is newer industrial. Vividness is low because there are no distinct visual patterns or elements. The developed area has a moderate intactness because there is moderate visual order related to the building and landscape design’s mix with more industrial elements, such as the surrounding warehouses to the north and west, as well as graded vacant land to the east and south. The development has moderate unity because development has low contrast with less developed areas outside the Amazon facility. Therefore, this area has a moderately low visual quality. Viewers in this area include Amazon employees , delivery vehicle drivers, and commuters traveling through the area. Viewer sensitivity is therefore low.

Viewpoint 2: Ulta Warehouse Behind Berm (Looking North) Viewpoint 2 is from the manmade berm immediately southwest of the Ulta Warehouse at the corner of East Central Avenue and South Mary Avenue (Figure 4.1-2a, Viewpoint 2). This viewpoint is dominated by a vegetated berm, with some development noticeable on the horizon. Power lines, light poles, metal fencing, and the roadway add linear elements to the view. The area includes rural and agricultural lands interspersed with industrial development which is a visual characteristic associated with many portions of the Plan Area. There are no specific scenic resources in this area. Vividness is low because there are no distinct visual patterns or elements, and the existing warehouse is largely obstructed from view by intervening vegetation. These views have a moderately high intactness because encroaching elements of the roadway, light poles, sidewalk, and fence, along with landscaping along the berm are expected elements in a rural industrial area. The view has a moderately high unity because of the aligned nature of the linear elements and the minimal skyline, the boundary line between earth and sky, however the transmission line and light poles reduces its prominence. Therefore, this area has moderate visual quality. Typical viewers in the area of Viewpoint 2 include Ulta workers and visitors, commuters, delivery vehicle drivers, Orange Center Elementary School employees and students, and adjacent Daleville neighborhood residents. Typical viewers in this area include school employees and students. Viewer sensitivity is therefore moderate.

Viewpoint 3: Highspeed Rail (Looking West)
The elevated highspeed rail is visible and prominent along State Route (SR) 99 and neighboring frontage roads (Figure 4.1-2b, Viewpoint 3). Surrounding the highspeed rail is partially graded undeveloped land and a grass- covered hill in the background, which is the Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station. The visual character is largely industrial, though some undeveloped areas are visible, although it would not be considered a scenic resource.

Vividness is high due to the distinct visual patterns of the rail pillars. These views have moderate intactness because of the mix of patterns and intrusion on the landscape by elements such as the highspeed rail against the sky.

Likewise, there is moderate unity because of the mix of horizontal and vertical elements such as trees and a large berm associated with the Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station combined with modern development such as the highspeed rail. Therefore, this area has moderate visual quality. Typical viewers in this area include industrial workers and commuters. Viewer sensitivity is therefore moderate.

Viewpoint 4: Vacant Lot (Looking North)
Viewpoint 4 shows that of a vacant graded lot (Figure 4.1-2b, Viewpoint 4). The visual character is predominantly undeveloped and rural. Vividness is low because there are no distinct visual patterns or elements. This view has low unity because of the contrasting patterns of the horizontal rooflines, the angled alignment of the Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station (grass-covered hill, and the vertical telephone towers. This view has several visual intrusions that reduce the intactness to low, including a hill associated with the Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station that is not consistent with rural industrial areas and the disturbed soil. Additionally, there are no scenic resources in this area. Therefore, the visual quality is low. Viewers in this area include those driving along East Central Avenue and South Cedar Avenue, which includes local residences, commuters, and those driving for work. Views in this direction, however, would see the area for a short period because this view is of prominently flat land with few visual vertical elements. Visual sensitivity is therefore low.

Ascent Environmental Aesthetics
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.1-9

Source: Ascent Environmental in 2023.

Viewpoint 1: Amazon distribution center, looking west.

Source: Ascent Environmental in 2023.

Viewpoint 2: Ulta warehouse behind berm, looking north.

Figure 4.1-2a Representative Photographs of Plan Area

Aesthetics Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.1-10 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

Source: Ascent Environmental in 2023.

Viewpoint 3: Highspeed rail, looking west.

Source: Ascent Environmental in 2023.

Viewpoint 4: Vacant lot, looking north.

Figure 4.1-2b Representative Photographs of Plan Area

Ascent Environmental Aesthetics
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.1-11

Source: Ascent Environmental in 2023.

Viewpoint 5: Hotel/retail, looking south.

Source: Ascent Environmental in 2023.

Viewpoint 6: Agriculture solar array, looking east.

Figure 4.1-2c Representative Photographs of Plan Area

Aesthetics Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.1-12 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Viewpoint 5: Hotel/Retail (Looking South)
The area pictured in the view from Viewpoint 5 is located in one of the most urbanized portions of the Plan Area (Figure 4.1-2c, Viewpoint 5). The roads in this area are wide and bordered with sidewalks and landscaped strips. Most of the buildings are large and range from single-story to four-story structures grouped within a combined hotel/retail area. A paved driveway is visible on the bottom right side of the view. There are no scenic resources in this area. The development obscures long-range views of scenic resources including agricultural lands. The visual character is commercial. Vividness is low because there are no distinct visual patterns or elements. The developed area has a moderate intactness because there is moderate visual order related to the building and landscape design’s mix w ith more commercial elements, such as the vertical retail signs, light poles, and wide driveways. The development has moderate unity because development has low contrast with neighboring commercial development. Therefore, this area has a moderate visual quality. Viewers in this area include workers at the businesses, delivery vehicle drivers, commuters traveling through the area, consumers coming to purchase goods or services , and local residents. Viewer sensitivity is therefore moderate.

Viewpoint 6: Agriculture Solar Array (Looking East)
The viewpoint is dominated by a flat grassy field, a solar array, some development noticeable on the horizon, and on a clear day the scenic mountains are visible in the distance (Figure 4.1-2c, Viewpoint 6). Power lines, barbed wire fences, and a grouping of trees add linear elements to the view. The area pictured demonstrates rural and agricultural lands visual character, a considered scenic resource, associated with many intervening portions of the Plan Area. Vividness is low because there are no distinct visual patterns or elements. The view has a moderately high intactness because encroaching elements of the power lines and fencing are expected elements in a rural agricultural area. These views have a moderately high unity because of the aligned nature of the linear elements and the minimal skylining of the transmission line. Therefore, this area has moderate visual quality. Typical viewers in the area include commuters along West Central Avenue and South MLK Jr. Boulevard. Viewer sensitivity is therefore moderate.

LIGHT AND GLARE CONDITIONS
Views of the night sky can be an important part of the natural environment, particularly in communities surrounded by extensive open space. Light pollution refers to all forms of unwanted light in the night sky, including glare, light trespass, skyglow, and over-lighting. The terms “glare” and “skyglow” are used in this analysis to describe the visual effects of lighting. Glare is direct exposure to bright lights. Light that is either emitted directly upward by luminaires or reflected from the ground is scattered by dust and gas molecules in the atmosphere, producing a luminous background known as skyglow.

Existing sources of light and glare are uniformly present in the project vicinity. Existing sources of light include streetlights along project roadways; lights in parking lots, along walkways, and on the exteriors of buildings; lights associated with the railroad system; and interior lights in buildings.

Natural and artificial light reflect off various surfaces and can create localized occurrences of daytime and nighttime glare. Buildings and structures made with glass, metal, and polished exterior roofing materials exist throughout Fresno. In the Plan Area, light and glare are concentrated in the northern and central portions where commercial and industrial development are generally located. Limited lighting currently exists in rural residential and agricultural areas that are located throughout the southern portions of the Plan Area. Buildings and structures made with glass, metal, and polished exterior or roofing materials exist throughout the Plan Area. These surfaces, as well as the natural and manmade light sources, could result in localized glare.

Ascent Environmental Aesthetics
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.1-13

4.1.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
This section analyzes aesthetic impacts that would occur from implementation of the proposed plan. The visual resource analysis is based on field surveys, existing planning documents, and focused review of the extent of land use and density change associated with the proposed plan. The analysis focuses on whether the proposed plan would result in adverse effects to scenic vistas, scenic resources, or alteration of the visual characteristics and quality of the area, the scale or degree of which appears as a substantial obvious and disharmonious modification of the overall visual conditions of the project area. Additionally, the analysis considers whether introduction of new light and glare sources would adversely affect views.

The following information, in combination with the thresholds below, was used to determine whether implementing the proposed plan would create adverse visual effects:
 visual features or resources that make up and define the visual character of the viewsheds (the physiographic areas composed of land, water, biotic, and cultural elements that may be viewed and mapped from one or more viewpoints and that have inherent scenic qualities and/or aesthetic values as determined by those who view them),  quality of the identified visual resources relative to overall regional visual character, and  major viewer groups and viewer exposure.

PROPOSED SCSP POLICIES
The following policies from the proposed plan relate to protection of visual resources.  Policy GB-1: Require buffers between new industrial development and existing neighborhoods.  Policy GB-2: Require the installation of solid barriers or vegetative buffers between emissions sources and schools, daycares, medical offices, and homes.
 Policy GB-4: Create a Green Street Tree Planting Program, prioritizing areas with few trees.  Policy GB-5: Coordinate with Tree Fresno on a Community Landscapes Plan.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
An impact on aesthetics would be significant if implementation of the proposed plan would:
 have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
 substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway;
 in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings and in an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; or
 create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
All issues applicable to aesthetics listed under the significance thresholds above are addressed in this section.

Aesthetics Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.1-14 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.1-1: Result in a Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista Implementation of the proposed plan would result in additional industrial, commercial, and to a lesser degree, residential development and supporting infrastructure in the Plan Area. New development would be visually consistent with existing uses in the Plan Area. As noted above, there are no designated scenic vistas in the Plan Area so no adverse effect would result. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

No part of the Plan Area is designated as a scenic vista by the City of Fresno General Plan. Some areas within the southern portion of the Plan Area contain undeveloped areas of agriculture and could be considered picturesque and visually pleasing. However, despite the rural characteristics of the southern portion of the Plan Area, there are no unique or distinguishing features that would qualify it for designation as a scenic vista.

The Plan Area is partially visible from SR 99. Because the topography of the Plan Area is relatively flat and SR 99 is at a similar elevation as the surrounding area, views from SR 99 are primarily limited to the more developed and urbanized portions of the Plan Area. More specifically, views from SR 99 primarily consist of uses located immediately adjacent to the freeway. The Plan Area is not identified as having scenic vistas and expansive views across the Plan Area are limited due to intervening structures and relatively flat and consistent topography of the area. Therefore, potential impacts of the proposed project on scenic vistas would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 4.1-2: Damage Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway Development under the proposed plan would not occur along an eligible or designated state scenic highway, and no project components would be visible from any designated or eligible state scenic highway. Consequently, development under the proposed plan would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Therefore, there would be no impact.

As stated in Section 4.1.2, there are no officially designated state scenic highways within or in the vicinity of the project area, nor anywhere in Fresno County. The nearest eligible state highway is located approximately 8 miles northeast of the Plan Area along State Route 168, which does not provide visibility to the Plan Area (Caltrans 2023b).

Thus, no impact to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur with implementation of the Project.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Impact 4.1-3: Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of Public Views of the Site and Its Surroundings
Implementation of the proposed plan would facilitate future development and result in a substantial alteration to the existing visual character and quality of the Plan Area. Specifically, implementation of the proposed plan would result in increases of densities and intensification primarily of industrial and commercial land uses within the Plan Area.

Substantial changes in the existing visual character would result in a significant impact.

Implementation of the proposed plan would result in a substantial amount of development within the Plan Area. Of the 5,567-acre Plan Area available for development, approximately 3,693 acres is developed as industrial, commercial, and other land uses, and approximately 1,874 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 open space, farmland, and vacant areas would be developed. As such, planned development would replace existing rural, Ascent Environmental Aesthetics
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.1-15
agricultural, and open space uses, which would substantially alter the visual character within the Plan Area—and views of the Plan Area from surrounding lands—through the increase of densities and intensification of land uses.

Implementation of the proposed plan would marginally decrease the overall visual quality in terms of vividness, unity, and intactness. However, proposed development would be generally visually consistent with the existing development, and motorists, possibly the largest viewer group, would have fleeting views resulting in lower sensitivity.

Various temporary visual impacts could occur as a result of construction activities as the Plan Area develops, including grading, equipment and material storage, and staging. Some of these impacts could last for several weeks or months during any single construction phase. The loss of existing landscaping and trees would also be a temporary impact until new landscaping matures. However, these construction -related impacts would be temporary and viewer sensitivity in the majority of cases would be slight to moderate. Thus, construction impacts would be less than significant.

The southern portion of the Plan Area is generally more rural and less developed while more developed portions of the Plan Area are along SR 99 and the northwestern portion of the Plan Area. The proposed p lan would result in the conversion of undeveloped land to urban uses, which may contribute to changes in the regional landscape and visual character of the area. In order to reduce visual impacts, development within the Plan Area is required to be consiste nt with the General Plan, Fresno Zoning Ordinance, and the proposed plan, which includes development standards to ensure quality and cohesive design. These standards include specifications for building height, massing, and orientation; exterior lighting standards and specifications; and landscaping standards. Implementation of the design standards are intended to promote quality design throughout the Plan Area, and result in development that would be internally cohesive while maintaining an aesthetic quality similar to surrounding uses. Many of the parcels identified for development are already planned for development in the General Plan or contain existing urbanized land uses. Thus, redevelopment of an existing developed or urbanized site would not conflict with zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality.

Overall, the loss of vacant and open space land in the Plan Area will change the visual character of the area in perpetuity, resulting in the conversion of mainly fallow ground to permanently erect structures, and thereby degrading the visual character and quality. Compliance with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, and implementation of the proposed plan’s development regulations would reduce visual impacts to the extent feasible.

Although the implementation of the proposed plan guiding principles and policies would reduce the potential impacts to visual character from locations within and outside the Plan Area, the replacement of rural and agricultural land with urban land uses would result in a substantial alteration of the visual character of the Plan Area. Therefore, the impact on the visual character of the Plan Area would be significant.

Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation measures are available to substantially reduce the impact.

Significance after Mitigation
The potential visual character impacts as a result of proposed future development cannot be mitigated to less than significant. Therefore, the impact on the existing visual character would be significant and unavoidable.

Impact 4.1-4: Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare Which Would Adversely Affect Day or Nighttime Views
The proposed plan would facilitate future development and would introduce new sources of light and glare associated with new buildings and facilities. Although residential development is limited in the Plan Area and the SCSP proposes relatively little residential development that could be affected by additional light and glare, such lighting could nonetheless contribute to indirect lighting/glare on adjacent land uses that could adversely affect daytime or nighttime views and result in additional skyglow. This impact would be significant.

Aesthetics Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.1-16 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Light
Development under the proposed plan could increase the amount of light from streetlights, exterior lighting systems on private and public property, exterior lighting from buildings, and vehicular headlights. The increase in lighting could also result in light spillover onto adjacent properties located outside the Plan Area. New urban development would substantially alter the light exposure within existing rural and agricultural areas. Examples of potential causes of increased light exposure include lighting systems associated with new development and roads; lighting on properties to provide safety and security; lighting associated with public facilities; increases in nighttime traffic that would increase lighting from car headlights. Therefore, new development facilitated by the proposed plan would increase the amount of light that could cause light spillover onto adjacent properties within and adjacent to the Plan Area, as well as and increase the illumination of the sky at night. Future development would be required to comply with the lighting standards established in the City Municipal Code (Article 25, Performance Standards) , as well as proposed Specific Plan policy L-1, which incorporates measures such as shielding or dimming to reduce outdoor lighting impacts. However, due to the anticipated increase in new development, the increase in light illumination within the Plan Area is still considered a
significant impact.

Glare
New development under the SCSP would increase the number of structures that could create new sources of glare within the Plan Area and directly adjacent to the Plan Area. New potential sources of glare include materials used on building facades, parking lots, signs, roadway surfaces, and motor vehicles. Sources of glare are typical of urban environments and future development would add to the existing sources. Within the rural and agricultural areas, there are limited sources of glare. The primary sources of glare in the Plan Area would occur from vertical structures such as building facades and signs and implementation of the SCSP would result in substantial new sources . Future development would be required to comply with the glare standards established in the City Municipal Code (Article 25, Performance Standards). However, because the increase in new development would be substantial, the increase in glare within the Plan Area would be a
significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 4.1-1: Use Nonreflective Materials
To reduce the potential for glare from new and redeveloped buildings and structures within the Plan Area, the Preliminary and Final Design Review plan(s) for all future projects in the Plan Area shall show that the use of reflective building materials that have the potential to result in glare that would be visible from sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the project sites is prohibited. The City of Fresno Planning and Development Department shall ensure that the approved project uses appropriate building materials with low reflectivity to minimize poten tial glare nuisance to off-site receptors. These requirements shall be included in future project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Fresno.

Mitigation Measure 4.1-2: Prepare a Lighting Plan
A lighting plan for all future projects in the Plan Area subject to section 15 -2508 and section 15-2015 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code shall be prepared prior to approval of each project. The lighting plan shall demonstrate that the lighting systems and other exterior lighting throughout the project area have been designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties to the greatest extent feasible, consiste nt with section 15-2508, Lighting and Glare and section 15-2015, Outdoor Lighting and Illumination of the City of Fresno Municipal Code. Use of LED lighting or other proven energy efficient lighting shall be required for facilities to be dedicated to the C ity of Fresno for maintenance. These requirements shall be included in future project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Fresno.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 would reduce the potential for substantial glare from development under the SCSP because it would prohibit use of reflective materials that have the potential to adversely affect sensitive receptors in the vicinity of specific projects. This prohibition would be included in project plans, which would be Ascent Environmental Aesthetics
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.1-17
reviewed and approved by the City of Fresno. Therefore, with implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 would reduce the potential for substantial light spillage and light pollution from development under the SCSP because it would require preparation and implementation of a lighting plan for future projects that demonstrates that lighting has been designed to minimize such spillage in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code. The lighting plans would be reviewed and approved by the City of Fresno. Therefore, with implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Aesthetics Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.1-18 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

Ascent Environmental Agriculture and Forestry Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.2-1

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
This section describes applicable regulations and existing environmental conditions relative to agricultur al resources in the Plan Area and the surroundings, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance. 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 significant or potentially significant impacts. As discussed in Chapter 3, “Project Description,” approximately 3,693 acres of the 5,567-acre Plan Area are developed as industrial, commercial, and other land uses and approximately 1,874 acres is open space ,farmland, and vacant. An estimated 700 acres of the Plan Area would 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 open space, farmland, and vacant areas would be developed. Therefore, t his section also addresses the potential for implementation of the SCSP to result in the conversion of agricultural lands to other uses.

The Plan Area does not contain forestry resources, nor is any portion of it zoned forestland (as defined by PRC Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section51104[g]).

Comments regarding the Right-to-Farm ordinance and impacts related to conversion of farmland were received during the NOP comment period and are addressed in this section of the EIR.

4.2.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
Farmland Protection Policy Act
The Natural Resources Conservation Service, a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is the agency primarily responsible for the implementation of the Farmland Protection Policy Act. The purpose of the Farmland Protection Policy Act is to minimize federal programs’ contribution to the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses by ensuring that federal programs are administered in a manner that is compatible with state, local, and private programs designed to protect farmland. The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides technical assistance to federal agencies, state, and local governments; tribes or non -profit organizations that desire to develop farmland protection programs and policies.

STATE
California Public Resources Code
The California Public Resources Code contains the following definitions for forest land, timberland, and prime agricultural land that are applicable to the proposed project. “Forest land” is defined in PRC Section 12220(g) as:
land that can support 10% native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. “Timberland” is defined in PRC Section 4526 as:
land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis after consultation with the district committees and others.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

4.2-2 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
“Timberland Production Zone” is defined in Government Code Section 51104(g) as:
an area which has been zoned pursuant to Section 51112 or 51113 and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, as defined in subdivision (h). With respect to the general plans of cities and counties, “timberland preserve zone” means “timberland production zone.”
“Prime Agricultural Land” is defined in Government Code Section 51201 as:
an area of land, whether single parcel or contiguous parcels, that has not been developed for a use other than an agricultural use and that meets any of the following qualifications:
 Land that qualifies, if irrigated, for rating as class I or class II in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification, whether or not land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible.  Land that qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Rating.  Land that supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber that has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the USDA .  Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops that have a nonbearing period of less than five years and that will return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than $200.00 dollars per acre.  Land that has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than $200.00 dollars per acre for three of the previous five calendar years.

California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Important Farmland in California is classified and mapped according to the California Department of Conservation’s (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). Authority for the FMMP comes from Government Code Section 65570(b) and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 612. Government Code Section 65570(b) requires the Department of Conservation to collect or acquire information on the amount of land converted to or from agricultural use for every mapped county and to report this information to the Le gislature. PRC Section 612 requires DOC to prepare, update, and maintain Important Farmland Series Maps and other soils and land capability information. The FMMP categories are defined as follows:
 Prime Farmland (P): This land category has the best combination of physical and chemical features for sustaining long-term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce crops with sustained high yields. The land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date.  Farmland of Statewide Importance (S): This category is similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings (e.g., greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture). The land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date.  Unique Farmland (U): This category consists of lesser quality soils used for the production of the State’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards. The land must have been cropped at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date.  Farmland of Local Importance (L): This land category is important to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s Board of Supervisors and a local advisory committee.  Grazing Land (G): This type of land is occupied with vegetation suited to grazing livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattleman’s Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities. The minimum mapping unit is 40 acres.  Urban and Built-Up Land (D): This type of land is occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel. Common examples include residential, Ascent Environmental Agriculture and Forestry Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.2-3
industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures.
 Other Land (X): This type of land is not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low - density rural developments, brush, timber wetland, riparian area not suitable for livestock grazing, and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and non- agricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development that is greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.
 Water (W): This classification includes perennial water bodies with an extent of at least 40 acres.  Optional Designation – Land Committed to Non-Agricultural Use: This type of land is defined as existing farmland, grazing land, and vacant areas, which have a permanent commitment for development.

The California Land Conservation Act of 1965
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or Williamson Act, preserves agricultural and open space lands through property tax incentives and voluntary restrictive use contracts. Private landowners voluntarily restrict their land to agricultural and compatible open-space uses under minimum 10-year rolling term contracts. In return, restricted parcels are assessed for property tax purposes at a rate consistent with their actual use, rather than potential market value.

Farmland Security Zones
In 1998 the state legislature established the Farmland Security Zone (FSZ) program. FSZs are similar to Williamson Act contracts, in that the intention is to protect farmland from conversion. The main difference, however, is that the FSZ must be designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance. The term of the contract is a minimum of 20 years. The property owners are offered an incentive of greater property tax reductions when compared to the Williamson Act contract tax incentives; the incentives were developed to encourage conservation of prime farmland through FSZs. The non- renewal and cancellation procedures are similar to those for Williamson Act contracts. The Plan Area and the immediately adjacent parcels are not within the FSZ program.

LOCAL
City of Fresno General Plan
Policies in the City of Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno 2014) emphasize preservation of farmland by incentivizing new development within and adjacent to already-urbanized land, only extending public utilities to new development that adheres to the plan, and not expanding the City’s sphere of influence. The Resource C onservation and Resilience Element of the General Plan also addresses the broader planning issues of farmland preservation, and t he Urban Form, Land Use, and Design Element of the General Plan establishes a permanent buffer designed to separate and preserve long-term agriculture to the east and outside SOI boundary from urban uses to the west inside the SOI boundary. The following objective and policies related to agricultural resources are applicable to the proposed plan :

Objective RC-9. Preserve agricultural land outside of the area planned for urbanization under this General Plan.  Policy RC-9-a: Regional Cooperation. Work to establish a cooperative research and planning program with the Counties of Fresno and Madera, City of Clovis, and other public agencies to conserve agricultural land resources.  Policy RC-9-b: Unincorporated Land in the Planning Area. Express opposition to residential and commercial development proposals in unincorporated areas within or adjacent to the Planning Area when these proposals would do any of the following:
 Make it difficult or infeasible to implement the General Plan;  Contribute to the premature conversion of agricultural, open space, or grazing lands; or  Constitute a detriment to the management of resources and/or facilities important to the region (such as air quality, water quantity and quality, traffic circulation, and riparian habitat).

Agriculture and Forestry Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

4.2-4 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
 Policy RC-9-c: Farmland Preservation Program. In coordination with regional partners or independently, establish a Farmland Preservation Program. When Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance is converted to urban uses outside City limits, this program would require that t he developer of such a project mitigate the loss of such farmland consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The Farmland Preservation Program shall provide several mitigation options that may include, but are not limited to the following: Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, Land Use Regulation, or any other mitigation method that is in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. The Farmland Preservation Program may be modeled after some or all of the programs descr ibed by the California Council of Land Trusts.

City of Fresno Zoning Ordinance
The City’s Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code) (City of Fresno 2023) is intended to provide a guide for the physical development of the city in order to achieve the arrangement of land uses depicted in the approved General Plan, as well as implement goals, objectives, and policies of the approved General Plan.

4.2.2 Environmental Setting
Agriculture is a major activity within the undeveloped portions of Fresno County. Although portions of the Plan Area are located within the City of Fresno Sphere of Influence (SOI), it is immediately adjacent to active agricultural operations in Fresno County. Fresno County has approximately 1.88 million acres of farmland and is considered one of the most diverse and productive farming areas in the world. According to the 2020 Fresno County Crop Report, published by the Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, the gross value of Fresno County’s agricultural production for 2020 was approximately $7.9 billion. That value rose in 2021 to over $8.08 billion, becoming one of the top three agricultural producing counties in California and the nation. Almonds are the County’s leading commodity, with grapes having the second highest total gross value (County of Fresno 2021).

Plan Area
Approximately 61 percent of the land within the Plan Area is developed while the other 39 percent is Farmland (DOC 2023). The Plan Area has approximately 975 acres of Prime Farmland, approximately 7 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, 0 acres of Unique Farmland, and approximately 538 acres of Farmland of Local Importance.

Approximately 153 acres are under Williamson Act contracts, as shown in Figure 4.2-1, and are zoned exclusive and limited agricultural land use districts per the County of Fresno’s zoning ordinance (County of Fresno 2023). Of the 153 acres, approximately 98 acres are enrolled as Prime Agriculture Land, and 55 acres are enrolled as Nonprime Agriculture Land. Figure 4.2-2 shows the farmland classifications within the Plan Area. The Farmland of Statewide Importance, Farmland of Local Importance, Vacant or Disturbed Land, Rural Residential Land, Confined Animal Agriculture, and Semi-agriculture and Rural Commercial Land areas are mainly scattered throughout the southern, western, and eastern portions of the Plan Area (DOC 2023).

Adjacent Land Uses
Surrounding lands include unincorporated Fresno County to the southwest, south, and southeast of the Plan Area, with incorporated areas of the City of Fresno to the west, north, and east. The unincorporated areas of Fresno County include limited and exclusive agriculture (Williamson Act contract), heavy industrial, light manufacturing, and single- family residential land uses. Lands north of the Plan Area in the City of Fresno include single-family residential, commercial, and public and institutional land uses. These areas are primarily categorized as Urban and Built-Up Land by the FMMP, with Prime Farmland mainly to the south and west (City of Fresno 2022). Figure 4.2-2 also shows the farmland classifications for lands surrounding the Plan Area.

Ascent Environmental Agriculture and Forestry Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.2-5

Source: Data downloaded from DOC in 2023.

Figure 4.2-1 Williamson Act Contract Lands

Agriculture and Forestry Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

4.2-6 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

Source: 2018 Fresno County data downloaded from DOC in 2020.

Figure 4.2-2 FMMP Farmland Designations

Ascent Environmental Agriculture and Forestry Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.2-7

4.2.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
State and local mapping of farmland and forest land was used to identify the potential for resources within the Plan Area. Evaluation of impacts of the proposed plan was based on a review of the following:
 City of Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno 2014);
 Fresno General Plan Public Review Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (City of Fresno 2020);  Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (DOC 2023); and  Fresno County Crop Report (County of Fresno 2021).

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
An impact on agriculture and forestry resources would be significant if implementation of the proposed plan would:
 convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use;
 conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract;  conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g));  result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; or  involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Issues Not Discussed Further
Forestland and Timberland Production Zones
There are no forestland and timberland production zones within, or in proximity to, the P lan Area, and implementation of the plan would have no impact on these lands. Therefore, no further analysis is required by CEQA.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.2-1: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to Non-agricultural Use
Implementation of the proposed plan would accommodate development of additional industrial, commercial, and a small amount of residential land uses. While the locations of specific developments cannot be known at this time, it is likely that development would result in conversion of existing Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. The conversion of existing Farmland to non-agricultural use would result in a significant impact.

As stated in Section 4.2.2, above, there are approximately 982 acres of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance scattered primarily throughout the western, southern, and eastern portions of the Plan Area. The majority of the Plan Area is designated as Urban Built-Up land (approximately 3,769 acres). Land uses surrounding the Plan Area consist of primarily agricultural use to the south, southeast, and southwest, with residential, commercial, and industrial uses to the north, northeast, and northwest of the Plan Area. Implementation of the proposed plan would Agriculture and Forestry Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

4.2-8 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
result in some level of conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance within the Plan Area to developed acreage, including for business, commercial, industrial, residential, open space, and public facility uses, as described in Chapter 3, “Project Description.” Because future development would result in the loss of important farmlands to non-agricultural uses, this impact would be significant.

Additionally, the proposed project would comply with the General Plan, which includes several policies intended to protect agricultural uses in the City. Policy RC-9-a directs the City to work with the Counties of Fresno and Madera, the City of Clovis, and other public agencies to conserve agricultural land resources. Additionally, Policy RC-9-b defines when residential and commercial development on unincorporated agricultural land should be prohibited, and Policy RC-9-c describes implementation of the Farmland Preservation Program (FPP).

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1: Preserve Farmland
In compliance with General Plan Policy RC-9-c, until the City’s Farmland Preservation Program is implemented, future development that would convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the Plan Area shall be analyzed on a project-by-project basis at the time a project application is submitted. Project proponents shall mitigate the loss at a 1:1 ratio. One of the following mitigation options shall be utilized to mitigate the loss: Restrictive Covenants or Deeds, In Lieu Fees, Mitigation Banks, Fee Title Acquisition, Conservation Easements, Land Use Regulation, or other feasible mitigation. The mitigation shall be verified by the City of Fresno for each such project during improvement plan review.

Significance after Mitigation
While implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 would reduce the above-identified impact through preservation of agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio, the impact would not be reduced to a less-than-significant level because important farmland would still be permanently converted to urban uses. Feasible mitigation measures do not exist to reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact 4.2-2: Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract The plan area includes lands outside the Fresno city limits, in unincorporated Fresno County, but within the City’s SOI.

While no lands within the City of Fresno are under Williamson Act contracts, approximately 153 acres within the SOI are so enrolled. Although no proposals for annexation have been submitted (and none are assessed as part of the SCSP), implementation of the proposed plan is likely to result in conversion of existing Farmland s that are enrolled in Williamson Act contracts to non-agriculture uses. Therefore, this impact would be significant.

Approximately 153 acres of the Plan Area outside the existing City limits but within the City’s SOI are under the Williamson Act contracts, approximately 98 acres of which are enrolled as Prime Agriculture Land and 55 acres as Nonprime. The approximately 153 acres are currently classified as within exclusive and limited agriculture land use districts per the County of Fresno’s zoning ordinance (County of Fresno 2023). Implementation of the proposed plan would result in substantial development within the Plan Area. Of the 5,567-acre Plan Area available for development, approximately 3,693 acres is developed as industrial, commercial, and other land uses, and approximately 1, 874 acres is open space, farmland, and vacant. Approximately 700 acres of the Plan Area would be developed with non - residential uses, primarily industrial, by the year 2040. While it is not possible to identify precisely where and when future development would occur, it is reasonable to assume that agricultural areas under Williamson Act contract s would be developed. Compliance with General Plan Objective RC-9 and Policies RC-9-a through RC-9-c are intended to limit the premature conversion of agricultural land within the Plan Area. Although compliance with the aforementioned policies may reduce impacts to agricultural resources on land under Williamson Act contracts, future development of such lands could occur. Because future development could result in conflict with a Williamson Act contract and no feasible mitigation is available, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Ascent Environmental Agriculture and Forestry Resources City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.2-9
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is available.

Impact 4.2-3: Involve Other Changes in the Existing Environment That Would Lead to the Abandonment of Agricultural Operations and Conversion of Farmland or Forest Land to Non- Agricultural or Non-Forest Land Use
The proposed plan would result in the conversion of farmland and designated agricultural land into non- agricultural use. However, the proposed plan would not result in other changes in the existing environment other than those discussed under Impacts 4.2-1 and 4.2-2. Therefore, impacts would be considered less than significant.

As discussed in Impact 4.2-1, future development in accordance with the proposed plan would result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. Except for direct conversion, implementation of the proposed plan would not result in other changes in the existing environment that would adversely affect agricultural land outside of the Plan Area. Although the proposed plan would result in conversion of land to urban uses, it would not necessarily contribute to the same occurring outside of the Plan Area because the land outside of the Plan Area is within the County and outside the City’s SOI and growth boundary.

In addition, Fresno County’s Right to Farm Ordinance is intended to reduce the occurrence of such conflicts between nonagricultural and agricultural land uses between the County of Fresno and the City of Fresno by requiring the transferor of any property in the County to provide a disclosure statement describing that the County permits agricultural operations. Projects outside of the Plan Area that are compliant with the County’s Right to Farm Ordinance would be required to buffer project uses from adjacent agricultural uses to reduce adverse effects on such uses. Because the proposed plan would not result in other changes that would lead to the abandonment of agricultural operations or the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural land uses, impacts would be less than
significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources Ascent Environmental City of Fresno

4.2-10 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
This page intentionally left blank.

Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.3-1

4.3 AIR QUALITY
This section includes a discussion of existing air quality conditions, a summary of applicable regulations, and an analysis of potential construction and operational air quality impacts resulting from anticipated development in the Plan Area. Mitigation is developed as necessary to reduce significant air quality impacts to the extent feasible.

Comments pertaining to air quality were received during the NOP scoping process from the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), and the California Department of Justice. CARB provided information pertaining to the regulations it oversees t hat govern sources of air pollution within the state, emphasized the importance of the existing environment within the vicinity of the P lan Area as a heavily pollution–burdened community, and recommended that a health risk assessment (HRA) be prepared for the proposed plan. SJVAPCD similarly commented on the existing conditions within the Plan Area and provided information pertaining to its recommended CEQA guidance including proposed measures that may be applicable.

The existing character of the Plan Area as it relates to air pollution is discussed throughout this analysis. The potential effects from exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) is qualitatively evaluated under Impact 4.3 -3; because no specific developments are known or proposed at this time, an HRA was not prepared for the construction or operation of the proposed plan. Estimates as to the nature, location, size, and other characteristics of future development would be speculative. The contribution of emissions to the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) from anticipated development and recommended mitigation measures are discussed in Section 4.3.3, “Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures.”

4.3.1 Regulatory Setting
Air quality in the Plan Area is regulated through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, planning, policymaking, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for improving the air quality within th e air basins are discussed below.

FEDERAL
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been charged with implementing national air quality programs.

EPA’s air quality mandates draw primarily from the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), which was enacted in 1970. The most recent major amendments were made by Congress in 1990. EPA’s air quality efforts address both criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).

Criteria Air Pollutants
The CAA required EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) for six common air pollutants found all over the United States, referred to as criteria air pollutants. EPA has established primary and secondary NAAQS for the following criteria air pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM 10) and fine particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 or less (PM2.5), and lead. Criteria air pollutants are compounds that, at certain concentrations, can cause harm to human and animal health and the environment. Extensive scientific and economic research has been conducted to evaluate the specific concentrations where th ese pollutants may cause harm to health and environment and are reflected in EPA’s NAAQS, which are shown in Table 4.3-1. The primary standards protect public health, and the secondary standards protect public welfare. The CAA also required each state to prepare a state implementation plan (SIP) for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. EPA is responsible f or reviewing all SIPs to determine whether they conform to the mandates of the CAA and its amendments, and whether implementation will achieve air quality goals. If EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, EPA may prepare a federal implementation plan that imposes Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.3-2 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
additional control measures. If an approvable SIP is not submitted or implemented within the mandated time frame, sanctions may be applied to transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin.

Table 4.3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time California (CAAQS)a,b
National (NAAQS)c
Primaryb,d Secondaryb,e
Ozone
1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) –e
Same as primary standard
8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3) 0.070 ppm (147 μg/m3)
Carbon monoxide
(CO)
1-hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)
Same as primary standard
8-hour 9 ppmf (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)
Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2)
Annual arithmetic mean 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) 53 ppb (100 μg/m3) Same as primary standard 1-hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) 100 ppb (188 μg/m3) —
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
24-hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) — —
3-hour — — 0.5 ppm (1300 μg/m3)
1-hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) 75 ppb (196 μg/m3) —
Respirable particulate
matter (PM10)
Annual arithmetic mean 20 μg/m3 —
Same as primary standard
24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
Fine particulate
matter (PM2.5)
Annual arithmetic mean 12 μg/m3 9.0 μg/m3 15.0 μg/m3
24-hour — 35 μg/m3 Same as primary standard
Lead f
Calendar quarter — 1.5 μg/m3 Same as primary standard
30-Day average 1.5 μg/m3 — —
Rolling 3-Month Average – 0.15 μg/m3 Same as primary standard Hydrogen sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3)
No
national
standards
Sulfates 24-hour 25 μg/m3
Vinyl chloride f 24-hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3)
Visibility-reducing
particulate matter
8-hour Extinction of 0.23 per km
Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; km = kilometers; ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million. a California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, SO2 (1- and 24-hour), NO2, particulate matter, and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. b Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based on a reference temperature of 25 degrees Celsius (°C) and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
c National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. The PM 10 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. The PM2.5 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the US Environmental Protection Agency for further clarification and current federal policies. d National primary standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. e National secondary standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
f C ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold of exposure for adverse health effects determined.

These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

Source: CARB 2016.

Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.3-3
California’s SIP is updated periodically to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. The current SIP is a compilation of plans and regulations that govern how the region and state will comply with the CAA requirements to attain and maintain the NAAQS for ozone and PM

2.5. Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and EPA set the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to improve the average fuel economy and reduce exhaust pollution generated by cars and light duty trucks. The CAFE standards have been enacted under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act since 1978. This national program requires automobile manufacturers to build a single light-duty national fleet that meets all requirements under both federal programs and the standards of California and other states. The purpose of this program is to increase fuel economy and limit vehicle emissions, including carbon dioxide emissions, of cars and light-duty trucks (77 Federal Register 62630).

EPA has established several emissions standards for on- and off-road heavy-duty diesel engines used in trucks and other equipment. This was done in part because diesel engines are a significant source of oxides of nitrogen (NO X),
PM10, and PM2.5, and because the EPA has identified diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) as a probable carcinogen.

Implementation of the heavy-duty diesel on-road vehicle standards and the non-road diesel engine standards are estimated to reduce particulate matter and NOX emissions from diesel engines up to 95 percent in 2030 when the heavy-duty vehicle fleet is completely replaced with newer heavy-duty vehicles that comply with these emission standards.

In concert with the diesel engine emission standards, EPA regulations have also substantially reduced the amount of sulfur allowed in diesel fuels. The sulfur contained in diesel fuel is a significant contributor to the formation of particulate matter in diesel-fueled engine exhaust. The new standards reduced the amount of sulfur allowed by 97 percent for highway diesel fuel (from 500 parts per million by weight [ppmw] to 15 ppmw), and by 99 percent for off- highway diesel fuel (from about 3,000 ppmw to 15 ppmw). The low sulfur highway fuel (15 ppmw sulfur), also called ultra-low sulfur diesel is currently required for use by all vehicles in the United States. All the aforementioned federal diesel engine and diesel fuel requirements have been adopted by California, in some cases with modifications making the requirements more stringent or the implementation dates sooner.

Hazardous Air Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs, or in federal parlance, HAPs, are a defined set of airborne pollutants that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations.

A wide range of sources, from industrial plants to motor vehicles, emit TACs. The health effects associated with TACs are diverse and generally are assessed locally, rather than regionally due to their dispersive properties (i.e., TAC concentrations disperse through the air and reduce with increasing distance from the source) . TACs can cause long- term health effects such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, bronchitis, or genetic damage; or short-term acute effects such as eye watering, respiratory irritation (a cough), running nose, throat pain, and headaches.

For evaluation purposes, TACs are separated into carcinogens and non-carcinogens based on the nature of the physiological effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. Carcinogens are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur. This contrasts with criteria air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which the ambient standards have been established (Table 4.3-1). Cancer risk from TACs is expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals, typically over a lifetime of exposure.

EPA regulates HAPs through its National Emission Standards for HAPs. The standards for a particular source category require the maximum degree of emission reduction that the EPA determines to be achievable, which is known as the Maximum Achievable Control Technology—MACT standards. These standards are authorized by Section 112 of the 1970 CAA and the regulations are published in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 61 and 63.

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.3-4 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
STATE
California Air Resources Board
CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The CCAA, which was adopted in 1988, required CARB to establish California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) (see Table 4.3-1).

Criteria Air Pollutants
CARB has established CAAQS for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, visibility- reducing particulate matter, and the above-mentioned federally regulated criteria air pollutants. In most cases the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS. Differences in the standards are generally explained by the health effects studies considered during the standard-setting process and the interpretation of the studies. In addition, the CAAQS incorporate a margin of safety to protect sensitive individuals.

The CCAA requires that all local air districts in the state endeavor to attain and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest date practical. The CCAA specifies that local air districts should focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and areawide emission sources. It also provides air districts with the authority to regulate stationary and indirect sources, such as vehicle movement and residential, commercial, and industrial development.

Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs in California are regulated primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807, Chapter 1047, Statutes of 1983) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (Hot Spots Act) (AB 2588, Chapter 1252, Statutes of 1987). AB 1807 sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Research, public participation, and scientific peer review are required before CARB can designate a substance as a TAC. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs and adopted EPA’s list of HAPs as TACs. Most recently in 1998, diesel PM was added to CARB’s list of TACs.

After a TAC is identified, CARB then adopts an airborne toxics control measure for sources that emit that particular TAC. If a safe threshold exists for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If no safe threshold exists, the measure must incorporate best available control technology (BACT) for toxics to minimize emissions.

The Hot Spots Act requires that existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a specified level prepare an inventory of toxic emissions, prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant, notify the public of significant risk levels, and prepare and implement risk reduction measures.

CARB has adopted diesel exhaust control measures and more stringent emissions standards for various transportation-related mobile sources of emissions, including transit buses, and off-road diesel equipment (e.g., tractors, generators). Over time, the replacement of older vehicles will result in a vehicle fleet that produces substantially lower levels of TACs than under current conditions. Mobile-source emissions of TACs (e.g., benzene, 1-3- butadiene, diesel PM) have been reduced significantly over the last decade and will be reduced further in California through a progression of regulatory measures (e.g., Low Emission Vehicle/Clean Fuels and Phase II reformulated gasoline regulations) and control technologies. With implementation of CARB’s Risk Reduction Plan and other regulatory programs, it is estimated that by 2035, emissions of diesel PM will be less than half of those in 2010 (CARB 2023a). CARB’s 2022 Advanced Clean Fleets regulation will also lead to reduction in diesel PM through the transition of medium- and heavy-duty trucks to become fully electric by 2045. Additionally, CARB’s 2022 amendments to the 2004 Transport Refrigeration Unit (TRU) Airborne Toxic Control Measure increases the stringency of TRU PM

2.5 and
requires the electrification of diesel-powered TRU trucks by 2029.

Adopted regulations are also expected to continue to reduce formaldehyde emissions emitted by cars and light -duty trucks. As emissions are reduced, it is expected that risks associated with exposure to the emissions will also be reduced.

Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.3-5
LOCAL
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Criteria Air Pollutants
Air Quality Plans
SJVAPCD is the primary agency responsible for meeting the NAAQS and CAAQS in the SJVAB , in which the Plan Area is located. The SJVAB has been designated as nonattainment with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS for ozone and PM2.5 (Table 4.3-2) (CARB 2020; EPA 2023). SJVAPCD works with CARB and EPA to maintain the region’s portion of the SIP for ozone and PM2.5.

SJVAPCD also enforces air quality regulations, educates the public about air quality, and implements a number of programs to provide incentives for the replacement or retrofit of older diesel engines. SJVAPCD’s air quality guidance also influences land use development in the SJVAB by providing decision makers with suggested goals, policies, and science pertaining to siting receptors to known or planned locations of stationary and/or mobile sources of air pollution.

SJVAPCD adopted its 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM

2.5 NAAQS Standards (PM2.5 Plan) on November 15,
2018. The PM2.5 Plan utilizes extensive science and research, state of the art air quality modeling, and best available information to develop a strategy to attain the federal health-based 1997, 2006, and 2012 NAAQS (SJVAPCD 2018).

Additionally, SJVAPCD adopted its 2016 Ozone Plan for 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Standard (2016 Ozone Plan) in June 2016. The 2016 Ozone Plan provides a comprehensive strategy to reduce NOX emissions, which combine with reactive organic gases (ROG) to form ground-level ozone, by 60 percent between 2012 and 2031 to assist SJVAPCD in attaining the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (SJVAPCD 2016).

Rules and Regulations
All projects are subject to adopted SJVAPCD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Specific rules applicable to the proposed plan may include but are not limited to the following:
 Regulation VIII—Fugitive Dust PM10 Prohibitions: Rules 8011–8081 are designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and track out, and landfill operations.

Compliance with Regulation VIII is mandatory and enforced through civil penalties, so compliance by proponents of future projects in the Plan Area is assumed in this analysis. SJVAPCD is made aware of actions that violate its regulations and rules, such as Regulation VIII, and may investigate claims that, if found to be accurate, may result in financial penalties.
 Rule 2010—Permits Required: This rule applies to anyone who operates or plans to operate, construct, alter, or replace any source operation that may emit air contaminants or may reduce the emission of air contaminants.

New development in the Plan Area that proposes new stationary sources would be subject to SJVAPCD permitting requirements for stationary sources such as boilers or back-up generators.  Rule 2201—New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule: This rule applies to all new stationary sources and all modifications of existing stationary sources. Stationary sources are subject to SJVAPCD permit requirements if, after construction, they emit or may emit one or more affected pollutant. The proposed plan could result in development that would require the use of diesel generators to support the operations in scenarios where electrical power is unavailable.
 Rule 3180—Administration Fees for Indirect Source Review: This rule serves to recover SJVAPCD’s costs for administering the requirements of Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review (summarized below).  Rule 3135—Dust Control Plan Fee: This rule requires applicants to submit a fee with a dust control plan. The purpose of this fee is to recover SJVAPCD’s cost for reviewing such plans and conducting compliance inspections.

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.3-6 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
 Rule 4002—National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants : This rule applies to all stationary sources of HAPs and requires them to comply with the standards, criteria, and requirements set forth therein.  Rule 4101—Visible Emissions: This rule prohibits emissions of visible air contaminants to the atmosphere and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants.  Rule 4102—Nuisance: This rule applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials. If such emissions create a public nuisance, the owner/operator could be in violation and be subject to enforcement action by SJVAPCD.
 Rule 4601—Architectural Coatings: This rule limits ROG from architectural coatings by specifying storage, cleanup, and labeling requirements for architectural coatings. This rule also establishes ROG limits for various architectural coating types.
 Rule 4622—Gasoline Transfer Into Motor Vehicle Fuel Tanks: The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions of gasoline vapors from the transfer of gasoline into motor vehicle fuel tanks. This rule applies to any gasoline storage and dispensing operation or mobile fueler from which gasoline is transferred into motor vehicle fuel tanks.  Rule 4641—Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations: This rule applies to the manufacture and use of certain asphalt types for paving and maintenance operations.  Rule 9510—Indirect Source Review: Also known as the Indirect Source Rule (ISR), this rule is intended to reduce or mitigate emissions of NOX and PM10 from the construction- and operation-related emissions of new land use development in the SJVAPCD. This rule requires specific percentage reductions in estimated on-site construction and operation emissions, and/or payment of a prescribed off-site mitigation fee for required reductions that cannot be met on the project site. Construction emissions of NOX and PM10 exhaust must be reduced by 20 percent and 45 percent, respectively. Operational emissions of NOX and PM10 must be reduced by 33.3 percent and 50 percent, respectively. The rule applies to residential developments of 50 units or more, and commercial development projects of 2,000 square feet and larger, so the proposed development would be subject to the ISR. The provisions of Rule 9510 are described in more detail in the analysis of environmental impacts and mitigation measures.

Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts
SJVAPCD’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) is an advisory document that provides lead agencies, consultants, and project applicants with analysis guidance and uniform procedures for addressing air quality in environmental documents. The GAMAQI describes the criteria that the SJVAPCD uses when reviewing and commenting on the adequacy of environmental documents. It recommends thresholds for determining whether projects would have significant adverse environmental impacts, identifies methods for predicting project emissions and impacts, and identifies measures that can be used to avoid or reduce air quality impacts. If modeled construction- or operation-related emissions for a project exceed SJVAPCD’s mass emission thresholds for criteria air pollutants and precursors, then SJVAPCD recommends implementing mitigation to reduce these emissions. SJVAPCD’s mass emission thresholds are presented in Section 4.3.3, “Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures.” Typically, air districts develop thresholds of significance for CEQA evaluation (summarized below) in consideration of maintaining or achieving attainment under the NAAQS and CAAQS for the geographical area they oversee (long- term regional air quality planning). These thresholds are often tied to the SIP of an air district in nonattainment for criteria air pollutants within a cumulative context. The associated air quality plans are submitted to CARB and contain an inventory of existing ambient air pollutant concentrations and, if applicable, a suite of measures to reduce air pollution along with a projected date of achieving attainment under the NAAQS and CAAQS. Air quality plans identify a budget that accounts for new, future sources of pollution from land use development and stationary sources. These budgets inform the development of CEQA thresholds of significance; “projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be determined to ‘not conflict or obstruct implemen tation of [SJVAPCD’s] air quality plan’” (SJVAPCD 2015a: 65).

Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.3-7
Health Impacts from Exposure to Criteria Air Pollution
The NAAQS and CAAQS represent concentrations of criteria air pollutants protective of human health and are substantiated by extensive scientific evidence. CARB states that ambient air quality standards (AAQSs) “are established to protect even the most sensitive individuals in our communities. An air quality standard defines the maximum amount of a pollutant that can be present in outdoor air without harm to the public’s health” (CARB 2023b). SJVAPCD, like other air districts in California and within the United States, are tasked with producing local air quality plans to attain the NAAQS and CAAQS by an eventual date. These plans include mass emissions inventories coupled with control measures that achieve necessary reductions in certain criteria pollutants and precurs ors to meet the concentration-based NAAQS and CAAQS. In developing CEQA thresholds of significance, SJVAPCD has developed quantitative, project-level thresholds based on anticipated levels of growth in the SJVAB in consideration of existing sources of air pollution and a future attainment date. These thresholds of significance are intended to optimize emission elimination of proposed projects while requiring a level of mitigation that is realistic and achievable. Thus, projects that demonstrate levels of construction and/or operational emissions below these thresholds would be consistent with long-term regional planning efforts in the SJVAB to attain the NAAQS and CAAQS and, therefore, avoid subjecting residents of the region to harmful concentrati ons of criteria air pollutants.

Consequently, such projects would not result in emissions that would conflict with an area achieving future attainment status under the NAAQS and CAAQS as outlined by an applicable air quality plan.

Similarly, projects that demonstrate emissions levels in exceedance of an applicable threshold could contribute to the continued nonattainment designation of a region or potentially degrade a region from attainment to nonattainment, resulting in acute or chronic respiratory and cardiovascular illness associated with exposure to concentrations of criteria air pollutants above what EPA and CARB consider safe. Symptoms can include coughing, difficulty breathing, chest pain, eye and throat irritation and, in extreme cases, death caused by exacerbation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, cancer, and impaired immune and lung function. However, the exact location and magnitude of specific health impacts that could occur as a result of an individual project’s or group of projects’ construction and operational emissions of primary and secondary pollutants are difficult to model with any degree of reliability for several reasons. Below includes a discussion of the types of modeling that may be used to estimate dispersion of pollutants, their inputs and scientific limitations, and use in estimating health impacts .

The most common approach to determining the fate and transport of directly emitted criteria air pollutants is through dispersion modeling. Dispersion modeling is best suited for primary criteria air pollutants, such as CO, PM 10 and PM2.5, which are directly emitted into the atmosphere and, at certain concentrations, cause adverse health and environmental impacts. Other pollutants of concern are identified as secondary pollutants, which are emitted as one compound, which then combines with other pollutants, to form criteria air pollution. To follow these secondary pollutants into the ambient atmosphere, use of a photochemical model is required.

The secondary pollutants of concern for this analysis are ROG, NO X, and oxides of sulfur (SOX), which combine in the
atmosphere to form ground-level ozone and secondary PM. Photochemical modeling of these secondary pollutants is a more difficult exercise than the modeling of primary pollutants for the following reasons. With respect to the formation of ground-level ozone from the oxidation (i.e., combination) of ROG and NO X in the presence of sunlight,
rates of ozone formation are a function of a variety of complex physical factors, including topography, building influences on air flow (e.g., downwash), ROG and NOX concentration ratios, multiple meteorological conditions, and sunlight exposure (Seinfeld and Pandis 1996: 298). For example, rates of ozone formation are highest in elevated temperatures and when the ratio of ROG to NOX is 5.5:1. When temperatures are lower and this ratio shifts, rates of ozone formation are stunted (Seinfeld and Pandis 1996: 299–300). In addition, ROG emissions are composed of many compounds that have different levels of reactivity leading to ozone formation. Methane, for instance, is the most common ROG compound, yet it has one of the lowest reactivity potentials (Seinfeld and Pandis 1996: 309, 312).

Moreover, as confirmed by epidemiological studies reviewed and confirmed by EPA and CARB, some groups may develop more severe health impacts than others. For instance, infants, children, the elderly, and individuals with preexisting medical conditions are more susceptible to developing illnesses from exposure to air pollutants.

Additionally, environmental conditions (e.g., exposure to secondhand smoke), lifestyle choices (e.g., diet, exercise, use of drugs or tobacco products), and presence of a health condition (e.g., cancer, chronic illness) that may affect an Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.3-8 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
individual's existing health is privileged information unknown to an air quality expert, regulator, lead agency, or any other person using photochemical models. Air dispersion and photochemical modeling cannot account for the locations of these individuals on a regional basis, and, therefore, the degree to which an individual may respond to certain concentrations of criteria air pollutants (e.g., the development of lifelong chronic conditions such as asthma or the exacerbation of an existing respiratory or cardiovascular condition) cannot be meaningful predicted. As explained in greater detail in Section 4.3.3, “Impacts and Mitigation Measures,” the best modeling tools available use regional and national health data to quantify potential health effects; however, these results are not specific to any one location and cannot account for nuances in health data that are unknown.

During the litigation process that led to the Friant Ranch Decision (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Dec. 24, 2018) 6 Cal.5th 502), SJVAPCD submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of Fresno County and Friant Ranch LP (the parties that ultimately did not prevail in the Friant Ranch Decision). In that brief, SJVAPCD provided scientific context and expert opinion regarding the feasibility of performing regional dispersion and photochemical modeling for ozone from one specific project. SJVAPCD described the challenges of trying to correlate pollutants in the atmosphere and cited several variables as to how and where pollutants would ultimately settle and the connection to actual health effects that would be realized in any one specific location from the generation of such pollutants. Such modeling, as existed at that time in 2009, that could reasonably link secondary pollution formation to specific health effects in a meaningful context from one project or group of projects alone was not readily available for use by lead agencies.

This concern led SJVAPCD to state that “CEQA does not require an EIR to correlate a project’s air quality emissions to specific health impacts, because such an analysis is not reasonably feasible.” As SJVAPCD explains (SJVAPCD 2015b [footnotes omitted]):

Attainment of a particular NAAQS occurs when the concentration of the relevant pollutant remains below a set threshold on a consistent basis throughout a particular region. For example, the San Joaquin Valley attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS when ozone concentrations remained at or below 0.124 parts per million Valley-wide on 3 or fewer days over a 3-year period. Because the NAAQS are focused on achieving a particular concentration of pollution region-wide, the Air District's tools and plans for attaining the NAAQS are regional in nature.

For instance, the computer models used to simulate and predict an attainment date for the ozone or particulate matter NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley are based on regional inputs, such as regional inventories of precursor pollutants (NO
X, SOX and [ROG]) and the atmospheric chemistry and meteorology of the Valley. At a very basic level, the models simulate future ozone or PM levels based on predicted changes in precursor emissions Valley wide. Because the NAAQS are set levels necessary to prote ct human health, the closer a region is to attaining a particular NAAQS, the lower the human health impact is from that pollutant.

The goal of these modeling exercises is not to determine whether the emissions generated by a particular factory or development project will affect the date that the Valley attains the NAAQS. Rather, the Air District's modeling and planning strategy is regional in nature and based on the extent to which all of the emission- generating sources in the Valley (current and future) must be controlled in order to reach attainment.

Accordingly, the Air District has based its thresholds of significance for CEQA purposes on the levels that scientific and factual data demonstrate that the [SJVAB] can accommodate without affecting the attainment date for the NAAQS. The Air District has tied its CEQA significance thresholds to the level at which stationary pollution sources must “offset” their emissions…. Thus, the CEQA air quality analysis for criteria air pollutants is not really a localized, project-level impact analysis but one of regional cumulative impacts.

The brief explains that these CEQA thresholds of significance are not intended to be applied such that any localized human health impact associated with a project’s emissions could be identified. Rather, CEQA thresholds of significance are used to determine whether a project’s emissions would obstruct a region’s capability of attaining the NAAQS and CAAQS according to the emissions inventory prepared in a SIP, which is then submitted and reviewed by CARB and EPA. This sentiment is corroborated in an additional brief submitted to the California Supreme Court by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD 2015). While the proposed plan would result in an assumed level of development by 2040 from multiple projects over the planning horizon, the modeling challenge Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.3-9
described herein would still apply, and perhaps more so, given that the nature, scale, and location of future development is unknown.

Therefore, this analysis aligns with the sentiments of these amicus curiae briefs and does not perform dispersion or photochemical modeling to numerically correlate the estimated emissions from future development in the Plan Area to potential human health impacts. Rather, this analysis follows SJVAPCD’s guidance in evaluating the plan ’s emissions against SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance and provides a qualitative correlation between the plan ’s emissions and resulting health impact. SJVAPCD has not developed its own model(s) for project- or plan-level evaluation of resulting concentrations of ozone precursors within the SJVAB that link emissions of an individual project to changes in health of individuals.

Toxic Air Contaminants
At the local level, air districts may adopt and enforce CARB control measures. Under SJVAPCD Rule 2010 (“Permits Required”) and Rule 2201 (“New and Modified Stationary Source Review”), all sources that possess the potential to emit TACs are required to obtain permits from SJVAPCD. Permits may be granted to these operations if they are constructed and operated in accordance with applicable regulations, including New Source Review standards and air toxics control measures. SJVAPCD limits emissions and public exposure to TACs through multiple programs. SJVAPCD prioritizes TAC-emitting stationary sources based on the quantity and toxicity of the TAC emissions and the proximity of the facilities to sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors are people or facilities that generally house people (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals), that may experience adverse effects from unhealthful concentrations of air pollutants.

SJVAPCD’s District’s Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA’s Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document , Framework for Performing Health Risk Assessments, and Draft Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling are tools that may be utilized by experts to assess potential health effects at locations of sensitive receptors from the construction and operation of projects emitting TACs (SJVAPCD 2015c, 2018).

City of Fresno General Plan
The following existing City of Fresno General Plan Policies have been adopted to protect air quality:
 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-b: Conditions of Approval. Develop and incorporate air quality maintenance requirements, compatible with Air Quality Attainment and Maintenance Plans, as conditions of approval for General Plan amendments, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and deve lopment proposals.  Policy RC-4-c: Evaluate Impacts with Models. Continue to require the use of computer models used by SJVAPCD to evaluate the air quality impacts of plans and projects that require such environmental review by the City.  Policy RC-4-d: Forward Information. Forward information regarding proposed General Plan amendments, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and development proposals that require air quality evaluation, and amendments to development regulations to the SJVAPCD for their review of potential air quality and health impacts.
 Policy RC-4-k: Electric Vehicle Charging. Develop standards to facilitate electric vehicle charging infrastructure in both new and existing public and private buildings, in order to accommodate these vehicles as the technology becomes more widespread.

A discussion of the proposed plan’s consistency with the policies above is in the impact analysis section where applicable.

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.3-10 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

4.3.2 Environmental Setting
The Plan Area is within the City of Fresno and the SJVAB. Ambient concentrations of air pollutants are determined by the levels of emissions released by pollutant sources and the ability of the atmosphere to transport and dilute such emissions. Natural factors that affect transport and dilution include terrain, wind, atmospheric stability, and the presence of sunlight.

The SJVAB is the southern half of California's Central Valley and is approximately 250 miles long and averages 35 miles wide. The SJVAB is bordered by the Sierra Nevada in the east, the Coast Ranges in the west, and the Tehachapi mountains in the south. There is a slight downward elevation gradient from Bakersfield in the southeast end (elevation 408 feet) to sea level at the northwest end where the valley opens to the San Francisco Bay at the Carquinez Strait. The bowl-shaped topography inhibits movement of pollutants out of the SJVAB.

The SJVAB is in a Mediterranean Climate Zone and is influenced by a subtropical high -pressure cell most of the year generated by the Pacific Ocean that influences the amount of rain that is deposited, the characteristics of temperature, and the deposition/collection of air pollution in the SJVAB. Rainfall is sparse and occurs mainly in winter.

Summers are hot and dry. Summertime maximum temperatures often exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit (°F).

The subtropical high-pressure cell is strongest during spring, summer and fall and produces subsiding air, which can result in temperature inversions, or a reversal of the normal behavior of temperature in the troposphere that results in a layer of cool air at the surface is overlaid by a layer of warmer air, in the SJVAB. A temperature inversion can act like a lid, inhibiting vertical mixing of the air mass at the surface. Any emissions of pollutants can be trapped below the inversion. Most of the surrounding mountains are above the normal height of summer inversions (1,500 –3,000 feet). These mountains can function as a physical barrier to trap emissions of regional pollutants in the SJVAB leading to degraded, stagnant air quality.

Winter-time high pressure events can often last many weeks with surface temperatures often lowering to 30 –40°F.

During these events, fog can be present, and inversions are extremely strong. These wintertime inversions can inhibit vertical mixing of pollutants to a few hundred feet.

Solar radiation and temperature are particularly important in the chemistry of photochemical smog (ozone) formation.

The SJVAB averages over 260 sunny days per year. Photochemical air pollution (primarily ozone) is produced by the atmospheric reaction of organic substances (such as ROG and NO X) under the influence of sunlight (SJVAPCD 2015a).

The local meteorology of the Plan Area and surrounding area is represented by measurements recorded at the Western Regional Climate Center Friant Government CP Station. The average annual precipitation from 1912 to 2016 was approximately 14.3 inches. Average January temperatures range from a normal minimum of 36.7°F to a normal maximum of 55.4°F. July temperatures range from a normal minimum of 61.0°F to a normal maximum of 100.3°F (WRCC 2016). The prevailing wind direction is from the northwest (WRCC 2002).

EXISTING AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
Criteria Air Pollutants
Concentrations of criteria air pollutants are used to indicate the quality of the ambient air. A description of key criteria air pollutants in the SJVAB and their potential impacts on human health is provided below. Fresno County’s attainment status for the CAAQS and the NAAQS are shown in Table 4.3-2. Emission source types and health effects are summarized in Table 4.3-3.

Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.3-11
Table 4.3-2 Attainment Status Designations for Fresno County Pollutant National Ambient Air Quality Standard California Ambient Air Quality Standard Ozone — Nonattainment (1-hour) Classification-Serious1
Nonattainment (8-hour)2 Classification=Extreme Nonattainment (8-hour) Respirable particulate
matter (PM10)
Attainment (24-hour) Nonattainment (24-hour)
— Nonattainment (Annual)
Fine particulate matter
(PM2.5)
Nonattainment (24-hour) —
Nonattainment (Annual) Nonattainment (Annual)
Carbon monoxide (CO) Unclassified/Attainment (1-hour) Attainment (1-hour) Unclassified/Attainment (8-hour) Attainment (8-hour)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Unclassified/Attainment (1-hour) Attainment (1-hour) Unclassified/Attainment (Annual) Attainment (Annual)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)5
Unclassified/Attainment (1-Hour)
Attainment (1-hour)
Attainment (24-hour)
Lead (Particulate) Attainment (3-month rolling avg.) Attainment (30-day average) Hydrogen Sulfide
No Federal Standard
Unclassified (1-hour)
Sulfates Attainment (24-hour)
Visibly Reducing Particles Unclassified (8-hour)
Vinyl Chloride Unclassified (24-hour)
1 Per Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 40921.5(c), the classification is based on 1989–1991 data, and therefore does not change. 2 2015 Standard.

Sources: CARB 2020; EPA 2023.

Table 4.3-3 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants Pollutant Sources Acute1 Health Effects Chronic2 Health Effects Ozone Ozone is a photochemical oxidant (a substance
whose oxygen combines chemically with another
substance in the presence of sunlight) and the
primary component of smog. It is a secondary
pollutant resulting from the reaction of ROG and
NO
X in the presence of sunlight. ROG emissions
result from incomplete combustion and
evaporation of chemical solvents and fuels; NO
X
results from the combustion of fuels
increased respiration and pulmonary
resistance; cough, pain, shortness of
breath, lung inflammation
permeability of respiratory
epithelia, possibility of
permanent lung impairment Carbon monoxide
(CO)
CO is an odorless, colorless gas formed by the
incomplete combustion of fuels and motor
vehicle exhaust. Other sources include industrial
processes, carbon black manufacturing, non-
transportation related fuel combustion, and
natural sources such as wildfires.
headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea,
vomiting, death
permanent heart and brain
damage
Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2)
NO2 is a brownish, highly reactive gas that is
present in all urban environments. The major
human-made sources of NO
2 are combustion
devices, such as boilers, gas turbines, and mobile
and stationary reciprocating internal combustion
engines.
coughing, difficulty breathing, vomiting,
headache, eye irritation, chemical
pneumonitis or pulmonary edema;
breathing abnormalities, cough,
cyanosis, chest pain, rapid heartbeat,
death
chronic bronchitis, decreased
lung function
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) coal and oil combustion, steel mills, refineries, and pulp and paper mills
Irritation of upper respiratory tract,
increased asthma symptoms
Insufficient evidence linking
SO2 exposure to chronic
health impacts
Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.3-12 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Pollutant Sources Acute1 Health Effects Chronic2 Health Effects Respirable
particulate matter
(PM10), Fine
particulate matter
(PM2.5)
fugitive dust, soot, smoke, mobile and stationary
sources, construction, fires and natural
windblown dust, and formation in the
atmosphere by condensation and/or
transformation of SO2 and ROG
breathing and respiratory symptoms,
aggravation of existing respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases, premature
death
alterations to the immune
system, carcinogenesis
Lead metal processing reproductive/ developmental effects (fetuses and children)
numerous effects including
neurological, endocrine, and
cardiovascular effects
Notes: NOX = oxides of nitrogen; ROG = reactive organic gases. 1 Acute health effects refer to immediate illnesses caused by short-term exposures to criteria air pollutants at fairly high concentrations. An example of an acute health effect includes fatality resulting from short-term exposure to carbon monoxide levels in excess of 1,200 parts per million. 2 Chronic health effects refer to cumulative effects of long-term exposures to criteria air pollutants, usually at lower, ambient concentrations. An example of a chronic health effect includes the development of cancer from prolonged exposure to particulate matter at concentrations above the national ambient air quality standards.

Source: CARB 2023b.

Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs in California are regulated primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807, Chapter 1047, Statutes of 1983) and the Hot Spots Act (AB 2588, Chapter 1252, Statutes of 1987). AB 1807 sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Research, public participation, and scientific peer review are required before CARB can designate a substance as a TAC.

Assembly Bill 617
AB 617 of 2017 aims to help protect air quality and public health in communities that are disproportionately affected by air pollution. AB 617 imposes a state-mandated community-scale program to address non-vehicular sources (e.g., refineries, manufacturing facilities) of criteria air pollutants and TACs. The bill requires CARB to identify heavily polluted communities suffering from a high exposure burden and directs regional air districts to focus air quality improvement efforts through implementation of community air monitoring plans and adoption of emission reduction programs within these identified areas. Currently, air districts use command -and-control strategies to review individual sources and impose emissions limits on emitters based on BACT, pollutant type, and proximity to certain existing land uses. AB 617, however, addresses the cumulative and additive nature of air pollutant health effects impacting a community by requiring local air quality assessment and emission reduction planning.

The Plan Area is located within the South Central Fresno community boundaries defined during the AB 617 process, a community that was nominated by the SJVAPCD and selected by CARB as a monitoring community pursuant to AB 617. In 2019, SJVAPCD published the Community Air Monitoring Plan: South Central Fresno AB 617 Community, an air quality monitoring plan that involved community engagement and coordination with SJVAPCD. The Community Air Monitoring Plan identifies areas of interest for AB 617 monitoring such as stationary and mobile sources, monitoring site locations, sampling schedules, and types of equipment and strategies. The plan was designed to obtain detailed air pollution levels through the community, determine areas in the community of highest risk, quantify sources of air pollution within the community, and to position the community to develop emissions reduction strategies and monitor the effectiveness of those strategies.

As identified in the Community Air Monitoring Plan, pollutants of concern in the Plan Area are PM2.5, black carbon, NOx, hydrogen sulfide, CO, ozone, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), with major pollutant sources including heavy duty trucks, idling cars, residential wood burning, industrial uses and processes, and illegal trash burning.

Specifically, there are existing industrial uses located in the southwest portion of the community and including a fossil Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.3-13
fuel electric power generation facility along with several other industrial sources. The community is also traversed by State Routes (SRs) 99, 41, and 180, sources of mobile exhaust pollution and air toxics.

CalEnviroScreen, developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency, is an online mapping tool that uses socioeconomic data in combination with numerous environmental indicators (e.g., pollution exposure, traffic conditions, water quality) and existing sensitive population (e.g., cardiovascular disease, asthma) to develop a combined overall score, by census tract, in California. The scores are presented as percentiles relative to all the census tracks in the state; thus, the higher the score, the higher the overall burden to that specific area compared to other geographic locations in the state. Based on published data in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (CalEPA 2023), the South Central Fresno community has a high cumulative air pollution exposure burden and has census tracts that have been designated as disadvantaged communities. The Plan Area is measured within CalEnviroScreen’s 90-100 percentile for the highest level of socioeconomic and environmental burden (Figure 4.3-1).

Odors
Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).

The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals can smell very minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; an odor that is offensive to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another (e.g., fast food restaurant). It is important to also note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one.

This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity. Odor sources of concern include wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, composting facilities, recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing plants, painting operations, rendering plants, and food packaging plants. The Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station, the Foster Farms packaging plant, Kinder Morgan Fresno Terminal petroleum products company, the General Coatings Manufacturing Corporation, and the Martin Marietta Fresno Asphalt Company is located within the Plan Area.

Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors include those land uses where exposure to pollutants could result in health -related risks to sensitive individuals, such as children or the elderly. Residential dwellings, schools, hospitals, playgrounds, and similar facilities are of primary concern because of the presence of people particularly sensitive to pollutants and/or the potential for increased and prolonged exposure to pollutants. Rural residential and medium-density residential uses are found throughout the Plan Area, and one school, Orange Center Elementary School, is located on S. Cherry Avenue in the southern portion of the Plan Area. For the purposes of the proposed plan, sensitive receptors includes the land use categories where sensitive receptors live or spend a significant amount of time including residences, schools, playgrounds, child-care centers, hospitals, retirement homes, and convalescent homes. Sensitive receptors are persons or land users that are most sensitive to negative effects of air pollutants. Persons who are sensitive receptors include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, which generally aligns with the definition provided by SJVAPCD.

As described above, CalEnviroScreen collects data pertaining to various sources of pollution, known health data, and socioeconomic factors to score communities throughout the state with respect to their level of environmental burden (CalEPA 2023). With a score of 90-100, the Plan Area is a sensitive community already experiencing high levels of air pollution, and it exhibits the highest level of socioeconomic and environmental burden compared to other areas of the state.

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.3-14 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

Source: Adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2023.

Figure 4.3-1 South Central Specific Plan CalEnviroScreen.04 Results

Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.3-15

4.3.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
In its March 2015 GAMAQI, SJVAPCD provides evidence to support the development and applicability of its thresholds of significance for project-generated emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors, which may be used at the discretion of a lead agency overseeing the environmental review of projects located within the SJVAB. As stated in the GAMAQI, “a Lead Agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the Lead Agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence” (SJVAPCD 2015a: 63–64). CEQA-related air quality thresholds of significance are tied to long-term air quality planning, which focuses on achieving or maintaining attainment designations with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS for criteria air pollutants, which are scientifically substantiated, numerical concentrations considered to be protective of human health.

These numerical thresholds for construction- and operation-related emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors would determine whether a project’s discrete emissions would result in a regional contribution (i.e., significant) to the baseline nonattainment status of SJVAPCD. In developing thresholds of significance for individual project emissions, SJVAPCD analyzed emissions values against the SJVAPCD’s offset thresholds to ozone precursors, which, when applied, prevent further deterioration of ambient air quality in the SJVAB. Thresholds for PM 10 and PM2.5 were
adopted from the SJVAPCD’s PM10 New Source Review offset thresholds for stationary sources, which represent the greatest component of SJVACPD’s long-term regional air quality planning (SJVAPCD 2015a: 82).

Using these parameters, SJVAPCD developed quantitative thresholds of significance for project -level CEQA evaluation that may be used to determine the extent to which a project’s emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors would contribute to the regional degradation of ambient air quality within the SJVAB. According to SJVACPD, projects with emissions below these thresholds of significance would demonstrate consistency with SJVAPCD’s air quality plans. Notably, annual mass emissions thresholds of significance are not designed to determine whether a project’s contribution of emissions would directly result in a violation of the NAAQS or CAAQS, which are hourly, concentration-based standards.

SJVACPD has also developed daily mass emissions screening criteria for ROG, NO X, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 to
determine whether project emissions would result in a violation of an AAQS. Unlike SJVACPD’s annual mass emissions thresholds, which are used to evaluate a project’s consistency with long-term regional air quality planning, these daily mass emissions screening criteria serve to determine the location where an exceedance of an AAQS, and resulting adverse health impacts, could occur. Because the NAAQS and CAAQS are concentration- based standards presented hourly, daily mass emissions are a more suitable estimate to determine whether a project would contribute to a violation of an AAQS. Projects that emit emissions below these daily screening criteria wou ld likely not generate emissions in levels that would result in a violation of an AAQS, and air dispersion modeling would not be required.

Consequently, projects that emit emissions above these criteria are recommended to perform an ambient air quality analysis (AAQA) to evaluate whether an exceedance, and resulting health impact, would occur.

Notably, in 2019 the Appendix G example checklist questions for air quality of the State CEQA Guidelines were amended to remove criterion item “B” (violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation). SJVAPCD’s 100 pounds per day (lb/day) screening criteria were developed in consideration of this criterion. SJVAPCD’s use of the 100 lb/day screening criteria is not intended to be used to make a CEQA significance determination but is a trigger for the preparation of an AAQA.

Also of note, the 100 lb/day screening criteria are not scaled based on the attainment status of the SJVAB. SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds used for CEQA determinations are scaled with the understanding that certain pollutants are of greater concern given the SJVAB’s attainment designations. For example, SJVAPCD’s recommends a 10 ton per year (tpy) threshold for ROG and NO
X, which are precursor emissions to the secondary formation of ozone (a criteria pollutant for which the SJVAB is in severe nonattainment) while also recommending a 100 tpy threshold for Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.3-16 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
CO with the understanding of the SJVAB’s attainment of the AAQS for that pollutant. Therefore, while SJVAPCD’s screening criteria are used in this analysis, they are not intended to be used to make significance determinations.

Using federal and state guidance pertaining to TACs, in addition to the findings of several scientific studies, SJVAPCD developed cancer risk and non-cancer health hazard thresholds for TAC exposure. Unlike criteria air pollutants, there is no known safe concentration of TACs for cancer risk. Moreover, TAC emissions contribute to the deterioration of localized air quality. Due to the dispersion characteristics of TACs, emissions generally do not cause regional- scale air quality impacts. SJVAPCD’s thresholds are designed to ensure that a source of TACs does not contribute to a localized, significant impact to existing or new receptors.

Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and SJVAPCD recommendations, an air quality impact would be significant if development under the proposed plan would do any of the following:
 conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;  result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the P lan Area is in non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard:
 Construction impacts would be significant if construction emissions from development under the proposed plan would exceed SJVAPCD’s mass emissions threshold of 10 tpy for ROG and NOX, 15 tpy for PM10 and PM2.5, and 27 tpy for SOX. SJVAPCD also recommends that projects compare their on-site emissions to screening criteria of 100 lb/day for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5.  Regional (operational) impacts would be significant if development under the proposed plan generates emissions of ROG and NO
X that exceed 10 tpy, PM10 and PM2.5 that exceed 15 tpy, and SOX that exceed 27 tpy. SJVAPCD also recommends that projects compare their on-site emissions to screening criteria of 100 lb/day for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5;
 expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations:
 TAC impacts would be significant if development under the proposed plan would expose the public to substantial levels of TACs so that the probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) exceeds 20 in 1 million or an acute or chronic Hazard Index that equals or exceeds 1 for the MEI for non-carcinogens.
 Local mobile source impacts would be significant if development under the proposed plan would contribute to CO concentrations that exceed the CAAQS of 9.0 ppm for 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour ; or  result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people :
 Odor impacts would be significant if development under the proposed plan has the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors.

METHODOLOGY
Criteria Air Pollutants
SJVAPCD has established thresholds for determining significance of air pollutant emissions. These thresholds distinguish between a project’s short-term emissions from its long-term emissions. The short-term emissions are related to the construction phase of a project, which are recognized to be short in duration. The long-term emissions are related to the activities that will occur on an ongoing basis as a result of project operations.

Impacts are evaluated both on the basis of CEQA Guidelines Appendix G questions and SJVAPCD significance criteria.

The impacts evaluated are those involving construction, operational emissions of criteria pollutants [i.e., ROG and NO
X (precursors to ozone), CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5], and cumulative air quality impacts. Because the area is nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, a major criterion for review is whether development under the proposed plan would result in a net increase of pollutants affecting ozone precursor pollutants, PM10, and PM2.5.

Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.3-17
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). SMAQMD recommends that construction phasing be scheduled in this manner to better represent a more realistic, albeit conservative, scenario wherein site preparation and grading (the construction phases where utilities and infrastructure are constructed generating the greatest level of emissions) are captured within the earliest year of Plan buildout. 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, and the City has done so here.

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, emissions estimates were generated to provide a meaningful, albeit conservative, representation of the level of emissions that could occur from highly intensive construction activity, to then be compared to SJVAPCD’s CEQA thresholds of significance. 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. The scenario includes 25 percent of all residential, commercial, and industrial development proposed for the proposed plan.

Operational emissions were estimated for mobile, energy, and area sources. Emissions from energy and area sources were estimated using CalEEMod defaults for heavy- and light industrial, commercial, and residential land uses. Mobile source emissions were estimated using CalEEMod and project-specific trip generation and vehicle miles traveled data.

See Appendix B for more details regarding modeling assumptions.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Because no specific developments are proposed and no site-specific construction and operational information is available, and because of the programmatic nature of analyses for a large-scale plan, TACs were evaluated qualitatively. Where future development has the potential to result in TAC exposure from new stationary or mobile sources, potential impacts were identified, and mitigation is included. Available TAC and risk exposure information from published sources (e.g., CalEnviroScreen, General Plan, environmental documents) is incorporated and referenced, as appropriate, to inform the analysis.

Carbon Monoxide
CO impacts are evaluated using SJVAPCD’s preliminary screening tool. Based on the CO Protocol Analysis developed by the California Department of Transportation, and due to the fact that increased CO concentrations are usually associated with roadways that are congested and with heavy traffic volume, the SJVAPCD has established that preliminary screening can be used to determine with fair certainty that the effect a project has on any given intersection would not result in a CO hotspot. Therefore, SJVAPCD has established that if neither of the following criteria are met at all intersections affected by the action, then there would be no potential to violate the CO standard:
 A traffic study for the project indicates that the level of service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity will be reduced to LOS E or F; or  A traffic study indicates that the project will substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at more or more intersections in the project vicinity.

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.3-18 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Additionally, concentrations of CO were evaluated using the City of Fresno’s General Plan and Development Code Update which determines that a CO hotspot would not occur for roadway intersections that support less than 36,000 peak hour trips. This value was determined by a sensitivity analysis conducted for the General Plan using the CALINE4 CO Hotspot model, which found that intersections that supported this level of trips would result in hourly concentrations of 7.5 ppm and an 8-hour concentration of 6.0, which is well below the NAAQS and CAAQS for CO.

PROPOSED SCSP POLICIES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The following policies from the proposed plan relate to the reduction of air pollutant emissions and the protection of human health.

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 .  T-11: Install crosswalks and traffic calming measures near schools.  T-13: Improve and maintain sidewalks.

Air Quality
 AQ-1: Require the installation of air filtration systems in businesses to protect homes and schools.  AQ-2: Request additional 24-hour air monitors from SJAPCD around distribution centers, major roads near distribution centers, and at receptive school districts.  AQ-3: Require the implementation of dust reduction measures near sensitive uses, including the installation of wind barriers and regular street sweeping.

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.
 AQ-8: Ensure loading docks and emission-generating equipment are located away from homes and schools.  AQ-9: Incentivize all construction equipment to follow the “Construction Clean Fleet” standards as identified by SJVAPCD under Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review (ISR).
 AQ-10: Open a dialogue with businesses to encourage changing warehouse shift times so they do not overlap with commute and school traffic times.
 AQ-11: Conduct a traffic study during high peak times (ex. Tuesday and Saturdays due to Cherry Auction) to include potential road widening plans.

Energy and Green Building
 EGB-1: Require the reduction of energy consumption and promote energy efficiency through education, conservation programs, building design/operation standards, and incentive programs.

Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.3-19
 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.

Community Benefit District
 CBD-1: Consider a Community Benefit Fund to pay for measures such as air filtration systems, dual- paned windows, parks, job training programs, and job fairs near the Plan Area.

Green Barriers/Tree Coverage/Beautification
 GB-1: Require buffers between new industrial development and existing neighborhoods.  GB-3: Increase coverage of parking lots to avoid the “heat island effect.”  GB-4: Create a Green Street Tree Planting Program, prioritizing areas with few trees.

Noise
 N-3: Protect noise-impacted areas through effective noise mitigation measures such as barriers, berms, design and placement of buildings, sound absorbing materials, and vegetation.

In addition, the SCSP includes 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, and buffer metrics; and require truck routing plans from facility operators that emphasize protection of sensitive receptors. The plan also includes alternative energy development standards that would serve to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, ozone precursors, and TACs. 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 issues pertaining to air quality are evaluated.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.3-1: Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan Development under the proposed plan would introduce new operational sources of emissions that would exceed SJVAPCD’s mass emissions thresholds of significance which would, in turn, interfere with SJVAPCD’s long-term regional air quality planning. This impact would be significant.

SJVAPCD’s current plans include the PM2.5 Plan, adopted on November 15, 2018, and the 2016 Ozone Plan, adopted in June 2016. The PM2.5 Plan utilizes extensive science and research, state of the art air quality modeling, and best available information to develop a strategy to attain the federal health -based 1997, 2006, and 2012 NAAQS (SJVAPCD 2018). The 2016 Ozone Plan provides a comprehensive strategy to reduce NO X emissions (which combine with ROG to form ground-level ozone) by 60 percent between 2012 and 2031 to assist SJVAPCD in attaining the 2008 8- hour ozone NAAQS (SJVAPCD 2016).

SJVAPCD applies annual mass emissions thresholds for use in CEQA analyses to determine whether a project would conflict with long-term regional air quality planning in the SJVAB. As discussed under Impact 4.3 -2, construction of Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.3-20 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
development projects under the proposed plan would not result in emissions exceeding SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds; however, under a worst-case construction scenario, daily mass emissions would exceed SJVAPCD’s daily screening criteria. It is important to note for context that the “project” evaluated herein for purposes of CEQA is a “plan” that comprises numerous yet-unknown future projects. The plan, by virtue of its land use designations and zoning, would accommodate specific development types and densities that would be held to development standards, codes, and regulations, but the nature, size, and locations of future development within the Plan Area is yet unknown. Future developments, on a project-level basis, may not individually exceed thresholds and may not conflict with the long-term regional air quality planning in the SJVAB; however, because this programmatic analysis is at the level of a plan, it is inherently cumulative, takes an appropriately conservative approach of estimating emissions comprehensively, and determines that the proposed plan’s emissions would conflict with SJVAPCD’s 2018 PM2.5 Plan and 2016 Ozone Plan. This impact would be significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a: Prepare an Ambient Air Quality Analysis and Mitigation Plan or Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement
Prior to future discretionary project approval, and once all feasible on-site reduction measures have been incorporated, development project applicants shall prepare and submit to the Director of the Fresno Planning and Development Department, or designee, an AAQA to determine whether any SJVAPCD annual mass emissions thresholds are exceeded or if a future project’s emissions may result in the violation of an AAQS. If no thresholds are exceeded, no further action is necessary. If one or more thresholds are exceeded, prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, future development will engage in a voluntary emissions reduction agreement (VERA) through coordination with SJVAPCD to reduce emissions to meet SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds for any pollutant that exceeds the respective threshold. The project applicant shall engage in a discussion with SJVAPCD prior to the adoption of the VERA to ensure that feasible mitigation has been identified to reduce emissions to a less -than- significant level consistent with the direction given in SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI. As allowed by SJVAPCD, the project applicant shall be provided the opportunity to perform an additional quantification of the project’s operational emissions to estimate the type of reduction needed to reduce emissions to meet SJVAPCD’s annual thresholds of significance.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b: Use Clean Fleets during Construction Prior to issuance of future construction contracts, to reduce impacts from construction-related diesel exhaust emissions resulting from development under the SCSP, construction contractors shall demonstrate that they shall use the cleanest available fleet of heavy-duty equipment. This can be accomplished through submitting Construction Clean Fleet paperwork to SJVAPCD. All on-site yard trucks and forklifts shall be powered by electricity where such equipment is readily available in the marketplace as reasonably determined by the City. Electric forklifts will continue to become more available as the requirements of CARB’s proposed Zero-Emissions Forklifts Regulation stimulate the production of these forklifts over time. For any on-site equipment that cannot be electric-powered, and diesel- powered equipment is the only available option, construction contractors shall use equipment that either uses only high-performance renewable diesel or meets EPA Tier 4 emissions standards.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1c: Prohibit Portable Diesel Engines To reduce diesel exhaust emissions, portable diesel engines shall be prohibited during construction of plan-related development where access to alternative sources of power (e.g., electricity) are available. The applicability of this measure is contingent upon the infrastructure available to support electric-powered diesel engines as well as the availability of such equipment at the time of development application review. This measure shall be enforced through City conditions of approval prior to issuance of construction/building permits for individual development applications .

Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.3-21
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1d: Implement Dust Control Measures To reduce impacts from construction-related fugitive dust emissions resulting from plan-related development, construction contractors shall be required to implement the following dust control measures in accordance with SJVAPCD’s Regulation VIII including additional dust reducing measures:
 All soil being actively excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive dust. Watering shall occur as needed with complete coverage of disturbed soil areas. Watering shall take place a minimum of three times daily on disturbed soil areas with active construction activities operations unless dust is otherwise controlled by rainfall or use of a dust suppressant.
 After active construction activities, soil shall be stabilized with a non-toxic soil stabilizer or soil weighting agent, or alternative soil stabilizing methods.
 All unpaved construction and operation/maintenance site roads, as they are being constructed, shall be stabilized with a non-toxic soil stabilizer, water, or soil weighting agent.  All clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation activities shall cease during periods of winds greater than 20 miles per hour (averaged over one hour), or when dust plumes of 20 percent or greater opacity impact public roads, occupied structures, or neighboring property or as identified in a plan approved by the SJVACD.  All trucks leaving construction sites will cover all loads of soils, sands, and other loose materials, or be thoroughly wetted with a minimum freeboard height of six inches.
 Areas disturbed by clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be minimized at all times.  Stockpiles of soil or other fine loose material shall be stabilized by watering or other appropriate method to prevent wind-blown fugitive dust.
 All soil storage piles and disturbed areas that remain inactive for longer than 10 days shall be covered or shall be treated with appropriate dust suppressant compounds.
 Prior to construction, wind breaks (such as chain-link fencing including a wind barrier) shall be installed where appropriate.
 Where applicable,, mowing will be utilized to clear construction areas instead of disking or grading.  The proponents/operators of future projects shall use GPS or lasers to level posts, generally avoiding grading except when elevation changes exceed design requirements.  When grading is unavoidable, grading is to be phased and done with the application of a non- toxic soil stabilizer or soil weighting agent, or alternative soil stabilizing methods.  Where feasible, plant roots shall be left in place where possible to stabilize the soil.  Reduce and/or phase the amount of the disturbed area (e.g., grading, excavation) where possible.

After active clearing, grading, and earth moving is completed within any portion of the site, the following dust control practices shall be implemented:
 Dust suppressant should be used on the same day or day immediately following the cessation of activity for a particular area where further activity is not planned.
 All unpaved road areas shall be treated with a dust suppressant or graveled to prevent excessive dust.  The proponents/operators of future projects shall use dust suppression measures during road surface preparation activities, including grading and compaction.

Vehicles may travel up to 25 miles per hour on paved roads.

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.3-22 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
 Visible speed limit signs shall be posted at main ingress point(s) on site.  Streets used by projects during construction shall be kept clean, and project-related accumulated silt shall be removed a minimum of once daily, or as necessary to prevent substantial off-site fugitive dust releases. The use of dry rotary brushes (unless prior wetting) and blower devices is prohibited.  If site soils cling to the wheels of the vehicles, then a track out control device, or other such device shall be used on the road exiting the project site, immediately prior to the pavement, to remove most of the soil material from vehicle tires.

This shall be enforced by the City with verification by SJVAPCD.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1e: Implement Exhaust Control Measures To reduce impacts from construction-related exhaust emissions, for all construction activities occurring from projects under the proposed plan, construction contractors shall implement the following measures, as recommended by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, among other air districts:
 Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to 5 minutes [CCR Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485] as enforced by an identified compliance officer within the construction crew. Idling restrictions shall be enforced by highly visible posting at the site entry, posting at other on-site locations frequented by truck drivers, conspicuous inclusion in employee training and guidance material and owner, operator or tenant direct action as required.  Maintain construction equipment and provide current certificate(s) of compliance for CARB’s In -Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation [CCR Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2449.1] to SJVAPCD.  Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition according to manufacturer’s specifications. The equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition before it is operated. Documentation of a certified mechanic’s inspection and determinations shall be maintained by the Construction Manager and available for City inspection upon reasonable request.

This shall be enforced by the City.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1f: Reduce Emissions from Architectural Coatings During construction, to reduce impacts from construction-related ROG emissions leading to ozone formation, for all construction activities occurring from development under the proposed plan, construction contractors shall use low- VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond SJVAPCD’s mandatory requirement (i.e., Regulation VIII, Rule 3 , “Architectural Coatings”). This shall be enforced by the City with verification by SJVAPCD.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1g: Incorporate Cool Communities Strategies Prior to future discretionary project approval, development under the proposed plan shall demonstrate that it has incorporated strategies to cool the urban heat island effect, 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 (i.e., high-albedo), and install cool (i.e., high-albedo) pavements.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1h: Use Low- or Zero-Emission Heavy-Duty Trucks and Equipment Future tenants of new and redeveloped commercial and industrial land uses (those over which the City will have discretionary approval) shall ensure that all heavy-duty trucks (Class 7 and 8) domiciled on the project site are model year 2014 or later from start of operations and shall expedite a transition to zero- emission vehicles, with the fleet fully zero-emission by December 31, 2026, or when commercially available for the intended application (as determined by the City based on substantial evidence), whichever date is later. For industrial uses or uses that would require deliveries to/from the site (i.e., at loading docks), all heavy-duty truck fleets associated with operational activities must utilize the cleanest available heavy-duty trucks, including zero and near-zero that meet 0.02 gram per brake horsepower-hour NOx technologies. For industrial uses or any other use that requires operational on-site equipment (cargo handling, yard hostlers, forklifts, pallet jacks), zero-emissions technologies shall be used. "Domiciled at the Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.3-23
project site” shall mean the vehicle is either (i) parked or kept overnight at the project site more than 70 percent of the calendar year or (ii) dedicated to the project site (defined as more than 70 percent of the truck routes (during the calendar year) that start at the project site even if parked or kept elsewhere). Zero-emission, heavy-duty trucks which require service can be temporarily replaced with model year 2014 or later trucks. Replacement trucks shall be used for only the minimum time required for servicing fleet trucks.

Future tenants of commercial and industrial land uses shall ensure that adequate electrical infrastructure is provided to allow for the transition to electric heavy-duty trucks.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1i: Use Low- or Zero-Emission Vehicles Future tenants of new and redeveloped commercial and industrial land uses within the plan area (those over which the City will have discretionary approval) shall ensure use of a “clean fleet” of vehicles/delivery vans/trucks (Class 2 through 6) as part of business operations as follows: For any vehicle (Class 2 through 6) domiciled at the project site, the following "clean fleet" requirements apply: (i) 33 percent of the fleet shall be zero emission vehicles at start of operations, (ii) 65 percent of the fleet shall be zero emission vehicles by December 31, 2027, (iii) 80 percent of the fleet shall be zero emission vehicles by December 31, 2029, and (iv) 100 percent of the fleet will be zero emission vehicles by December 31, 2031. "Domiciled at the project site” shall mean the vehicle is either (i) parked or kept overnight at the project site more than 70 percent of the calendar year or (ii) dedicated to the project site (defined as more than 70 percent of the truck routes (during the calendar year) that start at the project site even if parked or kept elsewhere). Zero-emission, heavy-duty trucks which require service can be temporarily replaced with model year 2014 or later trucks. Replacement trucks shall be used for only the minimum time required for servicing fleet trucks.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1k: Decarbonize New Industrial Use Buildings For industrial uses that do not include major manufacturing or processing equipment requiring natural gas for processing purposes (e.g., logistics, warehouses, distribution, some research and development), no natural gas infrastructure shall be permitted. Consistency with this measure shall be determined at the development application stage, based on a site-specific feasibility study submitted to the City for approval.

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.3-24 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1m: Reduce Off-Site Emissions
Once all on-site reduction measures (i.e., Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a through 4.3-1i have been exhausted or for uses where further on-site emissions reductions are deemed infeasible, based on environmental review, the development of new or participation in existing off-site emissions reduction strategies/programs (e.g., urban forestry programs, local building retrofit programs, off-site EV charger funding, public transit subsidies) shall be required. This can be implemented in conjunction with Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a through the VERA process, if needed, as overseen by SJVAPCD.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-1a through 4.3-1m would reduce the emissions associated with future development under the proposed plan through the preparation of future AAQAs and VERAs, use of clean fleets during construction, the prohibition of diesel-powered generators during construction, implementation of measures to reduce exhaust and fugitive dust, the planting of vegetation throughout the P lan Area to filter air pollution, inclusion of low-emission vehicles, electric development, use of renewable biogas, the prohibition of landscaping equipment, and the implementation of EV charging infrastructure, where possible. As stated in Mitigation Measure

4.3-1a, all on-site mitigation shall be applied to future development prior to engagement in a VERA through SJVAPCD. Once all on-site mitigation has been applied, future development, as directed by Mitigation Measure 4.3 - 1a, shall be required to estimate and disclose project-level emissions, and if exceedances of SJVAPCD’s thresholds are identified, a VERA shall be required to reduce emissions to levels at or below SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance.

Use of a VERA would contractually obligate future project applicants to pay fees to SJVAPCD to be used to finance air pollution reduction programs within the SJVAB to reduce a project’s contribution to regional air pollution. Therefore, adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a, in tandem with Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b through 4.3-1m, would be sufficient to reduce operational emissions to the degree that future development would not conflict with long -term regional air quality planning within the SJVAB. Thus, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

Impact 4.3-2: Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase in Any Criteria Pollutant for Which the Project Region Is in Nonattainment under an Applicable Federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standard
In accordance with SJVAPCD guidance, annual and daily construction and operational emissions were quantified for the assumed level of development that would occur under the proposed plan over the planning period (through 2040) based on the high-level understanding of allowable development within the proposed plan. Modeling indicates that development under the proposed plan would not generate construction emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors exceeding SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds; however, daily emissions would exceed SJVAPCD’s daily mass emissions screening criteria. SJVAPCD’s annual thresholds are used for CEQA determinations, and these thresholds are inherently tied to long-term regional air quality planning (i.e., SJVAPCD’s air quality management plans) which demonstrates that the proposed plan would not conflict with the applicable air quality plans. Nevertheless, the proposed plan, which comprises many future individual development projects, would generate operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors exceeding SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds of significance and daily screening criteria. Operation-related emissions of ROG, NO X, CO, PM10,
and PM2.5 would exceed SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds of significance. This impact would be significant.

Construction
Although the impacts from construction-related air pollutant emissions would be temporary for any given project under the plan, such emissions for multiple projects over the planning horizon can become a significant cumulative air quality impact. Construction activities such as grading, excavation, building construction, paving , and other construction activities can generate substantial amounts of air pollution. Emissions from construction equipment and vehicle engines also contribute to elevated concentrations of ROG, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and SOX.

During construction of anticipated development under the proposed plan, diesel-powered heavy equipment would likely be operating simultaneously throughout the Plan Area. Emissions from site preparation activities were Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.3-25
estimated using CalEEMod default values for the proposed plan. Exhaust and fugitive dust emissions would be generated by excavation and grading, construction vehicle traffic, wind blowing over exposed earth, construction workers traveling to and from the construction sites, heavy-duty construction equipment operation, and application of architectural coatings.

Dust from construction activities can cause impacts both locally and regionally. The dry climate of the area during the summer months, combined with regional fine, silty soils, create a high potential for dust generation. Increased dustfall and locally elevated PM
10 levels near the construction activity are expected. Depending on the weather, soil conditions, the amount of activity taking place at any one time, and the nature of dust control efforts, these impacts could adversely affect existing areas within and near the Plan Area. See the discussion in the “Methodology” section and Appendix B for additional modeling information.

Construction emissions estimates for future development under the proposed plan were modeled using CalEEMod (refer to Appendix B). Based on the outputs of CalEEMod, the proposed plan would produce the emissions shown in Tables 4.3-4 and 4.3-5 estimated as maximum annual and daily values and compared to applicable SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for the initial (assumed to be worst-case) year of the proposed plan (2024) and remaining years through the planning horizon of 2040. Table 4.3-4 provides as estimation of the maximum level of construction emissions assuming that 25 percent of the proposed plan would be constructed within one year, assuming that year to be 2024 (see the discussion under heading, “Methodology,” for additional details).

Table 4.3-4 Maximum Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Precursors Associated with Construction of the Development under the Proposed Plan (Worst-Case Year [Earliest Year of Construction], 2024)

ROG1 NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Annual Emissions
Maximum (tpy) 8.2 5.0 7.6 <1 1.6 0.5
SJVAPCD CEQA Significance Threshold (tpy) 10 10 100 27 15 15 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Daily Emissions
Maximum (lb/day) 106 499 161 2.3 127 47
SJVAPCD Screening Criteria (lb/day) 100 100 100 100 100 100 Exceeds Screening Criteria? Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
Notes: tpy = tons per year, lb/day = pounds per day, ROG = reactive organic gases, NOX = oxides of nitrogen, CO = carbon monoxide, SOX = sulfur oxides, PM10 = respirable particulate matter, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter, SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 1 Off-model ROG adjustments were made to scale emissions throughout the building construction and paving phase to more accurately represent future construction phasing.

Source: Modeling performed by Ascent Environmental in 2023.

As shown in Table 4.3-5, annual and daily emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would not exceed SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions threshold of significance or daily screening criteria for most of the duration of plan implementation. This level of emissions would not conflict with long-term regional air quality planning in the SJVAB, would not result in a cumulative contribution to air pollution and would not conflict with SJVAPCD’s relevant air quality plans. However, under a worst-case construction period, daily mass emissions would exceed SJVAPCD’s daily mass emissions screening criteria, which could result in an exceedance of an AAQS, but SJVAPCD’s annual emissions thresholds would not be exceeded. Nevertheless, given the programmatic nature of this analysis, and the current nonattainment status of the SJVAB for ozone, PM
10, and PM2.5, this analysis conservatively concludes that the proposed plan could contribute construction emissions that would interfere with the attainment status for these pollutants. Therefore, construction of future development implemented under the proposed plan could conflict with long-term regional air quality planning tied to attainment of the NAAQS and CAAQS . As such, the proposed plan’s contribution of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors could result in high concentrations of air pollution that could result in an adverse health outcome.

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.3-26 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Table 4.3-5 Maximum Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Precursors Associated with Construction of Development under the Proposed Plan (2025–2040)

ROG1 NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Annual Emissions
Maximum (tpy) 1.5 0.7 1.1 <1 <1 <1
SJVAPCD CEQA Significance Threshold (tpy) 10 10 100 27 15 15 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Daily Emissions
Maximum (lb/day) 18 80 20 <1 19 6
SJVAPCD Screening Criteria (lb/day) 100 100 100 100 100 100 Exceeds Screening Criteria? No No No No No No
Notes: tpy = tons per year, lb/day = pounds per day, ROG = reactive organic gases, NOX = oxides of nitrogen, CO = carbon monoxide, SOX = sulfur oxides, PM10 = respirable particulate matter, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter, SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 1 Off-model ROG adjustments were made to scale emissions throughout the building construction and paving phase to more accurately represent future construction phasing.

This Source: Modeling performed by Ascent Environmental in 2023.

Operation
Implementation of development under the proposed plan would intensify urbanization in the Plan Area, which would in turn increase criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors in an area that is currently designated as a n extreme nonattainment area with respect to the NAAQS.

Operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors would be generated from vehicle activity to and from the Plan Area, the combustion of natural gas, use of landscaping equipment, periodic application of architectural coatings, and use of consumer products.

The operational estimate presented in Table 4.3-6 characterizes the level of emissions expected for horizon year Plan Area development of 2,650 acres of heavy industrial, 627 acres of roadways and infrastructure, 715 acres of light industrial, 333 acres of a regional business park, 158 acres of open space, 653 acres of a separate business park, 78 acres of public development, 32 acres of rail development, 270 acres of residential development, 47 acres of general commercial, 3 acres of a neighborhood park, and 0.25 acres of mixed use development .

Operational emissions estimates for the proposed plan were calculated using CalEEMod (Appendix B). Table 4.3-6 summarizes the total modeled operational emissions associated with the proposed plan for the assumed first full year of operation (i.e., 2040) for the mobile, energy, and area sources of pollution.

As shown in Table 4.3-6, emissions of ROG, NO
X, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 would exceed SJVACPD’s annual CEQA mass emissions thresholds as well as its daily screening criteria for all pollutants except SOX. Subsequent development under the proposed plan would be subject to SJVAPCD’s Rule 9510 for NOX and PM10 resulting in 33.3 and 50 percent reductions in these pollutants, respectively. Notwithstanding, because the thresholds would be exceeded, the contribution of criteria air pollutants by development in the Plan Area would conflict with SJVAPCD’s long -term regional air quality planning, interfere with the SJVAB’s capacity to attain the NAAQS and CAAQS for ozone, PM 10, and PM2.5, and result in potential adverse health outcomes from exposure to air pollution.

Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.3-27
Table 4.3-6 Maximum Annual Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Precursors Associated with Operation of Development under the Proposed Plan (2040)

ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Annual Emissions
Total (tpy) 91.5 68.2 420 1.5 148 39.6
SJVAPCD CEQA Significance Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Emissions Reductions from Compliance
with Rule 9510
– -22.6 – – -74 –
Total (tpy) 91.5 45.6 420 1.5 74 39.6
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Daily Emissions
Maximum (lb/day) 559 360 3,028 9 816 219
SJVAPCD Screening Criteria 100 100 100 100 100 100
Exceeds Screening Criteria? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Emissions Reductions from Compliance
with Rule 9510
– -120 – – -408 –
Total Emissions 559 240 3,028 9 408 219
Exceeds Screening Criteria? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Maximum (lb/day) 559 360 3,028 9 816 219
Notes: tpy = tons per year, lb/day = pounds per day, ROG = reactive organic gases, NOX = oxides of nitrogen, CO = carbon monoxide, SOX = sulfur oxides, PM10 = respirable particulate matter, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter, SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

Source: Modeling performed by Ascent Environmental in 2023.

SJVAPCD recommends that an AAQA be performed for a project if emissions of any criteria air pollutant or ozone precursor exceed 100 lb/day. As shown in Table 4.3-6, maximum daily emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 would exceed the 100 lb/day screening criteria set forth by SJVAPCD. However, an AAQA is more appropriate for project-specific analyses and not a specific plan for which development would occur over a broad geography and over several decades. The values presented in Table 4.3-6 are programmatic in nature, as the nature, scale, and locations of development; the types of equipment and activities in which they would engage; their daily and annual activity levels (e.g., stationary source stack location/source type); and their proximity to nearby receptors are unknown at this time. For future development proposed for the proposed plan, an AAQA would likely be prepared if SJVAPCD’s daily screening criteria are exceeded (see Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a). However, at this programmatic stage, a meaningful AAQA could not be prepared given that characteristics of future development s are yet unknown.

Therefore, an AAQA was not prepared for the proposed plan.

Nevertheless, because modeled worst-day emissions would exceed the daily screening levels, project-generated emissions would be considered significant and could contribute to a violation of an AAQS within the SJVAB.

Because the operational emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 of development anticipated to occur in the Plan Area by 2040 would exceed SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds, this impact would be significant.

Conclusion
The proposed plan’s construction emissions would not exceed SJVAPCD’s respectively mass emissions thresholds but would exceed SJVAPCD’s daily mass emission screening criteria. Additionally, the proposed plan’s operation emissions of ROG, NO
X, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 would exceed SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds and daily screening criteria. Construction and operational impacts would be significant.

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.3-28 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a through 4.3-1m.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-1a through 4.3-1m would reduce the proposed plan’s emissions through the preparation of future AAQAs and VERAs, use of clean fleets during construction, the prohibition of diesel- powered generators during construction, implementation of measures to reduce exhaust and fugitive dust, the planting of vegetation throughout the Plan Area to filter air pollution, inclusion of low-emissions vehicles, electric development, use of renewable biogas, the prohibition of landscaping equipment, and the implementation of EV charging infrastructure, where possible. As stated in Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a, all on-site mitigation shall be applied to future development prior to engagement in a VERA through SJVAPCD. Once all on -site mitigation has been applied, future development, as directed by Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a, shall be required to estimate and disclose project-level emissions, and if exceedances of SJVAPCD’s thresholds are identified, a VERA shall be required to reduce emissions to levels at or below SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance. Use of a VERA would contractually obligate future project applicants to pay fees to SJVAPCD to be used to finance air pollution reduction programs within the SJVAB to reduce a project’s contribution to regional air pollution. Therefore, adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a, in tandem with Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b through 4.3-1m, would be sufficient to reduce construction and operation emissions to meet SJVAPCD’s operational thresholds of significance. Thus, this impact would be
less than significant with mitigation.

Impact 4.3-3: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations As described in Impacts 4.3-1 and 4.3-2, construction and operation of development assumed in the Plan Area by 2040 would result in exceedance of SJVAPCD daily emissions screening criteria for ROG, NO X, and CO during worst- case construction, and annual mass emissions and daily screening thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 during operation. This level of emissions can result in adverse human health outcomes, particularly for sensitive receptors, and is determined to be significant. With regard to TACs and resultant cancer risk, specifically, construction of new land uses under the proposed plan, transportation and utility improvements, and the development of new stationary sources of TACs subject to the permitting requirements of SJVAPCD would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to an incremental increase in cancer risk greater than 20 in 1 million or a hazard index greater than

1.0. The proposed plan would not result in development of new residential land uses or other sensitive receptors within 500 feet of a freeway or high-volume roadway, which is the setback distance recommended by CARB. The SCSP designates land near SR 99 as heavy industrial, and traffic volumes on SR 41 through the Plan Area do not exceed 100,000 vehicles per day, CARB’s threshold for requiring a minimum 500 -foot setback. Nevertheless, the development of land uses under the proposed plan with truck routes, operations, and loading near residences could result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to a level of cancer risk greater than 2 0 in 1 million. This impact would be significant.

The Plan Area is located in an environmental justice community as shown in Figure 4.3-1. The California Environmental Protection Agency’s CalEnviroScreen tool identifies the surrounding as a high-pollution burdened area within the 90-100 percentile for disadvantaged communities. The proposed plan would introduce new sources of TACs (truck and vehicle traffic, industrial facilities) that could exacerbate the already adverse conditions of the Plan Area.

Criteria Air Pollution
The proposed plan would generate construction emissions in exceedance of SJVACPD’s daily screening criteria and could result in an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard for this reason. The project operational emissions would exceed SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds of significance and daily screening criteria, therefore resulting in conflicts with the long-term regional air quality planning in the SJVAB. This impact is discussed under Impact 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 above.

Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.3-29
New Sensitive Receptors Near Existing TAC Sources
SJVAPCD does not recommend a threshold of significance for evaluating the levels of health risk exposure at sensitive land uses from TAC-emitting vehicle travel on freeways. However, to protect sensitive receptors from TAC -related health risk, CARB recommends that new sensitive receptors not be placed within 500 feet of freeways or urban roads with traffic volumes that exceed 100,000 vehicles per day (CARB 2005: 10). The segments of SR 99 and SR 41 are the highest-volume roadway segments near the Plan Area. SR 99 carries traffic volumes greater than 100,000 vehicles per day within the vicinity of the Plan Area (Caltrans 2022), but land uses near SR 99 are designated for heavy industrial use and would not support sensitive receptors. Traffic volumes on SR 41 through the Plan Area are on the order of 30,000 to 40,000 vehicles per day, below the 100,000 vehicle-per-day CARB threshold for requiring a minimum 500- foot setback. According to the traffic study prepared for the proposed plan, development anticipated under the plan would generate an additional 72,241 trips per day to the Plan Area, which would contribute to even higher volumes of daily trips on SR 99, and SR 41 (TJKM 2023). However, because the proposed plan would not introduce residences within 500 feet from these roadways, it would not result in excessive health risk exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC-emitting vehicles traveling on high-volume roadways. Mobile-source exposure from development under the proposed plan would not generate cancer risk greater than 20 in 1 million or a hazard index greater than 1.0 at locations of sensitive receptors.

In addition, the SCSP features Guiding Principles that include concentrating high intensity uses in the core of the Plan Area away from residential and other sensitive uses and avoiding neighborhood impacts. Specific policies that pertain to protection of sensitive receptors from TACs include T-1: Establish and enforce truck routes to avoid neighborhoods and consider existing roadway capacities and conditions, T-3: Limit truck idling times, AQ-1: Require the installation of air filtration systems in businesses to protect homes and schools, and more.

Construction
Construction of new development and infrastructure under the proposed plan would result in temporary, intermittent emissions of diesel PM from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., clearing); grading; paving; application of architectural coatings; on-road truck travel; and other miscellaneous activities. For construction activity, diesel PM is the primary TAC of concern. On-road diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to and from construction areas to deliver materials and equipment are less of a concern because they would not stay in a single location for long durations.

Diesel PM was identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of diesel PM, as discussed below, outweighs the potential for all other health impacts (i.e., noncancer risk, short -term acute risk) and health impacts from other TACs (CARB 2003). Regarding exposure of diesel PM, the dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the duration of exposure to the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher level of health risk for any exposed receptor. Thus, the risks estimated for an exposed individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, HRAs, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions, should be based on a 70- or 30-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project (OEHHA 2015). Accordingly, it is important to consider that the use of off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would be limited to the periods of construction, during the multiple-year period when new facilities would be constructed. Studies show that diesel PM is highly dispersive (as an example, diesel PM concentrations decrease by 70 percent at 500 feet from the source), and receptors must be near emission sources to result in the possibility of exposure to concentrations of concern (Zhu et al. 2002). As construction progresses, activity intensity and duration would vary through the Plan Area . As such, no single existing or future receptor (i.e., as part of the proposed plan) would be exposed to construction- related emissions of diesel PM for an extended period; that is, the dose of diesel PM at any one receptor would be limited.

Considering the relatively short duration in which diesel PM-emitting construction activity would take place at any given location in the Plan Area, the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors, and the highly dispersive properties of diesel PM, construction-related TAC emissions for any given project would not expose existing sensitive receptors to an incremental increase in cancer risk greater than 20 in 1 million or a hazard index greater than 1.0. However, if Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.3-30 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
multiple construction projects were to occur in proximity to each other and to sensitive receptors, TAC emissions could cumulatively combine to generate cancer risk greater than 20 in 1 million or a hazard index greater than 1.0.

Operational Permitted Sources
SJVAPCD is responsible for the control of TACs generated by stationary sources within the City, including any new stationary sources of TACs developed under the proposed plan, such as gasoline stations, backup diesel generators, or industrial emission stacks. As part of the permitting process for new stationary sources of emissions, pursuant to SJVAPCD Rule 2010 (“Permits Required”) and Rule 2201 (“New and Modified Stationary Source Review”), SJVACPD reviews the permit application and determines whether the source would have the potential to generate levels of TACs that would expose the local population to an incremental increase in cancer risk that exceeds 10 in 1 million (i.e., AB 2588 facility prioritization score) or a noncarcinogenic Hazard Index of 1 for the maximally exposed individual. If either of these criteria are exceeded, then SJVAPCD requires that the source incorporate BACT and/or limit its operations to ensure that these criteria would not be exceeded. As a result, it is foreseeable that operation of any single new stationary source would not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to levels of health risk that would exceed SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance. However, should multiple new stationary sources be sited in proximity to one another, the combined emissions could result in higher levels of TAC concentrations resulting in exposure to receptors that could cumulatively combine to generate a cancer risk exceeding 20 in one million or a hazard index greater than 1.0.

Operational Truck Activity
Development of commercial and industrial land uses under the proposed plan would include facilities with loading docks and loading areas where diesel PM–emitting trucks are active on a regular basis. Some of this activity could include trucks with TRUs (which are typically diesel powered), diesel PM from delivery trucks on local roads/truck routes, and diesel PM associated with on-site equipment use (idling, material movement). Although TRUs have relatively small diesel-powered engines, in the normal course of business, their emissions can pose a health risk to nearby receptors (CARB 2005: 11). The exact nature and locations of developments under the proposed plan are unknown, but it is foreseeable that one or more distribution centers could be developed or uses that result in heavy daily truck use. In its Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, CARB recommends a setback distance of 1,000 feet between sensitive receptors and truck distribution centers that accommodate more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating TRUs per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 ho urs per week (CARB 2005:
15). Developments with new truck loading docks could be constructed in the Plan Area, but specific daily operational emissions levels and proximity to existing or future sensitive receptors are yet unknown. The proposed plan’s Development Standards 2 and 3 provide 1,000-foot setback requirements for certain land use types known to generate high levels of truck activity; however, the land uses listed under these standards are not exhaustive.

Therefore, it is foreseeable that a land use type not listed under Development Standards 2 and 3 could b e sited within 1,000 feet from a receptor. Depending on the location and operation of new facilities with high truck use, these sources could result in substantial TAC concentrations at sensitive receptors. Thus, the operation of trucks accessing the Plan Area could result in exposure to receptors that could cumulatively combine to generate a cancer risk exceeding 20 in one million or a hazard index greater than 1.0.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
As discussed under the heading, “Methodology,” a CO hotspot could occur if A traffic study for the proposed plan indicates that the LOS on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity w ould be reduced to LOS E or F. According to the traffic study prepared for the proposed plan, implementation of the proposed plan would not degrade an intersection functioning at level D or higher to level E or F. Segment 3, between Golden State Boulevard south of Jensen Avenue, which is currently operating at Level E, would continue to function at Level E, thus not meeting the criteria of being downgraded to a less efficient LOS. Therefore, implementation of the proposed plan would not lead to a CO hotspot (TJKM 2022).

Summary
The proposed plan is estimated to result in the future development of approximately 12 million square feet (sf) of non-residential (industrial, retail, and office) uses and 91 new residential dwelling units by 2040 in a Plan Area. Details Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.3-31
regarding future projects, their potential diesel truck activities, their proximity to sensitive receptors, frequency of truck activity, and whether visiting trucks would include TRUs are yet unknown. These details would be determined during the site design phase of individual projects. There would be no potential for new residences to be located in proximity to a freeway or high-volume highway, but loading docks and truck activity areas could be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. The proposed plan’s Development Standards 2 and 3 provide 1,000-foot setback requirements for certain land use types known to generate high levels of truck activity; however, the land uses listed under these standards is not exhaustive. Therefore, it is foreseeable that a land use type not listed under Development Standards 2 and 3 could be sited within 1,000 feet from a receptor. Diesel PM emitted by these truck activities could result in the exposure of nearby receptors to levels of health risk that exceed SJVAPCD’s recommended threshold of 20 in 1 million and could exacerbate the already existing adverse air quality of the surrounding community. This impact would be
significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a: Require Construction Health Risk Assessment A site-specific HRA shall be required for all construction projects anticipated to last more than six months and located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors (as defined by SJVAPCD) regardless of intensity of construction. All recommendations from the HRA shall be enforced as conditions of approval of the development. If the recommendations of the HRA are insufficient to reduce impacts to levels at or below SJVAPCD’s threshold of 20 in one million, such development with significant cancer risk (i.e., that exceed that threshold) shall be prohibited.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-3c: Incorporate Design Features at Truck Loading Areas to Reduce Health Risk Exposure at Sensitive Receptors
Future developments under the plan shall be designed so that truck loading/unloading facilities shall not be located within 1,000 feet of any sensitive receptor unless a qualified, site-specific HRA conducted in accordance with guidance from SJVAPCD and approved by SJVAPCD shows that the associated level of cancer risk at the sensitive receptors would not exceed 20 in 1 million. A truck loading/unloading facility is defined as any truck distribution yard, truck loading dock, or truck loading or unloading area where more than one truck with three or more axles will be present for more than 10 minutes per week, on average; and sensitive receptors include residential land uses, campus dormitories and student housing, residential care facilities, hospitals, schools, parks, playgrounds, and daycare facilities. If the HRA determines that a nearby sensitive receptor would be exposed to an incremental increase in cancer risk greater than 20 in 1 million then design measures shall be incorporated to reduce the level of risk exposure to less than 20 in 1 million. Design measures may include but are not limited to the following :
 All truck loading/unloading facilities to be equipped with one 110/208-volt power outlet for every two-truck loading/unloading facility. A minimum 2-foot-by-3-foot sign shall be clearly visible at each loading dock that indicates, “Diesel engine idling limited to a maximum of 2 minutes.” The sign shall include instructions for diesel trucks idling for more than 2 minutes to connect to the 110/208-volt power to run any auxiliary equipment.  The use of electric-powered “yard trucks” or forklifts to move truck trailers around a truck yard or truck loading/unloading facility.
 The use of buildings or walls to shield commercial activity from nearby residences or other sensitive land uses.  The use of EPA-rated Tier 4 Final engines in diesel-fueled construction equipment when construction activities are adjacent to existing sensitive receptors.

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.3-32 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
 The planting and maintenance of vegetative buffers between truck loading/unloading facilities and nearby residences, schools, daycare facilities, and any other sensitive receptors. As part of detailed site design, a landscape architect licensed by the California Landscape Architects Technical Committee shall identify all locations where trees should be located, accounting for areas where shade is desired such as along pedestrian and bicycle routes, the locations of solar photovoltaic panels, and other infrastructure.  The use of all electrical-powered Transportation Refrigeration Units (TRUs).  The use of all electric heavy-duty trucks.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-3d: Protect New and Existing Sensitive Land Uses To minimize impacts from TAC exposure, for future subsequent development under the proposed plan, the following measures shall be implemented:
 Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet from the centerline of a freeway, unless such development contributes to smart growth, open space, or transit-oriented goals, in which case the development shall include feasible measures such as separation/setbacks, landscaping, barriers, ventilation systems, air filters/cleaners, and/or other effective measures to minimize potential impacts from air pollution.  Require new sensitive land uses to include feasible measures such as separation/setbacks, landscaping, barriers, ventilation systems, air filters/cleaners, and/or other effective measures to minimize potential impacts from air pollution.
 For future development requiring the use of heavy-duty trucks, designate truck routes that avoid sensitive land uses.
 Require that zoning regulations provide adequate separation and buffering between existing and proposed residential and industrial uses (i.e., a minimum of 1,000 feet).  Designate truck routes to avoid residential areas including low-income and minority neighborhoods.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a would require future development under the proposed plan to prepare a project-level construction HRA to assess the potential significance of diesel PM generated during construction on nearby sensitive receptors. If a project cannot demonstrate that mitigation or project design commitments are sufficient to reduce cancer risk to below SJVAPCD’s threshold of 20 in 1 million, the development would not be permitted. Similarly, Mitigation Measure 4.3-3b would require a future development to evaluate its operational contribution of TACs through the preparation of an HRA. If the findings of the HRA demonstrate that emissions would exceed SJVAPCD’s cancer and noncancer thresholds of significance, that development would not be permitted. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3c would ensure that a truck loading/unloading facility would not be located within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor (e.g., residence, school, daycare facility) , which is the CARB-recommended setback distance (CARB 2005: 15), unless a site-specific, SJVAPCD-approved HRA shows that the associated level of cancer risk at the sensitive receptors would not exceed 20 in 1 million. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3 -3d would ensure that new residences would not be located within 500 feet of freeways adjacent to the Plan Area , which is the CARB-recommended setback distance (CARB 2005: 10), unless a site-specific, SJVAPCD-approved HRA shows that the associated level of cancer risk at the sensitive receptors would not exceed 2 0 in 1 million. In addition, as the projects continue to develop over time within the Plan Area, new TAC sources (stationary and mobile) would likely increase the background risk levels in the area, thus potentially exposing receptors to levels greater than 2 0 in 1 million. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3d provides guidance for siting new sensitive receptors near truck routes and existing sources of TACs. Additionally, Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b, 4.3-1c, 4.3-1e, 4.3-1h, and 4.3-1i include performance standards that would reduce diesel PM emissions from project construction and operation through the prohibition of diesel-powered generators, limiting construction exhaust emissions, and electrification of trucks and vehicles.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a and 4.3-3b would require project-level HRAs for construction and operation and includes the requirement that projects resulting in an exceedance of SJVAPCD’s thresholds not be approved . Nevertheless, at this programmatic stage, it cannot be assured that future TAC emissions from new development in the Plan Area Ascent Environmental Air Quality
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.3-33
would not expose receptors to a substantial level of pollution. Therefore, while Implementation of Mitigation Measure

4.3-3a through 4.3-3d could substantially reduce TAC emissions, at this programmatic stage and in consideration of the proposed plan’s potential to cumulatively combine with its own proposed development and other existing development, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Impact 4.3-4: Result in Other Emissions (Such as Those Leading to Odors) Adversely Affecting a Substantial Number of People
Future development implemented under the proposed plan would introduce construction-related sources of odors; however, these sources would be intermittent and would disperse rapidly from the source. The proposed land uses under the proposed plan could support odor-generating processes; however, these sources would be subject to SJVAPCD’s Rule 4102 which would reduce the potential for receptors to be exposed to odors. This impact would be less than significant.

Construction
Odorous emissions generated by heavy-duty diesel equipment and the laying of fresh asphalt during future project- related construction activities would be intermittent and temporary and would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance. Construction of future development implemented under the proposed plan would be implemented over time and any potential odor-generating activities would not occur in a single location, or within proximity to off-site receptors, for an extended period. The type and level of construction activity would be typical of new development on a large site, and associated odor sources would not remain in any one part of the Plan Area throughout all construction periods. Given the temporary and intermittent nature of odor-generating construction activities, construction of the land uses developed under the proposed plan would not expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odors for an extended period. This impact would be less than significant.

Operational Odor Sources
Various new commercial and industrial land uses developed under the proposed plan could potentially result in the siting of new sources of odors, including those identified as potential major odor sources by SJVACPD ( SJVAPCD 2015a). It is unknown the exact nature of future development proposed implemented under the proposed plan, so it is foreseeable that the future development may include food manufacturing and processing facilities, coffee roasters, or painting/coating operations, and restaurants. Restaurants, breweries, and coffee roasters may also be developed in commercial areas of the proposed plan. Because no specific projects or sites have been identified for such future uses, however, the degree of impact with respect to potential odors associated with future projects and their effects on adjacent receptors is uncertain. Regardless, emissions of odors would be subject to SJVACPD’s Rule 4102 (“Nuisance”), which prohibits the discharge of air contaminants or other materials that would cause detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any number of people. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for this impact.

Air Quality Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.3-34 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
This page is intentionally left blank.

Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.4-1

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section identifies the existing common and sensitive biological resources that are located within the Plan Area, evaluates the potential 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.

During the public scoping period for this Draft EIR, comments related to biological resources were received inquiring about the existing biological resources within the Plan Area and suggesting that the EIR include an accurate baseline of environmental conditions and sensitive land uses. The comments are addressed in this section of the EIR.

4.4.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
Federal Endangered Species Act
Pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S. Code Section 1531 et seq.), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regulates the taking of species listed in the ESA as threatened or endangered. In general, persons subject to ESA (including private parties) are prohibited from “taking” endangered or threatened fish and wildlife species on private property, and from “taking” endangered or threatened plants in areas under federal jurisdiction or in violation of state law. Under Section 9 of the ESA, the definition of “take” is to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” USFWS has also interpreted the definition of “harm” to include significant habitat modification that could result in take.

Section 10 of the ESA applies if a non-federal agency is the lead agency for an action that results in take of federally listed species and no other federal agencies are involved in permitting the action. Section 7 of the ESA applies if a federal discretionary action is required (e.g., a federal agency must issue a permit), in which case the involved federal agency consults with USFWS.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), first enacted in 1918, provides for protection of international migratory bird s and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate the taking of migratory birds. The MBTA provides that it will be unlawful, except as permitted by regulations, to pursue, take, or kill any migratory bird, or any part, nest , or egg of any such bird. Under the MBTA, “take” is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or any attempt to carry out these activities.” A take does not include habitat destruction or alteration, as long as there is not a direct taking of birds, nests, eggs, or parts thereof. The current list of species protected by the MBTA can be found in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 10.13 (50 CFR 10.13). The list includes nearly all birds native to the United States.

Clean Water Act
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires project applicants to obtain a permit from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) before performing any activity that involves any discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Waters of the United States include navigable waters of the United States, interstate waters, tidally influenced waters, and all other waters where the use, degradation, or destruction of the waters could affect interstate or foreign commerce, tributaries to any of these waters, and wetlands that meet any of these criteria or that are adjacent to any of these waters or their tributaries. Many surface waters and wetlands in California meet the criteria for waters of the United States.

In accordance with Section 401 of the CWA, projects that apply for a USACE permit for discharge of dredged or fill material must obtain water quality certification from the appropriate regional water quality control board (RWQCB) indicating that the action would uphold state water quality standards.

Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.4-2 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
STATE
California Endangered Species Act
Pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), a permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is required for projects that could result in the “take” of a plant or animal species that is listed by the state as threatened or endangered. Under CESA, “take” is defined as an activity that would directly or indirectly kill an individual of a species, but does not include “harm” or “harass,” as does the federal definition. As a result, the threshold for take is higher under CESA than under the federal ESA. Authorization for take of state-listed species can be obtained through a California Fish and Game Code Section 2081 incidental take permit.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5—Protection of Bird Nests and Raptors
Section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird. Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any raptors (i.e., species in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes), including their nests or eggs. Typical violations include destruction of active nests as a result of tree removal or disturbance caused by project construction or other activities that cause the adults to abandon the nest, resulting in loss of eggs and/or young.

Fully Protected Species under the California Fish and Game Code Protection of fully protected species is described in Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the California Fish and Game Code. These statutes prohibit take or possession of fully protected species and do not provide for authorization of incidental take.

Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (California Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.) allows the California Fish and Game Commission to designate plants as rare or endangered. Sixty-four species, subspecies, and varieties of plants are protected as rare under the NPPA. The act prohibits take of endangered or rare native plants but includes exceptions for agricultural and nursery operations; for emergencies; and, after proper notification of CDFW, for vegetation removal from canals, roads, and other building sites, changes in land use, and other situations.

California Fish and Game Code Section 1602—Streambed Alteration All diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake in California that supports fish or wildlife resources are subject to regulation by CDFW under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Under Section 1602, it is unlawful for any person, governmental agency, or public utility to do any of the following without first notifying CDFW:
 substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from, the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or
 deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake.

The regulatory definition of a stream is a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel that has banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This definition includes watercourses with a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation (CCR Title 14, Section 1.72). CDFW regulation within altered or artificial waterways is based on the value of those waterways to fish and wildlife. A streambed alteration agreement must be obtained for any diversion or alteration that would substantially adversely affect a fish or wildlife resource in a river, stream, or lake.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under the Porter-Cologne Act, waters of the state fall under the jurisdiction of the appropriate RWQCB. The Plan Area is within the Central California RWQCB. The RWQCB must prepare and periodically update water quality control plans (basin plans). Each basin plan sets forth water quality standards for surface water and groundwater, as well as actions to Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.4-3
control point and nonpoint sources of pollution to achieve and maintain these standards. The RWQCB’s jurisdiction includes federally protected waters as well as areas that meet the definition of “waters of the state.” Waters of the state are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state. In addition to water quality certifications under Section 401 of the federal CWA, discharges to waters of the state, including wetlands, must meet the RWQCB waste discharge requirements. This issue is addressed comprehensively in Section 4.10, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” as well as herein with respect to biological resources.

LOCAL PLANS AND POLICIES
City of Fresno Municipal Code – Tree Preservation
The City of Fresno Municipal Code includes an ordinance regarding tree preservation (Section 13 -305) that requires property owners to obtain a permit to remove or maintain street trees. Removed trees will be replaced by the applicant through replanting, or by the City through collection of permit fees.

City of Fresno General Plan – Parks, Open Space, and Schools Element 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 biological resources are presented in various elements of the approved General Plan:

Objective POSS-5. Provide for long-term preservation, enhancement, and enjoyment of plant, wildlife, and aquatic habitat.
 Policy POSS-5-b: Habitat Conservation Plans. Participate in cooperative, multi-jurisdictional approaches for area- wide habitat conservation plans to preserve and protect rare, threatened, and endangered species.  Policy POSS-5-c: Buffers for Natural Areas. Require development projects, where appropriate and warranted, to incorporate natural features (such as ponds, hedgerows, and wooded strips) to serve as buffers for adjacent natural areas with high ecological value.
 Policy POSS-5-d: Guidelines for Habitat Conservation. Establish guidelines for habitat conservation and mitigation programs, including:
 Protocols for the evaluation of a site's environmental setting and proposed design and operating parameters of proposed mitigation measures.
 Methodology for the analysis depiction of land to be acquired or set aside for mitigation activities.  Parameters for specification of the types and sources of plant material used for any re -vegetation, irrigation requirements, and post-planting maintenance and other operational measures to ensure successful mitigation.
 Monitoring at an appropriate frequency by qualified personnel and reporting of data collected to permitting agencies.
 Policy POSS-5-e: Pursue development of conjunctive habitat and recreational trail uses in flood control and drainage projects.
 Commentary: Establishment of wildlife and aquatic habitat is unsuitable along primary conveyance systems to existing and future water treatment facilities. Certain waterways may be excluded from habitat development for this reason.
 Policy POSS-5-f: Regional Mitigation and Habitat Restoration. Coordinate habitat restoration programs with responsible agencies to take advantage of opportunities for a coordinated regional mitigation program.

Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.4-4 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

4.4.2 Environmental Setting
The Plan Area is relatively flat, with topography that ranges in elevation from approximately 275 to 305 feet above mean sea level. A significant amount of land in the Plan Area is farmland or rural residential lots with large, uneven, and underutilized/underdeveloped parcels. The Plan Area contains substantial urban and developed land in the north and east, with increasing vacant lots and agricultural land in the central, south, and west. Irrigation ditches are located throughout the Plan Area near these active agricultural lands.

LAND COVER TYPES
The majority (approximately 60.80 percent) of the approximately 5,567acre Plan Area consists of urban (developed) areas containing industrial, commercial, and residential development and associated roads and infrastructure. Urban land is dominant near the intersection of SR 99 and SR 41 extending southeast along SR 99. Lands along the west, south, and eastern margins of the Plan Area are mapped as agricultural land, which comprises approximately 39 percent of the Plan Area. Small discontinuous patches of annual grassland (0.21 percent) and lacustrine (ponded) habitat (0.1 percent) are also present throughout the Plan Area. No sensitive natural communities are mapped or expected to occur. Land cover types are summarized by acreage in Table 4.4-1 and their distribution is illustrated in Figure 4.4-1.

Table 4.4-1 Land Cover Types in the Plan Area
Land Cover Type Total Percent Cover
Land Cover Type1
Annual Grassland 12 acres 0.21%
Urban 3,385 acres 60.80%
Agricultural Land 2,164 acres 39.00%
Cropland 1 acre 0.01%
Deciduous Orchard 756 acres 13.58%
Dryland Grain Crops 45 acres 0.81%
Evergreen Orchard 104 acres 1.86%
Irrigated Grain Crops 3 acres 0.05%
Irrigated Hayfield 195 acres 3.50%
Irrigated Row and Field Crops 640 acres 11.49%
Vineyard 422 acres 7.59%
Lacustrine 6 acres 0.10%
Grand Total 5,567 acres
Aquatic 2
Freshwater Emergent Wetland 2 acres >0.1%
Freshwater Pond 7 acres >0.1%
Riverine 22 linear miles N/A
1 Source: CAL FIRE 2017.
2 Source: USFWS 2019.

Urban
The Plan Area includes 3,385 acres of urban (or developed) land, which represents approximately 60.80 percent of the total. This land cover type is characterized by anthropogenic development, and may include areas of ornamental tree groves, street strips, shade trees, lawn, and shrub cover. Urban landscapes show variation in vegetative cover, often with a mixture of native and exotic species. Urban lands have been constructed upon or otherwise covered with Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.4-5
a permanent, unnatural surface (e.g., concrete, asphalt, buildings, homes) or large amounts of debris or other materials. The Plan Area consists predominately of urban areas, which are concentrated along SR 99 and SR 41, especially in areas within the Fresno City limits. Urban land provides poor quality habitat for most common and special-status species. Urban land may contain structures and buildings that provide roosting habitat potentially suitable for bats and nesting habitat for common birds. Urban vegetation types typically contain a mosaic of edge habitats that could be used by some common wildlife species.

Agricultural Land
Agricultural land comprises approximately 39 percent of the Plan Area, and the majority is deciduous orchard (approximately 13.58 percent of the total acreage) and irrigated row and field crops (approximately 11.49 percent of the total acreage). In addition, 7.59 percent of the total acreage is vineyard, 3.50 percent is irrigated hayfield. Less than 2 percent each of the remaining agricultural land is cultivated as evergreen orchard, dryland grain crops, irrigated grain crops, or general cropland.

Most agricultural activity on-site and in the immediate vicinity has consisted of cultivation of orchard or various types of row crops. Land mapped as agricultural may be undeveloped intermittently. Undeveloped agricultural land within the Plan Area is characterized by fallow fields with sparse cover of grassland vegetation. Deciduous orchard communities are typically characterized by flat alluvial soils on valley floors and rolling foothills. Orchard communities are typically comprised of artificially irrigated habitat dominated by one, sometimes several, tree or shrub species planted for cultivation. Trees are typically low and bushy, and the understory is open, with little groundcover. In the Plan Area, deciduous orchards include a variety of fruit trees (e.g., apples, apricots, cherries, citrus, kiwi, peaches, nectarines, pears, persimmons, plums, pluots, pomegranates) or nut trees and shrubs (e.g., almonds, olives, pistachios, walnuts).

Irrigated row and field crops are frequently located in floodplains or upland areas with high soil quality. Irrigated row and field crows include annual and perennial crops, grown in rows, with open space between the rows. Row and field crops are artificially irrigated and feature a moderate disturbance rate by vehicle and pedestrian encroachment typically associated with farming activities. Species composition changes frequently, both by season and by year.

Because irrigated row and field crops contain active agriculture, and are therefore disturbed with altered substrates, this land cover type does not provide suitable habitat for special-status plant species and provides limited habitat for special-status wildlife species.

Annual Grassland
The Plan Area contains approximately 12 acres of annual grassland (0.21 percent of the total Plan Area), located primarily along the east, south, and west boundaries of the Plan Area. Annual grassland in the Plan Area includes a mix of native and nonnative annual grasses, which often occur in association with native and nonnative herbs and forbs. The dominant plant species within the annual grassland vegetation community typically include fescue (Festuca spp.), brome (Bromus spp.), and wild oats (Avena spp.), with black mustard (Brassica nigra), dove weed (Croton setigerus), and California poppy (Eschscholzia californica). Annual grasses germinate with the fall rains, grow during the winter and spring, and wither in the early summer. Annual grasslands in the Plan Area may provide habitat suitable for special-status plant and wildlife species described in Tables 4.4-2 and 4.4-3, presented below.

Aquatic Resources
Three major agricultural canals intersect the Plan Area. The Fresno Colony Canal crosses the northern end of the Plan Area, the North Central Canal crosses the center of the Plan Area, and the Central Canal crosses the southern end of the Plan Area. All canals flow from east to west across the Plan Area and are characterized by human-created agricultural water conveyances. No riparian vegetation associated with the canals was observed either during the 2018 site visit, or in review of the satellite imagery of the Plan Area. However, if sufficient vegetation becomes established along these canals to provide habitat and shelter suitable for riparian wildlife, areas around the canals may be considered as riparian habitat.

Some agricultural parcels in the Plan Area contain mapped freshwater emergent wetlands and freshwater ponds, all of which are documented in the National Wetlands Inventory as excavated or hu man-created (USFWS 2019). Ponds Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.4-6 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
observed during the 2018 site visit were all dry, and all contained tire track marks indicating that they had been altered recently. Based on spatial and field reconnaissance data, the areas mapped as freshwater emergent wetland and ponds in the Plan Area are artificial or altered seasonally filled wet depressions, which may serve as industrial or agricultural effluent ponds or flood control. Agricultural canals in the Plan Area may drain into ponds or freshwater emergent wetlands; however, no undisturbed streams or rivers occur in the Plan Area. Aquatic habitat in the Plan Area may lack persistent emergent vegetation or may have submerged or floating-leaved aquatic vegetation.

Aquatic habitat with upland vegetation suitable for wildlife to use as cover from predators was not observed during the reconnaissance survey or in a desktop review of mapped aquatic resources in the Plan Area . Most of the canals, ponds, and freshwater emergent wetlands in the Plan Area occurs in urban industrial or agricultural areas with very little vegetative cover and a long history of disturbance. Therefore, these aquatic resources would provide poor - quality habitat to wildlife and plants reliant on aquatic and riparian ecosystems. If and where suitable conditions exist (i.e., undisturbed slopes, emergent vegetation), aquatic habitat in the Plan Area may provide habitat suitable to special-status plant and wildlife species described in Tables 4.4-2 and 4.4-3, presented below.

Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.4-7

Data downloaded from CAL FIRE in 2022.

Figure 4.4-1 Land Cover Types Mapped in the Plan Area

Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.4-8 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Sensitive Habitats and Natural Communities
Sensitive habitat types include those that are of special concern to CDFW or that are afforded specific consideration through CEQA, Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and Section 404 of the CWA. Sensitive habitats may be of special concern to regulatory agencies and conservation organizations for a variety of reasons, including their locally or regionally declining status, or because they provide important habitat to common and special-status species.

CDFW maintains a list of plant communities that are native to California. Within that list, CDFW identifies sensitive natural communities, which it defines as communities that are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects. These communities may or may not contain special-status species or their habitat. CDFW designates sensitive natural communities based on their state rarity and threat ranking using NatureServe’s Heritage Methodology. Natural communities with rarity rank of S1 to S3, where S1 is critically imperiled, S2 is imperiled, and S3 is vulnerable, are considered sensitive natural communities to be addressed in the environmental review processes of CEQA and its equivalents (CDFW 2018). The region around Fresno is known to contain two special-status natural communities: valley oak woodland and northern claypan vernal pool. Neither community occurs in the South Central Specific Plan area. There are no sensitive natural communities within or adjacent to the Plan Area (CNDDB 2023).

The seasonal wetland and pond habitats in the Plan Area may meet the state definition of wetlands. While the agricultural canals are not vegetated wetlands, they may be subject to regulation under the state’s Porter-Cologne Act as non-wetland waters of the state. There are no riparian habitats present in the Plan Area as the agricultural canals are maintained to prevent establishment of riparian vegetation.

Special-Status Species
Special-status species are defined as species that are legally protected or that are otherwise considered sensitive by federal, state, or local resource agencies. Special-status species are species, subspecies, or varieties that fall into one or more of the following categories, regardless of their legal or protection status:
 officially listed under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) as endangered, threatened, or rare;
 a candidate for state or federal listing as endangered, threatened, or rare under CESA or ESA;  taxa (i.e., taxonomic category or group) that meet the criteria for listing, even if not currently included on any list, as described in CCR Section 15380 of the State CEQA Guidelines;  species identified by CDFW as Species of Special Concern;  species listed as Fully Protected under the California Fish and Game Code;  species afforded protection under local planning documents; and  taxa considered by the CDFW to be “rare, threatened, or endangered in California” and assigned a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1A, 1B, 2A, or 2B, defined as follows:
 CRPR 1A - Plants presumed to be extinct in California;  CRPR 1B - Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere;  CRPR 2A - Plants presumed to be extinct in California but that are more common elsewhere; and  CRPR 2B - Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere.

Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.4-9
All plants with a CRPR are considered “special plants” by CDFW. The term “special plants” is a broad term used by CDFW to refer to all of the plant taxa inventoried in CDFW’s CNDDB, regardless of their legal or protection status.

Plants ranked as CRPR 1A, 1B, 2A, or 2B typically qualify as endangered, rare, or threatened species within the definition of CEQA Guidelines Section 15380. CDFW recommends that potential impacts on CRPR 1 and 2 species be evaluated in CEQA documents. In general, CRPR 3 (review list) and 4 (watch list) species do not meet the definition of endangered, rare, or threatened pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 and/or Section 15125(c). However, these species may be evaluated by the lead agency on a case-by-case basis to determine their local rarity.

The term “California species of special concern” is applied by CDFW to animals not listed under ESA or CESA, but that are considered to be declining at a rate that could result in listing, or that historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. CDFW’s fully protected status was California’s first attempt to identify and protect animals that were rare or facing extinction. Most species listed as fully protected were eventually listed as threatened or endangered under CESA; however, some species remain listed as fully protected but do not have simultaneous listing under CESA. Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no take permits can be issued for these species except for scientific research purposes or for relocation to protect livestock.

Tables 4.4-2 and 4.4-3 provide a list of special-status species potentially occurring in the Plan Area vicinity. These lists were developed through a review of biological studies previously conducted in the area and observations made during the 2018 site surveys. CDFW’s CNDDB (CNDDB 2023), a statewide inventory of the locations and conditions of the State’s rarest plant and animal taxa and vegetation types, was also reviewed for specific information on documented observations of special-status species previously recorded in the Plan Area vicinity. A 12-quad search radius around the Plan Area was used to identify potential special-status species because it encompasses a sufficient distance to accommodate for local habitat diversity. The CNDDB is based on actual recorded occurrences and does not constitute an exhaustive inventory of every resource.

Of the 14 special-status plant species that are known to occur within the 12 USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles including and surrounding the Plan Area, only two were determined to have potential to occur in the Plan Area; the other 12 species are not expected to occur because the Plan Area does not contain habitat potentially suitable for the species (Table 4.4- 2, CNDDB 2023, CNPS 2023). Of the 26 special-status wildlife species that could occur within the 12 USGS quadrangles, six species were determined to have potential to occur in the Plan Area based on the presence of habitat potentially suitable for these species (Table 4.4-3, CNDDB 2023, BIOS 2017a, BIOS 2017b, USFWS 2021).

The species lists in Tables 4.4-2 and 4.4-3 include special-status plant and wildlife species with both scientific and common names, legal status, description of typical habitat association, and the potential for the species to occur in the Plan Area. Most of the special-status species identified in Tables 4.4-2 and 4.4-3 do not occur in the Plan Area or have a low potential for occurrence because the habitat elements they require either were never present or are no longer found on the agricultural or industrial developed portions of south Fresno. Special-status plant and wildlife species that could occur on or adjacent to the Plan Area are evaluated and discussed in further detail below.

Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.4-10 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Table 4.4-2 Special-Status Plants Known to Occur in the Region and Their Potential to Occur in the Plan Area Name Federal
Status1
State
Status1 CRPR1 Habitat Potential to Occur in the
Survey Area2
Lesser saltscale
Atriplex minuscula – – 1B.1
Alkali playa. Chenopod scrub, playas,
valley and foothill grassland. In alkali
sink and grassland in sandy, alkaline
soils. 0–738 feet in elevation. Blooms
May–October. Annual.

Not expected to occur: The Plan
Area does not contain alkaline soils
suitable for this species.

Bristly sedge
Carex comosa – – 2B.1
Lake margin marshes; site below sea
level is on a Delta island. -16–5315
feet in elevation. Blooms May–
September. Geophyte.

Not expected to occur: The ponds
and excavated wetlands in the Plan
Area do not provide habitat
conditions suitable for this species.

Succulent owl's-clover
Castilleja campestris var. succulenta FT SE 1B.2
Endemic to vernal pools. Moist places,
often in acidic soils. 66–2313 feet in
elevation. Blooms (March), April–May.

Annual.

Not expected to occur: The Plan
Area does not support vernal pools.

California jewelflower
Caulanthus californicus FE SE 1B.1
Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, pinyon and juniper
woodland. Sandy soils. 213–6102 feet
in elevation. Blooms February–May.

Annual.

May occur: This species may be
present in annual grassland habitat
within the Plan Area. There is one
historical known location within the
Plan Area, but it is located within
central Fresno, where the land use
appears to have already been
converted to urban use.

Spiny-sepaled button-celery
Eryngium spinosepalum – – 1B.2
Vernal pools, within grassland. 262–
837 feet in elevation. Blooms April–
June. Annual/Perennial.

Not expected to occur: The Plan
Area does not support vernal pool
habitat within grassland suitable for
this species.

California satintail
Imperata brevifolia – – 2B.1
Mesic sites, alkali seeps, riparian
areas, springs, meadows,
streambanks. 10–4905 feet in
elevation. Blooms September–May.

Geophyte.

Not expected to occur: The Plan
Area does not support wetland or
riparian habitat suitable for this
species.

Forked hare-leaf
Lagophylla dichotoma – – 1B.1
Cismontane woodland, valley and
foothill grassland. Sometimes clay.
623–1099 feet in elevation. Blooms
April–May. Annual.

Not expected to occur: The Plan
Area is outside of this species’
elevation range.

Alkali-sink goldfields
Lasthenia chrysantha – – 1B.1
Vernal pools. Alkaline. 0–656 feet in
elevation. Blooms February–June.

Annual.

Not expected to occur: The Plan
Area does not support vernal pool
habitat suitable for this species.

Madera leptosiphon
Leptosiphon serrulatus – – 1B.2
Cismontane woodland, lower
montane coniferous forest. Dry
slopes; often on decomposed granite
in woodland. 984–4265 feet in
elevation. Blooms April–May. Annual.

Not expected to occur: The Plan
Area is outside of this species’
elevation range.

San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass
Orcuttia inaequalis FT SE 1B.1
Vernal pools, 33–2477 feet in
elevation. Blooms April–September.

Annual.

Not expected to occur: The Plan
Area does not contain vernal pool
habitat suitable for this species
Hairy Orcutt grass
Orcuttia pilosa FE SE 1B.1
Vernal pools, 148–656 feet in
elevation. Blooms May–September.

Annual.

Not expected to occur: The Plan
Area does not contain vernal pool
habitat suitable for this species
Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.4-11
Name Federal
Status1
State
Status1 CRPR1 Habitat Potential to Occur in the
Survey Area2
San Joaquin adobe sunburst
Pseudobahia peirsonii FT SE 1B.1
Valley and foothill grassland,
cismontane woodland. Grassy valley
floors and rolling foothills in heavy
clay soil. 377–2608 feet in elevation.

Blooms February–April. Annual.

Not expected to occur: The Plan
Area is outside of this species’
elevation range.

Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii – – 1B.2
Wetland, marshes, and swamps. In
standing or slow-moving freshwater
ponds, marshes, and ditches. 0–2133
feet in elevation. Blooms May–
October (November). Geophyte.

May occur: This species may be
present in scattered ponds or
agricultural ditches in the Plan
Area.

Greene's tuctoria
Tuctoria greenei FE SR 1B.1
Endemic to vernal pools in open
grasslands. 82–4347 feet in elevation.

Blooms May–July (September).

Annual.

Not expected to occur: The Plan
Area does not contain suitable
vernal pool habitat for this species
Notes: CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank; CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database. 1 Legal Status Definitions
Federal:

FE Endangered (legally protected)
FT Threatened (legally protected)
State:

SE Endangered (legally protected)
SR Rare (legally protected)
California Rare Plant Ranks:
1B Plant species considered rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (protected under CEQA, but not legally protected under ESA or CESA)
2B Plant species considered rare or endangered in California but more common elsewhere (protected under CEQA, but not legally protected under ESA or CESA)
Threat Ranks:

0.1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened; high degree and immediacy of threat)

0.2 Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened; moderate degree and immediacy of threat)

0.3 Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known)
2 Potential for Occurrence Definitions
Not expected to occur: Species is unlikely to be present within the survey area due to poor habitat quality, lack of suitable habitat features, or restricted current distribution of the species.

May occur: Suitable habitat is available within the survey area; however, there are little to no other indicators that the species might be present.

Likely to occur: All of the species life history requirements can be met by habitat present in the survey area, and populations/occurrences are known to occur in the immediate vicinity.

Sources: CNDDB 2023; CNPS 2023.

Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.4-12 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Table 4.4-3 Special-Status Wildlife Known to Occur in the Region and Their Potential to Occur in the Plan Area Name Federal
Status1
State
Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur in the
Survey Area
Invertebrates
Crotch bumble bee
Bombus crotchii – SC
Found primarily in California: Mediterranean,
Pacific coast, western desert, Great Valley,
and adjacent foothills through most of
southwestern California. Habitat includes
open grassland and scrub. Nests
underground.

Not expected to occur: The survey area is within
the historic range of this species; however, the
population has declined significantly in the
central portion of the range including Fresno
(Xerces 2018). Two occurrences are present in
the vicinity of the Plan Area, but both are
greater than 100 years old. A record from 1983
reports the nearest occurrence of crotch bumble
bee approximately 25 miles northeast of the
Plan Area (CNDDB 2023).

Monarch - California
overwintering population
Danaus plexippus pop. 1
FC –
Winter roost sites extend along the coast
from northern Mendocino to Baja California,
Mexico. Roosts located in wind-protected
tree groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine,
cypress), with nectar and water sources
nearby. Milkweed species are the larval host
plants.

Not expected to occur: The Plan Area does not
contain coastal habitat suitable for
overwintering monarch butterflies. Milkweed
may be present in undeveloped areas and areas
between agricultural fields; milkweed species
provide foraging and host plant opportunities
for monarch butterflies.

Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus

FT –
Riparian scrub. Occurs only in the Central
Valley of California, in association with blue
elderberry (
Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea).

Prefers to lay eggs in elderberries 2-8 inches
in diameter; some preference shown for
"stressed" elderberries.

Not expected to occur: Although elderberry
shrubs with stems greater than 1-inch in
diameter may be present in the Plan Area, the
Plan Area is outside of this species’ known range
(USFWS 2021).

Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi FT –
Valley and foothill grassland, vernal pool,
wetland. Endemic to the grasslands of the
Central Valley, Central Coast mountains, and
South Coast mountains, in astatic rain-filled
pools. Inhabit small, clear-water sandstone-
depression pools and grassed swale, earth
slump, or basalt-flow depression pools.

Not expected to occur: The survey area does
not support vernal pool or wetland habitat
suitable for this species.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Lepidurus packardi FE –
Valley and foothill grassland, vernal pool,
wetland. Inhabits vernal pools and swales in
the Sacramento Valley containing clear to
highly turbid water. Pools commonly found
in grass bottomed swales of unplowed
grasslands. Some pools are mud-bottomed
and highly turbid.

Not expected to occur: The survey area does
not support vernal pool or wetland habitat
suitable for this species
Reptiles and
Amphibians

Blunt-nosed leopard lizard
Gambelia sila FE FP, SE
Arid, open areas with patchy or sparse
drought-tolerant shrub and herbaceous
vegetation less than 2,600 feet in elevation
along the San Joaquin Valley. Currently
range from Merced to Santa Barbara and
Ventura Counties.

Not expected to occur: Areas of grasslands,
patches of scrub vegetation, and undeveloped
lots within the Plan Area are fragmented from
larger areas of natural vegetation communities
and isolated from known occurrences of this
species.

California tiger salamander
Ambystoma californiense
FT ST Need underground refuges, especially
ground squirrel burrows, and vernal pools or
other seasonal water sources for breeding.

Not expected to occur: The survey area does
not support aquatic habitat suitable for this
species.

Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.4-13
Name Federal
Status1
State
Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur in the
Survey Area
California red-legged frog
Rana draytonii FT SSC
Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent
sources of deep water with dense, shrubby
or emergent riparian vegetation. Requires 11 -
20 weeks of permanent water for larval
development. Must have access to estivation
habitat.

Not expected to occur: The survey area does
not support aquatic habitat suitable for this
species.

California glossy snake
Arizona elegans
occidentalis

– SSC
Patchily distributed from the eastern portion
of San Francisco Bay, southern San Joaquin
Valley, and the Coast, Transverse, and
Peninsular Ranges south to Baja California.

Generalist reported from a range of scrub
and grassland habitats, often with loose or
sandy soils.

Not expected to occur: The Plan Area is outside
of this species’ known and predicted range
(BIOS 2017a). Coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii – SSC
Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most
common in lowlands along sandy washes
with scattered low bushes. Open areas for
sunning, bushes for cover, patches of loose
soil for burial, and abundant supply of ants
and other insects.

Not expected to occur: Grassland areas within the
Plan Area are fragmented from larger areas of
natural vegetation communities and isolated from
known occurrences of this species.

Giant gartersnake
Thamnophis gigas FT ST
Prefers freshwater marsh and low gradient
streams. Has adapted to drainage canals and
irrigation ditches. This is the most aquatic of
the garter snakes in California.

Not expected to occur: The Plan Area is located
outside of the species’ range.

Northern California legless
lizard
Anniella pulchra
– SSC
Sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse
vegetation. Soil moisture is essential. Prefers
soils with a high moisture content.

Not expected to occur: Grassland areas within
the Plan Area are fragmented from larger areas of
natural vegetation communities and isolated from
known occurrences of this species.

Western pond turtle
Actinemys marmorata – SSC
An aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers,
streams and irrigation ditches, usually with
aquatic vegetation, below 6,000 feet
elevation. Need basking sites and suitable
(sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland
habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egg -
laying.

May occur: Artificial canals, man-made ponds,
and excavated wetlands in the Plan Area may
provide suitable aquatic habitat for western
pond turtle.

Western spadefoot
Spea hammondii – SSC
Occurs primarily in grassland habitats but
can be found in valley-foothill hardwood
woodlands. Vernal pools are essential for
breeding and egg-laying.

Not expected to occur: The Plan Area does not
contain vernal pool or seasonal wetland habitat
suitable for western spadefoot.

Birds
Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia – SSC
Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands,
deserts and scrublands characterized by low -
growing vegetation. Subterranean nester,
dependent upon burrowing mammals, most
notably, the California ground squirrel.

May occur: The Plan Area contains suitable
overwintering and breeding habitat in open
grassland habitat and agricultural areas with a
healthy population of California ground
squirrels, and many ground squirrel burrows.

Burrowing owl are known to occur in the vicinity
of the Plan Area (CNDDB 2023).

Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.4-14 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Name Federal
Status1
State
Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur in the
Survey Area
Least Bell's vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus FE SE
Summer resident of southern California in
low riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river
bottoms; below 2,000 feet. Nests placed
along margins of bushes or on twigs
projecting into pathways, usually willow,
coyote brush, mesquite.

Not expected to occur: The Plan Area does not
support nesting habitat suitable for this species.

Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni – ST
Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees,
juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs,
and agricultural or ranch lands with groves
or lines of trees. Requires adjacent suitable
foraging areas such as grasslands, or alfalfa
or grain fields supporting rodent
populations.

May occur: The Plan Area may contain nesting
habitat (i.e., large trees) potentially suitable for
Swainson’s hawks. The Plan Area also may
provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks.

Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor – ST, SSC
Highly colonial species, most numerous in
Central Valley and vicinity. Largely endemic
to California. Requires open water, protected
nesting substrate, and foraging area with
insect prey within a few kilometers of the
colony.

May occur: The Plan Area may contain nesting
habitat (i.e., patches of blackberry along canals,
ponds, or excavated wetlands) potentially suitable
for tricolored blackbird. The Plan Area also may
provide foraging habitat for tricolored blackbird.

White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus – FP
Rolling foothills and valley margins with
scattered oaks and river bottomlands or
marshes next to deciduous woodland. Open
grasslands, meadows, or marshes for
foraging close to isolated, dense-topped
trees for nesting and perching.

May occur: The Plan Area may contain nesting
habitat (i.e., large trees) potentially suitable for
white-tailed kites. Additionally, the Plan Area also
may provide foraging habitat for white-tailed kites.

Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
– SE
Riparian forest nester, along the broad, lower
flood-bottoms of larger river systems. Nests
in riparian jungles of willow, often mixed with
cottonwoods, with lower story of blackberry,
nettles, or wild grape.

Not expected to occur: The Plan Area does not
contain riparian forest habitat suitable for
western yellow-billed cuckoo.

Mammals
American badger
Taxidea taxus – SSC
Most abundant in drier open stages of most
shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, with
friable soils. Needs sufficient food, friable
soils and open, uncultivated ground. Preys
on burrowing rodents. Digs burrows.

Not expected to occur: Grassland areas within
the Plan Area are fragmented from larger areas of
natural vegetation communities and isolated from
known occurrences of this species.

Fresno kangaroo rat
Dipodomys nitratoides
exilis

FE SE
Alkali sink-open grassland habitats in
western Fresno County. Bare alkaline clay-
based soils subject to seasonal inundation,
with more friable soil mounds around shrubs
and grasses.

Not expected to occur: While the Plan Area is
within the historic range of Fresno kangaroo rat,
currently, there are no known populations of the
species within its historical geographic range in
Merced, Madera, and Fresno counties.

Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus – SSC
Most common in open, dry habitats with
rocky areas for roosting. May roost in large
trees and abandoned buildings. Roosts must
protect bats from high temperatures. Very
sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites.

May occur: The Plan Area contains roosting
habitat (potentially unoccupied human-made
structures) suitable for pallid bats.

Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.4-15
Name Federal
Status1
State
Status1 Habitat Potential to Occur in the
Survey Area
San Joaquin kit fox
Vulpes macrotis mutica FE ST
Annual grasslands or grassy open stages with
scattered shrubby vegetation. Need loose -
textured sandy soils for burrowing, and
suitable prey base.

Not expected occur: San Joaquin kit foxes are
unlikely to den within the Plan Area because it is
regularly disturbed, surrounded by dense
suburban and commercial development, and
disconnected from nearby undeveloped habitat
suitable for this species. Further, the Plan Area is
outside of the species range (BIOS 2017b) and
modeled habitat (BIOS 2014), and a recent
assessment report for the species does not
identify any near Fresno as within the current
range of San Joaquin kit fox (USFWS 2020 b).

Spotted bat
Euderma maculatum – SSC
Arid, low desert habitats to high elevation
conifer forests. Prominent rock features
appear to be a necessary feature for
roosting. The winter range and hibernacula
are unknown for most of its range, though
the species has been captured year-round in
the southern part of its range. Roost sites are
cracks, crevices, and caves usually high in
fractured rock cliffs.

Not expected to occur: The Plan Area is outside
of this species’ known range (BIOS 2023).

Western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus – SSC
Many open, semi-arid to arid habitats,
including conifer and deciduous woodlands,
coastal scrub, grasslands, and chaparral.

Roosts in crevices in cliff faces, high
buildings, trees, and tunnels.

Not expected to occur: The Plan Area is within
this species’ range, and western mastiff bat may
fly over or forage in grasslands in the Plan Area.

However, no suitable roosting habitat (e.g., tall
cliffs, crevices in rock outcroppings, tall
buildings) suitable for western mastiff bats is
present in the Plan Area.

General references: Unless otherwise noted, all habitat and distribution data provided by CNDDB.

Note: CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database.
1 Legal Status Definitions
Federal:

FC Candidate for listing (not legally protected)
FE Endangered (legally protected)
FT Threatened (legally protected)
State:

SC Candidate for listing (legally protected)
SE Endangered (legally protected)
ST Threatened (legally protected)
FP Fully protected (legally protected)
SSC Species of special concern (no formal protection other than CEQA consideration) 2 Potential for Occurrence Definitions
Not expected to occur: Species is unlikely to be present in the Plan Area due to poor habitat quality, lack of suitable habitat features, or restricted current distribution of the species.

May occur: Suitable habitat is available in the Plan Area; however, there are little to no other indicators that the species might be present.

Likely to occur: All of the species’ life history requirements can be met by habitat present on the site, and populations/occurrences are known to occur in the immediate vicinity.

Present. Species observed within the Plan Area.

Sources: CNDDB 2023; USFWS 2023.

Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.4-16 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR

4.4.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

METHODOLOGY
This impact evaluation is based on data collected during a reconnaissance-level field survey conducted in December 2018, review of aerial photographs, and information from several previously completed documents that address biological resources in the Plan Area vicinity. The following data, documents, reports, and studies were used in this analysis:
 results of California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) record search of the Fresno South, Malaga, Fresno North, Clovis, Herndon, Kearney Park, Raisin, Caruthers, Conejo, Selma, Sanger, and Round Mountain U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles (CNDDB 2023);  results of California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Inventory of Rare Plants search of the Fresno South, Malaga, Fresno North, Clovis, Herndon, Kearney Park, Raisin, Caruthers, Conejo, Selma, Sanger, and Round Mountain USGS 7.5-minue quadrangles (CNPS 2023);
 a list of species and other resources, obtained from USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), that are known or expected to be on or near the Plan Area or could be affected by projects in this location (USFWS 2021);  Master Environmental Impact Report General Plan and Development Code Update City of Fresno, Fresno County, California (City of Fresno 2014);
 aerial photographs of the Plan Area and region;
 data collected during a reconnaissance-level survey of the Plan Area conducted on December 14, 2018, by an Ascent biologist;
 City of Fresno General Plan and EIR (July 2021);
 Fresno County General Plan (October 3, 2000);
 Fresno County General Plan Background Report (October 3, 2000); and  Fresno County General Plan Draft EIR (2000).

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
An impact related to biological resources would be significant if implementation of the proposed plan would:
 have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS;
 have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFW or the USFWS;  have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means ;  interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites ;  conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
 conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.4-17

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 4.4-1: Result in Substantial Adverse Effect, Either Directly or through Habitat Modification, on Any Species Identified as a Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Species in Local or Regional Plans, Policies, or Regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Future development under the proposed plan may include ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and overall conversion of land cover, which could result in disturbance, injury, or mortality of several special-status plant and wildlife species, if present; reduced reproductive productivity of these species; and contribute to loss of species habitat. This impact would be potentially significant.

Tables 4.4-2 and 4.4-3 provide a list of the special-status plant and wildlife species that may occur or are known to occur within the Plan Area. The following two special-status plant species have the potential to occur within the Plan Area:
 California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus)  Sanford’s arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordi) The following six special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur in the Plan Area:
 western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata)
 burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)
 Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
 tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
 white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus)
 pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)
Special-Status Plants
Future development under the proposed plan, including ground disturbance associated with construction of roads, parking areas, and buildings, and extension of natural gas, water, sewage, and electrical distribution infrastructure, could result in direct removal of California jewelflower or Sanford's arrowhead, if present, or in habitat alterations or plant damage that leads to the death of special-status plants. Loss of individuals of California jewelflower or Sanford's arrowhead could substantially affect the abundance, distribution, and viability of local and regional populations of these species; thus, this would be a significant impact.

Special-Status Wildlife
Western Pond Turtle
The western pond turtle is found in natural and human-made ponds, streams, creeks, irrigation ditches, and other aquatic areas with abundant emergent vegetation. In muddy ponds, western pond turtles may hibernate underwater during the winter or during drought periods. Turtles lay eggs in uplands above stream or pond margins, and hatchlings may emerge in late summer, or in some cases they may overwinter underground in the nest and emerge in spring. Western pond turtles are known to travel into uplands up to 0.3 mile (approximately 1,600 feet) from aquatic habitat (Reese and Welsh 1997).

Future development under the proposed plan, including ground disturbance associated with construction of roads, parking areas, buildings, and extension of utility infrastructure could result in disturbance to irrigation ditches or other aquatic areas where western pond turtle may be present. Project activities (i.e., vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, staging, heavy equipment use, fill of wetlands and other waters) in aquatic habitat and grasslands within 1,600 feet from aquatic habitat may result in direct loss of western pond turtles and occupied burrows if present. This would be a significant impact.

Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.4-18 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owls require large open expanses of sparsely vegetated areas on gently rolling or level terrain with an abundance of active small mammal burrows. Typical habitat associated with the species includes short-grass prairies, grasslands, lowland scrub, agricultural lands (particularly rangelands), prairies, coastal dunes, desert floors, and some artificial, open areas as a year-round resident. Burrowing owls may also use golf courses, cemeteries, road easements and rights-of-way within cities, airports, vacant lots in residential areas, and irrigation ditches. Burrowing owls often use existing rodent burrows (or other burrows) for roosting and nesting. They may also use pipes and culverts where burrows are scarce. Annual grassland and open agricultural land in the Plan Area may provide habitat suitable for this species.

Project activities (i.e., ground disturbance, vegetation clearing, heavy equipment use, staging) associated with future construction activities under the proposed plan may result in direct loss of burrowing owl individuals, disturbance to nests, and potential loss of occupied burrows, if present. This would be a significant impact.

Special-Status Birds, Nesting Raptors, and Other Native Nesting Birds Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, white-tailed kite, and common nesting bird species may be present in the Plan Area. Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite typically nest in open riparian habitat or in scattered trees or small groves. Adjacent agricultural fields, including row crops and irrigated pastures, and grasslands may be used for foraging. Other common raptor species could nest in trees in the Plan Area, including red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). The tricolored blackbird nests near fresh water, with emergent wetlands with tall, dense cattails or tules, but it can also be found in thickets of willow, blackberry, wild rose, and other tall herbs. Common native nesting birds protected under California Fish and Game Code and the federal MBTA may also be present in the Plan Area.

Development under the proposed plan could include ground disturbance, tree removal, and other vegetation clearing which would require the use of equipment, vehicles, and heavy machinery. These activities could result in direct loss of nests or inadvertent disturbance, injury, or mortality of special-status and common native birds. If present, special-status and common native birds could be disturbed due to the presence of equipment and personnel potentially leading to nest abandonment. Active ground nests c ould be inadvertently removed and destroyed during ground disturbance activities, if present, potentially resulting in the loss of eggs or chicks. This would be a potentially significant impact.

Pallid Bat
Pallid bats occur in a variety of habitats throughout California and roost in crevices in rocky outcrops and cliffs, caves, mines, trees, and human structures such as bridges, barns, porches, bat boxes, and buildings. This species also has been found roosting on or near the ground under stone piles, rags, and baseboards. Their tendency to roost gregariously, combined with a relative sensitivity of maternity roosts to noise disturbance, makes pallid bats vulnerable to disturbance. Pallid bats are especially sensitive to disturbance during breeding season (October to February) and pupping season (April through early August). While habitat suitable for pallid bat colonies or maternity roosts is uncommon and of low quality in the Plan Area, abandoned buildings in the Plan Area have the potential to serve as habitat suitable for pallid bat roosting.

Development under the proposed plan may include demolition of existing buildings and removal of large trees. If pallid bats are present in buildings during demolition or present in large trees during removal, these activities could result in direct loss of colony roosts or breeding colonies. If present, pallid bats roosts could be disturbed due to direct loss of roosting habitat, or due to the presence of equipment and personnel potentially leading to roost abandonment. Project activities (i.e., noise-producing heavy equipment, ground disturbance, vegetation clearing, staging) may result in maternity or colony roost abandonment to pallid bats, if present. This would be a significant impact.

Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR 4.4-19
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a: Conduct Project-Level Biological Reconnaissance Sensitive Species and Habitats Survey During the early planning stages of projects under the SCSP, the following measure shall apply:
 If a project site has natural land cover and is not within existing development with an urban landscape, a data review and biological reconnaissance survey will be conducted within a project site by a qualified biologist prior to project activities (e.g., ground disturbance, vegetation removal, staging, construction) . The survey will be conducted no more than one year prior to project implementation. The qualified biologist must be familiar with the life histories and ecology of species in the City of Fresno and must have experience conducting field surveys of relevant species or resources, including focused surveys for individual species, if applicable. The data reviewed will include the biological resources setting, species tables, and habitat information in this EIR. It will also include review of the best available, current data for the area, including vegetation mapping data, species distribution/range information, CNDDB, CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, relevant Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) queries, and relevant general plans. BIOS is a web - based system that enables the management and visualization of biogeographic data collected by CDFW and partner organizations. The qualified biologist will assess the habitat suitability of the project site for all special- status plant and wildlife species as well as sensitive habitats identified as having potential to occur in the SCSP area (refer to Section 4.4.2, “Environmental Setting”), and will identify bat maternity roosts within the SCSP area.

The qualified biologist will also assess the potential for aquatic resources (e.g., wetlands, streams, seeps) or sensitive natural communities to be present within the project site. The biologist will provide a report to the City of Fresno with evidence to support a conclusion as to whether special-status species and sensitive habitats are present or are likely to occur within the project site.  If the reconnaissance survey identifies no potential for special-status plant or wildlife species, and no potential sensitive habitats including riparian habitat or wetlands, the City of Fresno will not be required to apply any additional mitigation measures under Impact 4.4-1b through 4.4-1f, 4.4-2, or 4.4-3.  If the qualified biologist determines that there is potential for special-status species or sensitive habitats to be present within the project site, the appropriate biological mitigation measures, identified herein shall be implemented.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-1b: Conduct Special-Status Plant Surveys, and Implement Avoidance Measures and Mitigation If it is determined through implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4 -1a that habitat suitable for special-status plant species is present within a particular project site, the following measures shall be implemented:
 Before implementation of future project activities in the Plan Area that could affect grasslands suitable for California jewelflower (within natural annual grassland areas), or when projects are proposed that could affect aquatic habitat suitable for Sanford’s arrowhead, a qualified botanist shall conduct protocol-level surveys of the project site following survey methods from CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts on Special - Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2018 or most recent version). The qualified botanist shall (1) be knowledgeable about plant taxonomy, (2) be familiar with plants of the Central Valley region, including special-status plants and sensitive natural communities, (3) have experience conducting floristic botanical field surveys as described in CDFW 2018, (4) be familiar with the California Manual of Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009 or current version, including updated natural communities data at http://vegetation.cnps.org/), and (5) be familiar with federal and state statutes and regulations related to plants and plant collecting.
 If special-status plants are not found, the botanist shall document the findings in a report to the City of Fresno, and no further mitigation shall be required.
 If special-status plants are found during protocol surveys and cannot be avoided by project activities, the applicant shall, in consultation with CDFW or USFWS, as appropriate, depending on species status, develop and implement a site-specific mitigation strategy to compensate for loss of occupied habitat or individuals.

Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
City of Fresno

4.4-20 South Central Specific Plan Draft EIR
Mitigation measures shall include, at a minimum, preserving and enhancing existing populations outside of the individual development area, establishing populations through seed collection or transplantation from the site that is to be affected, and/or restoring or creating habitat in sufficient quantities to offset loss of occupied habitat or individuals. Potential mitigation sites could include suitable locations within or outside of the project site. Habitat and individual plants lost shall be mitigated at a ratio agreed upon in consultation with CDFW or USFWS, considering acreage as well as function and value at a population scale. Success criteria for preserved and compensatory populations shall include:
• The extent of occupied area and plant density (number of plants per unit area) in compensatory populations shall be equal to or greater than the affected occupied habitat. • Compensatory and preserved populations shall be self-producing. Populations would be considered self- producing when:
- plants reestablish annually for a minimum of five years with no human intervention such as supplemental seeding; and
- reestablished and preserved habitats contain an occupied area and flower density comparable to existing occupied habitat areas in similar habitat types in the project vicinity. - If off-site mitigation includes dedication of conservation easements, purchase of mitigation credits, or other off-site conservation measures, the details of these measures shall be included in the mitigation plan, including information on responsible parties for long-term management, conservation easement holders, long-term management requirements, success criteria such as those listed above and other details, as appropriate to target the preservation of long -term viable populations.

Fresno City CouncilDecember 5, 2024

Fresno City Council
December 5, 2024