Fresno City Council
December 5, 2024

Exhibit P
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
This page intentionally left blank

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

City of Fresno
November 2024

FINAL 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:

Kathie Washington
Project Manager
619.717.8655
November 2024
180110181.01
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................................... ii 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1 2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS .................................................................................................................................................2-1 3 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ..............................................................................................................................................3-1 4 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4-1 5 LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................................................................................................................................................5-1 Figures
[Revised] Figure 3-5 Adopted General Plan Planned Land Use...............................................................................................3-2 [Revised] Figure 3-6 Proposed Land Use.........................................................................................................................................3-3 [Revised] Figure 3-16 SPLU Proposed Buffers ..................................................................................................................................3-4 [Revised] Figure 4.14-4 Existing and Planned Parks and Ponding Basins ................................................................................ 3-18 [Revised] Figure 6-1 No Project/General Plan Land Use Alternative: Planned Land Use..............................................3-20 Tables
Table 1-1 Assumed Development for the Proposed Plan Compared to Existing Conditions....................................1-2 Table 2-1 List of Commenters...........................................................................................................................................................2-1 City of Fresno
ii South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
BACT best available control technology
BMP best management practice
CalEnviroScreen California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool CALGreen California Green Building Standards
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERP South Central Fresno Community Emissions Reduction Plan CESA California Endangered Species Act
CGP Construction General Permit
City City of Fresno
EIA environmental impact assessment
EIR environmental impact report
EV electric vehicle
Final EIR final environmental impact report
FMFCD Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
GHG greenhouse gas
HIA Health Impact Assessment
HRA health risk assessment
HVAC heating, cooling, ventilation, and air conditioning LED light-emitting diode
MTCO2e/year metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year NOX oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PM10 respirable particulate matter
SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SCSP or project South Central Specific Plan Project
sf square feet
SFAP Sustainable Freight Action Plan
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District TAC toxic air contaminant
TRU transport refrigeration unit
VERA Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
ZNE zero net energy
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
This final environmental impact report (Final EIR) has been prepared by the City of Fresno (City), as lead agency, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Section 15132). This Final EIR contains responses to comments received on the draft environmental impact report (Draft EIR) for the South Central Specific Plan Project (project, proposed plan, or SCSP). The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR and this document (response to comments document), which includes comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR.

1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USES OF THIS FINAL EIR
CEQA requires a lead agency that has prepared a Draft EIR to consult with and obtain comments from responsible and trustee agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, and to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. This Final EIR has been prepared to respond to comments received on the Draft EIR, which are reproduced in this document, and to present corrections, revisions, and other clarifications to the Draft EIR, including revisions to the SCSP made in response to these comments. The Final EIR will be used to support the City’s decision regarding whether to approve the project.

This Final EIR will also be used by CEQA responsible and trustee agencies to ensure that they have met their requirements under CEQA before deciding whether to approve or permit project elements over which they have jurisdiction. It may also be used by other state, regional, and local agencies that may have an interest in resources that could be affected by the project. In accordance with Section 15168(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, subsequent projects will be examined in light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared and if so, the type and scope of that environmental document.

The Fresno City Council is the decision-making body responsible for considering the adequacy of the EIR and whether it should be certified and whether the project should be approved as proposed.

1.2 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 existing land uses including industrial, warehouse, commercial, residential, religious, educational, public, and open space uses.

1.3 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.
 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.

Introduction Ascent
City of Fresno
1-2 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
 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 Plan Area.

1.4 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The City of Fresno is proposing to adopt the 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 would be accommodated in the existing General Plan), 10 million square feet of commercial/office uses, and 1.2 million square feet of retail uses and public facilities.

The SCSP proposes land use designation changes for certain areas, requiring a General Plan amendment and rezone of those 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 conservatively estimated that an additional 12 million square feet of nonresidential uses and 91 dwelling units would be constructed by 2040 (Table 1-1). 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 1-1 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: Data provided by Ascent in 2023.

Ascent Introduction
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 1-3

1.5 ASSEMBLY BILL 98
Since public and agency review of the Draft EIR, new legislation, Assembly Bill (AB) 98, was signed into law. AB 98, adopted on September 29, 2024 (Section 65302.02 [commencing with Section 65098] to Chapter 2.8 of the Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code; Sections 40458.5 and 40522.7 of the Health and Safety Code) establishes various requirements for proposed new or expanded logistics use developments or centers. Logistics centers are characterized as warehouses or buildings intended for the movement of goods in the supply chain, from supplies to manufacturers, sellers, distributors, and buyers. Logistic centers are known to generate high volumes of truck trips associated with the movement of commercial goods.

AB 98 establishes a first-of-its-kind definition for a “21st Century Warehouse” and a “Tier 1 21st Century Warehouse.” For 21st Century Warehouses, starting on January 1, 2026, all new or expanded logistics centers must incorporate solar photovoltaic systems and battery storage; skylights in at least 1 percent of the roof area or equivalent lightemitting diode (LED) lighting; cool roofing; medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicle (EV) ready infrastructure; lightduty EV charging equipped with EV supply equipment (EVSE); conduits and electrical hookups for cold storage; high efficiency heating, cooling, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; 100 percent zero-emission forklifts by 2030; and use of zero-emission small off-road engines, as commercially available. AB 98 also defines requirements for a “Tier 1 21st Century Warehouse” that expands on the aforementioned 21st Century Warehouse requirements with mandatory minimums for EV charging infrastructure, use of smart metering, microgrid-ready switchgear systems, and an accelerated target to transition to a zero-emission forklift fleet by January 2028, as commercially available.

AB 98 also sets requirements for new and modified logistics centers below and above 250,000 square feet (sf) in areas that are already industrially zoned or for which an amendment is sought to rezone to an industrial land use. All logistics centers greater than 250,000 sf, either proposed on a parcel already zoned for industrial or seeking a rezone, must comply with the requirements of a Tier 1 21st Century Warehouse (Section 65098(g)); logistics centers less than 250,000 sf need only comply with the requirements of a 21st Century Warehouse (Section 65098(a)).

Depending on the size and zoning designations of logistics centers, additional AB 98 requirements generally include setback distances from existing sensitive receptors of a minimum of 900 feet; orientation of loading bays away from sensitive receptors and, at minimum, 500 feet from the property line; construction and maintenance of a solid decorative wall, landscaped berm and wall, or landscaped berm of 10 feet or more in height; and planting of trees comprising two rows along the length of a property line adjacent to a sensitive receptor.

It is foreseeable that proposed industrial land uses under the SCSP could include the construction and operation of logistics centers, which would be subject to the 21st century and Tier 1 21st century warehouse requirements of AB 98.

Notably, these requirements apply only to developments that meet the definition of a logistics center or warehouse, and not to all industrial developments that could become operational within the SCSP boundary. Based on review of AB 98, the EIR analysis does not conflict with the provisions of the bill, and future logistics centers that could operate within the SCSP would be subject to AB 98, as applicable. Moreover, many of the mitigation measures recommended in the Draft EIR and revised in this Final EIR are reflective of standards embedded in AB 98, and could apply to other industrial and commercial land uses that would not be classified as a logistics center.

1.6 MAJOR CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The Draft EIR identified the following significant impacts related to the project and comments and responses to comments in the Final EIR resulted in no changes to these conclusions:
 Aesthetics: Implementation of the proposed plan would result in increases of densities and intensification primarily of industrial and commercial land uses within the Plan Area, which would result in substantial changes in the existing visual character. No feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate the impact to a less-thansignificant level; therefore, the impact of the proposed plan and its considerable contribution to the cumulative impact on the existing visual character would be significant and unavoidable. The proposed plan would introduce new sources of light and glare associated with new buildings and facilities. Although residential development is Introduction Ascent
City of Fresno
1-4 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
relatively sparse in the Plan Area and the SCSP assumes relatively little new 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, resulting in a significant impact. After mitigation, light/glare impacts would be less than significant.  Agriculture and Forestry Resources: Implementation of the proposed plan would result in conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. This impact would be significant.

Mitigation measures are included in the EIR to require compensatory farmland to be preserved. However, the mitigation measure would not replace the farmland that is converted; therefore, this proposed plan and cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable. Additionally, 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. Because future development could result in conflict with a Williamson Act contract and no feasible mitigation is available, the impact of the proposed plan and its considerable contribution to the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.
 Air Quality: The proposed plan, which comprises many future development projects, would generate construction and operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors exceeding the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) thresholds of significance. In addition, implementation of the proposed plan would result in significant impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs) and resultant cancer risk. After mitigation, air quality impacts would be less than significant, except for TAC impacts. The impact of the proposed plan and its considerable contribution to the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.
 Biological Resources: Future development under the proposed plan may include ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and overall conversion of land cover, which would have potentially adverse effects on biological resources. This would include potentially significant impacts related to the disturbance, injury, or mortality of several special-status plant and wildlife species, if present; reduced reproductive productivity of these species; and contribution to loss of species habitat. Development under the proposed plan could also result in potentially significant impacts related 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; and the loss of state or federally protected wetland habitat, which includes seasonal wetlands. After implementation of mitigation measures, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant.  Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources: Because the Plan Area could contain unrecorded historic sites, implementation of the proposed plan could result in a significant impact related to historic resources if such a resource exists and damage to or destruction of the resource occurred. After implementation of mitigation measures, the impact of the proposed plan and its considerable contribution to the cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Additionally, ground-disturbing activities could result in discovery or damage of yet undiscovered archaeological resources and previously unknown human remains, which would result in potentially significant impacts. After implementation of mitigation measures, impacts to these resources would be less than significant.
 Energy: The proposed plan would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per service population relative to existing conditions and 2040 no project conditions, meet the mandatory electric vehicle (EV) charging requirements of the CALGreen Code and promote the use of EVs, and result in new development that would comply with 2022 California Energy Code Standards and with the progressively more stringent requirements of future Energy Code standards. However, because the proposed plan does not include any policies that address building zero net energy (ZNE) for future land uses, the proposed plan would conflict with the energy-related measures of the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHGRP), which requires that commercial projects achieve ZNE electricity.

After implementation of mitigation measures, this impact would be less than significant.  Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources: Construction of future development 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 Ascent Introduction
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 1-5
geologic feature, which would be a potentially significant impact. After mitigation, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change: The proposed plan would result in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during both construction and operation of plan development. Because neither the City nor SJVAPCD have recommended thresholds for determining the significance of GHG emissions, consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan is used to determine whether implementing the proposed plan would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to climate change. The proposed plan would not align with the Transportation Electrification and Building Decarbonization Priority Areas included in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Therefore, the proposed plan would generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment, would conflict with state GHG reduction goals, and would cumulatively contribute to global climate change. After implementation of mitigation measures, the greenhouse gas emissions impact of the proposed plan and its considerable contribution to the cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable.  Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Construction and operation of development under the proposed plan would result in potentially significant impacts related to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; potential for hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school; potential to be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; and potential to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. After implementation of mitigation measures, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant.
 Hydrology and Water Quality: Future development under the proposed plan could degrade the quality of stormwater flows and potential downgrade downstream surface water quality, and result in an increase of impervious surface and runoff. In addition, the Plan Area contains flood hazard and dam inundation areas.

Development under the proposed plan would be required to comply with applicable requirements related to water quality, groundwater, flood hazards. With compliance with existing regulations and applicable plans such as the Basin Plan, hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than significant.  Land Use and Planning: Development under the proposed plan would not physically divide an established community. Implementing the proposed plan would require a general plan amendment to allow for the proposed land use changes, as some of the proposed land uses differ from the general plan. With the approval of the amendment, the SCSP would be consistent with the City of Fresno General Plan and would not conflict with any other plans or policies. Therefore, land use impacts would be less than significant.  Noise: Future construction activities could result in a substantial (i.e., 5 dB) temporary or periodic increase in noise during daytime or nighttime hours at existing and future sensitive land uses. Depending on the specific location of future land development and specific land uses located close to high-volume roads, exterior and interior noise limits could be exceeded at existing and future sensitive land uses. In addition, operation of future projects could result in truck-generated vibration impacts on sensitive receptors and—though unlikely—sensitive uses could be developed within the small areas of land in the proposed Business Park and Residential land use designations adjacent to existing railroad tracks, operational vibration impacts would be significant. After implementation of mitigation measures, the noise impact of the proposed plan and its considerable contribution to the cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable.  Population and Housing: Implementation of the proposed plan would 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) or displace substantial numbers of people or housing. Therefore, population and housing impacts would be less than significant.

Introduction Ascent
City of Fresno
1-6 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
 Public Service and Recreation: Under the proposed plan, development would be intensified within the Plan Area and may increase demand for fire protection services and law enforcement services that could require new or expanded facilities. 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. The projected future development of the proposed plan would include an estimated 91 new residential dwelling units by 2040, which is anticipated to support approximately 279 new residents at buildout.

The projected number of residents in the Plan Area would be relatively small and dispersed and would not require the construction or expansion of school or recreations facilities. Therefore, public services and recreation impacts would be less than significant.
 Transportation and Circulation: The 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 Transportation Impact Analysis: South Central Specific Plan 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 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. 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 these requirements are met. In addition, with adherence to local and State emergency access and design standards and regulations, implementation of the proposed plan would not adversely affect emergency vehicle access or response times. Therefore, the proposed plan would not result in inadequate emergency access. With compliance with existing regulations and applicable plans transportation and circulation impacts would be less than significant.
 Utilities and Service Systems: 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. 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. In addition, Implementation of the proposed plan would allow for development of industrial, commercial office, retail, and residential uses, which would generate solid waste. 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. After implementation of mitigation measures, impacts related to utilities and service systems would be less than significant.

Ascent Introduction
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 1-7

1.7 CEQA PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
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 circulated 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 the Draft EIR.

The purpose of the NOPs were 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. Each section of Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR provides a summary of comments received for each related environmental issue.

On May 31, 2024, the City released the Draft EIR for a 60-day public review and comment period. The Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to reviewing agencies; posted on the City’s website (https://www.fresno.gov/planning/plans-projects-under-review/#south-central-specific-plan-scsp,); and was made available at the City’s Planning and Development Department, Fresno County Public Library, Mosqueda Branch Library, and West Fresno Branch Library. A notice of availability of the Draft EIR was published in the Fresno Bee and distributed by the City to a project-specific mailing list. On July 11, 2024, the City held an open house for the SCSP and the Draft EIR to ensure the public had the opportunity to ask questions about the Plan and the EIR process.

As a result of these notification efforts, written and oral comments were received from agencies, organizations, and individuals on the content of the Draft EIR. Chapter 2, “Responses to Comments,” identifies these commenting parties, their respective comments, and responses to these comments. None of the comments received, or the responses provided, constitute “significant new information” as defined in the CEQA Guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines CCR Section 15088.5).

1.8 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR
This Final EIR is organized as follows:
 Chapter 1, “Introduction,” describes the purpose of the Final EIR, summarizes the project and the major conclusions of the Draft EIR, provides an overview of the CEQA public review process, and describes the content of the Final EIR.
 Chapter 2, “Responses to Comments,” contains a list of all parties who submitted comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period, copies of the comment letters received, and responses to the comments. The chapter begins with a set of master responses that were prepared to respond comprehensively to multiple comments that raised similar issues. A reference to the master response is provided, where relevant, in responses to individual comments.

Introduction Ascent
City of Fresno
1-8 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
 Chapter 3, “Revisions to the Draft EIR,” presents revisions to the Draft EIR text made in response to comments, or to amplify, clarify or make minor modifications or corrections. Changes in the text are signified by strikeouts where text is removed and by underline where text is added.  Chapter 4, “References,” identifies the documents used as sources for the analysis.  Chapter 5, “List of Preparers,” identifies the lead agency contacts as well as the preparers of this Final EIR.

City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-1
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
This chapter contains comment letters received during the public review period for the Draft EIR, which concluded on July 30, 2024. In conformance with Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, written responses were prepared addressing comments on environmental issues received from reviewers of the Draft EIR.

2.1 LIST OF COMMENTERS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Table 2-1 presents the list of commenters, including the numerical designation for each comment letter received, the author of the comment letter, and the date of the comment letter.

Table 2-1 List of Commenters
Letter No. Commenter Date

STATE AGENCIES
1 California Air Resources Board
Matthew O'Donnell, Chief, Risk Reduction Branch
7/24/2024
2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Julie A. Vance, Regional Manager
7/24/2024
3 California Department of Transportation, District 6
Dave Padilla, Branch Chief, Office of System and Regional Planning, Transportation Planning - North Branch
7/29/2024

LOCAL AGENCIES
4 County of Fresno
Elliott Racusin, Planner, Development Services and Capital Projects Division 7/11/2024
5 Fresno Irrigation District
Laurence Kimura, P.E., Chief Engineer
7/15/2024
6 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
Denise Wade, Master Plan Special Projects Manager
7/30/2024
7 San Joaquin Valley APCD
Mark Montelongo, Program Manager
7/30/2024

ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
8 Center for Biological Diversity
Frances Tinney, Attorney
7/7/2024
9 Leadership Council for Justice & Accountability et al.

Ivanka Saunders, et al.
7/30/2024
10 Leadership Council for Justice & Accountability
Edward T. Schexnayder, SMW Law
7/30/2024
11 Regenerate California Innovation (RCI)
Keith Bergthold
7/30/2024
12 Tree Fresno
Mona N. Cummings
7/17/2024

COMPANIES, BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS, LABOR, OTHER ORGANIZATIONS 13 Affinity Truck Center
Kim Mesfin, President
7/30/2024
14 Betts Company
Mike Betts
ND
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-2 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Letter No. Commenter Date
15 Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO
Chuck Riojas, Financial Secretary-Treasurer
ND
16 Central California Food Bank
Kym Dildine, Co-CEO
ND
17 Certified Meat Products
Jimmy Maxey
ND
18 Chamber of Commerce
Scott Miller
7/18/2024
19 D & I Farms, Daniel Barandalla
Dirk Poeschel
7/30/2024
20 Donaghy Sales, Beverage Distributor
Ryan Donaghy
ND
21 Dumont Printing
Susan D. Moore, President & Owner
7/29/2024
22 Formax, LLC
Paul Gillum, Managing Member
ND
23 Fresno Business Council
Genelle Taylor Kumpe, CEO and Deborah Nankivell, CEO, Fresno Stewardship Foundation 7/24/2024
24 INVESTFresno et al.

Ben Granholm
7/30/2024
25 JD Food
Mark Ford, CEO
ND
26 Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Plan Review Team, Land Management
7/3/2024
27 Penny Newman Grain Company
David Meeker
7/29/2024
28 Robert V. Jensen, Inc.

William V. Jensen
ND
29 San Joaquin Valley Manufacturing Alliance
Genelle Taylor Kumpe, CEO and Mario Persicone, Chair
7/24/2024
30 Valley Iron, Inc.

Noel Briscoe
ND
31 Wanger Jones Helsley
John P. Kinsey
7/30/2024

INDIVIDUALS
32 Rosa DePew 7/30/2024

2.2 MASTER RESPONSES
Several comments raised similar issues. Rather than responding individually, master responses have been developed to address the comments comprehensively. Master Responses are provided for the following topics: comments pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan, recirculation (of the Draft EIR), program versus project-level analysis, downzoning to create transitional or buffer areas, economic feasibility of mitigation, and relationship to the Truck Reroute Study. Reference to one or more master responses is provided, where relevant, in responses to individual comments.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-3

2.2.1 Master Response 1: Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan
Many comments do not address environmental impacts or the adequacy of the Draft EIR, but instead address various provisions of the Draft South Central Specific Plan (SCSP) itself, and in some cases, the City’s General Plan or other plans and documents and their relationship to the SCSP. These plan and policy comments offer a variety of perspectives regarding the SCSP, ranging from simple statements of support for or opposition to, and detailed recommendations regarding specific provisions of the plan.

In response to the call for review and public comment on the Draft SCSP and EIR, 32 comment letters were received, including 7 from public agencies, 5 from non-governmental organizations, 19 from other organizations (including companies and their representatives, business organizations/associations, and other entities), and 1 from an individual. An additional 5 individuals provided comments at the open house. These comment letters contain approximately 250 discreet comments, many of which do not address environmental impacts or the adequacy of the Draft EIR and instead provided some form of policy or procedural recommendation or opinion directed to the Draft SCSP.

CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require written responses to significant environmental issues raised in public comments on a Draft EIR. Accordingly, this Final EIR provides required responses to comments on such issues as the completeness, accuracy, and adequacy of the environmental analysis. Comments that do not address significant environmental issues, but that instead raise issues or questions pertaining to the SCSP, are summarized and identified in this Final EIR, but specific responses are not provided herein. Rather, the Staff Summary/Report that accompanies this Final EIR summarizes the public comments that pertain to the Draft SCSP and the resulting changes that were made to the Draft SCSP.

Several comments were received expressing concern about the lack of public notice regarding land use changes proposed in the SCSP. In response, the City of Fresno sent a letter dated October 7, 2024, to owners of all properties for which adoption of the SCSP would result in a change to the underlying land use and zoning designation. A map was included for reference. Property owners were encouraged to contact City staff by November 14, 2024, with any questions or to express opposition to the proposed land use changes. In addition, on November 8, 2024, the City sent a letter to owners of all property within the SCSP area boundary to notify them that adoption of the SCSP may result in changes to development standards applicable to their property. Included with this letter was a notice of public hearing before the Fresno Planning Commission on November 20, 2024, and a notice of public hearing before the Fresno City Council on December 5, 2024.

All public comments on the Draft SCSP and Draft EIR, regardless of their environmental content, have been made available to the City of Fresno Planning Commission and City Council for consideration and have been posted on the City’s website and made available to the public (available at: http://www.www.fresno.gov/scsp).

2.2.2 Master Response 2: Recirculation
The City received comments stating that the Draft EIR should be revised and recirculated for an additional round of public review and comment. This response discusses the standards generally applicable to recirculation of an EIR, so that other responses can refer to this Master Response rather than repeating this information multiple times.

The lead agency is required to recirculate a draft EIR when “significant new information” is added to the EIR after the close of the public comment period but prior to certification of the final EIR (PRC Section 21092.1; State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5). As used in this Section of the CEQA Guidelines, “information” can include changes to the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. “New information added to an EIR is not ‘significant’ unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a)). Specifically, “significant” new information includes information showing that:

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-4 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
 A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a)(1)).  A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a)(2)).  A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a)(3)).
 The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a)(4)).

The Natural Resources Agency adopted Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines to incorporate the California Supreme Court’s decision in Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112 (Laurel Heights II). According to the Supreme Court in this decision, the rules governing recirculation of a draft EIR are “not intend[ed] to promote endless rounds of revision and recirculation of EIRs” (Laurel Heights II, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1132). Instead, recirculation is “an exception, rather than the general rule.” (Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center v. County of Siskiyou (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 184, 221.) Under these standards, “new information” such as a change to a proposed project, mitigation measures, environmental setting information, or the addition of new data, made in response to comments on a draft EIR, generally does not trigger the obligation to recirculate the draft EIR. “The CEQA reporting process is not designed to freeze the ultimate proposal in the precise mold of the initial project; indeed, new and unforeseen insights may emerge during investigation, evoking revision of the original proposal.” (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 199; see River Valley Preservation Project v. Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 154, 168, fn. 11). Given the recognized potential for project changes during the EIR review process, as well as the potential for changed conditions and the availability of new data, the criteria for “significant new information” provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 were adopted to prevent the “endless rounds of revision and recirculation” referenced in Laurel Heights II.

As these cases recognize, CEQA encourages the lead agency to respond to concerns as they arise, by adjusting a project, revising mitigation measures, developing additional mitigation measures, or otherwise modifying an EIR, as necessary. That an EIR evolves to address such concerns is evidence of an agency performing meaningful environmental review. A rule requiring recirculation of the draft EIR any time a project or circumstances change would have the unintended effect of freezing the original proposal or the EIR contents, and of penalizing the lead agency or the project sponsor for revising the project or EIR in ways that may be environmentally benign or even beneficial. In light of this policy concern, the courts uniformly hold that the lead agency need not recirculate the draft EIR merely because the proposed project evolves or circumstances change during the environmental review process. (See, e.g., Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1061-1065 [project modification requiring consultation with Coast Guard regarding building designs did not require recirculation of Draft EIR]; South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 316, 329-332 [identification of staff-recommended alternative after publication of final EIR did not trigger obligation to recirculate draft EIR because alternative resembled other alternatives that the EIR had already analyzed]; Western Placer Citizens for an Agricultural and Rural Environment v. County of Placer (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 890, 903-906 [revision in phasing plan did not trigger recirculation requirement because revision addressed environmental concerns identified during EIR process]; Laurel Heights II, supra, 6 Cal.4th at pp. 1141-1142 [final EIR’s identification of night-lighting glare, and adoption of corresponding mitigation measures, did not trigger recirculation requirement].) Information that clarifies or expands on information in the draft EIR also does not require recirculation. A number of cases illustrate this legal principle. For example, in North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water Dist. Bd. of Directors (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 614, 654-656, the addition of a hybrid alternative to the FEIR did not trigger a duty to recirculate the Draft EIR. In Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center v. County of Siskiyou, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 221, recirculation was not required when two reports were added to the FEIR after the Draft EIR had already summarized the reports’ contents. In Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 219-224, Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-5
information regarding the presence of cultural resources on the property did not require recirculation because information amplified information that was already in the Draft EIR. In Silverado Modjeska Recreation and Park Dist. v.

County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 282, 305-307, new information regarding the potential presence of protected species in the vicinity of the project site did not require recirculation because the previous EIRs had already disclosed that the species might be present. In California Oak Foundation v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 227, 266-268, letters addressing seismic risks did not trigger a duty to recirculate the Draft EIR because although the letters recommended further analysis, they did not contradict the conclusions in the Draft EIR. In Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle, L.P. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 97, the commenter’s disagreement with the analysis of groundwater flow in the EIR did not require recirculation because substantial evidence supported the EIR’s analysis and the lead agency had discretion regarding which expert to rely upon. In Chaparral Greens v. City of Chula Vista (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1134, 1148-1151, regulatory and planning efforts to protect endangered species did not require recirculation of the Draft EIR because analysis already contained detailed analysis of the project’s physical impacts on that species. In Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. California Department of Health Services (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1574, 1605- 1606, the designation of “critical habitat” under the Endangered Species Act was not “significant new information” requiring recirculation because the EIR had already analyzed the physical impacts to the species and its habitat.

Finally, in Marin Municipal Water Dist. v. KG Land California Corp (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1652, 1666-1668, clarifying information regarding the potential length of the moratorium was not “significant new information” requiring recirculation.

There are instances in which the courts have ruled that an agency erred by failing to recirculate a draft EIR. In particular, in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, the EIR for a large development project contained no analysis of the impact on groundwater pumping on surface water flows in a river that provided habitat for endangered fish species. In responses to comments from expert resource agencies, the final EIR conceded that the pumping could dry up the river at the same time the fish would otherwise migrate through the area. The disclosure of a new significant impact, for which no mitigation was offered, triggered the duty to recirculate the draft EIR (40 Cal.4th at page 447-449). Other examples of courts ruling that recirculating a draft EIR was required include Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 128-131, in which the Court directed the County to revise and recirculate the draft EIR to disclose potential significant impacts of reducing off-site groundwater pumping to offset increase in pumping to provide water supply for proposed development project. Another example is Grey v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1120, in which the County included a new mitigation measure in the final EIR, and the administrative record contained no evidence of the feasibility of that measure; therefore, the Court directed the County to recirculate the draft EIR to receive comments on that measure. Moreover, if a draft EIR is found to be “woefully inadequate,” such that meaningful public review and comment are precluded, then the agency must recirculate the document. See, for example, Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1050-1052, in which the draft EIR omitted entirely any discussion of cumulative impacts, despite a court order requiring such analysis.

In the instance of the South Central Specific Plan, the responses to comments in this Final REIR are thorough and extensive. The responses to comments provide the following general categories of information:
 First and foremost, the responses address the environmental concerns raised by the comments, and describe how they are addressed in the Draft EIR;
 They provide corrections to the Draft EIR text, where such corrections are warranted;  They expand on or provide minor clarifications to information already included in the Draft EIR where warranted;  They suggest revised or augmented mitigation measures that may more effectively reduce already identified significant environmental impacts of the project; and
 They address recommendations for alternatives to the project, including whether these recommendations are already included in the alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIR.

However, for the reasons described in the master responses and individual responses to comments (see Sections 3.2, “Master Responses,” and 3.3, “Comments and Responses,” respectively, in this Final EIR), none of the conditions Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-6 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
warranting recirculation of a draft EIR, as specified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 and described above, have occurred. As a result of responses to comments and any other additional new information, no new significant impacts would result; there is no increase in the severity of a significant impact identified in the Draft EIR, following mitigation; no feasible alternatives have been recommended that would avoid a significant impact, wherein the applicant has refused to adopt such an alternative; and as to the Draft EIR adequacy, the City believes the Draft EIR is complete and fully compliant with CEQA.

2.2.3 Master Response 3: Program Versus Project-Level Analysis Several comments critiqued the approach taken in the Draft EIR to analyze the SCSP at a program level and/or suggested that the Draft EIR should present more detailed information about subsequent projects than is available or now known.

The State CEQA Guidelines contain guidance on when a program EIR may be prepared and describe the focus of a project EIR. As explained on Draft EIR page 1-1, the SCSP Draft EIR functions as a program EIR. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 states that “a program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and, among other things, are related geographically or in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, or plans to govern the conduct of a continuing program.” State CEQA Guidelines Section 15161 states that “a project EIR focuses on the changes in the environment that would result from a development project.” Although several commenters assert that calling an analysis “project level” or “program level” necessarily results in a requirement that the EIR contain a certain level of specificity, that is not the case. Indeed, in practice, the phrase “program EIR” is often used to refer to an EIR that presents a higher level of analysis with less detail, whereas the phrase “project EIR” is often used to refer to an EIR that presents a more detailed level of analysis. However, the name of the analysis—program or project level—does not ultimately dictate the specificity required in an EIR under CEQA.

Instead, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15146, as noted on Draft EIR page 4-1, speaks to the degree of specificity necessary in an EIR: “The degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR.” Importantly, Section 15146(a) continues:

Section 15146(b) further states:

An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow.

A comment on the Draft EIR (See comment 10-11) suggests that Section 15168(b) describes program EIRs as providing for “more exhaustive consideration” of effects and alternatives than an EIR on an individual action in order to ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis. Contrary to the commenter’s inference that the “programmatic nature” of the Draft EIR is an excuse to avoid detailed analyses, and that “a program EIR must provide ‘more exhaustive consideration,’” Section 15168(b) merely lists potential benefits that use of a program EIR can provide; it does not dictate what contents a program EIR shall contain. Specifically, Section 15168(b) states that “[u]se of a program EIR can provide the following advantages…” and “[t]he program EIR can” before listing several potential benefits (emphasis added). To reiterate, the level of specificity in an EIR is not dictated in the State CEQA Guidelines by the name of the analysis—program or project— but instead by Section 15146 and the level of detail known about activities associated with the project. Furthermore, CEQA is clear that an indirect impact should be considered only if it is a reasonably foreseeable impact caused by the project (State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(d)(3), 15358(a)(2)). An environmental impact that is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(d)(3)).

This EIR addresses a regional-scale, policy-level plan and it is, therefore, not feasible to provide details on yetunknown site-specific projects or activities. As described throughout the Draft EIR, no specific development is currently proposed for the plan area. The broad geography and long timeframe to which the SCSP applies, and the policy‐oriented nature of its guidance, is such that the EIR’s impact analysis is prepared at a policy level—that is, a Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-7
more general analysis with a level of detail and degree of specificity commensurate with that of the plan itself. As such, the EIR focuses on the potential effects of land use changes and policies, which—because they are to be implemented through as‐yet‐undefined projects over the duration of the Plan—are inherently less precise. The EIR is not intended to take the place of all project‐specific environmental documentation that will be needed to implement actions anticipated to occur following approval of the SCSP, nor does it contain sufficient analytical detail for the City to approve site‐specific projects that may be proposed in the future consistent with the SCSP without some level of subsequent project-specific review. In accordance with Section 15168(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, subsequent projects will be examined in light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared and if so, the type and scope of that environmental document.

2.2.4 Master Response 4: Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas
Several comments address the SCSP proposal to redesignate and rezone certain portions of the plan area. As described on page 3-12 of the Draft EIR, “[w]hile 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 neighborhoodserving 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.” Some of the comments express displeasure that the proposed redesignation and rezone do not go far enough to protect residential and other sensitive uses in the plan area, alleging that allowable uses would still result in development that would be incompatible with sensitive uses. Still other comments express concern that the City would propose such land use changes in the first instance, citing adverse economic effects and development constraints.

To the first type of comment, the EIR is a programmatic evaluation of potential development in the plan area that could conservatively happen through the planning horizon of 2024. The EIR’s charge is to evaluate such development—using reasonable assumptions—against baseline conditions, in this case, conditions in the plan area at the time of release of the Notice of Preparation, which is approximately the same as existing conditions. The EIR contains this analysis, discloses environmental impacts, and recommends feasible mitigation measures to address adverse effects. While the EIR analysis is not a plan-to-plan comparison, it is important to emphasize that the City’s objective in proposing the land use changes is to codify more appropriate planning guidance in relation to sensitive uses than now exists with the general plan and existing land use plans. By reflecting existing sensitive uses in the SCSP (which is not now the case: many existing residential areas are designated Heavy Industrial), reducing overall acreage of heavy industrial land uses, and surrounding existing sensitive uses with more restrictive designations and zoning (e.g., changing Heavy Industrial designations to Business Park), the City is proposing to reduce the intensity and change the nature of development that could occur adjacent to sensitive uses. From this perspective, the revised plan is beneficial. With this change, uses such as intensive industrial, chemical warehousing, salvage and wrecking, waste transfer, rendering, and other heavy industrial uses would no longer be permitted.

To the second group of comments that express the opposite concern—that these areas should not be downzoned— the concerns are largely economic. Comments allege that the proposed zoning would impose unfair restrictions on industrial activities, render as conditional some uses that are currently allowed, limit warehousing and distribution uses, and require extensive and expensive Health Risk Assessments. While these comments are acknowledged, it is within the City’s authority to propose changes to land use designations and zoning to achieve certain aims, in this instance to reduce potential land use conflicts between future development and existing sensitive uses.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-8 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Several comments take issue with the size of the 1,000-foot buffer and suggest it is arbitrary and inflated. This is incorrect. Fresno City Council Resolution 2019-235 directs the consideration of land use intensity reduction adjacent to sensitive uses on undeveloped land as well as the provision of buffers to protect sensitive uses from adverse impacts from intense land uses in the SCSP area. Regarding the specific distance, the 1,000-foot buffer established for the SCSP is also the recommended distance between new sensitive land uses and distribution centers found in the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (April 2005), page 4, Table 1-1:

Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses such as Residences, Schools, Daycare Centers, Playgrounds, or Medical Facilities. This distance is based on CARB and South Coast Air Quality Management District emissions and modeling analyses that estimated an 80 percent decline in pollutant concentrations at approximately 1,000 feet from a distribution center. For these reasons, it is reasonable to assume that—at the SCSP Plan level—1,000 feet is an appropriate distance from sensitive uses within which the City would prohibit Heavy Industrial uses in favor of Business Park uses. Project-specific prohibitions and requirements of the SCSP for otherwise allowable Business Park uses would still be enforced.

2.2.5 Master Response 5: Economic Feasibility of Mitigation Several comments raised concerns about the economic effects of the SCSP (e.g., its effect on property values) and with the economic feasibility of implementing mitigation measures at the project level. As an initial matter and to the former concern, evaluation of economic and social effects may be included in an EIR, but as stated in Section 15131 of the CEQA Guidelines, the economic and social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. An EIR may trace a chain of cause and effect through social and economic effects to determine if they result in physical effects (such as blight); environmental effects would only result if the social or economic effect causes a change to the physical environment.

To the latter concern about the economic feasibility of certain mitigation measures, the EIR acknowledges that some measures are based on emerging technologies, but the mitigation measures recommended in this EIR have been determined to be feasible based on examples in other contexts (e.g., CARB 2022 Scoping Plan Update, City of Fontana Municipal Code Amendment No. 21-001R1 to Revise Sustainability Standards for Industrial Commercial Centers, Mariposa Industrial Park Project #2 EIR, Attorney General guidance, Assembly Bill 98 [summarized in greater detail in Chapter 1, “Introduction,” and throughout these responses], and other sources). In accordance with Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, “an EIR shall describe feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts...” and in these instances, the measures must be adopted unless they are otherwise shown to be infeasible by decisionmakers and are documented as part of CEQA findings (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091) and, as applicable, a statement of overriding considerations (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093). However, no information has been provided to suggest that implementation of the proposed mitigation measures in the EIR would result in a significant change to the physical environment or that the mitigation measures are infeasible.

In addition, and as discussed in Master Response 3 above, this EIR addresses a regional-scale, policy-level plan and it is, therefore, not feasible to provide details on yet-unknown site-specific projects or activities. As such, the EIR focuses on the potential effects of land use changes and policies, which—because they are to be implemented through as‐ yet‐undefined projects over the duration of the Plan—are inherently less precise. The EIR is not intended to take the place of all project‐specific environmental documentation that will be needed to implement actions anticipated to occur following approval of the SCSP, nor does it contain sufficient analytical detail for the City to approve site‐ specific projects that may be proposed in the future consistent with the SCSP without some level of subsequent project-specific review. During the subsequent review process for specific projects, the City will conduct environmental analyses and determine the appropriate mitigation measures from the SCSP EIR necessary to mitigate impacts.

2.2.6 Master Response 6: Relationship to the Truck Reroute Study Some comments erroneously state that the SCSP and EIR relied on the Truck Reroute Study to address air quality and traffic safety impacts associated with truck traffic. This is not the case.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-9
The Truck Reroute Study was prepared by the City in partnership with SJVAPCD to identify existing truck patterns within the South Central Fresno community and associated adverse health effects from truck-generated emissions to receptors within the community. The Truck Reroute Study evaluates potential rerouting of existing and future trucks, and identifies strategies to mitigate negative freight impacts, improve air quality, and improve the quality of life for members of the South Central Fresno community. The findings of the Truck Reroute Study were released at nearly the same time as the Draft EIR. While the Draft EIR refers to the Truck Reroute Study, then in progress, the strategies and conclusions of the Truck Reroute Study, which are yet to be considered for acceptance by the City Council, were not and could not have been relied upon for the Draft EIR analysis and are not reflected in the Draft EIR conclusions.

The Draft EIR acknowledged that the City’s effort was in progress, and that the conclusions and recommendations of the Truck Reroute Study were anticipated to result in positive changes relative to truck traffic safety and human health as it relates to truck emissions. At this programmatic stage, the Draft EIR does not attempt to quantify the number of new trucks that could be added to any one existing roadway as individual development projects are yet to be proposed. Section 4.3, “Air Quality,” provides a suite of mitigation measures that may be applied to future development once project-level development proposals have been submitted for consideration. Moreover, the findings of the Draft EIR do not prohibit the City from implementing the strategies of the Truck Reroute Study, which include investments in new sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, roadway repaving, traffic calming, signage, signaling, and roadway reconfiguration. These investments are not limited to existing truck activity within the South Central Community and would serve to reduce impacts of future trucking from future development including, but not limited to, the SCSP.

The Fresno Community Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and the South Central Fresno AB 617 Community Truck Reroute Study have been completed and the City plans to submit for consideration a resolution to the City Council for acceptance of these studies. Both studies are informational and include recommendations that the City could implement. As a subsequent action, the City plans to submit for consideration by the City Council, an ordinance for approval of the addition and removal of truck routes from the official list of designated truck routes under provisions of Section 14-1303 of the Fresno Municipal Code. The draft SCSP has been revised to reflect the anticipated process.

If the City approves the ordinance to add and remove truck routes from the official list in the Municipal Code, then SCSP Figure 6-8 will be updated to reflect those changes. Approximately 39 net truck route miles are recommended for removal. This includes the removal of 37 truck routes and the addition of 6 truck routes related to California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and California High-Speed Rail Authority circulation changes. Within the Plan Area, planned truck routes along Elm, Cherry, East, and Central Avenues are proposed to be removed as well as existing truck routes on Golden State Boulevard and Chestnut Avenue.

2.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The oral and written individual comments received on the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments are provided below. The comment letters and verbal comments made at the public hearing are reproduced in their entirety and are followed by the response(s). Where a commenter has provided multiple comments, each comment is indicated by a line bracket and an identifying number in the margin of the comment letter.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-10 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

2.3.1 State Agencies
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-11
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-12 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-13
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-14 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-15
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-16 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-17
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-18 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-19
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-20 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-21
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-22 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-23
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-24 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-25
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-26 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-27
Letter 1 California Air Resources Board,
Matthew O'Donnell, Chief, Risk Reduction Branch
7/24/24
Response 1-1
The comment is introductory and summarizes elements of the SCSP. No edits to the Draft EIR are needed in response to this comment and no further response is required.

Response 1-2
The comment reiterates similar comments made during the NOP scoping period, stating that a Health Risk Assessment should be prepared for the SCSP, and that the City and future applicants are encouraged to implement zero emission technologies to minimize exposure of people to diesel PM and NOx emissions (toxic air contaminants or TACs) and minimize GHG emissions. CARB also expressed concern about potential cumulative health risks to existing pollution-burdened communities.

The Draft EIR includes several mitigation measures intended to minimize emissions of diesel PM and NOX. All mitigation measures that directly relate to criteria air pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were developed in consideration of comments submitted during the NOP scoping period, as well as direct input provided by CARB and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), during the preparation of the Draft EIR. The mitigation measures provided in the Draft EIR, and discussed and revised throughout this document, reflect the opinions and recommendations of CARB and SJVAPCD, among other public stakeholders including the Attorney General’s Office. As recommended by CARB, several measures are similar to mitigation practices included in the Mariposa Industrial Park EIR (SCN 2020120283), certified by the City of Stockton in 2022 (City of Stockton 2022).

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b requires use of clean heavy-duty equipment for future construction activities which would serve to minimize the combustion of diesel fuels through the use of electric equipment, renewable diesel, and use of Tier 4 engines. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1c prohibits the use of portable diesel engines which serves to reduce diesel exhaust emissions during construction. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1e includes several measures to control exhaust emissions. Additionally, Mitigation Measures 4.3-1h and 4.3-1i set performance standards for class 2 through 8 trucks which would reduce operational exhaust emissions from truck activity. These mitigation measures would holistically reduce diesel PM and NOX emissions during project construction and operation.

Impacts related to TACs are discussed under Impact 4.3-3 of the Draft EIR. Construction and operational health risk assessments (HRAs) were not prepared for the SCSP due to the programmatic approach taken in the Draft EIR. As summarized in Table 3-2 in Chapter 3, “Project Description,” the SCSP entails the development of 5,567 acres of several land use types including, but not limited to, heavy industrial, light industrial, business park, and general commercial. While the locations of land with specific land use designations and zoning are known, there is considerable variability in the types of development allowed within each designation, and project-level information pertaining to the nature, location, size, characteristics, construction, and operation of each individual future development is unknown at this time. No specific developments are currently proposed. Please refer to Master Response 3, Program Versus Project-level Analysis. The construction period for the SCSP as a whole over the planning horizon was conservatively assumed to occur from 2024 through 2040; however, it is foreseeable that development under the SCSP could be built out over a longer construction period. There is inherent uncertainty, at this programmatic stage, regarding the magnitude, location, and construction phasing of future development proposed in the SCSP. Therefore, the transport of TACs from the use of heavy-duty equipment and new haul truck trips, and subsequent exposure of TACs to on- and off-site receptors cannot be reliably estimated, and a construction HRA was not prepared. Similarly, because no specific developments are proposed and no-site specific operational information is available, little confidence could be placed in an operational HRA that relied on guesswork and speculation, so one was not prepared. Specifically, an informative and meaningful operational HRA would require specific locations (e.g., on individual properties and buildings), activity parameters (e.g., daily and annual operational schedule), source types (e.g., manufacturing processes, diesel engines, generators) and pollutants (e.g., diesel Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-28 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
particulate matter, benzene) associated with individual TAC sources. This information is not known and cannot be reasonably estimated at the programmatic level of analysis appropriate for the SCSP. When conducting an HRA, individual source characteristics are used to accurately estimate the emissions rate for each TAC resulting from the source, based on the process type and the anticipated operational schedule. Then, using site-specific characteristics such as location of the source on or next to a building, including any intervening barriers and local topography, are all taken into account in the modeling, to develop a representation of the areas that would result in the highest risk exposure. Without this level of detail available, an informative operational HRA cannot be prepared.

Mitigation Measures 4.3-3a through 4.3-3d are recommended to minimize the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutants. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a and 4.3-3b direct applicants of future development to conduct construction and operational HRAs once project-specific information is known. Per the requirements of Mitigation Measures 4.3-3a and 4.3-3b, if future development would result in a significant and unavoidable TAC impact following the implementation of all feasible mitigation, the development proposal would be prohibited. While the measure was adequate in its original form, in response to this comment and others, the language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a and 4.3-3b have been revised as follows on pages 4.3-31:

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 two months and located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors (as defined by SJVAPCD) regardless of intensity of construction. In addition to project-level health risk from construction, future construction HRAs must evaluate cumulative health risk levels from project implementation. 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 4.3-3b: 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). In addition to project-level health risk from operation, future operation HRAs must evaluate cumulative health risk levels from project implementation. 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.

The above edits do not alter the findings of the Draft EIR, and no further response is required.

Response 1-3
The comment expresses that CARB is encouraged to see that the Draft EIR includes mitigation measures it recommended in response to the April 2021 NOP, and expresses particular agreement with development standards (Section 3.6.6, “Development Standards”) of the SCSP and Mitigation Measures 4.3-1h and 4.3-1i. The comment is noted.

Response 1-4
The comment expresses concern that the construction and operation of future developments in the SCSP area will expose nearby residential communities to elevated levels of air pollution beyond existing baseline conditions. Please see Responses to Comments 1-5 and 1-6 for additional information.

Response 1-5
The comment correctly states that residences are located adjacent to and within the SCSP area. The comment also states that the SCSP is located within the Assembly Bill (AB) 617 South Central Fresno Community and that the project should be consistent with the South Central Fresno Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP). The CERP is summarized on pages 4.3-12 through 4.3-13 of the Draft EIR.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-29
The South Central Fresno CERP includes several strategies to reduce the cumulative exposure burden in the South Central Fresno community applicable to the SCSP including:
 HD.1: Incentive program for heavy duty trucks replacement with zero and near zero emission technology.  HD.2: Incentive program for the deployment of clean yard trucks, transport refrigeration units, and related infrastructure.
 HD.3: Incentive program to reduce idling of heavy duty trucks within the community: charging infrastructure.  HD.4: Support planning and development of clean fueling infrastructure.  HD.6: Enhanced enforcement of the statewide anti-idling regulation.  HD.12: Promote the use of biodiesel/renewable diesel fuels.

The CERP also includes strategies directed to manage emissions from industrial sources; however, these strategies comprise regulatory actions overseen by SJVAPCD and CARB and are outside of the purview of CEQA.

Section 4.3, “Air Quality,” includes several mitigation measures that align with the strategies of the South Central Fresno CERP. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b, 4.3-1h, and 4.3-1i target emissions from heavy-duty trucks (HD-1) by requiring the use of clean fleets during project construction and implementing benchmark goals for zero and nearzero heavy-duty trucks, equipment, and vehicles. Under Mitigation Measure 4.3-1h, future tenants of new and developed commercial and industrial land uses shall meet an accelerated target of 100 percent zero emissions by December 31, 2026, or when commercially available. Under Mitigation Measure 4.3-1i, an accelerated transition of Class 2 through 6 vehicles shall be 100 percent zero or near-zero by December 31, 2031. Moreover, the SCSP includes policies (AQ-4 and AQ-7) that support the electrification of TRUs (HD.2). Mitigation Measure 4.3-1e includes requirements for exhaust control measures including idling restrictions (HD.3 and HD.6). Mitigation Measure 4.6-1a directs future commercial and residential development to meet the most ambitious electric vehicle voluntary requirements of the most current version of the CALGreen Code in effect at the time of project approval (HD.4).

Mitigation Measure 4.6-1c directs future industrial development to source natural gas from renewable natural gas and Policy AQ-4 requires alternative fuel stations be available throughout the plan area (HD.12).

In applicable areas of overlap, these mitigation measures align with the strategies identified by SJVAPCD in the South Central Fresno CERP and would serve to reduce the SCSP’s contribution of air pollution to the plan area. As such, the City finds that the SCSP is consistent with the South Central Fresno CERP.

Response 1-6
The comment summarizes the findings of the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen) Version 4.0 and states that the project should not impact a pollution-burdened community. As discussed on pages 4.12 through 4.3-14, the Draft EIR uses CalEnviroScreen to identify the project area as a severely pollution burdened community, which is also shown in Figure 4.3-1. The analysis in Section 4.3, “Air Quality,” of the Draft EIR programmatically evaluates air quality impacts of the proposed plan and its potential effects on the nearby community and recommends mitigation for impacts found to be potentially significant.

Response 1-7
The comment summarizes the approach taken in Section 4.3, “Air Quality” with respect to the programmatic health risk analysis prepared for the analysis. The comment correctly states that an HRA was not prepared for the SCSP as a whole (see response to comment 1-2). The comment recommends text edits to Mitigation Measures 4.3-3a and 4.3- 3b to require all proposed industrial development to prepare their own individual HRAs. As detailed on page 4.3-31 of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measures 4.3-3a and 4.3-3b include language requiring project-level construction and operational HRAs for all future development in the SCSP within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor, consistent with guidance provided by SJVAPCD. Pursuant to Mitigation Measures 4.3-3a and 4.3-3b, if TAC levels are found to exceed SJVAPCD’s 20 in one million threshold of significance, additional project-level mitigation is required, which is summarized in Mitigation Measure 4.3-3c and 4.3-3d. If such additional mitigation is not sufficient to reduce impacts Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-30 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
to below SJVAPCD’s threshold, development shall be prohibited. See response to Comment 1-2 for a summary of text edits made to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a and 4.3-b.

Response 1-8
The comment states that the Draft EIR’s evaluation of the SCSP’s contribution of regional air pollution and subsequently recommended mitigation would not be sufficient to demonstrate that impacts could be reduced to a less-than-significant level on a cumulative basis. The comment recommends text edits to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a.

Air pollution is inherently a cumulative impact. The nonattainment or attainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past, present, and future development. The future attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards is a function of the successful implementation of air quality attainment plans. Therefore, SJVAPCD recommends that its numerical thresholds be applied to assess whether a project would have a cumulatively considerable impact on air quality (SJVAPCD 2015: 66).

The Draft EIR for the SCSP includes a programmatic analysis of a proposed plan. SJVAPCD’s numerical thresholds may be applied projects of all types and sizes; however, given that they are fixed regardless of project size, projects of scale like the SCSP often trigger an exceedance of these thresholds given the acreage and development capacity of the SCSP. Therefore, programmatic and project level mitigation measures are provided to reduce impacts; however, it is foreseeable that individual projects proposed under the SCSP may not exceed SJVAPCD’s thresholds following the implementation of the mitigation measures enumerated in Section 4.3, “Air Quality.” Additionally, SJVAPCD oversees its Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement (VERA) program for project applicants whose projects generate emissions exceeding its thresholds following the application of all feasible on-site mitigation measures.

Because SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance are inherently cumulative, the approach taken in Mitigation Measure

4.3-1a directing future development proposals to conduct project-level analyses to identify potential future impact is appropriate. As written, Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a requires future development proposals to incorporate all feasible on-site reduction measures, including, but not limited to, Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b through 4.3-1m, in a projectlevel CEQA evaluation to identify potential impacts. If emissions are found to exceed SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance, additional mitigation or engagement in a VERA may be required. In response to this comment, the text of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a has been revised as follows on page 4.3-20 of the Draft EIR:

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a: Prepare an Ambient Air Quality Analysis and Mitigation Plan or Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement
Prior to future individual 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 air quality assessment 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 individual development projects will engage in a voluntary emissions reduction agreement (VERA) prior to applying for project-level approval from the City through coordination with SJVAPCD to reduce emissions to meet below 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, t 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 below SJVAPCD’s annual significance thresholds of significance. Engagement in the VERA shall be monitored by SJVAPCD in perpetuity with oversight by the City.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-31
The above edits do not alter the findings of the Draft EIR and no further response is required. See also Responses to Comments 7-3, 7-4, and 7-5.

Response 1-9
The comment suggests that the Draft EIR may have underestimated mobile source emissions by relying on unrealistic truck trip lengths. The comment indicates that operational truck trips would likely be up 130 miles, which is an example distance based on the project site’s proximity to the Port of Stockton. The modeling prepared for the SCSP does not assume a 40-mile trip distance for operational trucks; however, to estimate construction-generated haul truck trips, CalEEMod defaults were utilized assuming 20 miles for one-way trips (collectively 40 miles). With respect to construction assumptions, this is a reasonable distance to assume as compared to operational truck activity which may warrant longer trips to deliver manufactured goods. The emissions from operational mobile sources, which includes truck trips, were derived from the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by TJKM in 2023. The 40-mile trip distance was extrapolated based on average annual heavy duty truck trip mileage (FHWA Highway Statics 2021, Table VM-1). The Federal Highway Administration estimates that a heavy duty truck travels an average of 60,000 miles per year (FHWA Highway Statics 2021, Table VM-1), which equates to an average of 164 miles per day. Assuming each heavy duty truck takes 4 trips a day (to account for loading and unloading between different warehouses/industrial centers) the average truck trip distance would be 41 miles, or approximately 40 miles per trip. While the SCSP understands the need for project-specific truck trip evaluation, the SCSP is a land use plan, and thus does not have project specific details regarding subsequent developments in the plan area such as location, size, and use. Thus, the findings of the air quality modeling prepared for the Draft EIR remain defensible and are substantiated by evidence.

Response 1-10
The comment reiterates its concerns about the SCSP’s air quality and public health impacts. Please refer to Response to Comments 1-2 through 1-9.

Response 1-11
The comment conveys that lack of comment by CARB on any issue does not constitute agreement with the EIR conclusions or lead agency findings. This comment is acknowledged. CARB also offers its assistance with zeroemission technologies and emission reduction strategies. The City appreciates this offer.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-32 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-33
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-34 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-35
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-36 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-37
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-38 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-39
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-40 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Letter 2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Julie A. Vance, Regional Manager
7/24/24
Response 2-1
The comment is an introduction to the letter and describes CDFW role and responsibilities as an agency.

Response 2-2
The comment summarizes the land cover in the Plan Area and recognizes that the Draft EIR identifies that the Plan Area is within the geographic range of several special-status animal species and includes specific mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. CDFW offers to provide comments and recommendations to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Plan’s significant or potentially significant impacts to biological resources. CDFW’s specific comments are detailed in the comments that follow.

Response 2-3
The comment suggests that Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e is not sufficient as written to mitigate potential impacts to Swainson’s hawk (SWHA). CDFW notes that Swainson’s hawk surveys should be conducted following the survey methodology developed by the SWHA Technical Advisory Committee (SWHA TAC 2000), and that this protocol includes early season surveys to assist in implementing of necessary avoidance and minimization measures prior to initiating ground-disturbing activities. Respectfully, the City disagrees that the mitigation is not sufficient to mitigate impacts to Swainson’s hawk. Impact 4.4-1 in the Draft EIR describes the potential impact to Swainson’s hawk and Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e describes that surveys for nesting birds would be required in advance of project activities that commence on or after February 1. According to SWHA TAC (2000), Swainson’s hawks typically do not return to the Central Valley to breed until approximately April 1, so pre-construction surveys for nesting Swainson’s hawk prior to activities starting on February 1 would constitute an early season survey. However, for clarification in response to this comment and to comment 2-4, Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e has been amended as suggested by CDFW. Please see comment 2-4 for the revised Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e.

Response 2-4
The comment states that no-disturbance buffers for Swainson’s hawk should be ½ mile around each nest, regardless of whether it was detected within or outside of urban development areas, if project activities will take place during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season and active Swainson’s hawk nests are present. CDFW defines the nesting period for Swainson’s hawk as March 1 through September 15. CDFW also recommends that if the ½ mile is infeasible, consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to implement the project and avoid take. The buffer distances for Swainson’s hawk nests in Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e are based on CDFW’s Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California (CDFG 1994). In that report, the recommended management conditions for Swainson’s hawk state that no new disturbances or other project related activities that may cause nest abandonment or forced fledging should be initiated within ¼ mile of an active nest between March 1 and September 15. The report (CDFG 1994) also states that the buffer zone should be increased to ½ mile in nesting areas away from urban development. While the City believes that the buffer distance for Swainson’s hawk nests stated in Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e is adequate, in response to this comment, comment 2-3, and comment 2-9, the language of Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e has been amended as follows:

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, Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-41
vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, staging) shall be conducted during the nonbreeding season (approximately September 16 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.  Guidelines provided in Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in the Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000) shall be followed for surveys for Swainson’s hawk. This protocol includes early season surveys.  For other birds, Wwithin 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 500 feet of the project site for other raptor species (whitetailed kite) and special-status birds (tricolored blackbird), and within 50 feet of the project site for nonraptor common native bird nests, unless determined otherwise by a qualified biologist.  If no active nests are found, the qualified biologist shall submit a report documenting the survey methods and results to the applicant and the City of Fresno, and no further mitigation shall be required.  If active nests are found, impacts on nesting birds shall be avoided by establishing appropriate buffers around active nest sites identified during focused surveys to prevent disturbance to the nest.

Project activity shall not commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or reducing the buffer would not likely result in nest abandonment.
 Buffers typically shall be 0.25 mile (or increased to 0.5 mile in areas away from urban development) for Swainson’s hawk, and 500 feet for other raptors. Buffer size for non-raptor bird species shall typically be 250 feet. Variance from these no-disturbance buffers may be possible at the recommendation of the qualified biologist when there is a compelling biological or ecological reason to do so. 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, buffer 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.  If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is detected for project tiered from this plan, and a 0.5-mile nodisturbance buffer is not feasible, the project proponent shall consult with CDFW to discuss how to implement the project and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP), pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) would be necessary to comply with CESA.  If active nests are detected, the qualified biologist shall monitor the nest prior to initiation of work to determine a baseline activity level for the nesting birds. If a buffer has been reduced below 250 feet at the recommendation of the qualified biologist, then the nest shall be continuously monitored at the initiation of work inside of the 250 feet to detect behavioral changes resulting from the project. If behavioral changes occur, CDFW shall be consulted for additional avoidance and minimization measures, and work shall be halted and the buffer shall be extended until the nesting birds are confirmed by the qualified biologist to have resumed regular nesting behaviors.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-42 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
 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.

In addition to these revisions, the following reference has been added to the EIR Section 4.04 Biological Resources:

Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. 2000 (May 31). Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. Accessed August 22, 2024. Available:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols.

The text revisions above do not alter the findings of the Draft EIR and no further response is required.

Response 2-5
The comment takes issue with the Draft EIR conclusion that the Plan area has a low potential for Crotch’s bumble bee. The Draft EIR states that the Plan 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 recorded 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). CDFW has requested that projects tiering from the Plan conduct a habitat assessment for Crotch’s bumble bee, and if suitable habitat is present, conduct a protocol survey following the “Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species” (CDFW 2023). If surveys result in positive detection of Crotch’s bumblebee, further consultation is recommended by CDFW, including potential take authorization through acquisition of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP), if take cannot be avoided.

In response to this comment, the potential to occur for Crotch’s bumble bee has been changed from “not expected to occur” to “may occur.” Additionally, Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a has been revised as shown below, and Mitigation Measure 4.4-1g has been added to the project:

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.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-43
 The reconnaissance survey will include a habitat assessment for Crotch’s bumble bee based on the habitat assessment guidance in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) or other updated guidance from CDFW. If the habitat assessment determines that habitat suitable for Crotch bumble bee is present within a project area, then Mitigation Measure 4.4-1g will be implemented.  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 4.4-1g, 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.
 All special-status species detected during surveys will be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNDDB field survey form can be found at https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-02Data and the completed form can be mailed to CNDDB at [email protected].

Mitigation Measure 4.4-1g: Conduct Crotch’s Bumble Bee Protocol Survey and Avoidance If habitat suitable for Crotch’s bumble bee is detected in the project area during the reconnaissance survey conducted pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a, the following measure shall apply:
 Surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee will be conducted in areas with habitat suitable for Crotch’s bumble bee following the protocol in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) or other updated guidance from CDFW. This protocol requires that a qualified biologist conduct three on-site surveys to detect foraging bumble bees and potential nesting sites (nesting surveys) during the colony active period and when peak floral resources are present (April–August). Each survey should ideally be spaced 2–4 weeks apart. Surveys are only valid for the year in which they are conducted. If more than 1 year passes between survey completion and initiation of ground disturbing project activities, presence surveys must be repeated.  If surveys are conducted and no Crotch’s bumble bee are detected, results shall be reported to CDFW, and work may proceed during that year.
 If surveys indicate the presence or potential presence of Crotch’s bumble bee, the project proponent shall consult with CDFW on development of take avoidance and minimization measures. Measures may include avoidance of small mammal burrows and thatched or brunch grasses, onsite biological monitoring during vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, or seasonal avoidance of activities during the queen flight period (February – March), the gyne flight period (September – October), and/or the colony active period (April – August).  If take of Crotch’s bumble bee cannot be avoided, take authorization through acquisition of an Incidental take permit (ITP) pursuant to the Fish and Game Code section 2081, subdivision (b) shall be sought to comply with the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

Additionally, the following reference will be added to the EIR.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023 (June 6). Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. Accessed August 22, 2024. Available:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=213150&inline.

Adoption and implementation of this mitigation measure would avoid adverse impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee, and no change to the Draft EIR conclusions would result.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-44 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Response 2-6
This comment states that while CDFW concurs with Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d, it recommends that in the event that burrowing owls are detected during surveys and the no-disturbance buffers are infeasible, CDFW should be consulted for guidance. In response to this comment, and to the recent decision by the California Fish and Game Commission to accept burrowing owl as a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act, Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d is revised as follows:

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 surveys for burrowing owls in areas of habitat suitable for the species on and within 1,640 feet (500 meters) of the Plan Area no less than 14 days before initiating ground disturbance activities using survey methods described in Appendix D of the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prepared by the California Department of Fish and Game (now CDFW) (CDFG 2012) or any subsequent updated guidance. A minimum of four surveys shall be conducted to determine whether burrowing owls occupy the site. If feasible, at least one survey should be conducted between February 15 and April 15 and the remaining surveys should be conducted between April 15 and July 15, at least three weeks apart. Because burrowing owls may recolonize a site after only a few days, one of the surveys, or an additional survey, shall be conducted no less than 14 days before initiating ground disturbance activities to verify that take of burrowing owl would not occur.  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 a n active burrow occupied by a burrowing owl is found during the surveys, 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 and any identified satellite burrows (i.e., non-nesting burrows that burrowing owls use to escape predators or move young into after hatching) to prevent take of burrowing owls.
 During the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31), the minimum buffer distance shall be 164 feet (50 m). During the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), the minimum buffer distance shall be increased to 1,640 feet (500 m).  The protection buffer may be adjusted if, in consultation with CDFW, a qualified biologist determines that an alternative buffer shall not disturb burrowing owl adults, young, or eggs because of particular site features (e.g., topography, natural line-sight-barriers), level of project disturbance, or other considerations. If the buffer is reduced, a qualified biologist shall monitor the behavior of the burrowing owls during all project activities within 1,640 feet of the burrow. If the owls are disturbed or agitated (e.g., vocalizations, bill snaps, fluffing feathers to increase body size appearance, drooping wings and rotating them forward, crouching and weaving back and forth) by the project activities, the biologist shall have the authority to halt the activities and re-establish a buffer consistent with the first bullet until the agitated behavior ceases and normal behavior resumes.  The buffer shall remain in place around the occupied burrow and associated satellite burrows until a qualified biologist has determined through noninvasive methods that the burrows are no longer occupied by burrowing owl. A previously occupied burrow will be considered unoccupied if surveys demonstrate that no owls have used the burrow for seven consecutive days.  Locations of burrowing owls detected during surveys shall be reported to the CNDDB.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-45
 If implementation of a buffer to prevent take of burrowing owl is not feasible, the project applicant shall consult with CDFW and obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) prior to commencing project related ground-disturbing activities. The impacts of taking burrowing owl shall be minimized and fully mitigated.  The project applicant shall compensate for the loss of burrowing owl by establishing permanent protection and perpetual management on land that provides burrowing owl habitat. Habitat management lands for burrowing owl may be established by conservation easement or fee title or credits may be purchased from a CDFW-approved conservation or mitigation bank. The compensatory mitigation shall satisfy permit conditions and all other permit conditions shall be implemented.  use of the burrow because of particular site features or other buffering measures. If occupied burrows are present that cannot be avoided or adequately protected with a no-disturbance buffer, a burrowing owl exclusion plan shall be developed, as described in Appendix E of the 2012 Staff Report. Burrowing owls shall not be excluded from occupied burrows until the project burrowing owl exclusion plan is approved by CDFW. The exclusion plan shall include a compensatory habitat mitigation plan (see below).  If an active burrow is found during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), occupied burrows shall not be disturbed and shall be provided with a protective buffer at a minimum of 164 feet unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive means that either:
 (1) the birds have not begun egg laying, or
 (2) juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival.
 The size of the buffer may be adjusted depending on the time of year and level of disturbance as outlined in the 2012 Staff Report. The size of the buffer may be reduced if a broad-scale, long-term, monitoring program acceptable to CDFW is implemented so that burrowing owls are not adversely affected. Once the fledglings are capable of independent survival, the owls can be evicted, and the burrow can be destroyed per the terms of a CDFW-approved burrowing owl exclusion plan developed in accordance with Appendix E of 2012 Staff Report.
 If burrowing owls are evicted from burrows and the burrows are destroyed by implementation of project activities, the project proponent shall mitigate the loss of occupied habitat in accordance with guidance provided in the 2012 Staff Report, which states that permanent impacts on nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows, and burrowing owl habitat (i.e., grassland habitat with suitable burrows) shall be mitigated such that habitat acreage and number of burrows are replaced through permanent conservation of comparable or better habitat with similar vegetation communities and burrowing mammals (e.g., ground squirrels) present to provide for nesting, foraging, wintering, and dispersal. The project proponent shall retain a qualified biologist to develop a 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 Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-46 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
mitigation bank, if available. Alternative mitigation sites and acreages may also be determined in consultation with CDFW.
 If burrowing owl habitat mitigation is completed through permittee-responsible conservation lands, the mitigation plan shall include mitigation objectives, site selection factors, site management roles and responsibilities, vegetation management goals, financial assurances and funding mechanisms, performance standards and success criteria, monitoring and reporting protocols, and adaptive management measures. Success shall be based on the number of adult burrowing owls and pairs using the site and if the numbers are maintained over time. Measures of success, as suggested in the 2012 Staff Report, shall include site tenacity, number of adult owls present and reproducing, colonization by burrowing owls from elsewhere, changes in distribution, and trends in stressors.

Response 2-7
The comment summarizes the purpose and use of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). As described under comment 2-5 above, the Draft EIR has been revised to include Crotch’s bumble bee because the Plan area falls within the range map for this species as published in “Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species” (CDFW 2023). In addition to this revision, the following clarifying language has been added under the description of the CNDDB:
…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… The CNDDB is based on actual recorded occurrences and does not constitute an exhaustive inventory of every resource. As a result, special-status species may be absent from the CNDDB while still occupying those areas, if habitat suitable for those species is present.

Response 2-8
The comment summarizes CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. and states that if CEQA documents for projects tiered from this EIR do not adequately describe the project and its impacts to lakes or streams, subsequent CEQA analysis may be necessary for issuance of Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements. The language of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 has been revised as follows to add contact and website reference information, to clarify when an LSAA is required, and to better reflect CDFW’s preferred language regarding issuance of an LSAA:

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:
 Activities for projects tiered from the Plan that substantially change the bed, bank, and channel of any river, stream, or lake are subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant to Fish and Game Code 1602. 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 substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river stream or lake; or otherwise substantially change or use materials from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake (including removal of riparian vegetation); or otherwise deposit debris, waste, or other materials that could pass into any river, stream or lake. 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. More information on notification requirements may be found on CDFWs website, https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/LSA. Project proponents may also contact CDFW staff in the Central Region Lake and Streambed Alteration Program at (550)243-4593. 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 Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-47
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. …
Response 2-9
The comment contains additional recommendations regarding nesting bird surveys. While mitigation recommended in the EIR is adequate to address the potential for significant impacts to nesting birds, Mitigation Measure 4.41e has been revised in response to this comment. Please see comment 2-4 for the revised Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e.

Response 2-10
The comment states that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database, which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21003, subd. (e). Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a has been revised to require reporting all special-status species to the CNDDB. Please see comment 2-5 for the revised Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a.

Response 2-11
The comment notes that CDFW filing fees are required to be paid with the filing of the Notice of Determination. This comment is acknowledged.

Response 2-12
The comment provides concluding remarks and expresses appreciation. The City appreciates CDFW’s comments on the EIR.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-48 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-49
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-50 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-51
Letter 3 California Department of Transportation, District 6, Dave Padilla, Branch Chief, Office of System and Regional Planning, Transportation Planning
7/29/24
Response 3-1
The comment provides introductory remarks, summarizes the SCSP plan area, and describes the mission of Caltrans.

Response 3-2
The comment expresses concurrence with the Mobility and Transportation Element of the Fresno General Plan and discusses their relevance to the SCSP. The comment recommends the City consider a multimodal transportation system to reduce VMT impacts from the SCSP. The Draft EIR analysis determined that VMT impacts from implementation of the plan would be less than significant (and the comment does not express disagreement), so such a system would not be required to reduce VMT impacts. In recommending a multimodal transportation system, the comment is applicable to the SCSP itself. Please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 3-3
Caltrans expresses support for specific proposed SCSP Policies and Development Standards. Please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 3-4
The comment refers to a regional VMT bank or VMT exchange program under consideration by the City for the Southeast Development Area Specific Plan and recommends that similar strategies be explored for the SCSP. The Draft EIR analysis determined that VMT impacts from implementation of the SCSP would be less than significant (and the comment does not express disagreement), so such a program would not be required to reduce VMT impacts. In recommending a VMT bank or VMT exchange program, the comment is applicable to the SCSP itself. Please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 3-5
The comment suggests that Caltrans be included in review and approval process for project located within 2 miles of a State facility, specifically pertaining to potential impacts of hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses. This comment is acknowledged.

Response 3-6
The comment recommends that alternative transportation policies be applied to the SCSP. No significant transportation effects requiring mitigation were identified in the Draft EIR so such policies would not be required for that reason. In recommending alternative transportation policies, the comment is applicable to the SCSP itself. Please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 3-7
The comment recommends that Active Transportation Plans and Smart Growth efforts support the State’s 2050 climate goals and expresses support for reducing VMT and GHG emissions through a multimodal transportation network. This comment is acknowledged. In Active Transportation Plans and Smart Growth efforts, the comment is applicable to the SCSP itself. Please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-52 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

2.3.2 Local Agencies
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-53
Letter 4 County of Fresno,
Elliott Racusin, Planner, Development Services and Capital Projects Division
7/11/24
Response 4-1
The comment requests preparation of a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis to assess impacts on county facilities and requests that coordination with Fresno County Road Maintenance and Operations Division staff occur with respect to TIS for subsequent projects.

As discussed in Section 4.15, “Transportation and Circulation,” of the Draft EIR, pursuant to SB 743, PRC Section 21099, and CCR Section 15064.3(a), generally, VMT is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts, and a project’s effect on automobile delay shall no longer constitute a significant impact under CEQA. Therefore, the transportation analysis in the Draft EIR evaluates impacts using VMT and does not include level of service (LOS) analysis as it pertains to vehicle delay. Although not addressed in this EIR for purposes of CEQA, the analysis of traffic operations (i.e., intersection and freeway LOS analysis) for the proposed plan was conducted by TJKM at the direction of the City and is included in the SCSP TIA (TJKM 2023) attached as Appendix D of the Draft EIR. In addition, the Fresno SCSP is a land use plan, and as future projects and developments are proposed, individual TIS and VMT analyses may be required to assess their transportation impacts on county facilities. The SCSP’s environmental review of transportation-related impacts is contained in Section 4.15 of the EIR and addresses impacts within the project area at a programmatic level.

Response 4-2
The comment notes that certain parcels within the SCSP area are subject to the Williamson Act and that Notices of Nonrenewal are required to be filed with the County prior to development of those parcels. As discussed in Section

4.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, in the Draft EIR, approximately 153 acres of the Plan Area outside the existing city limits but within the City’s sphere of influence are under the Williamson Act contracts. It is acknowledged in the EIR that future development within the SCSP area would be required to comply with General Plan Objective RC-9 and Policies RC-9-a through RC-9-c, which are intended to limit premature conversion of agricultural land. The City will work with the County if it is determined that a Notice of Nonrenewal is needed for any future development within the SCSP.

Response 4-3
The comment identifies the flood zones within the Plan Area. The information in the comment is consistent with the information for flood control, provided on page 4.10-15 of the Draft EIR.

Response 4-4
The comment states that wetlands may be present within a portion of the Plan Area, according to US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Wetland Mapper. The biology section acknowledges the potential presence of wetlands in the plan area as stated in the comment. The USFWS Wetland Mapper is a useful tool to view digital maps of wetland types and extent using a biological definition of wetlands. However, the Wetland Mapper does not attempt to define the limits of jurisdiction of any federal, state, or local government, or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. The potential impacts to state or federally protected wetlands are addressed in the Draft EIR under Impact 4.4-3 and Mitigation Measure 4.4-3. Therefore, no revisions are needed to address the potential presence of wetlands.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-54 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-55
Letter 5 Fresno Irrigation District,
Laurence Kimura, P.E., Chief Engineer
7/15/24
Response 5-1
This letter provides copies of the notices of preparation (NOP) issued by the City and the responses of Fresno Irrigation District’s responses to each. The NOP comments primarily address FID drainage facilities and water supply.

These topics are discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-56 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-57
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-58 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-59
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-60 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Letter 6 Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District,
Denise Wade, Master Plan Special Projects Manager
7/30/24
Response 6-1
The comment provides a summary of the District’s Master Plan and drainage boundary. Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR acknowledges the District’s drainage boundaries and Master Plan, as well as General Plan policy NS-3-a: Stormwater Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan, which requires projects within the City to support and comply with the Master Plan. The analysis in Section 4.10 concludes that, with required compliance with existing regulations, including Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s (FMFCD) Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan, SCSP implementation would result in less than significant impacts on hydrology and water quality.

Response 6-2
The comment describes drainage fees required by the District. As identified in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, future projects would need to comply with the District’s Master Plan and requirements, including any drainage fees. The City will coordinate with the District during processing of any future projects as required.

Response 6-3
The comment provides an overview of the Stormwater Quality Management Program and requests that in its CEQA review for subsequent projects, the City utilize the District’s Guidance for Addressing Stormwater Quality for CEQA Review. The District’s understanding that the Draft EIR is a Program is accurate. Master Response 3, Program Versus Project-Level Analysis, explains the difference between a programmatic versus project-level CEQA analysis and identifies the process for future projects within the SCSP. During CEQA review of future projects the City will ensure that projects comply with current regulations, including those of the FMFCD.

Response 6-4
The comment requests specific revisions to the EIR text. The following table identifies the suggested revisions and those made to the Draft EIR in response to the comment.

Requested Revision Revision in EIR

Basin “AV” and outline correct parcels for Basin “CE” located northwest of American and Maple Avenues.

Figure 3-6 depicts proposed land uses and not existing land uses such as the basins. However, Figure 4.14-4, as noted below, has been revised in accordance with the requested revisions. Requests for land use changes to SCSP Figure 4-5, Proposed Land Use, and
corresponding EIR Figure 3-6 will be submitted to the City Council for its consideration.

control and the drainage of flood and storm waters, and conserves waters within the City.

“Municipal” to read “Metropolitan”.

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),
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-61
Requested Revision Revision in EIR
 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 Metropolitan Flood Control District, and  Fresno Irrigation District.

read “Metropolitan”.

Fresno Municipal Metropolitan Flood Control District PostDevelopment Standards Technical Manual Water quality treatment for post-construction discharges to stormwater in the FMFCD Master Plan Area is provided by detention and retention basins (henceforth referred to as retention basins) that are parts of FMFCDs stormwater drainage system.

District requests removal of LID measures related to parcels.

The drainage pattern in the Plan Area would remain similar to current conditions but would be expanded over time in compliance with the FMFCD Storm Drain Master Plan as development occurs over the planning period. Surface runoff from the area would be managed via parcel-based LID measures, detention/retention basins, and flow reducing BMPs to prevent local flooding within the site.

Basins:

The District has acquired all ponding basins shown on this Figure. Relabel the District Basin “AV” shown as “Planned District ponding basin” along Fig Avenue as an existing District ponding basin. Outline correct parcels for Basin “CE” located northwest of American and Maple Avenues.

Figure 4.14-4 has been revised and provided in Chapter 4, Revisions to the Draft EIR.

be corrected to say “165”.

The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) provides stormwater collection and disposal, and flood control to the northcentral portion of Fresno County, between the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers, covering 164165 adopted or proposed drainage areas.

not be able to change for the current General Plan Land Use document, we wish to point out existing Basin “AV” needs to be added with future updates.

Requests for land use changes to EIR Figure 6-1 will be submitted to the City Council for its consideration. Update of the General Plan Planned Land Use figure in the SCSP will be updated upon adoption of the SCSP.

Response 6-5
Refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-62 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-63

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-64 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-65

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-66 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-67

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-68 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-69

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-70 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-71

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-72 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-73

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-74 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Letter 7 San Joaquin Valley APCD,
Mark Montelongo, Program Manager
7/30/24
Response 7-1
The comment is introductory in nature and summarizes elements of the SCSP and the existing setting.

Response 7-2
The comment provides details regarding AB 617 and CERPs, including the South Central Fresno CERP, which was adopted by the District’s Governing Board in September 2019 and by CARB in February 2020. The comment recommends that the EIR include emission reduction measures and strategies included in the AB 617 South Central Fresno CERP. See Response to Comment 1-5 for a discussion of SCSP consistency with the South Central Fresno CERP.

Response 7-3
The comment recommends revision of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a to clarify the requirement for an air quality assessment to quantify construction and operational emissions prior to preparation of an AAQA. Although this was the intent of the measure, the text of the measure is hereby revised in accordance with the District’s suggestions. See Responses to Comments 7-4 and 7-5.

Response 7-4
The comment recommends that engagement in a VERA between the District and applicants of applicable future projects occur early in the project design stages, prior to applying for project-level approval from the City, to allow sufficient time to determine the extent and methods of emissions reductions. Please refer to Response to Comment 1-8 for the proposed text edits to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a. See also Responses to Comments 7-3 and 7-5.

Response 7-5
The comment requests text edits to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a. Please see Responses 7-3 and 7-4 above. The edits to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a do not alter the findings of the Draft EIR and no further response is required.

Response 7-6
The comment summarizes the requirements of SJVAPCD’s Rule 9510, “Indirect Source Review,” and requests changes to the language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b. Rule 9510 is used by SJVAPCD to minimize oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and respirable particulate matter (PM10) by 20 percent and 45 percent, respectively, during project construction.

Notably, Rule 9510 does not apply to all proposed development within the San Joaquin Valley Air Vasin (SJVAB). Rule 9510 applies to projects meeting or exceeding the following land use parameters: 50 residential units, 2,000 square feet (sf) of commercial space, 25,000 sf of light industrial space, 100,000 sf of heavy industrial space, 20,000 sf of medical office space, 39,000 sf of general office space, 9,000 sf of educational space, 10,000 sf of government space, 20,000 sf of recreational space, and 9,000 sf of space not identified in the aforementioned list.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b includes requirements for the use of the cleanest available fleet of heavy-duty equipment including zero or near-zero heavy-duty equipment and use of EPA Tier 4 engines. The applicability of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b does not preclude the regulatory requirements of Rule 9510, rather, it expands the applicability of Rule 9510 to projects proposing less sf or units than what is covered under Rule 9510. This ensures that all projects, regardless of size, would be required to reduce exhaust emissions from the use of heavy-duty equipment during project construction. In response to this comment, the language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b has been revised on page 4.3-20 of the Draft EIR:

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 for individual development projects within the SCSP shall demonstrate that they shall use the cleanest available fleet of heavy-duty Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-75
equipment. This can be accomplished through submitting Construction Clean Fleet paperwork to SJVAPCD in accordance with the requirements of Rule 9510. 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 ZeroEmissions 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 (R100 or a similar diesel blend) or meets EPA Tier 4 Final emissions standards.

The text edits above do not alter the findings of the Draft EIR and no further response is required.

Response 7-7
The comment requests text edits to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1h to clarify that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) is determined at the time of the Authority to Construct is issued and that BACT is not static. The comment refers to this portion of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1h: “Owners, operators, or tenants shall prohibit the use of diesel generators, except in emergency situations, in which case such generators shall have BACT that meets CARB Tier 4 emission standards” on page 4.3-23. At the time of writing this EIR, Tier 4 diesel engines comprise the strictest EPA emissions requirement for off-highway diesel engines. Nevertheless, in response to this comment, the text of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1h has been revised as follows on page 4.3-22 through 4.3-23:

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 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.

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, or the most current and strict BACT available prior to the issuance of an Authority to Construct, as determined by SJVAPCD.

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.

The text edits above do not alter the findings of the Draft EIR and no further response is required.

Response 7-8
The comment recommends that all individual future development projects conduct an HRA and suggests edits to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a to revise the threshold for which projects would be required to conduct a construction HRA for projects from a 6-month construction duration down to 2 months, citing guidance from the Office of Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-76 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a does require that future development projects conduct an HRA. Please refer to Response to Comment 1-2 for a summary of the proposed text edits to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a in response to this comment and others.

Response 7-9
The comment cites the language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3b, “[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” (page 4.3-31). The comment suggests that air toxics can significantly impact receptors at distances greater than 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. While it is correct that air toxics may be highly concentrated at a distance further than 1,000 feet, the degree to which this would occur would depend on the findings of a sitespecific HRA which would measure the dispersion of air toxics to the vicinity of a pollution source. As stated in Mitigation Measure 4.3-3b, project-level HRAs that determine impacts from future development are significant and unavoidable would be prohibited. Please refer to Response to Comment 1-2 for a summary of the proposed text edits to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3b in response to this comment and others.

Response 7-10
The comment states that because the SCSP includes industrial uses, the City should ensure that individual future development projects adequately characterize and justify an appropriate trip length distance for off-site heavy heavyduty truck (HHD) travel to and from individual development project sites. The movement of HHD trucks is dependent on the operational needs of future development which is unknown at this programmatic stage. The SCSP permits a mix of heavy and light industrial and commercial development; however, the exact nature of future projects is speculative. Zoning designations allow for a variety of land use types, which may have disparate levels of transportation needs. The District’s comment is acknowledged. As future industrial development projects are proposed, applicants shall be required to support HHD trip length estimates used in project-specific analyses required by the City. This comment does not alter the findings of the Draft EIR and no further response is required.

Response 7-11
The comment recommends additional language be added to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3c including requirements for loading dock orientation; loading dock setback distances of 300 feet; signage to minimize on-site vehicle travel; and requirements for truck entries to be on higher commercial classification, solar panels, electric power sources for TRUs, bicycle infrastructure, and drought tolerant landscaping. The incorporation of solar panels and drought tolerant landscaping are not measures leading to direct reduction in air pollution, but rather serve to reduce GHG emissions, and are not included in the language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3c. Mitigation Measure 4.6-1d requires future projects to include on-site renewable energy production and storage systems including, but not limited to, on-site solar, parking canopies with solar, and battery storage.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-3c uses a 1,000-foot buffer for the siting of sensitive receptors near a commercial loading dock. This is based on CARB’s guidance in its 2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB 2005). While 1,000 feet is considered protective, the City recognizes that at this programmatic stage, the exact setback distance for a future development proposal will depend upon the proposed project characteristics and magnitude of operations.

In response to this comment, the language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3d has been revised as follows on pages 4.3-31 through 4.3-32 of the Draft EIR:

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 be located at an appropriate setback distance from sensitive receptors. Project-level design, including setback distance, shall be informed by the findings of not be located within 1,000 feet of any sensitive receptor unless a qualified, site-specific HRA, conducted in accordance with SJVAPCD guidance and approved by SJVAPCD that 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 Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-77
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 twotruck 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.
 All loading docks shall be oriented to minimize direct exposure to sensitive receptors.  The use of electric-powered “yard trucks” or forklifts to move truck trailers around a truck yard or truck loading/unloading facility.
 All truck entries shall be located on streets supporting commercial or industrial development (serving more than 50 percent commercial or industrial properties according to the local zoning ordinance), as feasible.
 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.  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.  For warehouses larger than 50,000 sf, a 10-foot wide landscaping buffer shall be required measured from the property line to adjacent sensitive receptors; for warehouses larger than 400,000 sf, a 20-foot wide landscaping buffer shall be required measured from the property line to adjacent sensitive receptors.  The use of all electrical-powered Transportation Refrigeration Units (TRUs) including access to electrical infrastructure to power TRUs while at a project site.
 The use of all electric heavy-duty trucks.

The revisions made above do not alter the findings of the Draft EIR and no further response is required.

Response 7-12
The comment suggests that the City consider incorporating solar power systems as an emissions reduction strategy for development within the SCSP. Mitigation Measure 4.6-1d requires future projects to include on-site renewable energy production and storage systems including, but not limited to, on-site solar, parking canopies with solar, and battery storage and, therefore, satisfies this suggestion. No edits to the Draft EIR are needed, and no further response is required.

Response 7-13
The comment provides a summary of SJVAPCD’s applicable rules and regulations that would apply to individual projects proposed under the SCSP including Regulation II, “Permits,” Regulation VIII, “Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions,” Rule 2020, “Permits Required,” Rule 2201, “New and Modified Stationary Source Review,” Rule 2520,”Federally Mandated Operating Permits,” Rule 9510, “Indirect Source Review,” Rule 9410, “Employer Based Trip Reduction,” Rule Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-78 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
4002, “National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,” Rule 4601, “Architectural Coatings,” Rule 4901, “Wood Burning Fireplaces and Heaters,” Rule 4102, “Nuisance,” and Rule 4641, “Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations.”
Pages 4.3-5 through 4.3-6 of the Draft EIR summarize Regulation VIII and Rules 2010, 2201, 4002, 4102, 4631, and 9510. Future development under the SCSP would be required to comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations prior to obtaining permits to operate, which would be determined once project-specific proposals have been prepared. These rules serve to manage air pollution in the SJVAB. The comment does not alter the analysis prepared in Section 4.3, “Air Quality,” of the Draft EIR and no edits to the Draft EIR are required.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-79

2.3.3 Environmental Organizations
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-80 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-81
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-82 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-83
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-84 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-85
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-86 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-87
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-88 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-89
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-90 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Letter 8 Center for Biological Diversity
Frances Tinney, Attorney
7/7/24
Response 8-1
The comment consists of prefatory remarks introducing detailed comments that appear later in the comment letter.

The comment alleges inadequacies in specific technical topic assessments, the specifics of which are addressed in later comments. Please refer to subsequent responses to comments. The comment suggests recirculation is necessary. Please refer to Master Response 2, Recirculation.

Response 8-2
Comment provides a summary of climate change impacts and legislative actions both Federal and State. The information provided is generally reflective of the Environmental Setting presented in Section 4.8 “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change,” on pages 4.8-5 through 4.8-7. The comment asserts that the Draft EIR fails to fully address GHG impacts and the SCSP’s contribution to global climate change. The comment is introductory in nature, see below for responses to more detailed comments.

Response 8-3
The comment summarizes selected CEQA principles regarding thresholds of significance and conclusions in the face of evidence that suggest impacts may be significant despite compliance with such thresholds. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 provides guidance to lead agencies for determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions.

Section 15064.4(a) provides that a lead agency will make a good-faith effort based, to the extent possible, on scientific and factual data to describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project.

Section 15064.4(a) further provides that a lead agency will have the discretion to determine, within the context of a particular project, whether to quantify GHG emissions from a project or rely on qualitative analysis or performancebased standards. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines in Section 15064.4(a), the analysis presented herein quantifies GHG emissions resulting from anticipated development under the plan through the planning horizon of 2040, and describes, calculates, and estimates those emissions. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b) provides that when assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions, a lead agency should focus the analysis on the incremental contribution of the project’s emissions to the effects of climate change and consider an appropriate timeframe for the project. The lead agency’s analysis should reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes and consider (1) the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions compared with existing conditions, (2) whether the project’s GHG emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project, and (3) the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. The analysis of the potential impacts from the SCSP’s contribution of GHG emissions complies with this approach.

Response 8-4
The comment asserts that the use of Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan to Achieve Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) is not a suitable threshold for determining the significance of the SCSP’s climate change impacts. On page 4.8-14, the Draft EIR discloses that the project design features of Appendix D are most applicable to residential and mixed-use commercial development. However, the Draft EIR’s use of the 2022 Scoping Plan is considered a much more stringent threshold for evaluating the SCSP’s climate change significance as compared to other available thresholds of significance. For example, other air districts within the state (e.g., the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District [SMAQMD]) have adopted numerical stationary source threshold of significance.

SMAQMD’s recommends that stationary sources be compared to a bright-line threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year. This emissions level is derived from the reporting requirements of the State’s Cap-and-Trade Program, which targets emissions from the largest sources of GHGs and air pollution in the state and is considered a suitable threshold for evaluated a stationary source (i.e., industrial) of pollution. While it is foreseeable that industrial development under the SCSP could be considered a stationary source covered by the Cap-and-Trade Program, at this programmatic Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-91
level, it is unclear what kind of industrial development would be constructed; therefore, this bright-line threshold was not applied to the project. Moreover, this threshold is intended to apply to singular projects, not plans.

As explained on page 4.8-9, given the lack of an applicable threshold consistent with the state’s long-term GHG goals beyond 2030 and the lack of an applicable adopted local plan for the reduction of GHGs consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 with targets extending beyond 2035, the proposed plan’s GHG emissions are evaluated using the following approach as suggested by CARB in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan. GHG emissions that would be generated by development under the proposed plan are evaluated for each major emission sector identified by the 2022 Scoping Plan as primary focus areas that local development can address. Also stated on page

4.8-10, the proposed plan is programmatic in nature and would govern individual development projects. The policies included in the proposed plan meant to reduce GHG emissions, as well as the mitigation measures recommended, would be applied to future development projects once specific land use proposals have been developed. This analysis in Section 4.8 is intended to provide applicable mitigation that may be applied at the project level to ensure that future projects constructed within the purview of the proposed plan contribute their fair share in assisting the state in meeting its long-term GHG reduction goals as outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan.

The comment does not provide a recommendation for an alternative threshold, nor substantial evidence to support such an alternative. No edits to the Draft EIR are needed and no further response is required.

Response 8-5
The comment states that the VMT analysis is erroneous and that the qualitative approach taken in Section 4.8, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change,” is an incorrect categorization. The approach taken in Section 4.8 is considered qualitative in nature with substantiation provided in a quantitative manner. The comment asserts that statements made indicating that the SCSP’s contribution of new employment opportunities to the plan area would reduce employment travel distances is an unsupported assertion. Section 4.8 incorporates in its modeling and analysis the TIA prepared for the SCSP authored by TJKM. The threshold guidance for VMT is referenced in the DEIR under the City of Fresno’s SB 743 VMT guidelines. The SCSP would result in a less-than-significant VMT impact if the project-generated VMT per capita, VMT per employee, or VMT per service population would be lower than the no project horizon year VMT per capita, VMT per employee, or VMT per service population. SCSPVMT was modeled using the FresnoCOG activity-based travel demand model (ABM) and it was determined that the VMT per Service Population would decrease from 46.44 to 29.87 in the horizon year. Therefore, the project’s VMT impact would be less than significant.

Response 8-6
The comment takes issue with the EIR’s statement that the proposed plan would result in a 33 percent decrease in VMT. The comment asserts that Section 4.8 does not provide a citation for this determination, which is incorrect. In the first paragraph of page 4.8-16 the reader is directed to Section 4.15, “Transportation,” which does not violate CEQA precedent. As stated throughout Section 4.15, “Transportation,” on pages 4.15-15 and 4.15-16 as well as summarized in Table 4.15-1, based on the TIA prepared for the SCSP, VMT per service population would result in 33 percent decrease in 2035 as compared to 2015 existing conditions. The TIA prepared by TJKM is clearly cited Section

4.15, included in Chapter 9, “References,” and submitted as a part of the administrative record.

The decrease in VMT is partially the result of the proposed land use mix within the Plan Area, but is also affected by the fact that the Plan Area would be a major employment center. Although the proposed plan would only increase residential uses by 91 dwelling units, it would create increased employment opportunities through the implementation of industrial and commercial development leading to improved proximity between the jobs in the Plan Area and surrounding housing by shortening driving distance and, therefore, reducing VMT. See response to comment 8-5 above for additional information pertaining to the VMT approach taken in the TIA. The SCSP’s VMT impact is less than significant because the horizon year scenario VMT with project is lower than the horizon year scenario VMT without the project. The SCSP includes both residential and nonresidential uses, so by definition it is a mixed use project that would result in a synergy between housing and jobs, therefore, reducing the distance traveled between home and work and other destinations.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-92 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Response 8-7
The comment asserts that the VMT analysis in Section 3.8 ignores VMT from heavy-duty trucks. The TIA prepared for the project provides an estimate of VMT associated with passenger and light-duty trucks. While the Draft EIR concludes that VMT associated with passenger and light-duty trucks would result in a less than significant impact, the Draft EIR does not avoid addressing the potential increase in air pollution or GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicle movement nor does it proclaim that trucks trips would not cause a significant GHG impact. In reality, Section 4.3, “Air Quality,” identifies robust and stringent mitigation (i.e., Mitigation Measure 4.3-1h and 4.3-1i) which establishes requirements for the transition to 100 percent zero or near-zero for Class 7 and 8 trucks December 31, 2026 and 100 percent zero and near-zero for Class 2 through 6 trucks by December 31, 2024. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1h and 4.3-1i is incorporated by reference in Section 4.8 to reduce GHG impacts from this emissions sector.

In addition, The SCSP is a land use plan; therefore, project-specific details related to subsequent projects proposed in the SCSP area are not known at this time. Impacts from heavy trucks for individual projects proposed in the plan area would be analyzed separately as detailed development plans are proposed. Additionally, if the plan considers GHG impacts from trucks traveling from other areas outside of the plan area, then the impacts would be double counted because impacts from incoming trucks would have been analyzed separately from their origin. The total number of heavy duty truck trips that the SCSP would generate falls within a range. While an estimate can be provided (i.e., 10 percent of 72,241 total trips), the final number of heavy trucks would need to be determined based on individual project details. Subsequent projects associated with the SCSP would be required to undergo environmental review at the project level as they are proposed.

Response 8-8
The comment alleges that the mitigation measures recommended in the Draft EIR are “weak” and “vague” and fall short of best practices, citing the Fontana Ordinance No. 18914 and the Attorney General’s “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with CEQA” document. Contrary to the allegation, Draft EIR mitigation measures are rigorous, enforceable, and directly address identified significant impacts. They fully comply with the requirements for mitigation set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.4. See response to comment 7-11 for a summary of the text modifications to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3c.

Response 8-9
The comment states that Mitigation Measure 4.3-1e’s (sic) (the comment incorrectly sites Mitigation Measure 4.3-1f) requirement to minimize idling time to 5 minutes within the SCSP is required by law and in conflict with the Attorney General’s recommendation of 3 minutes (sic) (the comment incorrectly cites a 2-minute limit). In response to this comment and the passage of AB 98, the language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1e on page 4.3-22 has been amended as follows:

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 3 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 OffRoad Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation [CCR Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2449.1] to SJVAPCD.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-93
 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.

The text revisions above do not alter the findings of the Draft EIR, and no further response is required.

Response 8-10
The comment states that Mitigation Measure 4.3-1f’s requirement to use low-VOC content architectural coatings falls short of the recommendation of the Attorney General. The comment infers that low-VOC means of 50 grams per liter (g/l) or less, although Mitigation Measure 4.3-1f does not define low-VOC. In response to this comment, the language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1f has been revised as follows on page 4.3-22 for additional clarity.

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 (no greater than 10 grams per liter) beyond SJVAPCD’s mandatory requirement (i.e., Regulation VIII, Rule 3, “Architectural Coatings”). This shall be enforced by the City with verification by SJVAPCD.

The text revisions above do not alter the findings of the Draft EIR, and no further response is required.

Response 8-11
The comment asserts that the Draft EIR’s recommendation through Mitigation Measure 4.6-1c to procure renewable natural gas is not a solution to reduce GHG emissions. The comment does not provide a citation or substantial evidence for a reasonable substitute for industrial processes that require natural gas. At present, industrial processes are reliant upon natural gas to facilitate smelting and manufacturing processes that require temperatures that cannot be obtained from electricity. The comment correctly states that methane has a greater global warming potential as compared to carbon dioxide and can cause adverse health outcomes from exposure; however, Mitigation Measure

4.6-1c would generate increased demand for renewable natural gas that can be obtained from wastewater treatment facilities, dairy farms, and composting facilities. Fugitive methane that would otherwise not be captured from these facility operations would be avoided. Moreover, the requirement to source natural gas from renewable sources would decrease demand for fossil natural gas, thus avoiding the release of fugitive methane from extraction activities. While the combustion of renewable natural gas would generate similar emissions as conventional fossil natural gas, Mitigation Measure 4.6-1c would reduce indirect, upstream emissions of fugitive fossil methane and fugitive methane from organic waste sources by requiring the use of renewable natural gas. Human exposure to fugitive methane could also be reduced or avoided. No edits to the Draft EIR are needed, and no further response is required.

Response 8-12
The comment recommends that future commercial and industrial development under the SCSP procure 100 percent of its electricity from on-site renewable sources, providing sources from the Attorney General and the City of Fontana. While it may be feasible in the future for commercial development to be sourced from 100 percent renewable energy, the City does not consider this to be a feasible mitigation measure now given the high electricity demand generated from typical commercial and industrial development. Moreover, at this programmatic level, it is uncertain what types of commercial or industrial development may become operational within the SCSP. Electricity demand varies depending on land use type, and the feasibility of requiring a uniform 100 percent target of renewable energy generation for each future land use type cannot be assured at this time (Energy Star No Date). Future logistics centers that may become operational within the SCSP would also be required to comply with the measures of AB 98, which include on-site renewable requirements. No edits to the Draft EIR are needed, and no further response is required.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-94 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Response 8-13
The comment reminds the City of its statutory duty to maintain and preserve the administrative record. The City appreciates the comment.

Response 8-14
The comment request that the Center to the notification list for this project. The City will ensure that Center for Biological Diversity continues to receive all notifications for this project.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-95
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-96 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-97
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-98 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-99
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-100 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-101
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-102 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-103
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-104 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-105
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-106 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-107
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-108 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-109
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-110 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-111
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-112 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-113
Letter 9 Leadership Council for Justice & Accountability et al., Ivanka Saunders, et al.
7/30/24
Response 9-1 through 9-35
The comments pertain to the specific plan itself not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comments are included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. See also Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan and Master Response 6, Relationship to the Truck Reroute Study, as appropriate.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-114 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-115

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-116 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-117

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-118 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-119

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-120 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-121

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-122 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-123

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-124 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-125

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-126 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-127

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-128 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-129

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-130 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-131

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-132 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-133

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-134 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-135

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-136 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-137

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-138 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-139

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-140 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-141

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-142 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-143

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-144 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-145

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-146 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-147

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-148 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-149

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-150 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-151

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-152 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-153

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-154 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-155

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-156 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Letter 10 Leadership Council for Justice & Accountability, Edward T. Schexnayder, SMW Law
7/30/24
Response 10-1
The comment consists of prefatory remarks introducing detailed comments that appear later in the comment letter.

The comment alleges inadequacies in specific technical topic assessments, the specifics of which are addressed in later comments. Please refer to subsequent responses to comments contained in this letter.

Response 10-2
The comment consists of prefatory remarks introducing detailed comments that appear later in the comment letter.

The comment alleges deficiency under CEQA in several areas, the specifics of which are addressed in later comments.

Counter to the comment’s assertion, the Draft EIR is comprehensive and was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Please refer to subsequent responses to comments contained in this letter and to Master Response 2, Recirculation. Health impacts from exposure to criteria air pollution are described in the Draft EIR at pages 4.3-7 through 4.3-9. Please refer to response to Comment 1-5 for additional information pertaining to the SCSP’s consistency with the CERP.

Response 10-3
The comment recommends recirculation and expresses general concern about the alternatives analysis. The comment recommends the SCSP be revised to incorporate changes suggested by the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. Please refer to subsequent responses to comments contained in this letter and to Master Response 2, Recirculation.

Response 10-4
The comment refers to an air quality report attached as Exhibit A to the comment letter. The primary comment letter (Letter 10) refers to that air quality report throughout, so responses to the attachment are provided in that manner. (See Responses to Comments 10-12, 10-16, 10-17, 10-21, 10-23, 10-24, 10-25, 10-26, 10-27, and 10-31.) Moreover, the air quality report contains analysis and methods that purport to discredit the analysis in the Draft EIR, which contains analysis and conclusions based on substantial evidence. Even if the attachment contains substantial evidence to question the approach and conclusions of the air quality analysis, as stated in Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines, “(d)isagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among experts.” These responses to comments, which constitute an element of the EIR, summarize those points of disagreement.

Response 10-5
The comment describes certain requirements for an EIR’s project description, expresses the opinion that the Draft EIR falls short, and identifies a discrepancy between the EIR and SCSP. The EIR inadvertently omitted “near zero” from the footnote in the development standard referenced in the comment. This is a typographical error. The cited EIR section refers to, and but for the typo excerpts verbatim, SCSP development regulations. The cited text at Draft EIR page 3-30 is revised as follows:

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* Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-157
 Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution: Outdoor Storage*  Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution: Wholesaling and Distribution* *Must meet CARB criteria for zero or near zero emission facilities, as defined in CA Sustainable Freight Action Plan (July 2016)
Response 10-6
The comment goes on to note that the State’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan (SFAP) does not include criteria for facilities to be considered zero or near zero emission. This lack of definition does not render the project description inadequate. It is reasonable for the SCSP to refer to the State’s SFAP. The SFAP was prepared pursuant to Executive Order B-32-15 and provides a framework to transition the state’s freight system to a more efficient and less polluting freight transport system. Zero emission facilities refer to electric or renewable technologies that would not result in tailpipe or on-site emissions; near-zero emission facilities describe alternative forms of fuel-powered vehicles such as hydrogen fuel cell technologies. These descriptors are widely used in several CARB regulations, plans, and programs including, but not limited to, the Advanced Clean Cars II Program, the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation, and the 2022 State SIP Strategy. Zero and near-zero facilities would not generate on-site emissions and would therefore not contribute to off-site impacts related to pollution exposure.

Response 10-7
The comment expresses the opinion that the Draft EIR’s project description should include the total number of estimated vehicle trips and truck trips (by truck category) potentially generated by plan-related development. The Draft EIR’s description of the SCSP complies with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and provides a level of detail sufficient to evaluate and review environmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15124). Because the SCSP is a plan and no specific development projects are yet proposed, the number of vehicle trips, truck trips, and truck trips by truck category cannot be known. Moreover, vehicle and truck trips generated by a plan or project are an outcome of the plan or project and not a proposal by the lead agency. In accordance with established practice, the EIR uses transportation planning and assessment tools to disclose and evaluate environmental effects. In this instance, the traffic analysis uses the Fresno COG Travel Demand Model to programmatically estimate the number of trips generated by the SCSP. These data are, in turn, used in the environmental analysis (e.g., Section 4.3, “Air Quality”).

Response 10-8
The comment expresses concern about SCSP policies and standards. Refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

The comment states that “the SCSP as proposed would allow many polluting uses near residents and sensitive uses.” As an initial matter, the uses cited in the comment, including warehousing uses, are currently allowed under existing land use designations and zoning. In fact, more of the plan area is designated for Heavy Industrial uses under the existing General Plan than under the SCSP.

Regarding the 100-foot setback cited in the comment, this is a building setback identified in the SCSP Development Standards. Other use classifications require setbacks of 1,000 feet or require a conditional use permit within 1,000 feet.

The comment offers no evidence to suggest that a 100-foot building setback is inappropriate. Moreover, future warehouses meeting the definition of a logistics center would be required to comply with the setback requirements of AB 98.

Response 10-9
The comment suggests that the colors used to distinguish Regional Mixed Use and Regional Business Park are too similar and not easily distinguishable. The comment is acknowledged, and the exhibit has been revised accordingly.

See revised figures 3-5, 3-6, and 3-16 in Chapter 3, Draft EIR Revisions. There is only one parcel that is designated as Neighborhood Mixed Use and there is a note on the figure noting where that parcel is located.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-158 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Response 10-10
The comment takes issue with the Draft EIR’s characterization of the SCSP proposal to rezone areas around sensitive uses from Heavy Industrial to Business Park. The SCSP proposes to reduce the intensity of land uses allowed adjacent to sensitive uses as compared to existing allowable uses. The land use designations (e.g., Heavy Industrial, Regional Business Park, Medium Density Residential) are sufficient to characterize the types of land uses accommodated in each zone. Specific uses are numerous and are described in the City’s Zoning Code. See also Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas.

Response 10-11
The comment is prefatory to more detailed comments that follow. It describes CEQA principles and requirements pertaining to evaluation of environmental impacts, significant and unavoidable impacts and statements of overriding consideration, feasible mitigation, and program EIRs. The comment takes issue with the Draft EIR analysis in several technical areas and suggests recirculation. Please refer to subsequent responses to comments contained in this letter and to Master Response 2, Recirculation and Master Response 3, Program versus Project-Level Analysis.

Response 10-12
The comment is general in nature and prefatory to more detailed comments 10-13 through 10-27. It summarizes existing air quality; introduces CARB’s Community Air Protection Program, including community monitoring and community emissions reduction program; and expresses concerns regarding the effect of the project on local and regional air quality. See responses to comments 10-13 through 10-27.

Response 10-13
The comment describes the background of AB 617, its applicability to the project area, and cites the Draft EIR text that reiterates the intent of the SCSP to build upon, among other things, the policy framework established by the CERP, a program developed and adopted by the SJVAPCD to reduce emissions in the South Central Fresno Community. The comment suggests that adoption of the Specific Plan could negate CERP benefits. Please refer to response to Comment 1-5 for information pertaining to the SCSP’s consistency with the CERP.

Response 10-14
The comment asserts that the Draft EIR uses the SCSP boundary as the study area for air quality impacts. This statement is inaccurate. The degree to which impacts are evaluated, identified, and mitigated are dependent on the resource area evaluated. Section 4.3, “Air Quality,” evaluates potential adverse air pollution impacts for receptors located within the SCSP, adjacent to the SCSP boundary, and regionally (i.e., the SJVAB). To minimize potential adverse air quality impacts to receptors located in the SCSP and the SJVAB, as well as receptors found directly adjacent to the SCSP boundary, Mitigation Measures 4.3-1a through 4.3-3d were recommended to minimize the generation of on-site air pollution while also providing design standards to reduce potential impacts to planned and existing receptors. Section 4.8, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change,” uses a global study area in consideration of the global nature of anthropogenic climate change. Therefore, the Draft EIR already considers the receptors of the CERP in its evaluation of potential air quality impacts.

Response 10-15
The comment alleges deficiency in the description of the project setting but fails to identify or provide an example of what impacts outside the project boundary are missing. With respect to air pollution, the existing environmental setting is described in Section 4.3.2, “Environmental Setting,” and Figure 4.3-1 provides a graphic with the findings of the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 mapping program. The environmental setting is adequately described in Section 4.3.2.

Cumulative impacts, which include effects outside the project boundary, are assessed in Chapter 5.

Response 10-16
The comment notes that the Draft EIR (released in May 2024) does not reflect the findings of the Truck Reroute Study (released in April 2024). The Truck Reroute Study was prepared by the City in partnership with SJVAPCD to identify existing truck patterns within the South Central Fresno community and associated adverse health effects from truckgenerated emissions to receptors within the community. The Truck Reroute Study evaluates potential rerouting of Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-159
existing and future trucks, and identifies strategies to mitigate negative freight impacts, improve air quality, and improve the quality of life for members of the South Central Fresno community. The findings of the Truck Reroute Study were released at nearly the same time as the Draft EIR. While the Draft EIR refers to the Truck Reroute Study, then in progress, the strategies and conclusions of the Truck Reroute Study, which are yet to be considered for acceptance by the City Council, do not affect the conclusions of the Draft EIR. At this programmatic stage, the Draft EIR does not attempt to quantify the number of new trucks that could be added to any one existing roadway as individual development projects are yet to be proposed. Section 4.3, “Air Quality,” provides a suite of mitigation measures that may be applied to future development once project-level design proposals have been developed.

Moreover, the findings of the Draft EIR do not prohibit the City from implementing the strategies of the Truck Reroute Study, which include investments in new sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, roadway repaving, traffic calming, signage, signaling, and roadway reconfiguration. These investments are not limited to existing truck activity within the South Central Community and would serve to reduce impacts of future trucking from future development including, but not limited to, the SCSP. See also Master Response 6, Relationship to the Truck Reroute Study.

Response 10-17
The comment summarizes the conclusions of a health risk assessment prepared for the Downtown Neighborhoods Community Plan, adjacent to the SCSP area, and recommendations in that report and by the City of San Francisco to reduce health risks. The comment suggests that by not including these data and recommendations in the SCSP Draft EIR, it is deficient. As discussed previously, Section 4.3 characterizes the existing air pollution within the SCSP area (Section 4.3.3 and Figure 4.3-1). Moreover, potentially significant TAC impacts were identified for existing and future receptors and Mitigation Measure 4.3-3d was proposed to minimize these impacts. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3d directs new sensitive land uses to incorporate separation/setbacks, landscaping, barriers, ventilation systems, air filters/cleaners, and other effective measures to minimize pollution exposure. These measures are reflective of the suggested Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value ventilation system recommended in the comment.

Response 10-18
See responses to comments 10-16 and 10-17. See Master Response 2, Recirculation and Master Response 6, Relationship to the Truck Reroute Study.

Response 10-19
The comment asserts that the EIR should be revised to include the Truck Reroute Study/HIA and its 1,000-foot setback recommendation from major roadways. A setback distance of 500 feet has been recommended pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3d; however, in consideration of this comment and the findings of the Truck Reroute Study, the language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3d and the following concluding paragraph has been revised as follows on pages 4.3-32 through 4.3-33:

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 1,000 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.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-160 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
 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 sitespecific, 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 1,000 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 20 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 20 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 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.

Response 10-20
The comment is prefatory to more detailed comments provided. See responses to comments 10-21 through 10-32.

Response 10-21
The comment asserts that the methodology used to estimate emissions of criteria air pollutants underestimates these emissions. To the contrary, as discussed on page 4.3-17, the methodology used to estimate construction-related criteria air pollution assumes a worst-case scenario of construction of 25 percent of the SCSP’s total proposed acreage occurring within one year. This is a conservative assumption because construction of the assumed land uses under the SCSP would likely be built out over decades as project-level development proposals are submitted and approved by the City. Using this very conservative assumption, construction-generated emissions during the first year of construction were found to less than SJVAPCD’s annual mass emissions thresholds; however, maximum daily emissions would exceed SJVAPCD’s 100 lb/day screening criteria. Because emissions would exceed these screening criteria, emissions were found to be potentially significant and Mitigation Measures 4.3-1a though 4.3-1f are recommended. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a directs future development to conduct project-level air quality assessments to determine whether the a project’s emissions would require an ambient air quality assessment; Mitigation Measure

4.3-1b requires construction fleets to meet SJVAPCD’s “clean fleet” standard; Mitigation Measure 4.3-1c prohibits the Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-161
use of diesel engines during project construction; Mitigation Measure 4.3-1d requires measures to reduce fugitive dust PM; Mitigation Measure 4.3-1e includes control measures to minimize exhaust emissions; and Mitigation Measure 4.3-1f provides standards for VOC content for architectural coatings.

The aforementioned modeling assumptions were derived from guidance provided by SMAQMD for plan level development assuming that the majority of heavy-duty equipment would be used during the grading and site preparation phases. During these phases, grounded infrastructure (e.g., electrical lines, natural gas and water pipelines) would be installed. This represents a conservative scenario yielding higher emissions estimates than would likely be realized on a yearly basis for full project buildout. Modeling was performed using the CalEEMod Computer Program Version 2022.1 as recommended by SJVAPCD and other air districts throughout the state and is considered the best available emissions estimator program in the state.

Response 10-22
The comment states that the language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a, 4.3-1b, 4.3-1d, 4.3-1f, 4.3-1h, 4.3-1i, and 4.3-1m are “unclear and inadequate.”
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a directs future development to prepare project-level air quality assessments to determine whether a significant air quality impact could occur. Prior to reliance on a VERA, as described in Mitigation Measure

4.3-1a, project applicants must implement all relevant and applicable on-site mitigation measures enumerated in Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b through 4.3-1m. See response to Comment 7-4 for proposed text edits to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a.

The comment suggests that the language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b require the use of Tier 4 Final engines. The comment states that the language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b should be amended to specify a renewable diesel blend for use in Tier 4 engines. Please refer to Response to Comment 7-6 for a summary of the proposed text edits to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b in response to this comment and others.

The comment asserts that the language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1d is a regulatory requirement of SJVAPCD and that the components of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1c should be submitted to SJVAPCD in a dust control plan. The language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1d has been revised as follows in response to this comment:

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.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-162 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
 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.  During all phases of construction, the following vehicular control measures shall be implemented:
 On‐site 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‐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 in the form of a Dust Control Plan with verification by SJVAPCD.

The comment questions the enforceability of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1f. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1f would be enforced through specification within future construction bids to require low-VOC content use for future development under the SCSP.

The comment asserts that Mitigation Measure 4.3-1i lacks performance standards and enforceability. As stated in Mitigation Measure 4.3-1i, Class 2–6 heavy-duty trucks domiciled at a future project site shall meet the following benchmark targets: (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.

The City shall oversee the implementation of this measure through specific language either as conditions of project approval or contained in the contractual lease agreement for future tenants/lessees.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-163
The comment states that Mitigation Measure 4.3-1m’s direction for future developers to mitigate emissions using offsite opportunities should be revised. The comment states that Mitigation Measure 4.3-1m should only be relied upon once all on-site mitigation has been exhausted. As stated on page 4.3-24, 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.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1m currently contains language that satisfies the commenters request. Consistent with direction by SJVAPCD, off-site mitigation may only be used once all feasible on-site mitigation has been exhausted to ensure that localized air pollution may be avoided.

With regard to the comment that mitigation measures should be applied to ministerial projects, CEQA applies only to those projects over which the City has discretion and does not apply to ministerial projects (see Public Resources Code Section 21080(a) and 21080(b)(1). Pursuant to Table 15-4907, Planning Permits and Actions, in the Fresno Municipal Code, ministerial projects are extremely limited and include such things as minor changes to approved plans, single-family homes and small housing projects, and interpreting the language of the Code.

Response 10-23
The comment asserts that the Draft EIR does not adequately analyze the SCSP’s impact to public health. Please refer to response to Comment 1-2 regarding the limitation of conducting plan-level HRAs, the approach taken to analyze impacts from TAC exposure, and revisions to Mitigation Measures 4.3-3a and 4.3-3b.

Response 10-24
The comment asserts that the Draft EIR incorrectly concludes that construction of the SCSP would result in less-thansignificant construction TAC impacts. This assertion is incorrect. As stated on page 4.3-30, “if 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” and mitigation is recommended. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a requires future development located within 1,000 of an existing sensitive receptor to conduct a project-level construction HRA to determine whether a future development project would subject receptors to TAC concentrations exceeding SJVAPCD’s cancer risk threshold. At this programmatic stage, where site specific data inputs are unavailable, a construction HRA would not produce estimates of high accuracy; therefore, the Draft EIR takes the conservative approach in concluding that construction of the SCSP could expose receptors to substantial emissions of diesel PM and Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a was recommended. Moreover, as stipulated in Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a, projects that generate diesel PM resulting in a significant TAC impact following the application of all feasible mitigation would be prohibited. Thus, potential project-level TAC impacts would be avoided. Nevertheless, in its post-mitigation significance conclusion, the Draft EIR concludes that TAC exposure from implementation of the SCSP would be significant and unavoidable. See also Response to Comment 1- 2 for revisions to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a.

Response 10-25
The comment states that the Draft EIR acknowledges that implementation of the SCSP would result in an increase in industrial uses, truck traffic, and VMT which would introduce new sources of TACs exacerbating an existing adverse condition in the South Central community. The Draft EIR discusses increases in TAC emissions from implementation of the SCSP on pages 4.3-28 through 4.3-31 and Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a through 4.3-3d are recommended to reduce impacts. See also Response to Comment 1-2 for revisions to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a and 4.3-3b.

Response 10-26
The comment states that the Draft EIR concludes significant TAC impacts using a project-level threshold, which is incorrect. The comment suggests that the approach taken should use a cumulative threshold of significance. The Draft EIR applies SJVAPCD’s numerical threshold of significance for determining cancer and noncancer risk of 20 in one million. SJVAPCD does not endorse a cumulative threshold of significance (SJVAPCD 2015b). The comment notes Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-164 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
that other air districts, such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, support the use of a cumulative health risk threshold. The Draft EIR does not attempt to estimate the cumulative health risk of implementation of the SCSP because of the programmatic nature of the analysis. At the time of writing the Draft EIR, project-specific information was, and remains, unknown. As a plan-level analysis, site-specific data are unavailable. Mitigation Measures 4.3-3a and 4.3-3b directs future development located within 1,000 feet of a receptor to conduct project-level construction and operational HRAs to determine if TAC emissions would exceed SJVAPCD’s threshold of 20 in one million. Future environmental coverage of development projects within the SCSP could assess the cumulative impacts of TAC exposure in future CEQA documents; however, SJVAPCD currently does not endorse a cumulative health risk threshold. The cumulative impacts of the SCSP with respect to TAC emissions is discussed on pages 5-5 through 5-6 and impacts are considered cumulatively considerable. See also Response to Comment 1-2 for revisions to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a and 4.3-3b.

Response 10-27
The comment states that the cumulative analysis of TACs is deficient because it did not properly evaluate the health risk for receptors located within the proximity of highways. The comment also asserts that the TAC analysis limits the scope of impacts to the mapped boundary of the SCSP area. As discussed in response to Comment 10-26, a quantitative HRA was not prepared for the construction or operation of the SCSP because of the programmatic nature of the analysis. Construction duration, location, phasing, intensity, and timing are unknown at this programmatic stage. Moreover, the location and magnitude of operational stationary or mobile sources of TACs is uncertain. A plan-level HRA would require such a high degree of speculation that results/findings would not be meaningful. The SCSP provides a suite of land use designations with many allowable uses within each designation, which would be determined at a later date wherein project-specific HRAs would be prepared to evaluate impacts.

Additionally, the comment’s assertion that the TAC analysis is limited to SCSP area is incorrect. As stated on page 4.3- 28, the SCSP “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.” The TAC analysis is not limited to receptors within the SCSP area and identifies existing receptors located in adverse environmental conditions.

Response 10-28
The comment states that the Draft EIR must make a significance determination regarding the SCSP’s constructionrelated climate change impacts. Construction-generated GHG emissions are disclosed on pages 4.8-12 through 4.8-

13. As discussed on page 4.8-13, neither CARB nor SJVAPCD have recommended thresholds for determining the significance of construction-related GHG emissions. In the absence of a construction-related numerical GHG threshold endorsed by the local air district (i.e., SJVAPCD), SMAQMD’s 1,100 MTCO2e/year threshold was applied in the analysis. As shown in Table 4.8-3, the maximum amount of construction GHGs would be 2,999 MTCO2e/year in 2024 assuming that 25 percent of the SCSP would be constructed within the first year of construction and impacts were found to be significant (page 4.8-13). Therefore, the commenter erroneously claims that the Draft EIR did not reach a significance determination for construction-related GHG emissions. Moreover, climate change is an inherently cumulative, global issue resulting from the global warming potential of a suite of pollutants that range in terms of their atmospheric lifetime. Emissions occurring from construction activities could generate global warming pollutants that may exist within the atmosphere from decades to centuries. Therefore, in recognition of the SCSP’s construction emissions exceeding the threshold applied in the analysis (i.e., SMAQMD’s 1,100 MTCO2e/year for construction) and the understanding that construction emissions may have a lasting effect on the acceleration of global climate change, Mitigation is recommended to reduce construction-related GHG impacts including Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b, 4.3- 1c, 4.8-1a, and 4.8-1b. Regardless of these measures, climate change impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-165
Response 10-29
The comment states that SMAQMD’s 1,100 MTCO2e/year threshold of significance is improper and not tied to the state’s most recent GHG reduction targets of AB 1279. SMAQMD’s 1,100 MTCO¬2e/year was developed in consideration of the target of SB 32 (i.e., a 40 percent reduction in a 1990 statewide inventory by 2030). While the comment is correct that AB 1279 (i.e., an 85 percent reduction in a 1990 statewide inventory and carbon neutrality by 2045) has superseded the previous statewide target of Executive Order B-30-15 (i.e., an 80 percent reduction in a 1990 statewide inventory by 2050), AB 1279 does not supersede the state’s legislative target of SB 32. The analysis provides a worst-case construction scenario for the year 2024 assuming that 25 percent of the total SCSP would be built out and construction emissions are compared to SMAQMD’s threshold of significance. As 2024 would occur prior to 2030, use of the 1,100 MTCO2e/year threshold continues to be an applicable and appropriate threshold for determining whether a project would contribute its “fair share” in meeting the states long-term GHG reduction targets under SB 32 and AB 1279. Unlike operational emissions, construction emissions are not emitted into perpetuity; therefore, it is unnecessary to assess construction GHGs emitted prior to 2030 with targets extending beyond this year. Also shown in Table 4.8-3, based on the modeling conducted for the SCSP, over a 25-year period, construction of the SCSP would generate approximately 507 MTCO2e/year until 2040. At this programmatic level, site-specific information is unavailable. Therefore, the Draft EIR takes a conservative approach in its conclusion that construction of the whole of the SCSP would be significant and unavoidable following the application of all mitigation measures recommended.

Response 10-30
The comment notes that the Draft EIR does not use SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance. The Draft EIR does not use SJVAPCD’s GHG guidance in consideration of the direction provided in the California Supreme Court case Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204 (Newhall Ranch Case), which dismissed the business-as-usual (BAU) approach applied in the litigated analysis. The Court deemed the BAU approach used in the environmental document insufficient to demonstrate that the project was doing its “fair share” in assisting the state in meeting its long-term GHG reduction targets. Therefore, in light of the Newhall Ranch Case, the Draft EIR did not use SJVAPCD’s BAU GHG threshold. Please refer to response to Comment 10-29 for details regarding the threshold applied to evaluate construction-generated GHG emissions.

Response 10-31
The comment asserts that the Draft EIR does not make a definitive conclusion regarding construction-related GHG emissions. On page 4.8-13, the Draft EIR states, “SMAQMD’s thresholds comprise a reasonable threshold for evaluating the magnitude of the proposed plan’s construction GHG emissions. In the absence of a district-specific or statewide threshold, 1,100 MTCO2e/year is a reasonable metric by which to define significance as it is tied to meeting the state’s long-term GHG reduction targets set by EO B-30-15. While construction-related development standards would serve to reduce GHG emissions during the construction of future projects, it is unknown whether they would be sufficient to reduce emissions below this applicable threshold.” As discussed on page 4.8-13, the maximum amount of construction GHGs would be 2,999 MTCO2e/year in 2024 which exceeds 1,100 MTCO2e/year. The Draft EIR reasonably compares these emissions to SMAQMD’s 1,100 MTCO2e/year threshold and construction-specific mitigation is recommended (i.e., Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b, 4.3-1c, 4.8-1a, and 4.8-1b. Contrary to the comment’s assertion, the Draft EIR does not dismiss the need to mitigate construction-generated GHG emissions and concludes that following implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b, 4.3-1c, 4.8-1a, and 4.8-1b, GHG impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Response 10-32
The comment asserts that the Draft EIR’s evaluation of the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy associated with the SCSP is unclear. The comment claims that the Draft EIR’s post-mitigation conclusion of less than significant with mitigation cannot be reasonably assumed. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides lead agencies with two factual inquiries: would the project (a) result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, during project construction or operation or (b) conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Neither Appendix G, Appendix F, SJVAPCD, nor any other responsible agency, provide a numerical threshold upon which to base an energy significance Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-166 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
determination. Therefore, a qualitative assessment is appropriate and was performed for the SCSP. Based on the state’s long-term GHG reduction targets, which are inherently tied to energy conservation and renewable energy generation, it can be reasonably assumed that projects that do not promote project design features that lead to building decarbonization, high energy efficiency, electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, and on-site renewable energy could result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. Because the SCSP would allow for natural gas infrastructure and does not include any performance standards pertaining to EV chargers or on-site renewable energy generation, the Draft EIR concludes that prior to mitigation, energy impacts would be significant and 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 are recommended. Through these mitigation measures, total energy expenditure of the SCSP would be greatly reduced if otherwise not prescribed. Therefore, energy impacts were concluded to be less than significant with mitigation.

Response 10-33
The comment cites the requirements for appropriate deferral of mitigation per Section 15126.4(a)-(b). The comment is introductory in nature. Please refer to responses to Comments 10-34 through 10-41.

Response 10-34
The comment alleges deferred CEQA mitigation in Section 4.8, “Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change” citing the direction in Mitigation Measure 4.8-1a to use low-carbon concrete. Mitigation Measure 4.8-1a does not provide specifics pertaining to the brand of low-carbon concrete and provides the City with the opportunity to make this determination at a later date. Moreover, while Mitigation Measure 4.8-1a would ultimately result in fewer construction-related GHG emissions as compared to the use of conventional concrete, the analysis does not rely upon Mitigation Measure 4.8-1a to conclude that climate change impacts would be less than significant. As stated on page 4.8-17, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8-1a, in addition to all other measures recommended, would not be sufficient to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, impacts are determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Response 10-35
The comment asserts that Mitigation Measure 4.6-1b does not provide sufficient detail to minimize the effects of the urban heat island effect (UHIE). Mitigation Measure 4.6-1b provides a broad suite of cooling strategies including trees, cooling vegetation, cool roofing, and cool pavements. The analysis taken in the Draft EIR is inherently programmatic, and site-specific information is unknown at this programmatic stage. The effectiveness of these measures for a given project would be determined once project-level information is available. It is foreseeable that a combination of these cooling elements could be applied to minimize the GHG emissions associated with on-site electricity demand; however, the analysis does not rely upon Mitigation Measure 4.6-1b to conclude that climate change impacts would be less than significant. As stated on page 4.8-17, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-1b, in addition to all other measures recommended, would not be sufficient to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, impacts are concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

Response 10-36
The comment alleges that Mitigation Measure 4.3-1m lacks necessary performance standards. Mitigation Measure

4.3-1m provides for project proponents of future development proposal to invest in various local and regional programs to offset additional emissions if, following the implementation of the strategies enumerated in Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b through 4.3-1l have been exhausted. The analysis prepared in Section 4.3 inherently programmatic, and the details in Mitigation Measure 4.3-1m are intended to be comprehensive. The type of local or regional program that may be funded by Mitigation Measure 4.3-1m is contingent upon the availability, cost, and need of SJVAB communities. The degree to which investments in local or regional programs is dependent on the magnitude of emissions for future projects.

Response 10-37
The comment summarizes CEQA principles of appropriate mitigation deferral.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-167
Response 10-38
The comment alleges that the mitigation measures recommended in the Draft EIR fail to show enforceability citing Mitigation Measure 4.6-1c. The comment also suggests that the post-mitigation measures in Section 4.6 and 4.8 are in conflict. The post-mitigation significance determinations in Sections 4.6 and 4.8 are appropriate in that different thresholds of significance apply to the different resource areas. As discussed in response to Comment 10-32, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides two inquiries to assess a project’s potential energy impacts; however, no numerical threshold has been developed by the City, SJVACPD, or any other responsible agency. Therefore, Section 4.6 uses a qualitative approach to determine that the SCSP would result in a significant impact prior to mitigation. As noted in the comment, the analysis in Section 4.6 concludes that following the application of recommended mitigation measures, energy impacts would be less than significant with mitigation because, if not otherwise prescribed, the SCSP would be in conflict with the state’s overarching goals of improved energy efficiency and use of renewable energy. In contrast, Section 4.8 uses the direction provided in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan as a framework for assessing the SCSP’s contribution of emissions. One priority area of Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan is building decarbonization (i.e., all electric development). As a primarily industrial plan, it is anticipated that future industrial uses will be reliant upon natural as for manufacturing and/or engineering processes and Mitigation Measure 4.6-1c is recommended. In Section 4.8, it is acknowledged that use of renewable natural gas (RNG) may be limited due to economic constraints and availability and is therefore not relied upon to conclude that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. However, Section 4.6 concludes that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation from the implementation of a combination of mitigation measures that would ultimately result in improved energy and fuel efficiency and renewable energy sources than if otherwise prescribed.

Response 10-39
The comment asserts that CEQA requires that an EIR analyze whether a proposed mitigation would itself result in significant impacts and cites potential air quality impacts associated with the use of RNG. The comment cites statistics regarding ammonium nitrate emissions originating from dairies within the SJVAB. Mitigation Measure 4.6-1c, which directs future tenants of industrially zoned areas of the SCSP to use RNG, would not individually alter the production of RNG. It is not anticipated that use of RNG within the SCSP would result in an expansion of existing dairies or other sources of RNG. Several statewide mechanisms and plans such as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and Short Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy target these sources of fugitive methane to generate RNG and offset fossil natural gas.

Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-1c alone would not result in an increase in localized ammonium nitrate emissions nor contribute to the nonattainment designation of the SJVAB with respect to PM2.5.

Response 10-40
The comment asserts that the Draft EIR fails to show how mitigation would ultimately be effective, citing Mitigation Measures 4.6-1b and 4.6-1c. Mitigation Measure 4.6-1b entails implementation of on-site cooling strategies including the planting of trees and vegetation and use of cool roofs and pavements. These elements serve to reduce the UHIE and direct electricity needed to run HVAC systems to cool indoor climates. Mitigation Measure 4.6-1c would require future industrial projects to source natural gas from renewable resources if available and economically viable. The use of renewable natural gas would result in indirect GHG reductions from the capture of fugitive methane emissions originating from wastewater treatment plants, dairies, and landfills that perpetuate global climate change. Moreover, use of RNG offsets the need to extract fossil natural gas which generates CO2 during the extraction process and has been found to release fugitive methane. Contrary to the comment’s assertion, measures such as tree and vegetation planting, use of cool roofs and pavements, and sourcing natural gas from renewable sources are well-known methods of reducing the UHIE (EPA 2008).

Response 10-41
The comment suggests that it is feasible for 100 percent of the SCSP’s electricity to be sourced from renewable energy. Please refer to response to comment 8-12.

Response 10-42
The comment asserts that the VMT analysis is misleading. The VMT analysis prepared for the SCSP DEIR uses the CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds, prepared by LSA for the City of Fresno, to determine the Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-168 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
methodology and VMT thresholds. Because the SCSP is a land use plan, significance thresholds for land use plans, located on page 37 of the aforementioned document was followed. The guidelines state, “recommended methodology for conducting VMT assessments for land use plans is to compare the existing VMT per capita and/or VMT per employee for the region with the expected horizon year VMT per capita and/or VMT per employee for the land use plan. If there is a net increase in the VMT metric under horizon year conditions, then the project will have a significant impact”. The SCSP DEIR analyzed VMT per Service Population, which divides the SCSP’s total VMT over the sum of population and employment within the plan area as the SCSP is comprised of both residential and commercial land uses. The guidelines call for comparing the horizon year of the plan, not the base year vs horizon year.

The SCSP DEIR utilized the latest version of the Fresno COG ABM, which has a base year of 2015. There has been no significant update to the travel demand model when the DEIR was being prepared and released; therefore, the latest model assumptions were used.

SB 743 is primarily concerned with automobile/on-road passenger vehicles. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 was added December 28, 2018, to address the new method of determining significance for transportation impacts (i.e., VMT instead of congestion). Relevant to calculating trips, Section 15064.3(a) states, “For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” Here, the term “automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks (OPR 2018).

Heavy-duty truck VMT could be included for modeling convenience and ease of calculation (for example, where models or data provide combined auto and heavy truck VMT), but need not be. Therefore, larger on-road vehicles that do not fall within the categories of cars and light trucks do not need to be considered in calculations of trips or VMT. Heavy-duty trucks are addressed in other CEQA sections (i.e., air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, and health risk assessment analysis). The VMT per Service Population figures use automobile assignment volumes multiplied by distance traveled from the FresnoCOG ABM in the SCSP area, which align with SB 743 guidelines provided by the City of Fresno.

Response 10-43
The comment consists of introductory remarks to comments about bicycle and pedestrian safety. Subsequent projects associated with the SCSP would be required to comply with the guidelines established in the City of Fresno Active Transportation Plan to provide for a safe environment for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Response 10-44
The comment expresses concern with bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic safety and takes issue with the EIR analysis.

Contrary to the comment’s assertion, the EIR provides a thorough analysis of transportation hazards based on the level of project detail available, and stops short of speculation, as required by CEQA. The EIR discloses that implementation of development under the SCSP would substantially increase industrial uses in the plan area, resulting in considerable increases in traffic, including truck traffic. Project specific development would be required to comply with all applicable design standards, subject to review and approval by City staff. Traffic control plans would be required during construction to reduce potential hazards. The SCSP is a land use plan; therefore, individual project-specific details are not available. Notwithstanding, the comment offers no evidence to suggest that implementation of development under the SCSP would result in significant adverse impacts relative to bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic safety. Subsequent projects proposed to be built within the plan area would be required to conduct a transportation safety analysis to identify impacts from transportation hazards at the project level, including those associated with increased automobile and/or truck traffic, and implement appropriate design standards to address such hazards. Moreover, for future industrial projects meeting the definition of a logistics center, AB 98 design standards will require that loading docks and points of entry be located on arterials that currently support commercial spaces. This requirement would further reduce the potential for the SCSP to introduce a transportation hazard to bicycle or pedestrian safety.

Note: the tragic death of the boy in Sanger, California, cited in the letter was caused by a passenger truck, not a heavy-duty truck, and the primary cause of the collision was yet to be determined. The second accident cited in the footnote describes a girl hit by a truck while on her way home from school. “The driver tried to avoid the pedestrian, but the car collided with her.” [Emphasis added.] The article is silent about whether this was a heavy-duty truck, but Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-169
likely not as it was described as a “car.” While any increase in traffic in a region can increase the potential for safety incidents, the comment is specifically about heavy truck traffic.

Response 10-45
The comment notes particular traffic safety concerns relative to the Orange Center Elementary School on South Cherry Avenue and residential communities. See Response to Comment 10-44.

Response 10-46
The comment suggests that the Draft EIR points to proposed policies to render traffic safety impacts less than significant. This is incorrect. The Draft EIR analysis does list SCSP policies, development standards, and other City requirements that are aimed at precluding adverse safety impacts. In addition, the EIR cites the AB 617 Truck Reroute Study and Health Impact Assessment, then underway. While not yet considered for acceptance by the City Council, the Truck Reroute Study and Health Impact Assessment was undertaken by the City and the SJVAPCD to identify, analyze, and evaluate potential strategies to reduce potential impacts of truck traffic in the industrial areas of South Fresno. The EIR analysis did not rely on the Truck Reroute Study because the two studies were in progress at virtually the same time, but nonetheless, the Reroute Study recommends strategies including new sidewalks, new crosswalks, new bike lanes, road repaving, traffic calming, truck-focused signage, traffic signalization improvements, roadway reconfiguration, and truck regulated areas. While these strategies will serve to improve safety and reduce the air quality, noise, and other impacts of truck traffic on the community of South Fresno, the EIR determined that there is no evidence to suggest that approval of the SCSP would result in significant adverse safety impacts. See also Master Response 6, Relationship to the Truck Reroute Study.

Response 10-47
The comment suggests that the EIR relies on the Truck Reroute Study to claim that traffic safety impacts will be less than significant. This is incorrect. Please see Response to Comment 10-46. The comment goes on to assert that implementation of the Truck Reroute Study would divert truck traffic into the SCSP area. Master Response 6, Relationship to the Truck Reroute Study.

Response 10-48
The comment alleges that the Draft EIR analysis of impacts on hydrology and water quality is insufficient because the EIR does not indicate existing pollutant levels in known contaminated groundwater plumes that are currently being treated and because the EIR does not identify the number and locations of existing domestic wells in the plan area. (The EIR does identify existing and future municipal wells. See Figure 4.10-1.) While these items do relate to existing conditions, the comment suggests a level of detail that is unnecessary to assess the impacts of adoption of the SCSP by City decisionmakers. There is no evidence to suggest that any element of the SCSP or subsequent development would result in exacerbation of existing contaminated groundwater plumes, nor would the SCSP result in additional domestic wells. Development under the proposed plan would be required to comply with applicable requirements related to water quality, including on-site stormwater detention/retention, implementation of best management practices, and materials handling, during construction and operation. As described in the Draft EIR at page 4.10-20, “[t]he Plan Area would continue to support similar industrial land uses that are currently allowed under the General Plan. Industrial projects would be required to obtain an Industrial General Stormwater Permit (NPDES No.

CAS000001), which is similar to the Statewide NPDES CGP. Some industrial and other uses that require water for processing may discharge treated wastewater to land or surface waters. These projects would be required to obtain a separate and additional wastewater NPDES permit through the Central Valley RWQCB. Wastewater NPDES permits contain facility-specific water discharge requirements that protect beneficial uses, ensure that discharges meet the water quality objectives of the water body to which wastewater is discharged, and meet federal and state nondegradation policies in instances in which existing water quality is better than required by law.” Response 10-49
The comment mischaracterizes the quoted EIR statement. The EIR does not claim that redesignating lands that surround sensitive land uses from Heavy Industrial to Business Park would prevent significant noise impacts. While it is true that the proposed redesignation would be beneficial relative to existing land use designations and zoning, as Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-170 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
noted in the comment, the Draft EIR concludes that noise levels generated by development in the plan area could result in exceedance of standards and significant noise effects, requiring mitigation. See also Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas.

The comment goes on to suggest that the EIR defers noise analysis and mitigation. The comment inaccurately characterizes mitigation deferral. Because the Draft EIR is a program-level analysis, site-specific details that would be required to conduct a detailed noise analysis at each location of future development is not possible. The mitigation recommended in the EIR contains all the requirements necessary to achieve CEQA’s standards for mitigation, namely that the analysis and significance determinations are conducted, that clear performance standards are identified, the City of Fresno commits to the mitigation, and feasible options are presented that can achieve the stated performance standards. The EIR also identifies when the mitigation would apply (i.e., at the time of development application review), the responsible party (i.e., development applicant), and enforcement metric or standard by which should be achieved (i.e., City noise standards). Therefore, the mitigation is adequate and would be enforced by the City at the time of individual development applications. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary.

Response 10-50
The comment defines cumulative impacts, describes CEQA requirements, and cites case law.

Response 10-51
The comment asserts that the cumulative impact analysis is flawed because the cumulative project list omits the Caltrans South Fresno State Route 99 Corridor Project. The project proposes to reconstruct two existing half interchanges to create full interchanges at American Avenue and North Avenue on SR 99, with closure of the ramps at Cedar Avenue which would move the existing southbound onramp and northbound off ramp to North Avenue.

According to the Caltrans project website, the purpose of the SR 99 Corridor Project is to improve traffic operations at the existing interchanges and bring them up to current Caltrans design standards. (It is acknowledged that the Secretary of Transportation has ordered reevaluation of the FHWA decision to exempt the project from a Clean Air Act analysis, a decision based, presumably, on Caltrans’ determination that the project would result in reduced air pollutant emissions. Notably, a federal court granted reevaluation without vacating the initial exemption.) As described in the Draft EIR, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 identifies two basic methods for establishing the cumulative environment in which a project is considered: the use of a list of past, present, and probable future projects or the use of development projections from an adopted general plan, other regional planning document, or a certified EIR for such a planning document. The cumulative analysis for the SCSP uses the “plan” approach to identify the cumulative setting. The cumulative analysis considers the development anticipated to occur in accordance with the Fresno General Plan, encompassing the Plan Area and beyond. As such, individual projects, including the State Route 99 Corridor Project, are not identified. The cumulative impact analysis is fully compliant with CEQA.

Response 10-52
The comment summarizes the EIR’s conclusions relative to noise impacts, and notes they were found to be significant and unavoidable at both the project (plan) and cumulative levels. The comment goes on to suggest that the cumulative noise analysis is incomplete because it does not include the SR 99 Corridor Project, and that additional mitigation should be considered, including protective buffers between industrial/ business park uses and residential uses; prohibiting exceedance of noise standards near residential areas; and prohibiting truck traffic through residential areas. As described throughout the Draft EIR, the SCSP is a land use plan applicable to a large region.

Moreover, no specific developments are yet proposed under the plan. Mitigation measures recommended to reduce potential noise impacts are appropriate at the plan level and include those suggested by the commenter: require acoustic studies for project- and site-specific developments that include noise abatement measures to ensure compliance with the City’s General Plan and Noise Ordinance; require findings of consistency for future development with the City’s policies, development standards, goals, objectives, and ordinances relative to noise; require noisereducing design; and minimize stationary noise and parking lot noise near sensitive uses (see Draft EIR at page 4.12- 18). As project-specific developments are proposed, more detailed measures may be developed.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-171
With regard to the SR 99 Corridor Project specifically, according to the Caltrans project website, the purpose of that undertaking is to improve traffic operations of the existing interchanges at American and North Avenues to bring the interchanges up to current Caltrans design standards. No element of the project would generate additional truck traffic. See also Response to Comment 10-51.

Response 10-53
The comment describes CEQA requirements relative to alternatives and cites case law and takes issue with the EIR’s alternatives analysis. No specific comments on the analysis are provided in the comment and no response is required.

Response 10-54
The comment makes a general allegation as to deficiency in the description of the existing setting and impact analysis and asserts that, because of that, proper identification of alternatives is impossible. The comment cites air pollutant emissions and public health impacts as an example. With respect to air quality, the existing environmental setting is described in Section 4.3.2, “Environmental Setting,” and Figure 4.3-1 provides a graphic with the findings of the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 mapping program. The environmental setting is adequately described in Section 4.3.2 and is fully compliant with CEQA. See also Response to Comments 10-12 through 10-27. The comment does not provided any additional specific evidence that the alternative analysis is incomplete.

Response 10-55
The comment takes issue with the alternatives analysis and suggests that the Community Plan Option could be modified to reduce the non-residential development (reduced industrial and regional business park uses) while keeping the number of jobs the same as the proposed plan and be considered in the EIR as an alternative to the project. The comment asserts that a modified Community Plan Alternative would further reduce impacts as compared to the proposed project and would meet the City’s objectives. However, the comment offers no evidence that a modified Community Plan Alternative would avoid or substantially reduce impacts compared to the SCSP. In fact, by adding residential development to a plan area that already supports substantial industrial development, impacts could be exacerbated. Moreover, by reducing industrial uses in favor of retail and commercial uses, the City’s objective to stimulate economic development and attract development that focuses on emerging markets and new technologies could be jeopardized.

As discussed in Section 6.4, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, the alternatives section includes analysis of two project options put forward by various community members and businesses. Because the Community Plan Option includes the same development footprint, it would require a similar amount of construction and would result in similar conversion of undeveloped land to urban use, compared with the proposed plan. However, this option would involve a different mix of land uses, with substantially more retail and office uses and substantially less industrial use. Further, this option would generate substantially more residential and job growth than the proposed plan. The job growth is greater than the proposed plan because the mix of land uses are different, office and retail uses create more jobs per square foot, as compared to industrial uses.

Section 15126.6 (c) of the CEQA Guidelines addresses the selection of a range of reasonable alternatives. The range of potential alternatives to a proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. “[T]here is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR or EIA in this case), other than the rule of reason.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576; In re Bay-Delta etc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1162–1164; CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (a).) Section 15126(a) states the “EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives.” Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-172 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.” These guidelines were followed and complied with in Section 6, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR and identifies three alternatives to the proposed plan.

Ultimately, the Draft EIR presents a reasonable range of alternatives, evaluates their potential to achieve most of the basic project objectives, and evaluates whether the respective alternative would avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Proposed Plan in compliance with CEQA requirements. Therefore, no revisions to the EIR are necessary.

Response 10-56
The comment suggests that the Draft EIR needs to be revised and recirculated. See Master Response 2, Recirculation.

Response 10-57
The comment consists of concluding remarks. No response is required.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-173
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-174 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-175
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-176 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Letter 11 Regenerate California Innovation (RCI),
Keith Bergthold
7/30/24
Response 11-1
The comment consists of prefatory remarks and introduces comments that appear in more detail later in the comment letter. Please refer to subsequent responses to comments contained in this letter.

Response 11-2
The comment suggests population and employment growth are overstated. Growth projections are estimates only.

The EIR used double that estimated in the market study to be appropriately conservative.

Response 11-3
The comment is promoting clean energy opportunities. The EIR is a program-level assessment of development projected to occur in the plan area through 2040. The EIR does not presuppose the nature, size, type, and location of development. The comment pertains to the SCSP itself and not to the environmental analysis. Please see Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 11-4
The comment requests the City reconsider population and employment projections, and consider clean energy opportunities with public private partnerships. This comment is a summary of the detailed comments made in the letter. Please see responses to the specific comments above.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-177
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-178 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-179
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-180 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Letter 12 Tree Fresno,
Mona N. Cummings
7/17/24
Response 12-1
The comment provides a narrative about Tree Fresno and its role in the region and suggests incorporating specific text into the SCSP and EIR. While the City acknowledges the important work of Tree Fresno, including the urban greening grant program for the AB 617 area, neither the SCSP nor EIR envision a direct role that would burden the financial or staff resources of Tree Fresno. By its comment, the narrative offered by Tree Fresno is included in the project record under consideration by City decisionmakers. Please see also Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 12-2
Tree Fresno expresses concern about its resources available to partner with the City in tree funding and planning and requests specificity in the SCSP and EIR regarding those limitations. Refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 12-3
The comment suggests greater discussion in the EIR of the UFMP as it pertains to the plan area, and of historical context and controversy (e.g., AG comment to improve and maintain tree canopy). Refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 12-4
The comment cites UFMP actions that can support the City’s partnership with Tree Fresno. It also expresses support for designation of a City Arborist and City Urban Forester. The City acknowledges these suggestions and expressions of support from Tree Fresno.

Response 12-5
The comment suggests addition of vegetative buffers adjacent to Highways 41 and 99 to reduce air quality impacts on adjacent sensitive uses and discussion of Measure P and a funding source for urban greening. As noted in Master Response 4, Downsizing to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas, the Specific Plan requires a 1,000 buffer from sensitive receptors and Mitigation Measure 4.3.3-c in the EIR also requires a buffer from sensitive receptors. The measures are specific to reducing impacts related to any future development on sensitive receptors. As discussed in Master Response 3, Program Versus Project-Level Analysis, the EIR is a program level analysis and any future development within the Plan area will require project level analysis. If during project level analysis, other mitigation requirements such as the need to include additional buffers, as suggested in this comment, the City would require additional feasible mitigation at that time.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-181

2.3.4 Companies, Business Associations, Labor, Other Organizations Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-182 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-183
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-184 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-185
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-186 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Letter 13 Affinity Truck Center,
Kim Mesfin, President
7/30/24
Response 13-1
The comment consists of prefatory remarks introducing the company and prefacing concerns with the plan and EIR.

Please refer to responses below for specific comments.

Response 13-2
The comment states that the requirements of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1h are more aggressive than the CARB’s Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation. The commenter is correct that the benchmark targets to achieve a 100 percent zero or near-zero Class 7 and 8 truck fleet under Mitigation Measure 4.3-1h by December 1, 2026, which is a more stringent, nearer term target. The objective for fleet turnover is in response to ambient air quality conditions and that the existing community has been identified as a high-pollution burdened community by AB 617 and CalEPA’s CalEnviroScreen tool. As such, the recommendation of a stringent standard for Class 7 and 8 trucks operated in the SCSP, if feasible, to minimize the SCSP’s contribution of mobile-source air pollution would support a community already experiencing a high level of air pollution.

All mitigation measures that directly relate to criteria air pollutants, TACs, and GHG emissions were developed in consideration of comments submitted during the NOP scoping period, as well as direct input provided by CARB and SJVAPCD, during the preparation of the Draft EIR. The mitigation measures provided in the Draft EIR, and discussed and revised throughout this document, reflect the opinions and recommendations of CARB and SJVAPCD, among other public stakeholders including the Attorney General’s Office. Several measures are also similar to mitigation practices recommended in the Mariposa Industrial Park EIR (SCN 2020120283), certified by the City of Stockton in 2022 (City of Stockton 2022). The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR and no further response is required.

Response 13-3
The comment states that unlike the ACF regulation, Mitigation Measure 4.3-1h applies to all discretionary permits for commercial and industrial land uses within the SCSP. The comment is correct in its understanding of the applicability of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1h. See Response 13-2 above. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR and no further response is required.

Response 13-4
The comment states that Mitigation Measure 4.3-1i has a more aggressive target for Class 2-6 trucks as compared to CARB’s ACF regulation. The comment is correct in its understanding of the applicability of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1i.

See Response 13-2 above. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR and no further response is required.

Response 13-5
The comment states that the CARB regulations are unattainable, let alone the overly aggressive timelines of the required transition to zero emission trucks proposed by the project. The comment also states that electric vehicles are not affordable to all operators and not all commercial trucks have an electric option available. The comment suggests complying with the CARB regulations at a minimum. Please refer to Response 13-2 for an explanation why the project has more stringent requirements than CARB. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR and no further response is required.

Response 13-6
The comment suggests that mandating the use of renewable diesel would have a tremendous impact until owners fall in line with CARB regulations. The comment does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR.

The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-187
Response 13-7
The comment is related to the Plan’s promotion of passenger EVs for customers/employees. Refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 13-8
The comment is related to Plan and infeasibility of on-site motorized operational equipment. Refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 13-9
The comment provides a summary of the proposed construction fleets, equipment, and materials requirements and the requirements of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b, Mitigation Measures 4.8-1b. The comment raises questions regarding the logistics of meeting these requirements. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comments are included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. Please refer to Master Responses 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan, and 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 13-10
The comment provides a summary of the proposed electrification requirements and Mitigation Measure 4.3-1k and questions what would be done with the underutilized chargers if CARB pushes back on EPA. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. Please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 13-11
The comment provides a summary of the proposed solar infrastructure requirements and suggests parking or on ground solar structures instead of rooftop structures. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. Please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 13-12
The comment indicates that electric trucks charging causes noise pollution. Mitigation Measure 4.12-2a requires an acoustical study to be performed which would determine anticipated noise levels for new noise sources as well as ways to reduce noise exposure to achieve City standards. In the specific example provided by the commenter regarding noise from charging EV trucks, potential noise reduction strategies could incorporate the use of nearby buildings as barriers or adequate distance buffers. Nonetheless, the specific noise source proposed at the time of development would be required to be evaluated and appropriate measures be incorporated into the project design.

No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-188 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-189
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-190 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-191
Letter 14 Betts Company,
Mike Betts
No date
Response 14-1
The comment consists of prefatory remarks introducing the company and prefacing concerns with the plan and EIR.

Please refer to responses below for specific comments.

Response 14-2
The comment provides an opinion about the air quality conditions and does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in tis deliberation and determination.

Response 14-3
The comment provides an opinion about the adverse effects of the recommendations in the SCSP. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and its economic effects and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. Please also refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 14-4
The comment states that the City does not have data to support the recommended mandates. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 14-5
The comment expresses an opinion about the economic effects of solar facilities. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and its economic effects and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. Please also refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 14-6
The comment claims that the City provided misinformation in the community meetings and does not provide evidence to support the claim. The comment lacks sufficient specificity to enable the City to prepare a good faith, reasoned response.

The comment also provides an opinion about the adverse effects of downzoning. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 14-7
The comment expresses an opinion about the proposed 1,000-foot buffer zones. Please refer to Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas.

Response 14-8
The comment expresses an opinion about the cost of the mitigation requirements. Please refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 14-9
The comment urges the City to reconsider the proposed mandates in the SCSP. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-192 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-193
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-194 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Letter 15 Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, Chuck Riojas, Financial Secretary-Treasurer
No date
Responses 15-1 through 15-9
The comments pertains to the specific plan itself not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comments are included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. See also Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-195
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-196 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-197
Letter 16 Central California Food Bank,
Kym Dildine, Co-CEO
No date
Response 16-1
The comment consists of prefatory remarks introducing the company and expresses concerns regarding the economic effects of mitigation requirements. Please refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-198 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-199
Letter 17 Certified Meat Products,
Jimmy Maxey
No date
Response 17-1
The comment consists of prefatory remarks introducing the company and does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

Response 17-2
The comment consists of a list of concerns related to the SCSP. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. Please also refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 17-3
The comment expresses an opinion about downzoning. Please refer to Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas.

Response 17-4
The comment expresses opposition to the SCSP. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-200 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-201
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-202 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Letter 18 Chamber of Commerce,
Scott Miller
7/18/24
Response 18-1
The comment consists of prefatory remarks introducing the company and does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

Response 18-2
The comment states that the SCSP and the SCSP EIR do not adequately quantify how many properties or the total acreage of land use/zoning change. The proposed net change for each land use designation under the SCSP is summarized in Tabel 3-4 of the Draft EIR (page 3-14 of the Draft EIR). As shown in Table 3-4, the SCSP would reduce the Heavy Industrial and Regional Business Park land uses by 836 and 17 acres, respectively. The SCSP would increase the Light Industrial, Business Park, Public, Single Family Residential, and General Commercial land uses by 30, 509, 36, 240, and 37 acres, respectively.

The comment also expresses an opinion about the adverse effects of downzoning. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 18-3
The comment expresses an opinion about the adverse effects of the proposed buffer zones. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comments are included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. Please also refer to Master Responses 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan, and 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas.

Response 18-4
The comment provides a summary of the proposed solar infrastructure mandate. Please refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 18-5
The comment provides a summary of the proposed zero emissions mandate. Please refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 18-6
The comment provides a summary of the proposed promotion of passenger electric vehicles mandate. Please refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 18-7
The comment provides a summary of the proposed zero emissions equipment mandate. Please refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 18-8
The comment provides a summary of the proposed construction fleets/equipment mandate. Please refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 18-9
The comment provides a summary of the proposed mandate for other infrastructure improvements. Please refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 18-10
The comment consists of closing remarks and expresses an opinion about the economic effects of the proposed mitigation requirements. Please refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-203
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-204 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-205
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-206 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-207
Letter 19 D & I Farms, Daniel Barandalla,
Dirk Poeschel
7/30/24
Response 19-1
The comment consists of prefatory remarks introducing the subject property and prefacing concerns with the plan and EIR. Please refer to responses below for specific comments Response 19-2
The comment pertains to the specific plan itself not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comments are included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. See also Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan Response 19-3
The comment pertains to the specific plan itself not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comments are included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. See also Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan Response 19-4
The comment expresses support for Comment Letter 31. Please refer to responses to Comment Letter 31 below.

Response 19-5
The comment states that the existing industrial uses were designated prior to the adoption of stringent environmental regulations and the proposed plan’s special zoning standards are unnecessary in light of mandated CEQA review for all projects. In addition, the comment states that land use permits requirements provide regulatory scrutiny to ensure modern industrial uses are consistent with surrounding properties. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 19-6
The comment provides examples of regulatory requirements regarding industrial parks operation. The comment does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 19-7
The comment expresses an opinion about the economic effects of the plan. Please refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-208 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-209
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-210 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-211
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-212 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Letter 20 Donaghy Sales, Beverage Distributor,
Ryan Donaghy
No date
Response 20-1
The comment consists of prefatory remarks introducing the company and does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

Response 20-2
The comment expresses concern regarding the proposed 1,000-foot buffer. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comments are included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. Please refer to Master Responses 1 and 4.

Response 20-3
The comment expresses confusion as to whether the commenter’s property is located within or outside of a proposed buffer zone. Figure 3-16 of the Draft EIR (at page 3-35) identifies the proposed 1,000-foot buffer zones intended to protect sensitive uses. Importantly, Figure 3-16 has been revised to depict the 1,000-foot buffer zones necessary to protect sensitive uses that lie outside the Plan Area (see revised figure in Chapter 2, Revisions to Draft EIR). The comment also requests clarification of the term “sensitive uses.” In accordance with City Council Resolution 2019-235, these are defined as residential, school, park, day care, religious institution, hospital, retirement home, and convalescent home uses. Please refer also to Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas.

With regards to noticing, please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 20-4
The comment expresses concerns that the buffer zones requirements are excessive or unnecessary. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comments are included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. Please also refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 20-5
The comment summarizes the regulations applicable to future activities within the buffer zones. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comments are included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. Please also refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 20-6
The comment expresses an opinion about the economic effects of the proposed requirements. Please refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 20-7
The comment expresses an opinion about the economic effects of complying with electrification requirements. Please refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 20-8
The comment expresses an opinion about the economic effects of the proposed construction and operation requirements. The comment also states that no similar requirements exist in other jurisdictions. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comments are included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. Please also refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-213
Response 20-9
The comment expresses opposition to the SCSP. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comments are included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 20-10
The comment expresses opposition to the SCSP. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comments are included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-214 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-215
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-216 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Letter 21 Dumont Printing,
Susan D. Moore, President & Owner
7/29/24
Response 21-1
The comment consists of prefatory remarks introducing the company and prefacing concerns with the plan. Please refer to responses below for specific comments.

Response 21-2
The comment expresses an opinion about the effects of downzoning to the subject property. Please refer to Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas.

Response 21-3
The comment expresses an opinion about the economic effects of implementing the buffer zones. Please refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 21-4
The comment expresses an opinion about the economic effects related to electrification and zero emissions requirements. Please refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 21-5
The comment expresses an opinion about the economic effects of implementing the SCSP. Please refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-217
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-218 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Letter 22 Formax, LLC,
Paul Gillum, Managing Member
No date
Response 22-1
The comment consists of prefatory remarks introducing the company and does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required Response 22-2
The comment consists of a list of concerns related to the SCSP. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 22-3
The comment expresses an opinion about downzoning. Please refer to Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas.

Response 22-4
The comment expresses opposition to the SCSP. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-219
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-220 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-221
Letter 23 Fresno Business Council,
Genelle Taylor Kumpe, CEO and Deborah Nankivell, CEO, Fresno Stewardship Foundation
7/24/24
Response 23-1
The comment consists of prefatory remarks introducing the Fresno Business Council and does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

Response 23-2
The comment expresses an opinion about the social and economic effects of the SCSP. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and its economic effects and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. Please also refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-222 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-223
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-224 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-225
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-226 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-227
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-228 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Letter 24 INVESTFresno et al.,
Ben Granholm
7/30/24
Response 24-1
The comment includes prefatory remarks conveying concerns with the plan and expresses support for Comment Letter 31. Please refer to the responses below for specific comments and refer to responses to Comment Letter 31.

Response 24-2
The comment expresses an opinion about the effects of downzoning. Please refer to Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas.

Response 24-3
The comment expresses an opinion about the proposed 1,000-foot buffer zones and provides example of 300-foot buffer zones from other jurisdictions. Please refer to Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas.

Response 24-4
The comment provides a summary of the economic and social benefits of the existing businesses in South Central Fresno. The comment does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comments are included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. Please also refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 24-5
The comment provides a summary of the air quality conditions in the Central Valley but does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comments are included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 24-6
The comment expresses an opinion about the effects of the proposed downzoning, buffers and the provision of legal non-conforming use. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and its economic effects and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 24-7
The comment expresses an opinion about the effects of implementing the SCSP but does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 24-8
The comment expresses an opinion about the economic effects of the proposed zero-emissions policies. Please refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 24-9
The comment expresses opposition to the SCSP. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and its economic effects and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-229
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-230 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Letter 25 JD Food,
Mark Ford, CEO
No date
Response 25-1
The comment provides overview of company and concerns regarding the Plan and mitigation measures, including the cost associated with implementation of mitigation measure. Refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan, and Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 25-2
The comment identifies a concern with the ability to get permits. Please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 25-3
The comment urges the plan not be adopted. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-231
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-232 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Letter 26 Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
Plan Review Team, Land Management
7/30/24
Response 26-1
The comment provides information and requirements related to gas and electric facilities. The comment does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. Future projects occur within the SCSP would be required to coordinate with PG&E to ensure compatible uses and activities near PG&E facilities.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-233
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-234 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-235
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-236 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Letter 27 Penny Newman Grain Company,
David Meeker
7/29/24
Response 27-1
The comment consists of prefatory remarks introducing the company and prefacing concerns with the plan and EIR.

Please refer to responses below for specific comments.

Response 27-2
Please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 27-3
Please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 27-4
The comment expresses an opinion about the applicability and economic effects of the mitigation requirements.

Please refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 27-5
The comment provides a summary of solar infrastructure requirements and does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

Response 27-6
The comment expresses an opinion about the effects of the zero-emissions vehicles requirements. Please refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 27-7
Please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 27-8
Please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 27-9
The comment provides a summary of the construction fleets, equipment, and materials requirements and states that these requirements should be offered as options. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comments are included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 27-10
The comment provides a summary of the other requirements related to infrastructure improvements and expresses an opinion about the economic effects of these requirements. Please refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 27-11
The comment is a concluding comment and concerns with the financial burdens associated with the SCSP. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and its economic effects and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-237
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-238 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-239
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-240 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-241
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-242 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Letter 28 Robert V. Jensen, Inc.,
William V. Jensen
No date
Response 28-1
The comment consists of prefatory remarks introducing the company and does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

Response 28-2
The comment expresses concern about the SCSP, including the lack of notice and the creation of buffer zones..

Please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan and Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas. Regarding noticing, please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 28-3
The comment states that the existing use of the Robert V. Jensen’s parcel would meet six of the eight SCSP objectives. The comment does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required
Response 28-4
The comment provides a summary of the development application history of the Robert V. Jensen parcel. The comment also expresses an opinion about the effects of rezoning the Robert V. Jensen parcel but does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required. Please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 28-5
The comment expresses an opinion about the economic effects of the proposed buffer zone requirements and expresses opposition to the SCSP. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and its economic effects and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comments are included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. Please also refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

The comment states that the City failed to notify the affected landowner about the SCSP and the Draft EIR. Please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 28-7
The comment expresses an opinion about the adverse effects of the SCSP and expresses opposition to the SCSP. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and its economic effects and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comments are included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-243
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-244 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-245
Letter 29 San Joaquin Valley Manufacturing Alliance,
Genelle Taylor Kumpe, CEO and Mario Persicone, Chair
7/24/24
Response 29-1
The comment consists of prefatory remarks introducing the San Joaquin Valley Manufacturing Alliance and prefacing concerns with the plan and EIR. Please refer to responses below for specific comments.

Response 29-2
The comment expresses an opinion about the adverse effects of the proposed downzoning. The comment also indicates that there is lack of notification to affected property owners. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and its economic effects and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. Please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan. The comments are included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 29-3
The comment expresses an opinion about the adverse effect of the proposed buffer zones. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and its economic effects and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. Please also refer to Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas.

Response 29-4
The comment expresses an opinion about the economic effects and feasibility of the proposed mitigation requirements. Please refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 29-5
The comment states that the proposed requirements are more aggressive than CARB’s ACF regulations. Please refer to Response to 13-2 above.

Response 29-6
The comment consists of closing remarks and urges the City to reconsider the proposed SCSP. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and its economic effects and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-246 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-247
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-248 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-249
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-250 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-251
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-252 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-253
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-254 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-255
Letter 30 Valley Iron, Inc.,
Noel Briscoe
No date
Response 30-1
The comment consists of prefatory remarks introducing the company and prefacing concerns with the plan and EIR.

Please refer to responses below for specific comments.

Response 30-2
The comment states that the SCSP and the Draft EIR did not specifically quantify how many properties would be affected by the plan or the total acreage of land use/zoning change. The acreage of proposed land use change is summarized in Tabel 3-4 of the Draft EIR (page 3-14 of the Draft EIR). As summarized in Table 3-4, the SCSP would reduce the Heavy Industrial and Regional Business Park land uses by 836 and 17 acres, respectively. The SCSP would increase the Light Industrial, Business Park, Public, Single Family Residential, and General Commercial land uses by 30, 509, 36, 240, and 37 acres, respectively.

Response 30-3
The comment expresses an opinion about the adverse effects of the proposed downzoning. Please refer to Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas.

Response 30-4
The comment indicates that the City failed to notify affected property owners regarding the proposed zoning change.

Please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 30-5
The comment expresses an opinion about the economic effects of the proposed downzoning. Please refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 30-6
The comment expresses an opinion about the effects the proposed downzoning would have on the future growth of the Valley Iron Inc. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and its economic effects and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. Please also refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 30-7
The comment expresses concerns and opposition to the proposed buffer zones and associated zero emission requirements. Please refer to Master Responses 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas, and 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 30-8
The comment expresses concern about the size of the proposed buffer zones. Please refer to Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas.

Response 30-9
The comment expresses an opinion about the adverse effects of the proposed buffer zones. Please refer to Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-256 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Response 30-10
The comment expresses concern about the Sikh temple’s potential impacts to the development of the Valley Iron Inc. due to the buffering. As a religious institution, the temple is considered a sensitive use per City Council Resolution 2019-235. Therefore, the SCSP includes a 1,000-foot buffer zone around the Sikh temple. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 30-11
The comment provides a summary of the proposed solar infrastructure requirements and expresses an opinion that adding solar equipment should be the developers’ choice. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and its economic effects and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Please also refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 30-12
The comment summarizes the proposed zero emissions trucks requirements and expresses concern that the requirement is more aggressive than CARB regulations. The comment suggests complying with the CARB regulations at a minimum. Please refer to Response 13-2 for an explanation why the project has more stringent requirements than CARB. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR and no further response is required.

Response 30-13
The comment summarizes the proposed passenger electric vehicles requirements and expresses concern about the economic effects of the requirements. The comment also expresses an opinion about the potential technology change that could lead to unused electric vehicle charging stations in the future. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and its economic effects and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. Please also refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 30-14
The comment takes issue with the zero-emission equipment requirement. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 30-15
The comment summarizes and expresses concern about the proposed construction fleet, equipment, and materials requirements. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 30-16
The comment expresses an opinion about the proposed recycled material requirement. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and its economic effects and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. Please also refer to Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

Response 30-17
The comment summarizes and expresses concern about other requirements related to infrastructure improvements.

The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-257
Response 30-18
The comment summarizes and expresses concern about the proposed noise studies requirement. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and its economic effects and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 30-19
The comment expresses opposition to the SCSP. The comment pertains to the specific plan itself and its economic effects and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-258 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-259
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-260 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-261
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-262 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-263
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-264 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-265
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-266 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-267
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-268 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-269
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-270 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-271
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-272 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-273
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-274 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-275
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-276 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-277
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-278 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-279
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-280 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-281
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-282 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-283
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-284 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-285
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-286 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Letter 31 Wanger Jones Helsley,
John P. Kinsey
7/30/24
Note: Comment letter 31 contains numerous footnotes throughout. The City has reviewed the footnotes and finds that they are largely general in nature (i.e., not project specific) and included to support or underscore the comments and assertions in the letter. Because of this, they are not bracketed separately for purposes of responses to comments.

Response 31-1
The comment consists of prefatory remarks expressing gratitude for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft EIR.

Response 31-2
The comment summarizes the commenters’ concerns and introduces the subsequent comments raised. Please refer to responses below for specific responses to the concerns raised.

Response 31-3
The comment expresses perspectives about the economic effects of the proposed SCSP and references Comment Letter 31 - Attachment A, a letter from Newmark Pearson Commercial regarding their Site Selection Methodology.

The comment does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the Draft EIR so no environmental response can be provided. Additionally, please refer to Please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan; Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas; and Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation. The comment also states that the SCSP should not be adopted as currently envisioned. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 31-4
The comment provides information about the economic value of the plan area and expresses economic concern related to downzoning. Please refer to Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas.

Additionally, the comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 31-5
The comment states that the City failed to notify affected property owners regarding the proposed zoning change.

The comment also indicates that there was lack of notification to affected property owners of the availability of the Draft EIR. Regarding noticing, please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 31-6
The comment expresses views about the effects of the proposed downzoning and Legal Non-Conforming Use provisions of the City’s Development Code in addition to a lack of notification regarding zoning changes. Regarding notification, please see Response to Comment 31-5. The comment does not refer to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the Draft EIR, so no environmental response can be provided. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. Please also refer to Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas.

Response 31-7
The comment expresses landowner perspectives on future economic investment in the city and the impact of downzoning. Additionally, the comment pertains to the specific plan itself and not to the environmental analysis or Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-287
adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. See Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan and Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas.

Response 31-8
This comment introduces the nonresidential real estate market analysis undertaken by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (“EPS”). The comment pertains wholly to that analysis and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the Draft EIR, so no environmental response is provided.

Response 31-9
The comment asserts that there is no substantial evidence to support the City’s assumed market demand. As specified in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIR “Project Description”, Section 3.3, Background, while development levels considered within the Draft EIR may be higher than what may actually occur by 2040, they are reasonable for the purposes of environmental evaluation and to ensure that the analysis is appropriately conservative. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 (f) (5), ‘Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion support by facts.’ As such, the conservative assessment used in the Draft EIR was based upon EPS’ market analysis and constitutes reasonable assumptions predicated upon EPS’ expert opinion. While the comment notes that the potential market demand could overstate or understate the potential environmental and economic effects if set too high or too low respectively, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 (e) ‘Economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment’. Therefore, to ensure that the environmental effects were not understated, a conservative assessment was undertaken. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 31-10
The comment opines that the City is a difficult permitting environment for employment-generating land uses noting that most industrial projects within the City result in the preparation of an environmental impact report. The comment pertains to city-specific issues regarding lack of suitable land for industrial uses, competition from neighboring cities, and not to the environmental analysis or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 31-11
The comment asserts that during the comment period on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft EIR, the City received comments requesting evaluation of the impacts associated with industrial businesses locating outside the City and that these were not assessed within the Draft EIR and that neither the Draft EIR nor the market analysis assess the likelihood that the City’s competitors will continue to capture that demand. The commentor also provides a comparison table between SCSP and Draft EIR requirements and those at nearby cities such as Madera, Visalia and Tulare. It should be noted that per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 (e) ‘Economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment’. Additionally, each of these cities are considerably smaller in both area and population than Fresno, and the City of Fresno has no jurisdiction over how other cities choose to implement their land use and zoning policies and incentivize development within their city boundaries.

Furthermore, prior to the recirculated SCSP NOP being released for public review, the project was previously known as the South Industrial Priority Area Specific Plan (SIPA). As part of the NOP comment period for the SIPA project, (see Appendix A of the Draft EIR) the City received a comment letter from the Department of Justice’s Office of the Attorney General noting that the SIPA area had communities “suffering from the highest pollution burdens in Fresno and indeed in the State,” noting the communities adjacent bore a disproportionate share of industrial pollution. A review of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen 4.0) undertaken on September 12, 2024, shows that some of those communities are in the 100th percentile for pollution burden, which is not the case for any of the communities within Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-288 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Visalia, Madera or Tulare. As recommended by the Office of the Attorney General, for compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 617’s air quality improvement requirements, a series of mitigation measures were requested to be considered, which were based on CARB’s Technical Advisory and Handbook. As such, in consideration of the Office of the Attorney General’s recommendations, the City included mitigation measures to help combat the existing extreme air pollution burden in the SCSP plan area. These measures are also consistent with strategies and considerations set forth in the South Central Fresno Community Emissions Reduction Program (SCFCERP). Therefore, in agreement with the commentor’s assertion that the measures “are far more onerous than those applied by the City’s competitors”, that is by design to reduce the undue burden on disadvantaged communities in the SCSP plan area.

In addition, the EIR acknowledges that some measures are based on emerging technologies, but the mitigation measures recommended in this EIR have been determined to be feasible based on examples in other contexts (e.g., CARB 2022 Scoping Plan Update, City of Fontana Municipal Code Amendment No. 21-001R1 to Revise Sustainability Standards for Industrial Commercial Centers, Mariposa Industrial Park Project #2 EIR, Attorney General guidance, and other sources). In accordance with Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, “an EIR shall describe feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts...” and in these instances, the measures must be adopted unless they are otherwise shown to be infeasible by decisionmakers and are documented as part of CEQA findings (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091) and, as applicable, a statement of overriding considerations (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093). However, no information has been provided to suggest that implementation of the proposed mitigation measures in the EIR would result in a significant change to the physical environment or that the mitigation measures are infeasible. Please also see Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 31-12
The comment opines that imposed mitigation measures would result in businesses relocating elsewhere and that the Draft EIR must assess the impacts associated with the City’s market demand being captured by other nearby cities.

Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR, “Cumulative Impacts”, assesses the cumulatively considerable environmental effects in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a). The geographic scope of the cumulative impact assessment varies by topic, but ranges from larger areas such as Fresno County/Central Valley Region of California and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin to local service areas. As mentioned in Response to Comment 31-9, ‘economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment’, thus market demand being captured by other nearby cities is not within the purview of CEQA. Please also see Response to Comment 31-11 and Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 31-13
The comment expresses opinion on the economic effects of downzoning and implementing mitigation measures. See Responses to Comments 31-6 and 31-11, Master Response 4, Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas, and Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation.

The comment conjectures there would be agricultural, VMT and air quality/GHG emissions impacts regarding Fresno residents having to travel farther to find alternative employment in cities outside of Fresno should industrial companies locate or relocate elsewhere, and that this was not analyzed within the Draft EIR. As detailed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” implementation of the SCSP would facilitate opportunities for economic growth and job creation and promote development of underutilized lands. While total development of the Plan Area would not change substantially from what would occur under the City’s General Plan, the proposed plan would alter land uses in portions of the Plan Area, generally resulting in less acreage of heavy industrial uses and more acreage of light industrial, commercial and retail. Although heavy industrial uses would have a decrease in acreage available as compared to the General Plan, the future workforce in the city would have opportunities to work in alternate uses such as light industrial, business parks and general commercial uses. Additionally, the 7,100 additional jobs mentioned in the comment letter would be spread over the 2022-2040 planning timeframe, so to suggest that all 7,100 potential future employees would seek employment in surrounding cities resulting in an additional 426,000 daily VMT would Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-289
appear to be an unreasonable and speculative statement given that anticipated growth occurs over a 18 year timeframe. The comment does not include evidence to support this statement. Additionally, as explained in Chapter

4.15 of the Draft EIR, “Transportation,” the City’s recommended methodology for conducting VMT assessments for land use plans is to compare the existing VMT per capita and/or VMT per employee for the region with the expected horizon year VMT per capita and/or VMT per employee for the land use plan. As such, the VMT analysis undertaken for the Draft EIR is in line with the city’s CEQA Guidelines for VMT Thresholds (Adopted June 25, 2020) and the cumulative transportation assessment included regional and local roadways and freeways where the project could contribute traffic that could alter traffic conditions.

As identified in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR, “Cumulative Impacts”, the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, which comprises the counties of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and a portion of Kern (western Kern County) was the geographic area used in the cumulative assessment, for air quality which determined cumulative impacts from both construction and operation would be significant and unavoidable. For GHG emissions, this was a global geographic scope and again it was determined operational impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Thus, the Draft EIR analysis considers the cumulative impacts on a much wider scale than the commentor’s assertion that the Draft EIR didn’t assess these impacts.

With regard to agricultural resources, and the assertion that through driving industrial development elsewhere, the City will increase the conversion of farmland at a regional and particularly a cumulative level is, to a large degree, conjectural. The City of Fresno has no jurisdiction over decisions by other cities whether or not to allow the conversion of farmland for industrial use. However, the cumulative agricultural resources assessment undertaken for the Draft EIR noted the regional conversion of Important Farmland by urban development and regional conflicts with Williamson Act contracts are significant cumulative impacts. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-1, which would require future development to mitigate the loss of Important Farmland on a project-by-project basis before construction or ground-disturbing activities, would help address the cumulative impact of conversion of farmland to non-farmland uses. However, as identified in the cumulative assessment, the SCSP’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to farmland conversion and conflicts with Williamson Act contracts would be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.

The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 31-14
The comment asserts that the SCSP does not meet the project objectives and that the project description is inadequate. The comment opines that the SCSP would exacerbate existing low vacancy rates and stagnate industrial development; would not provide diverse employment opportunities for local workers; would drive business to nearby communities, and the ZEV mandate will create its own environmental impacts; buffer requirements would not preserve existing operations; would not protect against incompatible uses; and would not “expand the supply of ‘shovel-ready’ sites.”
Please see Response to Comment 31-11 with regard to the rationale behind the chosen mitigation measures, economic effects not considered a significant effect under CEQA, and Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation. The City also notes that within Attachment A of the commentor’s letter, it is stated:
“In the Central Valley, proximity and access to a transportation corridor, such as Highway (HWY.) 99, is often a determining factor of whether a developer elects to build or pass on a site. Over time, it has become difficult to secure sites, especially those that are near Highway 99 and an interchange. There are only so many options available in this part of the state and often the City of Fresno is the initial, preferred location.” Thus, the assertion by the commentor that substantial evidence does not support the conclusion that the SCSP would stimulate economic development and provide employment opportunities seems to be contrary to the statement provided by the expert report submitted by the commentor, given the proximity of the SCSP to Highway 99 access.

While potentially more-polluting heavy industrial facilities would have less acreage within the SCSP, this would be replaced largely by light industrial, business park, and general commercial uses, providing a greater range of Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-290 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
employment opportunities in industries that might not otherwise locate there. The desirability of the location, or as specified within the commentor’s letter, Attachment A, “The adage, “location, location, location” is true”, is therefore naturally going to attract development, especially from environmentally conscious companies that are aware of the high pollution burden faced by the local communities.

In addition, please see Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation, and Responses to Comments 1-5, 31-11, 31-12 and 31-13 regarding Zero Emission Vehicles, rationale behind the recommended mitigation measures, and cumulative assessment undertaken in the Draft EIR. Please see Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas regarding buffers and downzoning.

For the reasons outlined above, no edits to the Draft EIR are needed in response to this comment.

Response 31-15
The comment asserts that the SCSP does not meet the project objectives, that the Business Plan Alternative option would be preferential, and that the project description is not clear, accurate, or stable. The project objectives were derived from the SCSP as well as discussion with the City. CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b) requires that the description of the project in an EIR include a clearly written statement of a proposed project’s objectives to help a lead agency develop reasonable range of alternatives and aid its decision making body when preparing Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, if necessary. CEQA does not provide guidance on the type of objectives or how an agency should develop them. The project objectives were established by the City based on its vision for the plan area and through engagement with the community. The commentor does not suggest any specific objectives that should be included in the project description. The project description meets the requirements of CEQA, and no revisions are necessary.

Regarding the comment on alternatives, an EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to its location, that could feasibly attain the project’s basic objectives while reducing or avoiding any of its significant impacts, including the comparative merits of each alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)—(e)), which the Draft EIR comprehensively describes in Chapter 6, “Project Alternatives”. Additionally, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a):
“An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation.” As described in Chapter 6, “Project Alternatives”, three alternatives were evaluated in the Draft EIR, No Project/General Plan Land Use Alternative, Farmland Conservation Alternative, and Reduced Plan Area Alternative, together with an additional two project options put forward by certain community members and businesses, the Community Plan Alternative and Business Plan Alternative, respectively. The project objectives are consistent and ensure the alternatives analysis considers a reasonable range of alternatives that would meet the project objectives.

As the lead agency decision-making body, before approving the project, the City Council must certify the Final EIR as adequate and completed in accordance with CEQA. The City must also review and consider the information contained in the Final EIR, including all supporting documents, before considering approval of the project. The City will certify the Final EIR using independent judgment and analysis. In consideration of the findings of the Final EIR, the City will either approve the project or an alternative thereof (approval of No Project would constitute denial) through a written Finding of Fact for each identified significant adverse environmental impact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations in light of significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR.

While the commentor asserts the project description was not clear or stable, the commentor is referred to Chapter 3, “Project Description” and both of the NOPs within Appendix A of the Draft EIR, noting that it was in response to community feedback received on the initial concept for the SIPA Specific Plan that the City initiated a new planning process and retitled the plan area the South Central Specific Plan. While there is a difference between the original project in the 2019 NOP and the project assessed in the Draft EIR, the project has been consistent since issuance of Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-291
the recirculated NOP. The outcome of the community engagement process since the original SIPA Specific plan was the development of three alternative land use maps: one reflecting a plan focused on residential and communityserving 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). In accordance with CEQA case law (see Washoe Meadows Community v.

Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 277 [“Washoe Meadows”]), in which the EIR identified five vastly different alternatives as potential projects and did not identify a preferred or proposed project, the City did identify a proposed plan and undertook alternatives analysis in accordance with CEQA. In addition, as discussed in Chapter 6, Alternatives, of the EIR, the Business Plan Option results in greater environmental impacts than the Proposed Plan and does not reduce any environmental impacts below those of the Plan.

The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 31-16
The comment addresses downzoning. Please see Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas and Responses to Comments 31-11, 31-12, and 31-13.

In addition, the comment requests that the City assess the cumulative impacts and the economic impact of downzoning. Please see Master Response 3, Program Versus Project-Level Analysis, and Master Response 4, Downzoning to Create Transitional or Buffer Areas, and Response to Comments 31-11, 31-12, and 31-13. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 31-17
The comment asserts that several mitigation measures are infeasible including Mitigation Measure 4.3-1h and Mitigation Measure 4.3-1i regarding Zero Emission Vehicles. Please see Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation, and Responses to Comments 1-5, 13-2, 31-11, 31-12, and 31-13 regarding Zero Emission Vehicles and rationale behind the chosen mitigation measures. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 31-18
The comment asserts that Mitigation Measure 4.6-1d is infeasible. Please see Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation. Please refer to Response to Comment 8-12..

The revisions made do not alter the findings of the Draft EIR and no further response is required. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 31-19
The comment asserts that Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b is infeasible. Please see Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation, and Response to Comments 1-5, 1-8, and 7-6. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 31-20
The comment asserts that Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a is infeasible. Please see Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation, and Responses to Comments 1-8 and 7-4, noting that the language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a has been amended on page 4.3-30. Please refer to Response to Comment 1-2 for a summary of the proposed text edits to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a.

Response 31-21
The comment asserts that the Draft EIR did not adequately assess the feasibility of mitigation measures. Please see Master Response 5, Economic Feasibility of Mitigation. The comment does not provide any specific evidence that the Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-292 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
mitigation measures are socially or economically infeasible. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 31-22
The comment states that the Draft EIR fails to assess environmental effects associated with the requirement to transition to electric vehicles, such as through increased electricity demand, emissions associated with the operation of Zero Emission Vehicles, and that there is no discussion of the additional vehicle miles traveled that would result from the early transition to Zero Emission Vehicles and that the transition to electric vehicles at a rate exceeding that imposed by CARB would accelerate the recognized environmental impacts associated with the need to develop electric infrastructure and new/modified facilities to meet the demand for Zero Emission Vehicles.

As an initial matter, it is well known that electric vehicles play a key in California's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and achieve its climate goals. A detailed analysis of increased electrical demand, emissions associated with ZEVs, ZEV performance, and development of electrical infrastructure are not only unnecessary given the statewide efforts to establish such infrastructure and that such infrastructure would already be required to support development of the plan area but would also be infeasible given the program level analysis of the SCSP. As specified in Master Response 3, Program Versus Project-Level Analysis, the Draft EIR addresses a regional-scale, policy-level plan and it is, therefore, not feasible to provide details on yet-unknown site-specific projects or activities.

As described in the Draft EIR, the broad geography and long timeframe to which the SCSP applies, and the policy‐ oriented nature of its guidance, is such that the EIR’s impact analysis is prepared at a policy level—that is, a more general analysis with a level of detail and degree of specificity commensurate with that of the plan itself. As such, the EIR focuses on the potential effects of land use changes and policies, which—because they are to be implemented through as‐yet‐undefined projects over the duration of the Plan—are inherently less precise. The EIR is not intended to take the place of all project‐specific environmental documentation that will be needed to implement actions anticipated to occur following approval of the SCSP, nor does it contain sufficient analytical detail for the City to approve site‐specific projects that may be proposed in the future consistent with the SCSP without some level of subsequent project-specific review.

Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b), regarding a project’s energy impacts, state: “This analysis is subject to the rule of reason and shall focus on energy use that is caused by the project.” It is entirely speculative to assess the increased electricity demand associated with the transition to an unknown number of electric vehicles, as there are far too many variables that go far beyond the remit of the EIR. Similarly, it is speculative to assess the impacts of the weight of an unknown number of Zero Emission Vehicles on particulate matter (PM) emissions from tire wear and entrained road dust, from the emissions savings that would be gained from using Zero Emission Vehicles in the first place, as by definition, Zero Emission Vehicles emit zero (or near-zero) emissions. Please see Master Response 3, Program Versus Project-Level Analysis, and note that air quality, greenhouse gas and energy use impacts for individual discretionary projects under the SCSP would be subject to their own independent CEQA review and analysis. In addition, many of these same comments were raised by the commentor in response to CARB’s environmental analysis for the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation (Attachment E). Rather than repeat the responses, the reader is referred to the Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Analysis prepared for the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation, and the responses to Comment Letter 290, which are CARB’s responses to the commenter’s letter. As outlined in the Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Analysis prepared for the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation document, a 2020 study undertaken by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy “Electric Vehicles at Scale – Phase I Analysis: High EV Adoption Impacts on the Western U.S. Power Grid” identified that under a “high-penetration” scenario with national electric fleets of approximately 24 million Light Duty Vehicles, 200,000 Medium Duty Vehicles, 150,000 Heavy Duty Vehicles for a 2028 time frame, no resource adequacy issues were expected (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 2020). The report also identified that with managed charging strategies, resource adequacy can be doubled. It is therefore likely that as more electrical distribution upgrades are brought online, the electric grid would have adequate capacity to support the uptake of Zero Emission Vehicles as new electricity load from Zero Emission Vehicles is accounted for in the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) electricity demand forecast.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-293
The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 31-23
The comment consists of prefatory remarks introducing California’s Planning and Zoning Laws and does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

Response 31-24
The comment asserts that the SCSP conflicts with several objectives and policies of the City of Fresno’s General Plan and does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the Draft EIR. Refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 31-25
The comment asserts that the SCSP conflicts with several objectives and policies of the City of Fresno’s General Plan and does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the Draft EIR. Refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 31-26
The comment asserts that the SCSP would cause spot zoning. Refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan.

Response 31-27
The comment states that the conclusions in the SCSP and the Draft EIR are based in part on the South Central Fresno AB 617 Community Truck Reroute Study: Truck Routing and Implementation Strategies Report (April 2024), states that the City should not use the document in the Draft EIR analysis, and references a comment letter raised about the study (Attachment G). Upon review of the comment letter, there do not appear to be any assertions that the study is deeply flawed, but instead the letter requests that a number of elements in the study be amended. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination. Please also see Master Response 6, Relationship to the Truck Reroute Study.

Response 31-28
The comment states that the City of Fresno is preempted by the Clean Air Act from adopting or attempting to enforce any standards relating to the control of new motor vehicles and cites Mitigation Measures 4.3-1h and 4.3-1i as examples. The comment goes on to summarize the requirements of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1h to specify years by which late-model and zero-emission trucks will be used. This measure does not, as the comment purports, preempt the Clean Air Act nor relate to enforcing the emissions allowed from new motor vehicles. The measure relates to the timing of use of available vehicles, not to the emissions of those vehicles. Even if the identified mitigation measure may require a waiver from the Clean Air Act, in April, 2023 the EPA granted the California Air Resources Board (CARB) a waiver from the Clean Air Act for its Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) regulations. These mitigation measures are consistent with the purpose and intent of CARB’s ACT regulations. Furthermore, the City engaged in extensive consultation efforts with CARB regarding the contents of this EIR. At no point during that consultation process did CARB raise any concerns related to the City’s ability to require these mitigation measures. Notwithstanding, the comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 31-29
The comment opines that Mitigation Measure 4.3-1i operates as a purchase mandate but does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response can be provided. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-294 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Response 31-30
The comment opines that the mitigation measures constitute emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, which is incorrect. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR and no further response is required. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 31-31
This comment states that the mitigation measures are more stringent than those for which CARB has received waivers to adopt and enforce, and are preempted under section 209 of the CAA. These mitigation measures are consistent with the purpose and intent of CARB’s ACT regulations for which the EPA granted a waiver from the Clean Air Act.

Furthermore, the City engaged in extensive consultation efforts with CARB regarding the contents of this EIR. At no point during that consultation process did CARB raise any concerns related to these mitigation measures impermissibly exceeding the requirements of CARB’s ACT regulations. City’s ability to require these mitigation measures. Please see Response to Comment 13-2 for an explanation why the project has more stringent requirements than CARB. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, and no further response is required.

Response 31-32
This comment asserts that the Mitigation Measures are preempted by and conflict with several pieces of legislation such as the Health and Safety Code. The comment also incorrectly states that “Mitigation Measures 4.3-1h and 4.3-1i require fleet vehicle operators of motor vehicles, including non-road motor vehicles, to purchase zero-emission vehicles within the SCSP.” The mitigation measures do not enforce any purchase, although they do require the use of Low- or Zero-Emission Vehicles including Heavy-Duty Trucks and Equipment. How future companies operating within the SCSP determine whether to purchase or lease those vehicles is entirely within their control and outside the jurisdiction of the City. In addition, CEQA case law provides examples in which it was determined that more stringent local regulations are not preempted by State Acts (see D’Egidio v. City of Santa Clarita (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 515).

Another example would be regarding VMT and Public Resources Code Section 21099(e) which notes “This section does not affect the authority of a public agency to establish or adopt thresholds of significance that are more protective of the environment.” Thus, in light of the extreme air pollution burden to communities in the SCSP plan area, it is just that the mitigation measures are more stringent as they offer greater protection to the environment and the communities therein. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 31-33
This comment alleges SCSP Mitigation Measures contradict General Law. Please see Response to Comment 13-2, 31- 23, and 31-32, noting that in light of the extreme air pollution burden to communities in the SCSP plan area, it is reasonable that the mitigation measures are stringent and offer ample protection to the environment and the communities therein. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Response 31-34
The comment consists of closing remarks and summarizes the opposition letter. Please see previous responses to comments.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-295

2.3.5 Individuals
Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-296 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Letter 32 Rosa DePew
7/30/24
Response 32-1
The comment states that Wat Brahmacariyakaram is not listed on the report. Wat Brahmacariyakaram is located on the eastside of Orange Avene between E Central Ave and E American Avenue, which is outside of the plan area.

Therefore, it is not included in the SCSP or discussed in the SCSP Draft EIR.

Response 32-2
The comment states that the Orange Center Elementary School is listed as being built in 1980 but it has been on Cherry Avenue for decades. The City confirmed that the School was erected in 1952, the City has revised the Plan to update this date. The comment does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. However, according to the California Department of Education’s School Directory (https://www.cde.ca.gov/schooldirectory/details?cdscode=10623316007009), Orange Center Elementary was opened on July 1, 1980, which was over four decades ago. No further response is required.

Response 32-3
The comment states that Transformative Climate Communities Program is listed on a map and legend with no explanation. The comment does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. Please refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan. Therefore, no further response is required.

Response 32-4
The comment states that the changes made to areas currently zoned as Regional Business Park and Neighborhood Mixed-Uses were not explained. The proposed net change for each land use is summarized in Table 3-4 of Draft EIR (page 3-14 of the Draft EIR). Implementation of the SCSP would result in a modest decrease in Regional Business Park from 350 acres to 333 acres. No change to the Neighborhood Mixed-Use land use designation would occur.

The description of each land use designation, including allowable uses, is summarized in Table 3-3 of the Draft EIR (pages 3-11 and 3-12). 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. 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. Please refer to Tables 3-3 and 3-4 for information regarding the description of each land use designation and the proposed net change for each land use designation, respectively.

Response 32-5
The comment states that the proposed round abouts planned on North Avenue and American Avenue were not explained. Refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan. The comment does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

Response 32-6
The comment states that a simpler explanation of the truck study and what it means is needed. Refer to Master Response 1, Comments Pertaining to the South Central Specific Plan. The comment does not address the environmental analysis or adequacy of the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

Response 32-7
The comment states that the Cherry Auction was not mentioned, leading to congestion and circulation issues. Please see Appendix D of the Draft EIR for a detailed description of the SCSP Transport Impact Assessment methodology.

Ascent Responses to Comments
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 2-297
Response 32-8
The comment states that the reports were too long and too complicated to understand and the residents want less traffic, less pollution, and less growth. An EIR is required to be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information, which enables them to make a decision that intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. The comment does not specify the complication of the Draft EIR that needs to be explained. Therefore, a reasoned response cannot be provided. One of the project objectives is to minimize environmental and neighborhood impacts. Air quality pollution impacts related to implementation of the SCSP are included in Section 4.3, “Air Quality,” of the Draft EIR. As discussed in Section 4.3, the air quality impacts from the SCSP would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-1a through

4.3-1m. Impacts related to traffic are discussed in Section 4.15, “Transportation,” of the Draft EIR. As analyzed in Impact 4.15-2 of Section 4.15, the proposed plan would result in a 33 percent decrease in vehicle miles traveled.

Therefore, the SCSP would result in less traffic impact than existing conditions. Please refer to Sections 4.3 and 4.15 of the Draft EIR for detailed discussion of air quality and traffic impacts, respectively. The comment is included herein as part of the project record and will be considered by the decision-making body in its deliberation and determination.

Responses to Comments Ascent
City of Fresno
2-298 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
This page is intentionally left blank.

City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 3-1
3 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
This chapter presents specific text changes made to the Draft EIR since its publication and public review. The changes are presented in the order in which they appear in the original Draft EIR and are identified by the Draft EIR page number. Text deletions are shown in strikethrough, and text additions are shown in underline.

The information contained within this chapter clarifies and expands on information in the Draft EIR, or identifies changes made to Draft EIR text in response to comments. None of the revisions included herein constitute “significant new information” requiring recirculation. (See the Master Response regarding recirculation; see also Public Resources Code Section 21092.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.)

3.1 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 3, PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Figures 3-5, 3-6, and 3-16 on pages 3-9, 3-XX, and 3-XX of the Draft EIR are revised as follows:

Revisions to the Draft EIR Ascent
City of Fresno
3-2 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Source: 2023 City of Fresno South Central Specific Plan, adapted by Ascent in 2023. [Revised] Figure 3-5 Adopted General Plan Planned Land Use Ascent Revisions to the Draft EIR
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 3-3
The figure on page 3-13 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:

Source: 2023 City of Fresno South Central Specific Plan, adapted by Ascent in 2023. [Revised] Figure 3-6 Proposed Land Use
Revisions to the Draft EIR Ascent
City of Fresno
3-4 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
The figure on page 3-35 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:

Source: 2023 City of Fresno South Central Specific Plan, adapted by Ascent in 2023. [Revised] Figure 3-16 SPLU Proposed Buffers
Ascent Revisions to the Draft EIR
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 3-5
The paragraph of Section 3.6.5, “Proposed Utilities,” in subsection “Stormwater” on page 3-27 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:

The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) is a special-purposeact district that acquires and constructs facilities for flood control and the drainage of flood and storm waters, and conserves waters within the City.…
The cited text of Section 3.6.6, “Development Standards,” on page 3-30 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:

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 or near zero emission facilities, as defined in CA Sustainable Freight Action Plan (July 2016)
The following text of Section 3.8, “Subsequent Entitlements and Approvals,” on page 3-36 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:

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 Metropolitan Flood Control District, and  Fresno Irrigation District.

The following text of Section 3.8.1 “Discretionary and Ministerial Actions,” on page 3-36 and 3-37 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:
 Replace overlapping portion of the plan areas Repal the 3,888 acre portion of the Roosevelt Community Plan that overlaps the Plan Area.

Revisions to the Draft EIR Ascent
City of Fresno
3-6 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR

3.2 REVISIONS TO SECTION 4.3, AIR QUALITY
The text of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a has been revised as follows on page 4.3-20 of the Draft EIR:

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a: Prepare an Ambient Air Quality Analysis and Mitigation Plan or Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement
Prior to future individual 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 air quality assessment 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 individual development projects will engage in a voluntary emissions reduction agreement (VERA) prior to applying for project-level approval from the City through coordination with SJVAPCD to reduce emissions to meet below 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, t 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 below SJVAPCD’s annual significance thresholds of significance. Engagement in the VERA shall be monitored by SJVAPCD in perpetuity with oversight by the City.

The language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b has been revised on page 4.3-20 of the Draft EIR:

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 for individual development projects within the SCSP 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 in accordance with the requirements of Rule 9510. 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 ZeroEmissions 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 (R100 or a similar diesel blend) or meets EPA Tier 4 Final emissions standards.

The language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1e of the Draft EIR on page 4.3-22 has been amended as follows:

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 3 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 OffRoad Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation [CCR Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2449.1] to SJVAPCD.

Ascent Revisions to the Draft EIR
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 3-7
 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.

The language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1d of the Draft EIR on pages 4.3-21 and 4.3-22 has been amended as follows:

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.

Revisions to the Draft EIR Ascent
City of Fresno
3-8 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
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.

During all phases of construction, the following vehicular control measures shall be implemented:
 On‐site 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‐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 in the form of a Dust Control Plan with verification by SJVAPCD.

The language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1f of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows on page 4.3-22:

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 (no greater than 10 grams per liter) beyond SJVAPCD’s mandatory requirement (i.e., Regulation VIII, Rule 3, “Architectural Coatings”). This shall be enforced by the City with verification by SJVAPCD.

The text of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1h on page 4.3-22 through 4.3-23 of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows:

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 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.

Ascent Revisions to the Draft EIR
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 3-9
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, or the most current and strict BACT available prior to the issuance of an Authority to Construct, as determined by SJVAPCD.

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.

The language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a and 4.3-3b have been revised as follows on pages 4.3-31 of the Draft EIR:

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 two months and located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors (as defined by SJVAPCD) regardless of intensity of construction. In addition to project-level health risk from construction, future construction HRAs must evaluate cumulative health risk levels from project implementation. 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 4.3-3b: 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). In addition to project-level health risk from operation, future operation HRAs must evaluate cumulative health risk levels from project implementation. 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.

The language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3d has been revised as follows on pages 4.3-31 through 4.3-32 of the Draft EIR:

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 be located at an appropriate setback distance from sensitive receptors. Project-level design, including setback distance, shall be informed by the findings of not be located within 1,000 feet of any sensitive receptor unless a qualified, site-specific HRA, conducted in accordance with SJVAPCD guidance and approved by SJVAPCD that 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 twotruck 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.

Revisions to the Draft EIR Ascent
City of Fresno
3-10 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
 All loading docks shall be oriented to minimize direct exposure to sensitive receptors.  The use of electric-powered “yard trucks” or forklifts to move truck trailers around a truck yard or truck loading/unloading facility.
 All truck entries shall be located on streets supporting commercial or industrial development (serving more than 50 percent commercial or industrial properties according to the local zoning ordinance), as feasible.
 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.  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.  For warehouses larger than 50,000 sf, a 10-foot wide landscaping buffer shall be required measured from the property line to adjacent sensitive receptors; for warehouses larger than 400,000 sf, a 20-foot wide landscaping buffer shall be required measured from the property line to adjacent sensitive receptors.  The use of all electrical-powered Transportation Refrigeration Units (TRUs) including access to electrical infrastructure to power TRUs while at a project site.
 The use of all electric heavy-duty trucks.

The language of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3d and the following concluding paragraph of the Draft EIR on pages 4.3-32 through 4.3-33 has been revised as follows:

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 1,000 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 Ascent Revisions to the Draft EIR
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 3-11
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 sitespecific, 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 1,000 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 20 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 20 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 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.

3.3 REVISIONS TO SECTION 4.4, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a on page 4.4-19 of the Draft EIR has been revised as shown below:

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 Revisions to the Draft EIR Ascent
City of Fresno
3-12 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
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.  The reconnaissance survey will include a habitat assessment for Crotch’s bumble bee based on the habitat assessment guidance in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) or other updated guidance from CDFW. If the habitat assessment determines that habitat suitable for Crotch bumble bee is present within a project area, then Mitigation Measure 4.4-1g will be implemented.  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 4.4-1g, 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.
 All special-status species detected during surveys will be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNDDB field survey form can be found at https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-02Data and the completed form can be mailed to CNDDB at [email protected].

Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d on pages 4.4-21 and 4.4-22 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:

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 surveys for burrowing owls in areas of habitat suitable for the species on and within 1,640 feet (500 meters) of the Plan Area no less than 14 days before initiating ground disturbance activities using survey methods described in Appendix D of the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prepared by the California Department of Fish and Game (now CDFW) (CDFG 2012) or any subsequent updated guidance. A minimum of four surveys shall be conducted to determine whether burrowing owls occupy the site. If feasible, at least one survey should be conducted between February 15 and April 15 and the remaining surveys should be conducted between April 15 and July 15, at least three weeks apart. Because burrowing owls may recolonize a site after only a few days, one of the surveys, or an additional survey, shall be conducted no less than 14 days before initiating ground disturbance activities to verify that take of burrowing owl would not occur.  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 a n active burrow occupied by a burrowing owl is found during the surveys, 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 and any identified satellite burrows (i.e., non-nesting burrows that burrowing owls use to escape predators or move young into after hatching) to prevent take of burrowing owls.
 During the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31), the minimum buffer distance shall be 164 feet (50 m). During the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), the minimum buffer distance shall be increased to 1,640 feet (500 m).

Ascent Revisions to the Draft EIR
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 3-13
 The protection buffer may be adjusted if, in consultation with CDFW, a qualified biologist determines that an alternative buffer shall not disturb burrowing owl adults, young, or eggs because of particular site features (e.g., topography, natural line-sight-barriers), level of project disturbance, or other considerations. If the buffer is reduced, a qualified biologist shall monitor the behavior of the burrowing owls during all project activities within 1,640 feet of the burrow. If the owls are disturbed or agitated (e.g., vocalizations, bill snaps, fluffing feathers to increase body size appearance, drooping wings and rotating them forward, crouching and weaving back and forth) by the project activities, the biologist shall have the authority to halt the activities and re-establish a buffer consistent with the first bullet until the agitated behavior ceases and normal behavior resumes.  The buffer shall remain in place around the occupied burrow and associated satellite burrows until a qualified biologist has determined through noninvasive methods that the burrows are no longer occupied by burrowing owl. A previously occupied burrow will be considered unoccupied if surveys demonstrate that no owls have used the burrow for seven consecutive days.  Locations of burrowing owls detected during surveys shall be reported to the CNDDB.  If implementation of a buffer to prevent take of burrowing owl is not feasible, the project applicant shall consult with CDFW and obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) prior to commencing project related ground-disturbing activities. The impacts of taking burrowing owl shall be minimized and fully mitigated.  The project applicant shall compensate for the loss of burrowing owl by establishing permanent protection and perpetual management on land that provides burrowing owl habitat. Habitat management lands for burrowing owl may be established by conservation easement or fee title or credits may be purchased from a CDFW-approved conservation or mitigation bank. The compensatory mitigation shall satisfy permit conditions and all other permit conditions shall be implemented.  use of the burrow because of particular site features or other buffering measures. If occupied burrows are present that cannot be avoided or adequately protected with a no-disturbance buffer, a burrowing owl exclusion plan shall be developed, as described in Appendix E of the 2012 Staff Report. Burrowing owls shall not be excluded from occupied burrows until the project burrowing owl exclusion plan is approved by CDFW. The exclusion plan shall include a compensatory habitat mitigation plan (see below).  If an active burrow is found during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), occupied burrows shall not be disturbed and shall be provided with a protective buffer at a minimum of 164 feet unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive means that either:
 (1) the birds have not begun egg laying, or
 (2) juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival.
 The size of the buffer may be adjusted depending on the time of year and level of disturbance as outlined in the 2012 Staff Report. The size of the buffer may be reduced if a broad-scale, long-term, monitoring program acceptable to CDFW is implemented so that burrowing owls are not adversely affected. Once the fledglings are capable of independent survival, the owls can be evicted, and the burrow can be destroyed per the terms of a CDFW-approved burrowing owl exclusion plan developed in accordance with Appendix E of 2012 Staff Report.
 If burrowing owls are evicted from burrows and the burrows are destroyed by implementation of project activities, the project proponent shall mitigate the loss of occupied habitat in accordance with guidance provided in the 2012 Staff Report, which states that permanent impacts on nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows, and burrowing owl habitat (i.e., grassland habitat with suitable burrows) shall be mitigated such that habitat acreage and number of burrows are replaced through permanent conservation of comparable or better habitat with similar vegetation communities and burrowing mammals (e.g., ground squirrels) present to provide for nesting, foraging, wintering, and dispersal. The Revisions to the Draft EIR Ascent
City of Fresno
3-14 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
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 consultation with CDFW.
 If burrowing owl habitat mitigation is completed through permittee-responsible conservation lands, the mitigation plan shall include mitigation objectives, site selection factors, site management roles and responsibilities, vegetation management goals, financial assurances and funding mechanisms, performance standards and success criteria, monitoring and reporting protocols, and adaptive management measures. Success shall be based on the number of adult burrowing owls and pairs using the site and if the numbers are maintained over time. Measures of success, as suggested in the 2012 Staff Report, shall include site tenacity, number of adult owls present and reproducing, colonization by burrowing owls from elsewhere, changes in distribution, and trends in stressors.

The language of Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e on pages 4.4-22 and 4.4-23 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:

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 16 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.  Guidelines provided in Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in the Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000) shall be followed for surveys for Swainson’s hawk. This protocol includes early season surveys.  For other birds, Wwithin 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.

Ascent Revisions to the Draft EIR
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 3-15
Surveys shall be conducted in accessible areas within 500 feet of the project site for other raptor species (white-tailed kite) and special-status birds (tricolored blackbird), and within 50 feet of the project site for non-raptor common native bird nests, unless determined otherwise by a qualified biologist.
 If no active nests are found, the qualified biologist shall submit a report documenting the survey methods and results to the applicant and the City of Fresno, and no further mitigation shall be required.
 If active nests are found, impacts on nesting birds shall be avoided by establishing appropriate buffers around active nest sites identified during focused surveys to prevent disturbance to the nest.

Project activity shall not commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or reducing the buffer would not likely result in nest abandonment.
 Buffers typically shall be 0.25 mile (or increased to 0.5 mile in areas away from urban development) for Swainson’s hawk, and 500 feet for other raptors. Buffer size for non-raptor bird species shall typically be 250 feet. Variance from these no-disturbance buffers may be possible at the recommendation of the qualified biologist when there is a compelling biological or ecological reason to do so. 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, buffer 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.  If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is detected for project tiered from this plan, and a 0.5-mile nodisturbance buffer is not feasible, the project proponent shall consult with CDFW to discuss how to implement the project and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP), pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) would be necessary to comply with CESA.  If active nests are detected, the qualified biologist shall monitor the nest prior to initiation of work to determine a baseline activity level for the nesting birds. If a buffer has been reduced below 250 feet at the recommendation of the qualified biologist, then the nest shall be continuously monitored at the initiation of work inside of the 250 feet to detect behavioral changes resulting from the project. If behavioral changes occur, CDFW shall be consulted for additional avoidance and minimization measures, and work shall be halted and the buffer shall be extended until the nesting birds are confirmed by the qualified biologist to have resumed regular nesting behaviors.  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 4.4-1g has been added to the project Draft EIR as follows:

Mitigation Measure 4.4-1g: Conduct Crotch’s Bumble Bee Protocol Survey and Avoidance If habitat suitable for Crotch’s bumble bee is detected in the project area during the reconnaissance survey conducted pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a, the following measure shall apply:
 Surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee will be conducted in areas with habitat suitable for Crotch’s bumble bee following the protocol in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) or other updated guidance from CDFW. This protocol requires that a qualified biologist conduct three on-site surveys to detect foraging bumble bees and Revisions to the Draft EIR Ascent
City of Fresno
3-16 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
potential nesting sites (nesting surveys) during the colony active period and when peak floral resources are present (April–August). Each survey should ideally be spaced 2–4 weeks apart. Surveys are only valid for the year in which they are conducted. If more than 1 year passes between survey completion and initiation of ground disturbing project activities, presence surveys must be repeated.  If surveys are conducted and no Crotch’s bumble bee are detected, results shall be reported to CDFW, and work may proceed during that year.
 If surveys indicate the presence or potential presence of Crotch’s bumble bee, the project proponent shall consult with CDFW on development of take avoidance and minimization measures. Measures may include avoidance of small mammal burrows and thatched or brunch grasses, onsite biological monitoring during vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, or seasonal avoidance of activities during the queen flight period (February – March), the gyne flight period (September – October), and/or the colony active period (April – August).  If take of Crotch’s bumble bee cannot be avoided, take authorization through acquisition of an Incidental take permit (ITP) pursuant to the Fish and Game Code section 2081, subdivision (b) shall be sought to comply with the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

The language of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 of the Draft EIR on pages 4.4-24 and 4.4-25 has been revised as follows to add contact and website reference information, to clarify when an LSAA is required, and to better reflect CDFW’s preferred language regarding issuance of an LSAA:

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:
 Activities for projects tiered from the Plan that substantially change the bed, bank, and channel of any river, stream, or lake are subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant to Fish and Game Code 1602. 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 substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river stream or lake; or otherwise substantially change or use materials from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake (including removal of riparian vegetation); or otherwise deposit debris, waste, or other materials that could pass into any river, stream or lake. 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. More information on notification requirements may be found on CDFWs website, https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/LSA. Project proponents may also contact CDFW staff in the Central Region Lake and Streambed Alteration Program at (550)243-4593. 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. …
Ascent Revisions to the Draft EIR
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 3-17
The language has been added under the description of the CNDDB on page 4.4-9 of the Draft EIR and the paragraph is revised as follows:
…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… The CNDDB is based on actual recorded occurrences and does not constitute an exhaustive inventory of every resource. As a result, special-status species may be absent from the CNDDB while still occupying those areas, if habitat suitable for those species is present.

3.4 REVISIONS TO 4.10, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The heading of Section 4.10-1, “Regulatory Setting,” in subsection “Local” on page 4.10-7 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:

Fresno Municipal Metropolitan Flood Control District Post-Development Standards Technical Manual
Water quality treatment for post-construction discharges to stormwater in the FMFCD Master Plan Area is provided by detention and retention basins (henceforth referred to as retention basins) that are parts of FMFCDs stormwater drainage system.

The second paragraph on page 4.10-23 in Impact 4.10-3 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:

The drainage pattern in the Plan Area would remain similar to current conditions but would be expanded over time in compliance with the FMFCD Storm Drain Master Plan as development occurs over the planning period. Surface runoff from the area would be managed via parcel-based LID measures, detention/retention basins, and flow reducing BMPs to prevent local flooding within the site.

3.5 REVISIONS TO 4.14, PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
The figure on page 4.14-9 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:

Revisions to the Draft EIR Ascent
City of Fresno
3-18 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Source: 2023 City of Fresno South Central Specific Plan, adapted by Ascent in 2023. [Revised ]Figure 4.14-4 Existing and Planned Parks and Ponding Basins Ascent Revisions to the Draft EIR
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 3-19

3.6 REVISIONS TO 4.16, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The first sentence of subsection “Stormwater” of Section 4.16.2, “Environmental Setting,” on page 4.16-14 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:

The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) provides stormwater collection and disposal, and flood control to the north-central portion of Fresno County, between the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers, covering 164165 adopted or proposed drainage areas.

3.7 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 6, ALTERNATIVES
The figure on page 6-10 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:

Revisions to the Draft EIR Ascent
City of Fresno
3-20 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Source: Image produced and provided by the city of Fresno, Adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2023. [Revised] Figure 6-1 No Project/General Plan Land Use Alternative: Planned Land Use Ascent Revisions to the Draft EIR
City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 3-21

3.8 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 9, REFERENCES
The following reference has been added to the “Section 4.4, Biological Resources” subsection of Chapter 9, “References,” of the Draft EIR:

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023 (June 6). Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. Accessed August 22, 2024. Available:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=213150&inline.

Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. 2000 (May 31). Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. Accessed August 22, 2024. Available:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols.

Revisions to the Draft EIR Ascent
City of Fresno
3-22 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
This page is intentionally left blank.

City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 4-1
4 REFERENCES
CARB. See California Air Resources Board.

California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available:
https://sfmohcd.org/sites/default/files/20%20-
%20CARB%2C%20Air%20Quality%20and%20Land%20Use%20Handbook%202005.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2024.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023 (June 6). Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. Accessed August 22, 2024. Available:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=213150&inline.

CDFG. See California Department of Fish and Game.

CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

California Natural Diversity Database. 2023. Results of electronic records search. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed May 1, 2023.

CNDDB. See California Native Diversity Database.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1994 (November 8). Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. Available:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83992.

City of Stockton. 2022. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Mariposa Industrial Park. Available:
https://cms3.revize.com/revize/stockton/Documents/Business/Planning%20&%20Engineering/Other%20Proj ects%20Environmental/Mariposa_Final_Environmental_Impact_Report.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2024.

EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Federal Highway Administration Highway Statics. 2021. Table VM-1 “Annual Vehicle Distance Traveled in Miles and Related Data. Available: Table VM-1 - Highway Statistics 2021 - Policy | Federal Highway Administration.

Accessed September 9, 2024.

FHWA Highway Statics. See Federal Highway Administration Highway Statics.

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 2020. Electric Vehicles at Scale – Phase I Analysis: High EV Adoption Impacts on the Western U.S. Power Grid. Kintner-Meyer, Michael, et al. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 2020 on behalf of U.S. Department of Energy. Available: https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/EV-ATSCALE_1_IMPACTS_final.pdf. Accessed September 9, 2024.

Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. 2000 (May 31). Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. Accessed August 22, 2024. Available:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols.

SJVAPCD. See San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2015a. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.

Available: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed August 20, 2024
———. 2015b. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Available:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed October 25, 2024.

References Ascent
City of Fresno
4-2 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
TJKM. 2023. South Central Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis. Fresno, CA. Prepared for the City of Fresno.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Reducing urban heat islands: Compendium of strategies.

Draft. https://www.epa.gov/heat-islands/heat-island-compendium.

City of Fresno
South Central Specific Plan Final EIR 5-1
5 LIST OF PREPARERS
City of Fresno (Lead Agency)
Jennifer Clark..............................................................................................................................................................................................Director Sophia Pagoulatos................................................................................................................................................................Planning Manager Michelle Zumwalt....................................................................................................................................................................................Architect Jill Gormley....................................................................................................................................................Public Works Assistant Director Andreina Aguilar.................................................................................................................. Public Works Chief Engineering Technician Ann Kloos ............................................................................................................................................................Sustainable Fresno Manager Peter Maraccini......................................................................................................................Public Utilities Licensed Engineer Manager Theodore Semonious............................................................................................................................................................Fire Deputy Chief Robert Beckwith ............................................................................................................................................................................Police Captain Jeff Long.............................................................................................................................................................. FAX Senior Regional Planner Ed Chinevere .............................................................................................................................................................PARCS Assistant Director Lance Lippincott....................................................................................................................................... Economic Development Director Lorenzo Nadora ............................................................................................................................................................. Solid Waste Manager Casey Lauderdale...............................................................................................................................................................Planning Supervisor Lisha Chen.......................................................................................................................................................Historic Preservation Specialist Karlo Guillermo and Maeketah Sayasane...............................................................................................................................GIS Specialist Talia Kolluri................................................................................................................................................Supervising Deputy City Attorney Kristi Costa........................................................................................................................................................... Senior Deputy City Attorney Ascent Environmental, Inc. (CEQA Compliance)
Sydney Coatsworth .................................................................................................................................................................................Principal Kathie Washington..................................................................................................................................................................Project Manager Yingying Cai..................................................................................................................................................... Senior Environmental Planner Rid Hollands..................................................................................................................................................... Senior Environmental Planner Marlie Long...................................................................................................................................................... Senior Environmental Planner Rachel Mills-Coyne..................................................................................................................................Associate Environmental Planner Bryn Kirk ................................................................................................................................................ Aesthetics, Population and Housing Jacklyn Bottomley.......................Agricultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality Julia Wilson ...........................................................................................Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Grace Mannell................................................................................................................................................................... Biological Resources Linda Leeman..............................................................................................................................................................................Senior Biologist Roberto Mora........................................................................................................................................................................Cultural Resources Alta Cunningham................................................................................................................................Senior Cultural Resources Specialist Nicole Greenfield..........................................................................................................................................................................Geology/Soils Jim Merk.....................................................................................................................................................................................................Land Use Marianne Lowenthal ..................................................................................................................................................Public Services, Utilities Eric Cohen ........................................................................................................................................................................................................Noise Jazmin Amini ...................................................................................................................................................................Transportation/Traffic Dimitri Antoniou and Honey Walters ................................................................................. Senior Air Quality/GHG/Noise Specialist Sarah Henningsen ......................................................................................................................................Senior Environmental Specialist Lisa Merry, Phi V. Ngo...................................................................................................................................................................GIS Specialist Gayiety Lane .......................................................................................................................................................................Publishing Specialist Michele Mattei ...................................................................................................................................................................Publishing Specialist Tracy Prybyla ......................................................................................................................................................................Publishing Specialist List of Preparers Ascent
City of Fresno
5-2 South Central Specific Plan Final EIR
Riley Smith...........................................................................................................................................................................Publishing Specialist Brian Perry................................................................................................................................................................................Graphic Specialist TJKM – Transportation Consultant
Chris Kinzel, PE...............................................................................................................................................................................Vice President Arthur Chen ...................................................................................................................................................................Transportation Planner West Yost – Water Supply Assessment
Elizabeth Drayer............................................................................................................................................................................Vice President Bonnie Robinson.....................................................................................................................................................................Senior Engineer I