Exhibit G - Response to Comments — Fresno City Council, May 22, 2025

1 IS/MND Comments and Responses
Letter/Comment No. Comment Response
1 – Neighbor Letter (General)
1-1 We would like to object to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration listed with Parcel Number P24-00794 even though it is a city wide text code amendment.

This comment identiﬁes three parcels
within the vicinity of the neighborhood
that are the subject of concern. This
comment does not address the
adequacy or completeness of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ,
does not raise environmental issues,
and does not request the incorporation
or additional information relevant to
environmental issues. Further response
is not necessary.
1-3 We object to the ministerial zoning that "meets the City's development code. " There is no planning involved with this code. The Planning Department does not consider any existing or future problems that might be exacerbated by the development. The planners and city council do not consider the preservation and character of the neighborhood.

This comment introduces and
describes objection to ministerial
zoning. This comment does not address
the adequacy or completeness of the
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, does not raise
environmental issues, and does not
request the incorporation or additional
information relevant to environmental
2 issues. Further response is not
necessary. In addition, it should be
noted that the proposed text
amendment does consider fut ure
development in that ministerial
approval is limited in certain
circumstances.
1-4 The City has created the problems that make multi family development in this neighborhood impractical. We have made the City aware of these problems on NUMEROUS occasions starting with emails to Councilman Karbassi in 2019. We have attended numerous meetings. We delivered 929 signatures to the Planning Department on 9/20/21 and again in May 2024. These signatures were attached to a document that noted:

This comment describes emails,
meetings, and signatures that have
been provided to the City. This
comment does not address the
adequacy or completeness of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ,
does not raise environmental issues,
and does not request the incorporation
or additional information relevant to
environmental issues. Further response
is not necessary.
1-5 Inadequate parking for Orchid Park. The parking was inadequate for what they planned the park to be from day 1. It should be noted that original property owners paid park fees and had to wait 10 or more years for the park to be ﬁnally built.

Councilman Ka rbassi has acknowledged this problem but it hasn't been ﬁxed.

Mayor Jerry Dyer has said that these "neighborhood parks have become regional parks. " It should be noted that the Pickleball courts at Orchid Park are one of the most popular in the city. The parking lot often barely accommodates this.

This comment describes a perception
of parking constraints for Orchid Park.

The text amendment is speciﬁc to
residential uses and approval
processes for residential uses, not park
uses. Further, this comment does not
address the adequacy or completeness
of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, does not raise
environmental issues, and does not
request the incorporation or additional
information relevant to environmental
issues. Further r
esponse is not
necessary.
3 1-6 No street parking for the vehicles that will be generated by new developments. The parking requirements listed by a state code used by the Planning Department are totally inadequate for multi family housing:

This comment describes a perception
of parking constraints for multi-family
housing. The text amendment is
speciﬁc to residential uses and
approval processes for residential uses.

Other standards, such as parking
requirements, are not addressed by the
project. Further, this comment does not
address the adequacy or completeness
of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, does not raise
environmental issues, and does not
request the incorporation or additional
information relevant to environmental
issues. Further r
esponse is not
necessary.
1-7 The small short street (Prospect) with the POORLY DESIGNED ROUNDABOUT and unworkable traffic ﬂow on one of the two access roads into the neighborhood. The city has long promised to run Fir through to Valentine Avenue when they build the park. It was promised again when Leo Wilson built a large housing development adjacent to the park. Just this year it was considered but then cancelled by Councilman Karbassi at the budget hearing. Jerry Dyer now says those promises from the city are "too old. "
This comment describes a perception
of traffic constraints and remedies. The
text amendment is speciﬁc to
residential uses and approval
processes for residential uses. No
development or improvements are
proposed by the project. Any projects
resulting from Project implementation
could require a Traffic Impact Study and
further environmental review pursuant
to CEQA
as the text amendment has
thresholds of when ministerial approval
is permitted and not permitted . Any
required off -site improvements would
be subject to applicable standards and
City review and approval. Further, t his
comment does not address the
4 adequacy or completeness of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration,
does not raise environmental issues,
and does not request the incorporation
or additional information relevant to
environmental issues. Further response
is not necessary.
1-8 Altered traffic patterns throughout the neighborhood as a result of people avoiding Prospect and using Brawley Avenue instead. Again the city is adding higher density on each parcel leading to roads through the neighborhood that were not designed to handle that traffic. With each new development the quality of life in the existing neighborhood has deteriorated.

This comment describes a perception
of traffic constraints . The text
amendment is speciﬁc to residential
uses and approval
processes for
residential uses. No development or
improvements are proposed by the
project. Any projects resulting from
Project implementation could require a
TIS and further environmental review
pursuant to CEQA as the text
amendment has thresholds of when
ministerial approval is permitted and
not permitted . Any required off -site
improvements would be subject to
applicable standards a nd City review
and approval. Further, t his comment
does not address the adequacy or
completeness of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration,
does not raise environmental issues,
and does not request the incorporation
or additional information relevant to
environmental issues. Further response
is not necessary.
1-9 School safety. There should be a direct path from both the existing new developments and the proposed new ones for children to walk to their elementary This comment describes a perception
of pedestrian safety and access to
5 school. The City Manager, Georgeanne White says that, "they are not required to provide one. " The neighborhood is already choked with traffic at peak pick up and drop off times. It is not safe for children to navigate alone which generates even more traffic.
schools. The text amendment is
speciﬁc to residential uses and
approval processes for residential uses.

No development or improvements are
proposed by the project. Any projects
resulting from Project implementation
could require a TIS and further
environmental review pursuant to
CEQA, as the text amendment has
thresholds of when ministerial approval
is permitted and not permitted. Any
required off -site improvements would
be subject to applicable standards and
City review and approval. Further, t his
comment
does not address the
adequacy or completeness of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration,
does not raise environmental issues,
and does not request the incorporation
or additional information relevant to
environmental issues. Further response
is not necessary.
1-10 Public Safety Vehicles. Ambulance and Fire Department vehicles have trouble navigating the roundabout and when Valentine is clogged with traffic, they cannot access the neighborhood NOW.

This comment describes a perception
of emergency vehicle access . The text
amendment is speciﬁc to residential
uses and approval
processes for
residential uses. No development or
improvements are proposed by the
project. Nor does the project revise any
standards. Future development in the
project area would be reviewed to
ensure compliance with applicable
standards for on-site emergency access
6 including turn ra dii and ﬁre access
pursuant to the City of Fresno Fire
Department, Fire Prevention Manual
Development Standards. Compliance
would be veriﬁed through the review
process. Further, t
his comment does
not address the adequacy or
completeness of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration,
does not raise environmental issues,
and does not request the incorporation
or additional information relevant to
environmental issues. Further response
is not necessary.
1-11 Noise and Air Pollution. Herndon is exponentially busier than it was when the neighborhood was developed. There is a lot more noise that can be heard from blocks away. Sirens, gunning engines, and just the heavier traffic can be heard blocks away.

This comment describes a perception
of the existing noise levels and does not
address the adequacy or completeness
of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, does not raise
environmental issues, and does not
request the incorporation or additiona l
information relevant to environmental
issues. Further response is not
necessary.
1-12 Ingress and egress. The City is allowing ingress and egress on the two main feeder streets on proposed plans for new developments. This will exacerbate the congestion on these streets at peak times and cause traffic to back up onto Herndon Avenue.

This comment describes a perception
of traffic constraints. The text
amendment is speciﬁc to residential
uses and approval
processes for
residential uses. The project does not
modify City standards and
requirements related to roadways. As
described in the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration, the text
7 amendment includes language
regarding thresholds for traffic impact
studies and infrastructure
improvements for proposed projects
that would necessitate a development
permit. Further, this comment does not
address the adequacy or completeness
of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration
, does not raise
environmental issues, and does not
request the incorporation or additional
information relevant to environmental
issues. Further response is not
necessary.
1-13 We are aware that the STATE OF CALIFORNIA is pushing this along with many other policies that DO NOT WORK. These proposed developments will be permanent once they are built no matter what problems they cause.

This comment describes a perception
of the State and does not address the
adequacy or completeness of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ,
does not raise environmental issues,
and does not request the incorporation
or additional information relevant to
environmental issues. Further response
is not necessary.
1-14 If this amendment is such a good idea, why has the City gone to such great lengths to keep this from the public. When Councilman Karbassi was asked about this notice the response was "was this something you received in the mail?" We never received any answer as to what this was going to do.

This comment describes a perception
of the City and does not address the
adequacy or completeness of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ,
does not raise environmental issues,
and does not request the incorporation
or additional information relevant to
environmental issues. Further response
is not necessary.
1-16 High density multi family housing has already been rejected by the Project Review Committee, the Planning Commission, and by the City Council. This amendment would basically overturn those decisions and ruin a neighborhood that already has all types of housing. This amendment would negate the will of the people who have already prevailed on this issue despite a secretive, abusive, and uneven playing ground.

This comment describes prior actions
of the City and a perception of future
impacts and does not address the
adequacy or completeness of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ,
does not raise environmental issues,
and does not request the incorporation
or additional information relevant to
environmental issues. Further response
is not necessary.
1-17 As this amendment will further erode the public's right to participate in addressing development in their own communities it should be denied.

This comment describes a perception
of public participation and does not
address the adequacy or completeness
of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration
, does not raise
environmental issues, and does not
request the incorporation or additional
information relevant to environmental
issues. Further response is not
necessary.
2 – Neighbor Letter (Virgil M. Airola)
2-1 I am writing to object to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding Parcel P24 -00794 and the reconsideration of Building App.

No. P21-00989 that previously failed to gain approval by Project Review Committee, This comment introduces the comment
letter and describes a development
project. The project analyzed in the
9 the Fresno Planning Commission, and the City Council for numerous problematic issues.. The 82 unit 3 and 4 story apartment complex at Herndon Avenue and N.

Prospect Avenue as proposed should not be built as currently planned for a number of signiﬁcant rea sons that present several potential risks and liability for future residents of the facility.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration is a text amendment. No
development is proposed. This
comment does not address the
adequacy or completeness of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ,
does not raise environmental issues,
and does not request the incorporation
or additional information relevant to
environmental issues. Further response
is not necessary.
2-2 These include:

1. Building evacuation in case of ﬁre,

2. Access to the proposed project oﬀ Prospect by the ﬁre department,

3. Safe pedestrian pathways from the proposed project to the H. Roger Tatarian elementary school,

4. Increased tra ﬃc thru the poorly conﬁ gured and too small tra ﬃc circle on Prospect, north of Herndon, and

5.Inadequate parking spaces for the proposed complex.

This comment describes a
development project. The project
analyzed in the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration is a text
amendment. No development is
proposed, nor does the project modify
any City policies or standards related to
building evacuation, Fire Department
access, pedestrian pathways, roadway
conﬁgurations, or parking. This
comment does not
address the
adequacy or completeness of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ,
does not raise environmental issues,
and does not request the incorporati on
or additional information relevant to
environmental issues. Further response
is not necessary.
2-3 The developer’s representative at the Planning Commission meeting stated that the target clientele of the proposed project would be senior citizens. Many elderly individuals have limited mobility and some seniors are easily confused when placed in stressf ul situations, particularly if they have mild dementia. During a This comment describes a
development project. The project
analyzed in the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration is a text
10 building evacuation because of ﬁre when elevator use is prohibited, many senior citizens may be unable to quickly negotiate third and fourth ﬂoor stairways to move to safety outside the buildings. In addition, the four -story portion will not have windows on the eastern side of the building thereby limiting rescue access by ﬁreﬁghters using ladder trucks.
amendment. No development is
proposed. This comment does not
address the adequacy or completeness
of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration
, does not raise
environmental issues, and does not
request the incorporation or additional
information relevant to environmental
issues. Further response is not
necessary.
2-4 N. Prospect Avenue itself is too narrow at the level of the tiny turn -around circle to accommodate a pickup truck towing a moderate-sized trailer. I question the ability of a ﬁre ladder truck to negotiate a turn into the proposed complex especially if and when facility residents are attempting to move their vehicles to safety. These diﬃculties would certainly delay both ﬁ re ﬁghter evacuations of facility residents and delay implementation of ﬁre ﬁghting eﬀorts.

This comment describes emergency
access to a development project. The
project analyzed in the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is
a text amendment. No development or
improvements are proposed by the
project. Nor does the project revise any
standards. Future development in the
project area would be reviewed to
ensure compliance with applicable
standards for on-site emergency access
including turn ra dii and ﬁre access
pursuant to the City of Fresno Fire
Department, Fire Prevention Manual
Development Standards. Compliance
would be veriﬁed through the review
process. This comment does not
address the adequacy or completeness
of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration
, does not raise
environmental issues, and does not
request the incorporation or additional
information relevant to environmental
11 issues. Further response is not
necessary.
2-5 Despite the developer’s belief that the proposed complex would be largely inhabited by senior citizens, one must assume that given its proximity to an elementary school, any number of families with children would also be residents of the complex. Safe ped estrian pathways do not exist currently between the proposed complex and H. Roger Tatarian elementary school; rather children would need to either walk along the gravel shoulder of the narrow two lane portion of N.

Valentine Avenue that parallels Herndon Avenue or traverse the open ﬁeld north of that side road. Placing those young children at risk from drivers hurrying to work along the already congested road seems unwise when increased tra ﬃc along N.

Prospect from the proposed complex must be assumed.

This comment describes pedestrian
pathways from a development project.

The project analyzed in the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is
a text amendment. No development or
improvements are proposed by the
project. Nor does the project revise any
standards. Future development in the
project area would be reviewed to
ensure compliance with applicable
standards related to site access.

Compliance would be veriﬁed through
the review process. As described in the
Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, the text amendment
includes language regarding thresholds
for traffic impact studies and
infrastructure improvements for
proposed projects that would
necessitate a development permit. This
comment does not
address the
adequacy or completeness of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ,
does not raise environmental issues,
and does not request the incorporation
or additional information relevant to
environmental issues. Further response
is not necessary.
2-6 The poorly designed connection of N. Valentine Avenue to Herndon Avenue, where N. Valentine becomes a frontage road that enters Prospect Avenue from the West, has already created a signiﬁcant obstacle to the smooth ﬂow of tra ﬃc from N.

This comment describes a
development project on a speciﬁc
parcel. The project analyzed in the Initial
12 Valentine onto Herndon Avenue. Complicating the ﬂow of tra ﬃc further at N.

Prospect and Herndon by adding additional tra ﬃc from an 82 unit apartment complex will lead to undue congestion and innumerable fender -bender accidents along N. Prospect.

Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is
a text amendment. No development is
proposed. This comment does not
address the adequacy or completeness
of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration
, does not raise
environmental issues, and does not
request the incorporation or additional
information relevant to environmental
issues. Further response is not
necessary.
2-7 One must expect that most of the target clientele (senior citizens) of the proposed project will be moving into the apartments to “down-size” their remaining years and will have two vehicles or the residents will be working parents with two vehicles.

The proposed apartment complex does not have adequate parking facilities to accommodate even 150 vehicles, much less 164 cars and trucks. Local street parking lacks the capacity to support more than a few extra vehicles.

This comment describes a
development project on a speciﬁc
parcel. The project analyzed in the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is
a text amendment. No development is
proposed. This comment
does not
address the adequacy or completeness
of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration
, does not raise
environmental issues, and does not
request the incorporation or additional
information relevant to environmental
issues. Further response is not
necessary.
2-8 May I suggest that several changes be made to either or both the proposed complex or the surrounding street traﬃc infrastructure. Certainly, anticipating the numerous problems noted above and providing solutions prospectively would seem wise. I remember that the traﬃc signal at Marks and Herndon Avenue was constructed to replace the 4-way stop signs only after a Supervisor ’s teenage daughter was killed in a tra ﬃc accident at that intersection. Prospectively dealing with the above mentioned problems might save lives in the future.

This comment describes solutions to a
development project on a speciﬁc
parcel. The project analyzed in the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is
a text amendment. No development is
proposed. This comment
does not
address the adequacy or completeness
of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
13 Declaration, does not raise
environmental issues, and does not
request the incorporation or additional
information relevant to environmental
issues. Further response is not
necessary.
2-9 I humbly suggest several potential solutions:

1.Down-size the proposed project to a maximum of two-story buildings

2.Move the entrance and exit from the proposed complex to W. Fir Avenue instead of N. Prospect Avenue.

3.Widen the frontage road portion of N. Valentine Avenue that parallels Herndon Avenue and add a sidewalk along the northern portion of that road and along N.

Prospect Avenue while widening N. Prospect Avenue itself along with the construction of a larger traﬃc turning circle to N. Prospect Avenue.

4.Maintain or increase the number of parking spaces in the proposed complex despite down-sizing the number of proposed housing units themselves.

This comment describes solutions to a
development project on a speciﬁc
parcel. The project analyzed in the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is
a text amendment. No development is
proposed. This comment
does not
address the adequacy or completeness
of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration
, does not raise
environmental issues, and does not
request the incorporation or additional
information relevant to environmental
issues. Further response is not
necessary.
2-10 These corrective suggestions surely might be implemented by either the city or the developer of Parcel Number P24-00794 if the City of Fresno were concerned for any future residents of any development project on the aforementioned parcel of land.

This comment is a conclusion of the
letter and does not address the
adequacy or completeness of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ,
does not raise environmental issues,
and does not request the incorporation
or additional information relevant to
environmental issues. Further response
is not necessary.
2-11 In conclusion, I strenuously object to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration as a city wide code amendment and more speciﬁcally for application of any such declaration in regard to Parcel Number P24 -00794 for the reasons stated abo ve because development of the parcel per Building App. No.

This comment is a conclusion summary
of the letter and does not address the
adequacy or completeness of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ,
14 P21-00989 without signiﬁcant corrective measures would place future resident adults and their children at signiﬁcant risk of injury. does not raise environmental issues,
and does not request the incorporation
or additional information relevant to
environmental issues. Further response
is not necessary.

3 – Neighbor Letter (Dwight G Nelson)
3-1 I am writing to formally object to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration related to Parcel Number P24 -00794, which is part of a citywide text code amendment. While this amendment affects multiple areas, its implications for our neighborhood are particularly concerning.

This comment identiﬁes three parcels
within the vicinity of the neighborhood
that are the subject of concern, and
describes perceived parking and
density concerns. This comment does
not address the adequacy or
completeness of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ,
does not raise environmental issues,
and does not request the incorporation
or additional information relevant to
environmental issues. Further response
is not necessary.
3-3 Speciﬁc Concerns: Lack of Planning and Neighborhood Consideration:
•Ministerial zoning that "meets the City's development code" disregards the unique needs and existing challenges in our neighborhood.

This comment describes a perception
of challenges speciﬁc to the
neighborhood related to traffic, safety,
and quality of life. The project includes
15 •There has been no effort to consider how this amendment exacerbates ongoing issues such as traffic congestion, safety, and quality of life. a text amendment related to residential
uses. The text amendment includes
various thresholds that must be met to
proceed with ministerial approval.

Thresholds are related to environmental
and infrastructure impacts. Each
ministerial project will need to be
evaluated against these thresholds on
its own merits. All future projects
resulting from project implementation
would be subject to compliance with
City standards, in addition to applicable
plans, policies, and programs . The
project does not modify any existing
City standards, plans, policies, or
programs related to these impacts.

Further response is not necessary.
3-4 Broken Promises and Community Frustration:

Despite numerous emails, meetings, and petitions -most notably 929 signatures submitted in September 2021 and May 2024- the City has not addressed longstanding issues, including inadequate parking at Orchid Park, poor road infrastructure, and insufficient traffic mitigation measures.

This comment describes a perception
of existing issues in the neighborhood,
such as parking, infrastructure, and
traffic, and la ck of a ddr e s s b y the C ity.

The project includes a text amendment
related to residential uses. The project
would not change existing City
standards. This comment
does not
address the adequacy or completeness
of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, does not raise and does
not request the incorporation or
additional information relevant to
environmental issues. Further response
is not necessary.
16 3-5 Traffic and Safety Concerns:
•The poorly designed roundabout on Prospect Street, coupled with inadequate access roads, already causes signiﬁcant congestion. Increased density will only worsen these conditions.
•There is no safe path for children walking to the local elementary school, further endangering students during peak traffic times.
•Emergency vehicles such as ambulances and ﬁre trucks struggle to navigate the neighborhood's current infrastructure.

This comment describes a perception
of traffic and safety concerns on
Prospect Street. The project includes a
text amendment related to residential
uses. No development is proposed by
the project. Traffic impacts, including
access for emergency vehicles, are
discussed and analyzed in the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration .

All future projects resulting from project
implementation would be subject to
compliance with City standards, in
addition to applicable plans , policies,
and programs related to transportation
and circulation for vehicles,
pedestrians, and emergency vehicles.

The project does not modify any existing
City standards, plans
, policies, or
programs related to these impacts.

Further response is not necessary.
3-6 Environmental and Quality-of-Life Impacts:
•Increased noise and air pollution clue to heavy traffic on Herndon Avenue directly affect residents' well-being.
•The City's allowance for ingress and egress onto main feeder streets will further congest these roads and create backups onto Herndon.

This comment describes a perception
of environmental and quality of life
impacts related to Herndon Avenue .

The project includes a text amendment
related to residential uses. Noise, air
pollution, and traffic impacts are
discussed and analyzed
in the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration .

Noise impacts addressed include
construction and operational noises.

Air quality impacts address criteria
pollutants for construction and
operations. Traffic impacts address
17 compliance with the applicable
policies, programs, and standards. All
impacts were found to be less than
signiﬁcant or have incorporated
mitigation measures to reduce impacts.

Further response is not necessary.
3-7 Lack of Transparency and Public Engagement:
•The City has failed to provide clear and timely communication about this amendment, raising concerns about its commitment to transparency. •High-density housing proposals have previously been rejected by the Project Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council. This amendment would overturn those decisions, disregarding the will of the community.

This comment describes a perception
of public engagement and past projects
and does not address the adequacy or
completeness of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ,
does not raise environmental issues,
and does not request the incorporation
or additional information relevant to
environmental issues. Further response
is not necessary.
3-8 This amendment undermines the public's right to participate in decisions about their neighborhoods and disregards the valid concerns of residents who have fought for responsible development. The proposed changes would impose permanent, detrimental impacts on our community; further eroding trust in the City's planning process.

This comment describes a perception
of public participation and does not
address the adequacy or completeness
of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration
, does not raise
environmental issues, and does not
request the incorporation or additional
information relevant to environmental
issues. Further response is not
necessary.
3-9 I respectfully urge the City to reject this amendment. It is imperative that community voices are considered, and that thoughtful, transparent planning takes precedence over rushed policies.

This comment is a conclusion of the
letter and does not address the
adequacy or completeness of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ,
does not raise environmental issues,
and does not request the incorporation
or additional information relevant to
18 environmental issues. Further response
is not necessary.
4 – Neighbor Letter (Larry Fleming)
4-1 I would like to object to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration listed with Parcel Number P24-00794 even though it is a city-wide text code amendment.

This comment introduces the comment
letter and does not address the
adequacy or completeness of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ,
does not raise environmental issues,
and does not request the incorporation
or additional information relevant to
environmental issues. Further response
is not necessary.
4-2 Sierra Sky Park is unique. It is the ﬁrst community in the United States, ever built around aviation. It was built in 1946, far north of Fresno, with wide open spaces and farmland surrounding it. The founders of Sierra Sky Park built a community that safely prom oted aviation and prevented any potential problems with a densely populated urban area. It is important to remember that Sierra Sky Park was there ﬁrst. Fresno has grown over the many years and now borders Sierra Sky Park, slowly and surely encroaching on its way of life; aviation. Although I do not live at Sierra Sky Park, I like airplanes. I love seeing them land and take-off and so do many of my friends. We enjoy the day -to-
day operation and events sponsored by the
community of Sierra Sky Park. Sierra Sky Park is not just a place for pilots; it is also a place for the general public to watch and enjoy ﬂying; a place where mom and dad take the kids to show them real airplanes, up close. My two sons were even invited to take a ﬂight there when they were young. Sierra Sky Park is one of Fresno’s jewels.

This comment describes Sierra Sky Park
and does not address the adequacy or
completeness of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ,
does not raise environmental issues,
and does not request the incorporation
or additional information relevant to
environmental issues. Further response
is not necessary.
4-3 I am concerned to hear that there is a proposal to rezone land around Sierra Sky Park, which may threaten its operations. If this new zoning plan is approved, I believe it will set the scene for future conﬂict; expensive lawsuits, complaints, and possible safety issues. It will be a lose/lose situation for the Sky Park, for the residences of any new development, and for the City of Fresno. Why would the City of Fresno consider changing an already adopted land use plan; a costly plan that This comment describes concerns for
rezoning land around Sierra Sky Park .

The project does not propose a rezone.

The project includes a text amendment
related to residential uses. As described
in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
19 had been thoroughly studied, agreed upon and makes sense? There are plenty of other places in our city to build apartments, but there is only one Sierra Sky Park.

Declaration, the text amendment would
prohibit ministerial approval of new
multi-family residential development
on parcels within an AIA and designated
safety zone including Zone 1 (RPZ), Zone
2 (IADZ), and Zone 3
. Parcels in the
Sierra Sky Park AIA and safety hazard
zones are identiﬁed in Table 4 -10.

Further, this comment does not address
the adequacy or completeness of the
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, does not raise
environmental issues, and does not
request the incorporation or addition al
information relevant to environmental
issues. Further response is not
necessary.
4-4 The Community of Sierra Sky Park realizes that the city will continue to grow and that stuff is going to be built around the airport. They only want to make sure that development goes according to the existing land use plan and will not threaten the core of the neighborhood; ﬂying. I urge the City of Fresno to work with the people of Sierra Sky Park and only allow development around the airport that is consistent with the its ability to operate.

This comment is a conclusion summary
of the letter and does not address the
adequacy or completeness of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ,
does not raise environmental issues,
and does not request the incorporation
or additional information relevant to
environmental issues. Further response
is not necessary.
5 - Fennemore Dowling Aaron
5-1 On behalf of the Northwest Neighbors for Safe Development, we submit this comment letter in opposition to the City Development Code Text Amendment Project Application P24 -00794 and the corresponding
Mitigated Negative
Declaration, (“Project”).

Introduction statement, no response
needed.

The Northwest Neighbors for Safe Development oppose this Development Code Text Amendment because it would make certain projects in the City of Fresno The Development Code Text
Amendment (DCTA) referenced in the
20 ministerial and thereby exempt from CEQA despite the fact that projects of certain sizes as contemplated in the MND having signiﬁcant unmitigated impacts on the environment and public health.

Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
aligns with state law and local planning
objectives to streamline certain types of
development while maintaining
appropriate environmental review.

Ministerial projects, by deﬁnition, are
those that comply with objectiv e
standards and do not require
discretionary decision -making by the
City. Under CEQA, ministerial projects
are not subject to environmental review
because they lack discretionary
approval authority that would allow the
City to impose additional mitigation
measures beyond what is already
required by existing regulations.

The MND evaluates the environmental
effects of the proposed Development
Code Text Amendment and determines
that, with the incorporated mitigation
measures and compliance with
applicable local, state, and federal
regulations, no signiﬁcant unmitigated
impa
cts would result. Furthermore,
individual projects subject to this
amendment will still be required to
comply with all applicable
environmental regulations, including
but not limited to the Clean Air Act,
Clean Water Act, and other state and
local environm
ental protection
requirements.
21 The City’s General Plan, municipal code
and other adopted policies already
contain robust environmental
protections, and the amendment does
not waive or alter any existing standards
related to air quality, noise, traffic, or
public health. Rather, it provides a
streamlined approval process for
projects that conform to established
zoning and development criteria,
ensuring predictability while
maintaining environmental safeguards.

As analyzed in the MND, the proposed
amendment does not result in
signiﬁcant environmental impacts that
would require the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
5-2 On November 20, 2024, the City of Fresno (“City”) circulated the Project’s Mitigation Negative Declaration (“MND”) for public comment through submission to the State Clearing House.1 The reasons for the opposition are set forth herein.

Statement related to publication. No
response needed.
5-3 The Northwest Neighbors for Safe Development earlier in 2024 opposed Fresno City Council July 25, 2024 Agenda Item ID 24 -899: Appeal of Project at 7056 North Prospect Avenue, Development Permit Application No. P21 -00989, and CEQA determination under Class 32 Categorical Exemption (“7065 North Prospect Project”). While the City Council denied that Project, this 7056 North Prospect Avenue Project, was to be located on the northeast corner of West Herndon and North Prospect Avenues in Fresno. Under the proposed Development Code Text Amendment (which includes the northeast corner of West Herndon and North Prospect Avenues) projects of similar size to the 7056 North Prospect Project would not be required to undergo any CEQA analysis, despite the fact that Northwe st Neighbors for Safe Development submitted substantial evidence to the City that The comment raises concerns about
the potential for signiﬁcant
environmental and public health
impacts from projects similar in size to
the previously proposed 7056 North
Prospect project, particularly given the
denial of that project and the proposed
DCTA's exemption of such projects from
CEQA review. We acknowledge the
commenter's concerns and offer the
following clariﬁcation:
22 projects of that size at that location would cause signiﬁcant impacts on the environment and public health.

The denial of the 7056 North Prospect
project was based on a speciﬁc set of
circumstances related to that project's
location, design, and potential impacts.

While informative, the denial of that
speciﬁc project does not automatically
equate to a determination that all
similar-sized projects in all locations
within the project area covered by the
DCTA will necessarily result in
signiﬁcant impacts. Environmental
review is inherently project-speciﬁc.

In addition, under the proposed text
amendments, certain projects will be
required to undergo an additional air
quality assessment or health risk
assessment.
5-4 The City now attempts to avoid CEQA for projects of this size throughout the City by making them ministerial.

The City is not avoiding CEQA but rather
ensuring that projects meeting strict,
objective development standards are
appropriately processed as ministerial
approvals, in accordance with state law
and CEQA guidelines. The Development
Code Text Amendment and its
accompanying Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) provide clear
thresholds and conditions under which
projects remain subject to discretionary
review and environmental analysis
when necessary.
23 The text amendment does not explicitly
make all large projects ministerial.

Instead, it preserves CEQA review for
projects that:
• Are located in sensitive areas,
such as Important Farmland,
ﬂood hazard areas, hazardous
sites, or designated historic
resources (Sec. 15-5102.E.2).
• Exceed certain environmental
thresholds, such as requiring a
Phase II
Environmental Site
Assessment, biological study
for special-status species, or a
historic resource evaluation
(Sec. 15-5102.E.3).
• Generate signiﬁcant traffic,
noise, or air quality impacts,
requiring studies like a Traffic
Impact Analysis, Health Risk
Assessment, or Noise Study
(Sec. 15-5102.E.3.e–j).
• Require major infrastructure
improvements beyond
standard development
requirements, ensuring that
large projects do not
overburden public services
(Sec. 15-5102.E.5).
• For projects that exceed these
thresholds, a Development
Permit is required, triggering
24 discretionary review and
potential CEQA analysis.

In addition, the proposed text
amendment prohibits new residential
development on vacant or underutilized
office-zoned parcels within 500 -feet of
a school site.

The claim that the City is “attempting to
a v o i d C E Q A ” i s n o t a c c u r a t e . T h e amendment does not grant blanket
ministerial approvals but instead sets
clear limitations, thresholds, and
conditions under which projects qualify
for streamlined processing. Any pr oject
exceeding these thresholds remains
subject to discretionary review and
CEQA compliance, as outlined in the
MND and text amendment. The City's
approach is consistent with CEQA case
law, state housing legislation, and its
own General Plan policies.

5-5 Our opposition previously was supported by technical comments provided by air quality and hazards expert James Clark, Ph.D,2 and noise expert Derek Watry3 submitted in conjunction with the 7056 North Prospect Project. They are attached here to provide substantial evidence that the Development Code Text Amendment is making projects of a similar size, which cause signiﬁcant impacts, ministerial and thereby avoiding CEQA. Additionally, the MND lacks proper mitigation to avoid these impacts.

Details cont ained within these letters
were outlined in appellant’s letter and
thus addressed later in this
document(5-6 through 5-18).
5-6 Approval of this Development Code Text would allow the 7056 North Prospect Project to be submitted again without any changes, and the City would be required This is not the case. Within the text
amendment there are speciﬁc
requirements that mandate submittal
25 to approve the project ministerially despite substantial evidence that these types of projects have unmitigated environmental impacts.
of technical studies when certain
project thresholds are met, and may
trigger the requirement for a
discretionary permit (Development
Permit).
5-7 Speciﬁcally, the Development Code Text does not address potential project construction emissions, which may result in emissions of toxic air contaminants (“TACs”) that would increase health risks to signiﬁcant levels. Additionally, construction includes noise- generating activities that may result in signiﬁcant noise impacts on nearby receptors. These impacts are especially severe due to the proximity of residential receptors to certain sites which now would permit ministerial residential development.

Responded to in later sections (5-15
through 5-19).
5-8 As a result, an EIR is the correct form of environmental review for the Project, because the MND failed to: (1) properly analyze certain impacts like TACs and construction noise, in addition to (2) not properly mitigating impacts that are likely to occur given the size of projects which will be ministerial under the Development Code Text Amendment.

Responded to in later sections (5-9
through 5-19).
5-9 Northwest Neighbors for Safe Development respectfully requests that the Planning Commission require the Project to undergo an EIR or recirculate the MND after adding inappropriate levels of mitigation to reduce impact levels to insigniﬁcant.

The City acknowledges the concerns
raised by the Northwest Neighbors for
Safe Development regarding the
adequacy of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) and the level of
mitigation applied to reduce potential
impacts. However, an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) is not required, nor
is recirculation of the MND necessary,
as the analysis meets CEQA
requirements and adequate mitigation
measures have been incorporated to
reduce potentially signiﬁcant impacts
to a less-than-signiﬁcant level.
5-10 Northwest Neighbors for Safe Development is an unincorporated association of individuals that may be adversely affected by the potential public health and safety This comment provides standing and
statement of interest and does not
26 hazards, and the environmental and public service impacts of the Project. The coalition includes City of Fresno residents Matt Nutting, Brandon Smittcamp, Kirk Cernigli, J.T. Contrestano, Pat Cornaggia, Rodney J. De Luca, Gary H. Rushing, Peter Nunez, Davi d Scott, Mike Shirinian, Vicki Allen -Westburg, Debbie Nard, Dennis Nard, Rick Martin, along with their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of Fresno. I
ndividual members of Northwest Neighbors for Safe
Development live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City of Fresno and surrounding communities. Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental, health, and safety impacts. Northwest Neighbors for Safe Development and its members could be aggr
ieved by the Project allowing
ministerial residential development, without proper mitigation of environmental impacts those projects could create.
address the adequacy or completeness
of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration
, does not raise
environmental issues, and does not
request the incorporation of additional
information relevant to environmental
issues. Further response is not
necessary.

CEQA only requires recirculation of an
MND under limited circumstances
(CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5), such as
when:
• A new signiﬁcant
environmental impact is
identiﬁed.
• Substantial new information
shows that impacts are more
severe than originally
disclosed.
• Mitigation measures are found
to be infeasible and new
mitigation is required to
substantially reduce impacts.

In this case:
• No new signiﬁcant impacts
have been identiﬁed that were
not previously addressed.
• No new information has been
presented to demonstrate that
the identiﬁed mitigation
measures are infeasible or
ineffective.
27 • The mitigation measures are
consistent with CEQA best
practices and ensure
compliance with the City’s
General Plan EIR, applicable
State regulations, and local
environmental policies.
• Therefore, recirculation of the
MND is not required under
CEQA.
5-11 CEQA requires that lead agencies analyze any project with potentially signiﬁcant environmental impacts in an EIR.4 “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR protects not only the environment, but also informed self-government. ”5 The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return. ”6 The City fully acknowledges the
fundamental role of CEQA in ensuring
that potential environmental impacts
are properly analyzed before project
approval. However, CEQA does not
require an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for every project —it
requires an EI R only when substantial
evidence supports a fair argument that
the project may result in a signiﬁcant
environmental impact that cannot be
mitigated (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)).

The comment does not provide speciﬁc
evidence demonstrating that a
signiﬁcant impact remains unmitigated
or that the MND’s conclusions are
incorrect.
5-12 CEQA’s purpose and goals must be met through the preparation of an EIR, except in certain limited circumstances.7 CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR. This presumption is reﬂected in the “fair argument” standard. Under that standard, a lead agency “shall” prepare an EIR The City acknowledges CEQA’s intent to
ensure informed decision- making
regarding environmental impacts.

However, CEQA does not create an
automatic presumption in favor of
28 whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a signiﬁcant effect on the environment.8 requiring an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for all projects. Instead,
CEQA provides a structured process
where an EIR is required only if
substantial evidence in the record
supports a fair argument that the
project may result in signiﬁcant,
unmitigated environmental impacts
(CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)).

CEQA expressly allows the use of an
MND when a project’s impacts can be
mitigated to below signiﬁcance
thresholds (CEQA Guidelines §
15070(b)).

Courts have upheld the use of MNDs
where mitigation successfully reduces
environmental impacts, as seen in Save
Our Residential Environment v. City of
West Hollywood (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th
1745.
5-13 In contrast , a mitigated negative declaration may be prepared only when, after preparing an initial study, a lead agency determines that a project may have a signiﬁcant effect on the environment, but: (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no si gniﬁcant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a signiﬁcant effect on the environment.9
The City acknowledges CEQA’s
framework for using a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) and affirms
that the MND prepared for the
Development Code Text Amendment
fully complies with these legal
standards.

1. The MND Meets CEQA’s
Requirements Under CEQA
Guidelines § 15070
CEQA allows a lead agency to adopt an
MND only if two conditions are met:
29 1. Revisions to the project (or
agreed-upon mitigation
measures) reduce
environmental effects to a level
where “clearly no signiﬁcant
effect” would occur.

2. There is no substantial
evidence in the whole record
demonstrating that the project,
as revised, may have a
signiﬁcant impact.

In this case:
• The Initial Study analyzed all
potential environmental
impacts and determined that
any potentially signiﬁcant
impacts could be fully
mitigated to less than
signiﬁcant.
• Mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the project to
ensure compliance with CEQA
standards.
• No substantial evidence has
been presented that
demonstrates a signiﬁcant,
unmitigated environmental
impact remains.

2. The MND Properly Incorporates
Revisions and Mitigation Measures
• The text amendment includes
clear, enforceable thresholds
and mitigation measures for
30 projects that might otherwise
have signiﬁcant environmental
effects (Sec. 15-5102.E).
• Sensitive areas and
environmental impact
thresholds are identiﬁed,
ensuring that projects
exceeding those thresholds
remain subject to discretionary
review and further CEQA
analysis (Sec. 15 -5102.E.2-
E.3).

3. No Substantial Evidence Supports a
Fair Argument of Signiﬁcant,
Unmitigated Impacts
Under CEQA Guidelines § 15384,
“substantial evidence” must be fact -
based and supported by relevant
studies or expert opinions. In this case:
• The MND is based on technical
studies and regulatory
compliance.
• Courts have consistently held
that mere speculation,
assumptions, or
unsubstantiated opinions do
not constitute substantial
evidence under CEQA (Leonoff
v. Monterey Board of
Supervisors (1990) 222
Cal.App.3d 1337).
31 • No new information has been
presented that contradicts the
City’s ﬁndings.

4. Conclusion
The City’s decision to adopt an MND is
fully compliant with CEQA because:

1. Mitigation measures reduce all
impacts to less than
signiﬁcant, satisfying CEQA
Guidelines § 15070.

2. The record lacks substantial
evidence demonstrating that
the project, as mitigated, may
still cause a signiﬁcant
environmental effect.

3. The MND is legally defensible
and supported by substantial
evidence, including technical
studies and applicable
mitigation measures.

Because CEQA’s requirements have
been met, the City can lawfully adopt
the MND without requiring an EIR.

5-14 Courts have held that if “no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in signiﬁcant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR. ”10 The fair argument standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through the issuance of a negative declaration.11 An agency’s decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary.12

The City recognizes that CEQA applies
the fair argument standard when
determining whether an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) is required.

However, the fair argument standard
does not automatically mandate an EIR
for every project —
rather, an EIR is
required only when substantial
evidence in the whole record supports a
32 “Substantial evidence” required to support a fair argument is deﬁned as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reac hed. ”13 According to the CEQA Guidelines, when determining whether an EIR is required, the lead agency is required to apply the principles set forth in Section 15064, subdivision (f):
fair argument that the project may have
signiﬁcant environmental impacts that
cannot be mitigated (CEQA Guidelines §
15064(f)).

The Fair Argument Standard Requires
Substantial Evidence, Not Mere
Speculation. Under CEQA Guidelines §
15384, “substantial evidence” must be
based on facts, expert opinion
supported by fact, or technical studies
rather than speculation,
unsubstantiated op inions, or
generalized concerns.

Mere disagreement over conclusions in
the MND does not constitute
substantial evidence requiring an EIR
(Citizens for Responsible Equitable
Environmental Development v. City of
Chula Vista (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th
327).

In this case:

The MND is supported by substantial
evidence, including technical analyses
and regulatory compliance.

The MND Complies with CEQA
Guidelines § 15064(f) and Provides a
Legally Defensible Basis for Not
Requiring an EIR. CEQA does not
require an EIR if mitigation measures
reduce all impacts to below
signiﬁcance thresholds (CEQA
Guidelines § 15070(b)).
33 The MND properly applies technical
thresholds and mitigation measures to
ensure compliance with CEQA
standards, addressing potential
impacts related to air quality, traffic,
noise, hazardous materials, and
biological resources.

The comment does not identify any new
signiﬁcant, unmitigated impact that the
M N D f a i l s t o a n a l y z e , w h i c h i s a k e y requirement to trigger an EIR under the
fair argument standard.

In addition, the MND Incorporates
Appropriate CEQA Mitigation Measures
and the text amendment includes
threshold for requiring a discretionary
application and subsequent CEQA
review. The text amendment explicitly
requires discretionary review and CEQA
anal
ysis for projects exceeding
environmental thresholds (Sec. 15 -
5102.E.2–E.3).

The City’s decision to adopt an MND is
legally sound and compliant with CEQA
because:
• No substantial evidence has
been presented demonstrating
that the project may have
unmitigated signiﬁcant
environmental impacts ,
especially given the
requirements and thresholds
34 contained in the proposed text
amendment.
• The MND includes enforceable
mitigation measures that
reduce all impacts to less -
than-signiﬁcant levels.
• The fair argument standard
does not require an EIR if
mitigation successfully
addresses potential impacts.
• Thus, the City can lawfully
adopt the MND without
requiring an EIR.

5-15 A. There is substantial Evidence Supporting a Fair Argument that the MND Underestimates and Fails to Properly Mitigate Air Quality Impacts

There is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the City failed to analyze the health risk impacts of potential project construction and operation on nearby sensitive receptors, which could occur under future projects that would now be ministerial.

1. The MND Threshold for Unit and Floor Counts to Screen Out of Air Quality Analysis if Far Above the Level Where Smaller Projects have Found Air Quality Impacts

First, the MND notes projects up to the following size will be ministerial, and once they exceed the following sizes the project will be discretionary and be required to perform some environmental review:

If the Project would exceed 224 units for low-rise (1-2 levels), 225 units for mid-rise (3-10 levels), or 340 units for high -rise (10+ levels) apartments, and generate more than 800 average daily one- way trips [ministerial approval is not permitted]. If th e The comment argues that the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND)
underestimates and fails to properly
mitigate air quality impacts, speciﬁcally
regarding health risks from Toxic Air
Contaminants (TACs) during
construction. The comment relies
heavily on the analysis performed for
the 7056 Nor
th Prospect project,
claiming it demonstrates the potential
for signiﬁcant health risks from
ministerial projects under this Project.

We disagree with this assessment for
the following reasons:

The comment's central ﬂaw is its
attempt to extrapolate the speciﬁc
ﬁndings of the 7056 North Prospect
project to all potential ministerial
35 project exceeds this threshold but a technical assessment for operational and construction emissions determines the project will be below applicable air district thresholds, then the project can be processed as a zone clearance.25

For context, the 7056 North Prospect Project was 88 units at 4 levels. Any project under the above standard could have signiﬁcantly more units and signiﬁcantly more ﬂoors than the 7056 North Prospect Project without any level of environmental review.

While it is true that more units and ﬂoors do not inherently mean environmental impacts at levels that are signiﬁcant, Dr. Clark presented substantial evidence there will be signiﬁcant effects on public health in the 7056 North Prospect Project.

The 7056 North Prospect Project would have increased health risks in the surrounding community by contributing TACs such as Diesel Particulate Matter (“DPM”) during construction.26 During the 7056 North Prospect Project’s construction, heavy equipment and diesel trucks would emit DPM. DPM has been linked to a range of serious health problems including an increase in respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death.27 The 7056 North Prospect Project’s emissions of DPM would impact numerous sensitive receptors, including residents in residential buildings located within 25 feet of the 7056 North Prospect Project site.28

CEQA requires an analysis of human health impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(4) provides that the City is required to ﬁnd a project will have a signiﬁcant impact on the environment and require an EIR if the environmental effects of a project will cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings.29 The Supreme Court has also explained that CEQA requires the lead agency to disclose the health consequences that result from exposure to a project’s air emissions.30

For development projects like 7056 North Prospect Project, and ministerial ones under the Project, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (“OEHHA”) risk assessment guidelines recommend a formal health risk analysis (“HRA”) for short -term co nstruction exposures to TACs lasting longer than 2 projects under this Project. This is
inappropriate. The 7056 North Prospect
project involved a speciﬁc set of
circumstances, including its size,
location, proximity to sensitive
receptors, and the speciﬁc
construction methods employed. These
factors are highly variable and will differ
signiﬁcantly from project to project.

Therefore, the air quality analysis and
health risk assessment conducted for
that project cannot be automatically
applied to other, potentially very
different, ministerial projects covered
by this Project.

In addition, t he comment incorrectly
assumes that the Text Amendment
allows large residential projects to
bypass air quality review entirely. In fact,
the Text Amendment:

Establishes size and trip -generation
thresholds to determine when a project
requires discretionary review rather
than ministerial approval (Sec. 15 -
5102.E.3.e). The following thresholds
are based on the SJVAPCD’s Small
Project Analysis Level screening
criteria:

• Low-rise (1-2 stories): 224 units
36 months and exposures from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project.31 In an HRA, lead agencies must ﬁrst quantify the concentration released into the environment at each of the sensitive receptor locations through air dispersion modeling, calculate the dose of each TAC at that location, and quantify the cancer risk and hazard index for each of the chemicals of concern.32 Following that analysis, then the City can make a determination of the relative signiﬁcance of the emissions.

The City did not conduct this analysis. Here, the MND concludes that the Project would not result in signiﬁcant health risk impacts without conducting any of the a b o v e a n a l y t i c a l s t e p s . T h e C i t y f a i l s t o d i s c l o s e o r a n a l y z e t h a t t h e a c t u a l construction of residential units as described in the Project construction and operation would result in emissions of TACs. For example, the MND’s analysis regarding TACs only focuses on not siting residential units near certain uses33 The City fails to analyze that construction from 4,868 units could, in and of itself, result in TACs from construction.34 Next, the City fails to disclose or analyze the health impacts of exposure to certain concentrations of TACs. Then the City fails to quantify the magnitude of TACs emitt ed by the Project. Lastly, the City fails to model the concentrations of TACs at sensitive receptors.35 In sum, there is no evidence that the City considered health risks from TACs due to the construction of residential units themselves when determining th
at the Project’s ministerial
developments would not result in signiﬁcant impacts on air quality and public health.

• Mid-rise (3 -10 stories): 225
units
• High-rise (10+ stories): 340
units
• Or projects generating more
than 800 daily trips
• Requires an air quality
technical assessment for
projects exceeding these
thresholds. If the assessment
ﬁnds that emissions remain
below the applicable air district
thresholds, the project may still
be processed ministerially. If
emissions exceed threshol ds,
the project is subject to
discretionary review and
further CEQA analysis.
• Requires Health Risk
Assessments (HRA) for
projects near
located on
parcels adjacent to sensitive
receptors to evaluate exposure
to TACs from construction and
operation (Sec. 15-5102.E.3.f).

Thus, projects with the potential to have
signiﬁcant air quality impacts are
screened out of ministerial approval
and remain subject to discretionary
review and CEQA compliance.

37 5-16 2. The City’s Signiﬁcance Standards Rely on the Small Project Analysis Level to Screen Out Projects Based on Size, But the MND Does Not Then Require Projects to Perform Site Speciﬁc Analysis Despite the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Requiring It for TACs and Sensitive Receptors

The City reasons that because of the scale and scope of the residential units under the Project, if the residential projects qualify under the Small Project Analysis Level (“SPAL”), there would be no contributions to air quality impacts.36 The SPAL speciﬁcally notes that the signiﬁcance standards for dwelling units and trip counts are to quantify signiﬁcance standards for “criteria pollutant emissions for CEQA purposes. ”37 It does not address signiﬁcance standards for TACs.

When reviewing the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (“GAMAQI”) put forth by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (“SJVAPCD”).38 This guidance notes that:

When a project falls under the SPAL, the Lead Agency should use the information in the initial study checklist, or whatever format used, to justify a ﬁnding of less than signiﬁcant air quality impacts. The initial study should also verify that no sensitive receptors would be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as a result of the project. Project size, as identiﬁed in the SPAL, is not a threshold of signiﬁcance.

SPAL is a screening tool. The Lead Agency has the responsibility to identify and avoid potential land use conﬂicts, such as potential exposure of sensitive receptors to sources of toxic air contaminants, sources of hazardous materials, and potential odors. (emphasis added).39

While the SPAL has since 2015 been adopted as a signiﬁcance standard for criteria pollutants, it has not been adopted for TACs. The City clearly ignored the guidance’s recommendations on TACs, and therefore, its conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence and do not mitigate the speciﬁc adverse impacts identiﬁed b e l o w . A s S J V A P C D n o t e s , j u s t b e c a u s e a p r o j e c t q u a l i ﬁ e s a s a S P A L , d o e s n o t mean the project will have no environmental impacts. GAMAQI notes that the Lead Agency is responsible for i dentifying and avoiding potential exposure of TACs to The comment argues that the City's
reliance on the Small Project Analysis
Level (SPAL) to screen out projects
based on size is insufficient for
assessing Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC)
impacts, particularly given the San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control
District's (SJVAPCD) guidance. We
disagree with this interpretation and
believe the MND's approach is
appropriate.

The MND recognizes that additional
analysis is
required where projects
could expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations.

The Text Amendment explicitly requires
Health Risk Assessments (HRA) for
projects near sensitive receptors to
evaluate exposure to TACs from
construction and operation (Sec. 15 -
5102.E.3.f).

Thus, projects with potential TAC
impacts are screened out of ministerial
approval and require discretionary
review and further CEQA analysis.

Contrary to the claim that the City "does
not require site -speciﬁc analysis, " the
Text Amendment ensures that TAC
exposure is evaluated on a project -by-
project basis:
38 sensitive receptors. Here, the MND analyzes TACs, but only so far as where to site residential units, not whether the construction of those units can create TACs themselves. Therefore, the City failed to analyze health risk impacts from exposure t o T A C s d uring the Project’s expected construction of residential units and thus failed to support its ﬁnding of a less-than-signiﬁcant health risk impact.

• Sec. 15 -5102.E.3.f: Any project
adjacent to sensitive receptors
must undergo a Health Risk
Assessment (HRA) to determine
TAC exposure risks.
• Sec. 15-5102.E.3.j: A noise study
is also required for projects near
sensitive receptors, which may
include additional environmental
analysis related to air quality
impacts.
• Sec. 15 -5102.E.3.e: If a project
generates more than 800 daily
trips or exceeds speciﬁc unit -
count thresholds, it must
undergo a technical air quality
assessment to determine
whether discretionary review is
required.

The City’s determination that an MND is
appropriate is legally defensible under
CEQA because:
• The MND does not use SPAL as a
signiﬁcance threshold for TACs
but instead relies on project -
speciﬁc analysis where required.
• The Text Amendment includes
explicit provisions requiring
Health Risk Assessments and
discretionary review for projects
near sensitive receptors,
39 ensuring that air quality impacts
are properly analyzed.
• No substantial evidence has
been presented demonstrating
that the MND underestimates air
quality impacts or that the Text
Amendment allows projects with
signiﬁcant unmitigated
emissions to be processed
ministerially.
• CEQA does not require an EIR
when mitigation and screening
mechanisms successfully
reduce impacts below
signiﬁcance thresholds.

5-17 3. The Project has Potentially Signiﬁcant Health Risk Impacts from Projects Which Will Now be Ministerial

Dr. Clark calculated that the 7056 North Prospect Project’s emissions of DPM would exceed applicable signiﬁcance thresholds for health risks set by the SJVAPCD.

Using OEHHA’s HARP 2 Standalone Risk software, Dr. Clark calculated the cancer risk to the most sensitive population – infants less than 3 years old.40 The maximum risk for exposure during construction is 21.5 in 1,000,000, which is greater than the 20 in 1,000,000 threshold set forth by the SJVAPCD for the maximally exposed individual. Dr. Clark’s modeling even shows which receptors will be subject to these potentially signiﬁcant impacts.41 The comment argues that the Project
has potentially signiﬁcant health risk
impacts from ministerial projects, citing
Dr. Clark's calculations for the 7056
North Prospect project, which allegedly
exceed SJVAPCD health risk thresholds.

We disagree with the comment's
attempt to extrapolate these ﬁndings to
all potential ministerial projects under
this Project.

The comment's reliance on the 7056
North Prospect project analysis is
fundamentally ﬂawed. That project
represents a speciﬁc
set of
circumstances, including its size,
location, proximity to sensitive
40 As a result of these signiﬁcant effects, the 7056 North Prospect Project did not qualify for any CEQA exemption, including a Class 32 exemption. Here, the Project would allow projects the same size as the 7056 North Prospect Project and up to

2.5 times larger to not undergo any site-speciﬁc analysis. Thus, it is fair to conclude those projects also could create signiﬁcant impacts that must be disclosed and mitigated in an EIR.
receptors, construction methods, and
the speciﬁc equipment used. These
factors are highly variable and will differ
signiﬁcantly from project to project.

Therefore, Dr. Clark's calculations for
that one
project cannot be
automatically applied to all other,
potentially very different, ministerial
projects covered by this Project. Each
ministerial project must be evaluated
on its own merits.

The comment's assertion that projects
"the same size as the 7056 North
Prospect Project and up to 2.5 times
larger" could proceed without any site-
speciﬁc analysis is a
mischaracterization. While the Project
establishes thresholds for ministerial
approval based on size and trip
generation, this does not mean that air
quality impacts, including health risks
from TACs, are ignored for projects
below those thresholds. Rather, the
MND establishes a tiered approach to
environmental review, where projects
below the ministerial threshold still
must comply with applicable
regulations and mitigation measures.

Furthermore, and importantly, the text
amendment
provides a clear
mechanism for further analysis of

41 potential health risks from TACs, during
the review process. If a proposed
ministerial project meets certain
criteria – such as proximity to sensitive
receptors, the scale of construction
activities, or other factors suggesting
the potential for signiﬁcant TAC
emissions – a health risk assessment,
will be required. This ensures that
potential health risks are thoroughly
evaluated before any ministerial project
is approved.

In summary, the comment's arguments
are based on a misapplication of data
from a separate project and a
misunderstanding of the MND's
approach to addressing potential health
risks. The MND provides a reasonable
and legally sound framework for
evaluating an d mitigating potential
health risks, including those related to
TAC. Therefore, the comment does not
provide substantial evidence to rebut
the MND's conclusions regarding
potential health risk impacts.
5-18 B. There is Substantial Evidence Supporting a Fair Argument that the MND Underestimates and Fails to Properly Mitigate Noise Impacts –

1. The City Lacks Substantial Evidence to Conclude That the Project’s Noise Impacts From Construction are Less Than Signiﬁcant

The City has taken a proactive approach
to addressing potential construction
noise impacts by incorporating a
requirement for a noise study into the
proposed text amendment. Speciﬁcally,
the amendment states that a noise
study shall be required for any pro ject
42 The MND states that the Project would result in less -than-signiﬁcant construction noise impacts, because “[i]t is not anticipated that future residential development would generate substantial temporary or permanent increase in existing ambient noise levels within the Project Area in excess of standards established in the General Plan or FMC, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards. ”42 This is the extent of the City’s analysis regarding construction impacts and the basis for its signiﬁca nce determination. The City fails to provide why it believes construction impacts are not anticipated, what assumptions that belief is based upon, or a supporting factual basis for this conclusion.

Courts have held that compliance with noise regulations alone is not substantial evidence of a less -than-signiﬁcant impact.43 In Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v.

County of El Dorado (“Oro Fino”),44 a mining company applied for a special use permit for drilling holes to explore for minerals.45 The mining company argued the proposed mitigated negative declaration prohibited noise levels above the applicable county general plan noise standard maximum of 50 dBA and, therefore, there could be no signiﬁcant noise impact. The court rejected this argument: “we note that conformity with a general plan does not insulate a project from EIR review where it can be fairly argued that the project will generate signiﬁcant environmental effects. ”46 Thus, the court concluded an EIR was required.

In Citizens for Responsible & Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace (“Grand Terrace”),47 the city approved a 120- unit senior housing facility based on a mitigated negative declaration.48 The noise element of the city’s general plan stated exterior noise levels in residential areas should be limited to 65 dB CNEL.49 The initial study concluded the facility's air conditioner units would cause noise impacts, but with mitigating measures the project would operate within the general plan's noise standard. But the court cited Oro Fino for the principle that “ ‘conformity with a general plan does not insulate a project from EIR review where it can be fairly argued that the project will generate signiﬁcant environmental effects. ’”50 A citizen’s group provided substantial evidence supporting such a fair argument. This evidence included testimony from an individual in the HVAC industry that the type of air conditionin g units proposed by the project “sound like involving construction activities located
adjacent to sensitive receptors. This
study will assess noise levels from all
construction phases, including
demolition, site preparation, grading,
excavation, foundation work, building
construction, and paving.

The comment asserts that the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND) underestimates and fails to
properly mitigate noise impacts from
construction. However, the IS/MND, in
conjunction with the text amendment,
provides a detailed framework to ensure
that noise impacts are adequately
evaluated and mitigated before project
approval. The following points address
the concerns raised in the comment:

• The proposed text amendment
requires a noise study to be
conducted whenever construction
activities occur
on properties
adjacent to sensitive receptors.
• The results of the study will
determine whether noise levels
exceed the 80 dBA threshold.
• If the study ﬁnds that noise levels
remain below 80 dBA, the project
will be processed under a zone
clearance, indicating that the
43 airplanes. ”51 And at a city council public hearing, community and city council members expressed concern that the air conditioners would be noisy.52 The court considered the testimony about the noise generated by the proposed air conditioners, took into ac count the mitigation measures, and concluded “there is substantial evidence that it can be fairly argued that the Project may have a signiﬁcant environmental noise impact. ”53

Here the City’s conclusions regarding impacts from Construction Noise are not supported by substantial evidence because the City did not perform any analysis to reach said conclusions. Mr. Watry notes that it is possible for a project to cause signiﬁcant
environmental noise impacts regardless of whether the Fresno Municipal Code makes this type of noise a violation.54 The City merely assumed that compliance with the City’s noise ordinance means it is impossible for there to also be construction noise impacts. This conﬂation is wrong and violates CEQA. impacts are within acceptable
standards.
• If noise levels exceed 80 dBA, the
project must either:
 Obtain a discretionary permit,
ensuring further environmental
review under CEQA, or
 Implement noise control
measures to reduce levels
below 80 dBA before
proceeding with a zone
clearance.

This process ensures that every project
is subject to a site -speciﬁc noise
analysis rather than a general
assumption about construction noise
levels. This requirement aligns with
CEQA’s mandate to evaluate potential
environmental effects based on
substantial evidence.
5-19 2. The Project has Potentially Signiﬁcant Construction Noise Impacts To further demonstrate this, Mr. Watry performed a construction noise analysis for the 7056 North Prospect Project and found that construction noise would exceed the residential noise thresholds of 55 dB from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 60 dB from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.55 Mr. Watry recited the City’s noise ordinance which described what noise levels are usually prima facie noise violations:

Any noise or sound exceeding the ambient noise level at the property line of any person offended thereby, or, if a condominium or apartment house, within any adjoining living unit, by more than ﬁve decibels shall be deemed to be prima facie evidence of a violation of Section 8-305.56

The comment asserts that the Project
has potentially signiﬁcant construction
noise impacts, citing a construction
noise analysis performed by Mr. Watry
for a separate project (7056 North
Prospect) and applying it to this Project.

We disagree with this approach and the
conclusions drawn.

The comment's reliance on the 7056
North Prospect project analysis is
fundamentally ﬂawed. Project -speciﬁc
44 Mr. Watry used this value combined with a signiﬁcant buffer of an additional 5 dBA to determine what level of noise impacts could constitute potentially signiﬁcant noise impacts for the 7056 North Prospect Project.57 Using the Environmental Protection Agency’s values for Residential Construction Noise, Mr. Watry concluded that every phase of construction for the 7056 North Prospect Project would exceed the residential thresholds by at least 10 dBA signiﬁcance threshold for residential. While every phase of construction will exceed 70 dBA, some will signiﬁcantly exceed this based on the av erage EPA Noise Levels for each phase of construction:58

As such the MND’s conclusions regarding impacts from Construction Noise are not supported by substantial evidence because the City failed to analyze construction noise impacts or present substantial evidence that there will not be potentially signiﬁcant construction noise impacts. Presumably, there will be many sites in the Project Area that have similar amounts of sensitive receptors as the 7056 North Prospect Project. This amount of proposed residential development means many current residents will face signiﬁcant impacts that are not accounted for in this MND.

As a result of these signiﬁcant effects, the Project’s impacts on Noise are signiﬁcant and not mitigated. The Project’s signiﬁcant impacts must be disclosed and mitigated in an EIR.

conditions, such as the type and
intensity of construction activities, the
speciﬁc equipment used, the distance
to sensitive receptors, and existing
ambient noise levels, can vary
signiﬁcantly from project to project.

Extrapolating noise data from one
project to another without considering
these variables is inappropriate and
does not constitute substantial
evidence of signiﬁcant impacts for this
Project. Mr. Watry's analysis for a
different project, while potentially
informative for that project, cannot be
used to automatically establish
signiﬁcant impacts for the Project
addressed in this MND.

As mentioned above, t he analysis
presented by Mr. Watry is based on the
7056 North Prospect Project, which is a
speciﬁc development with its own
construction activities, phasing, and
surrounding conditions. While this
analysis may be informative, it does not
provide substantial evidence that all
projects within the broader project area
will have signiﬁcant noise impacts.

The IS/MND does not assume that all
future projects will have identical noise
impacts. Instead, it mandates that a
site-speciﬁc noise study be conducted

45 for any project adjacent to sensitive
receptors.

The newly added amendments to the
text amendment ensures that each
project’s noise impacts will be
independently assessed based on
actual site conditions, construction
equipment, and surrounding land uses
rather than relying on generalized
assumptions.

If a noise study ﬁnds that construction
noise will exceed 80 dBA, the project
will be required to either:

1. Obtain a discretionary permit,
subjecting it to further CEQA
review, or

2. Implement mitigation
measures to reduce noise
levels below 80 dBA before
proceeding under a zone
clearance.

This approach ensures that no project
moves forward without proper noise
impact evaluation and mitigation.

The comment also claims that an EIR is
required because the project will cause
signiﬁcant and unmitigated noise
impacts. However, CEQA requires an
EIR only if substantial evidence shows
that a project may have a signiﬁcant
46 effect on the environment without
adequate mitigation.

The IS/MND does not dismiss potential
noise impacts but instead implements
a mitigation framework that directly
addresses them.

The requirement for project -speciﬁc
noise studies ensures that all potential
impacts are evaluated before project
approval.

If a project’s noise levels exceed 80 dBA,
it will be subject to additional review
and mitigation, ensuring noise impacts
are minimized to a less-than-signiﬁcant
level.

Because the IS/MND includes a robust
process for identifying and mitigating
noise impacts, it provides substantial
evidence to support a ﬁnding of less
than signiﬁcant impact with mitigation,
making an EIR unnecessary.

C. There is Substantial Evidence Supporting a Fair Argument that the MND Underestimates and Fails to Properly Mitigate Transportation Impacts

There is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the City failed to analyze transportation risk impacts of potential project construction and operation on nearby sensitive receptors, which could occur under future projects that would now be ministerial.

Here, the City also failed to review the Project’s pedestrian and bicycle safety impacts, for Projects of less than 200 units. For instance, given 7056 North Prospect Project’s density and proximity to the Tatarian Elementary School and The comment asserts that the IS/MND
underestimates transportation
impacts, particularly regarding
pedestrian and bicycle safety, and
challenges the 200 -unit threshold for
requiring additional transportation
analysis. The City’s approach to
transportation impact analysis is both
legally sound and aligned with CEQA’s
requirements.

47 Orchard Park, many existing neighbors, with eye -witness experience, and the Fresno Uniﬁed School District President Susan Wittrup commented on present traffic and pedestrian safety issues that would be exacerbated by the 7056 North Prospect Project.59

These comments were for a development that only envisioned 88 units, far below the City’s now proposed 200 -unit threshold which could occur without analyzing these issues. The City provides no basis or analysis on why 200 units is an appropriate threshold for providing no analysis on pedestrian and bicycle safety impacts. As such the City’s conclusions regarding Transportation impacts are not supported by substantial evidence and do not support the use of an exemption.

The 200 -unit threshold is not a
requirement where further analysis is
required. It is a threshold at which
additional public improvements are
required beyond the standard
requirements called out in city codes,
plans and policies. Per General Plan
policies, the city requires additional
traffic analysis when certain peak hour
trip thresholds are met. The text
amendment is consistent with these
thresholds (see proposed FMC section
15-5102-E-3-g).

The City, during ministerial review of
projects, will impose standard
requirements based on speciﬁc project
details, in line with FMC Section 13-208,
the Public Works Department’s
Complete Streets Policy, and the Active
Transportation Plan.

In addition, CEQA Does Not Require an
EIR Based on Speculative Future
Development Impacts
The comment suggests that because
some future projects may be ministerial
under the proposed amendment, their
transportation impacts should be
analyzed now. However, CEQA does not
require an agency to analyze
48 speculative or undefined future
projects.
• CEQA Guidelines § 15145 state
that if, after thorough analysis,
an impact is determined to be
too speculative for evaluation ,
it does not need to be analyzed.
• The IS/MND evaluates the
specific impacts of the text
amendment itself, which is a
regulatory change rather than a
physical development project.
• Any future ministerial projects
(i.e., projects that meet
objective standards without
discretion) would still be
subject to existing
transportation safety
requirements under the
General Plan , Active
Transportation Plan and local
development regulations
(including the municipal code,
policies and procedures,
adopted Council resolutions,
etc.)
Thus, the City’s transportation impact
analysis is appropriately scoped to
focus on reasonably foreseeable
impacts rather than hypothetical future
projects.

Fresno City CouncilMay 22, 2025

Fresno City Council
May 22, 2025