Exhibit H - Recirculated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) — Fresno City Council, October 16, 2025 (part 2 of 4)

3. 4-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
A large assemblage of wildlife uses the Delta either seasonally or year round, including waterfowl; migratory and resident songbirds; mice, rabbits, and other small mammals; water dependent mammals, such as beaver and muskrat; and predators such as skunk, raccoon, northern harrier, and coyote.

LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan establishes the following objective and policies directly related to biological resources:

PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND SCHOOLS ELEMENT
Objective POSS-5: Provide for long- term preservation, enhancement, and enjoyment of plant, wildlife, and aquatic habitat .

Policy POSS -5-a: Habitat Area Acquisition. Support federal, State, and local programs to acquire significant habitat areas for permanent protection and/or conjunctive educational and recreational use.

Policy POSS-5-b: Habitat Conservation Plans. Participate in cooperative, multijurisdictional approaches for area-wide habitat conservation plans to preserve and protect rare, threatened, and endangered species.

Policy POSS -5-c: Buffers for Natural Areas. Require development projects, where appropriate and warranted, to incorporate natural features (such as ponds, hedgerows, and wooded strips) to serve as buffers for adjacent natural areas with high ecological value.

Policy POSS -5-d: Guidelines for Habitat Conservation. Establish guidelines for habitat conservation and mitigation programs, including:
• Protocols for the evaluation of a site's environmental setting and proposed design and operating parameters of proposed mitigation measures. • Methodology for the analysis depiction of land to be acquired or set aside for mitigation activities.
• Parameters for specification of the types and sources of plant material used for any re-vegetation, irrigation requirements, and post-planting maintenance and other operational measures to ensure successful mitigation.
• Monitoring at an appropriate frequency by qualified personnel and reporting of data collected to permitting agencies.

Policy POSS-5-e: Pursue development of conjunctive habitat and recreational trail uses in flood control and drainage projects.

Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-25

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Policy POSS -5-f: Regional Mitigation and Habitat Restoration. Coordinate habitat restoration programs with responsible agencies to take advantage of opportunities for a coordinated regional mitigation program.

Fresno Municipal Code
Article 3, Street Trees and Parkways, of Chapter 13 of the Fresno Municipal Code contains the public tree policy, tree beautification and preservation regulations, and Special Tree List authorization.

Section 13-302, Public Tree Policy, declares that the public interest and welfare require that the City maintain a program for the planting and preservation of trees on all public property in the city as a municipal affair in order to beautify the city, purify its air, and provide shade for its inhabitants. Section 13 -304, Tree Beautification, establishes and defines the Master T ree Plan requirements, Parkway Tree requirements, and other requirements related to new and existing development and the provision of parkway trees. Section 13 -305, Tree Preservation, o utlines tree removal and maintenance requirements, tree permit conditions, and payment of fees in-lieu of replacing a removed tree. Lastly, Section 13 -306, Special Tree List, outlines the Special Tree List requirements and tree removal requests for Special Trees:

The Director is authorized to develop and maintain a Special Tree List. Such list is intended to include those trees of special interest to the city, including, but not limited to, landmark trees or trees of outstanding size or beauty. The City Council may also designate trees on the Special Tree List by resolution. The Director shall give and encourage others to give such trees special treatment and care to retain and protect them.

The Public Works Director shall review all tree removal requests for special trees filed independent of a development application. The Director shall render his/her decision within thirty (30) days after the filing of the request. Any denial shall state the reasons for denial. The decision of the Director shall be mailed to the applicant and to all owners of record of the subject property on the same day the decision is made. In addition, the site or tree shall be posted with a sign by the Department for at least ten calendar days indicating the decision of the Director.

Decisions of the Public Works Director may be appealed to the City Council by the Councilmember of the district in which the project is located or by the Mayor, either on their own initiative or upon receiving a petition from any person.

Appeals must be initiated by filing a letter with the Public Works Director. Such action shall require a statement of reasons for the appeal. Unless otherwise specified in a governing State or federal law, all appeals shall be filed with the Public Works Director in writing within 15 days of the date of the decision.

3. 4-26 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4

3.4.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G is a sample Initial Study checklist that includes number of factual inquiries related to the subject of biological resources, as it does on a whole series of additional environmental topics. Notably, lead agencies are under no ob ligation to use these inquiries in fashioning thresholds of significance on the subject of air quality impacts, or indeed on any subject addressed in the checklist. (Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068.) Rather, with few exceptions, “CEQA grants agencies discretion to develop their own thresholds of significance.” ( Ibid.) Even so, it is a common practice for lead agencies to take the language from the inquiries set forth in Appendix G and to use that language in fashioning thresholds. The City has done so here, though it has exercised its discretion to modify the language of the Appendix G threshold addressing impacts to wetlands so that it applies not only to federally- protected wetlands, but also to wetlands that are protected under State law (the reach of which is sometimes broader than federal law).

Although CEQA generally gives agencies considerable discretion in fashioning significance thresholds, there are some thresholds that must, as a matter of law, be used by public agencies.

Many of these relate to biological resources, and are found in CEQA Guidelines section 15065 (“Mandatory Findings of Significance”).

Finally, the City is aware that neither Appendix G nor section 15065 sets forth language directly addressing potential effects on birds of prey or nesting birds due to violation of laws (described earlier) intended to protect them. The City has therefore exercised its discretion to formulate a threshold to address this particular category of impact.

In light of the foregoing, for purposes of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if implementation of the Specific Plan would:
• Substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; • Cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; • Threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community;
• Substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species;
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U .S.

Fish and Wildlife Service;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • Have a substantial adverse effect on federally - or state- protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-27

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance;
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan; • Result in the take or destruction of any nesting birds or birds of prey or the nest or eggs of such birds.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

Impact 3.4 -1: Specific Plan implementation could directly or indirectly have a substantial adverse effect through habitat modifications or reductions, cause populations to drop below self -sustaining levels, substantially eliminate a community, or substantially reduce the number of, or restrict the range of, an endangered, rare or threatened species, including those considered candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Approval of the proposed Specific Plan would not directly approve or entitle any development or infrastructure projects. However, implementation of the Specific Plan and Land Use Map would allow and facilitate future development in the Plan Area, which could result in adverse impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species, as well as sensitive natural habitat or wildlife movement corridors. Each are discussed below.

INVERTEBRATES
Special-status invertebrates that occur within the 12 -quad for the Plan Area include: valley elderberry longhorn beetle ( Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), California linderiella ( Linderiella occidentalis), midvalley fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta mesovallensis ), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi). The Plan Area may contain suitable habitat , or more specifically, micro - habitats, for these special-status invertebrate species. For example, elderberry shrubs, which are the host plant for valley elderberry longhorn beetle, are known to occur in various areas throughout the region, and may be located in the Plan Area on certain properties. It is noted that elderberry can establish itself in various areas, so the absence of this species at one point in time does not mean that it is absent in future years. Additionally, seasonally aquatic, or other aquatic areas (i.e. irrigation ditches or drainage swales) within the Plan Area could provide suitable habitat for some special status aquatic invertebrate species.

Subsequent development under the proposed Specific Plan could result i n the direct loss of habitat areas associated with these special-status invertebrate species, since suitable habitat for these species does occur in the region, and can be found a s a microhabitat. Additionally, indirect impacts

3. 4-28 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

to special-status invertebrate species could occur with implementation of the Specific Plan. Indirect impacts could include habitat degradation as a result of impacts to water quality, increased human presence, and the loss of aquatic habitat. This is a potentially significant impact.

AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES
There are two special -status amphibian species and five special -status reptile species that are documented within the 12 -quadrangle region for the Specific Plan Area , including: California tiger salamander (CTS) ( Ambystoma californiense ), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata). There are two documented occurrences of CTS in the Specific Plan Area.

The more recent occurrence was documented in February 2017. This occurrence was documented in the vicinity of N. Blythe Avenue approximately 0.2 miles northwest of the W. Austin Way junction, and 0. Mile southeast of the W. Ashland Avenue junction. There are two polygons showing approximate locations – the northern polygon is the approximate location of the detection site for the CTS, and the southern polygon is the approximate location of the relocation site for CTS. For this occurrence, one CTS adult was found on the grounds of an apartment complex by a landscape maintenance crew. The animal was delivered to a local biologist who relocated the CTS to a nearby open space area. The open space area has alfalfa and grass, standing water in the springs, and many burrows present. According to the CNDDB, the individual may have represented a remnant population that has lost too much habitat to be viable.

The second occurrence was documented in 1879. The occurrence was from the U.S. National Museum (#11794), and the Cornell University Museum of Vertebrates ( #3017). The site is considered to be extirpated.

The developed and agricultural areas within the Specific Plan Area provide very limited to no potential for special status species reptile and amphibians listed above . The portions of the Plan Area with the highest potential for presence of any special status reptile or amphibian species are areas where aquatic habitat is present, such as irrigation ditches or retention basins. Additionally, there are numerous locations for refugia (debris, burrows, crevices, barns, sheds, etc.) within the Plan Area that could be used by migrating CTS.

Subsequent development under the proposed Specific Plan could result in the direct loss of habitat areas associated with these special -status reptile and amphibian species, since suitable habitat for these species does occur in the region. Additionally, i ndirect impacts to special -status reptile and amphibian species could occur with implementation of the Specific Plan. Indirect impacts could include habitat degradation as a result of impacts to water quality, increased human presence, and the loss of foraging habitat. This is a potentially significant impact.

FISH

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
There is one special-status fish species that is documented within the 12 -quadrangle region for the Specific Plan Area: hardhead (Mylopharodon conocephalus). This species is not documented within Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-29

the Specific Plan Area or vicinity. Based on habitat conditions and records searches, this fish species does not have the potential to be present within the Specific Plan Area. The proposed Specific Plan would not, directly or indirectly, have a substantial adverse effect on fish species through habitat modifications or reductions, cause populations to drop below self -sustaining levels, substantially eliminate a community, or substantially reduce the number of, or restrict the range of, an endangered, rare or threatened species, including those considered candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. Therefore, impacts associated with special-status fish species would be less than significant.

BIRDS
There are ten special-status bird species that are documented within the 12-quadrangle region for the Specific Plan Area, including: black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), California horned lark ( Eremophila alpestris actia), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auratus ), great egret ( Ardea alba), Least Bell's vireo ( Vireo bellii pusillus ), snowy egret (Egretta thula), Swainson's hawk ( Buteo swainsoni), tricolored blackbird ( Agelaius tricolor ), and western yellow -billed cuckoo ( Coccyzus americanus occidentalis ). While none of these b ird species have been documented in the Plan Area, it is highly likely that some of the aforementioned special-status bird species could regularly use or pass through the Specific Plan Area given their high mobility.

It is anticipated that the raptor species would frequent the site for foraging. There is limited to no potential for nesting in t he agricultural and developed areas. The portions of the Plan Area with the highest potential for presence of any nesting birds are the more rural and v acant portions of the Plan Area . Most bird nesting would occur in trees located in these areas, with the exception of ground nesting species such as the burrowing owl.

Subsequent development under the proposed Specific Plan could result i n the direct loss of habitat areas associated with these special-status bird species, since suitable habitat for these species does occur in the region. Additionally, indirect impacts t o special-status bird species could occur with implementation of the Specific Plan. Indirect impacts could include habitat degradation, increased human presence, and the loss of foraging habitat. This is a potentially significant impact.

MAMMALS

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
There are eight special -status mammal species that are documented within the 12-quadrangle region for the Specific Plan Area, including: American badger (Taxidea taxus), Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis), Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus ), p allid bat (Antrozous pallidus ), San Joaquin kit fox ( Vulpes macrotis mutica), San Joaquin Pocket Mouse (Perognathus inornatus ), spotted bat ( Euderma maculatum), and western mastiff bat ( Eumops perotis californicus). Fresno kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, and western mastiff bat have all been documented in the Specific Plan Area.

The agricultural areas within the Specific Plan Area provide very limited to no potential for special status species mammals, except for movement and foraging. The portion of the Plan Area with the highest potential for presence of special -status mammal species is along the vacant, undeveloped

3. 4-30 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
land not used for active agriculture. These areas provide the most intact habitat available within the entirety of the Specific Plan Area, although the species could move and forage throughout much of the Plan Area.

Subsequent development under the proposed Specific Plan could result in the direct loss of habitat areas associated with these special-status mammal species, since suitable habitat for these species does occur in the region. Additionally, indirect impacts to special-status mammal species could occur with implementation of the Specific Plan. Indirect impacts could include habitat degradation, increased human presence, and the loss of foraging habitat. This is a potentially significant impact.

PLANTS
The search revealed documented occurrences of 18 special status plant species within the 12 - quadrangle region for the Plan Area, as shown in Table 3.4-3.

The developed and agricultural areas within the Plan Area provide very limited to no potential for special status plant species. The tilled farmland is regularly disturbed and is planted for agricultural production and does not have any potential for these plants. The farmland fringe and irrigation ditches are the only areas within the agricultural land that have some potential fo r presence of native plants, although the potential for presence is very low. There exists the potential for future development or infrastructure improvements to encroach upon sensitive plant habitat within the Plan Area . Therefore, impacts associated with special-status plant species would be potentially significant.

CONCLUSION
Construction and maintenance activities associated with future development projects under the proposed Specific Plan could result in the direct and indirect loss or indirect disturbance of special- status plant or wildlife (i.e. mammal, bird, amphibian, or reptile) species or their habitats that are known to occur, or have potential to occur, in the region. Impacts to special -status species or their habitat could result in a substantial reduction in local population size, lowered reproductive success, or habitat fragmentation. Significant impacts on special -status species associated with individual subsequent projects could include:
• increased mortality caused by higher numbers of automobiles in new areas of development; • direct mortality from the collapse of underground burrows, resulting from soil compaction; • direct mortality resulting from the movement of equipment and vehicles through construction areas;
• direct mortality resulting from removal of trees with active nests; • direct mortality or loss of suitable habitat resulting from the trimming or removal of obligate host plants;
• direct mortality resulting from fill of wetlands features; • loss of breeding and foraging habitat resulting from the filling of seasonal or perennial wetlands;
Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-31

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
• loss of breeding, foraging, and r efuge habitat resulting from the permanent removal of riparian vegetation;
• loss of suitable habitat for vernal pool invertebrates resulting from the destruction or degradation of vernal pools or seasonal wetlands;
• abandoned eggs or young and subsequent nest failure for special -status nesting birds, including raptors, and other non-special-status migratory birds resulting from construction- related noises;
• loss or disturbance of rookeries and other colonial nests; • loss of suitable foraging habitat for special-status raptor species; • loss of migration corridors resulting from the construction of permanent structures or features; and
• impacts to fisheries/species associated with waterways.

Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the City’s General Plan and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of special-status plants and animals, including habitat. The Specific Plan includes numerous policies intended to protect special-status plants and animals, including habitat, from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. While future development of the Plan Area has the potential to resu lt in significant impacts to protected special-status plants and animals, including habitat, the implementation of the policies listed below, as well as Federal and State regulations, would reduce impacts to these resources. Additionally, the mitigation measures included below would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts on special-status invertebrate species:
• Preconstruction surveys /habitat assessments for valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis), midvalley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within the project disturbance area.
• If valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis), midvalley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis), or vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) , or their suitable habitat, is found during preconstruction surveys/habitat assessments within the disturbance area, activities within 200 feet of the find shall cease until appropriate measures have been completed, which may include an application for incidental take, or it is determined by the qualified biologist and City staff, in coordination with USFWS and CDFW, that the species will not be harmed by the activities. Any sightings or incidental take shall be reported to USFWS and CDFW immediately.

3. 4-32 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
• Construction personnel performing activities within aquatic habitats and other suitable habitats (i.e., elderberry shrubs) to be disturbed by project activities shall receive worker environmental awareness training from a qualified biologist to instruct workers to recognize the species, their habitats, and measures being implemented for its protection.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-2: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts on special-status amphibian and reptile species:
• Preconstruction surveys /habitat assessments for California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), blunt -nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within the project disturbance area. • If California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), blunt -nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), or western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), or their suitable habitat, is found during preconstruction surveys /habitat assessments within the disturbance area, activities within 200 feet of the find shall cease until appropriate measures have been completed, which may include an application for incidental take, or it is determined by the qualified biologist and City staff, in coordination with USFWS and CDFW, that the species will not be harmed by the activities. Any sightings or incidental take shall be reported to USFWS and CDFW immediately.
• If western pond turtles are found during preconstruction surveys, a qualified biologist, with approval from CDFW, shall move the turtles to the nearest suitable habitat outside the area subject to project disturbance. The construction area shall be reinspected whenever a lapse in construction activity of 2 weeks or more has occurred. • Construction personnel performing activities within aquatic habitats and adjacent suitable uplands to be disturbed by project activities shall receive worker environmental awareness training from a qualified biologist to instruct workers to recognize western pond turtle, their habitats, and measures being implemented for its protection. • Construction personnel shall observe a 15-miles-per-hour speed limit on unpaved roads.

Mitigation Measure 3.4 -3: Prior to any ground disturbance in areas which may support suitable breeding or nesting habitat for burrowing owl, a preconstruction survey of the parcel(s) to be developed shall be completed for burrowing owl in accordance with CDFW survey guidelines (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 500 -foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify burrows and owls. Adjacent parcels under different land Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-33

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ownership need not be surveyed. Surveys shall take place near sunrise or sunset in accordance with CDFW guidelines. All burrows or burrowing owls shall be identified and mapped. Surveys shall take place no earlier than 30 days prior to construction. During the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are nesting in or directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any disturbance area.

Survey results shall be valid only for the season (breeding or nonbreeding) during which the survey is conducted. If burrowing owls and/or suitable burrows are not discovered, then further mitigation is not necessary.

If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), the project proponent(s) shall avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance shall include establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone (described below). Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-layi ng and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), the project proponent(s) shall avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance shall include the establishment of a buffer zone (described below). During the breeding season, buffer zones of at least 250 feet in which no construction activities can occur shall be established around each occupied burrow (nest site). Buffer zones of 160 feet shall be established around each burrow being used during the nonbreeding season. The buffers shall be delineated by highly visible, temporary construction fencing.

If occupied burrows for burrowing owls cannot be avoided, passive relocation shall be implemented.

Owls may be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone under an authorization from the CDFW. Such exclusion would be anticipated to include the installation of one-way doors in burrow entrances. These doors would be in place for 48 hours prior to excavation and monitored daily for 1 week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the burrow. Whenever possible, burrows must be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). Plastic tubing or a similar structure should be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow. CDFW has the authority to authorize a variation to the above described exclusion method.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-4: Prior to any ground disturbance conducted during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 15 to September 15) in areas which may support suitable habitat for Swainson Hawk, a USFWS/CDFW-approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for Swainson’s hawk no earlier than 30 days prior to construction in order to determine whether occupied Swainson’s hawk nests are located within 1,000 feet of the parcel(s) to be developed. If any potentially-occupied nests within 1 ,000 feet are off the project site, then their occupancy shall be determined by observation from public roads or by observations of Swainson’s hawk activity (e.g. foraging) near the project site. A written summary of the survey results shall be submitted to the City of Fresno.

3. 4-34 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
During the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 15 to September 15), construction activities within 1,000 feet of occupied nests or nests under construction shall be prohibited to prevent nest abandonment. If site-specific conditions, or the nature of the covered activity (e.g., steep topography, dense vegetation, and limited activities) indicate that a smaller buffer could be used, the City of Fresno may coordinate with CDFW/USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer size. If young fledge prior to September 15, construction activities could proceed normally. If the active nest site is shielded from view and noise from the project site by other development, topography, or other features, the project proponent(s) can apply to the City of Fresno for a waiver of this avoidance measure. Any waiver must also be approved by USFWS and CDFW. While nest is occupied, activities outside the buffer can take place.

All active nest trees shall be preserved on site, if feasible.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-5: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts to the black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), double - crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auratus), great egret (Ardea alba), Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and western yellow - billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) that may occur on the site:
• Preconstruction surveys for active nests of black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), double -crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auratus), great egret (Ardea alba), Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), tri colored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and western yellow - billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within 500 feet of project disturbance. Surveys shall be conducted within 14 days before commencement of any construction activities that occur during the nesting season (February 15 to August 31) in a given area. • If any active nests, or behaviors indicating that active nests are present, are observed, appropriate buffers around the nest sites shall be determined by a qualified biologist to avoid nest failure resulting from project activities. The size of the buffer shall depend on the species, nest location, nest stage, and specific construction activities to be performed while the nest is active. The buffers may be adjusted if a qualified biologist determines it would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. If buffers are adjusted, monitoring will be conducted to confirm that project activity is not resulting in detectable adverse effects on nesting birds or their young. No project activity shall commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged or the nest site is otherwise no longer in use.

Mitigation Measure 3.4 -6: Prior to any ground disturbance related to construction activities, a biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas which may support suitable breeding or denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. The survey shall establish the presence or absence of San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens and evaluate use by kit foxes in accordance with USFWS survey guidelines (USFWS, 1999). Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted not earlier than 30 days from Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-35

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
commencing ground disturbance. On the parcel where activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 250 -foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership need not be surveyed. The status of all dens shall be determined and mapped. Written result of preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the USFWS within 5 working days after survey completion and before start of ground disturbance. Concurrence by the USFWS is not required prior to initiation of construction activities. If San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens are not discovered, then further mitigation is not necessary. If San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens are identified in the survey area, the following measure shall be implemented.

If a S an Joaquin kit fox den is discovered in the proposed d evelopment footprint, the den shall be monitored for 3 days by a CDFW/USFWS-approved biologist using a tracking medium or an infrared beam camera to determine if the den is currently being used. Unoccupied dens shall be destroyed immediately to prevent subsequent use. If a natal or pupping den is found, the USFWS and CDFW shall be notified immediately. The den shall not be destroyed until the pups and adults have vacated and then only after further consultation with USFWS and CDFW. If kit fox activity is observed at the den during the initial monitoring period, the den shall be monitored for an additional 5 consecutive days from the time of the first observation to allow any resident animals to m ove to another den while den use is actively discouraged. For dens other than natal or pupping dens, use of the den can be discouraged by partially plugging the entrance with soil such that any resident animal can easily escape. Once the den is determined to be unoccupied, it may be excavated under the direction of the biologist. Alternatively, if the animal is still present after 5 or more consecutive days of plugging and monitoring, the den may have to be excavated when, in the judgement of a biologist, it is temporarily vacant (i.e., during the animal’s normal foraging activities).

Mitigation Measure 3.4-7: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measures to avoid or minimize impacts on bats:
• If removal of suitable roosting areas (i.e. buildings, trees, shrubs, bridges, etc.) must occur during the bat pupping season (April 1 through July 31), surveys for active maternity roosts shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The surveys shall be conducted from dusk until dark.
• If a special-status bat maternity roost is located, appropriate buffers around the roost sites shall be determined by a qualified biologist and implemented to avoid destruction or abandonment of the roost resulting from habitat removal or other project activities. The size of the buffer shall depend on the species, roost location, and specific construction activities to be performed in the vicinity. No project activity shall commence within the buffer areas until the end of the pupping season (August 1) or until a qualified biologist confirms the maternity roost is no longer active.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-8: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts to the American badger (Taxidea taxus), Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis), and San Joaquin pocket mouse (Perognathus inornatus) that may occur on the site:

3. 4-36 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
• Preconstruction surveys for indications of American badger (Taxidea taxus), Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis), and San Joaquin pocket mouse (Perognathus inornatus) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within 500 feet of project disturbance. Surveys shall be conducted within 14 days before commencement of any construction activities that occur in a given area.
• If any active habitat areas, or behaviors indicating that active habitat is present, are observed, appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures, including but not limited to buffer areas, shall be required. The avoidance and mitigation measures shall be determined by the qualified biologist and implemented by the project proponent(s).

Mitigation Measure 3.4-9: Prior to construction in undisturbed areas, future project proponent(s) shall retain a biologist to perform plant surveys. The surveys shall be performed during the floristic season. If any of these plants are found during the surveys, the project proponent(s) shall contact the CNPS to obtain the appropriate avoidance and minimization measures. The project proponent(s) shall also implement the avoidance and minimization measures.

SPECIFIC PLAN POLICIES THAT REDUCE POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Policy IPR 3.5 : Utilize existing regulations and procedures, including but not limited to, the Development Code and the environmental review process, in order to conserve any existing or discovered wetland, riparian, or other sensitive habitats within the Plan Area.

Policy IPR 3.6: Where sensitive biological habitats have been identified or are discovered on or immediately adjacent to a project site, the project shall include appropriate mitigation measures determined by a qualified biologist.

Policy IPR 3.7: Coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fresno County, and local watershed protection groups to identify potentially impacted aquatic habitat within the Plan Area and to develop management guidelines to be implemented by development, recreation, and other projects adjacent to ponds, ditches, canals, and other waterways.

Impact 3.4-2: Specific Plan implementation has the potential to have substantial adverse effect on federally- or state-protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means . (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The Plan Area does not contain any natural hydrologic features. The Plan Area contains an internal network of agricultural ditches along the margins of the farm fields. The ditches in proximity to active agricultural areas of the Plan Area are regularly maintained to control/collect irrigation runoff from the fields . These features are manmade and are fed only by local irrigation water during the irrigation season or rainfall during the winter/spring season.

The USACE has regulatory responsibility for navigable waters as well a s "all other waters such as...streams ...wetlands...and natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-37

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
affect interstate or foreign commerce" (33 CFR 32 3.4) under Section 404 of the CWA . A formal jurisdictional determination must be made by the USACE relative to protected wetlands and jurisdictional waters. The agricultural irrigation ditches are manmade and solely function to drain upland agricultural runoff and/or provide irrigation water to agricultural land . As such, they are expected to be exempted from the USACE jurisdiction under the Irrigation Ditch Exemption pursuant to Federal Regulations (33 CFR 323.4(a)(3)). However, a final determination must be made by the USACE prior to any filling of these ditches for urban use.

CONCLUSION
Because the proposed Specific Plan is a planning document and thus, no physical changes will occur to the environment, adoption of the Specific Plan would not directly impact the environment. There is a reasonable chance that water features could be impacted throughout the buildout of the individual projects. The implementation of an individual project would require a detailed and site- specific review of the site to determine the presence or absence of water features. If water features are present and disturbance is required, Federal and State laws require measures to reduce, avoid, or compensate for impacts to these resources. The requirements of these Federal and State laws are implemented through the permit process. These requirements are also included in Mitigation Measures 3.4-10 and 3.4-11.

Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the City’s General Plan and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of sensitive natural communities, including protected wetlands. The Specific Plan includes numerous policies and actions intended to protect wetlands and waters of the U.S. from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. While future development has the potential to result in significant impacts to protected water features, compliance with existing Federal and State regulations would reduce impacts to these resources. Mitigation measures included below ensure these regulations are followed. Additionally, implementation of Specific Plan Policies IPR 3.5 through IPR 3.7 , as detailed below, would ensure that this impact is less than significant.

3. 4-38 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.4-10: If a proposed project will result in the significant alteration or fill of a federally protected wetland, a formal wetland delineation conducted according to USACE accepted methodology would be required for each project to determine the extent of wetlands on a project site. The delineation shall be used to determine if federal permitting and mitigation strategy are required to reduce project impacts. Acquisition of permits from USACE for the fill of wetlands and USACE approval of a wetland mitigation plan would ensure a “no net loss” of wetland habitat within the Planning Area. Appropriate wetland mitigation/creation shall be implemented in a ratio according to the size of the impacted wetland.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-11: In addition to regulatory agency permitting, Best Management Practices identified from a list provided by the USACE shall be incorporated into the design and construction phase of the project to ensure that no pollutants or siltation drain into a federally protected wetland. Project design features such as fencing, appropriate drainage and incorporating

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
detention basins shall assist in ensuring project-related impacts to wetland habitat are minimized to the greatest extent feasible.

Impact 3.4 -3: Specific Plan implementation would not have substantial adverse effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The records search revealed the presence of the following sensitive natural communities within the 12-quadrangle region for the Specific Plan Area: Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest, Northern Claypan Vernal Pool, Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool, Sycamore Alluvial Woodland. N one of these community types are found in the Plan Area. Riparian habitat is located northwest of the northwestern corner of the Plan Area along the San Joaquin River; however, this riparian habitat is not found within the Plan Area . The rectangular parcel located closest to the River and associated riparian habitat is the site of the future Fresno Aquarium.

Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the City’s General Plan and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of sensitive natural communities, including riparian habitat. The Specific Plan includes policies intended to protect sensitive natural communities, including riparian habitat, from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. While future development has the potential to result in significant impacts to protected habitats, implementation of Specific Plan Policies IPR 3.5 and IPR 3.6 and Mitigation Measures 3.4 -12 through 3.4 -14, detailed below, would ensure that this impact is less than significant.

Dr
aft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-39

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.4 -12: A pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if a proposed project will result in the removal or impact to any riparian habitat and/or a special-status natural community with potential to occur in the Specific Plan Area,

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
compensatory habitat-based mitigation shall be required to reduce project impacts. Compensatory mitigation must involve the preservation or restoration or the purchase of off-site mitigation credits for impacts to riparian habitat and/or a s pecial-status natural community. Mitigation must be conducted in-kind or within an approved mitigation bank in the region. The specific mitigation ratio for habitat-based mitigation shall be determined through consultation with the appropriate agency (i.e., CDFW or USFWS) on a case-by-case basis. The project applicant/developer for a proposed project shall develop and implement appropriate mitigation regarding impacts on their respective jurisdictions.

Mitigation Measure 3.4 -13: A pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if a proposed project will result in significant impacts to streambeds or waterways protected under Section 1600 of Fish and Wildlife Code and Section 404 of the CWA. The project applicant/developer for a proposed project shall consult with partner agencies such as CDFW and/or USACE to develop and implement appr opriate mitigation regarding impacts on their respective jurisdictions, determination of mitigation strategy, and regulatory permitting to reduce impacts, as required for projects that remove riparian habitat and/or alter a streambed or waterway.

The project applicant/developer shall implement mitigation as directed by the agency with jurisdiction over the particular impact identified.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-14: Prior to project approval, a pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if a proposed project will result in project-related impacts to riparian habitat or a special-status natural community or if it may result in direct or incidental impacts to special-status species associated with riparian or wetland habitats. The project applicant/developer for a proposed project shall be obligated to address project-specific impacts to special-status species associated with riparian habitat through agency consultation, development of a mitigation strategy, and/or issuing incidental take permits for the specific special-status species, as determined by the CDFW and/or USFWS.

Policy IPR 3.6 : Where sensitive biological habitats have been identified or are discovered on or immediately adjacent to a project site, the project shall include appropriate mitigation measures determined by a qualified biologist.

Impact 3.4 -4: Specific Plan implementation would not interfere substantially with the m ovement of native fish or wildlife species or with established wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (Less than Significant)
Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation resulting from land u se changes or habitat conversion can alter the use and viability of wildlife movement corridors (i.e., linear habitats that naturally connect and provide passage between two or more otherwise disjunct larger habitats or habitat

3. 4-40 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
fragments). Wildlife habitat corridors maintain connectivity for daily movement, travel, mate- seeking, and migration; plant propagation; genetic interchange; population movement in response to environmental change or natural disaster; and recolonization of habitats subject to local extirpation or removal. The suitability of a habitat as a wildlife movement corridor is related to, among other factors, the habitat corridor’s dimensions (length and width), topography, vegetation, exposure to human influence, and the species in question.

Species utilize movement corridors in several ways. “Passage species” are those species that use corridors as thru-ways between outlying habitats. The habitat requirements for passage species are generally less than those for corridor dwellers. Passage species use corridors for brief durations, such as for seasonal migrations or movement within a home range. As such, movement corridors do not necessarily have to meet any of the habitat requirements necessary for a passage species everyday survival. “Corridor dwellers” are those species that have limited dispersal capabilities – a category that includes most plants, insects, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, and birds – and use corridors for a greater length of time.

The CNDDB record search did not reveal any documented wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites on or adjacent to the Plan Area. There is a reasonable chance that movement corridors could be impacted throughout the buildout of the individual projects in the Plan Area. The agricultural areas are not migratory wildlife corridors, although some species may move through this area.

Subsequent development projects will be required to comply with the City’s General Plan, proposed Specific Plan, and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of movement corridors. The Specific Plan includes Policy IPR 3.6, which states, “Where sensitive biological habitats have been identified or are discovered on or immediately adjacent to a project site, the project shall include appropriate mitigation measures determined by a qualified biologist.” While future development has the potential to result in significant impacts to protected movement corridors, the implementation of Policy IPR 3.6, as well as Federal and State regulations, would ensure impacts to these resources to a less than significant level.

Impact 3.4 -5: Specific Plan implementation would not conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. (Less than Significant)
The Plan Area overlaps with areas that are covered by PG&E’s San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP covers PG&E’s routine operations and maintenance activities, as well as minor new construction, on any PG&E gas and electrical transmission and distribution facilities, easements, private access routes, or lands ow ned by PG&E.

The proposed Specific Plan would not be expected to conflict or interfere with the HCP activities.

Future buildout of the Plan Area, however, would likely result in a need for PG&E gas and electrical transmission and distribution facilities to support new residential and other developed land uses not covered by the HCP; however, construction of PG&E gas and electrical transmission and distribution facilities in the Plan Area would be covered by General Plan Policies POSS-5-a through POSS-5-f, and the proposed mitigation measures described herein.

Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-41

The Plan Area is also located in the planning area of the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, which addresses recovery needs and goals for the San Joaquin kit fox, among other species. Project-level implementation of the General Plan Policies POSS-5-a through POSS-5-f, and Mitigation Measure 3.4-5 discussed in Impact 3.4-1, will reduce potential project impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox and other wildlife covered by the Recovery Plan and their associated habitat, and require consultation with the USFWS if take o f federally -listed species would occur. Thus, with implementation of these measures, the proposed Specific Plan would not be expected to conflict with the goals of the Recovery Plan. The proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

Impact 3.4-6: Specific Plan implementation would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources . (Less than Significant)
State law requires any decision by a city affecting land use and development to be consistent with its General Plan. This determination is ultimately made by the City Council. If an action, program or project is inconsistent with the General Plan, State law requires it be reconciled. This may involve modification to the action, program, or project, or amendment of the General Plan. Therefore, this impact discussion will evaluate the proposed projects’ consistency with the Fresno General Plan as it related to biological resources. The evaluation will consider the proposed Plan’s consistency with the adopted General Plan policies included within the Parks, Open Space, and Schools Element of the Fresno General Plan. This impact discussion also includes an evaluation of the Plan’s consistency with the City of Fresno Municipal Code.

FRESNO GENERAL PLAN

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following discussion analyzes the project’s consistency with the relevant policies of the City’s General Plan.

The Plan Area does not contain significant habitat areas. It is noted, however, that the Specific Plan land use plan includes 248.4 acres of open space uses, including pocket parks, neighborhood parks, community parks, open space, and ponding basins. These open space uses could be used for educational and/or recreational uses. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy.

Policy POSS -5-b: Habitat Conservation Plans. Participate in cooperative, multijurisdictional approaches for area-wide habitat conservation plans to preserve and protect rare, threatened, and endangered species.

As discussed in Impact 3.4-5, the Plan Area overlaps with areas that are covered by PG&E’s San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance HCP. The Plan Area is also located in the planning area of the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, which addresses

3. 4-42 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
recovery needs and goals for the San Joaquin kit fox, among other species. The proposed Specific Plan would participate in both plans, as applicable, and would not conflict with PG&E’s San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance HCP or the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy.

Policy POSS-5-c: Buffers for Natural Areas. Require development projects, where appropriate and warranted, to incorporate natural features (such as ponds, hedgerows, and wooded strips) to serve as buffers for adjacent natural areas with high ecological value.

The Plan Area does not contain areas with high ecological value. The San Joaquin River and associated riparian habitat, which has high ecological value, is located northwest of the northwestern corner of the Plan Area along the San Joaquin River; however, this riparian habitat is not found on-site. The rectangular parcel located closest to the River and associated riparian habitat is the site of the future Fresno Aquarium. The Aquarium would overlook the River but would be physically buffered from this natural area. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy.

Policy POSS-5-d: Guidelines for Habitat Conservation. Establish guidelines for habitat conservation and mitigation programs, including:
• Protocols for the evaluation of a site's environmental setting and proposed design and operating parameters of proposed mitigation measures.
• Methodology for the analysis depiction of land to be acquired or set aside for mitigation activities.
• Parameters for specification of the types and sources of plant material used for any re - vegetation, irrigation requirements, and post-planting maintenance and other operational measures to ensure successful mitigation.
• Monitoring at an appropriate frequency by qualified personnel and reporting of data collected to permitting agencies.

As discussed above, the Specific Plan would not conflict with PG&E’s San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance HCP or the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy . The mitigation measures outlined throughout the above impact discussions include guidelines for future projects to implement in order to conserve habitat and mitigate potential impacts. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy.

Policy POSS -5-e: Pursue development of conjunctive habitat and recreational trail uses in flood control and drainage projects.

The Specific Plan includes two policies which address flood protection and design. Policy IPR 2.9 states, “Plant locally appropriate, drought -tolerant landscaping and, where possible, incorporate designs that can contribute to groundwater recharge, flood protection, and reduced urban heat island effects.” Policy LUH 5.1 states, “Consider updating the Development Code so that when land proposed for urban development abuts active farmland, planned farmland, or Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-43

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
rural residential, the new project shall include and provide for the maintenance of one of the following design features to provide a rural/urban buffer:
• Provide landscaping and setbacks to fully obscure the new development’s buildings and fences.
• Do not include fencing, or provide only see-through fencing no greater than four feet in height between the new development and the existing property. • Provide open space such as edible gardens, landscaped walkways, or rain gardens to be no less than 30 feet in width.
• Locate boundary streets between the new and existing developments.” These two Specific Plan policies supports conjunctive use of flood control facilities as recreational or open space amenities. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy.

Policy POSS -5-f: Regional Mitigation and Habitat Restoration. Coordinate habitat restoration programs with responsible agencies to take advantage of opportunities for a coordinated regional mitigation program.

As discussed above, the Specific Plan would not conflict with PG&E’s San Joaquin Valley Operation and Maintenance HCP or the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy . Additionally, the mitigation measures outlined throughout the above impact discussions include guidelines for future projects to implement in order to conserve habitat and mitigate potential impacts. The City will continue to coordinate habitat r estoration programs with responsible agencies in order to take advantage of opportunities for a coordinated regional mitigation program. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with this Policy.

FRESNO MUNICIPAL CODE
Article 3, Street Trees and Parkways, of Chapter 13 of the Fresno Municipal Code contains the public tree policy, tree beautification and preservation regulations, and Special Tree List authorization.

Section 13-302, Public Tree Policy, declares that the public interest and welfare require that the city maintain a program for the planting and preservation of trees on all public property in the city as a municipal affair in order to beautify the city, purify its air, and provide shade for its inhabitants.

Section 13 -304, Tree Beautification, establishes and defines the Master Tree Plan requirements, Parkway Tree requirements, and other requirements related to new and existing development and the provision of parkway trees. Section 13 -305, Tree Preservation, o utlines tree removal and maintenance requirements, tree permit conditions, and payment of fees in -lieu of replacing a removed tree. Lastly, Section 13 -306, Special Tree List, outlines the Special Tree List requirements and tree removal requests for Special Trees.

There are trees located throughout the Plan Area. Any removal of these trees would be required to comply with the provisions of the Fresno Municipal Code, including Article 3, Street Trees and Parkways, of Chapter 13. This is an existing standard and regulation that is enforced by the City of Fresno during the improvement/grading plan and/or building plan phase of a project.

3. 4-44 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

CONCLUSION

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4
The proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The future project proponents would be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. As demonstrated above, the proposed Specific Plan is generally consistent with the above relevant open space and conservation policies of the General Plan, as well as the City’s Municipal Code. Overall, the proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.4-45

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This page left intentionally blank.

3.4-46 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ...

J.
._•I
' -.. -■■--.

L .. _.J
Cl
1111
1111
1111
. , r·-·· i ' I•
I f"" .J w=..:

I _!
i •11 r
1 -·
~ ... :,
I i
i.-·-··v·-••-.
·j .. . ....

Jliii&•
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
...... .• :-·· ·-··-··1
r·•- ■■ -••-··J r•- ■■ -=
i ......
:_-_._· ■---. •• J·-·
L •• - •• , I • "':
■• I ~ I i i 1=- ■ -.i ..
~--· ,----··1 r~
'1 : :-..... ,••L : . ._ _____ .. . ··-
·-··-j • i
r•-• ■ -"!
·-··..: l .... . .
.... : ··------.i i · r-··-1 •• -----~ ......... -· :· --------- : I I J
• Lp••-=• ,{ • • • • •
"I
i L•-
=-- ■--■-■■-,
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
-~
..

W Bullard Ave
W Shaw Ave
W Herndon Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N Golden State Blvd
Herndon
Bullard
Barstow
Shaw
Gettysburg
Ashlan
Dakota
Shields
Garfield
Bryan Hayes
Polk
Cornelia
Blythe
Brawley Valentine
Marks
W Ashlan Ave
N Polk Ave
N Fi
gar
de
n Dr
99 L E G E N D
Specific Plan Boundary
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
Annual Grassland
Barren
Deciduous Orchard
Dryland Grain Crops
Eucalyptus
Evergreen Orchard
Fresh Emergent Wetland
Irrigated Grain Crops
Irrigated Hayfield
Irrigated Row and Field Crops
Lacustrine
Pasture
Riverine
Urban
Valley Foothill Riparian
Vineyard
0 ½¼
Miles
Land Cover Types
FIGURE 3.4-1.

CITY OF FRESNO

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: CAL FIRE FVEG15_1, 2015; City of Fresno. Map date: January 5, 2024 M a d e r a C o u n t y

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This page left intentionally blank.

3.4-48 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 0 an____.,-_,....,
145
/
•
0 0
aq Ull1 ,.
• 0
c::::::J ~
EZ21
-
D
~ ~
122]
D EZ21
-
I
• •
0 ,.
q
•
0 ·\
D
-~
l2Z]
D
bbbl
• , ...
• • I .-,,-
· ..:, "
-~
•
• •
•• ..
0 @- M 1
••••

FRIANTLANES BRIDGEMADERA GREGG

CLOVISFRESNO NORTHBIOLA HERNDON

MALAGAFRESNO SOUTHKERMAN KEARNEY PARK

L E G E N D
Specific Plan Boundary
Sensitive Species Occurr
ence
Plant (80m)
Plant (specific)
Plant (non-specific)
Plant (circular)
Animal (80m)
Animal (specific)
Animal (non-specific)
Animal (circular)
Terrestrial Comm.
(s
pecific)
Terrestrial Comm. (non-
sp
ecific)
Terrestrial Comm.
(c
ircular)
Multiple (80m)
Multiple (specific)
Multiple (non-specific)
Multiple (circular)
Sensitive Environmental
Oc
currence
0 21
Miles
California Natural Diversity Database
12 -Quad Search
FIGURE 3.4-2

CITY OF FRESNO

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
CNDDB version 1/1/2024. Please Note: the occurrences shown on this map represent the known locations of the species listed here as of the date of this version. There may be additional occurr
ences or additional species within this area which have not been surveyed and/or mapped. Lack of information in the CNDDB about a species or an area can never be used as proof that no special status species occur in an area. Basemap: ArcGIS Online World Topographic Map Service. Map date: January 15, 2024.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This page left intentionally blank.

3.4-50 Draft Environmental Impact Report – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
This section provides a discussion of the prehistoric period background, ethnographic background, and historic period background, as well as the known cultural resources in the region and the Plan Area. The purpose of this section is to disclose and analyze the potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources associated with development of the proposed Specific Plan. Information in this section is derived primarily from the following:
• Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Fresno West Area Specific Plan Project (Cogstone, October 2019 – included in Appendix D).

Two comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the following: The Native American Heritage Commission (August 13, 2019) and the Table Mountain Rancheria Tribe (August 6, 2019) . The portion of this comment letter which relates to this topic is addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.

KEY TERMS
Cu
ltural and Historic Resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, or objects that may have historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. Preservation of the city’s cultural heritage should be considered when planning for the future.

Archaeology. The study of historic or prehistoric peoples and their cultures by analysis of their artifacts and monuments.

Ethnography. The systematic study of contemporary human cultures.

3.5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

PREHISTORY
Hum
ans are believed to have resided in Fresno County for at least the past 5,000 years.

Archeologists who have studied these past cultures have uncovered evidence of widespread activities that allowed them to divide these previous 13,000 years into periods or phases based on the kinds of subsistence behaviors practiced.

Three periods have been identified with locally defined phases and regional cultures as identified below:
• Paleoindian and Lower Archaic Period, 11,500 – 5,550 B.C • Upper Archaic Period, 550 cal B.C.– cal 1100 A.D.
• Emergent/Late Prehistoric Period, cal 1100 A.D. – Historic Contact.

Paleoindian and Lower Archaic Periods (11,500 – 5,550 B.C.) Few archaeological sites that predate 5,000 years ago have been discovered in the region. Near the end of the Pleistocene (approximately 9,050 cal B.C.) and during the early Middle Holocene (approximately 5,550 cal B.C.), there were periods of climate change and associated alluvial deposition throughout the central California lowlands. Recent geoarchaeological studies have Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-1

verified that large segments of the Late Pleistocene landscape were removed or buried by periodic episodes of deposition or erosion during the Middle Holocene. This confirms hypotheses that Paleoindian and Lower Archaic sites were buried during the last 5,000 to 6,000 years by deposits of Holocene alluvium up to 10 meters thick along the lower stretches of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River drainage systems. Archaeological evidence for the Paleoindian Period is scant, comprised primarily by fluted projectile points. The Lower Archaic Period is also mainly represented by isolated finds, such as at the Tulare Lake basin in the southern San Joaquin Valley. As a consequence of the natural alluvial deposition processes, only one site on the valley floor has produced cultural material dating to this period, and featured stone tools, remains of birds, fish and shellfish but no plant remains or milling tools. At two Lower Archaic Period sites in the foothills of Calaveras County, abundant handstones and milling slabs have been recovered.

Spears, angling hooks, composite bone hooks, and baked clay artifacts that may have been used as net or line sinkers represent the variety of fishing implements found at sites dating to this period.

Other baked clay items include pipes and discoids, as well as cooking “stones.” Impressions of twined basketry, bone tools, shell beads, and ground and polished charmstones have also been recovered.

A variety of grave goods accompanied burials in c emetery areas, which were separate from habitation areas. The presence during the Middle Archaic of an established trade network is indicated by a variety of exotic cultural materials, including obsidian tools, quartz crystals, and Olivella shell beads.

Upper Archaic Period (550 cal B.C – cal 1100 A.D)
The Upper Archaic Period features more specialized technology, with innovations and new types of bone tools, Olivella shell beads, Haliotis ornaments, charmstones, and ceremonial blades. An abundance of grinding tools (mortars and pestles) and plant remains, accompanied by a decrease in slab milling stones and handstones, indicates a shift to a greater reliance on acorns as a dietary staple during the Upper Archaic Period. A wide variety of natural resources were exploited during this period. Subsistence st rategies varied regionally, focusing on seasonally available resources suited for harvesting in bulk, such as salmon, shellfish, deer, rabbits, and acorns. Numerous large shell mounds dating to this period are located near fresh or salt water and indicate exploitation of aquatic resources was relatively intensive. The accumulations of cultural debris and habitation features, such as rock-lined ovens, house floors, burials, hearths, and fire-cracked rock, reflect long- term residential occupation.

In the western margins of the San Joaquin Valley, discrete cemeteries date to the Upper Archaic Period. In the southern San Joaquin Valley, villages on the shores of Buena Vista Lake were occupied year-round. Trade in marine shell beads and obsidian, among other items, continued to be important.

Emergent/Late Prehistoric Period (cal A.D. 1100 – Historic Contact)

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
The archaeological record in the Central Valley for the Emergent/Late Prehistoric Period documents an increase in the diversity and number of artifacts and in the number of archaeological sites. Along with an increase in sedentism and population that led to the development of social stratification, with an elaborate ceremonial and social organization, a number of cultural innovations shaped the

3.5 -2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Emergent Period. These include the introduction of the bow and arrow and more diverse fishing equipment (bone fish hooks, harpoons, and gorge hooks). Fishing, hunting, and gathering plant foods continue as the foci of subsistence practices, including inten sive harvesting of acorns and an increased emphasis on fishing. Hopper mortars and shaped mortars and pestles, as well as bone awls used for producing coiled baskets, are common. Locally made Cosumnes Brownware has been recovered from some sites in the lower Sacramento Valley, while pottery in the Tulare basin was obtained through trade. Baked clay balls, probably used for cooking in the absence of stone, remain common.

Ceremonial and ritual items include flanged tubular pipes and baked clay effigies representing humans and animals. Clamshell disk beads were used as currency and accompanied the development of extensive exchange networks. Mortuary practices included flexed burials, the cremation of high-status individuals, and pre -interment burning of offerings in grave pits. Overall, the cultural patterns known from historic period Native American groups inhabiting the Central Valley are reflected in the subsistence and land use patterns practiced during the Emergent Period.

ETHNOLOGY
The P
lan Area is located within the traditional territory of the Yokuts. Historically, the Yokuts collectively inhabited the San Joaquin Valley as well as the eastern foothills of the Sierra Nevada from the Calaveras River southward to the Kern River. Ethnographers and linguists have traditionally divided Yokuts into three geographic groups, based on l inguistic similarities and differences:

Northern Valley, Southern Valley, and Foothill. The Plan Area is located in the area historically occupied by the Northern Valley Yokuts according to Kroeber (1925: 462), who suggested that they lived along the San Joaquin River. The Northern Valley Yokuts tribes’ territory extended southward from the Calaveras River to the upper San Joaquin River and from the crest of the Coast (Diablo) Range east to the Sierra Nevada foothills.

Information on the Yokuts lifeways has been compiled by Kroeber (1925:474-543), Wallace (1978:462-470), and Latta (1977) and is summarized here. The Northern Valley Yokuts grouping consisted of 11 or more tribes, each containing 300 or so people. Most members lived within a single settlement that often had the same name as the political unit. These were generally established on low rises along the major watercourses. The eastern side of the San Joaquin River was more heavily populated than the land to the west of the river, due to greater water availability. A village generally contained at least three types of structures – oval single-family dwellings made of tule, ceremonial chambers, and sweathouses. According to Kroeber’s informants, a tribe of Yokuts kn own as the Heuchi lived close to the Plan Area, near Fresno River (1925: 470).

The fundamental economy of the Yokuts was subsistence fishing, hunting, and collecting plant foods. Acorns, collected in the fall and then stored in granaries, were a staple food (Wallace 1978:464). During the fall and spring runs, salmon was a dietary mainstay. Wildfowl, such as geese and ducks, were also an important staple. Additional dietary plant parts included seeds, berries and tule roots. Large game included deer, elk, antelope, and black bears.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-3

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
A wide variety of tools, implements, and enclosures were used by the Northern Valley Yokuts to gather, collect, and process food resources. These included bow and arrows, nets, traps, slings, and blinds for hunting land mammals and birds; and harpoons, hoo ks, and nets, as well as tule rafts.

Sharpened digging sticks and woven tools (seed beaters, burden baskets, and carrying nets) would have been used to collect plant resources and a variety of implements (stone mortars and pestles, bedrock and portable mor tars, stone knives, and bone tools) used for processing resources. The Northern Valley Yokuts traded with neighboring groups for bows and arrows, baskets, shell ornaments and beads, obsidian, and mussels and abalone.

The San Joaquin Valley was never settled during the Spanish and Mexican periods, but influences from the coastal missions and presidios were felt inland by the late 1700s. By 1805, Northern Valley Yokuts were transported to the San José, Santa Clara, Soledad, San Juan Bautista, and San Antonio missions that were established during the Spanish era. Later, disease and military raids claimed many lives during the Mexican period, followed by displacement during the early American Period by gold seekers and farmers.

Pre-contact p opulation density for Northern Valley Yokuts has been estimated at 25,000 to 31,000.

In 1852, representatives of only three Northern Valley Yokuts tribes (including the Heuchi) remained to sign one of a series of statewide treaties. Today, Yokuts communities are found on the Tule River Reservation in Tulare County and on three rancherias: Picayune in Madera County at Coarsegold, Santa Rosa in Kings County, and Table Mountain in Fresno County near Friant. Some Foothill Yokuts also live with Central Sierran Miwok on the Tuolumne Rancheria in Tuolumne County.

HISTORIC PERIOD BACKGROUND
The general history of the exploration and settlement of Fresno County has been documented in a number of sources. This section focuses on the specific history of Fresno and the Plan Area.

Spanish Exploration
Juan Cabrillo was the first European to sail along the coast of California in 1542 and was followed in 1602 by Sebastian Vizcaino (Bean and Rawls 1993). The Spanish colonization of what was then known as Alta California began with the 1769 overland expedition, led by Gaspar de Portolá, with a crew of 63 men, in order to explore the land between San Diego and Monterey. Between 1769 and 1822, the Spanish had colonized California and established missions, presidios, and pueblos and documented the people and landscape along the way (McCawley 1996).

Following the Portolá Expedition, vast tracts of land were granted to the missions. The goals of the missions were tri-fold: they establish a Spanish presence on the west coast, proselytize Christianity to the native peoples, and serve to exploit the native population as laborers. The Spanish also hoped each mission would become a town center, whereas, “the pueblo would receive a ground of four square leagues of land… and other property would be parceled out among the Indians”. The missionaries, or padres, would essentially serve as a mayor, or head of the town (Bean 1968).

3.5 -4 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

Mexican Period

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
In 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain and worked to lessen the wealth and power held by the missions. The Secularization Act was passed in 1833, appropriating the vast mission lands to the Mexican governor and downgrading the missions’ status to that of parish churches. The governor then redistributed the former mission lands, in the form of land grants, to private owners (Bean and Rawls 1993). The lands were typically granted to soldiers who proved their loyalty to the Mexican government once liberated from the Spanish crown.

Fresno History
The County of Fresno was founded in 1856 from portions of Tulare, Merced, and Mariposa Counties.

In 1872, Central Pacific Railroad, predecessor to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, arrived in the San Joaquin Valley. The local train station, “Fresno Station,” represented the epicenter of Fresno (Planning Resource Associates, Inc. 2008).

Fresno’s original land plan was organized on a grid system which extended eastward from the Central Pacific Railroad tracks along what is currently H Street. In 1872, the Railroad began selling lots to entrepreneurs and by the end of the year Fresno consisted of a few residentia l homes, multiple livery stables, four restaurants and hotels, and two stores (Planning Resource Associates, Inc. 2008).

In 1874, the Fresno County seat was transferred from Millerton, which had experienced years of floods and a catastrophic fire, to the City of Fresno (Hoover & Kyle 2002). Fresno’s new position as the County seat resulted in a boost of prosperity and by 1885 Fresno was incorporated with a population of approximately 2,000 (Victor Gruen Associates 1968).

Fresno’s economic success came from its agricultural production in conjunction with the railroad.

Fresno County became the number one agricultural producer in California in addition to one of the nation’s best producers of cotton, figs, grapes, and raisin s (Hoover & Kyle 2002). In 1911, the Sun - Maid Raisin Cooperative was founded in the city of Fresno as the principle packing center and hosted multiple packinghouses throughout the city (Hattersley-Drayton 2013). To this day, Fresno County is ranked as one of the nation’s highest agricultural producer, with commodities valued at over $8 billion in 2022.

By the late 1890s and early 1900s, Fresno’s population and economy continued to grow with the U.S. Census showing the city’s population doubling from 12,470 in 1900 to 24,892 in 1910 (U.S.

Census 1910). The Fresno City Board of Trustees approved the establishment of the City’s first planning commission in 1916, in anticipation of further growth. By 1923 , the plans were adopted and included parks and recreation centers, and streets to accommodate the increased population (Planning Resource Associates, Inc. 2008).

Fresno’s early 20th century residential development located north of the downtown area caused the expansion of the electric Fresno Street Railway established in 1888. The Railway was later taken over by the Fresno City Railway Company in 1901 and built northward to connect the suburban areas Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-5

to the city’s center. The electric streetcar would remain the primary form of mass transit in Fresno until its replacement by the bus by 1939 (Planning Resource Associates, Inc. 2008).

During the Post -War Economic Boom (1945-1973), the population shifted from Fresno’s center to the newly developed suburbs as a result of increased population and increase in personal car ownership. This shift in population caused the decline of the city’s urban center and in the 1960s, Fresno began an urban revitalization project for downtown resulting in the construction of the Fulton Mall in 1964. This six-block pedestrian mall was considered an innovative model and effective response to what was considered at the time to be America’s “Urban Crisis” (Victor Gruen Associates 1968).

During the 1970s to 1990s, development continued to expand outward from Fresno’s city center.

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
Plan Area History
The Plan Area boundaries are defined by Clinton Avenue at its southern boundary, North Garfield Avenue at its western boundary, and the State Route 99 ( SR-99) running northwest/southeast connecting the northern end of Garfield Avenue to the eastern end of Clinton Avenue. Historic topographic maps from 1923 (Bullard 7.5x15 minute) to approximately 1965 (Fresno North 7.5 minute) show the vast majority of the Plan Area occupied by farmland and various farmhouses. The Post-War Economic Boom (1945 -1973) is depicted in historic aerials from 1962 and 1972 as an increase in tract homes on previous agricultural land as the population shifted from urban to suburban locations. The tract homes spread west of SR-99 through the Plan Area. By 1998, nearly a third of the Plan Area was developed and closely resembled the Plan Area’s built environment at it exists today.

CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
California Historic Resources Information System
The purpose of the cultural records search is to identify all previously recorded cultural resources (prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, historic buildings, structures, objects, or districts) within the Plan Area. All cultural resources, as well as cultural resource surveys, performed within the Plan Area boundaries were reviewed.

A search of the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) was requested from the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) located at California State University, Bakersfield on July 30, 2019, which included the entire Plan Area. Results of the record search indicate that 36 previous studies have been completed within the Plan Area (Table 3.5-1).

In addition to the SSJVIC records search, a variety of sources were consulted to obtain information regarding the cultural context of the Plan Area. Sources included the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), California Historical Resources Inventory (CHRI), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), and California Points of Historical Inte rest (CPHI). Specific information about the Plan Area, obtained from historic -era maps and aerial photographs, is presented in the Plan Area History section.

3.5 -6 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

TABLE 3.5-1: PREVIOUS STUDIES WITHIN THE PLAN AREA
REPORT
NO. (FR-) AUTHOR(S) TITLE YEAR
00069 Hudlow, Scott M. and
de la Garza, Theresa
A Phase I Architectural Survey for the Highway City Specific Plan Area City of Fresno, California
1996
00135 Hatoff, Brian, Voss,
Barb, Waechter,
Sharon, Benté, Vance,
Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project.
1995
and Wee, Stephen
00166 Kus, James S. Negative Archaeological Survey Report for Proposed Fresno Housing Authority Clinton Avenue Project
1994
00191 Wren, Donald G. An Archaeological Survey: Central Unified School District Stadium Project 1998 00271 Bissonnette, Linda
Dick
Cultural Resources Survey for Central Unified School District Adult School, Fresno County, California
1991
00287 Bissonnette, Linda Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment: Central Unified School District, 1992 Dick Milburn/Dakota Elementary School Site, Fresno County, California 00294 Bissonnette, Linda Cultural Resources Assessment for the Central Unified School District, 1993 Dick New High School Project, Northwest of Dakota and Cornelia Avenues, Fresno County
00302 Bissonnette, Linda
Dick
Grantland Avenue Sewer
Resources Assessment
Trunk and Herndon Expressway Cultural 1994
00393 Dondero, Steven Negative Archaeological Survey
Overcrossing, Fresno County
Report for the Herndon Avenue 1988
00433 Davis, Alan, Dick,
Linda, and Varner,
Dudley
An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Gates Substation to the Proposed Gregg Substation 500 KV Transmission Line, Fresno and Madera Counties
1977
00447 Jackson, Scott R. Environmental Impact Evaluation: An Archaeological Assessment of God's Family Church Property, Fresno County, California
1990
00677 Roop, William A Cultural Resources Evaluation of Tracts 4488 (APN 311-03124) and 4581 (APN 404-071-17), Fresno, Fresno County, California
1993
00760 Varner, Dudley M. Highway City Sewer Project (Improvement Dist. #166) 1974 01640 Binning, Jeanne Day Negative Archaeological Survey Report Installation of Traffic Surveillance Stations along Interstate 5, State Route 41, and State Route 99 in Madera and Fresno Counties
1999
01656 Wren, Donald G. A Cultural Resource Study: Stormwater Retention Fresno County, California
Basin EN and EO, 2000
01702 Wren, Donald G. A Cultural Resource Study: Basin CD Project, Fresno County, California 2001 01710 Szeto, Andy Site Location Map and Site Description for PL-754-01 1998 01808 Wren, Donald G. An Archaeological Survey Central Unified Education County, California
Center, Fresno 2002
01811 Hildebrand, Karen and
Roper, C. Kristina
Hardpan and Adobe Brick: A National Register Evaluation of Two Highway City Adobe Buildings, Fresno, California
1997
01942 Hudlow, Scott M. and
de la Garza, Theresa
A Phase I Architectural Survey for the Highway City Specific Plan Area, City of Fresno, California
1996
01953 Wren, Donald G. Draft Environmental Impact Report: Central Unified Education Center:

State Clearinghouse No. 2002021064
2002
02029 Brady, Jon L. Historic Property Survey for the Proposed La Estancia Housing Project, Fresno, California
2004
02212 Nettles, Wendy M. Phase I Cultural Resources Study of Assessor's Parcel No. 311140-14, 5901 W. Shaw Avenue, Fresno, California
2006
02227 Losee, Caroyln New Tower Submission Packet, FCC Form 620 2006 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-7

REPORT
NO. (FR-) AUTHOR(S) TITLE YEAR
02256 Hobbs, Kelly Historic Property Survey Report: State Route Interchange Improvement Project, Fresno, California
99/Shaw Avenue 2002
02256 Brady, Jon Underground Caverns 4951 N. Dale, Fresno California, Historic Evaluation and Determination of Significance
2000
02256 Kiaha, Krista Archaeological Survey Report for the Shaw Avenue Reconstruction at State Route 99 Fresno County, California Interchange 2001
02256 Hobbs, Kelly Historic Architecture Survey Report/Historic Resource State Route 99/Shaw Avenue Interchange Improvements
Evaluation for 2002

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
SOURCE: COGSTONE, 2019.

The results of the records search indicate a total of 82 cultural resources have been previously recorded within the Plan Area. Of these cultural resources, four are historic archaeological sites and 78 are historic built environment resources. No fossils are known from the Plan Area or the Fresno area. No prehistoric archaeological sites have been previously recorded within the Plan Area.

Four historical archaeological sites have been recorded in the Plan Area. Three of the historic archaeological sites are in the vicinity of Teague Elementary School and one historic archaeological site, the San Joaquin River Quarry, is located just south of Highway 99 in the northern portion of the Plan Area.

Historical resources include current and former locations of historic buildings, historical archaeological sites (often near historic use areas) and the location of extant historic homes more than 45 years old. The majority of the historic built resources are historic residences clustered around North Polk Avenue and West Acacia Avenue in the northern portion of the Plan Area.

NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION
Pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52, consultation letters were sent via certified mail on August 20, 2019 requesting information related to cultural resources or heritage sites within the Plan Area. Additional attempts at contact were made by email or phone on September 6 and September 19, 2019. The letters were sent to: the Native American Heritage Commission; Ms.

Elizabeth D. Kipp, Chairperson, Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians; Carol Bill, Chairperson, Cold Springs Rancher ia; Mr. Robert Ledger Sr ., Chairperson, Dumna Wo -Wah Tribal Government; Mr. Benjamin Charley Jr., Tribal Chair, Dunlap Band of Mono Indians; Mr. Dick Charley, Tribal Secretary, Dunlap Band of Mono Indians; Mr. Stan Alec, Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe; Mr. Ron Goode, Chairperson, N orth Fork Mono Tribe; Mr. Rueben Barrios Sr., Chairperson, Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe; Ms. Leanne Walker -Grant, Chairperson, and Mr. Bob Pennell, Cultural Resources Director, Table Mountain Rancheria; Mr. David Alvarez, Chairperson, and M r.

Rick Osborne, Cultural Resources, Traditional Choinumni Tribe; a nd Mr. Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson, Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band. To date, three responses have been received and are summarized below. All consultation correspondence and a contact log are provided in Appendix C of Appendix D.
• On August 26, 2019 Mr. Charley, tribal secretary for the Dunlap Band of Mono Indians, responded via phone that the Plan Area is outside the Tribe's interest and that they would

3.5 -8 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
not be commenting or requesting consultation. Mr. Charley recommended contacting Big Sandy or Table Mountain Rancheria for comments.
• On September 19, 2019 Mr. Alec of the Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe, responded via phone that the Tribe has no concerns with the Specific Plan. • On August 6, 2019, Mr. Pennell, Cultural Resources Director of the Table Mountain Rancheria, responded by letter stating that the Tribe is interested in the Specific Plan and requested any cultural resource reports received from the record search. Mr. Pennell requested that the City contact the Tribal office to coordinate a discussion and meeting date for the Specific Plan. On October 7, 2019 Cogstone replied to Mr. Pennell with the results of the cultural records search.

3.5.2 REGULATORY SETTING
There are a number of regulatory agencies whose responsibility includes the oversight of the cultural and tribal cultural resources of the state and nation including the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), National Register of Historic Places, and the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). These agencies often oversee the preservation of historic, cultural and tribal cultural resources. The following is an overview of the federal, State and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.

FEDERAL
National Historic Preservation Act
Most regulations at the Federal level stem from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and historic preservation legislation such as the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. NHPA established guidelines to "preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and to maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and a variety of individual choice." The NHPA includes regulations specifically for Federal land - holding agencies, but also includes regulations (Section 106) which pertain to all projects that are funded, permitted, or approved by any Federal agency and which have the potential to affect cultural resources. All projects that are subject to NEPA are also subject to compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and NEPA requirements concerning cultural resources. Provisions of NHPA establish a National Register of Historic Places (The National Register) maintained by the National Park Service, the Advisory Councils on Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Offices, and grants-in-aid programs.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act and Native American Graves and Repatriation Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act recognizes that Native American religious practices, sacred sites, and sacred objects have not been properly protected under other statutes. It establishes as national policy that traditional practices and beliefs, sites (including right of access), and the use of sacred objects shall be protected and preserved. Additionally, Native American remains are protected by the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act of 1990.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-9

Other Federal Legislation

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
Historic preservation legislation was initiated by the Antiquities Act of 1966, which aimed to protect important historic and a rchaeological sites. It established a system of permits for conducting archaeological studies on Federal land, as well as setting penalties for noncompliance. This permit process controls the disturbance of archaeological sites on Federal land. New permits are currently issued under the Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979. The purpose of ARPA is to enhance preservation and protection of archaeological resources on public and Native American lands. The Historic Sites Act of 1935 declared that it is national policy to “Preserve for pub lic use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance.” STATE
California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR)
California State law also provides for the protection of cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources identified in documents prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Und er CEQA, a cultural resource is considered an important historical resource if it meets any of the criteria found in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Criteria identified in the CEQA Guidelines are similar to those described under the NHPA.

The St ate Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains the CRHR. Historic properties listed, or formally designated for eligibility to be listed, on the National Register are automatically listed on the CRHR. State Landmarks and Points of Interest are also automatically listed. The CRHR can also include properties designated under local preservation ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA requires that lead agencies determine whether projects may have a significant effect on archaeological and historical resources. This determination applies to those resources which meet significance criteria qualifying them as “unique,” “important,” listed on the CRHR, or eligible for listing on the CRHR. If the agency determines that a project may have a significant effect on a significant resource, the project is determined to have a significant effect on the environment, and these effects must be ad dressed. If a cultural resource is found not to be significant under the qualifying criteria, it need not be considered further in the planning process.

CEQA emphasizes avoidance of archaeological and historical resources as the preferred means of reducing potential significant environmental effects resulting from projects. If avoidance is not feasible, an excavation program or some other form of mitigation must be developed to mitigate the impacts. In order to adequately address the level of potential impacts, and thereby design appropriate mitigation measures, the significance and nature of the cultural resources must be determined. The following are step s typically taken to assess and mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources for the purposes of CEQA:
• Identify cultural resources,
• evaluate the significance of the cultural resources found,

3.5 -10 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
• evaluate the effects of the project on cultural resources, and • develop and implement measures to mitigate the effects of the project on cultural resources that would be significantly affected.

Treatment of paleontological resources under CEQA is generally similar to treatment of cultural resources, requiring evaluation of resources in a project’s area of potential affect, assessment of potential impacts on significant or unique resources, and development of mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts, which may include monitoring combined with data recovery and/or avoidance. Impacts to paleontological resources are discussed in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils.

State Laws Pertaining to Human Remains
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the county coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If the remain s are determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the California Native American Heritage Commission. CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.5) specify the procedures to be followed in case of the discovery of human remains on non-Federal land. The disposition of Native American burials falls within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission.

State Laws Pertaining to Paleontological Resources
Section 5097.5 of the California Public Resources Code prohibits “knowing and willful” excavation, removal, destruction, injury, and defacement of any “vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints,” on public lands, except where the agency with jurisdiction has granted express permission. “As used in this section, ‘public lands’ means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.” Section 30244 of the California Public Resources Code requires reasonable mitigation for impacts on paleontological resources that occur as a result of development on public lands.

The California Administrative Code relating to the State Division of Beaches and Parks afford s protection to geologic features and “paleontological materials” but grant the director of the State park system authority to issue permits for specific activities that may result in damage to such resources, if the activities are in the interest of the State park system and for State park purposes (California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 4307–4309).

Senate Bill 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes 2004)
Senate Bill ( SB) 18, authored by Senator John Burton and signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in September 2004, requires local (city and county) governments to consult with California Native American tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cult ural places (“cultural places”) through local land use planning. This legislation, which amended §65040.2, §65092, §65351, §65352, and §65560, and added §65352.3, §653524, and §65562.5 to the Government Code; also requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to include in the General Plan Guidelines advice to local governments on how to conduct these consultations.

The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-11

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places. These consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of both general plans (defined in Government Code §65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in Government Code §65450 et seq.).

Assembly Bill 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014)
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of CEQA and equates significant impacts on “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts (PRC Section 21084.2). AB 52 defines a “California Native American Tribe” as a Native American tribe located in California, and included on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. AB 52 requires formal consultation with California Native American Tribes prior to determining the level of enviro nmental document if a tribe has requested to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects. AB 52 also requires that the consultation address project alternatives and mitigation measures, for significant effects, if requested by the California Native American Tribe, and that consultation be concluded when either the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, or the agency concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.

LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan identifies the following objectives and policies related to cultural and tribal resources:

HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT
Objective HCR-1: Maintain a comprehensive, citywide preservation program to identify, protect and assist in the preservation of Fresno’s historic and cultural resource.

Policy HCR-1-a: Maintain the City’s status as a Certified Local Government (CLG), and use CLG practices as the key components of the City’s preservation program.

Policy HCR -1-b: Maintain the Preservation Office, Historic Preservation Commission, and preservation program to administer the City’s preservation functions and programs.

Policy HCR-1-c: Maintain the provisions of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, as may be amended, and enforce the provisions as appropriate.

Objective HCR -2: Identify and preserve Fresno’s historic and cultural resources that reflect important cultural, social, economic, and architectural features so that residents will have a foundation upon which to measure and direct physical change.

Policy HCR-2-a: Work to identify and evaluate potential historic resources and districts and prepare nomination forms for Fresno’s Local Register of Historic Resources and California and National registries, as appropriate.

3.5 -12 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Policy HCR -2-b: Prepare historic surveys according to California Office of Historic Preservation protocols and City priorities as funding is available.

Policy HCR-2-c: Prior to project approval, continue to require a project site and its Area of Potential Effects (APE), without benefit of a prior historic survey, to be evaluated and reviewed for the potential for historic and/or cultural resources by a professional who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Qualifications. Survey costs shall be the responsibility of the project developer. Council may, but is not required, to adopt an ordinance to implement this policy.

Policy HCR-2-d: Work with local Native American tribes to protect recorded and unrecorded cultural and sacred sites, as required by State law, and educate developers and the community-at-large about the connections between Native American history and the environmental features that characterize the local landscape.

Policy HCR -2-e: Develop and adopt Alternate Public Improvement Standards for historic landscapes to ensure that new infrastructure is compatible with the landscape; meets the needs of diverse users, including motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians; and provides for proper traffic safety and drainage.

Policy HCR-2-f: Consider State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines when establishing CEQA mitigation measures for archaeological resources.

Policy HCR-2-g: Review all demolition permits to determine if the resource scheduled for demolition is potentially eligible for listing on the Local Register of Historic Resources.

Consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance, refer potentially eligible resources t o the Historic Preservation Commission and as appropriate to the City Council.

Policy HCR-2-h: Continue to support enforcement of the minimum maintenance provisions of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, as may be amended, and enforce the provisions as appropriate.

Policy HCR-2-i: Consider creating a preservation mitigation fund to help support efforts to preserve and maintain historic and cultural resources.

Policy HCR-2-j: City staff will evaluate potential opportunities for identification of window replacements to ensure historic integrity is maintained while encouraging sustainability. In addition, city staff will evaluate window replacements in federally funded housing projects on a project by -project basis with consideration for health, safety, historic values, sustainability, and financial feasibility.

Policy HCR-2-k: Maintain all City -owned historic and cultural resources in a manner that is consistent with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, as appropriate.

Policy HCR-2-l: Establish an inter-departmental Historic Preservation team to coordinate on matters of importance to history and preservation.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-13

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
Policy HCR -2-m: Recommend that property owners, who receive funds from the City of Fresno for rehabilitation of a property, consent to listing it on the Local Re gister of Historic Resources if the property meets the criteria for age, significance, and integrity.

Publicly funded rehabilitation properties which may meet Local Register criteria will be presented to the City’s Historic Preservation Commission for review.

Policy HCR-2-n: Identify all historic resources within the city designated on the Local, State, or National register, and potential significant resources (building, structure, object or site) in existence for at least 45 years, and provide this information on the City’s website.

Objective HCR-3: Promote a “New City Beautiful” ethos by linking historic preservation, public art, and planning principles for Complete Neighborhoods with green building and technology.

Policy HCR -3-a: Promote the adaptive reuse and integration of older buildings into new projects as part of the City’s commitment to nurturing a sustainable Fresno.

Policy HCR-3-a: Collaborate with the arts community to promote the integration of public art into historic buildings and established neighborhoods. Lin k arts activities (such as Art Hop) with preservation activities.

Policy HCR-3-c: Work with architects, developers, business owners, local residents and the historic preservation community to ensure that infill development is context sensitive in its design, massing, setbacks, color, and architectural detailing.

Objective HCR-4: Foster an appreciation of Fresno’s history and cultural resources.

Policy HCR-4-a: Foster cooperation with public agencies and non-profit groups to provide activities and educational opportunities that celebrate and promote Fresno’s history and heritage.

Policy HCR -4-b: Promote heritage tourism and the public’s involvement in preservation through conferences, walking tours, publications, special events, and involvement with the local media.

Policy HCR -4-c: Provide training, consultation, and support in collaboration with Historic Preservation Commissioners to community members regarding Fresno’s history, use of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and the California Historical Building Code, as time and resources allow.

Policy HCR-4-d: Maintain public archives that include information on all designated historic properties, as well as historic surveys, preservation bulletins, and general local history reference materials. Post survey reports, Historic Preservation Commission minutes and agendas, and other information of public interest on the historic preservation page of the City’s website.

3.5 -14 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
Policy HCR -4-e: Continue to recognize the best work in preservation and neighborhood revitalization as may be appropriate through programs such as the biennial Mayoral Preservation Awards program.

Policy HCR-4-f: Investigate the potential for developing a Mills Act program and possible sources of funding for the Historic Rehabilitation Financing Program.

City of Fresno Historic Preservation Ordinance
Article 16, Historic Preservation Ordinance, of Chapter 12 of the City’s Municipal Code provides standards for historic and cultural resources in an effort to preserve, promote and improve the historic resources and districts of the city of Fresno for educational, cultural, economic and general welfare of the public; protect and review changes to these resources and districts which have a distinctive character or a special historic, architectural, aesthetic or cultural value to this city, state and nation; safeguard the heritage of the city by preserving and regulating its historic buildings, structures, objects, sites and districts which reflect elements of the city's historic, cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history; preserve and enhance the environmental quality and safety of these landmarks and districts; and to establish, stabilize and improve property values and to foster economic development.

The Ordinance establishes three categories of designation for properties in Fresno : Historic Resource, Historic District, Heritage Property, and Contributor to Historic Distric t. The criteria for City of Fresno historic designation correspond closely with criteria established for State and National Register eligibility, and are as follows:

HISTORIC RESOURCE DESIGNATION
The City of Fresno Historic Preservation Commission and City Council may designate any building, structure, object or site as a Historic Resource if it is found to meet the following criteria:

It has been in existence more than 50 years and it possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and:
a) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
b) It is associated with the lives of persons significant in or past; or c) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or d) It has yielded or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Additionally, a property may be eligible for designation as a Historic Resource if it is less than 50 years old and meets the above-listed criteria, and is found to have exceptional importance within an appropriate historical context at the local, state, or national level.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-15

HERITAGE PROPERTY DESIGNATION
Any building, structure, object or site may also be eligible for designation as a Heritage Property by the City of Fresno Historic Preservation Commission if it is found by the Commission to be worthy of preservation because of its historical, architectural, or aesthetic merit.

LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION
In order for a group of properties to be designated as a Local Historic District (LHD) by the City of Fresno, there must be a finite group of resources related to one another in a clearly distinguishable way; or a geographically definable area that possesses a signifi cant concentration, linkage or continuity of sites, buildings, structures or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. Additionally, the proposed LHD must meet one or more of the following criteria:

1. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural heritage; or

2. It is identified with a person or group that contributed significantly to the culture and development of the city; or

3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or

4. Structures within the area exemplify a particular architectural style or way of life to the city; or

5. The area is related to a designated historic resource or district in such a way that its preservation is essential to the integrity of the designated resource or Local Historic District; or

6. The area has potential for yielding information of archaeological interest.

CONTRIBUTORS TO HISTORIC DISTRICTS

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
Any building, structure, object or site may be designated as Contributor to a Local Historic District or a proposed National Register Historic District if it contributes to the significance of the specific Historic District under the criteria set forth above in this section.

3.5.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project is considered to have a significant impact on cultural and tribal resources if it will:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5;
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5;
• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

3.5-16 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
o Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
o A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts to paleontological resources are discussed in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Impact 3.5- 1: Specific Plan implementation may cause a substantial adverse change to a significant historical or archaeological resource, as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 , or a significant tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code §21074. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
According to the Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment, a total of 82 cultural resources have been previously recorded within the Plan Area. Of these cultural resources, four are historic archaeological sites and 78 are historic built environment resources.

HISTORIC RESOURCES
The majority of the historic built resources within the Plan Area are historic residences clustered around North Polk Avenue and West Acacia Avenue. However, as full buildout of the Specific Plan would occur over several years, there is the potential for other buildings to reach 45 years old during implementation of the Specific Plan. Any future development within the Plan Area with the potential to impact a historic resource or potentially historic resource would be required to comply with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance , CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 regarding determining significant impacts to historic resources, and Mitigation Measure 3.5-1. Project specific mitigation measures would be required to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource. It is not anticipated that future ground disturbing activities associated with future development projects within the Plan Area would result in impacts to historical resources.

However, future development in proximity to a historic resource or potentially historic resource would be reviewed for the potential to generate vibration that could result in damage to a historic resource pursuant to CEQA. Potential impacts to historic resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-17

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
Although n o prehistoric archaeological sites have been recorded within the Plan Area , u nknown resources may be present. Four historical archaeological sites have been recorded in the Plan Area.

Three of the historic archaeological sites are in the vicinity of the Teague School and one historic archaeological site, the San Joaquin River Quarry, is located just south of SR 99 in the northern portion of the Plan Area. No other archaeological resources have been identified in the Plan Area.

Ground disturbing activities associated with future development projects within the Plan Area could result in impacts to currently unknown archaeological resources. The implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-2 requiring ground disturbance activities to be halted, a qualified archaeologist to be retained, and mitigation measures for the handling of any resource to be implemented, would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level.

TRIBAL RESOURCES
According to the NAHC, there are no known sacred lands within the Plan Area. Consultation requests were made to Native American Tribes pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52 to ascertain the potential for tribal cultural resources to occur within the area. To date, three responses have been received and are summarized below.
• On August 26, 2019 Mr. Charley, tribal secretary for the Dunlap Band of Mono Indians, responded via phone that the Specific Plan is outside the Tribe's interest and that they would not be commenting or requesting consultation. Mr. Charley recommended contacting Big Sandy or Table Mountain Rancheria for comments.
• On August 6, 2019, Mr. Pennell, Cultural Resources Director of the Table Mountain Rancheria, responded with by letter stating that the Tribe is interested in the Specific Plan and requested any cultural resource reports received from the record search. Mr. Pennell requested that the City contact the Tribal office to coordinate a discussion and meeting date for the Specific Plan. On 10/7/2019 Cogstone replied to Mr. Pennell with the results of the cultural records search.
• On September 19, 2019 Mr. Alec of the Kings River Choinumni Farm Tribe, responded via phone that t he Tribe has no concerns with the Specific Plan.

While no specific resources have been identified through consultation with affiliated tribes, it is possible that unknown tribal cultural resources may be present within the Plan Area. Site-specific development projects would be reviewed on a project -by-project basis pursuant to CEQA, which would include AB 52 consultation that could lead to the identification of potential site specific tribal resources. All future development projects would be required to comply with local policies, ordinances, and applicable permitting procedures related to protection o f tribal resources. These include policies included in the proposed Specific Plan that consider State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines when establishing CEQA mitigation measures for archaeological resources; and require a project site and its Area of Potential Effects (APE), without benefit of a prior historic survey, to be evaluate d and reviewed for the potential for historic and/or cultural resources by a professional who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Qualifications. Impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2 . C ompliance with the

3.5-18 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 3.5
State and local guidelines would provide an opportunity to identify, disclose, and avoid or minimize the disturbance of and impacts to a tribal resource through tribal consultation and CEQA review procedures. Therefore, impacts related to tribal resources would be considered less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3. 5-1: The City shall require project applicants for future projects with intact extant building(s) more than 45 years old to provide a historic resource technical study evaluating the significance and data potential of the resource. If significance criteria are met, detailed mitigation reco mmendations shall be included as part of the technical study. All work shall be performed by a qualified architectural historian meeting Secretary of the Interior Standards. The historic resource technical study shall be submitted to the City for review prior to any site disturbance within the vicinity of the building(s).

Mitigation Measure 3.5-2: If cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated artifacts and features) are discovered during the course of construction within the Specific Plan Area, work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the discovery, the City of Fresno shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery.

The City of Fresno shall consider mitigation recommendations presented by the qualified archaeologist for any unanticipated discoveries and future project proponents shall carry out the measures deemed feasible and appropriate. Such measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures. The project proponent shall be required to implement any mitigation necessary for the protection of cultural resources.

Impact 3.5-2: Specific Plan implementation may disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries . (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
There are no human remains or known burial sites identified in the Plan Area. Additionally, there are no human remains or known burial sites that have been identified in the Plan Area on maps and files maintained by the SSJVIC. There have been 36 previous cultural resource studies that examined portions of the Plan Area and no human remains or known burial sites were documented. In addition to the SSJVIC records search, a variety of sources (e.g., NRHP, CRHR, CHRI, CHL, and CPHI) were consulted to obtain information regarding the cultural context of the Plan Area, and no human remains or known burial sites were identified within the Plan Area.

It is not anticipated that future ground disturbing activities associated with future development projects within the Plan Area would result in impacts to human remains or known burial sites given that none are believed to be present. If during ground disturbance activities human remains are discovered, activities would be halted in accordance with Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 and appropriate Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.5-19

3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
steps taken to identify the remains and proper treatment. Compliance with Mitigation Measure 3.5- 3 would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3. 5-3: If human remains are found during ground disturbance activities associated with implementation of the Specific Plan, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 50 feet of the discovery and a qualified archeological m onitor and the coroner of Fresno County shall be contacted as stated in Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 . If it is determined that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if:
a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

3.5-20 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
This section describes the regional geology, site geology, faults and seismicity, seismic hazards, and non-seismic hazard conditions in the regional and the Plan Area. The purpose of this section is to disclose and analyze the potential impacts related to geology and soils associated with development of the proposed Specific Plan. Information in this section is based in part on the following documents, reports, and studies:
• Fresno County General Plan Policy Document General Plan Review (County of Fresno, 2024);
• Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• Fresno Municipal Code (City of Fresno, 2024);
• Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update (Krazen and Associates, 2012); • Fresno County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (County of Fresno, 2018); • Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Fresno West Area Specific Plan Project (Cogstone, October 2019 – included in Appendix D; and • Web Soil Survey (NRCS, 2024).

One comment was received during the public review period for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from Cathy Caples (August 2019). The portion of this comment letter which relates to this topic is addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.

3.6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The Plan Area is in the Great Valley Geomorphic Province, which is about 400 miles long and 50 miles wide between the Coast Ranges and Sierra Nevada . The Plan Area is in the San Joaquin Valley, the southerly of two large valleys comprising the province; the Sacramento Valley is the northerly valley. The San Joaquin Valley is surrounded by the Sierra Nevada to the east, the Coast Ranges to the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Sacramento Valley to the north.
1 The Fresno Metropolitan area is set on gently southwest -sloping alluvial fans and plains formed by the San Joaquin and Kings rivers.2
Great Valley Geomorphic Province
The Great Valley is an alluvial plain drained by the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, which join and enter San Francisco Bay. The eastern border is the west-sloping Sierran bedrock surface, which continues westward beneath alluvium and older sediments. The western border is underlain by 1 California Geological Survey (CGS). 2002, December. Note 36: California Geomorphic Provinces.

Available at: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/cgs_notes/Pages/index.aspx. 2 City of Fresno, 2014. Master Environmental Impact Report General Plan and Development Code Update City of Fresno, Fresno County, California, Section 5.6, Geology and Soils, July 22. https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/Sec-05-06-Geo-Fresno-MEIR.pdf, accessed September 3, 2019.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-1

east-dipping Cretaceous and Cenozoic strata that form a deeply buried synclinal trough, lying beneath the Great Valley along its western side.

SITE GEOLOGY
Soil Survey
A Web Soil Survey was completed for the Plan Area using the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey program. The NRCS Soils Map is provided in Figure 3.6-1. Table 3.6- 1 identifies the type and range of soils found in the Plan Area.

TABLE 3.6-1: PLAN AREA SOILS

NAME ACRES IN PLAN AREA PERCENT OF PLAN AREA
Exeter loam 215.7 3.1%
Exeter sandy loam 1,227.6 17.5%
Exeter sandy loam, shallow 150.2 2.1%
Hanford gravelly sandy loam 15.0 0.2%
Hanford sandy loam, benches 17.3 0.2%
Hesperia fine sandy loam, moderately deep 1.7 0.0%
Pollasky fine sandy loam, 2-9% slopes 2.6 0.0%
Pollasky sandy loam, 9-15% slopes 5.3 0.1%
San Joaquin loam, 0-3% slopes 213.4 3.0%
San Joaquin loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes 757.6 10.8%
San Joaquin sandy loam, 0-3% slopes, MLRA 17 1,523.4 21.7% San Joaquin sandy loam, shallow, 0-3% slopes 2,872.8 41.0% Water 12.1 0.2%

SOURCE EB OIL URVEY
Hanford sandy loam. This soil is located on approximately 32.3 acres on the northern corner of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6 -1). Hanford soils consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in moderately coarse textured alluvium dominantly from granite. Hanford soils are on stream bottoms, floodplains and alluvial fans at elevations of 150 to 3,500 feet. Slopes range from 0 to 15 percent. The climate is dry subhumid mesothermal with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters.

Exeter Loam . This soil is located throughout the plan area , particularly on the eastern half, covering approximately 1,593.5 acres of the Plan area (see Figure 3.6-1). The Exeter series consists of moderately deep to a duripan, moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvium mainly from granitic sources. Exeter soils are on alluvial fans and stream terraces and have slopes of 0 to 9 percent. This soil is used for irrigated cropland growing oranges, olives and deciduous orchards, vineyards and row crops. It is also used for dairy and cattle production and building site development. Vegetation in uncultivated areas is mainly annual grasses and forbs. Moderately well drained; very slow to medium runoff; moderately slow permeability above the duripan.

Permeability of the duripan is very slow.
: NRCS W S S , 2024.

3.6 GEOLOGY , SOILS AND SEISMICITY

3.6-2 Re
circulated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Hesperia Sandy Loam. This soil is located on approximately 1.7 acres on the northern corner of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6 -1). The Hesperia series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in alluvium derived primarily from granite and related rocks. Hesperia soils are on alluvial fans, valley plains and stream terraces and have slopes of 0 to 9 percent. Used for desert range, and for production of irrigated orchards, row crops, field crops, grain, hay, pasture and grapes.

Native vegetation consists of creosotebush in the high desert and sparse annuals in the valley.

Well drained; negligible to low runoff, moderately rapid permeability.

Pollasky Sandy Loam . This soil is located on approximately 7.9 acres on the northern portion of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6 -1). The Pollasky series consists of moderately deep, well drained, moderately coarse textured Regosols formed in the residuum from softly to moderately consolidated arkosic sediments. They occur on undulating to steep dissected terraces under annual grasses and forbs. They have brown, slightly acid sandy loam A horizons and pale brown to yellowish brown, slightly acid to neutral, sandy loam C horizons abruptly overlying consolidated granitic sediments. Pollasky soils occur at elevations below 500 feet to semiarid mesothermal climate having a mean annual precipitation ranging from about 9 to 16 inches with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. The Pollasky series is mapped along the eastern edge of the San Joaquin Valley of California where it is moderately extensive. Used as a nnual range and dry farmed small grain, usually barley, with limited sprinkler irrigated pasture.

San Joaquin Loam . This soil is located throughout the entirety of the plan area on approximately 5,367.2 acres (see Figure 3.6-1). The San Joaquin series consists of moderately deep to a duripan, well and moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvium derived from mixed but dominantly granitic rock sources. They are on undulating low terraces with slopes of 0 to 9 percent. Well and moderately well drained; medium to very high runoff; very slow permeability. Some areas are subject to rare or occasional flooding. Typically used as cropland and livestock grazing; crops are small grains, irrigated pasture and rice; vineyards, fruit and nut crops.

FAULTS AND SEISMICITY
Faults and Fault Systems
A fault is a fracture in the crust of the earth along which rocks on one side have moved relative to those on the other side. A fault trace is the line on the earth's surface defining the fault.

Displacement of the earth's crust along faults releases energy in the form of earthquakes and in some cases in fault creep. Most faults are the result of repeated displacements over a long period of time.

Surface rupture occurs when movement on a fault deep within the earth breaks through to the surface. Surface ruptures have been known to extend up to 50 miles with displacements of an inch to 20 feet. Fault rupture almost always follows preexisting faults, which are zones of weakness.

Rupture may occur suddenly during an earthquake or slowly in the form of fault creep. Sudden displacements are more damaging to structures because they are accompanied by shaking.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-3

The State of California designates faults as active, potentially active, and inactive depending on how recent the movement that can be substantiated for a fault. Table 3.6-2 presents the California fault activity rating system.

TABLE 3.6-2: FAULT ACTIVITY RATING

FAULT ACTIVITY RATING GEOLOGIC PERIOD OF LAST RUPTURE TIME INTERVAL Active (A) Holocene Within last 11,700 Years
Potentially Active (PA) Quaternary Age Undifferentiated Inactive (I) Pre-Quaternary Greater than 1.6 Million Years

3.6 GEOLOGY , SOILS AND SEISMICITY
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CALIFORNIA.

No active faults are mapped within the city of Fresno.3 Active faults are those showing evidence of surface displacement within the last 11,000 years. 4 The nearest faults to the Plan Area include the Nunez fault, located approximately 50 miles to the southwest, and the San Joaquin fault, located approximately 50 miles to the west of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6-2). The San Andreas fault zone is located approximately 60 miles to the southwest of the Plan Area (see Figure 3.6-2).

Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone
A fault rupture occurs when the surface of the earth breaks as a result of an earthquake, although this does not happen with all earthquakes. These ruptures generally occur in a weak area of an existing fault. Ruptures can be sudden (i.e. earthquake) or slow (i.e. fault creep). The Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act requires active earthquake fault zones to be mapped and it provides special development considerations within these zones. The Plan Area does not have surface expression of active faults and fault rupture is not anticipated.

The nearest Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone to the Plan Area is along the Nunez Fault about 50 miles to the southwest (see Figure 3.6-2).

Seismicity
The amount of energy available to a fault is determined by considering the slip -rate of the fault, its area (fault length multiplied by down-dip width), maximum magnitude, and the rigidity of the displaced rocks. These factors are combined to calculate the moment (energy) release on a fault.

The total seismic energy release for a fault source is sometimes partitioned between two different recurrence models, the characteristic and truncated Gutenberg-Richter (G -R) magnitude- frequency distributions. These models incorporate our knowledge of the range of magnitudes and relative frequency of different magnitudes for a particular fault. The partition of moment and the weights for multiple models are given in the following summary.

Earthquakes are generally expressed in terms of intensity and magnitude. Intensity is based on the observed effects of ground shaking on people, buildings, and natural features. By comparison, 3 U.S. Geologic Survey, 2019.
4 California Geological Survey, 2019. Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo, accessed September 3, 2019.

3.6-4 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
magnitude is based on the amplitude of the earthquake waves recorded on instruments, which have a common calibration. The Richter scale, a logarithmic scale ranging from 0.1 to 9.0, with 9.0 being the strongest, measures the magnitude of an earthquake relative to ground shaking. Table

3.6-3 provides a description and a comparison of intensity and magnitude.

The California Building Standards Code (CBSC) places all of California in the zone of greatest earthquake severity because recent studies indicate high potential for severe ground shaking.

TABLE 3.6-3: RICHTER MAGNITUDE SCALE FOR EARTHQUAKES

RICHTER

MAGNITUDE EFFECTS OF INTENSITY

0.1 – 0.9 Earthquake shaking not felt

1.0 – 2.9 Shaking felt by those at rest.

3.0 – 3.9 Felt by most people indoors, some can estimate duration of shaking.

4.0 – 4.5 Felt by most people indoors. Hanging objects rattle, wooden walls and frames creak.

4.6 – 4.9 Felt by everyone indoors, the duration of shaking can be estimated by most people. Standing autos rock. Crockery clashes, dishes rattle and glasses clink. Doors open, close and swing.

5.0 – 5.5 Felt by all who estimate duration of shaking. Sleepers awaken, liquids spill, objects are displaced, and weak materials crack.

5.6 – 6.4 People frightened and walls unsteady. Pictures and books thrown, dishes and glass are broken. Weak chimneys break. Plaster, loose bricks and parapets fall.

6.5 – 6.9 Difficult to stand. Waves on ponds, cohesionless soils slump. Stucco and masonry walls fall.

Chimneys, stacks, towers, and elevated tanks twist and fall.

7.0 – 7.4 General fright as people are thrown down, hard to drive. Trees broken, damage to foundations and frames. Reservoirs damaged, underground pipes broken.

7.5 – 7.9 General panic. Ground cracks, masonry and frame buildings destroyed. Bridges destroyed, railroads bent slightly. Dams, dikes and embankments damaged.

8.0 – 8.4 Large landslides, water thrown, general destruction of buildings. Pipelines destroyed, railroads bent.

8.5 + Total nearby damage, rock masses displaced. Lines of sight/level distorted. Objects thrown into air.

SOURCE: UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.

SEISMIC HAZARDS
Seismic Ground Shaking
The Fresno region has historically been subject to low to moderate ground shaking. Two of the historic earthquakes that caused ground shaking in the region, the Owens Valley Earthquake of 1872 and the Coalinga Earthquake of 1983, each generated ground shaking of intensity VII in the region. Seismic ground shaking in the Plan Area is expected over the lifetime of the Specific Plan implementation.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction typically requires a significant sudden decrease of shearing resistance in cohesionless soils and a sudden increase in water pressure, which is typically associated with an earthquake of high magnitude. The potential for liquefaction is highest when groundwater levels are high, and Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-5

loose, fine, sandy soils occur at depths of less than 50 feet. Liquefaction potential in the city of Fresno is considered low to moderate. 5 No liquefaction has been observed in Fresno from any historic earthquake.6 Additionally, liquefaction zones have not been identified in Fresno County by the State.7
Seismic Ground Settlement
Ground shaking can cause unconsolidated sediments to settle. Due to the nature of the soils underlying the city , and the history of low to moderate ground shaking, seismic settlement is not considered a significant hazard in the region.8
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading typically results when ground shaking moves soil toward an area where the soil integrity is weak or unsupported, and it typically occurs on the surface of a slope, although it does not occur strictly on steep slopes. Oftentimes, lateral spreading is directly associated with areas of liquefaction. Lateral spreading is not considered a substantial hazard in the region for the same reasons given for seismic ground settlement.

Landslides
Landslides include rockfalls, deep slope failure, and shallow slope failure. Factors such as the geological conditions, drainage, slope, vegetation, and others directly affect the potential for landslides. One of the most common causes of landslides is construction activity that is associated with road building (i.e. cut and fill). The potential for landslides is considered remote in the Plan Area, as the site has a relatively flat slope. Additionally, landslide zones have not been identified in Fresno County by the State.9

NON -S EISMIC HAZARDS
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils can undergo significant volume change with changes in moisture content. They shrink and harden when dried and expand and soften when wet. Soils underlying the Fresno region

5 Krazen and Associates, Inc. June 15, 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update. 6 County of Fresno. 2018. Fresno County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=24743
7 California Department of Conservation. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps. Accessed May 27, 2002. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/ 8 Krazen and Associates, Inc. 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update.

Accessed on September 3, 2019.
9 California Department of Conservation. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps. Accessed May 27, 2002. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/

3.6 GEOLOGY , SOILS AND SEISMICITY

3.6-6 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

consist partly of clays that are considered slightly to moderately expansive. 10 The Plan Area is not mapped as having moderate to high expansion potential (County of Fresno, 2018).

Erosion

Erosion naturally occurs on the surface of the earth as surface materials (i.e. rock, soil, debris, etc.) are loosened, dissolved, or worn away, and transported from one place to another by gravity. Two common types of soil erosion include wind erosion and water erosion. The steepness of a slope is an important factor that affects soil erosion. Erosion potential in soils is influenced primarily by loose soil texture and steep slopes. Loose soils can be eroded by water or wind forces, whereas soils with high clay content are generally susceptible only to water erosion. The potential for erosion generally increases as a result of human activity, primarily through the development of facilities and impervious surfaces and the removal of vegetative cover.

The Fresno County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies two types of areas with moderate to high erosion potential: 1) certain soil types in the Sierra Nevada and foothills (both Sierra Nevada and Coast Ranges) on slopes generally over 30 percent, and 2) certain soil types in the western San Joaquin Valley and the Coast Ranges, both in western Fresno County. The Plan Area is not mapped in an area of moderate to high erosion potential (County of Fresno, 2018).

Subsidence

GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Land subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of an area with little or no horizontal motion due to changes taking place underground. It is a natural process, although it can also occur (and is greatly accelerated) as a result of human activities. Common causes of land subsidence from human activity include: pumping water, oil, and gas from underground reservoirs; dissolution of limestone aquifers (sinkholes); collapse of underground mines; drainage of organic soils; and initial wetting of dry soils. The Fresno region is not known to be subject to subsidence hazards. Areas of subsidence in Fresno County mapped in the Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan are in western Fresno County over 20 miles west and southwest from the Plan Area (County of Fresno, 2018).

MINERAL RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION
Pursuant to Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), the California State Mining and Geology Board oversees the mineral resource zone ( MRZ) classification system. The MRZ system characterizes both the location and known/presumed economic value of underlying mineral resources. The mineral resource classification system uses four main MRZs based on the degree of available geologic information, the likelihood of significant mineral resource occurrence, and the known or inferred quantity of significant mineral resources. The four classifications are described in Table 3.6-4.
10 Krazen and Associates, Inc. 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update. Accessed on September 3, 2019.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-7

TABLE 3.6-4: MINERAL RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION
MRZ-1 Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.

MRZ-2 Areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence.

MRZ-3 Areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated.

MRZ-4 Areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ classification.

3.6 GEOLOGY , SOILS AND SEISMICITY
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, 2002.

MINERAL RESOURCES
Mineral resources include commercially viable oil and gas deposits, and nonfuel mineral resources deposits. Nonfuel mineral resources include metals such as gold, silver, iron, and copper; industrial metals such as boron compounds, rare-earth elements, clays, limestone, gypsum, salt, and dimension stone; and construction aggregate, including sand, gravel, and crushed stone. California is the largest producer of sand and gravel in the nation.

According to Fresno County’s General Plan Policy Document General Plan Review, Fresno County has been a leading producer of minerals because of the abundance and wide variety of mineral resources that are present in the county . Extracted resources include aggregate products (sand and gravel), fossil fuels (oil and coal), metals (chromite, copper, gold, mercury, and tungsten), and other minerals used in construction or industrial applications (asbestos, high-grade clay, diatomite, granite, gypsum, and limestone). Aggregate and petroleum are the county’s most significant extractive resources and play an important role in maintaining the county’s overall economy.

The principal area for mineral resources in the c ity is located in and immediately adjacent to the San Joaquin River Corridor. However, the Plan Area is located outside of the immediate vicinity of the San Joaquin River corridor.

The City of Fresno permits mining only within the Mining (M) Overlay District (Citywide Development Code). The Plan Area does not include any land within the M Overlay District. MRZ-2 zones are those areas documented to have regionally significant mineral resources; the Plan Area is not within a MRZ -2 zone . The boundaries of the Plan Area are classified as MRZ -3, which are defined as potential, but unproven mineral resource reserves (State of California, Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 99-02).

LOCATION OF PERMITTED AGGREGATE MINES
The California Office of Mine Reclamation periodically publishes a list of qualified permitted aggregate mines regulated under SMARA that is generally referred to as the AB 3098 List. The Public Contract Code precludes mining operations that are not on the AB 3098 List from selling sand, gravel, aggregates or other mined materials to State or local agencies. As of February 27, 2020, there are no aggregate mines on the AB 3098 list within the Plan Area. The closest mine i s located approximately 0.5 miles west of the Plan Area (the Glamis Pit-Reclaimed Mine; Mine ID # 91-13-0094).

3.6-8 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

3.6.2 REGULATORY SETTING
The following is an overview of the State and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.

STATE
The State of California has established a variety of regulations and requirements related to seismic safety and structural integrity, including the California Building Code, the Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act.

California Building Standards Code
The California Building Standards Code ( CBSC) is included in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and includes the California Building Code (CBC). Under State law, all building standards must be centralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable.

The CBSC is a compilation of three types of building criteria from three different origins:
• Building standards that have been adopted by S tate agencies without change from building standards contained in national model codes;
• Building standards that have been adopted and adapted from the national model code standards to meet California conditions; and
• Building standards, authorized by the California legislature, that constitute extensive additions not covered by the model codes that have been adopted to address particular California concerns.

Through the CBSC, the State provides a minimum standard for building design and construction.

The CB SC contains specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and s ite demolition. It also regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control.

The potential for seismic ground shaking is expected in California. As a result of the foreseeable seismicity in California, the State requires special design considerations for all structural improvements in accordance with the seismic design provisions in the CBSC. These seismic design provisions require enhanced structural integrity based on several risk parameters.

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 sets forth the policies and criteria of the State Mining and Geology Board, which governs the exercise of governments’ responsibilities to prohibit the location of developments and structures for human occupancy across the trace of active faults. The policies and criteria are limited to potential hazards resulting from surface faulting or fault creep within Earthquake Fault Zones, as delineated on maps officially issued by the State Geologist. Working definitions include:

Re
circulated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-9

3.6 GEOLOGY , SOILS AND SEISMICITY
• Fault – a fracture or zone of closely associated fractures along which rocks on one side have been displaced with respect to those on the other side; • Fault Zone – a zone of related faults, which commonly are braided and sub parallel, but may be branching and divergent. A fault zone has a significant width (with respect to the scale at which the fault is being considered, portrayed, or investigated), ranging from a few feet to several miles;
• Sufficiently Active Fault – a fault that has evidence of Holocene surface displacement along one or more of its segments or branches (last 11,000 years); and • Well-Defined Fault – a fault whose trace is clearly detectable by a trained geologist as a physical feature at or just below the ground surface. The geologist should be able to locate the fault in the field with sufficient precision and confidence to indicate that the required site-specific investigations would meet with some success. “Sufficiently Active” and “Well Defined” are the two criteria used by the State to determine if a fault should be zoned under the Alquist-Priolo Act.

The California legislature passed the Alquist -Priolo Special Studies Zone Act in 1972 to address seismic hazards associated with faults and to establish criteria for developments for areas with identified seismic hazard zones. The California Geologic Survey (CGS) evaluates faults with available geologic and seismologic data and determines if a fault should be zoned as active, potentially active, or inactive. If CGS determines a fault to be active, then it is typically incorporated into a Special Studies Zone in accordance with the Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Hazard Act. Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones are usually one-quarter mile or less in width and require site-specific evaluation of fault location and require a structure setback if the fault is found traversing a Project site.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, passed in 1990, addresses non -surface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including liquefaction and seismically -induced landslides. Under the Act, seismic hazard zones are to be mapped by the State Geologist to assist local governments in land use planning.

The program and actions mandated by the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act closely resemble those of the Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (which addresses only surface fault -rupture hazards) and are outlined below:

The State Geologist is required to delineate the various “seismic hazard zones.” • Cities and Counties, or other local permitting authority, must regulate certain development “projects” within the zones. They must withhold the development permits for a site within a zone until the geologic and soil conditions of the site are investigated and appropriate mitigation measures, if any, are incorporated into development plans. • The State Mining and Geology Board provides additional regulations, policies, and criteria, to guide cities and counties in their implementation of the law. The Board also provides guidelines for preparation of the Seismic Hazard Zone Maps and for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards.

3.6 -10 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
• Sellers (and their agents) of real property within a mapped hazard zone must disclose that the property lies within such a zone at the time of sale.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required for discharges of pollutants to navigable waters of the United States, which includes any discharge to surface waters, including lakes, rivers, streams, bays, the ocean, dry stream beds, wetlands, and storm sewers that are tributary to any surface water body. NPDES permits are issued under the Federal Clean Water Act, Title IV, Permits and Licenses, Section 402 (33 USC 466 et seq.) The Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB) issues these permits in lieu of direct issuance by the Environmental Protection Agency, subject to review and approval by the Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator. The terms of these NPDES permits implement pertinent provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act and the Act’s implementing regulations, including pre- treatment, sludge management, effluent limitations for specific industries, and anti -degradation.

In general, the discharge of pollutants is to be eliminated or reduced as much as practicable so as to achieve the Clean Water Act’s goal of “fishable and swimmable” navigable (surface) waters.

Technically, all NPDES permits issued by the RWQCB are also Waste Discharge Requirements issued under the authority of the California Water Code.

These NPDES permits regulate discharges from publicly owned treatment works, industrial discharges, stormwater runoff, dewatering operations, and groundwater cleanup discharges.

NPDES permits are issued for five years or less, and are therefore to be updated regularly. The rapid and dramatic population and urban growth in the Central Valley Region has caused a significant increase in NPDES permit applications for new waste discharges. To expedite the permit issuance process, the RWQCB has adopted several general NPDES permits, each of which regulates numerous discharges of similar types of wastes. The SWRCB issues general permits for stormwater runoff from construction sites statewide. Stormwater discharges from industrial and construction activities in the Central Valley Region can be covered under these general permits, which are administered jointly by the SWRCB and RWQCB.

In accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit requirements, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for projects that disturb at least one acre of soil. The SWPPP must be submitted to the RWQCB.

Mandated by Congress under the Clean Water Act, the NPDES Stormwater Program is a comprehensive two -phased national program for addressing the non-agricultural sources of stormwater discharges which adversely affect the quality of our nation's waters. The program uses the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting mechanism to require the implementation of controls designed to prevent harmful pollutants, including soil erosion, from being washed by stormwater runoff into local water bodies. The construction activities that would occur as part of Specific Plan implementation would be governed by the General Permit 2009 - 0009-DWQ (amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ), which states:

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-11

3.6 GEOLOGY , SOILS AND SEISMICITY
“…Particular attention must be paid to large, mass graded sites where the potential for soil exposure to the erosive effects of rainfall and wind is great and where there is potential for significant sediment discharge from the site to surface waters. Until permanent vegetation is established, soil cover is the most cost -effective and expeditious method to protect soil particles from detachment and transport by rainfall. Temporary soil stabilization can be the single most important factor in reducing erosion at construction sites. The discharger is required to consider measures such as: covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. These erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should no t preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. Erosion control BMPs should be the primary means of preventing storm water contamination, and sediment control techniques should be used to capture any soil that becomes eroded…”
General Permit 2009-0009-DWQ (amended by 2010 -0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ) further states that:
“Sediment control BMPs should be the secondary means of preventing storm water contamination. When erosion control techniques are ineffective, sediment control techniques should be used to capture any soil that becomes eroded. The discharger is required to consider perimeter control measures such as: installing silt fences or placing straw wattles below slopes. These sediment control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed…Inappropriate management of run -on and runoff c an result in excessive physical impacts to receiving waters from sediment and increased flows. The discharger is required to manage all run-on and runoff from a project site. Examples include: installing berms and other temporary run-on and runoff diversions…All measures must be periodically inspected, maintained and repaired to ensure that receiving water quality is protected. Frequent inspections coupled with thorough documentation and timely repair is necessary to ensure that all measures are functioning as intended…” State Laws Pertaining to Paleontological Resources
Section 5097.5 of the California Public Resources Code prohibits “knowing and willful” excavation, removal, destruction, injury, and defacement of any “vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized f ootprints,” on public lands, except where the agency with jurisdiction has granted express permission. “As used in this section, ‘public lands’ means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.”
Section 30244 of the California Public Resources Code requires reasonable mitigation for impacts on paleontological resources that occur as a result of development on public lands.

The California Administrative Code relating to the State Division of Beaches and Parks afford s protection to geologic features and “paleontological materials” but grant the director of the State

3.6 -12 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

park system authority to issue permits for specific activities that may result in damage to such resources, if the activities are in the interest of the State park system and for State park purposes (California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 4307–4309).

LOCAL
Fresno General Plan

The Fresno General Plan establishes the following objectives and policies directly related to geology and soils.

NOISE AND SAFETY ELEMENT

Objective NS-2: Minimize risks of property damage and personal injury posed by geologic and seismic risks.

Policy NS-2-a: Seismic Protection. Ensure seismic protection is incorporated into new and existing construction, consistent with the Fresno Municipal Code.

Policy NS -2-b: Soil Analysis Requirement. Identify areas with potential geologic and/or soils hazards, and require development in these areas to conduct a soil analysis and mitigation plan by a registered civil engineer (or engineering geologist specializing in soil geology) prior to allowing on-site drainage or disposal for wastewater, stormwater runoff, or swimming pool/spa water.

PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT

Objective PU-5: Preserve groundwater quality and ensure that the health and safety of the entire Fresno community is not impaired by use of private, on-site disposal systems.

Policy PU -5-a: Mandatory Septic Conversion. Continue to evaluate and pursue where determined appropriate the mandatory abatement of existing private wastewater disposal (septic) systems and mandatory connection to the public sewage collection and disposal system.

Policy PU -5-b: Non-Regional Treatment. Discourage , and when determined appropriate, oppose the use of private wastewater (septic) disposal systems, community wastewater disposal systems, or other nonregional sewage treatment and disposal systems within or adjacent to the Metropolitan Area if these types of wastewater treatment facilities would cause discharges that could result in groundwater degradation.

Fresno Municipal Code

GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
The City of Fresno has incorporated and adopted the 20 22 CBC with the City's amendments as Municipal Code Section 11-102, referred to as the Fresno Building Code.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-13

3.6 GEOLOGY , SOILS AND SEISMICITY
A preliminary soils report is required under Municipal Code Section 12 -1022 for every subdivision for which a final map is required. Grading and erosion control requirements are set forth in Section 12-1023.

3.6.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Specific Plan will have a significant impact on geology, soils, and seismicity if it will:
• Directly or in directly cause po tential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
o Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault;
o Strong seismic ground shaking;
o Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; and/or o Landslides;
• Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; • Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would beco me unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;
• Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property; and/or • Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

There would be no impact associated with the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, since septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems would not be implemented within the Plan Area as part of Specific Plan implementation. Therefore, this issue will not be addressed further.

Additionally, consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project will have a significant impact on mineral resources if it would:
• Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State; and/or
• Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

3.6 -14 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

Impact 3.6-1: Specific Plan implementation would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking or seismic related ground failure. (Less than Significant)

The Plan Area is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone. There are no known faults (active, potentially active, or inactive) that traverse the c ity. Faults with known or estimated activity during the Holocene are generally located in the San Francisco Bay Area to the west, or in the Lake Tahoe area to the east . However, t he CBSC places all of California in the zone of greatest earthquake severity because recent studies indicate high potential for severe ground shaking.

There is the potential for groundshaking caused by seismic activity anywhere in California, including the Plan Area. In order to minimize potential damage to the buildings and site improvements, all construction in California is required to be designed in accordance with the latest seismic design standards of the CBC. Design in accordance with these standards would reduce any potential impact to a less than significant level. Refer to Impact 3. 6-3 for a discussion of impacts related to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, and liquefaction.

Impact 3.6-2: Specific Plan construction and implementation has the potential to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil . (Less than Significant with Mitigation)

GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
Although the Plan Area is not mapped in an area of moderate to high erosion potential, s oil erosion and the loss of topsoil is one of the most common sources of polluted stormwater runoff during construction activities. When left uncontrolled, storm water runoff can erode soil and cause sedimentation in waterways, which collectively result in the destruction of fish, wildlife, and aquatic life habitats; a loss in aesthetic value; and threats to public health due to contaminated food, drinking water supplies, and recreational waterways.

As noted above in the Regulatory Setting, the future construction activities that would occur as part of Specific Plan implementation would be governed by the General Permit 2009 -0009-DWQ (amended by 2010 -0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ). Construction activities associated with implementation of the Specific plan, would be required to comply with all requirements set forth in the NPDES permit for construction activities, including preparation of a SWPPP containing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and sediments to meet water quality standards.

Such BMPs may include: temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover. The BMPs and overall SWPPP is reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of the permitting process. The SWPPP, once approved, is kept on site and implemented during construction activities and must be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB and/or the lead agency.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-15

3.6 GEOLOGY , SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Nevertheless, in accordance with the NPDES Stormwater Program, Mitigation Measure 3.6 -1 requires an approved SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The RWQCB has stated that these erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and are existing regulatory requirements. Additionally, as discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality, construction activities would be subject to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District rules and regulations pertaining to dust control. Specifically, Under Rule 8021, a Dust Control Plan is required for any residential project that will include 10 or more acres of disturbed surface area, a nonresidential project with 5 or more acres of disturbed surface area, or a project that relocates 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials for at least three days. The Dust Control Plan is required to be submitted to SJVAPCD prior to the start of any construction activity. The Dust Control Plan must also describe fugitive dust control measure to be implemented before, during, and after any dust- generating activity. For sites smaller than those listed above, the project is still required to notify SJVAPCD a minimum of 48 hours prior to commencing earthmoving activities.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6 -1, and compliance with the Dust Control Plan required by SJVAPCD Rule 8021, would ensure that construction during Specific Plan implementation would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.6 -1: Prior to clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation for each phase of the Project, the Project proponent shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the RWQCB to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009 -0009-DWQ amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ). The SWPPP shall be designed with Best Management Practices (BMPs) that t he RWQCB has deemed as effective at reducing erosion, controlling sediment, and managing runoff.

These include: covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. Sediment control BMPs, installing silt fences or placing straw wattles below slopes, installing berms and other temporary run-on and runoff diversions. These BMPs are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. Final selection of BMPs will be subject to approval by City of Fresno and the RWQCB. The SWPPP will be kept on site during construction activity and will be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB.

3.6 -16 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

Impact 3.6-3: Specific Plan implementation has the potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of Specific Plan implementation, and potentially result in landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse . (Less than Significant with Mitigation)

LIQUEFACTION

As stated above, the Plan Area is not located within an area mapped by the State as having the potential for liquefaction. Liquefaction potential in the city of Fresno is considered low to moderate and liquefaction has not been observed in Fresno from any historic earthquake.

Additionally, liquefaction zones have not been identified in Fresno County by the State. 11 Nevertheless, Mitigation Measure 3.6 -2 is included below. This measure requires that future project proponents in the Plan Area complete and submit a final geotechnical evaluation of the soils at a design-level, as required by the requirements of the California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 18, Section 1803.1.1.2.

LATERAL SPREADING

L
ateral spreading is not considered a substantial hazard in the region . Ho wever, since the potential for liquefaction is low to moderate within the Plan Area, the potential for lateral spreading is also present. As such, Mitigation Measure 3.6 -2 is included below. This measure requires that future project proponents in the Plan Area complete and submit a final geotechnical evaluation of the soils at a design-level, as required by the requirements of the California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 18, Section 1803.1.1.2.

LANDSLIDES

A
s noted previously, landslide zones have not been identified in Fresno County by the State. 12 The Plan Area is essentially flat; therefore, the potential for a landslide within the Plan Area is virtually non-existent.

SUBSIDENCE

GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
A
reas of subsidence in Fresno County mapped in the Multi -Ha zard Mitigation Plan are in western Fresno County over 20 miles west and southwest from the Plan Area. 13 The Fresno region is not known to be subject to subsidence hazards. Areas of subsidence in Fresno County mapped in the 11 California Department of Conservation. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps. Accessed May 27, 2002. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/ 12 California Department of Conservation. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps. Accessed May 27, 2002. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/ 13 County of Fresno. 2018. Fresno County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=24743
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-17

Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan are in western Fresno County over 20 miles west and southwest from the Plan Area (County of Fresno, 2018).

CONCLUSION
The Plan Area does not have a significant risk of becoming unstable as a result landslide, subsidence, or soil collapse. There is a potential for liquefaction, liquefaction induced settlement, and lateral spreading. However, through the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6 -2, implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.6 -2: Prior to earthmoving activities associated with future development activities within the Plan Area , a certified geotechnical engineer, or equivalent, shall be retained to perform a final geotechnical evaluation of the soils at a design -level as required by the requirements of the California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 18, Section 1803.1.1.2 related to expansive soils and other soil conditions. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements outlined in California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16, Chapter 17, and Chapter 18, which addresses structural design, tests and inspections, and soils and foundation standards. The final geotechnical evaluation shall include design recommendations to ensure that soil conditions do not pose a threat to the health and safety of people or structures, including threats from liquefaction or lateral spreading. The grading and improvement plans, as well as the storm drainage and building plans shall be designed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the final geotechnical evaluation.

Impact 3.6-4: The Specific Plan would not be located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property. (Less than Significant)

14 Krazen and Associates, Inc. 2012. Geologic Hazards Investigation, Fresno General Plan Update. Accessed on September 3, 2019.
15 County of Fresno. 2018. Fresno County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=24743

3.6 GEOLOGY , SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Soils underlying the Fresno region consist partly of clays that are considered slightly to moderately expansive.14 The Plan Area is not mapped as having moderate to high expansion potential.15 The California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 18, Section 1803.1.1.2 requires specific geotechnical evaluation when a preliminary geotechnical evaluation determines that expansive or other special soil conditions are present, which, if not corrected, would lead to structural defects.

Mitigation Measure 3.6 -2, presented above, provides the requirement for a final geotechnical evaluation in accordance with the standards and requirements outlined in the California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16, Chapter 17, and Chapter 18, which addresses structural design, tests and inspections, and soils and foundation standards. The final geotechnical evaluation would include design recommendations to ensure that soil conditions do not pose a threat to the health

3.6-18 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

and safety of people or structures. The grading and improvement plans, as well as the storm drainage and building plans, are required to be designed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the final geotechnical evaluation. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6 - 2 (requiring a final Geotechnical Evaluation and implementation of site recommendations) , implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.6-2.

Impact 3. 6-5: Project implementation has the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource. ( Less than Significant with Mitigation)

Although n o paleontological resources have been recorded within the Plan Area, unknown resources may be present. It is possible that undiscovered paleontological resources could be encountered during ground-disturbing activities.

Damage to or destruction of a paleontological resource would be considered a potentially significant impact under local, State, or federal criteria. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6- 3 would ensure steps would be taken to reduce impacts to paleontological resources in the event that they are discovered during construction. This mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)

Mitigation Measure 3. 6-3: If any paleontological resources are found during grading and construction activities, all work shall be halted immediately within a 200 -foot radius of the discovery until a qualified paleontologist has evaluated the find.

Work shall not continue at the discovery site until the paleontologist evaluates the find and makes a determination regarding the significance of the resource and identifies recommendations for conservation of the resource, including preserving in place or relocating within the Plan Area, if feasible, or collecting the resource to the extent feasible and documenting the find with the University of California Museum of Paleontology.

Impact 3.6-6: Specific Plan implementation would not have the potential to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State, or in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan . (Less than Significant)

GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY 3.6
The City of Fresno permits mining only within the Mining (M) Overlay District (Citywide Development Code). Moreover, the boundaries of the Plan Area are classified as MRZ-3, which are Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.6-19

3.6 GEOLOGY , SOILS AND SEISMICITY
defined as potential, but unproven mineral resource reserves (State of California, Division o f Mines and Geology, Open File Report 99 -02). MRZ -2 zones are those areas documented to have regionally significant mineral resources.

As of February 27, 2020, there are no aggregate mines on the AB 3098 list within the Plan Area.

The closest mine is located approximately 0.5 miles west of the Plan Area (the Glamis Pit - Reclaimed Mine; Mine ID # 91-13-0094). Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this environmental topic.

3.6 -20 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan .,.-
=--·-··-··-·
1 _______ .,
i·-··-:
.. --- --
,... .... '··-= 1:1
- ----- - -- ------ ••••
W Bullard Ave
W Shaw Ave
W Herndon Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N Golden State Blvd
Herndon
Bullard
Barstow
Shaw
Gettysburg
Ashlan
Dakota
Shields
Garfield
Bryan Hayes
Polk
Cornelia
Blythe
Brawley Valentine
Marks
W Ashlan Ave
N Polk Ave
N Fi
gar
de
n Dr
99 L E G E N D
Specific Plan Boundary
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
De
lhi loam sand
Delhi loamy sand, 0-3% slopes,
ML
RA 17
Delhi loamy sand, 3-9% slopes
Ex
eter loam
Exeter loam
Exeter sandy loam
Exeter sandy loam, shallow
Ha
nford loam
Hanford fine sandy loam, silty
su
bstratum
Hanford gravelly sandy loam
Hanford sandy loam, benches
He
speria loam
Hesperia fine sandy loam, deep
Po
llasky loam
Pollasky fine sandy loam, 2-9%
sl
opes
Pollasky sandy loam, 9-5% slopes
Sa
n Joaquin loam
San Joaquin loam, 0-3% slopes
San Joaquin loam, shallow, 0-3%
sl
opes
San Joaquin sandy loam, shallow,
0-
3% slopes
San Joaquin sandy loam, 0-3%,
ML
RA 17
Other soil types
Pits
Terrace escarpments
Water
0 ½¼
Miles
Soil Types
FIGURE 3.6-1.

CITY OF FRESNO

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: USA Soils; City of Fresno. Map date: January 5, 2024 M a d e r a C o u n t y

3.6 GEOLOGY , SOILS AND SEISMICITY
This page left intentionally blank.

3.6-22 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan '
(2Z2I
••••

F R E S N O C O U N T Y

K I N G S C O U N T Y

M A D E R A C O U N T Y

M A R I P O S A

C O U N T Y

M E R C E D C O U N T Y

M O N T E R E Y

C O U N T Y
S A N

B E N I T O

C O U N T Y

T U L A R E C O U N T Y
33 145
41 41
198
152
140
168
180
145
216
198
201
41 165
63 49
99 99
25 33
269
43 180
137
190
65 59
140
245
5 5
Cutler
Delhi
Firebaugh
Hilmar
Kerman
Kingsburg
Livingston
Los Banos
Madera
Mendota
Oakhurst
Orange Cove
Orosi
Parlier
Pinedale
Reedley
Sanger
Selma
Atwater
Chowchilla
Clovis
Dos
Palos
Fowler
Fresno
Merced Planada
Winton
Coalinga
Exeter
Goshen
Hanford
Huron
Ivanhoe
Tulare
Visalia

L E G E N D
Specific Plan Boundary
County Area
Great Valley thrust fault system
Nunez fault
O'Neill fault system
Ortigalita fault zone
Panoche Hills fault
San Andreas fault zone
San Joaquin fault
Unnamed Fault
Alquist-Priolo Zone of Required Investigation
0 105
Miles
Known Faults
FIGURE 3.6-2

CITY OF FRESNO

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: USGS; CGS; California State Geoportal; City of Fresno. Map date: January 15, 2024.

3.6 GEOLOGY , SOILS AND SEISMICITY
This page left intentionally blank.

3.6-24 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
This section provides a background discussion of greenhouse gases and climate change linkages and effects of global climate change. This section is organized with an existing setting, regulatory setting, approach/methodology, and impact analysis. The analysis and discussion of the greenhouse gas (GHG), climate change, and energy conservation impacts in this section focuses on the proposed Specific Plan’s consistency with local, regional, and statewide climate change planning efforts and discusses the context of these planning efforts as they relate to the proposed project. Disclosure and discussion of the Specific Plan’s estimated energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions are provided.

Comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVPACD) (July 15, 2019) , and Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019) . Each of the comments related to this topic are addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.

3.7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE LINKAGES
Various gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric GHGs, play a critical role in determining the Earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters Earth’s atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The Earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high -frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation.

Naturally occurring GHGs include water vapor (H
2O), carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH4), nitrous
oxide (N 2O), and ozone (O 3). Several classes of halogenated substances that contain fluorine, chlorine, or bromine are also GHGs, but they are, for the most part, solely a product of industrial activities. Although the direct GHGs CO 2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally in the atmosphere, human activities have changed their atmospheric concentrations. From the pre -industrial era (i.e., ending about 1750) to 2011, concentrations of these three GHGs have increased globally by 47, 156, and 23 percent, respectively (IPCC, 2023).

GHGs, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH 4),
ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by the industrial and electricity generation sectors (California Energy Commission, 2020).

As the name implies, global climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern, Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-1

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
respectively. California produced 369 million gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO2e) in 2022 (California Air Resources Board, 2023).

Carbon dioxide equivalents are a measurement used to account for the fact that different GHGs have different potential to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. This potential, known as the global warming potential of a GHG, is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted.

Consumption of fossil fuels in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California’s GHG emissions in 20 22, accounting for 38% of total GHG emissions in the State. This category was followed by the industrial sector (23%), the electricity generation sector (including both in-state and out of -state sources) (1 6%), the agriculture and forestry sector ( 9%), the residential energy consumption sector (8 %), and the commercial energy consumption s ector ( 6%) (California Air Resources Board, 2023).

EFFECTS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
The effects of increasing global temperature are far -reaching and extremely difficult to quantify.

The scientific community continues to study the effects of global climate change. In general, increases in the ambient global temperature as a result of increased GHGs are anticipated to result in rising sea levels, which could threaten coastal areas through accelerated coastal erosion, threats to levees and inland water systems and disruption to coastal wetlands and habitats.

If the temperature of the ocean warms, it is anticipated that the winter snow season would be shortened. Snowpack in the Sierra Nevada provides both water supply (runoff) and storage (within the snowpack before melting), which is a major source of supply for the State. The snowpack portion of the supply could potentially decline by 50% to 75% by the end of the 21 st century (National Resources Defense Council, 2014). This phenomenon could lead to significant challenges securing an adequate water supply for a growing state population. Further, the increased ocean temperature could result in increased moisture flux into the State; however, since this would likely increasingly come in the form of rain rather than snow in the high elevations, increased precipitation could lead to increased potential and severity of flood events, placing more pressure on California’s levee/flood control system.

Sea level has risen approximately seven inches during the last century and it is predicted to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by 2100, depending on the future GHG emissions levels (California Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). If this occurs, resul tant effects could include increased coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion and disruption of wetlands. As the existing climate throughout California changes over time, mass migration of species, or failure of species to migrate in time to adapt to the perturbations in climate, could also result. Under the emissions scenarios of the Climate Scenarios report (California Environmental Protection Agency, 2010), the impacts of global warming in California are anticipated to include, but are not limited to, the following.

3. 7-2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

Public Health

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Higher temperatures are expected to increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to air pollution formation. For example, days with weather conducive to ozone formation are projected to increase from 25% to 35% under the lower warming range and to 75% to 85% under the medium warming range. In addition, if global background ozone levels increase as predicted in some scenarios, it may become impossible to meet local air quality standards. Air quality could be further compromised by increases in wildfires, which emit fine particulate matter that can travel long distances depending on wind conditions. The Climate Scenarios report indicates that large wildfires could become up to 55% more frequent if GHG emissions are not significantly reduced.

In addition, under the higher warming scenario, there could be up to 100 more days per year with temperatures above 90
oF in Los Angeles and 95 oF in Sacramento by 2100. This is a large increase over historical patterns and approximately twice the increase projected if temperatures remain within or below the lower warming range. Rising temperatures will increase the risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke/exhaustion, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress caused by extreme heat.

Water Resources
A vast network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts capture and transport water throughout the State from northern California rivers and the Colorado River. The current distribution system relies on Sierra Nevada snow pack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months. Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snow pack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages.

The State’s water supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater would degrade California’s estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. Saltwater intrusion caused by rising sea levels is a major threat to the quality and reliability of water within the southern edge of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta, a major State fresh water supply. Global warming is also projected to seriously affect agricultural areas, with California farmers projected to lose as much as 25% of the water supply they need; decrease the potential for hydropower production within the State (although the effects on hydropower are uncertain); and seriously harm winter tourism. Under the lower warming range, the snow dependent winter recreational season at lower elevations could be reduced by as much as one month. If temperatures reach the higher warming range and precipitation declines, there might be many years with insufficient snow for skiing, snowboarding, and other snow dependent recreational activities.

If GHG emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snow pack by as much as 70% to 90%. Under the lower warming scenario, snow pack losses are expected to be only half as large as those expected if temperatures were to rise to the higher warming range. How much snow pack will be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projections for which remain uncertain. However, even under the wetter climate projections, the loss of snow pack would pose challenges to water managers, hamper hydropower generation, and nearly eliminate all skiing and other snow-related recreational activities.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-3

Agriculture

Increased GHG emissions are expected to cause widespread changes to the agriculture industry reducing the quantity and quality of agricultural products statewide. Although higher carbon dioxide levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water -use efficiency, California’s farmers will face greater water demand for crops and a less reliable water supply as temperatures rise.

Plant growth tends to be slow at low temperatures, increasing with rising temperatures up to a threshold. However, faster growth can result in less-than-optimal development for many crops, so rising temperatures are likely to worsen the quantity and quality of yield for a number of California’s agricultural products. Products likely to be most affected include wine grapes, fruits, and nuts.

Crop growth and development will be affected, as will the intensity and frequency of pest and disease outbreaks. Rising temperatures will likely aggravate ozone pollution, which makes plants more susceptible to disease and pests and interferes with plant growth.

In addition, continued global warming will likely shift the ranges of existing invasive plants and weeds and alter competition patterns with native plants. Range expansion is expected in many species while range contractions are less likely in rapidly evolving species with significant populations already established. Should range contractions occur, it is likely that new or different weed species will fill the emerging gaps. Continued global warming is also likely to alter the abundance and types of many pests, lengthen pests’ breeding season, and increase pathogen growth rates.

Forests and Landscapes
Global warming is expected to alter the distribution and character of natural vegetation through decreases in precipitation, thereby resulting in a possible increased risk of large wildfires. If temperatures rise into the medium warming range, the risk of large wildfires in California could increase by as much as 55%, which is almost twice the increase expected if temperatures stay in the lower warming range. However, since wildfire risk is determined by a combination of factors, including precipitation, winds, temperature, and landscape and vegetation conditions, future risks will not be uniform throughout the State. For example, if precipitation increases as temperatures rise, wildfires in southern California are expected to increase by approximately 30% toward the end of the century. In contrast, precipitation decreases could increase wildfires in northern California by up to 90%.

Moreover, continued global warming will alter natural ecosystems and biological diversity within the State. For example, alpine and sub-alpine ecosystems are expected to decline by as much as 60% to 80% by the end of the century as a result of increasing t emperatures. The productivity of the State’s forests is also expected to decrease as a result of global warming.

Rising Sea Levels

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
Rising sea levels, more intense coastal storms, and warmer water temperatures will increasingly threaten the State’s coastal regions. Under the higher warming scenario, sea level is anticipated to rise 22 to 35 inches by 2100. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with

3. 7-4 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
saltwater, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats.

ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Energy in California is consumed from a wide variety of sources. Fossil fuels (including gasoline and diesel fuel, natural gas, and energy used to generate electricity) are most widely used form of energy in the State. However, renewable sources of energy (such as solar and wind) are growing in proportion to California’s overall energy mix. A large driver of renewable sources of energy in California is the State’s current Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires the State to derive at least 33% of electricity generated from renewable resources by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and to achieve zero-carbon emissions by 2045 (as passed in September 2018, under AB 100).

Overall, in 2018, California’s per capita energy usage was ranked fourth -lowest in the nation (U.S.

EIA, 2020b). California’s per capita rate of energy usage has remained relatively constant since the 1970’s. Many State regulations since the 1970’s, including new building energy efficiency standards, vehicle fleet efficiency measures, as well as growing public awareness, have helped to keep per capita energy usage in the State in check.

The consumption of non -renewable energy (i.e. fossil fuels) associated with the operation of passenger, public transit, and commercial vehicles, results in GHG emissions that contribute to global climate change. Alternative fuels such as natural gas, ethan ol, and electricity (unless derived from solar, wind, nuclear, or other energy sources that do not produce carbon emissions) also result in GHG emissions and contribute to global climate change.

Electricity Consumption
California relies on a regional power system composed of a diverse mix of natural gas, renewable, hydroelectric, and a very small amount of nuclear generation resources. In 20 20, nearly one-half of the electricity supply c ame from facilities outside of the State. Much of the power delivered to California from states in the Pacific Northwest was generated by wind. States in the Southwest delivered power generated at coal-fired power plants, at natural gas-fired power plants, and from nuclear generating stations (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2022). In 2020, approximately 41 percent of California’s utility-scale net electricity generation (i.e. the electricity generated by facilities in-state) was fueled by natural gas. In addition, about 48 percent of the State’s utility-scale net electricity generation came from renewable sources, such as solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, and biomass. Nuclear energy powered an additional 11 percent. The amount of electricity generated from coal generated by facilities in-state was effectively zero (U.S. E nergy Information Administration, 2022 ). The percentage of renewable resources as a proportion of California’s overall energy portfolio is increasing over time, as directed the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).

According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), total statewide electricity consumption increased from 166,979 gigawatt -hours (GWh) in 1980 to 228,038 GWh in 1990, which is an estimated annual growth rate of 3.66 percent. The statewide electricity con sumption in 1997 was 246,225 GWh, reflecting an annual growth rate of 1.14 percent between 1990 and 1997 (U.S. Energy Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-5

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
Information Administration, 2023b). Statewide consumption was 274,985 GWh in 2010, an annual growth rate of 0.9 percent between 1997 and 2010. In 2022 , electricity consumption in Fresno County was 8,384 GWh (California Energy Commission, 2023).

PG&E is a publicly traded utility company that, under contract with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), generates, purchases, and distributes energy. PG&E’s service area covers 70,000 square miles, roughly extending north to south from Eureka to Bakersfield and east to west from the Sierra Nevada to the Pacific Ocean. PG&E’s electricity distribution system consists of 106,681 circuit miles of electric distribution lines and 18,466 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines.

PG&E’s electricity is generated from a combination of traditional sources, such as coal-fired plants, nuclear power plants, and hydroelectric dams, as well as newer sources of energy, such as wind turbines and photovoltaic plants, or “solar farms.” “The gr id,” or bulk electric grid, is a network of high-voltage transmission lines that link power plants to the PG&E system. The distribution system, comprising lower -voltage secondary lines, is at the street and neighborhood level. It consists of overhead or underground distribution lines, transformers, and individual service “drops” that connect to individual customers.

In addition to its base plan, PG&E has three plan options, known as Solar Choice options and Green Saver, which give customers the option of purchasing energy from solar resources. The first Solar Choice option provides up to 50 percent of a customer’s energy from solar resources, while the other option provides up to 100 percent of a customer’s energy from solar resources, and the G reen Saver option provides up to 90 percent of a customer’s energy from solar resources.

Table 3.7-1 outlines PG&E’s power mix in 2022, compared to the power mix for the state. The table identifies the renewable and non-renewable energy sources for PG&E. It should be noted that some GHG free sources are not considered renewable (e.g., nuclear is GHG free but not renewable).

In 2022, the latest year for which data is available, statewide consumption was 277,205 GWh (California Energy Commission, 2024). In 2022, electricity consumption in Fresno County was 8,384 GWh (California Energy Commission, 2023).

3. 7-6 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

TABLE 3.7-1. PG&E AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA POWER MIX IN 2022 ENERGY RESOURCES CALIFORNIA POWER MIX 2022
Overall Eligible Renewable 35.8%
Biomass and Biowaste 2.1%
Geothermal 4.7%
Eligible hydroelectric 1.1%
Solar 17.0%
Wind 10.8%
Coal 2.1%
Large Hydroelectric 9.2%
Natural Gas 36.4%
Nuclear 9.2%
Other (Waste Petroleum/Petroleum Coke) 0.1%
UnspecifiedA 7.1%
SOURCE: PG&E. 2023. 2022 POWER CONTENT LABEL. AVAILABLE:

HTTPS://WWW.PGE.COM/CONTENT/DAM/PGE/DOCS/ACCOUNT/BILLING-AND-ASSISTANCE/POWER-CONTENT-LABEL.PDF.

ACCESSED: OCTOBER 4, 2024.

AELECTRICITY FROM TRANSACTIONS THAT ARE NOT TRACEABLE TO SPECIFIC GENERATION SOURCES ARE CLASSIFIED AS UNSPECIFIED SOURCES OF POWER.

Oil
The primary energy source for the United States is oil, which is refined to produce fuels like gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Oil is a finite, nonrenewable energy source. World consumption of petroleum products has grown steadily in the last several decad es. As of 2016, world consumption of oil had reached 96 million barrels per day. The United States, with approximately five percent of the world’s population, accounts for approximately 19 percent of world oil consumption, or approximately 18.6 million barrels per day (U.S. EIA, 2020c). The transportation sector relies heavily on oil. In California, petroleum-based fuels currently provide approximately 96 percent of the State’s transportation energy needs.

Natural Gas/Propane
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
The State produces approximately 12 percent of its natural gas, while obtaining 22 percent from Canada and 65 percent from the Rockies and the Southwest (California Energy Commission, 2012).

PG&E is the largest publicly -traded utility in California and provides natural gas for residential, industrial, and agency consumers within the Fresno County area. PG&E’s natural gas (i.e., methane) delivery system includes 42,000 miles of natural gas distribution pipelines and 6,700 miles of transmission pipelines. P G&E’s gas transmission system serves approximately 15 million energy customers in California. The system is operated under an inspection and monitoring program in real time on a 24-hour basis, with leak inspections, surveys, and patrols continuously taking place along the pipelines. Gas delivered by PG&E originates in gas fields in California, the Southwest, the Rocky Mountains, and Canada. Transmission pipelines send natural gas from the fields and storage facilities. The smaller distribution pipelines deliver gas to individual businesses or residences.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-7

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
As of March 2022, California produced 11.4 billion cubic feet of natural gas per month (U.S. EIA, 2022). In 2022, natural gas consumption in Fresno County was approximately 319 million therms (California Energy Commission, 2023). Residential natural gas consumption accounted for approximately 108 million therms.

3.7.2 REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL
Clean Air Act
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) was first signed into law in 1970. In 1977, and again in 1990, the law was substantially amended. The FCAA is the foundation for a national air pollution control effort, and it is composed of the following basic elements: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria air pollutants, hazardous air pollutant standards, State attainment plans, motor vehicle emissions standards, stationary source emissions standards and permits, acid rain control measures, stratospheric ozone protection, and enforcement provisions.

The EPA is responsible for administering the FCAA. The FCAA requires the EPA to set NAAQS for several problem air pollutants based on human health and welfare criteria. Two types of NAAQS were established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect the public welfare from non-health-related adverse effects such as visibility reduction.

On April 2, 2007, in the court case of Massachusetts et al. vs. the USEPA et al . (549 U.S. 497), the U.S. Supreme Court found that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the federal Clean Air Act (42 USC §§ 7401-7671q). The Supreme Court held that the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency must determine wheth er or not emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether th e science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In making these decisions, the Administrator is required to follow the language of Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

On December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well -mixed GHGs (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. • Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution, which threatens public health and welfare.

These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, this action was a prerequisite for implementing GHG emission standards for vehicles. In collaboration with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA) and California Air Resources Board ( CARB), the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA) developed

3. 7-8 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

emission standards for light-duty vehicles (2012-2025 model years), and heavy-duty vehicles (2014- 2027 model years).

Energy Policy and Conservation Act

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 sought to ensure that all vehicles sold in the U.S. would meet certain fuel economy goals. Through this Act, Congress established the first fuel economy standards for on -road motor vehicles in the United States. Pursuant to the Act, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, which is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards.

Since 1990, the fuel economy standard for new passenger cars has been 27.5 mpg. Since 1996, the fuel economy standard for new light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less) has been

20.7 mpg. Heavy-duty vehicles (i.e., vehicles and trucks over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight) are not currently subject to fuel economy standards. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is determined on the basis of each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of its vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, which is administered by the EPA, was created to determine vehicle manufacturers’ compliance with the fuel economy standards. The EPA calculates a CAFE value for each manufacturer based on cit y and highway fuel economy test results and vehicle sales. Based on the information generated under the CAFE program, the USDOT is authorized to assess penalties for noncompliance.

Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct)

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was passed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign petroleum and improve air quality. EPAct includes several parts intended to build an inventory of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. EPAct requires certain federal, State, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light duty AFVs capable of running on alternative fuels each year. In addition, financial incentives are included in EPAct. Federal tax deductions will be allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of AFVs. States are also required by the act to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs.

Energy Policy Act of 2005

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was signed into law on August 8, 2005. Generally, the act provides for renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for a clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy.

Federal Climate Change Policy

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
According to the EPA, “the United States government has established a comprehensive policy to address climate change” that includes slowing the growth of emissions; strengthening science, technology, and institutions; and enhancing international cooperation. To implement this policy, Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-9

“the Federal government i s using voluntary and incentive-based programs to reduce emissions and has established programs to promote climate technology and science.” The EPA administers multiple programs that encourage voluntary GHG reductions, including “E NERGY STAR”, “Climate Leaders”, and Methane Voluntary Programs. However, as of this writing, there are no adopted federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws directly regulating GHG emissions.

Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
On September 22, 2009, EPA issued a final rule for mandatory reporting of GHGs from large GHG emissions sources in the United States. In general, this national reporting requirement will provide EPA with accurate and timely GHG emissions data from faciliti es that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO 2 per year. This publicly available data will allow the reporters to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and aid in identifying cost effective opportunities to reduce emissions in the future. Reporting is at the facility level, except that certain suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial GHGs along with vehicle and engine manufacturers will report at the corporate level. An estimated 85% of the total U.S. GHG emissions, from approximate ly 10,000 facilities, are covered by this final rule.

STATE
The California Legislature has enacted a series of statutes in recent years addressing the need to reduce GHG emissions all across the State. These statutes can be categorized into four broad categories: (i) statutes setting numerical statewide targets for GHG reductions, and authorizing CARB to enact regulations to achieve such targets; (ii) statutes setting separate targets for increasing the use of renewable energy for the generation of electricity throughout the State; (iii) statutes addressing the carbon intensity of vehicle fuels, which prompted the adoption of regulations by CARB; and (iv) statutes intended to facilitate land use planning consistent with statewide climate objectives. The discussion below will address each of these key sets of statutes , as well as CARB “Scoping Plans” intended to achieve GHG reductions under the first set o f statutes and recent building code requirements intended to reduce energy consumption.

Statutes Setting Statewide GHG Reduction Targets
ASSEMBLY BILL 32 (GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT)

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
In September 2006, the California State Legislature enacted the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Health & Saf. Code, § 38500 et seq.), also known as Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (Stats. 2006, ch. 488). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. This reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that was phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources.

3. 7-10 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

SENATE BILL 32

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Effective January 1, 2017, SB 32 (Stats. 2016, ch. 249) added a new section 38566 to the Health and Safety Code. It provides that “[i]n adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost -effective greenhouse gas emissio ns reductions authorized by [Division 25.5 of the Health and Safety Code], [CARB] shall ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030.” In other words, SB 32 requires California, by the year 2030, to reduce its statewide GHG emissions so that they are 40 percent below those that occurred in 1990.

Between AB 32 (2006) and SB 32 (2016), the Legislature has codified some of the ambitious GHG reduction targets included within certain high- profile Executive Orders issued by the last two Governors. The 2020 statewide GHG reduction target in AB 32 was con sistent with the second of three statewide emissions reduction targets set forth in former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2005 Executive Order known as S -3-05, which is expressly mentioned in AB 32. (See Health & Saf.

Code, § 38501, subd. (i).) That Executive Branch document included the following GHG emission reduction targets: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. To meet the targets, the Governor directed several State agencies to cooperate in the development of a climate action plan. The Secretary of Cal -EPA leads the Climate Action Team, whose goal is to implement global warming emission reduction programs identified in the Climate Action Plan and to report on the progress made toward meeting the emission reduction targets established in the executive order.

In April 2015, Governor Brown issued another Executive Order, B -30-15, which created a “new interim statewide GHG emission reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 is established in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.” SB 32 codified this target.

In September 2018, the Governor issued Executive Order B -55-18, which established a statewide goal to “achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and maintain and achieve negative emissions thereafter.” The order directs the CAR B to work with other State agencies to identify and recommend measures to achieve those goals.

Notably, the Legislature has not yet set a 2045 or 2050 target in the manner done for 2020 and 2030 through AB 32 and SB 32, though references to a 2050 target can be found in statutes outside the Health and Safety Code. In the 2015 legislative session, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 350 (SB 350) (Stats. 2015, ch. 547) (discussed in more detail below). This legislation added to the Public Utilities Code language that essentially puts into statute the 2050 GHG reduction target already identified in Executive Order S-3-05, albeit in the limited context of new state policies (i) increasing the overall share of electricity that must be produced through renewable energy sources and (ii) directing certain State agencies to begin planning for the widespread electrification of the California vehicle fleet. Section 740.12(a)(1)(D) of the Public Utilities Code now states that “[t]he Legislature finds and declares [that] … [r]educing emissions of [GHGs] to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 will require widespread transportation electrification.” Furthermore, Section 740.12(b) now states that the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC), in Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-11

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
consultation with CARB and the California Energy Commission (CEC), must “direct electrical corporations to file applications for programs and investments to accelerate widespread transportation electrification to reduce dependence on petroleum, meet air quality standards, … and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.”

Statute Setting Target for the Use of Renewable Energy for the Generation of Electricity

CALIFORNIA RENEWABLES PORTFOLIO STANDARD
In September 2002, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1078 (Stats. 2002, ch. 516), which established the Renewables Portfolio Standard program, requiring retail sellers of electricity, including electrical corporations, community choice aggregators, and electric service providers, to purchase a specified minimum percentage of electricity generated by eligible renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, geothermal, small hydroelectric, biomass, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas. (See Pub.

Utilities Code, § 399.11 et seq. [subsequently amended].) The legislation set a target by which 20 percent of the State’s electricity would be generated by renewable sources. (Pub. Utility Code, § 399.11, subd (a) [subsequently amended].) As described in the Legisla tive Counsel’s Digest, Senate Bill 1078 required “[e]ach electrical corporation … to increase its total procurement of eligible renewable energy resources by at least one percent per year so that 20 percent of its retail sales are procured from eligible renewable energy resources. If an electrical corporation fails to procure sufficient eligible renewable energy resources in a given year to meet an annual target, the electrical corporation would be required to procure additional eligible renewable resources in subsequent years to compensate for the shortfall, if funds are made available as described. An electrical corporation with at least 20 percent of retail sales procured from eligible renewable energy resources in any year would not be required to increase its procurement in the following year.” In September 2006, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 107 (Stats. 2006, ch. 464), which modified the Renewables Portfolio Standard to require that at least 20 percent of electricity retail sales be served by renewable energy resources by year 2010. (Pub. Utility Code, § 399.11, subd (a) [subsequently amended].)
In April 2011, the Legislature, in a special session, enacted Senate Bill X1-2 (Stats. 2011, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 1), which set even more aggressive statutory targets for renewable electricity, culminating in the requirement that 33 percent of the State’s electricity come from renewables by 2020. This legislation applies to all electricity retailers in the State, including publicly owned utilities, investor -owned utilities, electricity service providers, and community choice aggregators. All of these entities must meet renewable energy goals of 20 percent of retail sales from renewables by the end of 2013, 25 percent by the end of 2016, and 33 percent by the end of 2020. (See Pub. Utility Code, § 399.11 et seq. [subsequently amended].)
In 2015, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 350 (SB 350) (Stats. 2015, ch. 547) (discussed above). It increases the Renewable Portfolio Standard to require 50 percent of electricity generated to be from renewables by 2030. (Pub. Utility Code, § 399.11, subd (a); see also § 399.30, subd. (c)(2).) Of equal

3. 7-12 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
significance, Senate Bill 350 also embodies a policy encouraging a substantial increase in the use of electric vehicles. As noted earlier, Section 740.12(b) of the Public Utilities Code now states that the PUC, in consultation with CARB and the CEC, must “direct electrical corporations to file applications for programs and investments to accelerate widespread transportation electrification to reduce dependence on petroleum, meet air quality standards, … and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.” In March 2012, Governor Brown had issued an Executive Order, B -16-12, which embodied a similar vision of a future in which zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) will play a big part in helping the State meet its GHG reduction targets. Executive Order B-16-12 directed the State government to accelerate the market for in California through fleet replacement and electric vehicle infrastructure. The Executive Order set the following targets:
• By 2015, all major cities in California will have adequate infrastructure and be “ZEV ready”; • By 2020, the State will have established adequate infrastructure to support 1 million ZEVs in California;
• By 2025, there will be 1.5 million ZEVs on the road in California; and • By 2050, virtually all personal transportation in the State will be based on ZEVs, and GHG emissions from the transportation sector will be reduced by 80 percent below 1990 levels.

In 2018, the Legislature enacted, and the Governor signed, Senate Bill 100 (Stats. 2018, ch. 312), which revised the above-described deadlines and targets so that the State will have to achieve a 50% renewable resources target by December 31, 2026 (instead of by 2030) and achieve a 60% target by December 31, 2030. The legislation also establishes a State policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero -carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 10 0% of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045.

In summary, California has set a statutory goal of requiring that, by the year 2030, 60 percent of the electricity generated in California should be from renewable sources, with increased generation capacity intended to sufficiently allow the mass conversion of the statewide vehicle fleet from petroleum-fueled vehicles to electrical vehicles and/or other ZEVs. By 2045, all electricity must come from renewable resources and other carbon-free resources. Former Governor Brown had an eve n more ambitious goal for the State of achieving carbon neutrality as soon as possible and by no later than 2045. The Legislature is thus looking to California drivers to buy electric cars, powered by green energy, to help the State meet its aggressive statutory goal, created by SB 32, of reducing statewide GHG emissions by 2030 to 40 percent below 1990 levels. Another key prong to this strategy is to make petroleum-based fuels less carbon -intensive. A number of statutes in recent years have addressed that strategy. These are discussed immediately below.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-13

Statutes and CARB Regulations Addressing the Carbon Intensity of Petroleum-based Transportation Fuels
ASSEMBLY BILL 1493, PAVLEY CLEAN CARS STANDARDS

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
In July 2002, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 1493 (“Pavley Bill”) (Stats. 2002, ch. 200), which directed the CARB to develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks beginning with model year 2009. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 43018.5.) In September 2004, pursuant to this directive, CARB approved regulations to reduce GHG emissions from new motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year.

These regulations created what are commonly known as the “Pavley standards.” In September 2009, CARB adopted amendments to the Pavley standards to reduce GHG emissions from new motor vehicles through the 2016 model year. These regulations created what are commonly known as the “Pavley II standards.” (See California Code of Regulations, Title 13, §§ 1900, 1961, and 1961.1 et seq.)
In January 2012, CARB adopted an Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) program aimed at reducing both smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions for vehicles model years 2017- 2025. This historic program, developed in coordination with the USEPA and NHTSA, combined the control of smog- causing (criteria) pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated set of requirements for model years 2015 through 2025. The regulations focus on substantially increasing the number of plug-in hybrid cars and zero -emission vehicles in the vehicle fleet and on making fuels such as electricity and hydrogen readily available for these vehicle technologies. The components of the ACC program are the Low -Emission Vehicle (LEV) regulations that reduce criteria pollutants and GHG emissions from light- and medium-duty vehicles, and the Zero -Emission Vehicle (ZEV) regulation, which requires manufacturers to produce an increasing number of pure ZEVs (meaning battery electric and fuel cell electric vehicles), with provisions to also produce plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the 2018 through 2025 model years. (See California Code of Regulations, Title 13, §§ 1900, 1961, 1961.1, 1961.2, 1961.3, 1965, 1968.2, 1968.5, 1976, 1978, 2037, 2038, 2062, 2112, 2139, 2140, 2145, 2147, 2235, and 2317 et seq.)
It is expected that the Pavley regulations will reduce GHG emissions from California passenger vehicles by about 34 percent below 2016 levels by 2025, all while improving fuel efficiency and reducing motorists’ costs.

Electric Car Mandate
The transportation sector, including all passenger cars and light trucks, heavy -duty trucks, off-road vehicles, and the fuels needed to power them, is responsible for more than half of California’s greenhouse gas emissions. In 2020, Governor Newsom issued an Executive Order, N-79-20, which calls for the elimination of new internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2035. Existing vehicles that run on fossil fuel would be allowed to keep operating. The executive order will not prevent Californians from owning gasoline-powered cars or selling them on the used car market.

3. 7-14 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

Innovative Clean Transit Rules for Public Transportation

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
The Innovative Clean Transit Regulation is the first of its kind to support these programs. It was adopted in December 2018 to replace the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. The regulation requires all public transit agencies to gradually transition to a 100-percent zero -emission bus fleet and encourages them to provide innovative first and last -mile connectivity and improved mobility for transit riders.

Through the deployment of zero -emission technologies, the ICT regulation will provide significant benefits across the state, including:
• Reduce NOx and GHG emissions for all Californians, especially transit -dependent and disadvantaged communities. The majority of these benefits will be in the State’s most populated and impacted areas where transit buses are most prevalent • Increase penetration of the first wave of zero-emission heavy -duty technologies into applications that are well suited to their use to further achieve emission reduction benefits • Save energy and reduce dependency on petroleum and other fossil fuels • Expand zero -emission vehicle industry to bring high quality green jobs to local communities and trained workforce to California
• Provide other societal benefits by encouraging improved mobility and connectivity with zero-emission transportation modes and reduced growth in light-duty vehicle miles traveled.

Cap and Trade Program
On October 20, 2011, in a related action, CARB adopted the final cap -and-trade program for California. (See California Code of Regulations, Title 17, §§ 95801-96022.) The California cap-and- trade program has created a market -based system with an overall emissions limit for affected sectors. The program is intended to regulate more than 85 percent of California’s emissions and staggers compliance requirements according to the following schedule: (1) electricity generation and large industrial sources (2012); (2) fuel combustion and transportation (2015).

According to 2012 guidance published by CARB, “[t]he Cap -and-Trade Program will reduce GHG emissions from major sources (covered entities) by setting a firm cap on statewide GHG emissions while employing market mechanisms to cost-effectively achieve the em ission-reduction goals. The statewide cap for GHG emissions from major sources, which is measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e), will commence in 2013 and decline over time, achieving GHG emission reductions throughout the program’s duration. Each covered entity will be required to surrender one permit to emit (the majority of which will be allowances, entities are also allowed to use a limited number of CARB offset credits) for each ton of GHG emissions they emit. Some covered entities will be allocated some allowances and will be able to buy additional allowances at auction, purchase allowances from others, or purchase offset credits.” The guidance goes on to say that “[s]tarting in 2012, major GHG-emitting sources, such as electricity generation (including imports), and large stationary sources (e.g., refineries, cement production facilities, oil and gas production facilities, glass manufacturing facilities, and food processing plants) Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-15

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
that emit more than 25,000 MTCO2e per year will have to comply with the Cap-and-Trade Program.

The program expands in 2015 to include fuel distributors (natural gas and propane fuel providers and transportation fuel providers) to address emissions from transportation fuels, and from combustion of other fossil fuels not directly covered at large sources in the program’s initial phase.” In early April 2017, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the lawfulness of the cap-and-trade program as a “fee” rather than a “tax.” (See California Chamber of Commerce et al. v. State Air Resources Board et al. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 604.)
In early 2017, the Legislature enacted, and the Governor signed, AB 398 (Stats. 2017, ch. 135), which extended the life of the existing Cap and Trade Program through December 2030.

Statute Intended to Facilitate Land Use Planning Consistent with Statewide Climate Objectives
CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 375 (SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY) This 2008 legislation built on AB 32 by setting forth a mechanism for coordinating land use and transportation on a regional level for the purpose of reducing GHGs. The focus is to reduce miles traveled by passenger vehicles and light trucks. CARB is required to set GHG reduction targets for each metropolitan region for the years 2020 and 2035. Each of California’s metropolitan planning organizations then prepares a sustainable communities strategy that demonstrates how the region will meet its GHG reductio n target through integrated land use, housing, and transportation planning. Once adopted by the metropolitan planning organizations, the sustainable communities strategy is to be incorporated into that region’s federally enforceable regional transportation plan.

If a metropolitan planning organization is unable to meet the targets through the sustainable communities strategy, then an alternative planning strategy must be developed which demonstrates how targets could be achieved, even if meeting the targets is deemed to be infeasible.

Climate Change Scoping Plans
2022 SCOPING PLAN UPDATE
In accordance with AB 32, the CARB developed the first Scoping Plan in 2008 to outline the State’s strategy to achieve 1990 level emissions by year 2020. In May 2014, the CARB released and adopted the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan to identify the next steps in reaching AB 32 goals and evaluate the progress that has been made between 2000 and 2012. A newer version of the Scoping Plan was then adopted by the CARB in December 2017 (entitled California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan). the most recent version of the Scoping Plan was adopted by the CARB in No vember 2022 (entitled Final 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality ) (2022 Scoping Plan), which was designed consistent with the long-term GHG reduction targets embedded in AB 1279. Since adoption of the 2008 Scoping Plan and the subsequent updates in 2014, 2017, and 2022, State agencies have adopted programs identified in the plan, and the L egislature has passed additional legislation to achieve the GHG reduction targets. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Building Standards (e.g., CALGreen and the 2022 Building and Energy Efficiency

3. 7-16 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

Standards), zero carbon electricity by 2045, and changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards (e.g., Pavley I and California Advanced Clean Cars).

SB 605 AND SB 1383

SB 605 (2014) required CARB to complete a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short - lived climate pollutants in the state, and SB 1383 (2016) required CARB to approve and implement that strategy by January 1, 2018. SB 1383 also establishes specific targets for the reduction of short- lived climate pollutants (40% below 2013 levels by 2030 for methane and HFCs, and 50% below 2013 levels by 2030 for anthropogenic black carbon), and provides direction for reductions from dairy and livestock operations and landfills. Accordingly, CARB adopted its Short -Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy (Reduction Strategy) in March 2017. The Reduction Strategy establishes a framework for the statewide reduction of emissions of black carbon, methane, and fluorin ated gases.

ASSEMBLY BILL 1757

AB 1757 (September 2022) requires the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) to determine a range of targets for natural carbon sequestration, and for nature-based climate solutions that reduce GHG emissions for future years 2030, 2038, and 2045. These targets are to be determined by no later than January 1, 2024, and are established to support the state’s goals to achieve carbon neutrality and foster climate adaptation and resilience.

Building Code Requirements Intended to Reduce GHG Emissions

CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
The California Energy Code ( CCR Title 24, Part 6), which is incorporated into the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, was first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. Although these standards were not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, increased energy efficiency results in decreased GHG emissions because energy efficient buildings require less electricity and thus less consumption of fossil fuels, which emit GHGs.

The standards are up dated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.

The most recent Title 24 standards are the 2022 Title 24 standards. Buildings permitted on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Standards. The California Energy Commission updates the standards every three years. The CEC estimates that the 2022 Title 24 standards will reduce 10 million metric tons of GHG over 30 years. When compared to the 2019 Title 24 standards, the 2022 update focuses on: encouraging electric heat pump technology and use; establishing electric -ready requirements when natur al gas is installed; expanding solar photovoltaic (PV) system and battery storage standards; and strengthening ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality.

CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
The purpose of the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) (CCR Title 24, Part 11) is to improve public health and safety and to promote the general welfare by enhancing the design and Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-17

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: 1) planning and design; 2) energy efficiency; 3) water efficiency and conservation; 4) material conservation and resource efficiency; and 5) environmental quality. CalGreen, which became effective on January 1, 2011, instituted mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up n ew construction of commercial, low-rise residential uses, and State - owned buildings, as well as schools and hospitals. The mandatory standards require the following:
• 20 percent mandatory reduction in indoor water use relative to baseline levels; • 50 percent construction/demolition waste must be diverted from landfills; • Mandatory inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency; and • Low-pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring, and particle boards.

The voluntary standards require the following:
• Tier I: 15 percent improvement in energy requirements, stricter water conservation requirements for specific fixtures, 65 percent reduction in construction waste, 10 percent recycled content, 20 percent permeable paving, 20 percent cement reduction, and cool/solar reflective roof.
• Tier II: 30 percent improvement in energy requirements, stricter water conservation requirements for specific fixtures, 75 percent reduction in construction waste, 15 percent recycled content, 30 percent permeable paving, 30 percent cement reduction, and cool/solar reflective roof.

The latest version of CalGreen is the 2022 CalGreen Code, which became effective on January 1, 2023. Between 2010 and 2022, continuous updates and additions have been made to CALGreen, including water conservation and recycling, electric vehicle infrastructure and charging, and changes intended to eliminate conflicts with the California Energy Code, which is Part 6 of Title 24.

TITLE 20
CCR Title 20 requires manufacturers of appliances to meet state and federal standards for energy and water efficiency. The CEC certifies an appliance based on a manufacturer’s demonstration that the appliance meets the standards. New appliances regulated under Title 20 include refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; room air conditioners and room air-conditioning heat pumps; central air conditioners; spot air conditioners; vented gas space heaters; gas pool heaters; plumbing fittings and plumbin g fixtures; fluorescent lamp ballasts; lamps; emergency lighting; traffic signal modules; dishwaters; clothes washers and dryers; cooking products; electric motors; low-voltage dry-type distribution transformers; power supplies; televisions and consumer audio and video equipment; and battery charger systems. Title 20 presents protocols for testing each type of appliance covered under the regulations, and appliances must meet the standards for energy performance, energy design, water performance, and w ater design. Title 20 contains three types of standards for appliances: federal and state standards for federally regulated appliances, state

3. 7-18 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
standards for federally regulated appliances, and state standards for non -federally regulated appliances.

SOLID WASTE
AB 939, AB 341, and AB 1826. In 1989, AB 939, known as the Integrated Waste Management Act (PRC Sections 40000 et seq.), was passed because of the increase in waste stream and the decrease in landfill capacity. The statute established the California Integr ated Waste Management Board, which oversees a disposal reporting system. AB 939 mandated a reduction of waste being disposed where jurisdictions were required to meet diversion goals of all solid waste through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities of 25% by 1995 and 50% by 2000.

AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011 [Chesbro]) amended the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 to include a provision declaring that it is the policy goal of the state that not less than 75% of solid waste generated be source-reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020, and annually thereafter. In addition, AB 341 required the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to develop strategies to achieve the state’s policy goal (CalRecycle, 2012).

AB 1826 (Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014, effective 2016) requires businesses to recycle their organic waste (i.e., food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste) depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also requires local jurisdictions across the state to implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses, including multifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units. The minimum threshold of organic waste generation by businesses subject to the law decreases over time, which means an increasingly greater proportion of the commercial sector will be required to comply.

REGIONAL
PG&E adopted the 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) on September 1, 2020, to provide guidance for serving the electricity and natural gas needs of residents and businesses within its service area while fulfilling regulatory requirements. The IRP contains the following objectives that are relevant to the Project:
• Clean Energy: In 2021, PG&E delivered nearly 50 percent of its electricity from RPS-eligible renewable resources, such as solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and small hydropower. In addition, PG&E’s GHG -free energy production, which encompasses renewable resources, large hydropower, and nuclear, satisfied all of PG&E’s bundled retail sales in 2021. • Reliability: PG&E’s IRP analysis includes PG&E’s contribution to system and local reliability, in compliance with the CPUC’s resource adequacy requirements, especially as California transitions toward higher shares of GHG-free generation resources. • Affordability: PG&E ’s IRP analysis selects resources to meet the state’s clean energy and reliability goals and provides a system average rate forecast in compliance with the CPUC’s requirements for investor-owned utilities.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-19

LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan includes the following objectives and policies that pertain directly to air quality, greenhouse gases, and energy.

URBAN FORM, LAND USE AND DESIGN ELEMENT

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
Objective UF-1: Emphasize the opportunity for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, and housing types.

Policy UF-1-c: Identifiable City Structure. Focus integrated and ongoing planning efforts to achieve an identifiable city structure, comprised of a concentration of buildings, people, and pedestrian-oriented activity in Downtown; along a small number of prominent east -west and north-south transit -oriented, mixed-use corridors with distinctive and strategically located Activity Centers; and in existing and new neighborhoods augmented with parks and connected by multi-purpose trails and tree lined bike lanes and streets.

Policy UF -1-e: Unique Neighborhoods. Promote and protect unique neighborhoods and mixed use areas throughout Fresno that respect and support various ethnic, cultural and historic enclaves; provide a range of housing options, including furthering affordable housing opportunities; and convey a unique character and lifestyle attractive to Fresnans.

Support unique areas through more specific planning processes that directly engage community members in creative and innovative design efforts.

Objective UF -12: Locate roughly one-half of future residential development in infill areas – defined as being within the City on December 31, 2012 – including the Downtown core area and surrounding neighborhoods, mixed- use centers and transit -oriented development along maj or BRT corridors, and other non-corridor infill areas, and vacant land.

Policy UF-12-a: BRT Corridors. Design land u ses and integrate development site plans along BRT corridors, with tr ansit-oriented development that supports transit ridership and convenient pedestrian access to bus stops and BRT station stops.

Policy UF -12-b: Activity Centers. Mixed-use designated areas along BRT and/or transit corridors are appropriate for more intensive concentrations of urban uses. Typical uses could include commercial areas; employment centers; schools; compact residential development; religious institutions; parks; and other gathering points where residents may interact, work, and obtain goods and services in the same place.

Policy UF -12-d: Appropriate Mixed -Use. Facilitate the development of vertical and horizontal mixed-uses to blend residential, commercial, and public land uses on one site or adjacent sites. Ensure land use compatibility between mixed-use districts in Activity Centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods.

3.7 -20 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Policy UF -12-e: Access to Activity Centers. Promote adoptions and implementation of standards supporting pedestrian activities and bicycle linkages from surrounding land uses and neighborhoods into Activity Centers and to transit stops. Provide for priority transit routes and facilities to serve the Activity Centers.

Policy UF-12-f: Mixed-Use in Activity Centers. Update the Development Code to include use regulations and standards to allow for mixed -uses and shared parking facilities, including multi-story and underground parking facilities, within Activity Centers.

Objective UF -14: Create an urban form that facilitates multi-modal connectivity.

Policy UF-14-a: Design Guidelines for Walkability. Develop and use design guidelines and standards for a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment with a network of streets and connections for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as transit and autos.

Policy UF -14-b: Local Street Connectivity. Design local roadways to connect throughout neighborhoods and large private developments with adjacent major streets and pathways of existing adjacent development. Create access for pedestrians and bicycles where a local street must dead end or be designed as a cul-de-sac to adjoining uses that provide services, shopping, and connecting pathways for access to the greater community area.

Objective LU -2: Plan for infill development that includes a range of housing types, building forms, and land uses to meet the needs of both current and future residents.

Policy LU -2-a: Infill Development and Redevelopment. Promote development of vacant, underdeveloped, and redevelopable land uses within the City Limit where urban services are available considering the establishment and implementation of supportive regulations and programs.

Policy LU-2-b: Infill Development for Affordable Housing. Consider a priority infill incentive program for resid ential infill development of existing vacant lots and underutilized sites within the City as a strategy to help to meet the affordable housing needs of the community.

Policy LU-3-c: Zoning for High Density on Major BRT Corridors. Consider the adoption of supportive zoning regulations for compact development along BRT corridors leading to the Downtown Core that will not diminish the long-term growth and development potential for Downtown.

Policy LU -5-f: High Density Residential Uses. Promote high-density residential uses to support Activity C enters and BRT Corridors, affordable housing and walkable access to transit stops.

Policy LU -6-d: Neighborhood and Community Commercial Center Design. Plan for neighborhood mixed use and community commercial uses to implement the Urban Form concepts of the General Plan , promote the stability and identity of neighborhood and community shopping areas, and allow efficient access without compromising the operational effectiveness of the street system.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-21

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
• Neighborhoods will be anchored by community commercial centers with a mix of uses that meet the area’s needs and create a sense of place. • Community commercial centers will be located within Activity Centers.

Policy LU-6-f: Auto-Oriented Commercial Uses. Direct highway-oriented and auto-serving commercial uses to locations that are compatible with the Urban Form policies of the General Plan. Ensure adequate buffering measures for adjacent residential uses noise, glare, odors, and dust.

Policy LU-8-b: Access to Public Facilities. Ensure that major public facilities and institutions have adequate multi-modal access and can be easily reached by public transit.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RESILIENCY ELEMENT
Objective RC-4: In cooperation with other jurisdictions and agencies in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, take necessary actions to achieve and maintain compliance with State and federal air quality standards for criteria pollutants.

Policy RC-4- a: Support Regional Efforts. Support and lead, where appropriate, regional, State and federal programs and actions for the improvement of air quality, especially the SJVAPCD’ efforts to monitor and control air pollutants from both stationary and mobile sources and implement Reasonably Available Control Measures in the Ozone Attainment Plan.

Policy RC-4- b: Conditions of Approval. Develop and incorporate air quality maintenance requirements, compatible with Air Quality Attainment and Maintenance Plans, as conditions of approval for General Plan amendments, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and development proposals.

Policy RC -4-c: Evaluate Impacts with Models. Continue to require the use of computer models used by SJVA PCD to evaluate the air quality impacts of plans and projects that require such environmental review by the City.

Policy RC-4-d: Forward Information. Forward information regarding proposed General Plan amendments, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and development proposals that require air quality evaluation, and amendments to development regulations to the SJVAPCD for their review of potential air quality and health impacts.

Policy RC -4-e: Support Employer -Based Efforts. Support and promote employer implementation of staggered work hours and employee incentives to use carpools, public transit and other measures to reduce vehicular use and traffic congestion.

Policy RC-4-f: Municipal Operations and Fleet Actions. Continue to control and reduce air pollution emissions from vehicles owned by the City operations and municipal operations and facilities by undertaking the following:

3.7-22 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
• Expand the use of alternative fuel, electric, and hybrid vehicles in City fleets. • Create preventive maintenance schedules that will ensure • efficient engine operation.
• Include air conditioning recycling and charging stations in the City vehicle maintenance facilities, to reduce freon gases being released into the atmosphere and electrostatic filtering systems in City maintenance shops, when feasible or when required by health regulations.
• Use satellite corporation yards for decentralized storage and vehicle maintenance. • Convert City-owned emergency backup generators to natural gas fuels whenever possible, and
• Create an advanced energy storage system.

Policy RC -4-g: FAX Actions. Continue efforts to improve Fresno Area Express (FAX) bus transit system tech nical performance, reduce emission levels, streamline system operations, and implement BRT where supportive land uses are proposed by Figure LU-1:

Land Use Diagram.

Policy RC-4-h: Airport Actions. Support Airport efforts to develop and maintain programs and policies to support City, State and Federal efforts to achieve and maintain air quality standards.

Policy RC-4-j: All Departments. Continue to develop and implement in all City departments, operational policies to reduce air pollution.

Policy RC-4- k: Electric Charging. Develop standards to facilitate electric charging infrastructure in both new and existing public and private buildings, in order to accommodate these vehicles as the technology becomes widespread.

Policy RC -8-j: Alternative Fuel Network. Support the development of a network of integrated charging and alternate fuel station for both public and private vehicles, and if feasible, open up municipal stations to the public as part of network development.

HEALTHY COMMUNITIES ELEMENT
Objective HC -3: Create healthy, safe, and affordable housing.

Policy HC-3-d: Green Standards for Affordable Housing. Provide appropriate incentives for affordable housing providers, agencies, non-profit and market rate developers to use LEED and CalGreen Tier 1 or Tier 2 standards or third party equivalents.

Policy HC-3-f: New Drive-Through Facilities. Include in the Development Code design review to reduce vehicle emissions resulting from queued idling vehicles at drive- through facilities in proximity to residential neighborhoods.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-23

MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
Objective MT-1: Create and maintain a transportation system that is safe, efficient, provides access in an equitable manner, and optimizes travel by all modes.

Policy MT-1-f: Match Travel Demand with Transportation Facilities. Designate the types and intensities of land uses at locations such that related travel demands can be accommodated by a variety of viable transportation modes and support Complete Neighborhoods while avoiding the rerouting of excessive or incompatible traffic through local residential streets.

Policy MT-1-g: Complete Streets Concept Implementation. Provide transportation facilities based upon a Complete Streets concept that facilitates the balanced use of all viable travel modes (pedestrians, bicyclists, motor vehicle and transit users), meeting the transportation needs of all ages, income groups, and abilities and providing mobility for a variety o f trip purposes, while also supporting other City goals.

Policy MT -1-m: Standards for Planned Bus Rapid Transit Corridors and Activity Centers.

Independent of the Traffic Impact Zones identified in MT-2- I and Figure MT- 4, strive to maintain the following vehicle LOS standards on major roadway segments and intersections along Bus Rapid Transit Corridors and in Activity Centers:
• LOS E or better at all times, including peak travel times, unless the City Traffic Engineer determines that mitigation to maintain this LOS would be infeasible and/or conflict with the achievement of other General Plan policies.
• Accept LOS F conditions in Activity Centers and Bus Rapid Transit Corridors only if provisions are made to improve the overall system and/or promote non-vehicular transportation and transit as part of a development project or a City-initiated project.

In accepting LOS F conditions, the City Traffic Engineer may request limited analyses of operational issues at locations near Activity Centers and along Bus Rapid Transit Corridors, such as queuing or left-turn movements.
• Give priority to maintaining pedestrian service first, followed by transit service and then by vehicle LOS, where conflicts between objectives for service capacity between different transportation modes occur.
• Identify pedestrian-priority and transit-priority streets where these modes would have priority in order to apply a multi -modal priority system, as part of the General Plan implementation.

Policy MT-2-b: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and Trips. Partner with major employers and other responsible agencies, such the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and the Fresno Council of Governments, to implement trip reduction strategies, such as eTRIP, to reduce total vehicle miles traveled and the total number of daily and peak hour vehicle trips, thereby making better use of the existing transportation system.

3. 7-24 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Policy MT -2-c: Reduce VMT through Infill Development. Provide incentives for infill development that would provide jobs and services closer to housing and multi -modal transportations corridors in order to reduce citywide vehicle miles travelled (VMT).

Policy MT -2-g: Transportation Demand Management and Transportation System Management. Pursue implementation of Transportation Demand Management and Transportation System Management strategies to reduce peak hour vehicle traffic and supplement the capacity of the transportation system.

Policy MT-2-m: Use VMT Analysis for CEQA. Use Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the criteria for evaluating transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Senate Bill 743. Level of Service (LOS) may still be used for planning purpo ses and implementation of Capital Improvement Projects, however VMT shall be used for determining mitigation under CEQA beginning in July of 2020.

Objective MT-4: Establish and maintain a continuous, safe, and easily accessible bikeways system throughout the metropolitan area to reduce vehicle use, improve air quality and the quality of life, and provide public health benefits.

Policy MT -4-b: Bikeway Improvements. Establish and implement property development standards to assure that projects adjacent to designated bikeways provide adequate right- of-way and that necessary improvements are constructed to implement the planned bikeway system shown on Figure MT-2 to provide for bikeways, to the extent feasible, when existing roadways are reconstructed; and alternative bikeway alignments or routes where inadequate right-of-way is available.

Policy MT-4-d: Prioritization of Bikeway Improvements. Prioritize bikeway components that link existing separated sections of the system, or that are likely to serve the highest concentration of existing or potential cyclists, particularly in those neighborhoods with low vehicle ownership rates, or that are likely to serve destination areas with the highest demand such as schools, shopping areas, recreational and park areas, and employment centers.

Policy MT -5-a: Sidewalk Development. Pursue funding and implement standards for development of sidewalks on public streets, with priority given to meeting the needs of persons with physical and vision limitations; providing safe routes to school; completing pedestrian improvements in established neighborhoods with lower vehicle ownership rates; or providing pedestrian access to public transportation routes.

Policy MT-5-b: Sidewalk Requirements. Assure adequate access for pedestrians and people with disabilities in new residential developments per adopted City policies, consistent with the California Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Policy MT -8-c: New Development Facilitating Transit. Continue to review development proposals in transportation corridors to ensure they are designed to facilitate transit.

Coordinate all projects that have residential or employment densities suitable for transit Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-25

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
services, so they are located along existing or planned transit corridors or that otherwise have the potential for transit orientation to FAX, and consider FAX’s comments in decision- making.

3.7.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, climate change-related impacts are considered significant if implementation of the proposed Project would do any of the following:

1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Most individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project-specific impact through a direct influence to climate change; therefore, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355).

For individual proposed projects, the significance of GHG emissions may be evaluated based on locally adopted quantitative thresholds, or consistency with a regional GHG reduction plan (such as a Climate Action Plan). The City of Fresno does not have a current formal GHG emissions reduction plan (or any other form of a Climate Action Plan).

Therefore, the Project is assessed based on its consistency with the CARB’s latest adopted Scoping Plan, including the Project’s compliance with relevant Scoping Plan measures, as well as the latest RTP/SCS for the region within which the Project is located within (i.e., the Fresno Council of Governments (FCOG) 2022 RTP/SCS). It should be noted that the Scoping Plan is consistent with the AB 1279 GHG reduction targets of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045, and reducing anthropogenic emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. Therefore, consistency with the CARB’s most recent Scoping Plan would also d emonstrate consistency with the carbon neutrality requirements encapsulated by AB 1279.

This analysis provides a qualitative assessment of the Project’s compliance with the applicable plans, policies, and regulations for the purposes of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to determine whether the project would have a significant impact on the environment relative to GHGs.

Separately, disclosure of the Project’s estimated construction and operation-related GHG emissions are provided for the purposes of disclosure.1
1 Project GHG emissions were provided using the latest version of CalEEMod (v2022.1), which represents the Air District’s recommended modeling tool for estimating emissions for projects under CEQA.

3.7-26 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE (E NERGY CONSERVATION )
Consistent with Appendices F and G of the CEQA Guidelines, energy-related impacts are considered significant if implementation of the Specific Plan would do the following:
• Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. • Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

In order to determine whether or not the proposed Specific Plan would result in a significant impact on energy use, this EIR includes an analysis of proposed Specific Plan energy use, as provided under Impacts and Mitigation Measures below.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Impact 3.7-1: Specific Plan implementation could generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (Less than Significant)
Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. A project’s GHG emissions are at a micro -scale relative to global emissions, but could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro -scale impact. Implementation of the project would contribute to increases of GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of CO
2 and other GHG pollutants, such as methane
(CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), from mobile sources and utility usage.

The short-term construction -related and long-term operational GHG emissions associated with future buildout of the Plan Area allowed under the proposed Specific Plan were estimated using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)
TM (v.2022.1). CalEEMod is a statewide model
designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify GHG emissions from land use projects. The model quantifies direct GHG emissions from construction and o peration (including vehicle use), as well as indirect GHG emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. Emissions are expressed in annual metric tons of CO 2 equivalent units of measure (i.e., MT CO2e), based on the global warming potential of the individual pollutants.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-27

STATEWIDE GHG REDUCTION MEASURES THAT APPLY TO THE PROJECT Several statewide GHG reduction strategies apply to the Project either directly or indirectly. A summary of these strategies is provided in T able 3.7-2, below.

TABLE 3.7-2: SUMMARY OF STATEWIDE GHG REDUCTION STRATEGIES THAT APPLY TO THE PROJECT

PROJECT COMPONENT APPLICABLE

LAWS/REGULATIONS GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION MEASURES REQUIRED FOR PROJECT

BUILDING COMPONENTS / FACILITY OPERATIONS
Roofs/Ceilings/
Insulation
CAL Green Code
(Title 24, Part 11)
California Energy
Code
(Title 24, Part 6)
The Project must comply with efficiency standards regarding roofing, ceilings, and insulation. For example:

Roofs/Ceilings: New construction must reduce roof heat island effects per CALGreen Code Section 106.11.2, which requires use of roofing materials having a minimum aged solar reflectance, thermal emittance complying with Sections A5.106.11.2.2 and A5.106.11.2.3, or a minimum aged Solar Reflectance Index as specified in Table A5.106.11.2.2 or A5.106.11.2.3. Roofing materials must also meet solar reflectance and thermal emittance standards contained in Title 20 Standards.

Roof/Ceiling Insulation: Requirements for the installation of roofing and ceiling insulation (see Title 24, Part 6 Compliance Manual at Section 3.2.2).

Flooring CALGreen Code The Project must comply with efficiency standards regarding flooring materials. For example, for 80% of floor area receiving “resilient flooring,” the flooring must meet applicable installation and material requirements contained in CALGreen Code Section 5.504.4.6.

Window and Doors California
Code
Energy The Project must comply with fenestration efficiency requirements.

For example, the choice of windows, glazed doors, and any skylights for the Project must conform to energy consumption requirements affecting size, orientation, and types of fenestration products used (see Title 24, Part 6 Compliance Manual, Section 3.3).

Building
Insulation
Walls/ CALGreen
California
Code
Code
Energy
The Project must comply with efficiency requirements for building walls and insulation.

Exterior Walls: Must meet requirements in the current edition of the California Energy Code and comply with Section A5.106.7.1 or A5.106.7.2 of CALGreen for wall surfaces, as well as Section 5.407.1, which requires weather -resistant exterior wall and foundation envelope as required by California Building Code Section 1403.2.

Construction must also meet requirements contained in Title 24, Part 6, which vary by material of the exterior walls (see Title 24, Part 6 Compliance Manual, Part 3.2.3).

Demising (Interior) Walls : Mandatory insulation requirements for demising walls (which separate conditioned from non -conditions

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY

3.7-28 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7

PROJECT COMPONENT APPLICABLE

LAWS/REGULATIONS GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION MEASURES REQUIRED FOR PROJECT space) differ by the type of wall material used (Title 24, Part 6 Compliance Manual Part 3.2.4).

Door Insulation: Mandatory requirements for air infiltration rates to improve insulation efficiency; they differ according to the type of door (Title 24, Part 6 Compliance Manual Part 3.2.5).

Flooring Insulation : Mandatory requirements for insulation that depend on the material and location of the flooring (Title 24, Part 6 Compliance Manual Part 3.2.6).

Finish Materials CALGreen The Project must comply with pollutant control requirements for finish materials. For example, materials including adhesives, sealants, caulks, paints and coatings, carpet systems, and composite wood products must meet requirements in CALGreen to ensure po llutant control (CALGreen Section 5.504.4).

Wet Appliances CALGreen, Wet appliances associated with the Project must meet various (Toilets/Faucets/Urinal, California Energy efficiency requirements. For example:

Dishwasher/Clothes Code, Appliance
Washer, Spa and Efficiency Pool: Use associated with the Project is subject to appliance efficiency Pool/Water Heater) Regulations (Title
20 Standards)
requirements for service water heating systems and equipment and spa and pool heating systems and equipment (Title 24, Part 6, Sections 110.3, 110.4, 110.5; Title 20 Standards, Sections 1605.1(g), 1605.3(g); see also California Energy Code).

Toilets/Faucets/Urinals: Use associated with the Project is subject to new maximum rates for toilets, urinals, and faucets effective January 1, 2016 (Title 20 Standards, Sections 1605.1(h),(i) 1065.3(h),(i)):
 Showerheads maximum flow rate 2.5 gallons per minute
(gpm) at 80 pounds per square inch (psi)
 Wash fountains 2.2 x (rim space in inches/20) gpm at 60 psi  Metering faucets 0.25 gallons per cycle
 Lavatory faucets and aerators 1.2 gpm at 60 psi
 Kitchen faucets and aerators 1.8 gpm with optional
temporary flow of 2.2 gpm at 60 psi
 Public lavatory faucets 0.5 gpm at 60 psi
 Trough-type urinals 16 inches length
 Wall mounted urinals 0.125 gallons per flush
 Other urinals 0.5 gallons per flush
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-29

PROJECT COMPONENT APPLICABLE

LAWS/REGULATIONS GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION MEASURES REQUIRED FOR PROJECT Water Heaters: Use associated with the Project is subject to appliance efficiency requirements for water heaters (Title 20 Standards, Sections 1605.1(f), 1605.3(f)).

Dishwasher/Clothes Washer : Use associated with the Project is subject to appliance efficiency requirements for dishwashers and clothes washers (Title 20 Standards, Sections 1605.1(o),(p),(q), 1605.3(o),(p),(q)).

Dry Appliances
(Refrigerator/Freezer,
Heater/Air Conditioner,
Clothes Dryer)
Title 20 Standards
CALGreen Code
Dry appliances associated with the Project must meet various efficiency requirements. For example:

Refrigerator/Freezer: Use associated with the Project is subject to appliance efficiency requirements for refrigerators and freezers (Title 20 Standards, Sections 1605.1(a), 1605.3(a)).

Heater/Air Conditioner: Use associated with the Project is subject to appliance efficiency requirements for heaters and air conditioners (Title 20 Standards, Sections 1605.1(b),(c),(d),(e), 1605.3(b),(c),(d),(e) as applicable).

Clothes Dryer: Use associated with the Project is subject to appliance efficiency requirements for clothes dryers (Title 20 Standards, Section 1605.1(q)).

CALGreen Code Installations of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; refrigeration and fire suppression equipment must comply with CALGreen Sections 5.508.1.1 and 508.1.2, which prohibits CFCs, halons, and certain HCFCs and HFCs.

Lighting Title 20 Standards Lighting associated with the Project are subject to energy efficiency requirements contained in Title 20 Standards.

General Lighting: Indoor and outdoor lighting associated with the Project must comply with applicable appliance efficiency regulations (Title 20 Standards, Sections 1605.1(j),(k),(n), 1605.3(j),(k),(n)).

Emergency Lighting and Self -Contained Lighting: Project must also comply with applicable appliance efficiency regulations (Title 20 Standards, Sections 1605.1(l), 1605.3(l)). Emergency Lighting and Self-Contained Lighting: Project must also comply with applicable appliance efficiency regulations (Titl e 20 Standards, Sections 1605.1(l), 1605.3(l)).

Traffic Signal Lighting : For any necessary Project improvements involving traffic lighting, traffic signal modules and traffic signal lamps will need to comply with applicable appliance efficiency regulations (Title 20 Standards, Sections 1605.1(m), 1605.3(m)).

California
Code
Energy Lighting associated with the Project will also be subject to energy efficiency requirements contained in Title 24, Part 6, which contains

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY

3.7-30 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

PROJECT COMPONENT APPLICABLE

LAWS/REGULATIONS GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION MEASURES REQUIRED FOR PROJECT energy standards for non -residential indoor lighting and outdoor lighting (see Title 24 Part 6 Compliance Manual, at Sections 5, 6).

Mandatory lighting controls for indoor lighting include, for example, regulations for automatic shut -off, automatic daytime controls, demand responsive controls, and certificates of installation (Title 24 Part 6 Compliance Manual at Section 5).

Regulations for outdoor lighting include, for example, creation of lighting zones, lighting power requirements, a hardscape lighting power allowance, requirements for outdoor incandescent and luminaire lighting, and lighting control functionality (Title 24 Part 6 Compliance Manual Section 6).

AB 1109 Lighting associated with the Project will be subject to energy efficiency requirements adopted pursuant to AB 1109.

Enacted in 2007, AB 1109 required the CEC to adopt minimum energy efficiency standards for general purpose lighting to reduce electricity consumption 25% for indoor commercial lighting.

Bicycle and
Parking

Vehicle CALGreen Code The Project will be required to provide compliant bicycle parking, fuel-efficient vehicle parking, and electric vehicle (EV) charging spaces (CALGreen Code Sections 5.106.4, 5.106.5.1, 5.106.5.3).

California Energy
Code
The Project is subject to parking requirements contained in Title 24, Part 6. For example, parking capacity is to meet but not exceed minimum local zoning requirements, and the Project should employ approved strategies to reduce parking capacity (Title 24, Part 6, Section 106.6).

Landscaping CALGreen Code CALGreen requires and has further voluntary provisions for the following:
 A water budget for landscape irrigation use
 For new water service, separate meters or submeters must be installed for indoor and outdoor potable water use for landscaped areas of 1,000 to 5,000 square feet

 Provide water-efficient landscape design that reduces use of potable water beyond initial requirements for plant installation and establishment
Model Water
Efficient
Landscaping
Ordinance
The model ordinance promotes efficient landscaping in new developments and establishes an outdoor water budget for new and renovated landscaped areas that are 500 square feet or larger (CCR, Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7).

Refrigerants CARB Management
of High GWP
Any refrigerants associated with the Project would be subject to CARB standards. CARB’s Regulation for the Management of High GWP Refrigerants for Stationary Sources reduces emissions of high - GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-31

PROJECT COMPONENT APPLICABLE

LAWS/REGULATIONS GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION MEASURES REQUIRED FOR PROJECT Refrigerants for
Stationary Sources
GWP refrigerants from leaky stationary, non-residential refrigeration equipment; reduces emissions resulting from the installation and servicing of stationary refrigeration and air conditioning appliances using high-GWP refrigerants; and requires verification GHG emission reductions (CCR, Title 17, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 10, Article 4, Subarticle 5.1, Section 95380 et seq.).

Consumer Products CARB High GWP
GHGs in Consumer
Products
All consumer products associated with the Project will be subject to CARB standards. CARB’s consumer products regulations set VOC limits for numerous categories of consumer products, and limits the reactivity of the ingredients used in numerous categories of aerosol coating products (CCR, Title 17, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter

8.5).

CONSTRUCTION
Use of Off -Road Diesel
Engines, Vehicles, and
Equipment
CARB In -Use Off -
Road Diesel Vehicle
Regulation
Any relevant vehicle or machine use associated with the Project will be subject to CARB standards.

The CARB In -Use-Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation applies to certain off-road diesel engines, vehicles, or equipment greater than 25 horsepower. The regulation imposes limits on idling, requires a written idling policy, and requires a disclosure when sell ing vehicles; requires all vehicles to be reported to CARB (using the Diesel Off- Road Online Reporting System) and labeled; restricts the adding of older vehicles into fleets starting on January 1, 2014; and requires fleets to reduce their emissions by ret iring, replacing, or repowering older engines, or installing Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (i.e., exhaust retrofits).

The requirements and compliance dates of the Off- Road Regulation vary by fleet size, as defined by the regulation.

Greening
Construction
New CALGreen Code All new construction, including the Project, must comply with CALGreen, as discussed in more detail throughout this table.

Adoption of the mandatory CALGreen standards for construction has been essential for improving the overall environmental performance of new buildings; it also sets voluntary targets for builders to exceed the mandatory requirements.

Construction Waste CALGreen Code The Project would be subject to CALGreen requirements for construction waste reduction, disposal, and recycling, such as a requirement to recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 50% of the non-hazardous construction waste in accordance with Section

5.408.1.1, 5.408.1.2, or 5.408.1.3, or meet a local construction and demolition waste management ordinance, whichever is more stringent.

SOLID WASTE
Solid
Management
Waste Landfill Methane
Control Measure
Waste associated with the Project would be disposed of per state requirements for landfills, material recovery facilities, and transfer stations. Per the statewide GHG emissions inventory, the largest

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY

3.7-32 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

PROJECT COMPONENT APPLICABLE

LAWS/REGULATIONS GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION MEASURES REQUIRED FOR PROJECT emissions from waste management sectors come from landfills and are in the form of methane (CH4).

In 2010, CARB adopted a regulation that reduces emissions from CH4 in landfills, primarily by requiring owners and operators of certain uncontrolled municipal solid waste landfills to install gas collection and control systems, and requires existing and newly installed gas and control systems to operate in an optimal manner. The regulation allows local air districts to voluntarily enter into a memorandum of understanding with CARB to implement and enforce the regulation and to assess fees to cover costs of implementation.

Mandatory
Commercial
Recycling (AB 341)
AB 341 will require the Project, if it generates 4 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week, to arrange for recycling services using one of the following: self- haul, subscribe to a hauler, arrange for pickup of recyclable materials, or subscr ibe to a recycling service that may include mixed waste processing that yields diversion results comparable to source separation.

The Project will also be subject to local commercial solid waste recycling programs required to be implemented by each jurisdiction under AB 341.

CALGreen Code The Project will be subject to CALGreen requirements to provide areas that serve the entire building and are identified for depositing, storing, and collecting nonhazardous materials for recycling (CALGreen Code Section 5.410.1).

ENERGY USE
Renewable Energy California RPS (SB
X1-2, SB 350, SB
100, and SB 1020)
Energy providers associated with the Project will be required to comply with the RPS set by SB X1 2, SB 350, and SB 100.

SB X1 2 required investor -owned utilities, publicly owned utilities, and electric service providers to increase purchases of renewable energy such that at least 33% of retail sales are procured from renewable energy resources by December 31, 2020. In the i nterim, each entity was required to procure an average of 20% of renewable energy for the period of January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2013; and were required to procure an average of 25% by December 31, 2016, and 33% by 2020.

SB 350 requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50% of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030.

SB 100 increased the standards set forth in SB 350 establishing that 44% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2024, 52% by December 31, 2027, and 60% by December 31, 2030, be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources. SB 100 states that it is the policy of the state that eligible GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-33

PROJECT COMPONENT APPLICABLE

LAWS/REGULATIONS GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION MEASURES REQUIRED FOR PROJECT renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of the retail sales of electricity to California by 2045.

SB 1020 built on the standards set forth in SB 100, establishing that 90% of the retail sales of electricity must be carbon free by 2035, 95% must be carbon free by 2040, and, as stated in SB 100, 100% must be

carbon free by 2045.

California Solar Multifamily properties qualify for rebates of up to $800,000 on solar Initiative-Thermal water heating systems and eligible solar pool heating systems qualify Program for rebates of up to $500,000. Funding for the California Solar Initiative –Thermal program comes from ratepayers of Pacific Gas & Electric, SCE, Southern California Gas Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric. The rebate program is overseen by the CPUC as part of the California Solar Initiative.

VEHICULAR/MOBILE SOURCES
General SB 375 and The Project complies with, and is subject to, the Fresno Council of RTP/SCS Governments RTP/SCS adopted in 2022, as shown in Table 3.7-6 below.

Fuel Low Carbon Fuel Auto trips associated with the Project will be subject to the Low Standard (LCFS)/ Carbon Fuel Standard (EO S-01-07), which required a 10% or greater EO S-01-07 reduction in the average fuel carbon intensity by 2020 with a 2010 baseline for transportation fuels in California regulated by CARB. The program establishes a strong framework to promote t he low carbon fuel adoption necessary to achieve the Governor’s 2030 and 2050 GHG goals.

Automotive CARB Regulation Vehicles associated with the Project will be subject to CARB’s Refrigerants for Small Regulation for Small Containers of Automotive Refrigerant (CCR, Title Containers of 17, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 10, Article 4, Subarticle 5, Automotive Section 95360 et seq.). The regulation applies to the sale, use, and Refrigerant disposal of small containers of automotive refrigerant with a GWP greater than 150. The regulation achieves emission reductions through implementation of four requirements: use of a self -sealing valve on the container, improved labeling instructions, a deposit and recycling program for small containers, and an education program that emphasizes best practices for vehicle recharging. This regulation went into effect on January 1, 2010, with a 1-year sell-through period for containers manufactured before January 1, 2010. The target recycle rate was initially set at 90%, and rose to 95% beginning January 1, 2012.

Light-Duty Vehicles AB 1493 (or the Cars that drive to and from the Project will be subject to AB 1493, Pavley Standard) which directed CARB to adopt a regulation requiring the maximum feasible and cost -effective reduction of GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles. Pursuant to AB 1493, CARB adopted regulations that established a declining fleet average standard for CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs (air conditioner refrigerants) in new passenger vehicles and light -duty trucks beginning with the 2009 model year

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY

3.7-34 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

PROJECT COMPONENT APPLICABLE

LAWS/REGULATIONS GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION MEASURES REQUIRED FOR PROJECT

and phased-in through the 2016 model year. These standards were divided into those applicable to lighter and those applicable to heavier portions of the passenger vehicle fleet.

The regulations will reduce “upstream” smog-forming emissions from refining, marketing, and distribution of fuel.

Advanced Clean Car
and ZEV Programs

Cars that drive to and from the Project will be subject to the Advanced Clean Car and ZEV Programs. In January 2012, CARB approved a new emissions-control program for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero- emission vehicles (ZEVs) into a single package of standards called Advanced Clean Cars. By 2025, new automobiles will emit 34% less global warming gases and 75% less smog-forming emissions.

The ZEV Program will act as the focused technology of the Advanced Clean Cars Program by requiring manufacturers to produce increasing numbers of ZEVs and plug-in hybrid EVs in the 2018–2025 model years.

The Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) regulation builds on the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) rule adopted in 2012. ACC II decreases emissions by increasing EV sales via two programs. First, the under the ZEV program, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) must increase sales of ZEV vehicles from 35 percent in 2026 to 100 percent in 2035.

Second, ACC II further strengthened the LEV program discussed above, with more stringent emission standards beginning with model year 2025.

Tire Inflation
Regulation
Cars that drive to and from the Project will be subject to the CARB Tire Inflation Regulation, which took effect on September 1, 2010, and applies to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. Under this regulation, automotive service providers must, inter alia, check and inflate each vehicle’s tires to the recommended tire pressure rating, with air or nitrogen, as appropriate, at the time of performing any automotive maintenance or repair service, to keep a copy of the service invoice for a minimum of 3 years, and to make the vehicle service invoice available to the CARB or its authorized representative upon request.

EPA and NHTSA
GHG and CAFE
standards.

Mobile sources that travel to and from the Plan Area would be subject to EPA and NHTSA GHG and CAFE standards for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium- duty passenger vehicles (75 FR 25324–25728 and 77 FR 62624–63200).

Medium-and Heavy-
Duty
Vehicles

Any heavy-duty trucks associated with the Project will be subject to CARB standards. The regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses must meet PM filter requirements. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015.

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-35 CARB In-Use On-
Road Heavy-Duty
Di
esel Vehicles
Regulation (Truck

PROJECT COMPONENT APPLICABLE

LAWS/REGULATIONS GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION MEASURES REQUIRED FOR PROJECT and
Regulation)
Bus By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent. The regulation applies to nearly all privately and federally owned diesel fueled trucks and buses and to privately and publicly owned school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds.

To further reduce emissions, the Advanced Clean Truck Act (ACT) requires original equipment manufacturers of medium- and heavy- duty vehicles to sell ZEVs or near -zero-emissions vehicles (NZEVs) such as plug -in electric hybrids as an increasing percentage o f their annual sales from 2024 to 2035. The ACT includes a cap -and-trade system, capping the number of fossil fuel vehicles sold by stipulating annual sales percentage requirements. Manufacturers can comply with the ACT by generating compliance credits through the sale of ZEVs or NZEVs or through the trading of compliance credits.

CARB In -Use Off -
Road Diesel Vehicle
Regulation
Any relevant vehicle or machine use associated with the Project will be subject to CARB standards.

The CARB In -Use-Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation applies to certain off-road diesel engines, vehicles, or equipment greater than 25 horsepower. The regulations impose limits on idling, require a written idling policy, and require a disclosure when sellin g vehicles; require all vehicles to be reported to CARB (using the Diesel Off-Road Online Reporting System) and labeled; restricted the adding of older vehicles into fleets starting on January 1, 2014; and require fleets to reduce their emissions by retiri ng, replacing, or repowering older engines, or installing Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (i.e., exhaust retrofits).

The requirements and compliance dates of the Off -Road regulation vary by fleet size, as defined by the regulation.

Heavy-Duty Vehicle
GHG Emission
Reduction
Regulation
Any relevant vehicle or machine use associated with the Project will be subject to CARB standards. The CARB Heavy -Duty Vehicle GHG Emission Reduction Regulation applies to heavy -duty tractors that pull 53 -foot or longer box -type trailers (CCR, Title 17, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 10, Article 4, Subarticle 1, Section 95300 et seq.). Fuel efficiency is improved through improvements in tractor and trailer aerodynamics and the use of low rolling resistance tires.

EPH and
GHG and
standards.

NHTSA
CAFÉ
Mobile sources that travel to and from the Plan Area would be subject to EPA and NHTSA GHG and CAFE standards for medium-and heavy-duty vehicles (76 FR 57106–57513).

WATER USE
Water Use Efficiency

Emergency
Water
Regulations
State
Board
Water use associated with the Project will be subject to emergency regulations. On May 18, 2016, partially in response to EO B-27-16, the State Water Board adopted emergency water use regulations (CCR, title 23, Section 864.5 and amended and re -adopted Sec tions 863, 864, 865, and 866). The regulation directs the State Water Board,

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY

3.7-36 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

PROJECT COMPONENT APPLICABLE

LAWS/REGULATIONS GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION MEASURES REQUIRED FOR PROJECT

Department of Water Resources, and CPUC to implement rates and pricing structures to incentivize water conservation, and calls upon water suppliers, homeowner’s associations, California businesses, landlords and tenants, and wholesale water agencies to take stronger conservation measures.

SB X7-7 Water provided to the Project will be affected by SB X7 -7’s requirements for water suppliers. SB X7-7, or the Water Conservation Act of 2009, requires all water suppliers to increase water use efficiency. It also requires, among other things, that the Department of Water Resources, in consultation with other state agencies, develop a single standardized water use reporting form, which would be used by both urban and agricultural water agencies.

CALGreen Code The Project is subject to CALGreen’s water efficiency standards, including a required 20% mandatory reduction in indoor water use (CALGreen Code, Division 4.3).

California RPS Electricity usage associated with Project water and wastewater

SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Estimated unmitigated GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed project are summarized in Table 3.7-3 . These emissions include all worker vehicle, vendor vehicle, hauler vehicle, and off -road construction vehicle GHG emissions. For the purposes of this analysis, based on the anticipated buildout year , the proposed project is assumed to commence construction in 2025 and finish in 2035. It should be noted that this schedule is an approximation and may change over time. A regularized construction schedule was utilized for modelling purposes for the sake of simplicity.

TABLE 3.7-3: C ONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS (UNMITIGATED AVERAGE MT CO2E/YEAR) YEAR BIO- CO2 NON-BIO- CO2 TOTAL CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E 2025 0 37,716 37,716 1 3 38,820
2026 0 48,007 48,007 2 4 49,371
2027 0 46,951 46,951 1 4 48,266
2028 0 46,085 46,085 1 4 47,363
2029 0 44,971 44,971 1 4 46,198
2030 0 43,987 43,987 1 4 45,195
2031 0 43,028 43,028 1 3 43,925
2032 0 42,230 42,230 1 3 43,125
2033 0 41,274 41,274 1 3 42,124
2034 0 40,497 40,497 1 3 41,340
2035 0 39,781 39,781 1 3 40,582
GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-37

SOURCES: CALEEMOD (V.2022.1)

OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Estimated GHG emissions associated with the proposed project is summarized in Table 3.7-4, below.

TABLE 3.7-4: O PERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS (UNMITIGATED METRIC TONS/YEAR) CATEGORY BIO-CO2 NBIO-CO2 TOTAL CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E
Mobile - 607,382 607,382 27 34 618,411
Area - 1,261 1,261 0 0 1,266
Energy - 225,741 225,741 27 2 227,027
Water 2,372 4,340 6,712 244 6 14,557
Waste 9,294 - 9,294 929 - 32,518
Refrig. - - - - - 131
Total 11,666 838,725 850,391 1,227 42 893,911
SOURCES: CALEEMOD (V.2022.1)
The operational GHG emissions estimate for the proposed Project includes on -site area, energy, mobile, waste, water , and refrigerants emissions. Estimated GHG emissions associated with operation o f the proposed Project are summarized in Ta ble 3.7-4, above. It should be noted t hat CalEEMod does not account for Governor Newsom’s Zero-Emission by 2035 Executive Order (N-79- 20), which requires that all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California be zero-emission vehicles by 2035; CalEEMod also does not account for the new CARB rules related to truck electrification (e.g. Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation). This is anticipated to substantially reduce the operational emissions associated with vehicles (i.e., mobile emissions) over time. The operational emissions results provided in Table 3.7 -4 are likely an overestimate for mobile emissions, given the state’s ongoing effort to increase electric vehicles and trucks, as well as because these emissions results do not include potential GHG emissions reductions associated with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.14-1 through 3.14-7 (see Section 3.14: Transportation and Circulation of this Draft EIR, for more detail) . As shown in Table 3.7-4, the annual GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project would be approximately 893,911 MT CO2e.

CONSISTENCY WITH 2022 SCOPING PLAN

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
The C
ARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan (the latest version of the Scoping Plan) provides policies that are considered needed to meet the State’s mid -term and long-term GHG emissions reduction targets.

Specifically, the CARB’s Final 2022 Scoping Plan identifies that it “…lays out the sector -by-sector roadmap for California, the world’s fifth largest economy, to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier…”. The Scoping Plan addresses recent legislation and direction from Governor Newsom, by extending and expanding upon the earlier Scoping Plans with a target of reducing anthropogenic emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045, and adding carbon neutrality as a science- based guide and touchstone for California’s climate work. The Scoping Plan is therefore consistent with the AB 1279 GHG reduction targets of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045, and reducing anthropogenic emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. The Project’s consistency with the applicable 2022 Scoping Plan policies is discussed in Table 3.7 -5, below.

3.7 -38 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
TABLE 3.7-5: P ROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH THE 2022 SCOPING PLAN

POLICY PROJECT CONSISTENCY

TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION
Convert local government fleets to ZEVs and provide EV charging at public sites
No Conflict. While this goal is not
applicable to an individual
residential or commercial
development project, the Project
includes an EV parking
requirement and includes EV
spaces consistent with the
requirements of the California
Energy Code (CCR Title 24, Part 6).

Create a jurisdiction-specific ZEV ecosystem to support deployment of ZEVs statewide (such as building standards that exceed state building codes, permit streamlining, infrastructure siting, consumer education, preferential parking policies, and ZEV readiness plans)

VMT REDUCTION
Reduce or eliminate minimum parking standards No Conflict. Although this goal is not applicable to an individual
residential or commercial
development project, the Project
is implementing neighborhood
design improvements such as
pedestrian network
improvements and traffic calming
measures. Furthermore, the
proposed Project would enable
walkable development. Moreover,
Mitigation Measures 3.14 -1
through 3.14- 7, as provided in
Section 3.14: Transportation and
Circulation of this Draft EIR, would
further reduce Project VMT
through a variety of measures.

Implement Complete Streets policies and investments, consistent with general plan circulation element requirements
Increase access to public transit by increasing density of development near transit, improving transit service by increasing service frequency, creating bus priority lanes, reducing or eliminating fares, microtransit, etc.

Increase public access to clean mobility options by planning for and investing in electric shuttles, bike share, car share, and walking Implement parking pricing or transportation demand management pricing strategies
Amend zoning or development codes to enable mixed-use, walkable, transit-oriented, and compact infill development (such as increasing the allowable density of a neighborhood)
Preserve natural and working lands by implementing land use policies that guide development toward infill areas and do not convert “greenfield” land to urban uses (e.g., green belts, strategic conservation easements)

BUILDING DECARBONIZATION
Adopt all -electric new construction reach codes for residential and commercial uses
No Conflict. Although this goal is
not applicable to an individual
residential or commercial Adopt policies and incentive programs to implement energy efficiency retrofits for existing buildings, such as weatherization, lighting development project, the Project upgrades, and replacing energy- intensive appliances and equipment would be consistent with the with more efficient systems (such as Energy Star-rated equipment and applicable Title 24 Building equipment controllers) Envelope Energy Efficiency
Standards, which ensure highly
energy efficient development.

Additionally, the proposed Project
would utilize electricity from
PG&E, which has been increasing
its overall supply of renewable
energy as part of its overall energy
Adopt policies and incentive programs to electrify all appliances and equipment in existing buildings such as appliance rebates, existing building reach codes, or time of sale electrification ordinances Facilitate deployment of renewable energy production and distribution and energy storage on privately owned land uses (e.g., permit streamlining, information sharing)
Deploy renewable energy production and energy storage directly in new public projects and on existing public facilities (e.g., solar portfolio, consistent with the photovoltaic systems on rooftops of municipal buildings and on State’s Renewable Portfolio canopies in public parking lots, battery storage systems in municipal Standard. More detail is pr ovided buildings) under Impact 3.7-2, below.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-39

SOURCE: 2022 SCOPING PLAN, TABLE 1, APPENDIX D.

The proposed Project’s operational emissions would be reduced as regulations are implemented by the CARB and other State agencies to comply with the statewide GHG reduction targets. Many of these regulations are already identified in the 2022 Scoping Plan. These statewide actions are anticipated to reduce operational GHG emissions even further below those identified in Table 3.7 -

4. For example, the proposed Project’s transportation emissions would be expected to decline as vehicle efficiency standards are i mplemented beyond the Advanced Clean Cars II program and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard is strengthened. Furthermore, CalEEMod does not account for Governor Newsom’s Zero -Emission by 2035 Executive Order (N- 79-20) or CARB’s subsequent regulations, which requ ires that all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California be zero - emission vehicles by 2035. This is anticipated to substantially reduce the operational emissions associated with passenger vehicles (i.e. mobile emissions) further, over time.

Overall, the proposed Project would not conflict with the 2022 Scoping Plan. The proposed Project would be developed according to the latest State and federal regulatory requirements, including those associated with operational building energy efficiency. Therefore, the Project would be considered consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Based on this, recognizing the CARB as an authoritative substantial evidence source in evaluating post-2020 GHG impacts, since the proposed Project would be consistent with the CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, buildout of the proposed Project would not i nterfere with the main programs the CARB has identified to support its conclusions that the State is on a trajectory to meet the 2045 GHG target. Overall, the proposed Project would not impede the 2022 Scoping Plan and would help the State to progress towards this target.

CONSISTENCY WITH FRESNO COG’S 2022 RTP/SCS
The Fr
esno COG’s 2022 RTP/SCS includes five goals with corresponding policies for improving mobility and accessibility, connecting communities with accessible transportation options, creating a safe, well-maintained, efficient, and climate-resilient multimodal transportation network, adding to a transportation network that supports a sustainable and vibrant economy, and embracing clean transportation, technology, and innovation. These goals include similar measures to the 2022 Scoping Plan. The Project’s consistency with the applicable 2022 RTP/SCS strategies is discussed in Table 3.7-6, below.

TABLE 3.7-6: P ROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH THE FRESNO COG’S 2022 RTP/SCS

GOAL PROJECT CONSISTENCY
GOAL 1: Improved No Conflict . The Project would support EV -ready charging spaces, consistent mobility and with the requirements of the latest version of the Title 24 Building Energy accessibility for all Efficiency Standards. In addition, although this Project is not a transportation improvement project, the Project is in a city where regional transit improvements are planned. Moreover, the proposed Project would inc lude many project features that improve mobility and accessibility, including providing pedestrian network improvements. Lastly, the Project would include Mitigation Measures 3.14 -1 through 3.14- 7, as provided in Section 3.14:

Transportation and Circulati on of this Draft EIR, which would further reduce Project VMT through a variety of measures.

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY

3.7-40 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

GOAL PROJECT CONSISTENCY
GOAL 2: Vibrant
communities that are
accessible by
sustainable
transportation options
No Conflict . The Project is a Specific Plan , which would create a vibrant new community adjacent to existing residential communities with pedestrian network, roadway, and bicycle improvements. Overall, the proposed Project would be well-connected to the rest of the City of Fresno and the region, as well as provide a wide variety of multi-modal and sustainable transportation options.

GOAL 3: A safe, well -
maintained, efficient,
and climate -resilient
multimodal
transportation network
No Conflict. The Project is a Specific Plan, which would be developed alongside a wide variety of multi -modal and sustainable transportation options, thereby reducing impacts on climate due to greenhouse gas emissions.

GOAL 4: A
transportation network
that supports a
sustainable and vibrant
economy
No Conflict. The proposed Project would create local jobs as well as provide new shopping options for local and regional residents, thereby supporting a sustainable and vibrant economy.

GOAL 5: A
embracing
transportation,
technology,
innovation.
region
clean
and
No Conflict. The proposed Project would provide for EV parking spaces, mixed - use development, be located alongside a modern and vibrant pedestrian and bicycle network, and provide for the potential expansion of bus services to the Plan Area (including the potential for low - or no emissions bus services). This would ensure that the project would help support the region in embracing clean transportation, technology, and innovation.

SOURCE: FRESNO COG 2022 RTP/SCS
As shown in Table 3.7 -5, above, the Project would not conflict with any of the GHG emissions reduction strategies contained in the Fresno COG 2022 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with Fresno COG’s 2022 RTP/SCS.

EXECUTIVE ORDER S-3-05

2 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm. Accessed September 11, 2023.

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
T
he Executive Order S-3-05 2050 target has not been codified by legislation. However, studies have shown that, to meet the 2050 target, aggressive pursuit of technologies in the transportation and energy sectors, including electrification and the decarboni zation of fuel, will be required. Because of the technological shifts required and the unknown p arameters of the regulatory framework in 2050, quantitatively analyzing the project’s impacts further relative to the 2050 goal is speculative for purposes of CEQA.2
The CARB recognizes that AB 32 establishes an emissions reduction trajectory that will allow California to achieve the more stringent 2050 target: “These [greenhouse gas emission reduction] measures also put the State on a path to meet the long-term 2050 goal of reducing California’s GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. This trajectory is consistent with the reductions that are needed globally to stabilize the climate.” In addition, the CARB’s First Update to the Scoping Plan “lays the foundation for establishing a broad framework for continued emission reductions beyond 2020, on the path to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050,” and many of the emission reduction Recirculated D raft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-41

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
strategies recommended by the CARB would serve to reduce the proposed project’s post -2020 emissions level to the extent applicable by law:
• Energy Sector: Continued improvements in California’s appliance and building energy efficiency programs and initiatives, such as the State’s zero net energy building goals, would serve to reduce the proposed project’s emissions level. Additionally, further additions to California’s renewable resource portfolio would favorably influence t he project’s emissions level.
• Transportation Sector: Anticipated deployment of improved vehicle efficiency, zero - emission technologies, lower carbon fuels, and improvement of existing transportation systems all will serve to reduce the project’s emissions level. • Water Sector: The project’s emissions level will be reduced because of further utilization of water conservation technologies.
• Waste Management Sector: Plans to further improve recycling, reuse and reduction of solid waste will beneficially reduce the project’s emissions level.

In his January 2015 inaugural address, Governor Brown expressed a commitment t o achieve “three ambitious goals” that he wanted to see accomplished by 2030 to reduce the State’s GHG emissions:
• Increasing the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard from 33 percent in 2020 to 50 percent in 2030;
• Cutting the petroleum use in cars and trucks in half; and • Doubling the efficiency of existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner.

These expressions of executive branch policy may be manifested in adopted legislative or regulatory action through the State agencies and departments responsible for achieving the State’s environmental policy objectives, particularly those relating to global climate change. 3 Further, studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Even though these studies did not provide an exact regulatory and technological roadmap to achieve the 2030 and 2050 goals, they demonstrated that various combinations of policies could allow the Statewide emissions level to remain very low through 2050, suggesting that the combination of new technologies and other regulations not analyzed in the studies could allow the State to meet the 2050 target.4 Given the proportional contribution of mobile source-related GHG emissions to the State’s inventory, recent studies also show that relatively new trends— such as the increasing importance 3 Brown, Edmund G. Jr. 2015. Press Release: California Establishes Most Ambitious Greenhouse Gas Goal i n North America. April 29, 2015.

Website: https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18938. Accessed February 2, 2021. 4 Energy a nd Environmental Economics, 2015. Pathways to Deep Carbonization in the United States.

Website: http://deepdecarbonization.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/11/US_Deep_Decarbonization_Technical_Report_Exec_Summary.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2022.

3.7-42 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
of web-based shopping, the emergence of different driving patterns, and the increasing effect of web-based applications on transportation choices —are beginning to substantially influence transportation choices and the energy used by transportation modes. These factors have changed the direction of transportation trends in recent years and will require the creation of new models to effectively analyze future transportation patterns and the corresponding effect on GHG emissions.

For the reasons described above, the proposed project’s post-2020 emissions trajectory is expected to follow a declining trend, consistent with the 2030 and 2050 targets.

MORE STRINGENT TITLE 24 STANDARDS
The proposed Project would be required to comply with the latest (i.e., 2022) version of the Title 24 standards, which are more stringent than the 2019 Title 24 standards that are modeled in CalEEMod.5 Therefore, proposed Project emissions would continue to decline beyond the buildout year due to regulations that would indirectly affect Project emissions. Moreover, the Title 24 standards are anticipated to be revised again in Year 2025, with even stricter energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements for new development, which help to ensure that new development is consistent with the State’s GHG reduction goals, consistent with the Scoping Plan. 6 These
improvements to the Title 24 standards will be reflected in per capita GHG emission reductions at the Project buildout.

CONSISTENCY WITH THE SJVAPCD REQUIREMENTS
The proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable SJVAPCD (i.e., Air District) Rules and regulations. For example, Regulations and rules that may apply to the proposed Project could include Regulation VIII that provides fugitive PM 10 dust prohibitions; Rule 8021 that provides rules for PM 10 dust prohibition associated with construction, demolition activities, excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities; Rule 4601 that provides rules to limit VOC emissions for architectural coatings. Moreover, the proposed Project would be requir ed to comply with SJVAPCD Rule 9510, as described in further detail below.

SJVAPCD’S RULE 9510
In accordance with the SJVAPCD’s Rule 9510, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) is required to be prepared for the proposed Project based on the applicability and exemption criteria of the rule. 7 The rule includes general mitigation requirements for construction and/or operational emissions.

Per the general mitigation requirements of Rule 9510, the Project would be required to reduce the Project’s operational baseline NOx emissions 33.3%, and the P roject’s operational baseline PM 10 5 Since the latest version of CalEEMod (v.2022.1) only accounts for the energy efficiency requirements associated with the 2019 version of Title 24, and since there i s no well-established methodology for quantifying the reductions in energy consumption associated with the 2022 version of Title 24 over the 2019 version of Title 24, the CalEEMod modeling does not account for the energy efficiency improvements that would be associated with the 2022 (or future, more stringent) versions of Title 24. 6 See: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency- standards/2025-building-energy-efficiency
7 Available a t: https://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r9510-a.pdf. Accessed: September 2022.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-43

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
emissions 50%, over a period of 10 years as quantified in the approved AIA. Although the purpose of Rule 9510 is to reduce NOx and PM 10 emissions, rather than GHG emissions, it should be noted that these reductions are enforced through on- and off-site measures, many of which would also reduce GHG emissions. For example, according to the SJVAPCD’s most recent Indirect Source Review Program annual report (the Indirect Source Review Program 2022 Annual Report, July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022), during the report ing period (July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022), the District spent ISR monies to fund clean -air emission reduction projects, including off -site projects such as the replacement of older, higher -emitting agricultural tractors with new latest -tier tractors, replacement of older, higher -emitting agricultural irrigation w ater pump engines with electric motors, retrofitting of residential open- hearth fireplaces with certified natural gas burning inserts, and a dairy feed mixer electrification project. Total off -site emission reductions alone for the reporting period totaled 50 tons of NOx and 86 tons of PM10, for a paid-out total of $3,458,048, and a cost effectiveness of $25,438/ton.8
These off-site emission reductions have the ancillary benefit of reducing GHG emissions, beyond what has been modeled herein. For example, the reduction in carbon intensity of natural gas burning inserts compared with open-hearth fireplaces is improved by 39.7%, according to data from Appendix G of the latest version of the CalEEMod v2022.1 Guidebook. 9 Although the reductions in GHGs will be attributed to the proposed Project through the Rule 9510 ISR, these reductions are not reflected in the Project GHG modeling estimates included herein, except that the modeling estimates do reflect that fact that th e Project does not include any open-hearth fireplaces. It is notable, however, that the GHG reductions are projected to be substantial and are in alignment with the goals of the 2022 Scoping Plan.

PROPOSED PROJECT POLICIES THAT MINIMIZE GHG EMISSIONS The proposed Project includes various policies that would help to minimize GHG emissions. These policies are listed below.
• IPR 1.1 Implement the Active Transportation Plan, ADA Transition Plan for ROW, and the General Plan to provide for complete, safe, and well-maintained sidewalk, bicycle, and trail networks that are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and which connect established and planned residential neighborhoods to destinations such as commercial and employment centers, schools, parks, and community centers. • IPR 1.3 Collaborate with Central Unified School District and Fresno County to support complete routes to schools by collecting family travel data, prioritizing infrastructure improvements near schools and to promoting annual Walk & Bike to School Days to encourage active transportation. a. Priority routes to update include (but are not limited to) a. Ashlan from Cornelia to Hayes. b. Valentine from Shields to Clinton, c. Dakota from Brawley to Cornelia and d. Polk from Clinton to Dayton. • IPR 1.6 Require the installation of bicycle-supportive infrastructure to future development 8 See the SJVAPCD’s Indirect Source Review Rule Annual Report (2022) for more detail:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/indirect-source-review-rule-overview/isr-annual-report/ 9 See Table G-23 of the CalEEMod v2022.1 Appendix (Appendix G) for detail.

3.7-44 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
and roadway improvements, including bike parking facilities as well as through lanes and detection loops at every signaled intersection where Class II and Class IV bike lanes are existing and planned.
• IPR 1.8 Expand transit services in the West Area as development occurs, by locating routes near or adjacent to civic centers, schools, public parks, and retail centers and explore feasibility to create a West Area-Downtown Connector Route. • IPR 1.9 When a project generates Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) above an established threshold, require mitigation consistent with the City’s VMT Program. If consistent with the Program, mitigation could potentially include funding for active transportation improvements, such as upgrades to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure, transit service extensions, or contributions to an active transportation fund. • IPR 1.11 When improvements related to large employers or schools (defined as having 100 or more employees or students) are proposed, consider requiring a subsidized transit pass program for employees and students.
• IPR 1.17 Address issues of vehicle congestion in the West Area through a) studying congestion patterns, location, and traveler characteristics to determine potential solutions.

Furthermore, new development should strive to promote active transportation to reduce auto-dependency and overall traffic impacts.
• IPR 1.18 Encourage the use of micromobility in the West Area, consider it when designing or retrofitting transportation -related infrastructure, and explore potential for integration with public transit.
• LUH 1.1 Continue to implement policies that encourage orderly development and discourage premature development of land near the planned urban fringe. • LUH 3.1 Attract desired and needed local retail establishments to serve the needs of the West Area community, such as grocery stores, bakeries, restaurants (other than fast food places), and boutiques - with a special focus on Catalytic Corridors.

CONCLUSION
The proposed Project would be consistent with relevant plans, policies, and regulations associated with GHGs, notably the most recent version of the CARB’s Scoping Plan, and the Fresno COG’s 2022 RTP/SCS. Additionally, the proposed Project itself includes many policies that would minimize GHG emissions. Furthermore, the proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures

3.14-1 through 3.14-7, which would reduce transportation -related GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project. This would ensure that the proposed Project would be consistent with, and would not impair, the State’s carbon neutrality standard by year 2045 as established under AB 1279.

The State is making progress toward reducing GHG emissions in key sectors such as transportation, industry, and electricity. Since the Project would be consistent with State GHG Plans, it would not impede the State’s goals of reducing GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. The proposed Project would make a reasonable fair share contribution to the State’s GHG reduction goals, by implementing a wide array of Project features that would substantially reduce GHG emissions and therefore, the proposed Project’s GHG emissions would be considered to have a less than significant impact.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-45

Impact 3. 7-2: Specific Plan implementation would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources , or c onflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Less than Significant)

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
The CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of the potentially significant energy implications of a project. CEQA requires mitigation measures to reduce “wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary” energy usage (Public Resources Code Section 21100, subdivision [b][3]). According to the CEQA Guidelines, the means to achieve the goal of conserving energy include decreasing overall energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In particular, the proposed project would be considered “wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary” if it were to violate State and federal energy standards and/or result in significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy inefficiencies, energy intensiveness of materials, cause significant impacts on local and regional energy supplies or generate requirements for additional capacity, fail to comply with existing energy standards, otherwise result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources, or conflict or create an inconsistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation.

The proposed project is a large-scale Specific Plan, and incorporates residential, commercial, public/institutional, and open space uses. The amount of energy used by the proposed project during operation would directly correlate with the number, size, and type of project buildings, the energy efficiency of associated building equipment and appliances, and outdoor lighting, and energy use associated with other on-site buildings and activities. Other project energy uses include fuel used by vehicle trips generated during project construction and operation, fuel used by off-road construction vehicles during construction activities, and fuel used by project maintenance activities during project operation. The following discussion provides a detailed calculation of energy usage expected for the proposed project, for the unmitigated and mitigated scenarios, as provided by applicable modelling software (i.e. CalEEMod v 2020.1 and the CARB EMFAC2021). Additional assumptions and calculations are provided within Appendix B of this EIR.

ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS
Electricity and natural gas used by the p roposed project would be used primarily to generate energy for on -site buildings, lighting, and water pumping, treatment, and conveyance. As shown in the following tables, “Energy” is one of the categories that was modeled for GHG emissions. The total unmitigated and mitigated GHG emissions generated from the “Energy” category in buildout year 2035 is 227,027 MT CO2e. The following discussion includes a more detailed breakdown of energy consumption in terms of natural gas and electricity consumption. The proposed project would consider effective ways to encourage alternative energy use throughout the Specific Plan Area, as described by mitigation measure provided in Section 3.3: Air Quality of this EIR.

Natural Gas: Unmitigated natural gas energy consumption for Year 2035 is estimated to be 1,002,916,851 kBTU (as provided by the CalEEMod results). See Appendix B of this EIR for further detail.

3.7 -46 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
Electricity: Unmitigated electricity energy consumption for Year 2035 is estimated to be 2,505,578, 812 kWh (as provided by the CalEEMod results). See Appendix B of this EIR for further detail.

ON-ROAD VEHICLES (OPERATION)
The proposed p roject would generate vehicle trips durin g its o perational phase. A d escription o f project operational on-road mobile energy usage is provided below.

Trips and VMT are provided in the VMT Analysis prepared for the proposed project (Kittelson & Associates, 2024), and as described in more detail in Section 3.14: Transportation and Circulation of this EIR. In order to calculate operational on -road vehicle energy usage and emissions, De Novo Planning Group used fleet mix data from the CalEEMod (v.2020.1) output for the proposed project, Year 2035 gasoline and diesel MPG (miles per gallon) factors for individual vehicle classes as provided by EMFAC2021, weighted average MPG factors for gasoline and diesel were derived.

Therefore, upon full buildout, the proposed project would generate operational vehicle trips that would use a total of approximately 54,372,446 gallons of gasoline and 12,604,267 gallons of diesel per day, or 19,845,942,964 gallons of gasoline and 4,600,557,316 gallons of diesel per year.

ON-ROAD VEHICLES (CONSTRUCTION)
The proposed project would also generate on -road vehicle trips during project construction (from construction workers and vendors travelling to and from the Plan Area). De Novo Planning Group estimated the vehicle fuel consumed during these trips based the assumed construction schedule, vehicle trip lengths and number of workers per construction phase as provided by CalEEMod, and Year 2035 gasoline and diesel MPG factors provided by EMFAC2021 (year 2035 factors were used to represent the buildout year). For the sake of simplicity, it was assumed that all construction worker light duty passenger cars and truck trips use gasoline as a fuel source, and all medium and heavy- duty vendor trucks use diesel fuel). Table 3.7-7 describes gasoline and diesel fuel consumed during each construction phase (in aggregate).

TABLE 3.7-7: ON-ROAD MOBILE FUEL GENERATED BY PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES – BY PHASE

CONSTRUCTION
PHASE # OF DAYS

TOTAL DAILY
WORKER

TRIPS(A)

TOTAL DAILY
VENDOR

TRIPS(A)
TOTAL
HAULER
WORKER

TRIPS(A)

TOTAL GALLONS

OF GASOLINE

FUEL(B)

TOTAL GALLONS OF

DIESEL FUEL(B)
Demolition 21 15 0 0 88 39,348
Site
Preparation 65 18 0 0 328 0
Grading 65 20 0 0 365 0
Underground
Utilities 65 30 0 0 0 0
Paving 85 15 0 0 358 0
Building
Construction 2,826 36,740 12,561 0 1,457,011 1,275,284
Architectural
Coating 2,610 7,348 0 0 269,129 0
Total 5,737 N/A N/A N/A 1,727,279 1,314,632
NOTE: (A) PROVIDED BY CALEEMOD OUTPUT. (B)SEE APPENDIX B OF THIS EIR FOR FURTHER DETAIL Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-47

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
SOURCE: CALEEMOD (V.2020.1); EMFAC2021.

As shown, the vast majority of on -road mobile vehicle fuel used during the construction of the proposed project would occur during the building construction phase. There is no feasible mitigation available that would reduce on-road mo bile vehicle GHG emissions generated by the project construction activities (requiring the use of electric construction vehicles was deemed infeasible, given price and availability concerns). The Plan Area is relatively flat, so no hauling was assumed for grading. Additionally, hauling for demolition activities were assumed to be minimal. See Appendix B of this EIR for a detailed accounting of construction on-road vehicle fuel usage estimates.

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES (CONSTRUCTION)
Off-
road construction vehicles would use diesel fuel during the construction phase of the proposed project. A non-exhaustive list of off -road constructive vehicles expected to be used during the construction phase of the proposed project includes: forklifts, generator sets, tractors, excavators, and dozers. Based on t he total amount of CO2 emissions expected to be generated by the proposed project ( as provided by the CalEEMod output), and standard conversion factors (as provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration), the proposed project would use a total of approximately 37,889 gallons of diesel fuel for off-road construction vehicles. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix B of this EIR.

OTHER
The proposed project could also use other sources of energy not identified here. Examples of other energy sources include alternative and/or renewable energy (such as solar PV) and/or on -site stationary sources (such as on-site diesel generators) for electricity generation. However, these sources of energy are not planned at this time.

3.7-4
8 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

CONCLUSION
The proposed project would use energy resources for the operation of project buildings (electricity and natural gas), for on-road vehicle trips (e.g. gasoline and diesel fuel) generated by the proposed project, and from off -road construction activities associated with the proposed project (e.g. diesel fuel). Each of these activities would require the use of energy resources. The proposed project would be responsible for conserving energy, to the extent feasible, and relies heavily on reducing per capita energy consumption to achieve this goal, including through statewide and local measures.

The proposed project would be in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. For example, PG&E, the electric and natural gas provider to the proposed project, is responsible for the mix of energy resources used to provide electricity for its customers, and it is in the process of implementing the statewide RPS to increase the proportion of renewable energy (e.g. solar and wind) within its energy portfolio. PG&E has achieved more than a 33% mix of renewable energy resources by 2020, and is required to achieve a 60% mix of renewable energy resources by 2030. Additionally, energy -saving regulations, including the latest State Title 24 building energy efficiency standards (“part 6”), would be applicable to the proposed project. These regulations would require the proposed project buildings to achieve a high level of energy efficiency.

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 3.7
For example, part 6 of the latest Title 24 building energy efficiency standards would require improvements for attics, walls, water heating, and lighting, as compared with the previous version of these standards. Other statewide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy-duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g. the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard), would improve vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time.

Furthermore, as described previously, the implementation of the mitigation measures provided in Section 3.2: Air Quality of this Draft EIR would reduce project energy usage (including from electricity, natural gas, and on-road vehicle gasoline and diesel sources). Overall, the incorporation of mitigation measures would ensure that the proposed project would avoid and reduce inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. The proposed project would comply with all existing energy standards, including those established by the City of Fresno, the Air Dist rict (i.e.

SJVAPCD) and the State of California, and would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources. For these reasons, the proposed project would not cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources nor cause a significant impact on any of the threshold as described by the CEQA Guidelines. This is a less than significant impact.

Impact 3.7-3 : Specific Plan implementation would not generate a cumulative impact on climate change from increased project- related greenhouse gas emissions . ( Less than Significant and Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
As the California Supreme Court has emphasized, all CEQA analyses of the environmental effects of GHG emissions are inherently cumulative in character. “[B]ecause of the global scale of climate change, any one project's contribution is unlikely to be signi ficant by itself. With respect to climate change, an individual project's emissions will most likely not have any appreciable impact on the global problem by itself, but they will contribute to the significant cumulative impact caused by greenhouse gas emissions from other sources around the globe. The question therefore becomes whether the project's incremental addition of greenhouse gases is ‘cumulatively considerable’ in light of the global problem, and thus significant.’” (Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 219, quoting (Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under CEQA: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (July 2011) 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L.J. 203, 207–208.) Thus, the analysis below considers the entire planet as a backdrop while focusing on whether the proposed project’s incremental contribution to worldwide GHG emissions is cumulatively considerable.

In California, there has been extensive legislation passed with the goal of reducing GHG emissions.

The legislative goals are as follows: 1) 1990 levels by 2020 and 2) 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.

An additional goal -- 80% below the 1990 levels by the year 2050 – was set by Governor Schwarzenegger through Executive Order S-03-05. An even more ambitious goal of achieving carbon neutrality “as soon as possible, and no later than 2045,” was set by Governor Brown through Executive Order B-55-18. To achieve these legislative and executive goals, the CARB has developed regional GHG emission reduction targets for the automobile and light truck sectors (the largest single Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.7-49

3.7 GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
source of GHG emissions) for 2020 and 2040. The regional GHG emission reduction targets for each region in California were established by the CARB.

As described in Impact 3.7-2, the proposed Project would be consistent with relevant plans, policies, and regulations associated with GHGs, notably the most recent version of the CARB’s Scoping Plan, and the Fresno COG’s 2022 RTP/SCS. Additionally, the proposed Project itself includes many policies that would minimize GHG emissions. Furthermore, the proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.14-1 and 3.14-2, which would reduce transportation-related GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project. This would ensure that the proposed Project would be consistent with, and would n ot impair, the State’s carbon n eutrality standard b y year 2045 as established under AB 1279. The State is making progress toward reducing GHG emissions in key sectors such as transportation, industry, and electricity. Since the Project would be consistent with State GHG Plans, it would not impede the State’s goals of reducing GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.

Therefore, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, directly and indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment. Moreover, the Specific Plan incorporates goals and policies that emphasize compact, walkable communities, and where incorporated into the design of the proposed project, would help minimize GHG emissions generated by the proposed project. Further, the proposed project would be required to implement mitigation measures that are intended to reduce GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The State of California continues to implement measures that are intended to reduce emissions on a State-wide scale (i.e. vehicle fuel efficiency standards in fleets, low carbon fuels, etc.) that are consistent with AB 32 and SB 32. These types of statewide measures will benefit the proposed project (and city as a whole) in the long-term as they come into effect; however, the City does not have the jurisdiction t o create far-reaching (i.e. statewide) measures to reduce GHG emi ssions. On a project-by-project case, the City of Fresno evaluates a project and the potential to impose project-specific mitigation, which has been done through this GHG analysis. For these reasons, implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable contribution impact to GHGs.

3. 7-50 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
This section describes the physical setting , hazards assessment, hazardous material sites, fire hazards, regulatory setting, and impacts that are expected related to hazards and hazardous materials. This section is based in part on the following documents, reports, and studies:
• Cortese List Data Resources (Cal EPA, 2019);
• Envirostor Data Management System (California DTSC, 2019); • Fresno County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission, 2018).
• Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• Fresno Municipal Code (City of Fresno, 2024);
• GeoTracker (California State Water Resources Board, 2019); and • Web Soil Survey (NRCS, 2019).

3.8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

PHYSICAL SETTING
Project Location
The Plan Area is triangular in shape and located west of State Route 99. It is bounded on the south by West Clinton Avenue, and to the west by Grantland and Garfield Avenues. The Plan Area includes the southwest portion of Highway City adjacent to State R oute 9 9. See Figure 2.0-1 for the regional location map and Figure 2 .0-2 for the Plan Area vicinity map. Figures 2.0-1 and 2.0-2 found in Section

2.0 illustrate the regional location and vicinity map.

Existing Site Uses
Large portions of the Plan Area are improved with existing residential, public facilities, commercial, mixed use, undeveloped rural land, and agricultural uses. These uses are spread throughout the entire Plan Area. Agricultural uses are primarily located in the western portion of the Plan Area. The developed uses are aggregated in the central and eastern portions of the Plan Area.

A portion of the Plan Area is located within the City of Fresno city limits, and a portion is within unincorporated Fresno County (within the City’s Sphere of Influence [SOI] ). The City of Fresno General Plan designates the existing Plan Area as: Low Density Residential, Medium Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Urban Neighborhood Residential, High Density Residential, Community Commercial, General Commercial, Recreation Commercial, Office, Business Park, Light Industrial, Corridor/Center Mixed Use, Regional Mixed Use, Community Park, Open Space – Ponding Basin, Neighborhood Park, Open Space, Public/Quasi -Public Facility, Special School, Elementary School, Elementary, Middle & High School, and High School. See Figure 2.0-4 for the existing City General Plan land use designations.

Reci
rculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-1

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Existing Surrounding Uses
Existing surrounding land uses include State Route 99 ; the historic communities of Herndon and Highway City; incorporated areas of the city of Fresno to the north east; incorporated areas of the city of Fresno to the east (including mostly industrial uses) ; unincorporated Fresno County and incorporated areas of the city of Fresno to the south (including farmland uses, rural residential uses, low density residential uses, and underutilized parcels) ; and unincorporated Fresno County to the west (including farmland and rural residential uses).

Site Topography
The Plan Area is relatively flat with natural gentle slope near State Route 99. The Plan Area topography ranges in elevation from approximately 283 to 315 feet above mean sea level. A large amount of land in the Plan Area is farmland or rural residential lots with large, uneven, and underutilized parcels.

Site Soils
A Web Soil Survey was completed for the Plan Area using the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey program. The NRCS Soils Map is provided in Figure 3. 6-1 in Section

3.6, Geology and Soils. Table 3.8-1 identifies the type and range of soils found in the Plan Area.

TABLE 3.8-1: PLAN AREA SOILS

HAZARDS ASSESSMENT
For the purposes of this EIR, “hazardous material” is defined as provided in California Health & Safety Code, Section 25501:

3. 8-2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
• Any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. “Hazardous materials” include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.
“Hazardous waste” is a subset of hazardous materials. For the purposes of this EIR, the definition of hazardous waste is essentially the same as that in the California Health & Safety Code, Section 25517, and in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Section 66261.2:
• Hazardous wastes are wastes that, because of their quantity, concentration, physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or pose a substanti al present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.

CCR Title 22 categorizes hazardous waste into hazard classes according to specific characteristics of ignitibility, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. Hazardous waste with any of these characteristics is also known as a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste.

Hazardous materials can be categorized as hazardous non -radioactive chemical materials, radioactive materials, toxic materials, and biohazardous materials. The previous definitions are adequate for non-radioactive hazardous chemicals. Radioactive and biohazardous materials are further defined as follows:
• Radioactive materials contain atoms with unstable nuclei that spontaneously emit ionizing radiation to increase their stability.
• Radioactive wastes are radioactive materials that are discarded (including wastes in storage) or abandoned.
• Toxic wastes are harmful or fatal when ingested or absorbed (e.g., containing mercury, lead). When toxic wastes are land disposed, contaminated liquid may leach from the waste and pollute groundwater.
• Biohazardous materials include materials containing certain infectious agents (microorganisms, bacteria, molds, parasites, and viruses) that cause or significantly contribute to increased human mortality or organisms capable of being communicated by invading and multiplying in body tissues.
• Medical wastes include both biohazardous wastes (byproducts of biohazardous materials) and sharps (devices capable of cutting or piercing, such as hypodermic needles, razor blades, and broken glass) resulting from the diagnosis, treatment, or immunization of human beings, or research pertaining to these activities.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-3

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
There are several categories of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes that could be found on any given property based on p ast uses. Some common examples include agrichemicals (chlorinated herbicides, organophosphate pesticides, and organochlorine pesticides, such as such as Mecoprop (MCPP), Dinoseb, chlordane, dichloro -diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and dichloro -diphenyl- dichloroethylene (DDE)), petroleum based products (oil, gasoline, diesel fuel), a variety of chemicals including paints, cleaners, and solvents, and asbestos-containing or lead-containing materials (e.g., paint, sealants, pipe solder).
“Recognized Environmental Conditions” is one of the terms used to identify environmental liability within the context of a Phase I Environmental Sites Assessment ( ESA). The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) defines the recognized environmental condition in the E1527-13 standard as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to relea se to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; o r (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.” Adjoining Properties
The Plan Area is bounded on the north a nd east by Highway 99, to the south by West Clinton Avenue, and to the west by Grantland and Garfield Avenues.

Historical Use Information
Historical information was reviewed to develop a history of the previous uses within the Plan Area and surrounding area, in order to evaluate the Plan Area and adjoining properties for evidence of environmental concerns. Standard historical sources reviewed during the preparation o f this report included the following, as available:

ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS AND DATABASES
De Novo Planning Group performed a search of local, state, and federal agency databases for the Plan Area and known contaminated sites in the vicinity.

The USEPA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) does not list data on disposal or other releases of toxic chemicals in the Plan Area (USEPA, 2017). The nearest TRI site is located east of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, along North Brawley Avenue.

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control ( DTSC) maintains the Envirostor Data Management System, which provides information on hazardous waste facilities (both permitted and corrective action) as well as any available site cleanup information. There are three sites listed in the database within the Plan Area:
• West Shields Elementary School: This site is located at 4108 Shields Avenue, and is a part of the DTSC – Site Cleanup Program. The cleanup status is active as of 1/4/2017. A Phase 1 assessment was completed on this site on January 4, 2017. Past uses that c aused contamination are not specified. The Potential materials (e.g. soil, water, etc.) affected were also not specified.

3.8-4 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
• Golden State Ranch Property: This site is located at Ashlan Avenue and Grantland Avenue, and the DTSC is the oversight agency for this site. The cleanup status is active as of 2/27/2002. Past uses that caused contamination include agricultural – row crops. No contaminants were found at this site.
• Parc West Development ( previously known as the Westlake Proposed 430 Acre Development): This site is located at the intersection of Shields, Grantland, Garfield, and Gettysburg avenues. The cleanup status is currently inactive. Past uses that caused contamination included agricultural – orchard and agricultural – row crop uses. Potential contaminants of concern are under investigation, and the potential materials affected are soils.

The Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) is a database of solid waste facilities that is maintained by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). The SWIS data identifies active, planned and closed sites. The Plan Area does not have any active or planned solid waste facilities listed in the database.

There is a broad list of federal and state databases that provide information for sites with varying potential for risk from the possible existence of hazardous materials. There are numerous redundancies among these various database listings. Below is a brief summary of each.

National Priorities List: The National Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund Sites and Proposed NPL Sites is USEPA’s database of more than 1,200 sites designated or proposed for priority cleanup under the Superfund program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. No site listed in this database is located within the Plan Area. The closest site listed in this database is the Fresno Municipal Sanitary Landfill, located south of SR 180.

RCRIS System: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) is a USEPA database that includes selective information on sites that generate, transport, store, treat, and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by RCRA. Identification on this list does not indicate that there has been an impact on the environment. No portion of the Plan Area is listed in this database.

CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report (CORRACTS) is a USEPA database that identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity. No portion of t he Plan Area is listed in this database.

PADS System: PCB Activity Database System (PADS) is a USEPA database that identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers, and/or brokers and disposers of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) who are required to notify USEPA of such activities. No portion of t he Plan Area is listed in this database.

Cortese Database: The Cortese database identifies public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, sites with known toxic material identified through the abandoned site assessment program, sites wit h underground storage tanks (USTs) having a reportable release, and all solid waste disposal facilities from which Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-5

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
there is known hazardous substance migration. The source of this database is the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). No portion of the Plan Area is listed in this database.

GeoTracker: GeoTracker provides online access to environmental data and is the interface to the Geographic Environmental Information Management System, a data warehouse which tracks regulatory data about underground fuel tanks, fuel pipelines, and public drinking water supplies .

GeoTracker has replaced past databases, such as the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System and the Underground Storage Tank (UST) database. Information on hazardous material sites provided by the GeoTracker database is provided in greater detail below.

Hazardous Material Sites
As noted above, the State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (also known as the “Cortese List”) is a planning document used by the state, local agencies, and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for providing information about the location of hazardous materials sites. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires Cal EPA to annually update the Cortese List. DTSC is responsible for preparing a portion of the information that comprises the Cortese List. Other state and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information that is part of the complete list.

Searches of the GeoTracker database identified one active and one inactive hazardous material sites located within the Plan Area known to handle and store hazardous materials that are associated with a hazardous material related release or occurrence. The terms "release" or “occurrence” include any means by which a substance could harm the environment: by spilling, leaking, discharging, dumping, injecting, or escaping.

Table 3.8-2 displays the known hazardous material sites located within the Plan Area with a description of the type, status, and address. As shown, one active and one inactive site are located within the Plan Area, with the remaining sites are designated as completed, no action required, no further action, or not specified.

3. 8-6 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

TABLE 3.8-2: GEOTRACKER KNOWN HAZARDOUS MATERIAL RELEASE SITES WITHIN THE PLAN AREA

SITE NAME TYPE STATUS ADDRESS
7-Eleven #24180 LUST Cleanup Site Completed 4246 West Ashlan Avenue AT&T California – SBR29 Permitted UST -- 4309 North Polk Avenue Chevron #9-9093 LUST Cleanup Site Completed 3996 Parkway Drive North Di Redo Dry Yard LUST Cleanup Site Completed 6150 Shaw Avenue West EZ Trip LUST Cleanup Site Completed 6639 Parkway Drive North Former Sieberts’ Oil Company LUST Cleanup Site Completed 2837 North Parkway Drive Fresno Gas & Liquor Permitted UST -- 3110 West Shields Avenue Golden State Ranch Property School Investigation No Action Required Ashlan Avenue/Grantland Avenue Johnny Quik #175 Permitted UST -- 4395 West Ashlan Avenue Jura Farms, Inc. LUST Cleanup Site Completed 5545 Dakota West Moore Truck Lines LUST Cleanup Site Completed 3693 Parkway North Parkway Mini-Mart Permitted UST --
Proposed Constance-Sierra
Elementary School School Investigation No Further Action Northeast Corner of Constance and Sierra Avenues
Quick ‘N’ E-Z #19 Permitted UST --
Siebert’s Oil Company LUST Cleanup Site Completed 2837 Parkway Drive North Shop N Go, #607 Permitted UST -- 4245 West Ashlan
Sugahara Farm LUST Cleanup Site Completed 4108 Shields Avenue West Vallee Food Store LUST Cleanup Site Completed 2414 Marks North Parc West Development
(previously known as the
Westlake Proposed 430 Acre
Development)
Voluntary Cleanup Inactive Bounded by Shields, Grantland, Garfield, and Gettysburg
West Shields Elementary School School Investigation Active 4108 Shields Avenue HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
SOURCE: STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD GEOTRACKER (2019).

NOTE: -- = NOT S PECIFIED WITHIN THE GEOTRACKER DATABASE.

The West Shields Elementary School site has an active permitted underground storage tank (UST).

The permitting agency for this site is the DTSC . On January 4, 2017, DTSC received the Phase I for review. This site is currently a vacant lot with native grasses. The site has been used for agricultural purposes from at least 1937 through at least 1998. Multiple structures were formerly located at the site. In 1993, remediation of petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil was performed after removing a 500 -gallon single-walled gasoline UST from the site. In addition, a water well was observed within the southwest quadrant of the site. The Phase I concludes that the only recognized environmental condition (REC) at the site is the potential application of persistent herbicides and pesticides due to the historical agricultural use of the site. The Phase I identifies the UST removal activities as a historical REC and indicates that no additional investigation appears warranted at this time.

Moreover, the Phase I identifies the following Site Development Iss ues: the potential presence of septic systems likely associated with the water well and the former on-site structures. The Phase I recommends properly abandoning and/or destroying the septic system and water well in accordance with all applicable state and local guidelines. On January 18, 2017, based on the provided information, DTSC determined that a Preliminary Environmental Assessment (PEA) is needed for the site. On August 4, 2017, DTSC conducted a site walk -through with the District and their consultant followed by the PEA scoping meeting. DTSC received the draft PEA Workplan on May 7, 2018 and Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-7

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
issued comments on May 25, 2018. DTSC received the draft final PEA Workplan on June 23, 2018 and issued and approval letter or July 23, 2018. On September 4, 2018, DTSC conducted oversight of the PEA fieldwork. DTSC received the draft PEA Report on 11 Dece mber 2018 and issued comments in a letter dated January 11, 2019. No subsequent information is available for the site.

The Inactive Parc West Development (previously known as the Westlake Proposed 430 Acre Development) site is a voluntary (inactive) cleanup site. The DTSC is the lead agency for the site. A Preliminary Endangerment Assessment was planned for this former agricultural property. The site is proposed as a Planned Residential Community. The DTSC had a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with the applicant for the Planned Residential Community. Potential media affected includes soils.

Potential contaminants of concern are under investigation. Residential uses are currently (as of September 2024) under construction on the northern portion of this site. S hould the remainder of the site be developed in the future, future cleanup activities would be required prior to development on this site, as applicable.

Emergency Response
The Ci
ty of Fresno Fire Department provides fire prevention, suppression and investigation services, airport fire and rescue, urban search and rescue, response to medical emergencies (EMS), and response to hazardous materials incidents. The FFD service areas consists of the city of Fresno, and also includes extra -territorial services via contracts to provide services to the Fig Garden Fire Protection District, Fresno Yosemite International Airport, and surrounding areas through mutual aid and automatic aid requests.

Transportation of Hazardous Materials
The nea
rest roadway and transportation route approved for the transportation of explosives, poisonous inhalation hazards, and radioactive materials in the city is State Route 99.

WILDFIRE HAZARDS
Wildfires are a major hazard in the State of California. Wildfires burn natural vegetation on developed and undeveloped lands and include timber, brush, woodland, and grass fires. While low intensity wildfires have a role in the County’s ecosystem, wildfir es put human health and safety, structures (e.g., homes, schools, businesses, etc.), air quality, recreation areas, water quality, wildlife habitat and ecosystem health, and forest resources at risk.

Wildland fire hazards exist in varying degrees within the Plan Area. None of the Plan Area is located within or near to a State Responsibility Area (SRA). The Plan Area is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). Most of the Plan Area is located in the “LRA Unzoned” Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). However, small areas within the northern, central, and southern portions of the Plan Area are located in the “LRA Moderate” FHSZ. There are no very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ) located within or near the Plan Area.

3.8-8 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8

3.8.2 REGULATORY SETTING
The following is an overview of the federal, State, and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.

FEDERAL
The primary federal agencies that are responsible for overseeing regulations and policies regarding hazardous materials are the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Departm ent of Transportation (DOT). Several laws governing the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials are governed by these agencies as well as oversight for contaminated sites cleanup. Federal laws and regulations that are applicable to hazards and hazardous materials are presented below.

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as amended, is the basic statute regulating hazardous materials transportation in the United States. The purpose of the law is to provide adequate protection against the risks to life and property inherent in transporting hazardous materials in interstate commerce. This law gives the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and other agencies the authority to issue and enforce rules and regulations governing the safe transportation of hazardous materials.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The 1976 Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the 1984 RCRA Amendments regulate the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. The legislation mandated that hazardous wastes be tracked from the point of generation to their ultimate fate in the environment. This includes detailed tracking of hazardous materials during transport and permitting of hazardous material handling facilities.

The 1984 RCRA amendments provided the framework for a regulatory program designed to prevent releases from USTs. The program establishes tank and leak detection standards, including spill and overflow protection devices for new tanks. The tanks must also meet performance standards to ensure that the stored material will not corrode the tanks.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (the Act) introduced active federal involvement to emergency response, site remediation, and spill prevention, most notably the Superfund program. The Act was intended to be comprehensive in encompassing both the prevention of, and response to, uncontrolled hazardous substances releases. The Act deals with environmental response, providing mechanisms for reacting to emergencies and to chronic hazardous material releases. In addition to establishing procedures to prevent and remedy problems, it establishes a system for compensating appropriate individuals and assigning appropriate liability. It is designed to plan for and respond to failure in other regulatory Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-9

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
programs and to remedy problems resulting from action taken before the era of comprehensive regulatory protection.

Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act authorizes the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety to regulate pipeline transportation of natural (flammable, toxic, or corrosive) gas and other gases as well as the transportation and storage of liquefied natural gas. The Office of Pipeline Safety regulates the design, construction, inspection, testing, operation, and maintenance of pipeline facilities. While the federal government is primarily responsible for developing, issuing, and enforcing pipeline safety regulations, the pipeline safety statutes provide for State assumption of the intrastate regulatory, inspection, and enforcement responsibilities under an annual certification.

To qualify for certification, a state must adopt the minimum fede ral regulations and may adopt additional or more stringent regulations as long as they are not incompatible.

Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 provides the EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and r estrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from Toxic Substances Control Act, including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics and pesticides. The Toxic Substances Control Act addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including PCBs, asbestos, radon and lead-based paint.

Various sections of Toxic Substances Control Act provide authority to:
• Require, under Section 5, pre-manufacture notification for "new chemical substances" before manufacture
• Require, under Section 4, testing of chemicals by manufacturers, importers, and processors where risks or exposures of concern are found
• Issue Significant New Use Rules (SNURs), under Section 5, when it identifies a "significant new use" that could result in exposures to, or releases of, a substance of concern. • Maintain the Toxic Substances Control Act Inventory, under Section 8, which contains more than 83,000 chemicals. As new chemicals are commercially manufactured or imported, they are placed on the list.
• Require those importing or exporting chemicals, under Sections 12(b) and 13, to comply with certification reporting and/or other requirements. • Require, under Section 8, reporting and record-keeping by persons who manufacture, import, process, and/or distribute chemical substances in commerce. • Require, under Section 8(e), that any person who manufactures (including imports), processes, or distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture and who obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment to immediately inform EPA, except where EPA has been adequately informed of such information. EPA screens all Toxic Substances Control Act b§8(e) submissions as well as voluntary "For Your Information" (FYI)

3. 8-10 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
submissions. The latter are not required by law, but are submitted by industry and public interest groups for a variety of reasons.

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act
The Emergency Planning and Community Right -To-Know Act (also known as Title III of the Federal Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, or “SARA III”) (42 United States Code 11001, et seq.), was established by the EPA to allow for emergency planning at the state and local level regarding chemical emergencies, to provide notification of emergency release of chemicals, and to address community right-to-know regarding hazardous and toxic chemicals. SARA III was designed to increase community access and knowledge about chemical haza rds as well as facilitate the creation and implementation of state/Native American tribe emergency response commissions, responsible for coordinating certain emergency response activities and for appointing local emergency planning committees. Section 1910.1200(c) Title 29 of the CFR defines “chemicals or hazardous materials” for the purposes of SARA III.

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 United States Code 136, et seq.) was originally passed in 1947. It has been amended several times, most extensively in 1972, and most recently by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. The purpose of FIFRA is to establish federal jurisdiction over the distribution, sale, and use of pesticides. It also gives EPA the authority to study the effects of pesticide use. Other key provisions of FIFRA require pesticide applicators to pass a licensing examination for status as “qualified applicators,” create a review and registration process for new pesticide products, and ensure thorough and understandable labeling that includes instructions for use.

STATE
The primary state agencies that are responsible for overseeing regulations and policies regarding hazardous materials are the California Office of Emergency Services (OES), California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Highway Patrol (CHP), California Water Quality Control Board, and the California Air Resources Board. Several laws governing the generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials are administered by these agencies. State laws and regulations that are applicable to hazards and hazardous materials are presented below.

California Health and Safety Code
Cal-EPA has established rules governing the use of hazardous materials and the management of hazardous wastes. Many of these regulations are embodied in the California Health and Safety Code.

The code includes regulations that govern safe drinking water, substances control, land reuse and revitalization, remediation, restoration, and methamphetamine contaminated cleanups.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-11

California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program Business Plan

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
When hazardous materials are improperly handled or stored, they can result in a threat to employees, public health, and/or the contamination of the environment. State and Federal Community Right-to-Know laws were passed in 1984. These laws allow public access to information about the types and amounts of chemicals being used at local businesses. The laws also require businesses to plan and prepare for a chemical emergency through the preparation of a Hazardous Materials Inventory that is certified annually and a Hazardous Materials Business Plan that is certified tri-annually. Businesses are inspected at least once every three years by a Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) inspector to verify compliance with the California Health and Safety Code and California Code of Regulations.

A Business Emergency Response Plan and Inventory is required of any facility which handles hazardous materials or waste in amounts greater than:
• 55 gallons for liquids;
• 500 pounds for solids; or
• 200 cubic feet for compressed gases.

On October 8, 2011, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill (AB) 408. AB 408 amends the Health & Safety Code Chapter 6.95, Section 25503.5 hazardous materials inventory reporting thresholds. With passage of this legislation, inventory reporting quantities were changed as follows:

1. For a solid or liquid hazardous material that is classified as a hazard solely as an irritant or sensitizer, the new reporting quantity is 5,000 pounds.

2. For a hazardous material that is a gas, at standard temperature and pressure, and for which the only health and physical hazards are simple asphyxiation and the release of pressure, the new reporting quantity is 1,000 cubic feet. (Reporting of gases in a c ryogenic state remains unchanged).

3. For oil-filled electrical equipment that is not contiguous to an electrical facility, the new reporting quantity for the oil is 1,320 gallons.

California Code of Regulations Title 22 and Title 26
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 provides state regulations for hazardous materials, and CCR Title 26 provides regulation of hazardous materials management. In 1996, Cal EPA established the “Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program” (Unified Program) which consolidated the six administrative components of hazardous waste and materials into one program.

California Government Code Section 65962.5
The provisions in Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the “Cortese List” (after the Legislator who authored the legislation that enacted it). The list, or a site’s presence on the list, has bearing on the local permitting process as well as on compliance with

3. 8-12 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
CEQA. Government Code § 65962.5 was originally enacted in 1985, and per subsection (g), the effective date of the changes called for under the amendments to this section was January 1, 1992.

While Government Code Section 65962.5 refers to the preparation o f a “list,” many changes have occurred related to web -based information access since 1992 and this information is now largely available on the Internet sites of the responsible organizations. Those requesting a copy of the Cortese “list” are now referred directly to the appropriate information resources contained on the Internet web sites of the boards or departments that are referenced in the statute.

Section 65962.5(a)(1) requires that DTSC “shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least annually, and shall submit to the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a list of all the following:
….(1) [a]ll hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code (“HSC”).”
The hazardous waste facilities identified in HSC § 25187.5 are those where DTSC has taken or contracted for corrective action because a facility owner/operator has failed to comply with a date for taking corrective action in an order issued under HSC § 25187, or because DTSC determined that immediate corrective action was necessary to abate an imminent or substantial endangerment.

Occupational Safety and Health Act
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) was passed to prevent workers from being killed or otherwise harmed at work. The law requires employers to provide their employees with working conditions that are free of known dangers. The OSH Act created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which sets and enforces protective workplace safety and health standards. OSHA also provides information, training and assistance to employers and workers.

The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, better known as Cal/OSHA, protects and improves the health and safety of workers in California and the safety of passengers riding on elevators, amusement rides, and tramways – through the following activities:
• Setting and enforcing standards;
• Providing outreach, education, and assistance; and
• Issuing permits, licenses, certifications, registrations, and approvals.

LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan establishes the following objectives and policies directly related to hazards and hazardous materials.

NOISE AND SAFETY ELEMENT
Objective NS-4: Minimize the risk of loss of life, injury, serious illness, and damage to property resulting from the use, transport, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-13

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Policy NS-4-a: Processing and Storage. Require safe processing and storage of hazardous materials, consistent with the California Building Code and Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by the City.

Policy NS-4-b: Coordination. Maintain a close liaison with the Fresno County Environmental Health Department, Cal-EPA Division of Toxics, and the State Office of Emergency Services to assist in developing and maintaining hazardous material business plans, inventory statements, risk management prevention plans, and contingency/emergency response action plans.

Policy NS -4-c: Soil and Groundwater Contamination Reports. Require an investigation of potential soil or groundwater contamination whenever justified by past site uses. Require appropriate mitigation as a condition of project approval in the event soil or groundwater contamination is identified or could be encountered during site development.

Policy NS-4-d: Site Identification. Continue to aid federal, State, and County agencies in the identification and mapping of waste disposal sites (including abandoned waste sites), and to assist in the survey of the kinds, amounts, and locations of hazardous wastes.

Policy NS-4-e: Compliance with County Program. Require that the production, use, storage, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials conform to the standards and procedures established by the County Division of Environmental Health. Require compliance with the County’s Hazardous Waste Generator Program, including the submittal and implementation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, when applicable.

Policy NS -4-f: Hazardous Materials Facilities. Require facilities that handle hazardous materials or hazardous wastes to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable materials and waste management laws and regulations.

Policy NS-4-g: Hazmat Response. Include policies and procedures appropriate to hazardous materials in the City’s disaster and emergency response preparedness and planning, coordinating with implementation of Fresno County’s Hazardous Materials Incident Response Plan.

Policy NS-4-h: Household Collection. Continue to support and assist with Fresno County’s special household hazardous waste collection activities, to reduce the amount of this material being improperly discarded.

Policy NS-4-i: Public Information. Continue to assist in providing information to the public on hazardous materials.

Objective NS-5: Protect the safety, health, and welfare of persons and property on the ground and in aircraft by minimizing exposure to airport-related hazards.

Policy NS-5-a: Land Use and Height. Incorporate and enforce all applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCPs) through land use designations, zoning, and development

3. 8-14 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
standards to support the continued viability and flight operations of Fresno ’s airports and to protect public safety, health, and general welfare.
• Limit land uses in airport safety zones to those uses listed in the applicable ALUCPs as compatible uses, and regulate compatibility in terms of location, height, and noise.
• Ensure that development, including public infrastructure projects, within the airport approach and departure zones complies with Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations (Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace), particularly in terms of height.

Policy NS -5-b: Airport Safety Hazards. Ensure that new development, including public infrastructure projects, does not create safety hazards such as glare from direct or reflective sources, smoke, electrical interference, hazardous chemicals, fuel storage, or from wildlife, in violation of adopted safety standards.

Policy NS -5-c: Avigation Easements. Employ avigation easements in order to secure and protect airspace required for unimpeded operation of publicly owned airports.

Policy NS-5-d: Disclosure. As a condition of approval for residential development projects, require sellers to prepare and provide State Department of Real Estate Disclosure statements to property buyers notifying of noise and safety issues related to airport operations.

Policy NS -5-e: Planned Expansion. Allow for the orderly expansion and improvement of publicly-owned airports, while minimizing adverse environmental impacts associated with these facilities.
• Periodically update airport facility master plans in accordance with FAA regulations. • Require land use within the boundaries of the Fresno -Yosemite International Airport and Chandler Downtown Airport to conform to designations and policies specified in adopted City of Fresno compatible land use plans. • Provide local jurisdictions surrounding the City's publicly owned airports with specific guidelines for effectively dealing with the presence and operation of these airports.

Objective NS-6: Foster an efficient and coordinated response to emergencies and natural disasters.

Policy NS-6-a: County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan. Adopt and implement the Fresno County Multi -Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan and City of Fresno Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex.

Policy NS -6-b: Disaster Response Coordination. Maintain coordination with other local, State, and Federal agencies to provide coordinated disaster response.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-15

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Policy NS-6-c: Emergency Operations Plan. Update the City’s Emergency Operations Plan periodically, using a whole community approach which integrates considerations for People with access and functional needs in all aspects of planning.

Policy NS-6-d: Evacuation Planning. Maintain an emergency evacuation plan in consultation with the Police and Fire Departments and other emergency service providers, which shows potential evacuation routes and a list of emergency shelters to be used in case of catastrophic emergencies.

Policy NS-6-e: Critical Use Facilities. Ensure critical use facilities (e.g., City Hall, police and fire stations, schools, hospitals, public assembly facilities, transportation services) and other structures that are important to protecting health and safety in the community remain operational during an emergency.
• Site and design these facilities to minimize their exposure and susceptibility to flooding, seismic and geological effects, fire, and explosions. • Work with the owners and operators of critical use facilities to ensure they can provide alternate sources of electricity, water, and sewerage in the event that regular utilities are interrupted in a disaster.

Policy NS-6-f: Emergency Vehicle Access. Require adequate access for emergency vehicles in all new development, including adequate widths, turning radii, hard standing areas, and vertical clearance.

Policy NS-6-g: Emergency Preparedness Public Awareness Programs. Continue to conduct programs to inform the general public, including people with access and functional needs, of the City’s emergency preparedness and disaster response procedures.

PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT
Objective PU-2: Ensure that the Fire Department’s staffing and equipment resources are sufficient to meet all fire and emergency service level objectives and are provided in an efficient and cost effective manner.

Policy PU-2-a: Unify Fire Protection. Pursue long-range transfer of fire protection service agreements with adjacent fire districts that, in concert with existing automatic aid agreements, will lead to the eventual unification of fire protection services in the greater Fresno area.

Policy PU-2-b: Maintain Ability. Strive to continually maintain the Fire Department’s ability to provide staffing and equipment resources to effectively prevent and mitigate emergencies in existing and new high-rise buildings and in other high-density residential and commercial development throughout the city.

3. 8-16 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Policy PU-2-c: Rescue Standards. D evelop appropriate standards, as necessary, for rescue operations, including, but not limited to, confined space, high angle, swift water rescues, and the unique challenges of a high speed train corridor.

Policy PU -2-d: Station Siting. Use the General Plan, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, and Concept Plans, the City’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database, and a fire station location program to achieve optimum siting of future fire stations.

Policy PU-2-e: Service Standards. Strive to achieve a community wide risk management plan that include the following service level objectives 90 percent of the time:
• First Unit on Scene – First fire unit arriving with minimum of three firefighters within 5 minutes and 20 seconds from the time the unit was alerted to the emergency incident.
• Effective Response Force – Provide sufficient number of firefighters on the scene of an emergency within 9 minutes and 20 seconds from the time of unit alert to arrival.

The effective response force is measured as 15 firefighters for low risk fire incidents and 21 firefighters fo r high risk fire incidents and is the number of personnel necessary to complete specific tasks required to contain and control fire minimizing loss of life and property.

Objective PU-3: Enhance the level of fire protection to meet the increasing demand for services from an increasing population.

Policy PU-3-a: Fire Prevention Inspections. Develop strategies to enable the performance of annual fire and life safety inspection of all industrial, commercial, institutional, and multi - family residential buildings, in accordance with nationally recognized standards for the level of service necessary for a large Metropolitan Area, including a self-certification program.

Policy PU -3-b: Reduction Strategies. Develop community risk reduction strategies that target high service demand areas, vulnerable populations (e.g. young children, older adults, non-English speaking residents, persons with disabilities, etc.), and high life hazard occupancies
Policy PU-3-c: Public Education Strategies. Develop strategies to re -establish and enhance routine public education outreach to all sectors of the community.

Policy PU -3-d: Review Development Applications. Continue Fire Department review of development applications, provide comments and recommend conditions of approval that will ensure adequate on-site and off-site fire protection systems and features are provided.

Policy PU -3-e: Building Codes. Adopt and enforce amendments to construction and fire codes, as determined appropriate, to systematically reduce the level of risk to life and property from fire, commensurate with the City’s fire suppression capabilities.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-17

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Policy PU-3-f: Adequate Infrastructure. Continue to pursue the provision of adequate water supplies, hydrants, and appropriate property access to allow for adequate fire suppression throughout the City.

Policy PU -3-g: Cost Recovery. Continue to evaluate appropriate codes, policies, and methods to generate fees or other sources of revenue to offset the ongoing personnel and maintenance costs of providing fire prevention and response services.

Fresno Municipal Code
Various provisions of the City of Fresno Municipal Code are relevant to hazards and hazardous materials, including portions of Chapter 15, Chapter 10, and Chapter 11. Discussion of these relevant portions of the Fresno Municipal Code are provided below.

Chapter 15 of the Fresno Municipal Code replaced the former development code in its entirety. It establishes new zone districts, permitted uses, development standards, and procedures in a contemporary, well-organized, and comprehensive manner. The new code reflects contemporary planning and business practices and sets clear criteria for new development. Proposals that conform to the new vision will have a streamlined approval process designed to boost economic development. In addition, infill development wi ll be more feasible in Fresno under the new Development Code, designed for balanced growth in the future.

Article 25 (Performance Standards) of the Citywide Development Code (CDC) has the following purposes: 1) Establish permissible limits and allow objective measurement of nuisances, hazards, and objectionable conditions; and 2) Ensure that all uses will provide necessary control measures to protect the community from nuisances, hazards, and objectionable conditions. The General Standard of Article 25 is stated as follows: “Land or buildings shall not be used or occupied in a manner creating any dangerous, injurious, or noxious conditions, chemical fires, explosive, blight, or other hazards that could adversely affect the surrounding area.” Article 27 (Standards for Specific Uses and Activities) of the CDC states: “The purpose of this article is to establish standards for specific uses and activities that are permitted or conditionally permitted in some or all districts. These provisions are supplemental standards and requirements to minimize the impacts of these uses and activities on surrounding properties and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their occupants and of the general public.” This article specifies regulation governing the operation o f various types of facilities and activities, including hazardous waste management facilities, recycling facilities, and hazardous materials storage activities.

Section 15-2727, Development of Former Landfill Sites and Hazardous Sites, states “A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for the development of all former Landfill Sites and other sites deemed hazardous, regardless of the proposed use. As part of the application, the applicant shall at a minimum, provide a geotechnical report that provides a complete analysis of on-site soil conditions, fault hazards, underground water conditions, and recommendations as well as a post -closure plan that outlines remediation measures. Applicants shall comply with all State and federal regulations related to operation, post-closure remediation, and monitoring.”

3. 8-18 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
Separately, Chapter 10, Regulations Regarding Public Nuisances and Real Property Conduct and Use, includes:

Article 14, Hazardous Spills Expense Recovery. The intent of Article 14 is stated as follows: “Surface waters, groundwater, soils, vegetation, and atmosphere inside the city of Fresno are susceptible to damage from the handling, storage, use, processing and disposal of hazardous material and the expense incurred by the taxpayers as a result of the City of Fresno or its Designee having to respond in an emergency to protect life, property and the environment when there has been a release of hazardous material s should be recovered from the person responsible for the emergency.” In conjunction with Chapter 15, Article 27 of the City of Fresno Municipal Code, Article 14 pertains to the recovery of expenses associated with hazardous spills. Specifically, the code states that “Any person causing a release or threatened release which results in an emergency action shall be liable to the City of Fresno for the recoverable costs resulting from the emergency action.” Additionally, Chapter 11, Building Permits and Regulations, includes Article 2, Section 11-218, Debris and Excavations, which requires of demolition projects that the permit holder properly cap the sanitary sewer house connection, and to properly fill or otherwise protect all basements, cellars, septic tanks, wells, and other excavations, and said lot or parcel shall be left level and in a condition to be disked for control of weeds.

Fire Department Hazardous Materials Response Team
The City of Fresno Fire Department recognizes the potential for a large chemical release to occur which could expose thousands of people to hazardous or toxic vapors. The City of Fresno Fire Department Hazardous Materials Response Team (HMRT) has embraced an all-hazards approach to emergency response to ensure that the City receives effective protection from the risk of hazardous materials releases.

Emergency Operations Plan
In addition to emergency response to hazardous materials incidents, both the City of Fresno and the County of Fresno implement programs to facilitate emergency preparedness for other types of incidents within the Plan Area. Specifically, the City of Fresno has an Emergency Operations Plan that describes what the City ’s actions will be during a response to an emergency. This plan also describes the role of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and the coordination that occurs between the EOC, City departments, and other response agencies. The plan establishes a requirement for the emergency management organization to mitigate any significant emergency disaster affecting the City of Fresno. The plan also identifies the policies, responsibilities, and procedures required to protect the health and safety of city communities, public and private property, and the environmental effects of natural or technological disasters. In addition, the plan establishes the operation concepts and procedures associated within ini tial response operations (field response) to emergencies, the extended response operations (City of Fresno Emergency Operations Center Activities), and the recovery process. Furthermore, the plan complies with the State of California Emergency Operations Plan “Cross Walk” checklist for determining whether an emergency plan has addressed critical elements of California’s Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the National Incident Management System (NIMS).

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-19

Fresno County Environmental Health Department

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The Fresno County Environmental Health Department maintains a Hazardous Materials Management Plan/Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMMP/HMBP). The HMMP/HMBP describes agency roles, strategies and processes for responding to emergencies involving hazardous materials.

The Environmental Health Department maintains a Hazardous Materials Database and Risk and Flood Maps available to the public on its website.

Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan The Fresno County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) (May 2018) aims to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from hazards. Fresno County, along with 17 participating jurisdictions, including the City of Fresno, prepared the MJHMP to demonstrate the community’s commitment to reducing risks from hazards and serves as a tool to help decision makers direct mitigation activities and resources.

It is noted that the Draft Fresno County Hazard Mitigation Plan was released in May 2024. Should the 2020 Plan update be adopted, the updated Plan would supersede the 2018 MJHMP.

Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA)
The California Environmental Protection Agency d esignates specific local agencies as Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA), typically at the county level. The Fresno County Department of Environmental Health is the CUPA designated for Fresno County. The Fresno County Department of Environmental Health is responsible for the implementation of statewide programs within its jurisdiction, including: Underground storage of hazardous substances (USTs), Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMP) requirements, California Accidental Release Prevention (Cal-ARP) program, etc.

Implementation of these programs involves permitting, inspecting, providing education/guidance, investigations, and enforcement. T he Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) is the local CUPA.

3.8.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Specific Plan will have a significant impact from hazards and hazardous materials if it will:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of ha zardous materials into the environment.
• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

3. 8-20 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
• Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
• For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. • Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
• Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

Additionally, consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project will have a significant impact from wildfire if it is located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, and if the proposed project will:
• Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. • Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
• Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. • Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Impact 3.8-1: Specific Plan implementation has the p otential to create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The unauthorized releases of hazardous materials into the environment could create environmental impacts to properties, the natural environment, and human health. The significance of these impacts could vary according to the release location and the quantity and nature of the substance released.

Hazardous releases can occur in areas that treat, store, transport and use hazardou s materials; however, certain areas are at higher risk for releases. In the event of an unauthorized release of hazardous materials/substances, emergency response measures must be implemented to mitigate potential risks and ensure the protection of human health and the natural environment.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-21

CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Construction activities would occur in phases through the implementation of the Specific Plan .

Construction equipment and materials would likely require the use of petroleum-based products (oil, gasoline, diesel fuel), and a variety of chemicals including paints, cleaners, and solvents. The use of these materials at a construction site will pose a reasonable risk of release into the environment if not properly handled, stored, and transported.

Additionally, properties within the Plan Area may have residual soil (and potentially groundwater) contamination that may require remediation. Also, potentially hazardous building materials (e.g., asbestos containing materials, lead -based paint, etc.) could be encountered during demolition of existing structures to accommodate new development. A release into the environment could pose significant impacts to the health and welfare of people and/or wildlife, and could result in contamination of water (groundwater or surface water), habitat, and countless important resources.

Like most agricultural and farming operations in the Central Valley, agricultural practices in the area have used agricultural chemicals including pesticides and herbicides as a standard practice. Residual concentrations of pesticides may be present in soil as a result of historic agricultural application and storage. Continuous spraying of crops over many years can potentially result in a residual buildup of pesticides in farm soils. Of highest conc ern relative to agrichemicals are chemicals such as chlorinated herbicides, organophosphate pesticides, and organochlorine pesticides, such as Mecoprop (MCPP), Dinoseb, chlordane, dichloro -diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and dichloro - diphenyl-dichloroethylene (DDE). Other chemicals may also be present due to other built -up uses.

As described in the Environmental Setting, there is a historical record of soil contamination at the Proposed Constance-Sierra Elementary School site, the Parc West Development (previously known as the Westlake Proposed 430 Acre Development ), and the West Shields Elementary School site, each of which are at differing levels of cleanup status. Therefore, there is the potential for other sites to have experienced contamination or have a history of hazardous materials being used as part of previous or current operations. Implementation of the Specific Plan could involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with future construction and/or remediation activities. The transport of hazardous materials and any potential r emediation activities would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations. Additionally, the proposed project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures 3.8 -1 through 3.8 -10, which provide requirements for any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well; require Phase I and Phase II site assessments, and other remediation activities including surveys and assessments, cleanup plans, programs, and activities, as applicable ; and requires actions to ensure that d eveloping a property within the Plan Area does not present an unacceptable risk to human health, if applicable, through the use of an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP). Therefore, the potential for existing or new hazards within the Plan Area or generated by the proposed project is limited.

Additional requirements include those related to evaluation of potential asbestos and lead prior to planned renovation or demolition of residential and/or commercial structures in t he Plan Area, and soil sampling for hazardous materials. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-10 would reduce potential impacts that could occur due to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through t he reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving

3. 8-22 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
the release of hazardous materials into the environment associated with construction activities within the Plan area to a less than significant level.

OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS
The operational phase of implementation of the Specific Plan w ould occur after construction is completed and business operators/employees, and residents move in to occupy the structures and facilities on a day-to -day basis. Hazardous waste generators in the Plan Area include industries, businesses, public and private institutions, and households. Facilities that store, use or handle hazardous materials above reportable amounts are required to prepare and file a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (Business Plan) for the safe storage and use of chemicals. In the event of an emergency, firefighters, health officials, planners, public safety officers, health care providers and others rely on the Business Plan. Implementation of the Business Plan should prevent or reduce damage to the health and safety of people and the environment if a hazardous material is released.

The FCEHD , as the local CUPA, is responsible for administering/overseeing compliance with the Hazardous Materials Business Plan requirements, as well as other related regulatory programs such as those involving USTs, hazardous waste generation, hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility permitting, and hazardous materials releases.

Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in the continued use and storage of hazardous materials, including common cleaning products, building maintenance products, paints and solvents, and other similar items. Routinely used hazardous materials, however, would not be of the type or occur in sufficient quantities to pose a significant hazard to public health and safety or to the environment. It is anticipated that s ome facilities within the Specific Plan area would use certain classes of hazardous materials that require risk management plans to protect surrounding land uses. Future development also would result in continued generation of hazardous waste by certain facilities. Therefore, the transport of hazardous materials could occur during future operational activities. However, transport of hazardous materials would be subject to existing federal, State, and local regulations, as well as cooperation with the local CUPA and the City of Fresno Fire Department (FFD).

Implementation of the Specific Plan will allow for the development of a wide variety of land uses, including Low Density Residential, Medium Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, Urban Neighborhood Residential, High Density Residential, Community Commercial, Recreation Commercial, General Commercial, Regional Commer cial, Office, Business Park, Light Industrial, Corridor/Center Mixed Use, Regional Mixed Use, Pocket Park, Neighborhood Park, Community Park, Open Space, Ponding Basin, Public Facility, Church, Special School, Elementary School, Elementary, Middle & High School, and High School uses,, as well as the required transportation and utility improvements.

Each of these uses will likely use a variety of hazardous materials commonly found in urban areas including: paints, cleaners, and cleaning solvents. There could be a risk of release of these materials into the environment if they are not stored and handled in accordance with best management practices approved by Fresno County Environmental Health Division and the FFD. In addition, Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-23

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 requires that, prior to bringing hazardous materials onsite, the applicant shall submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to Fresno County Environmental Health Division (CUPA) for review and approval. This would further reduce the potential for a significant impact to this topic. Compliance with the applicable regulations, as well as implementation of the following mitigation measures, as appropriate, would ensure that the implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this issue.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Prior to bringing hazardous materials onsite, the applicant shall submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to Fresno County Environmental Health Division (CUPA) for review and approval. If during the construction process the applicant or their subcontractors generates hazardous waste, the applicant must register with the CUPA as a generator of hazardous waste, obtain an EPA ID# and accumulate, ship and dispose of the hazardous waste per Health and Safety Code Ch. 6.5. (California Hazardous Waste Control Law).

Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well, the applicant shall hire a licensed well contractor to obtain a well abandonment permit from Fresno County Environmental Health Department, and properly abandon the on-site wells, pursuant to review and approval of the City Engineer and the Fresno County Environmental Health Department.

Mitigation Measure 3.8 -3: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that a Phase I ESA (performed in accordance with the current ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process [E 1527]) shall be conducted for each individual property prior to development or redevelopment to ascertain the presence or absence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HRECs), and Potential Environmental Concerns (PECs) relevant to the property under consideration. The findings and conclusions of the Phase I ESA shall become the basis for potential recommendations for follow -up investigation, if found to b e warranted.

Mitigation Measure 3.8 -4: In the event that the findings and conclusions of the Phase I ESA for a property result in evidence of RECs, HRECs and/or PECs warranting further investigation, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that a Phase II ESA shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of a significant impact to the subject site from hazardous materials.

The Phase II ESA may include but may not be limited to the following: (1) Collection and laboratory analysis of soils and/or groundwater samples to ascertain the presence or absence of significant concentrations of constituents of concern; (2) Collection and laboratory analysis of soil vapors and/or indoor air to ascertain the presence or absence of significant concentrations of volatile constituents of concern; and/or (3) Geophysical surveys to ascertain the presence or absence of subsurface features of co ncern such as USTs, drywells, drains, plumbing, and septic systems. The findings and

3.8-24 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
conclusions of the Phase II ESA shall become the basis for potential recommendations for follow-up investigation, site characterization, and/or remedial activities, if found to be warranted.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-5: In the event the findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA reveal the presence of significant concentrations of hazardous materials warranting further investigation, the property owners and/or developers of properties shall ensure that site characterization shall be conducted in the form of additional Phase II ESAs in order to characterize the source and maximum extent of impacts from constituents of concern. The findings and conclusions of the site characterization shall become the basis for formation of a remedial action plan and/or risk assessment.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-6: If the findings and conclusions of the Phase II ESA(s), site characterization and/or risk assessment demonstrate the presence of concentrations of hazardous materials exceeding regulatory threshold levels, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, property owners and/or developers of properties shall complete site remediation and potential risk assessment with oversight from the applicable regulatory agency including, but not limited to, the CalEPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD). Potential remediation could include the removal or treatment of water and/or soil. If removal occurs, hazardous materials shall be trans ported and disposed at a hazardous materials permitted facility.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-7: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for an individual property within the Plan Area with residual environmental contamination, the agency with primary regulatory oversight of environmental conditions at such property ("Oversight Agency") shall hav e determined that the proposed land use for that property, including proposed development features and design, does not present an unacceptable risk to human health, if applicable, through the use of an Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) that could include institutional controls, site -specific mitigation measures, a risk management plan, and deed restrictions based upon applicable risk - based cleanup standards. Remedial action plans, risk management plans and health and safety plans shall be required as determined by the Oversight Agency for a given property under applicable environmental laws, if not already completed, to prevent an unacceptable risk to human health, including workers during and after construction, from exposure to residual contamination in soil and groundwater in connection with remediation and site development activities and the proposed land use.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-8: For those sites with potential residual volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil, soil gas, or groundwater that are planned for redevelopment with an overlying occupied building, a vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed by a licensed environmental professional.

If the results of the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the potential for significant vapor intrusion into the proposed building, the project design shall include vapor controls or source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or the Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) requirements. Soil vapor mitigations or controls could include passive venting and/or active venting.

The vapor intrusion assessment as associated vapor controls or source removal can be incorporated into the ESMP.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-25

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mitigation Measure 3 .8-9: In the event of planned renovation or demolition of residential and/or commercial structures on the subject site, prior to the issuance of demolition permits, asbestos lead based paint (LBP), lead based products, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk surveys shall be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of asbestos -containing materials (ACM), LBP, mercury, and/or polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal of friable ACM, and non-friable ACMs that have the potential to become friable, during demolition and/or renovation shall conform to the standards set forth by the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is the responsible agency on the local level to enforce the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) and shall be notified by the property owners and/or developers of properties (or their designee(s)) prior to any demolition and/or renovation activities. If asbestos -containing materials are left in place, an Operations and Maintenance Program (O&M Program) shall be developed for the management of asbestos containing materials.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-10: Prior to the import of a soil to a particular property within the Plan Area as part of that property’s site development, such soils shall be sampled for toxic or hazardous materials to determine if concentrations exceed applicable Environmental Screening Levels for the proposed land use at such a property, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or the Fresno County Environmental Health Division (FCEHD) requirements.

Impact 3.8-2: Specific Plan implementation has the potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (Less than Significant)
The Specific Plan has the potential for the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, as described under Impact 3.8 -1. There are several schools located within the Plan Area. These schools include: Glacier Point Middle School, Harvest Elementary School, Herndon -Barstow Elementary School, Teague Elementary School, John Steinbeck Elementary School, Central High School (East Campus), and Justin Garza High School. Other schools located within 0.25 miles from the Plan Area include James K. Polk Elementary School and Hanh Phan Tilley Elementary School. In addition, new schools are anticipated to be developed near to the Plan Area over time. However, as provided under Impact 3.8 -1, with implementation of Mitigation Measure s 3.8-1 through 3.8-10, potential risks associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan would be reduced to a less than significant level.

For example, Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 requires businesses generating hazardous waste to comply with a HMBP and to register with the CUPA, as appropr iate. Mitigation Measure 3.8 -2 provides requirements for any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well. Additional requirements are provided in Mitigation Measures 3.8 -3 through 3.8 -10, such as Phase I and Phase II site assessments, and other remediation activities including surveys and assessments, cleanup plans, programs, and activities, as applicable. Therefore, the potential for existing or new hazards within the Plan Area or generated by the proposed project to affect nearby schools is limited. Moreover,

3.8-26 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.8
compliance with the applicable General Plan objectives and policies would ensure that the Specific Plan implementation would have a limited potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste with one-quarter of an existing school. Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact with respect to emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school.

Impact 3.8-3: Specific Plan i mplementation would not result in impacts from being included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. (Less than Significant) The Plan Area is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact with regards to this environmental issue.

Impact 3.8 -4: Specific Plan implementation would not r esult in safety hazards for people residing or working in the Plan Area as a result of public airport or public use airport. ( Less than Significant) There are no documented public airports or public use airports within two miles of the Plan Area , and the Plan Area is not located within an airport land use plan . The closest public or public use airport is the Fresno Chandler Executive Airport, located approximately 2.5 miles to the south of the Plan Area, at its closest point. Therefore, implementation of the Plan would have a less than significant impact with regards to this environmental issue.

Impact 3.8 -5: Specific Plan implementation would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Less than Significant) Future construction activities within the Plan Area could affect access along nearby roadways during construction, as short-term, temporary lane closures may occur. However, emergency access would be required to remain open and accessible at all time s. Future applicants would be required to provide alternate route (i.e. detour) plans with a tentative schedule of planned closures prior to the beginning of construction to ensure that activities would not impede emergency access. These plans would be subject to review and approval by the City of Fresno Public Works Department, the Fresno Fire Department , and the Fresno Police Department . Construction activities are not expected to result in any unknown significant road closures, traffic detours, or congestion that could hinder the emergency vehicle access or evacuation in the event of an emergency.

Separately, the proposed project would develop new roadways within the Plan Area. However, the new roadways would be required to comply with the City’s police and fire standards for emergency access. Specifically, new roadways within the Plan Area would also be subject to review and approval by the City of Fresno Public Works Department, the Fresno Fire Department, and the Fresno Police Department and would provide increased access to and within the Plan Area . Therefore, roadways within the Plan Area would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with any Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.8-27

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Moreover, the proposed project would not conflict with the goals and objectives of the Fresno County’s Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.

For example, Objective 1.3 of the Fresno County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan requires the improvement of transportation c orridors to allow for better evacuation routes for the public and better access for emergency responders. Implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact with regards to this environmental issue.

Impact 3.8-6: Specific Plan implementation would not have the potential to expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death from wildland fires, or result in any other wildfire impact. (Less than Significant)

HAZARDS RELATED TO WILDLAND FIRES
The Plan Area is not located in or near to any SRA or land classified as VHFHSZs. Small areas within the northern, central, and southern portions of the Plan Area are identified as having a moderate potential for wildland fires. According to the Fresno General Plan, the city is largely urbanized or working agricultural land without steep topographies; thus, wildland fire threats are minimal.

Although Fresno is proximate to high and very high fire hazard designated areas, the city is largely categorized as little or no threat or moderate fire hazard, which is largely attributed to paved areas.

Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in increased urbanization of the area; including increased paved area. Future development would be required to comply with the current fire code (i.e. included in the Fresno Fire Code Section as established by the City of Fresno Fire Department), as well as all applicable City Municipal Code requirements. For example, City Municipal Code Chapter 11, Article 1 provides building code requirements, and City Municipal Code Chapter 10, Article 5 describes the City’s fire prevention requirements including adoption of the 2019 California Fire Code. Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact with regards to the potential to expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury, or death from wildland fires.

3.8-28 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
This section describes the regulatory setting, regional hydrology and water quality impacts that are likely to result from Specific Plan implementation, and measures to reduce potential impacts to water quality. This section is based in part on the following documents, reports and studies:
• Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• California’s Groundwater Update 2020 (Department of Water Resources [DWR], 2020); • Web Soil Survey (NRCS, 2019);
• Specific Plan of the West Area Water Supply Assessment (West Yost Associates, 2022, see Appendix F of this EIR);
• City of Fresno Specific Plan for the West Area Utility Background Summary (West Yost Associates, 2022, see Appendix D of this EIR).

Comments were received during the public review period or scoping meeting for the Notice of Preparation regarding this topic from the following: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) (August 1, 2019), Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019), and California Department of Water Resources (July 19, 2019) . Each of the comments related to this topic are addressed within this section. Full comments received are included in Appendix A.

3.9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

REGIONAL HYDROLOGY
Fresno County is located in the San Joaquin River watershed. The San Joaquin River is about 300 miles long. It begins in the Sierra Nevada mountain range on California’s eastern border. The river runs down the western slope of the Sierra and flows roughly northwest through the Central Valley, to where it meets the Sacramento River at the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta, a 1,000-square-mile maze of channels and islands that drains more than 40 percent of the state’s lands (SJRGA 2013).

Because the Central Valley receives relatively little rainfall (12 to 17 inches a year, falling mostly October through March), snowmelt runoff from the mountains is the main source of fresh water in the San Joaquin River. Over its 300-mile length, the San Joaquin River is fed by many other streams and rivers, most notably the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers.

Most of the surface water in the upper San Joaquin River is stored and diverted at Millerton Lakes’ Friant Dam, near Fresno. From Friant Dam, water gravity flows north through the Madera Canal and south through the Friant- Kern canal to irrigation districts and other water retailers, which then deliver the water directly to the end users in the southern portion of the watershed.

In the central and northern portions of the watershed, many agricultural and municipal users receive water from irrigation districts, such as the Modesto, Merced, Oakdale, South San Joaquin , and Turlock Irrigation Districts. That water is provided through diversions from rivers that are tributary to the San Joaquin, such as the Mokelumne, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-1

Climate
The summer climate is hot and sub-humid with warm, dry summers, and cool, moist winters. In the entire San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), daily summer high temperatures average 95 degrees.

Over the last 30 years, temperatures in the SJVAB averaged 90 degrees or higher for 106 days a year, and 100 degrees or higher for 40 days a year.

The daily summer temperature variation can be as high as 30 degrees. In winter, the Pacific high - pressure cell weakens and shifts southward, resulting in wind flow offshore, the absence of upwelling, and the occurrence of storms. Average high temperatures in the winter are in the 50s, but lows in the 30s and 40s can occur on days with persistent fog and low cloudiness. The average daily low winter temperature is 45 degrees.

Precipitation in Fresno occurs mostly as rain during the months of November through April.

According to the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) (2020), , annual rainfall between averages around 11 inches. However, rainfall can significantly vary year to year, with over 18 inches received in 2011 and less than 4 inches received in 2014. The recent drought was marked by four consecutive years (2012 to 2015) of less than 10 inches of rainfall..

Watersheds
A watershed is a region that is bound by a divide that drains to a common watercourse or body of water. Watersheds serve an important biological function, oftentimes supporting an abundance of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife including special-status speci es and anadromous and native local fisheries. Watersheds provide conditions necessary for riparian habitat.

The State of California uses a hierarchical naming and numbering convention to define watershed areas for management purposes. This means that boundaries are defined according to size and topography, with multiple sub-watersheds within larger watersheds. Table 3.9-1 shows the primary watershed classification levels used by the State of California. The second column indicates the approximate size that a watershed area may be within a particular classification level, although variation in size is common.

TABLE 3.9-1: STATE OF CALIFORNIA WATERSHED HIERARCHY NAMING CONVENTION

WATERSHED
LEVEL

APPROXIMATE

SQUARE MILES
(ACRES)

DESCRIPTION
Hydrologic
Region (HR) 12,735 (8,150,000) Defined by large-scale topographic and geologic considerations.

The State of California is divided into ten HRs.

Hydrologic
Unit (HU)
672
(430,000)
Defined by surface drainage; may include a major river watershed, groundwater basin, or closed drainage, among others.

Hydrologic
Area (HA)
244
(156,000)
Major subdivisions of hydrologic units, such as by major tributaries, groundwater attributes, or stream components.

Hydrologic
Sub-Area (HSA)
195
(125,000)
A major segment of an HA with significant geographical
characteristics or hydrological homogeneity.

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, 2012.

3.9-2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Additionally, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) maintains a national database of watersheds in the United States. The USGS maintains a hierarchical system of hydrologic units, with each unit assigned a Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC). There are current ly six levels in the hierarchy, represented by HUC codes from 2 to 12 digits long, called regions, subregions, subbasins, watersheds, and subwatersheds. Each level in the hierarchy is nested within the previous level. Table

3.9-2 shows the system’s hydrologic unit levels and their characteristics.

TABLE 3.9-2: USGS WATERSHED HIERARCHY NAMING CONVENTION

HYDROLOGIC UNIT LEVEL DIGIT NUMBER OF HUCS NAME
Region 1 2 22 Two-Digit Hydrologic Unit
Subregion 2 4 219 Four-Digit Hydrologic Unit
Basin 3 6 378 Six-Digit Hydrologic Unit
Subbasin 4 8 2,283 Eight-Digit Hydrologic Unit
Watershed 5 10 17,828 Ten-Digit Hydrologic Unit
Subwatershed 6 12 97,442 Twelve-Digit Hydrologic Unit
SOURCE: UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, WATERSHED BOUNDARY DATASET, 2016.

The s outhern and eastern portion of the Plan Area is located in the Gates Lake subwatershed, a swath of the northern portion of the Plan Area is located in the Town of Rolinda -James Bypass subwatershed, and the northern point of the Plan Area is located in the Kennedy Owens Canal-James Bypass subwatershed. The “subwatershed” (i.e. twelve-digit hydrologic unit) represents the most fine-grained level of data available for watersheds from the USGS. Figure 3.9-1 provides a map of these subwatersheds within the Plan Area.

Hydrologic Region
Fresno County is located in the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region. The Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region covers approximately 10.9 million acres (17,000 square miles) and includes all of Kings and Tulare counties and most of Fresno and Kern counties. Significant geographic features include the southern half of the San Joaquin Valley, the Temblor Range to the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the southern Sierra Nevada to the east. The region has 12 distinct groundwater basins and seven subbasins of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin . Groundwater has historically been important to both urban and agricultural uses, accounting for 41 percent of the region’s total annual supply and 35 percent of all groundwater use in the State. Groundwater use in the region represents about 10 percent of the State’s overall supply for agricultural and urban uses. In general, groundwater quality throughout the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region is suitable for most urban and agricultural uses with only local impairments. The primary constituents of concern are high total dissolved solids, nitrate, arsenic, and organic compounds.

Groundwater
The city of Fresno is located in the northern part of the Kings Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin Area. The San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin is un-adjudicated and currently in overdraft. A basin management plan has been developed and the Department of Water Resources (DWR) has listed the basin as a high priority.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-3

1 EPA has established National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) that set mandatory water quality standards for drinking water contaminants. These are enforceable standards called "maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) which are established to protect the public against consumption of drinking water contaminants that present a risk to human health. An MCL is the maximum allowable amount of a contaminant in drinking water which is delivered to the consumer.

In addition, EPA has established National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWRs) that set non- mandatory water quality standards for 15 contaminants. EPA does not enforce these "secondary maximum contaminant levels" (SMCLs). They are established as guidelines to assist public water systems in managing their drinking water for aesthetic considerations, such as taste, color, and odor. These contaminants are not considered to present a risk to human health at the SMCL. (EPA website, https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/secondary-drinking-water-standards-guidance-nuisance-chemicals)

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The following section describes the Kings Subbasin, including its waterbearing formations, water levels, and water quality. Much of the following information has been incorporated from the City’s 2020 UWMP. Except where noted, the description of the subbasin is based largely on information provided in the 2016 DWR Bulletin 118 Interim Update, in which the groundwater basin description was last updated in December 2016.

The Kings Subbasin is not adjudicated and there are no legal restrictions to groundwater pumping.

The Kings Subbasin is generally bounded on the north by the San Joaquin River; on the west by the Fresno Slough; on the south by the Kings River and Cottonwood Creek; and on the east by the Sierra foothills. The upper several hundred feet within the Kings Subbasin generally consists of highly permeable, coarse -grained deposits, which are termed older alluvium. Coarse-grained stream channel deposits, associated with deposits by the ancestral San Joaquin and Kings Rivers, underlie much of the northwest portions of the city. Below the older alluvium to depths ranging from about 600 to 1,200 feet below ground surface, the finer- grained sediments of the Tertiary -Quaternary continental deposits are typically encountered. Substantial groundwater has been produced and utilized from these depths by the City; however, deeper deposits located in the southeastern and northern portions of the city have produced less groundwat er. There are also reduced deposits in the northern and eastern portions of the city, at depths generally below 700 or 800 feet, which are associated with high concentrations of iron, manganese, arsenic, hydrogen sulfide, and methane gas. Groundwater at these depths does not generally provide a significant source for municipal supply wells. The city’s average groundwater depth in 2015 is approximately 130 below the ground surface.

Groundwater quality is a concern because the groundwater basin h as several major contaminant plumes involving organic compounds, inorganic compounds, solvents, pesticides, and other contaminants. A number of the City’s wells are currently being treated or blended to address various contaminants. The total well capacity, when the City’s Water Master Plan was written, was approximately 460 million gallons per day (mgd).

According to the Utility Background Summary completed for the Specific Plan, groundwater within the Kings Subbasin generally meets primary and secondary drinking water standards 1 for municipal water use. However, groundwater contamination has caused the City to close over 30 wells and to construct well -head treatment facilities to other wells. Wellhead treatment for 1,2- Dibromo-3-

3.9-4 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

chloropropane; ethylene dibromide; 1-2-3 trichloropropane; volatile organic compounds (including trichlorethylene, tetrachloroethylene), nitrate, manganese, radon, chloride, and iron are required in some areas of the city. Nitrates are a significant cause of groundwater contamination in the city.

Nitrates come primarily from on-site wastewater treatment systems (septic tanks and leach fields) and fertilizer. Water contaminated with nitrate is difficult to treat. A transmission grid main (TGM) system on a half -mile grid decreases water quality va riation between wells. While most wells discharge directly to the TGM system, there are some that are treated or blended first to address specific water quality issues. Twelve well sites city-wide have de -aeration facilities where groundwater is pumped to a tank to allow for de -aeration before entering the TGM (West Yost, 2014). With wellhead treatment and /or blending, the water supplied by the City meets all the primary and secondary drinking water standards for municipal water use and is safe and healthy to consume.

As part of a partnership of local municipal water purveyors, irrigation districts, a flood control district, and the overlying county, the Fresno Area Regional Groundwater Management Plan (FARGMP) was prepared in conformance with AB 3030 and SB 1938. The objectives of the FARGMP have been developed to monitor, protect, and sustain groundwater within the region. The City of Fresno and the other participating agencies subsequently adopted the groundwater management plan in 2006. The City of Fresno falls withi n the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NKGSA). As a high priority basin, the Kings Subbasin must be managed under a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) by January 31, 2020. The NKGSA completed the GSP on January 28, 2020.

LOCAL SETTING
The Plan Area is relatively flat with natural gentle slope near State Route 99. The Plan Area topography ranges in elevation from approximately 283 to 315 feet above mean sea level. A large amount of land in the Plan Area is farmland or rural residential lots with large, uneven, and underutilized parcels.

Groundwater

The Plan Area is underlain by the Kings subbasin, which, along with six other sub-basins, comprises the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. According to the Utility Background Summary completed for the Specific Plan, until 2004, groundwater was the sole source of potable water supply for the city. As of 2018, there were approximately 260 operational groundwater wells with a total production of 25,000 million gallons per year.

GROUNDWATER WELLS IN THE PLAN AREA

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
The Plan Area is served by eight active wells, as summarized in Table 3.9-3. As shown, the total well pumping capacity of the wells in the Plan Area is 13,510 gallons per minute (gpm).

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-5

TABLE 3.9-3: PLAN AREA WELL CAPACITY
WELL NUMBER PUMP HORSEPOWER RATED CAPACITY (GPM)1
Well 104 125 1,500
Well 138 125 1,800
Well 169 200 2,400
Well 171-1 60 600
Well 171-2 150 1,750
Well 192 150 2,000
Well 358 (has backup power) 200 2,100
Well 364 100 1,000
Total Well Pumping Capacity (GPM) 13,150
NOTE: 1 PUMP CAPACITY AND BACKUP POWER INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CITY STAFF (GPM = GALLONS PER MINUTE).

SOURCE: UTILITY BACKGROUND REPORT, WEST YOST ASSOCIATES, 2022.

GROUNDWATER QUALITY
According to the Utility Background Summary completed for the Specific Plan, the Plan Area tends to have better ground water quality than the city as a whole, with only a small portion of the Plan Area (near State Route 99) having nitrates in excess of the allowable limit of 45 mg/L as NO3 or 10 mg/L as NO3N. Well 171-2 is the only well that requires treatment within the West Area, and uses granular activated carbon (GAC).

Drainage

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) has primary responsibility for managing the local stormwater flows for the city, as well as a large area beyond the city’s boundaries. The city’s stormwater drains to urban stormwater basins, where it is retained for groundwater recharge or pumped to local irrigation canals owned by Fresno Irrigation District (FID) and then conveyed away from the municipal area.

The city of Fresno is located in the alluvial fans of numerous foothill streams and creeks that drain the western slope of the Sierra Nevada foothills. These streams include Big Dry Creek, Alluvial Drain, Pup Creek, Dog Creek, Redbank Creek, Mud Creek, and Fancher Creek. The city has hot dry summers and cool mild winters, with temperatures of mid -90°F in the summer and 60°F in the winter. The precipitation averages 11 inches per year and occurs almost entirely in the fall, winter, and spring.

Regionally, the c ity is protected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Redbank- Fancher Creeks Flood Control Project. This project includes dams, detention basins, and levees designed to control upstream flood flows to approximately the 200 -year storm event. Major facil ities of this project include levee systems, the Big Dry Creek, Fancher Creek, and Redbank Creek dams and reservoirs, and the Alluvial Drain, Redbank Creek, Pup Creek, Fancher Creek, Big Dry Creek, Pup Creek Enterprise, and Dry Creek Extension detention basins.

Locally, the FMFCD drainage system consists of approximately 750 miles of pipeline and more than 150 stormwater retention basins. The storm drainage pipeline system is designed to accept the peak flow rate of runoff from a two-year intensity storm event (a storm that has a 50 percent probability of occurring in any given year). When storm events occur that exceed the two -year intensity,

3. 9-6 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
ponding begins to occur in the streets until the pipeline system can remove the water. In the event of larger storms, “major storm breakover”, the FMFCD has planned for streets or other conveyance features to move the excess runoff to the basins. The FMFCD basin facilities in the Plan Area are shown in Figure 3.9-2.

The drainage system discharges to a system of irrigation canals, creeks, and the San Joaquin River, but is designed to retain and infiltrate as much runoff as possible into the underlying groundwater aquifer. The local drainage service area is subdivided into over 160 drainage areas, most of which drain to a retention basin. Drainage irrigation canals owned by FID within the Plan Area include:
• East Branch Victoria Canal • Teague School Canal
• Epstein Canal • Tracy Ditch
• Herndon Canal • West Branch Victoria Canal
• Minor Thornton Ditch • Wheaton Ditch
• Silvia Ditch • Austin Ditch
The Plan Area is drained by 15 drainage watersheds, six of which are fully within the Plan Area, and nine of which drain to areas immediately south or west of the Plan Area. There are seven existing retention basins within the Plan Area and an additional five that serve the Plan Area. An additional basin is planned to serve the drainage shed in the far southwestern corner of the Plan Area. The Plan Area’s storm drain system is shown on Figure 3.15-2 in Section 3.15, Utilities.

Flooding
Flooding events can result in damage to structures, injury or loss of human and animal life, exposure of waterborne diseases, and damage to infrastructure. In addition, standing floodwater can destroy agricultural crops, undermine infrastructure and structural foundations, and contaminate groundwater.

Predicted flood conditions in the vicinity of the Plan Area are shown on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) but are largely based on hydraulic modeling performed in 1981 (FEMA, 2016) . The entire Plan Area is designated unshaded Zone X - minimal flood hazard, and would not be expected to have a flood hazard up to the level of the 0.2 - percent annual chance flood. Lands designated as unshaded Zone X are outside of the Special Flood Hazard Areas. Changes to land surfaces in these areas do not trigger map revisions and no flood insurance requirements are imposed on structures in these areas. Figure 3.9-3 shows the flood boundaries, as delineated by the FEMA FIRM and USACE.

Although the Plan Area’s northern boundary is very near the San Joaquin River, the area is not within a Special Flood Hazard Area. Local flooding can occur for events larger than a two-year event, but runoff is generally contained in the streets or other breakover easements. Such flooding is not reflected on FEMA’s maps. Improvements to storm drainage facilities are accomplished either as a part of privately funded on-site developments or as a part of the master plan, funded by drainage fees. FMFCD maintains an on-going update to the system hydraulic model for flood control and prepares a capital improvement plan update every year with projected funding for five years.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-7

Dam Failure
The Plan Area is not located within a dam failure inundation area.

Stormwater Quality
Potential hazards to surface water quality include the following nonpoint pollution problems: high turbidity from sediment resulting from erosion of improperly graded construction projects, concentration of nitrates and dissolved solids from agriculture or surfacing septic tank failures, contaminated street and lawn run -off from urban areas, and warm water drainage discharges into cold water streams.

The most critical period for surface water quality is following a rainstorm which can produce significant amounts of drainage runoff into streams at low flow, resulting in poor dilution of contaminates in the low flowing stream. Such conditions are most frequent during the fall at the beginning of the rainy season when stream flows are near their lowest annual levels. Besides the greases, oils, pesticides, litter, and organic matter associated with such runoff, heavy metals such as copper, zinc, and cadmium can cause considerable harm to aquatic organisms when introduced to streams in low flow conditions.

Urban stormwater runoff was managed as a non-point discharge (a source not readily identifiable) under the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500, Section 208) until the mid-1980's. However, since then, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency has continued to develop implementing rules which categorize urban runoff as a point source (an identifiable source) subject to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Rules now affect medium and large urban areas, an d further rulemaking is expected as programs are developed to meet requirements of federal water pollution control laws.

Surface water pollution is also caused by erosion. Excessive and improperly managed grading, vegetation removal, quarrying, logging, and agricultural practices all lead to increased erosion of exposed earth and sedimentation of watercourses during rainy periods. In slower moving water bodies these same factors often cause a buildup of siltation, which ultimately reduces the capacity of the water system to percolate and recharge groundwater basins, as well as adversely affecting both aquatic resources and flood control efforts.

The current drainage system in the Plan Area discharges to a system of ponding basins, irrigation canals, and the San Joaquin River, but is designed to retain and infiltrate as much runoff as possible into the underlying groundwater aquifer.
303(D) IMPAIRED WATER BODIE S

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires States to identify waters that do not meet water q uality standards or objectives and thus, are considered "impaired." Once listed, Section 303(d) mandates prioritization and development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The TMDL is a tool that establishes the allowable loadings or o ther quantifiable parameters for a waterbody and thereby the basis for the States to establish water quality-based controls. The purpose of TMDLs is to ensure that beneficial uses are restored and that water quality objectives are achieved.

3. 9-8 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
The primary surface water features within the vicinity of the Plan Area are the San Joaquin River and Millerton Lake. Both water features are considered Section 303(d) impaired waterbodies . The portion of the San Joaquin River nearest the Plan Area appears on the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB’s) Impaired Water Bodies/303(d) List for invasive species (non-native fish species).

Millerton Lake is included on the Impaired Water Bodies/303(d) List for mercury.

3.9.2 REGULATORY SETTING
There are a number of regulatory agencies whose responsibility includes the oversight of the water resources of the State and nation (including Fresno County), including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards, including the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The following is an overview of the federal, State and local regulations that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan.

FEDERAL
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA), initially passed in 1972, regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the nation. Section 402(p) of the act establishes a framework for regulating municipal and industrial stormwater discharges under the NPDES Program. Section 402(p) requires that stormwater discharges associated with an industrial activity , a discharge from a municipal separate storm sewer system serving a population of 250,000 or more , or a discharge associated with a municipal separate storm sewer system serving a population of 100,000 or more but less than 250,000, that discharges either directly to surface waters or indirectly through municipal separate storm sewers must be regulated by an NPDES permit.

Federal Emergency Management Agency
The City of Fresno is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a Federal program administered by FEMA. Participants in the NFIP must satisfy certain mandated floodplain management criteria. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 has adopted as a desired level of protection, an expectation that developments should be protected from floodwater damage of the Intermediate Regional Flood (IRF). The IRF is defined as a flood that has an average frequency of occurrence on the order of once i n 100 years, although such a flood may occur in any given year.

Communities are occasionally audited by the DWR and FEMA to insure the proper implementation of FEMA floodplain management regulations.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required for discharges of pollutants to navigable waters of the United States, which includes any discharge to surface waters, including lakes, rivers, streams, bays, the ocean, dry stream beds, wetlands, and storm sewers that are tributary to any surface water body. NPDES permits are issued under the Federal Clean Water Act, Title IV, Permits and Licenses, Section 402 (33 USC 466 et seq.).

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-9

The RWQCB issues these permits in lieu of direct issuance by the Environmental Protection Agency, subject to review and approval by the Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator. The terms of these NPDES permits implement pertinent provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations, including pre-treatment, sludge management, effluent limitations for specific industries, and anti-degradation. In general, the discharge of pollutants is to be eliminated or reduced as much as practicable so as to achieve the Clean Water Act goal of “fishable and swimmable” navigable (surface) waters. Technically, all NPDES permits issued by the RWQCB are also Waste Discharge Requirements issued under the authority of the CWA.

NPDES permits regulate discharges from publicly owned treatment works, industrial discharges, stormwater runoff, dewatering operations, and groundwater cleanup discharges. NPDES permits are issued for five years, and are therefore to be updated regularly. The SWRCB has adopted several general NPDES permits, each of which regulates numerous discharges of similar types of wastes. The SWRCB has issued general permits for stormwater runoff from industrial and construction sites statewide. Stormwater discharges from industrial a nd construction activities in the Central Valley Region can be covered under these general permits, which are administered jointly by the SWRCB and RWQCB.

The City of Fresno is a co-permittee with the FMFCD, the County of Fresno, the City of Clovis, and California State University Fresno in the Phase 1 NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). This Phase 1 MS4 Permit requires that the City and its co-permittees implement water quality and watershed protection measures for all development projects. The waste discharge requirements contained in the NPDES Permit have been designed to be consistent with the water q uality standards and goals established in the Central Valley RWQCB’s Basin Plan. The Phase 1 MS4 Permit prohibits discharges from violating applicable water quality standards or creating a nuisance or water quality impairment in receiving waters.

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
STATE
California Water Code
The Federal Clean Water Act places the primary responsibility for the control of surface water pollution and for planning the development and use of water resources with the States, although this does establish certain guidelines for the States to follow in developing their programs and allows the Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw control from States with inadequate implementation mechanisms.

California’s primary statute governing water quality and water pollution issues with respect to both surface waters and groundwater is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Division 7 of the California Water Code) (Porter-Cologne Act). The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and each of the RWQCBs power to protect water quality, and is the primary vehicle for implementation of California’s responsibilities under the Federal Clean Water Act. The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and the RWQ CBs authority and responsibility to adopt plans and policies, to regulate discharges to surface and groundwater, to regulate waste disposal sites and to require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter -Cologne Act also establishes

3.9-10 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substance, sewage, or oil or petroleum product.

Each RWQCB must formulate and adopt a water quality control plan (Basin Plan) for its region the regional plans are to conform to the policies set forth in the Porter -Cologne Act and established by the SWRCB in its State water policy. The Porter-Cologne Act also provides that a RWQCB may include within its regional plan water discharge prohibitions applicable to particular conditions, areas, or types of waste.

The Water Code Section 13260 requires all dischargers of waste that may affect water quality in waters of the state to prepare and provide a water quality discharge report to the RWQCB. Section 13260a-c is as follows:
(a) Each of the following persons shall file with the appropriate regional board a report of the discharge, containing the information that may be required by the regional board:
(1) A person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the quality of the waters of the state, other than into a community sewer system.
(2) A person who is a citizen, domiciliary, or political agency or entity of this state discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, outside the boundaries of the state in a manner that could affect the quality of the waters of the state within any region. (3) A person operating, or proposing to construct, an injection well. (b) No report of waste discharge need be filed pursuant to subdivision (a) if the requirement is waived pursuant to Section 13269.
(c) Each person subject to subdivision (a) shall file with the appropriate regional board a report of waste discharge relative to any material change or proposed change in the character, location, or volume of the discharge.

State Water Resources Control Board
The SWRCB is responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act and does so through issuing NPDES permits to cities and counties through regional water quality control boards. Federal regulations allow two permitting options for stormwater discharges (individual permits and general permits).

The SWRCB elected to adopt a statewide general permit (Water Quality Order No. 2013 -001-DWQ- DWQ) for small municipal separate storm sewer systems.

LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
The Fresno General Plan establishes the following policies relative to hydrology and water quality:

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-11

NOISE AND SAFETY ELEMENT

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Objective NS -3: Minimize the risks to property, life, and the environment due to flooding and stormwater runoff hazards.

Policy NS-3-a: Stormwater Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan. Support the full implementation of the FMFCD Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan, the completion of planned flood control and drainage system facilities, and the continued maintenance of stormwater and flood water retention and conveyance facilities and capacities. Work with the FMFCD to make sure that its Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan is consistent with the General Plan.

Policy NS-3-b: Curb and Gutter Installation. Coordinate with Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD) to install curbing, gutters, and other drainage facilities with priority to existing neighborhoods with the greatest deficiencies and consistent with the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan.

Policy NS -3-c: Dual Use Facilities. Support multiple uses of flood control and drainage facilities as follows:
• Use, wherever practical, FMFCD facilities for groundwater management and recharge; and
• Promote recreational development of ponding basin facilities located within or near residential areas, compatible with the stormwater and groundwater recharge functions.

Policy NS-3-d: Landscaped Buffer. City will support the development of FMFCD ponding basins including the landscaping and irrigation for the top one third of the side sloped areas consistent with the FMFCD Basin Design Criteria.

Policy NS-3-e: Pollutants. Work with FMFCD to prevent and reduce the existence of urban stormwater pollutants pursuant to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems Act.

Policy NS-3-f: Flooding Emergency Response Plans. Work with responsible agencies to update emergency dam failure inundation plans, evacuation plans and other emergency response plans for designated flood-prone areas, including the San Joaquin riverbottom.

Policy NS -3-g: Essential Facilities Siting Outside of Floodplains. Avoid siting emergency response and essential public facilities, such as fire and police stations, within a 100 -year floodplain, unless it can be demonstrated that the facility can be safely operated and accessed during flood events.

Policy NS -3-h: Runoff Controls. Implement grading regulations and related development policies that protect area residents from flooding caused by urban runoff produced from events that exceed the capacity of the Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan system

3.9-12 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
of facilities. Place all structures and/or flood-proofing in a manner that does not cause floodwaters to be diverted onto adjacent property, increase flood hazards to other property, or otherwise adversely affect other property.

Policy NS-3-i: New Development Must Mitigate Impact. Require new development to not significantly impact the existing storm drainage and flood control system by imposing conditions of approval as project mitigation, as authorized by law. As part of this process, closely coordinate and consult with the FMFCD to identify appropriate conditions that will result in mitigation acceptable and preferred by FMFCD for each project.

Policy NS -3-j: National Flood Insurance Program. Continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by ensuring compliance with applicable requirements.

Review NFIP maps periodically to determine if areas subject to flooding have been added or removed and make adjustments to the Land Use Diagram Figure LU-1.

Policy NS-3-k: 100-Year Floodplain Policy. Require developers of residential subdivisions to preserve those portions of development sites as open space that may be subject to 100 - year flood events, unless the flood hazard can be substantially mitigated by development project design.

Policy NS -3-l: 200-Year Floodplain Protection. Promote flood control measures that maintain natural conditions within the 200-year floodplain of rivers and streams and, to the extent possible, combine flood control, recreation, water quality, and open space functions.

Discourage construction of perman ent improvements that would be adversely affected by periodic floods within the 200-year floodplain, particularly in the San Joaquin river bottom.

Policy NS-3-m: Flood Risk Public Awareness. Continue public awareness programs to inform the general public and potentially affected property owners of flood hazards and potential dam failure inundation. Remind households and businesses located in flood -prone areas of opportunities to purchase flood insurance.

Policy NS-3-n: Precipitation Changes. Work with FMFCD to evaluate the planned and existing stormwater conveyance system in light of possible changes to precipitation patterns in the future.

PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT
Objective PU-5: Preserve groundwater quality and ensure that the health and safety o f the entire Fresno community is not impaired by use of private, on-site disposal systems.

Objective PU-8: Manage and develop the City’s water facilities on a strategic timeline basis that recognizes the long life cycle of the assets and the duration of the resources, to ensure a safe, economical, and reliable water supply for existing customers and planned urban development and economic diversification.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-13

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Policy PU-8-f: Water Quality. Continue to evaluate and implement measures determined to be appropriate and consistent with water system policies, including prioritizing the use of groundwater, installing w ellhead treatment facilities, constructing above-ground storage and surface water treatment facilities, and enhancing transmission grid mains to promote adequate water quality and quantity.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RESILIENCE ELEMENT
Objective RC-6: Ensure that Fresno has a reliable, long-range source of drinkable water.

Policy RC-6-g: Protect Recharge Areas. Continue to protect areas of beneficial natural groundwater recharge by preventing uses that can contaminate soil or groundwater.

Policy RC-6-i: Natural Recharge. Support removal of concrete from existing canals and change the practice of lining new and existing canals wit h concrete to allow for natural recharge.

PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND SCHOOLS ELEMENT
Objective POSS-6: Maintain and restore, where feasible, the ecological values of the San Joaquin River corridor.

Policy POSS-6-b: Effects of Stormwater Discharge. Support efforts to identify and mitigate cumulative adverse effects on aquatic life from stormwater discharge to the San Joaquin River.
• Avoid discharge of runoff from urban uses to the San Joaquin River or other riparian corridors.
• Approve development on sites having drainage (directly or indirectly) to the San Joaquin River or other riparian areas only upon a finding that adequate measures for preventing pollution of natural bodies of water from their runoff will be implemented. • Periodically monitor water quality and sediments near drainage outfalls to riparian areas. Institute remedial measures promptly if unacceptable levels of contaminant(s) occur.

Fresno Municipal Code
Chapter 6, Municipal Services and Utilities, Article 7, Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control, of the Fresno Municipal Code establishes provisions regarding stormwater discharges. The purpose and intent of Article 7 is to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of residents, and to protect the water quality of surface water and groundwater resources in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Federal CWA by reducing pollutants in urban stormwater, discharges to the maximum extent practicable, and by effectively prohibiting non- stormwater discharges to the storm drain system.

Chapter 12, Impact Fees, Historic Resources, and Other Miscellaneous Topics, Section 12 -2304, Development Application, Infrastructure Improvement Plans, and Building Permit Review and

3.9-14 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Processing Timelines, outlines the City’s grading plan check process. The grading plan check process is a review process that requires anyone who develops property:

1. Properly grade their property in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC).

2. Submit a grading plan showing the proposed grading of the development.

3. Obtain approval of the FMFCD indicating conformance of the grading plan with the Storm Drainage Master Plan.

4. Obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit and comply with the requirements of the permit, including developing an erosion control site plan.

FMFCD Storm Drainage Master Plan
The Storm Drainage Master Plan contains proposed elevations for tops of curbs in undeveloped areas, delineation of storm drain inlet watershed areas, collection system pipeline alignments and sizes, and retention basin or urban detention (water quality) basin locations and geometry. The development of land in conformance with the Storm Drainage Master Plan ensures that development is graded to drain to storm drainage facilities that are designed to collect and dispose of stormwater from the planned development.

North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency Groundwater Sustainability Plan
The NKGSA finalized the Groundwater Sustainability Plan and submitted it to the DWR on January 28, 2020. The sustainability goal of the Kings Subbasin and the NKGSA is to ensure that by 2040 the basin is being managed to maintain a reliable water supply for current and future beneficial uses without experiencing undesirable results.

Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan) includes a summary of beneficial water uses, water quality objectives needed to protect the identified beneficial uses, and implementation measures. The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for all the ground and surface waters of the region. The term “water quality standards,” as used in the Federal Clean Water Act, includes both the beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the levels of quality that must be met and maintained to protect those uses. The Basin Plan includes an implementation plan describing the actions by the RWQCB and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain the water quality standards.

The RWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region’s ground and surface water. Permits are issued under a number of programs and authorities.

The terms and conditions of these discharge permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means. Water quality problems in the region are listed in the Basin Plan, along with the causes, where they are known. For water bodies with quality below the levels necessary to allow all the b eneficial uses of the water to be met, plans for improving water quality are included. The Basin Plan reflects, incorporates, and implements applicable portions of a number Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-15

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
of national and statewide water quality plans and policies, including the California Water Code and the Clean Water Act.

3.9.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Specific Plan will have a significant impact on the environment associated with hydrology and water quality if it will:
• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. • Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
o Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; o Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
o Create or contribute runoff water which w ould exceed t he capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
• In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation;
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

Impact 3.9-1: The Specific Plan would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction . (L ess than Significant)
According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, polluted stormwater runoff is a leading cause of impairment to the nearly 40 percent of surveyed U.S. water bodies which do not meet water quality standards. Over land or via storm sewer systems, polluted runoff is discharged, often untreated, directly into local water bodies. Soil erosion is one of the most common sources of polluted stormwater runoff during construction activities. When left uncontrolled, storm water runoff can erode soil and cause sedimentation in waterways, which collectively result in the destruction of fish, wildlife, and aquatic life habitats; a loss in aesthetic value; and threats to public health due to contaminated food, drinking water supplies, and recreational waterways.

3. 9-16 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
Mandated by Congress under the Clean Water Act, the NPDES Stormwater Program is a comprehensive two -phased national program for addressing the non-agricultural sources of stormwater discharges which adversely affect the quality of our nation's waters. The program uses the NPDES permitting mechanism to require the implementation of controls designed to prevent harmful pollutants, including soil erosion, from being washed by stormwater runoff into local water bodies. Future construction activities for the pro posed Specific Plan would be governed by the General Permit 2009-0009-DWQ (amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ), which states:
“…Particular attention must be paid to large, mass graded sites where the potential for soil exposure to the erosive effects of rainfall and wind is great and where there is potential for significant sediment discharge from the site to surface waters. Until permanent vegetation is established, soil cover is the most cost -effective and expeditious method to protect soil particles from detachment and transport by rainfall. Temporary soil stabilization can be the single most important factor in reducing erosion at construction sites. The discharger is required to consider measures such as: covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. These erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. Erosion control BMPs should be the primary means of preventing storm water contamination, and sediment control techniques should be used to capture any soil that becomes eroded…”
General Permit 2009-0009-DWQ (amended by 2010 -0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ) further states that:
“Sediment control BMPs should be the secondary means of preventing storm water contamination. When erosion control techniques are ineffective, sediment control techniques should be used to capture any soil that becomes eroded. The discharger is required to consider perimeter control measures such as: installing silt fences or placing straw wattles below slopes. These sediment control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed…Inappropriate management of run-on and runoff can result in excessive physical impacts to receiving waters from sediment and increased flows. The discharger is required to manage all run-on and runoff from a Specific Plan Area. Examples include: installing berms and other temporary run-on and runoff diversions…All measures must be periodically inspected, maintained and repaired to ensure that receiving water quality is protected. Frequent inspections coupled with thorough documentation and timely repair is necessary to ensure that all measures are functioning as intended…” Grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with construction activities could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Construction activities also could result in soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas. To ensure that construction activities are covered under General Permit 2009-0009-DWQ (amended by 2010-0014- DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ), project s in California must prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-17

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Plan (SWPPP) containing Best Management P ractices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and sediments to meet water quality standards. Such BMPs may include: temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and tr aps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover. The BMPs and overall SWPPP is reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City of Fresno as part of the permitting process. The SWPPP, once approv ed, is kept on site and implemented during construction activities and must be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB and/or the City of Fresno.

In accordance with the NPDES Stormwater Program, future development projects disturbing one or more acre within the Plan Area would be r equired to comply with existing regulatory requirements to prepare a SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The RWQCB has stated that these erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and are an existing regulatory requirement.

CONCLUSION
Future development in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction. Pursuant to the SWPPP that would be required for future projects that disturb one or more acres, the use of BMPs during construction activities would be required in order to reduce erosion, control sediment, and manage runoff from the Plan Area. The BMPs may include: covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. The use of these measures would prevent polluted, non -treated runoff from entering the nearby storm drains and waterways. The various RWQCBs have evaluated the effectiveness of the types of BMPs required by a SWPPP and have determined that BMPs are known to be effective in protecting receiving waters2. Through compliance with future site-specific SWPPPs, the proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

Impact 3.9-2: The Specific Plan would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during operation. (Less than Significant) Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires States to identify waters that do not meet water quality standards or objectives and thus, are considered "impaired." Once listed, Section 303(d) mandates prioritization and development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The TMDL is a tool that establishes the allowable loadings or other quantifiable parameters for a waterbody

3.9-18 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

2 Refer to “Review of Stormwater Best Management Practices at Large Construction Sites” by the Los Angeles RWQCB; Available online:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb4/water_issues/programs/stormwater/bmp/largeconstreport- august-06.pdf

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
and thereby the basis for the States to establish water quality-based controls. The purpose of TMDLs is to ensure that beneficial uses are restored and that water quality objectives are achieved.

Waters that are listed under Section 303(d) of the CWA are known as “impaired.” The primary surface water features within the vicinity of the Plan Area are the San Joaquin River and Millerton Lake. Both water features are considered Section 303(d) impaired waterbodies. The portion of the San Joaquin River nearest the Plan Area appears on the SWRCB’s Impaired Water Bodies/303(d) List for invasive species (non-native fish species). Millerton Lake is included on the Impaired Water Bodies/303(d) List for mercury. Additionally, although outside of the Plan Area, surface water from the Kings River is delivered to the area for intentional groundwater recharge. Two portions of t he lower reaches of the Kings River are considered impaired waterbodies: from Island Weir to Stinson and Empire Weirs and from Pine Flat Reservoir to Island Weir. The Island Weir to Stinson and Empire Weirs segment of the Kings River appears on the SWRCB’s Impaired Water Bodies/303(d) List for conductivity (s alinity/total dissolved solids/chlorides/sulfates ), m olybdenum metals (other than mercury), and t oxaphene (pesticide). The Pine Flat Reservoir to Island Weir segment of the Kings River appears on the SWRCB’s Impaired Water Bodies/303(d) List for alkalinity/carbonate as CaCO 3 ( pH/Acidity/Caustic Conditions) and toxicity (total toxics).

The long-term operations of future development projects in the Plan Area could result in long-term impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff. The proposed Specific Plan would result in new impervious areas associated with roadways, driveways, parking lots, buildings, and landscape areas. Normal activities in developed areas include the use of various automotive petroleum products (i.e. oil, grease, and fuel), common house hold hazardous materials, heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and sediment. Within urban areas, these pollutants are generally called nonpoint source pollutants. The pollutant levels vary based on factors such as time between storm events, volume of storm event, type of uses, and density of people.

The majority of development allowed under the Specific Plan would be within areas currently developed with urban uses, and the amount and type of runoff generated by various future development and infrastructure projects would be similar to existing conditions. However, new development and infrastructure proj ects on lands that are used for agricultural operations, or are vacant and undeveloped, have the potential to result in increases in the amount of impervious surfaces throughout the Plan Area . The undeveloped and underdeveloped lands which do not contain impervious surfaces are scattered throughout the Plan Area, but are mainly located along the western and southern fringes. Future increases in impervious surfaces would result in increased urban runoff, pollutants, and first flush roadway contaminants, as well as an increase in nutrients and other chemicals from landscaped areas. These constituents could result in water quality impacts to onsite and offsite drainage flows to area waterways.

Storm water runoff may play a role in the water quality impairments described above. Runoff that occurs as overland flow across yards, driveways, and public streets is intercepted by the storm water drainage system and conveyed to local drainages before eventually being routed to the Pacific. This storm water can carry pollutants that can enter the local waterways and result in the types of water quality impairments described above. Common sources of storm water pollution in the city include litter, trash, pet waste, paint residue, organic material (yard waste), fertilizers, pesticides, sediments, Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-19

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
construction debris, metals from automobile brake pad dust, air pollutants that settle on the ground or attach to rainwater, cooking grease, illegally dumped motor oil, and other harmful fluids.

In accordance with the NPDES Stormwater Program, an approved SWPPP would be required for future development projects in the Plan Area and designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. Such BMPs shall include: temporary erosion control me asures such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag d ikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover or other equally or more effective measures. The BMPs and overall SWPPP are submitted to the RWQCB and the City of Fresno as part of the permitting process. The SWPPP is kept on site and implemented during construction ac tivities and must be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB and/or the City of Fresno. The RWQCB has stated that these erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude equally or more effective new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB.

Due to future development and implementation of new infrastructure anticipated by the Specific Plan, the overall volume of runoff in Fresno could be increased compared to existing conditions. If the FMFCD drainage system is not adequately designed, Specific Plan buildout could result in localized higher peak flow rates. Localized increases in flow would be significant if increases exceeded system capacity or contribute to bank erosion. Each future development and infrastructure project is required to prepare a detailed project specific drainage plan and a SWPPP that will control storm water runoff and erosion, both during and after construction. If the project involves the discharge into surface waters, the project proponent will need to acquire a Dewatering permit, NPDES permit, and Waste Discharge permit from the CVRWQCB.

As described above, under the Regulatory Setting, the City is required to implement a range of measures and procedures when reviewing new development and infrastructure projects.

Implementation of the City’s General Plan policies and actions, as well as the City’s adopted Municipal Code requirements, would ensure that water quality is preserved.

Chapter 6, Municipal Services and Utilities, Article 7, Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control, of the Fresno Municipal Code establishes provisions regarding stormwater discharges. The purpose and intent of Article 7 is to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of residents, and to protect the water quality of surface water and groundwater resources in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Federal CWA by reducing pollutants in urban stormwater, discharges to the maximum extent practicable, and by effectively prohibiting non- stormwater discharges to the storm drain s ystem. Chapter 12, Impact Fees, Historic Resources, and Other Miscellaneous Topics, Section 12-2304, Development Application, Infrastructure Improvement Plans, and Building Permit Review and Processing Timelines, outlines the City’s grading plan check process. The grading plan check process is a review process that requires anyone who develops property:

1. Properly grade their property in accordance with the CBC.

3. 9-20 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9

2. Submit a grading plan showing the proposed grading of the development.

3. Obtain approval of the FMFCD indicating conformance of the grading plan with the Storm Drainage Master Plan.

4. Obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit and comply with the requirements of the permit, including developing an erosion control site plan.

While the primary regulatory mechanisms for ensuring that future development and infrastructure projects do not result in adverse water quality impacts are contained in the Fresno Municipal Code, the City of Fresno has developed the Specific Plan to include additional policies that, when implemented, will further reduce water pollution from construction, new development, and new infrastructure projects, and protect and enhance natural storm drainage and water quality features.

The policies identified below include numerous requirements that would reduce the potential for Specific Plan implementation to result in increased water quality impacts.

CONCLUSION
The entire Plan Area is in areas served by FMFCD retention basins. Operation of projects developed under the proposed Specific Plan could generate the same categories of pollutants that construction could. Water quality treatment for post-construction discharges to stormwater in the FMFCD urban flood control system area is provided by retention basins. Land development in the FMFCD Master Plan Area is exempt from further water quality requirements provided that the FMFCD ’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan is implemented.

Storm drainage improvements are funded by local drainage fees paid by developments and are built by the FMFCD, by developers, or both. Basins are highly effective at reducing average concentrations of a broad range of contaminants, including several polyaromatic hydrocarbons, total suspended solids, and most metals. Pollutants are removed by filtration through soil, and thus don’t reach the groundwater aquifer. Basins are built to design criteria exceeding Statewide Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan standards. The urban flood control system provides treatment for all types of development.

Additionally, compliance with the Specific Plan policies shown below would further ensure that water quality standards or waste discharge requirements are not violated during operation of future projects in the Plan Area. For example, adequate stormwater and flooding infrastructure would be required for new development. Through compliance with the FMFCD ’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan, City General Plan policies , City Municipal Code requirements, and proposed Specific Plan policies, the proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

SPECIFIC PLAN POLICIES THAT REDUCE POTENTIAL IMPACTS
IPR 3.2: Continue to evaluate Capital Improvement Programs and update them to add missing infrastructure and to meet the demand for new development.

IPR 3.3: Continue to set appropriate conditions of approval for each new development proposal to ensure that water resource facilities are in place prior to construction and building occupancy.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-21

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Impact 3.9-3: The Specific Plan would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. (Less than Significant)
IPR 3.4: Continue to plan for, install, and operate recycled water systems to benefit the West Area and to support local resource conservation goals.

The quantity of ground water in the San Joaquin Valley has been declining for decades, as evidenced by the substantial lowering of water levels in the aquifers. Impacts on groundwater in the Fresno area are an important consideration in any development plan. See Impact 3.1 5-6 in Section 3.15, Utilities, for further discussions regarding groundwater demand, groundwater supplies, groundwater recharge, and groundwater quality . Impacts related to groundwater supplies and interference with groundwater recharge are considered in two ways: (1) conversion of pervious surfaces (which allow for groundwater recharge), and (2) use of groundwater as a water supply (which reduces the amount of local groundwater supply).

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
Future development projects in the Plan Area would result in new impervious surfaces and could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge in those areas. Infiltration rates vary depending on the overlying soil types. In general, sandy soils have higher infiltration rates and can contribute to significant amounts of ground water recharge; clay soils tend to have lower percolation potential; and impervious surfaces such as pavement significantly reduce infiltration capacity and increase surface water runoff.

As noted previously , the FMFCD drainage system consists of approximately 750 miles of pipeline and more than 150 stormwater retention basins. The storm drainage pipeline system is designed to accept the peak flow rate of runoff from a two-year intensity storm event (a storm that has a 50 percent probability of occurring in any given year). The FMFCD storm drain and flood control system is designed to retain and infiltrate as much stormwater and urban runoff as possible.

The current drainage system in the Plan Area discharges to a system of ponding basins, irrigation canals, and the San Joaquin River, but is operated and maintained to retain and infiltrate as much runoff as possible into the underlying groundwater aquifer. Future development would include water quality BMPs, detention basins, and retention basins designed to minimize or eliminate increases in runoff from these new impervious surfaces entering existing surface water courses and existing storm drains. Peak runoff and t otal volume of runoff will be minimized by future development of storm drainage design which retains water to the maximum extent possible.

Consequently, infiltration into the groundwater aquifers will be maximized to the exten t possible through the storm drainage design.

Additionally, future development projects in the Plan Area may result in new rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge with the development of new pervious surfaces and maintenance of existing pervious surfaces . The Specific Plan incorporates best practices to support sustainable

3. 9-22 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
development including bioswale/run-off collection and large permeable green surfaces (i.e., park and open space areas) that would reduce new impervious surfaces, rainwater infiltration, and support groundwater recharge. Future development would include storm water quality BMPs designed to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces entering existing storm drains and surface water courses. Peak runoff and total volume of runoff will be minimized by future development of storm drainage design which retains water to the maximum extent possible.

Further, the City’s Recharge Fresno Program is intended to improve the pipelines and water system facilities that will capture, treat , and deliver water to Fresno homes and businesses, including surface water from the Sierra Nevada Mountains. This program has the following objectives: ensure a reliable and sustainable water supply for Fresno’s present and future prosperity by increasing the available water supply; bring new, treated surface water from the Sierra Nevada Mountains to our community; improve natural and intentional groundwater recharge; maintain focus on conservation and its role in ensuring a sustainable water supply for Fresno; and ensure a safe and reliable water supply.

Future development of the Plan Area under the proposed land use plan will modify the movement of water across the land surface and the infiltration of rain water into the groundwater system. The aquifers underlying the Plan A rea are impacted by several major contaminant plumes involving organic compounds, inorganic compounds, solvents, pesticides, and other contaminants . Future development projects in the Plan Area , if no means were provided to preserve infiltration of rainwater, would likely reduce net infiltration of rain water and runoff into the groundwater system and reduce the diluting effect of this fresh water supply. The net impact would be a further build-up of contaminants in the groundwater in the Kings Subbasin . However, the proposed Specific Plan would also likely decrease the amount of pesticides and other agricultural contaminants entering the groundwater from the Plan A rea, due to elimination of agricultural activity in the Plan Area, including fertilizer application. Surface water quality detention basins and BMPs would also have the potential to add to groundwater contamination levels if they are not properly designed and sited. It is also noted that the City is in the process of planning and constructing a comprehensive Recycled Water System, which will include parts of the Plan Area. Many of the segments of the overall System are either under construction or already completed, and a Water Reuse Master Plan is underway to evaluate all options and plan for the future use of recycled water throughout the city.

The FMFCDs Storm Water Quality Management Plan, City General Plan policies, City Municipal Code requirements, the Recharge Fresno program, and proposed Specific Plan policies include BMPs aimed at preserving water quality and groundwater recharge areas. The BMPs required as part of future development of the Plan Area are designed to infiltrate as much storm water runoff as practicable into the ground. A portion of the retained runoff will infiltrate into the ground, helping to replenish the aquifers. The required BMPs are designed to trap contaminants and to beneficially make use of nutrients in the vegetated swales and planted areas. In addition, application rates of fertilizers on urbanized areas is less than that typically used in intensive agriculture. The aggregate effect of the proposed Specific Plan will, therefore, be to decrease the loading of nutrients (in particular, nitrates) into the groundwater.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-23

GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The proposed Specific Plan would be served from the City’s existing and future water supplies. As discussed in Section 3.15, Utilities, the City currently receives water from four water supply sources:
surface water from the FID Agreement for Kings River water, surface water from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division Contract for San Joaquin River water, groundwater that is pumped from wells in the City, and recycled water (planned to be used for non- potable uses).

The City of Fresno forecasts that it will have sufficient water supplies for demands in its service area over the 2020 to 2040 period in normal, single-dry -year, and multiple- dry-year conditions.

Additionally, the Specific Plan water demand is not expected to exceed the City’s supplies in any normal, single dry, or multiple dry year between 2020 and 2040.

SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) directs DWR to identify groundwater basins and subbasins that are in conditions of critical overdraft. This designation is determined based upon the presence of "undesirable impacts" such as seawater intrusion, land subsidence, groundwater depletion, and chronic lowering of groundwater levels. Per DWR's current list of critically overdrafted basins, finalized in February 2019, the Kings Subbasin is designated as a critically overdrafted basin.

As part of the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program, DWR is required to prioritize California groundwater ba sins to help identify, evaluate, and determine the need for additional groundwater level monitoring. Per the current CASGEM draft prioritization, completed in April 2019, the Kings Subbasin is a high priority subbasin.

The City has long made efforts toward offsetting the decline of groundwater levels and minimizing overdraft conditions through an active intentional recharge program that started in 1971. Through cooperative agreements with FMFCD and FID, the City has access to not only City-owned basins, but also to specific facilities owned and operated these two agencies. The city has averaged over 60,000 AFY the previous five years and plans to gradually increase recharge by about 540 AFY each year.

However, during wet years the city will recharge more water when it is available to allow to the City to draw on additional groundwater during dry years when surface water is not available.

In short, SGMA is landmark legislation that, for the first time in the history of California, requires comprehensive groundwater management, with the mandatory goal of bringing all currently overdrafted basins into sustainable conditions by no later than 2 040 or 2042, with five -year increments of progress starting in 2025 and 2027.

As noted previously, the FARGMP was prepared in conformance with AB 3030 and SB 1938. The objectives of the FARGMP have been developed to monitor, protect, and sustain groundwater within the region. The City of Fresno and the other participating agencies subsequently adopted the groundwater management plan in 2006. The city of Fresno falls within the NKGSA. As a high priority basin, the Kings Subbasin must be managed under a GSP by January 31, 2020. The NKGSA finalized

3. 9-24 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
the GSP and submitted it to the California DWR on January 28, 2020, ahead of the January 31, 2020 mandate. The FARGMP is discussed below.

GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
As noted previously, the FARGMP was prepared in conformance with AB 3030 and SB 1938. The objectives of the FARGMP have been developed to monitor, protect, and sustain groundwater within the region. The City of Fresno and the other participating agencies subsequently adopted the groundwater management plan in 2006. The city of Fresno falls within the NKGSA. As a high priority basin, the Kings Subbasin must be managed under a GSP by January 31, 2020. The NKGSA completed the GSP on January 28, 2020.

As discussed above, the Specific Plan would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Plan may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The Specific Plan includes park, open space, and ponding basin areas which would allow for infiltration of groundwater on -site. Existing City and FMFCD regulations require development in the Plan Area to address water quality and changes to the drainage pattern through BMPs and low impact development (LID) measures. LID measures and strategies can be used to meet the FMFCD’s development standards and include use of bioretention/infiltration landscape areas, disconnected hydrologic flow paths, reduced impervious areas, functional landscaping, and grading to maintain natural hydrologic functions that existed prior to development, such as interception, shallow surface storage, infiltration, evapotranspiration, and groundwater recharge. Further, Recharge Fresno, a City program to improve the pipelines and water system facilities that will capture, treat and deliver water to Fresno homes and businesses, including surface water from the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Groundwater-related objectives of Recharge Fresno include: improve natural and intentional groundwater recharge, maintain focus on conservation and its role in ensuring a sustainable water supply for Fresno , and ensure a safe and reliable water supply.. These guiding documents and requirements would ensure that stormwater quality treatment measures are implemented and maintained throughout the life of the Specific Plan.

CONCLUSION
The required stormwater BMPs and retention basins would be designed to reduce runoff below that which occurs currently during storm events and ensure groundwater recharge from the Plan A rea to the extent possible. Additionally, the Specific Plan water demand is not expected to exceed the City’s supplies in any normal, single dry, or multiple dry year between 2020 and 204 0, and the Plan would not conflict with the FARGMP. Further, the Specific Plan includes two policies, listed below, which would encourage nonporous surfaces for groundwater recharge and other design strategies to maximize recharge. Therefore, impacts related to groundwater recharge would be less than significant.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-25

SPECIFIC PLAN POLICIES THAT REDUCE THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS IPR 2.9: Plant locally appropriate, drought -tolerant landscaping and, where possible, incorporate designs that can contribute to groundwater recharge, flood protection, and reduced urban heat island effects.

IPR 3.1: Encourage the incorporation of water conservation methods in new development, such as greywater systems, drought-resilient landscaping, and reduction of nonporous surfaces.

Impact 3.9-4: The Specific Plan would not alter the existing drainage pattern in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or offsite, or create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. (Less than Significant)
Future development would include water quality BMPs, detention basins, and retention basins designed to minimize or eliminate increases in runoff entering existing surface water courses and storm drains. Peak runoff and total volume of runoff will be minimized by the storm drainage design which retains water to the maximum extent p ossible.

The proposed Specific Plan will not alter drainage patterns in a manner which will cause flooding, erosion, or siltation. Surface runoff from the area will be managed via parcel-based LID measures, detention/retention basins, and flow reducing BMPs to prevent local flooding within the site. These features will also reduce peak flows from the Plan Area to receiving creeks and storm drains to amounts equal to or less than flows under existing conditions. Sediment in the stormwater flows will be captured in detention ponds designed to prevent siltation. Flooding, erosion, or siltation is not anticipated by the proposed Specific Plan given the storm drain design requirements and best management practices that will be implemented.

The proposed Specific Plan would not alter the existing drainage pattern in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, flooding, or polluted runoff. With the implementation of the Specific Plan policies already presented above, compliance with existing regulatory requirements which pertain to water quality and runoff, and with the design and construction of the improvements included in the proposed storm drainage system, the proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

Impact 3.9 -5: The Specific Plan would not release pollutants due to Plan Area inundation by flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche. (Less than Significant)

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
As shown in Figure 3.9-2, the e ntire Plan Area is designated unshaded Zone X - minimal flood hazard, and would not be expected to have a flood hazard up to the level of the 0.2-percent a nnual chance flood. Lands designated as unshaded Zone X are outside of the Special Flood Hazard Areas. Changes

3. 9-26 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.9
to land surfaces in these areas do not trigger map revisions and no flood insurance requirements are imposed on structures in these areas.

Although the Plan Area’s northern boundary is very near the San Joaquin River, the area is not within a Special Flood Hazard Area. Local flooding can occur for events larger than a two -year event, but runoff is generally contained in the streets or other breakover easements . Such flooding is not reflected on FEMA’s maps. Improvements to storm drainage facilities are accomplished either as a part of privately funded on -site developments or as a part of the master plan, funded by drainage fees. FMFCD maintains an on -going update to the system hydraulic model for flood control and prepares a capital improvement plan update every year with projected funding for five years.

A tsunami is a sea wave caused by a submarine earthquake, landslide, or volcanic eruption. Tsunami can cause catastrophic damage to shallow or exposed shorelines. The Plan Area is approximately 105 miles from the coast, which is sufficiently distant to preclude effects from a tsunami.

Additionally, tsunami inundation maps show no risk of tsunami inundation for the Plan Area.

Seiches are changes or oscillations of water levels within a confined water body. Seiches are caused by fluctuation in the atmosphere, tidal currents or earthquakes. The effect of this phenomenon is a standing wave that would occur when influenced by the external causes. The Plan Area is not adjacent to any lakes that pose significant a risk from a seiche event.

The Plan Area is not located within a dam failure inundation area The Fresno County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan outlines the mitigation strategy for reducing potential losses identified in Chapter 4, Risk Assessment, of the Plan. It is noted that the Draft Fresno County Hazard Mitigation Plan was released in May 2024. This updated Plan also includes mitigation strategies for reducing potential losses due to flood and other hazards in Chapter 4, Risk Assessment.

Should the 2020 Plan update be adopted, the updated Plan would supersede the 2018 MJHMP.

Provided that the storm drain system and detention/retention facilities to be installed as part of the proposed development are adequately sized and properly installed and maintained, additional flooding and/or impedance or redirection of flows will not be induced by the proposed Specific Plan.

As a result , the proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

Impact 3. 9-6: The Specific Plan would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. (Less than Significant)
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region and the GSP are the two guiding documents for water quality and sustainable groundwater management in the Plan Area.

Consistency with the two plans are discussed below.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.9-27

WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL VALLEY REGION

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region (Basin Plan) includes a summary of beneficial water uses, water quality objectives needed to protect the identified beneficial uses, and implementation measures. The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for all the ground and surface waters of the region. The RWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region’s ground and surface water. Permits are issued under a number of programs and authorities. The terms and conditions of these discharge permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means. Water quality problems in the region are listed in the Basin Plan, along with the causes, where known.

As discussed in Impacts 3. 9-1 and 3. 9-2, impacts related to water quality during construction and operation of future projects in the Plan Area would be less than significant. Through compliance with future site-specific SWPPPs, the proposed project Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to construction. Through compliance with the FMFCD’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan, City General Plan policies, City Municipal Code requirements, and proposed Specific Plan policies, the proposed Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to operation.

GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
As part of a partnership of local municipal water purveyors, irrigation districts, a flood control district, and the overlying county, the FARGMP was prepared in conformance with AB 3030 and SB 1938. The objectives of the FARGMP have been developed to moni tor, protect, and sustain groundwater within the region. The City of Fresno and the other participating agencies subsequently adopted the groundwater management p lan in 2006. The city of Fresno falls within the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NKGSA). As a high p riority basin, the Kings Subbasin m ust be managed under a GSP by January 31, 2020. The NKGSA completed the GSP on January 28, 2020.

As discussed in Impact 3.9-3, Specific Plan implementation would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Specific Plan may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The required stormwater BMPs and retention basins would be designed to reduce runoff below that which occurs currently during storm events and ensure groundwater recharge from the Plan Area to the extent possible. Additionally, the Specific Plan water demand is not expected to exceed the City’s supplies in any normal, single dry, or multiple dry year between 2020 and 2040, and the Plan would not conflict with the FARGMP.

Further, the Specific Plan includes two policies, listed above, which would encourage nonporous surfaces for groundwater recharge and other design strategies to maximize recharge.

CONCLUSION
Overall, implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to conflicts with the Basin Plan and the GSP.

3. 9-28 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ••I
I•-.
-■■--.
t ____ J
Cl
~ • -
I
I • I
·-··v·-••-.
i i I :,""
t"" "-"_"_, _____ ,,_,,
-11~ == Ill = l~IEIII ~I
~
-
.. ,
-i i= •I
.. -·1
r·
!.
"-;
.,_.,L j ..
= .===!= f __ ,,_,,__ _,,j" l,_.,_;
,-----. I .. _____ ..._ __ _
=-··-··-··-··J
i ...
:_-_._· .. J·-·
., I i I ~ I i ! 1=- ■ -.i .. __ ., ,.. .. _ .. I r
'1 : :-..... ,••L : . ._ _____ .. . ··-
__ ,, _ _j ,_ .. ..: l .. .,
i :._ :

I 1 ■-■ I • ■ - ■■ ---J
j I I ! J
- - - - - - ·1--... - r··- --r - - - -__ ,,_{ -~
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
i i ··-··-: i·-··-:
@- - I
W Bullard Ave
W Shaw Ave
W Herndon Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N Golden State Blvd
Herndon
Bullard
Barstow
Shaw
Gettysburg
Ashlan
Dakota
Shields
Garfield
Bryan Hayes
Polk
Cornelia
Blythe
Brawley Valentine
Marks
W Ashlan Ave
N Polk Ave
N Fi
gar
de
n Dr
J a m e s B y p a s s W a t e r s h e d
C o t t o n w o o d C r e e k - S a n J o a q u i n R i v e r W a t e r s h e d 99 L E G E N D
Specific Plan Boundary
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
Watershed Boundary (HUC 10)
Su
bwatershed (HUC 12)
Bethany Cemetery-San Joaquin River
Empire Ditch-James Bypass
Gates Lake
Kennedy Owens Canal-James Bypass
Scout Island-San Joaquin River
Town of Rolinda-James Bypass
0 ½¼
Miles
Watersheds
FIGURE 3.9-1.

CITY OF FRESNO

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: USGS Watershed Boundary Dataset; City of Fresno. Map date: January 5, 2024 M a d e r a C o u n t y

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This page left intentionally blank.

3.9-30 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ••I
I•-.
-■■--.

L ____ J
Cl
1111
1111
■
r··-··-··-··1 =-··-··-··-··.I • I, ' I, i "--··-··-··-··-··--. • • .r-· L-•-••, i ~-.! ,----··1
I : I
! --·-·· ..
11111
_____ j
i i r-··-1 --------------............... -· :·
i =-- ■--■-■■- · i ··-··-:
r-··-··-••-••---1
'··- : : ·-··-
I
l'
i -= ._ ___ _
. i ..
■
W Bullard Ave
W Shaw Ave
W Herndon Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N Golden State Blvd
Herndon
Bullard
Barstow
Shaw
Gettysburg
Ashlan
Dakota
Shields
Garfield
Bryan Hayes
Polk
Cornelia
Blythe
Brawley Valentine
Marks
W Ashlan Ave
N Polk Ave
N Fi
gar
de
n Dr
EL
CD
CG
AE
CI
AH1
EJ
AB
K
AG
AL
MM
EG
AJ
AK
EH
EN
EM
AI
AD
EF
AF
AH2
AC
EI
EO
99 L E G E N D
Specific Plan Boundary
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
FID Facility
Existing Basin
Proposed Basin
0 ½¼
Miles
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
Fa
cilities and Basins
FIGURE 3.9-2.

CITY OF FRESNO

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District; City of Fresno. Map date: January 5, 2024 M a d e r a C o u n t y

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This page left intentionally blank.

3.9-32 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan ••I
I•-.
-■■--.

L ____ J
c::::I
1111
1111
I ■■-••-· ,__ . i
.-·-·· i ' I• . . . r··.. ....
j
-. ..... ,
i
i.-·-··v·-••-.
i i :,,---··1
··-··-··-··-··-··-··-·'
f·-. ··-· •• ' I j
r·-·•- ■--••-··-··-··' t ____ ..: :

I
.--■■--. •
I j .. _____ ..._ ______ _
r··-··-··-··1
r··-··-··-··., r··---..:

I .... ..: ___ : ,_:
-··-··-··-··-··--. ··" :.. .. L ■■-••, .. ! 1
I •• I I I j"-··" -. ~--· ,----··1 r~
'1 : :-..... ;'"L : . ._ _____ .. . ··-
·-··-j i
r·---1
·-··..: l .... . .
.... : ··-··---J i r-··-1
--------------............... -· :· ---------
: I I J
• Lp••-=• .f • • • • •
i i
=-- ■--■-■■- ·
··-··-: i·-··-:

I -
_,1 i-•~ ■ r r-

1.- ■■- · -··-··-"
!
i i
i
I
I,
;_ _____ 1
··----~ r·• j: : •I
' ... • I . .
~ . • I i ..
--=- ■■ -•1
"-;
••-■■ -••-••L j ! ..
!
W Bullard Ave
W Shaw Ave
W Herndon Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N Golden State Blvd
Herndon
Bullard
Barstow
Shaw
Gettysburg
Ashlan
Dakota
Shields
Garfield
Bryan Hayes
Polk
Cornelia
Blythe
Brawley Valentine
Marks
W Ashlan Ave
N Polk Ave
N Fi
gar
de
n Dr
99 L E G E N D
Specific Plan Boundary
Fresno City Limits
Fresno Sphere of Influence
100-year Flood Zone
Regulatory Floodway
500-year Flood Zone
Area of Minimal Flood Hazard
0 ½¼
Miles
FEMA Flood Zone Map
FIGURE 3.9-3.

CITY OF FRESNO

WEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS SPECIFIC PLAN
Source: FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer; City of Fresno. Map date: January 5, 2024 M a d e r a C o u n t y
unshaded

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This page left intentionally blank.

3.9-34 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

LAND USE 3.10
This section describes the existing land uses in the Plan Area and in the surrounding area, describes the applicable land use regulations, and evaluates the environmental effects of implementation of the proposed Specific Plan related to land use . Information in this section is based on information provided in the project materials, and the following reference documents:
• Fresno General Plan (City of Fresno, 2014);
• Fresno Municipal Code (City of Fresno, 2024); and
• Fresno County General Plan Policy Document General Plan Review (County of Fresno, 2024).

Two c omments were received during the Notice of Preparation (NOP ) rev iew period regarding environmental impacts associated with land use: Cathy Caples (August 1, 2019) and Jeff Roberts (July 24, 2019). Full comments are included in Appendix A.

3.10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

EXISTING PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
The city of Fresno is located in north central portion of Fresno County in the Central Valley region.

The city is near the geographical center of California and lies approximately 220 miles (350 km) north of Los Angeles, 170 miles (270 km) south of Sacramento. State Route 99 travels through the western portion of the city of Fresno.

Plan Area
The Plan Area encompasses approximately 7,077 acres (or a little more than 11 square miles) in the City of Fresno city limits and unincorporated Fresno County. Of the 11 square miles within the Plan Area, 6.9 square miles are in the city limits and 4.1 square miles are in the growth area. The growth area is land outside the city limits but within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary, which is the adopted limit for future growth.

The Plan Area is triangular in shape and located west of State Route 99. It is bounded on the south by West Clinton Avenue, and to the west by Grantland and Garfield Avenues. The Plan Area includes the southwest portion of Highway City adjacent to State Ro ute 99. See Chapter 2.0 (Project Description) Figure 2.0-1 for the regional location map and Figure 2 .0-2 for the Plan Area vicinity map.

Existing Land Uses
A portion of the Plan Area is located within the City of Fresno city limits, and a portion is within unincorporated Fresno County (but within the City’s SOI). The City of Fresno General Plan designates the Plan Area as: Low Density Residential, Medium Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Urban Neighborhood Residential, High Density Residential, Community Commercial, General Commercial, Recreation Commercial, Office, Business Park, Light Industrial, Corridor/Center Mixed Use, Regional Mixed Use, Community Park, Open Space – Ponding Basin, Neighborhood Park, Open Space, Public/Quasi-Public Facility, Special School, Elementary School, Elementary, Middle & Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-1

3.10 LAND USE
High School, and High School. See Chapter 2.0 (Project Description) Figure 2.0-4 for the existing City General Plan land use designations.

A large amount of land in the Plan Area is farmland or rural residential lots with large, uneven, and underutilized parcels. The Plan Area has approximately seven different existing land uses which include the following:
• Multiple Family Residential: Approximately 3.3 percent, or 198.0 acres, of the Plan Area account for multi-family residential development. These uses are primarily located adjacent to arterial roads with easy access to State Route 99, and Fresno Area Express (FAX) service lines.
• Single-Family Residential: Approximately 50.3 percent, or 3,037.71 acres, of the existing uses within the Plan Area are currently developed with single-family residential uses. These uses are located primarily within the city limits but also include rural residential uses outside the city limits.
• Vacant Land: Approximately 20.2 percent of the land in the Plan Area, or 1,218.4 acres, account for vacant lands. Vacant areas are located throughout the Plan Area, in both the city limits and SOI. Vacant areas represent infill opportunities within the Plan Area’s densest neighborhoods.
• Public/Government Facilities /Tax Exempt : Approximately .1 percent, or 490.1 acres, of land within the Plan Area contain public or government facilities. These land uses include Central Unified School District facilities, fire stations, and places of worship. • Agricultural Land: Approximately 11.9 percent or 720.30 acres in the Plan Area contain open space or agricultural land. While there are some open space land uses within the city, most of these uses are primarily located in the SOI. These uses include parks and ponding basins. • Industrial Uses : Approximately 1.3 percent, or 79.78 acres, of the Plan Area account for industrial uses. The largest industrial land use in the Plan Area contains an agricultural business located at the intersection of West Dakota Avenue and North Grantland Avenue. • Commercial Uses: Approximately 5.0 percent, or 299.57 acres, of the Plan Area account for commercial uses. Commercial uses are spread throughout the eastern and southeastern portions of the Plan Area, closer to State Route 99.

Existing Zoning
The C
ity of Fresno Zoning Map provides zoning for those portions of the Plan Area located within the city limits, but not for areas within the unincorporated County. Zoning designations are generally consistent with the existing General Plan land uses. The City zoning designations for the Plan Area include: Residential Estate (RE), Residential Single-Family, Extremely Low Density (RS-1), Residential Single-Family, Very Low Density (RS-2), Residential Single -Family, Low Density (RS-3), Residential Single-Family, Medium Low Density (RS-4), Residential Single -Family, Medium Density (RS-5), Residential Multi-Family, Medium High Density (RM -1), Residential Multi-Family, Urban Neighborhood (RM-2), Residential Multi-Family, High Density (RM-3), Mobile Home Park (RM-MH), Commercial Community (CC), Commercial General (CG), Commercial Recreation (CRC), Commercial Highway and Auto (CH), Corridor/Center Mixed Use (CMX), Regional Mixed Use (RMX), Business Park

3.10-
2 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

LAND USE 3.10
(BP), Office (O), Light Industrial (IL), Public and Institutional (PI), Open Space (OS), and Park and Recreation (PR). See Chapter 2.0 (Project Description) Figure 2.0-5 for the existing zoning designations.

In the unincorporated areas of the Plan Area, the Fresno County Zoning Map designates the portions of the Plan Area outside the city limits but within the SOI as: Rural Commercial Center (RCC), Central Trading (C4), General Commercial (C6), Light Industria l (M1), Exclusive Agricultural (AE20), Limited Agricultural (AL20), Rural Residential (RR), Single Family Residential (20,000) (R1), Single Family Residential (9,00) (R1C), and Trailer Park Residential (TP). Upon a proposal to annex unincorporated land into the city limits, the City of Fresno would prezone the land to a zone that is consistent with the General Plan land use. Once annexation occurs, the County zoning would no longer apply to the parcel.

Surrounding Land Uses
Surrounding land uses include State Route 99 ; the historic communities of Herndon and Highway City; incorporated areas of the city of Fresno to the north east; incorporated areas of the city of Fresno to the east (including mostly industrial uses) ; unincorporated Fresno County and incorporated areas of the city of Fresno to the south (including farmland uses, rural residential uses, low density residential uses, and underutilized parcels) ; and unincorporated Fresno County to the west (including farmland and rural residential uses).

3.10.2 REGULATORY SETTING
This section provides an overview of the regulatory setting including applicable plans and policies, and land use laws. A variety of sources, including applicable General Plans, the Fresno Citywide Development Code, and Government Code sections relevant to land use are discussed.

STATE
Government Code
California Government Code Section 65300 et seq. establishes the obligation of cities and counties to adopt and implement general plans. The general plan is a comprehensive, long-term, and general document that describes plans for the physical development of a jurisdiction and of any land outside its boundaries that, in the jurisdiction’s judgment, bears relation to its planning. The general plan addresses a broad range of topics, including, at a minimum, land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. In addressing these topics, the general plan identifies the goals, objectives, policies, principles, standards, and plan proposals that support the jurisdiction’s vision for the area. The general plan is a long-range document that typically addresses the physical character of an area over a 20 -year period. Although the general plan serves as a blueprint for future development and identifies the overall vision for the planning area, it remains general enough to allow for flexibility in the approach taken to achieve the plan's goals.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-3

3.10 LAND USE
The State Zoning Law (California Government Code Section 65800 et seq.) establishes that zoning ordinances, which are laws that define allowable land uses within a specific district, are required to be consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plans. When amendments to the general plan are made, corresponding changes in the zoning ordinance may be required within a reasonable time to ensure the land uses designated in the general plan would also be allowable by the zoning ordinance (Government Code, Section 65860, subd. [c]).

State of California Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act establishes procedures for local government changes of organization, including city incorporations, annexations to a city or special district, and city and special district consolidations. In a pproving an a nnexation, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) will consider the following factors:
• Population and population density; land area and land use; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries, and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; and the likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas during the next ten years.
• The need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in the area; probable future needs for those services and controls; and the probable effect of the proposed incorporation, formation, annexation, exclusion and of alternative courses of action on the cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area and adjacent areas.
• The effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions on adjacent areas, on mutual social and economic interests, and on the local government structure of the county. • The conformity of both the proposal and its anticipated effects with both the adopted commission policies on providing planned, orderly, and efficient patterns of urban development, and the policies and priorities set forth in Government Code section 56377. • The effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of agricultural lands, as defined by Government Code section 56016.
• The definiteness and certainty of the boundaries of the territory, nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries. • Consistency with city or county general and specific plans. • The sphere of influence of any local agency that may be applicable to the proposal being reviewed.
• The comments of any affected local agency.
• The ability of the newly formed or receiving entity to provide the services that are the subject of the application to the area, including the sufficiency of revenues for those services following the proposed boundary change.

3. 10-4 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

LAND USE 3.10
• Timely availability of water supplies adequate for projected needs as specified in Government Code section 65352.5.
• The extent to which the proposal will affect a city or cities and the county in achieving their respective fair shares of the regional housing needs, as determined by the appropriate council of governments consistent with Housing Element laws. • Any information or comments from lawmakers.
• Any information relating to existing land use designations.

In addition to the above factors, LAFCo may also consider any resolution raising objections to the action that may be filed by an affected agency; and any other matters which the commission deems material.

LOCAL
Fresno General Plan
As noted above, general plans are prepared under a mandate from the State of California, which requires each city and county to prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its jurisdiction and any adjacent related lands.

Key themes of the Fresno General Plan include the strengthening of existing centers of activity and commercial corridors in the city , as well as expansion of the city’s residential options and employment base. The General Plan contains policies to target half of new development in growth areas and half in existing infill areas. The Fresno General Plan has been prepared to do the following:
• Establish a long -range vision that reflects the aspirations of the community and outlines steps to achieve this vision;
• Establish long-range land use development policies that will guide development decision- making by City departments by providing a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in harmony with the outcomes envisioned in th e Fresno General Plan policies;
• Reflect the City’s current planning, resource conservation, and economic development efforts;
• Guide development in a manner that improves the quality of life for the whole community and meets future land needs based on the projected population and job growth; • Allow the City, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that will preserve and enhance community character and environmental resources, promote resiliency, and minimize hazards; and
• Provide the basis for establishing detailed plans and implementation programs, such as the zoning and subdivision regulations, community plans, Specific Plans, neighborhood plans, Concept Plans, and the Capital Improvement Program.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-5

3.10 LAND USE

GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS
The General Plan is organized into the following elements:
• Introduction: This introductory element includes General Plan goals, State requirements, and requirements for administration of the Plan. In addition, the projected development under General Plan Horizon and General Plan Buildout are summarized, and overarching themes of the Plan are presented.
• Economic Development and Fiscal Sustainability: This element addresses strategies for the City to boost the strength and range of existing businesses, expand economic opportunities for current and future residents, and ensure the long-term ability of the City to deliver a high level of public services.
• Urban Form, Land Use and Design : This element provides the physical framework for development in the city. It establishes policies related to the location and intensity of new development, citywide land use and growth management policies. The Urban Form, Land Use and Design Element, including the Land Use Map, is discussed in further detail below. • Mobility and Transportation: This element includes policies, programs, and standards to maintain efficient circulation for vehicles and alternative modes of transportation. It creates a framework for provision of Complete Streets; identifies future street and bikeway improvements; and addresses trails, parking, public transit, goods movement, and long- term plans for the municipal airport.
• Parks, Open Space, and Schools: This element provides an inventory of existing and planned parks, recreation facilities, other open space, and public schools, and defines policies and standards relating to these services and amenities. This element also outlines policies relating to the preservation of open space and natural resources. • Public Utilities and Services: The element addresses the provision of police, fire, wastewater treatment, drinking water, drainage, and solid waste disposal services. • Resource Conservation and Resilience: This element provides strategies for improving critical environmental conditions regarding air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, ensuring long-term water and energy supplies, and strengthening the city for potential future changes in resource supply and climate change. The element complies with the requirements of AB 170 for jurisdictions in the San Joaquin Valley to amend their general plans to include goals, data and analysis, policies and feasible implementation strategies designed to improve air quality.
• Historic and Cultural Resources: This element provides policy guidance to protect, preserve, and celebrate the city’s history and its architectural and cultural heritage. • Noise and Safety: This element addresses the risks posed by geologic hazards, wildland fire, hazardous materials, and flooding. It also discusses emergency response, safety service response standards, and evacuation routes. The element also includes policies and standards to limit the impacts of noise sources throughout the city. Future noise contours are illustrated in order to facilitate administration of noise policies and standards.

3. 10-6 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

LAND USE 3.10
• Healthy Communities: This element focuses specifically on subjects not fully discussed in other elements, in particular the relationships between the built, natural, and social environments, community health and wellness outcomes, youth leadership and community engagement, healthy food access, community gardens and urban agriculture. • Housing Element Consistency: This chapter provides information regarding the consistency between the General Plan and the Housing Element that was in -effect at the time of adoption, including a matrix showing how the General Plan consistently implements the requirements of the Housing Element.
• Implementation: The Implementation element provides an implementation and monitoring program for this General Plan.

General Plan Land Use Map: The Fresno General Plan Land Use Map portrays the ultimate uses of land in the city of through land use designations. The City of Fresno General Plan designates the Plan Area as: Low Density Residential, Medium Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, Urban Neighborhood Residential, High Density Residential, Community Commercial, General Commercial, Recreation Commercial, Office, Business Park, Light Industrial, Corridor/Center Mixed Use, Regional Mixed Use, Comm unity Park, Ponding Basin, Neighborhood Park, Park, Open Space, Public/Quasi -Public Facility, Church, Fire Station, Special School, Elementary School, Elementary, Middle & High School, and High School. See Figure 2.0-4 for the existing City General Plan land use designations.

GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTING POLICIES
General Plan policies associated with specific environmental topics (aesthetics, air quality, agriculture, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils/mineral resources, hazards, hydrology/water quality, noise, public services/recreation, transportation, utilities, etc.) are discussed in the relevant chapters of this EIR. The policies included within the City’s Land Use Element are intended to support the overarching goals including:

1. Increase opportunity, economic development, business, and job creation. Use urban form, land use, and Development Code policies to streamline permit approval, promote local educational excellence and workforce relevance, significantly increase business development and expansion, retain and attract talented people, create jobs and sustained economic growth, strategically locate employment lands and facilities, and avoid over - saturation of a single type of housing, retail, or employment.

2. Support a successful and competitive Downtown. Emphasize infill development and a revitalized central core area as the primary activity center for Fresno and the region by locating substantial growth near the Downtown core and along the corridors leading to the Downtown. Use vision - based policies in a development code specific to the Downtown, when adopted, to ensure the creation of a unique sense of place in the central core.

3. Emphasize conservation, successful adaptation to climate and changing resource conditions, and performance effectiveness in the use of energy, water, land, buildings, natural resources, and fiscal resources required for the long-term sustainability of Fresno.

Re
circulated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-7

3.10 LAND USE

7. Provide for a diversity of districts, neighborhoods, housing types (including affordable housing), residential densities, job opportunities, recreation, open space, and educational venues that appeal to a broad range of people throughout the city.

8. Develop Complete Neighborhoods and d istricts with an ef ficient and diverse mix of residential densities, building types, and affordability which are designed to be healthy, attractive, and centered by schools, parks, and public and commercial services to provide a sense of place and that provide as many services as possible within walking distance.

Intentionally plan for Complete Neighborhoods as an outcome, rather than collections of subdivisions which do not result in Complete Neighborhoods.

9. Promote a city of healthy communities and improve quality of life in established neighborhoods. Emphasize supporting established neighborhoods in Fresno with safe, well maintained, and accessible streets, public utilities, education and job training, pr oximity to jobs, retail services, and health care, affordable housing, youth development opportunities, open space and parks, transportation options, and opportunities for home grown businesses.

10. Emphasize increased land use intensity and mixed-use development at densities supportive of greater use of transit in Fresno. Greater densities can be achieved through encouragement, infrastructure, and incentives for infill and revitalization along m ajor corridors and in Activity Centers.

12. Resolve existing public infrastructure and service deficiencies, make full use of existing infrastructure, and invest in improvements to increase competitiveness and promote economic growth. Emphasize the fair and necessary costs of maintaining sustainable water, sewer, streets, and other public infrastructure and service systems in rates, fees, financing, and public investments to implement the General Plan. Adequately address accumulated deferred maintenance, aging infrastructure, risks to service continuity, desired standards of service to meet quality - of - life goals, and required infrastructure to support growth, economic competitiveness and business development.

13. Emphasize the City as a role model for good growth management planning, efficient processing and permit streamlining, effective urban development policies, environmental quality, and a strong economy. Work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and institutions to further these values throughout the region. Positively influence the same attributes in other jurisdictions of the San Joaquin Valley – and thus the potential for regional sustainability – and improve the standing and credibility of the City to pursue appropriate State, LAFCO, and other regional policies that would curb sprawl and prevent new unincorporated community development which compete with and threaten the success of sustainable policies and development practices in Fresno.

15. Improve Fresno's visual image and enhance its form and function through urban design strategies and effective maintenance.

17. Recognize, respect, and plan for Fresno's cultural, social, and ethnic diversity, and foster an informed and engaged citizenry. Emphasize shared c ommunity values and genuine engagement with and across different neighborhoods, communities, institutions ,

3. 10-8 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

LAND USE 3.10
businesses and sectors to solve difficult problems and achieve shared goals for the success of Fresno and all its residents.

In addition to the City of Fresno General Plan overarching land use goals , Objective UF-13 calls for the City to locate roughly one-half of future residential development in the Growth Areas (including the West Development Area), which are to be developed with Complete Neighborhoods that include housing, services, and recreation; mixed-use centers; o r along future bus rapid transit (BRT) corridors. Objectives and Implementing Policies related to the development within Growth Areas identified by the City of Fresno General Plan are included below:

Objective
UF-13 Locate roughly one-half of future residential development in the Growth Areas — defined as unincorporated land as of December 31, 2012 SOI —which are to be developed with Complete Neighborhoods that include housing, services, and recreation; mixed -use centers; or along future BRT corridors.

Implementing Policy
UF-13-a Future Planning to Require Design Principles. Require future planning, such as Specific Plans, neighborhood plans or Concept Plans, for Development Areas and BRT Corridors designated by the General Plan to include urban design principles and standards consistent with the Urban Form, Land Use, and Design Element.

Objective
UF-14 Create an urban form that facilitates multi-modal connectivity.

Implementing Policy
UF-14-a Design Guidelines for Walkability. Develop and use design guidelines and standards for a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment with a network of streets and connections for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as transit and autos.

Fresno Municipal Code Chapter 15: Citywide Development Code The purpose of this Development Code is to implement the General Plan and, if applicable, operative plans, to protect and promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the city of Fresno. More specifically, the Development Code is adopted to achieve the following, consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and any other operative plan:

A. To provide a precise guide for the physical development of the city in a manner as to progressively achieve the arrangement of land uses depicted in the General Plan.

B. To foster a harmonious and workable relationship among land uses and ensure compatible infill development.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-9

3.10 LAND USE
C. To support economic development and job creation.

D. To provide for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community.

E. To promote high quality architecture and sustainable design. Sustainable Design is a philosophy that seeks to maximize the quality of the built environment, while minimizing or eliminating negative impact to the natural environment.

F. To promote the stability of existing land uses that conform to the General Plan, protecting them from inharmonious influences and harmful intrusions.

G. To promote a safe and efficient traffic circulation system, including bicycle facilities and pedestrian amenities, and to support a multi-modal transportation system.

H. To facilitate the appropriate location of community facilities, institutions, parks, and recreational areas.

I. To protect and enhance real property values.

J. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the city.

K. To define duties and powers of governing bodies and officials responsible for the implementation of this Code.

ZONING MAP
The Zoning Map identifies zoning districts within the city at the parcel level. The City of Fresno Zoning Map provides zoning for those portions of the Plan Area located within the city limits, but not for areas within the unincorporated County. Zoning designations are generally consistent with the existing General Plan land uses. The City zoning designations for the Plan Area include: Residential Estate (RE), Residential Single-Family, Extremely Low Density (RS-1), Residential Single-Family, Very Low Density (RS-2), Residential Single-Family, Low Density (RS-3), Residential Single-Family, Medium Low Density (RS-4), Residential Single -Family, Medium Density (RS -5), Residential Multi-Family, Medium High Density (RM -1), Residential Multi-Family, Urban Neighborhood (RM-2), Residential Multi-Family, High Density (RM -3), Mobile Home Park (RM -MH), Commercial Community (CC), Commercial General (CG), Commercial Recreation (CRC), Commercial Highway and Auto (CH), Corridor/Center Mixed Use (CMX), Regional Mixed Use (RM X), Business Park (BP), Office (O), Light Industrial (IL), Public and Institutional (PI), Open Space (OS), and Park and Recreation (PR ). See Chapter 2.0 (Project Description) Figure 2.0-5 for the existing zoning designations.

County of Fresno General Plan
The Fresno County General Plan is a policy guide for physical and economic growth of the County.

Unincorporated land located within the Project site is currently under the jurisdiction of the County.

The County General Plan Land Use Map designates the Plan Area with the following county land use designations: Rural Residential, Medium Density Residential, Reserve Medium Residential, and Proposed Ponding Basin.

Fresno Local Agency Formation Commission
The Fresno LAFCo is responsible for coordinating orderly r eorganization to local j urisdictional boundaries, including annexations. Any annexation of the Plan Area to the city is subject to LAFCo

3. 10-10 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

LAND USE 3.10
approval, and LAFCo will review proposed annexations for consistency with LAFCo’s Annexation Policies and Procedures.

No annexations are proposed as part of the Specific Plan Adoption; however, future projects within the Specific Plan area may include annexation requests and would be required to adhere to LAFCo policies. Any future proposals for annexations into the city would be required to be consistent with LAFCo policies and procedures.

Fresno LAFCo has adopted Policies and Procedures for Annexation and Detachment to and from all agencies within their jurisdiction. It is Fresno LAFCo policy (102 -01) that “within the sphere of influence each agency should implement an orderly, phased annexation program. A proposal should not be approved solely because the area falls within the sphere of influence of an agency.” The City of Fresno follows the Policies and Procedures for Annexation and Detachment when annexing land into the city. LAFCo recommends that each local agency fulfill this policy through the exercise of one or more of the following basic principles and actions.

1. The annexation program is consistent with LAFCo’s Sphere of influence (SOI) for the city.

Suggested actions:
• City and county shall reach agreement on development standards and planning and zoning requirements within the sphere to ensure that development within the sphere occurs in a manner that reflects the concerns of the affected city and is accomplished in a manner that promotes the logical and orderly development of areas within the sphere. GC §56425 • City responds to a request to extend service outside of its city limits and SOIs in consultation with GC §56133 and Fresno LAFCo policy.

2. The annexation program clearly implements the city’s general plan.

Suggested actions:
• City annexation applications shall describe how the proposal implements the city’s general plan, and support these statements with information from other official sources such as the annual budget, capital improvement plan, and so forth.
• A prezoning ordinance shall not be encumbered with extraneous conditions that preclude the ordinance’s effective date by the time of LAFCo hearing on the annexation.

3. The annexation program emphasizes the use of cities’ resolution of application versus property owner/registered voter petitions.

Suggested action:
• For the city to consider opposing property owner petition-initiated reorganizations as these would not have proceeded through the process of city development review and approval, which is an important step in the management of a city’s general plan.

Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-11

3.10 LAND USE

4. The annexation program supports orderly growth by identifying areas to be annexed, general time frames for growth, and a plan for extension of services to these areas.

Suggested actions:
• Capital improvement plan and/or facilities plans include all lands within the SOI; • Development impact fees that fund the extension of services a re established and maintained;
• Impacts to service delivery are assessed in the city’s EIR or project-specific CEQA documents and appropriately-scaled mitigation is approved and implemented. • The city coordinates its public policy documents in support of the annexation program.

5. The annexation program anticipates changes of organization of existing service districts and service areas in the SOI or adjacent to the SOI.

Suggested action:
• The Program should describe the transition of services that will occur when the city annexes/detaches (CID, NCFPD, FCFPD, KRCD, etc.); inversely, the document describes the status of or continuation of services when annexations do not result in detachment (FID, FMFCD, etc.).

6. The annexation program anticipates the location of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within a city’s sphere of influence.

Suggested action:
• Cities should become proficient in implementing their responsibilities under Senate Bill 244, should review Fresno LAFCo DUC policy and review Senate Bill 244 Technical Advisory.

7. The annexation program informs citizens in annexation areas of their rights, benefits, and changes that will occur on annexation.

Suggested actions:
• City to establish and maintain on its website a description of the information above, how citizens can engage the process, how the city engages citizens and stakeholders and other information related to annexation. This information should include a description of the SOI, protest processes, and how LAFCo is involved.
• For those portions of a city’s SOI that contain a large number of rural residential parcels that are planned for urban uses, the city is strongly encouraged to develop a long- term plan to annex and serve these areas.

8. The annexation program will be coordinated with LAFCo’s Municipal Services Review ( MSR) for the city.

Suggested action:

3. 10-12 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

LAND USE 3.10
• City applications should include an assessment of current MSR determinations and recommendations.

9. The annexation program is managed by an assigned and responsible city staff member.

Suggested action:
• City identifies a staff member to serve as a genuine point of contact with LAFCo, that is, a staff member responsible and accountable for managing applications, knowledgeable of the project and of LAFCo’s process, and empowered to facilitate the city’s annexation program.

10. City entitlement analysis is integrated with LAFCo policies Suggested action:
• Local agencies, including Fresno County, are strongly advised to include Fresno LAFCo in their initial request for comments.
• When initial planning applications that will eventually require annexation are submitted to cities, they are encouraged to submit a pre-application to LAFCo so that LAFCo can track the project at its beginning, and provide comments that would facilitate an nexation in time for these to be considered in a timely and efficient manner.

3.10.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Specific Plan will have a significant impact on land use and planning if it will:
• Physically divide an established community; or
• Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 3.10-1: The proposed Specific Plan would not physically divide an established community. (Less than Significant)
The proposed Specific Plan establishes the City’s vision for future growth and development within the Plan Area. The Plan Area is located at the western edge of the city of Fresno west of State Route 99 and primarily consists of and is adjacent to undeveloped lands, sporadic residential and suburban developments and agricultural lands as shown on Figure 2.0 -3 located in Chapter 2.0, Project Description.

The existing land use pattern within the Specific Plan Area consists of a patchwork of land uses, including subdivisions, industrial and commercial areas, recreation areas, schools, farmland, and Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-13

3.10 LAND USE
vacant areas. Many pockets of residential land uses are adjacent to vacant land, or agriculture uses.

The implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would enhance the connectivity from the existing uses within the Specific Plan Area to adjacent land uses through improved roadways and pedestrian and bicycle paths and lanes, and develop a cohesive network of planned land uses that would result in greater connectivity within the Specific Plan Area.

Development of the Specific Plan Area would result in a westerly extension of developed uses within Fresno city limits and SOI which would include the development of commercial lands, office, mixed use, residential, public services and open spaces within the Specific Plan Area. Development allowed under the Specific Plan would require new roadway improvements and pedestrian pathways to connect the Plan Area to the existing circulation system and create connections to allow access to and from the site and to other areas of the city. As such, d evelopment of the Specific Plan Area would not result in any substantial physical barriers, such as a highway, or other division, that would divide an existing community, but would create a land use plan for the orderly expansion of the Planning Area.

Because the overall purpose of the proposed Specific Plan is to refine the vision for the Plan Area established in the General Plan, as well as other infrastructure improvements required to accommodate new development, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not adversely impact community connectivity nor divide the physical arrangement of the community.

There are no development applications being processed as part of the Specific Plan, however individual future projects may require additional site-specific environmental review under CEQA, and would be required to undergo design review as part of the development review process.

Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Impact 3.10- 2: The proposed Specific Plan would not c ause a significant environmental impact due t o a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. ( Less than Significant)
The proposed Specific Plan will establish the land use planning and regulatory guidance, including the land use and zoning designations and policies, for the approximately 7,077 -acre Plan Area.

Existing land use plans, policies, and regulations that govern land uses within the Plan Area include the City of Fresno General Plan and Development Code, and Fresno County General Plan and Development Code.

CONSISTENCY WITH STATE PLANS
The proposed Specific Plan was prepared in conformance with State laws and regulations associated with the preparation of specific plans. Discussion of the proposed Specific Plan’s consistency with State regulations, plans, and policies associated with specific environmental issues (e.g., air quality, traffic, water quality, etc.) is provided in the relevant chapters of this Draft EIR. The State would continue to have authority over any State -owned lands and resources in the vicinity of the Specific

3.10-14 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

LAND USE 3.10
Plan Area and the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with continued application of State land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects.

CONSISTENCY WITH FRESNO GENERAL PLAN
General Plan Land Use Map: The General Plan aims to achieve efficient, attractive, and resilient development in the Development Areas. The General Plan identifies that in growth areas, subsequent Specific Plans are anticipated to refine land use and transportation design integration and intensity with necessary public facilities, maintenance, and services financing and design standards.

The Specific Plan contains development standards, distribution of land uses, infrastructure requirements, and implementation measures for the development of a specific geographic area. The Specific Plan’s land use plan defines various land use designations by their allowable uses and maximum development densities, and each use is consistent with the adopted General Plan’s land uses. These designations implement both the Specific Plan and the City’s General Plan vision, policies, for each land use classifica tions and for the specific desire for a comprehensive planned growth area. The proposed Specific Plan would continue to carry forward and implement, policies and objectives from the City’s existing General Plan that were intended for environmental protection and would not remove or conflict with City plans, policies, or regulatio ns adopted for environmental protection.

The proposed Specific Plan would require modifications to the City’s General Plan Land Use Map to provide consistency between the General Plan and Specific Plan; however, these modifications will not remove or adversely modify portions of the General Plan or policies that were adopted to mitigate an environmental effect. The proposed Specific Plan would refine the land use vision and amend the land uses for the Plan Area. The draft land use map proposes the relocation of higher density land uses away from the most western and southwestern portions of the Plan Area where they are distant from public transit and community amenities and transfers those higher density land use designations to major corridors. The Plan would amend the land uses for approximately half of the land within the Plan Area. The remaining parcels would maintain their existing land use and zoning designations. The parcels that are proposed for change by the proposed land use map are shown in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, Figure 2.0-7.

The West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan land use plan utilizes the City’s existing General Plan land use designations to maintain or re-designate some parcels in the West Area. Chapter 2.0 , Project Description, shows the parcel acreages by land use classification for the existing General Plan and proposed Specific Plan, and Figure 2.0 -6 shows the proposed General Plan land use designations. As indicated in Table 2.0 -1, the Specific Plan would result in an increase in land designated for employment, mixed use, open space and public facilities uses and a decrease in land designated for residential, commercial uses compared to the existing General Plan.

General Plan Policies : Table 3.10 -1 provides an analysis of the Project’s consistency with the relevant General Plan policies adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan 3.10-15

3.10 LAND USE
effect. Since general plans often contain numerous policies emphasizing differing legislative goals, a development project may be “consistent” with a general plan, taken as a whole, even though the project appears to be inconsistent or arguably inconsistent with some individual policies. (Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Association v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 719.) TABLE 3.10-1: GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS

GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS

URBAN FORM, LAND USE, AND DESIGN ELEMENT
UF-13-a Future Planning to Require Design
Principles. Require future planning, such
as Specific Plans, neighborhood plans or
Concept Plans, for Development Areas
and BRT Corridors designated by the
General Plan to include urban design
principles and standards consistent with
the Urban Form, Land Use, and Design
Element.

Consistent. The proposed West Area
Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes design
principles and standards in Chapter s 3, 4, and 5 of
the Specific Plan. This Specific Plan Chapter is
consistent with the Urban Form, Land Use, and
Design Element.

LU-1-c Provision of Public Facilities and
Services. Promote orderly land use
development in pace with public facilities
and services needed to serve
development.

Consistent. The proposed West Area
Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes plans for the
provision of public facilities, services, and utilities in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Specific Plan. Future
development of the Specific Plan Area in
accordance with the proposed land use map would
not occur unless public facilities and services were
adequately provided.

LU-5-g Scale and Character of New
development. Allow new development
in or adjacent to established
neighborhoods that is compatible in
scale and character with the surrounding
area by promoting a transition in scale
and architectural character between new
buildings and established
neighborhoods, as wel l as integrating
pedestrian circulation and vehicular
routes.

Consistent. The proposed West Area
Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes design
principles and standards in Chapter s 3, 4, and 5 of
the Specific Plan which address compatibility with
existing neighborhoods, including scale and
character. Compliance with the principles and
standards in this Specific Plan Chapter would ensure
that future development in the Plan Area is
compatible with the scale and character of future
buildings. Further, the proposed Specific Plan
includes pedestrian, vehicular, and other circulation
routes in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Specific Plan.

MOBILITY AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
MT-1-b Circulation Plan Diagram
Implementation. Design and construct
planned streets and highways that
complement and enhance the existing
network, as well as future improvements
to the network consistent with the goals,
objectives and policies of the General
Plan, as shown on the Circulation
Diagram (Figure MT -1), to ensure that
each new and existing roadway
continues to function as intended.

Consistent. The proposed West Area
Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes pedestrian,
vehicular, and other circulation routes in Chapters 3
and 4 of the Specific Plan. This Specific Plan Chapter
is consistent with the Circulation Diagram (Figure
MT-1).

MT-1-d Integrate Land Use and Transportation
Planning. Plan for and maintain a
Consistent. The
Neighborhoods Spe
proposed West Area
cific Plan includes pedestrian,

3.10-16 Recirculated Draft EIR – West Area Neighborhoods Specific Plan

GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
coordinated and well integrated land use
pattern, local circulation network and
transportation system that
accommodates planned growth, reduces
impacts on adjacent land uses, and
preserves the integrity of established
neighborhoods.
vehicular, and other circulation routes in Chapters 3
and 4 of the Specific Plan. This Specific Plan Chapter
is consistent with the Circulation Diagram (Figure
MT-1).

MT-4-k Bicycle Safety, Awareness, and
Education. Promote bicycle ridership by
providing secure bicycle facilities,
promoting traffic safety awareness for
both bicyclists and motorists, promoting
the air quality benefits, promoting non-
renewable energy savings, and
promoting the public health benefits of
physical activity.

Consistent. The proposed West Area
Neighborhoods Specific Plan includes bicycle
facilities and routes in Chapters 3 and 4 of the
Specific Plan. This Specific Plan Chapter encourages
the use of secure bicycle facilities and promotes the
use of active transportation throughout the Plan
Area.

MT-5-b Sidewalk Requirements. Assure
adequate access for pedestrians and
people with disabilities in new residential
developments per adopted City policies,
consistent with the California Building
Code and the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Fresno City CouncilOctober 16, 2025

Fresno City Council
October 16, 2025